So he said that Glancy and one other tenant are the only people in this $4 mil building at this time. Does that mean he has evicted all other tenants for a renovation and Glancy is refusing to leave his studio space with moving costs covered. Whats the issue here? Landlords renovating buildings and moving out tenants is a relatively common practice. Unless this is not a renovation and this is something else.
This is a stand in favor of protecting a music and arts community (the last of its kind in Cambridge) and prioritizing the rights of individuals to exist in a city, practice their crafts, and collaborate together over the rights of wealthy and powerful real estate developers to become more wealthy and more powerful. Cambridge has been ruthlessly gentrified at a rapid pace for a couple of decades now. Low income people have been forced out by increasing rents. Most of the interesting arts/and music spaces that gave the area its character and appeal (and its value to real estate developers) in the first place have also been forced to close down (and a lot of sketchy/illegal things have happened behind the scenes throughout these processes). The building's owner, John P DiGiovanni, who regularly provides the maximum legal amount of donations to several city council members (his wife does too), controls the Harvard Square Business Association, and sits on the Harvard Square Advisory Committee, operated with next to no transparency throughout the process of purchasing the building and asking tenants to leave and tenants' attempts to contact him were ignored and avoided until most tenants had moved out. The building was owned by a shell company called "Ledgemoor," which made it next to impossible for anyone to even find out who really owned the building until the notices to quit were sent out (to only a fraction of the tenants, because DiGiovanni's company, Trinity Property Management, had next to no involvement with the tenants in the building he purchased site unseen) back in February. DiGiovanni didn't agree to communicate with tenants until a lot of public pressure was placed on him. Furthermore, tenants are not legally required to leave a property they're renting in Massachusetts until a landlord has obtained a court order that requires them to leave.
Gentrification sucks, but it is a natural product of the free market in a capitalistic society. Can you deny a landlord the retirment he earned by selling off a building that he wished to no longer manage? I agree that we should try to, as a community, keep the arts thriving. I suppose the solution to this would be garnering the attention of donors who would like to support your cause in purchasing up and supporting buildings that allow these musicians/artists to create. If you can't garner that type of funding/backing for the arts, then it might ultimately mean that you have to move your arts to a different place where it is appreciated, you can get funding, and the rent is cheaper. Overall what this means is that children of rich kids will be able to afford making devoid trendy art in the city and the tourmented artist who puts more of his life experience into his art will have to make art in the outskirts or drive into the city in order to provide his skills/product.
![Who is Vermin Supreme? An Outsider Odyssey - Full Documentary [2014]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cQr1bwzadXE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Who is Vermin Supreme? An Outsider Odyssey - Full Documentary [2014]](/img/tr.png)
So he said that Glancy and one other tenant are the only people in this $4 mil building at this time. Does that mean he has evicted all other tenants for a renovation and Glancy is refusing to leave his studio space with moving costs covered.
Whats the issue here? Landlords renovating buildings and moving out tenants is a relatively common practice.
Unless this is not a renovation and this is something else.
This is a stand in favor of protecting a music and arts community (the last of its kind in Cambridge) and prioritizing the rights of individuals to exist in a city, practice their crafts, and collaborate together over the rights of wealthy and powerful real estate developers to become more wealthy and more powerful. Cambridge has been ruthlessly gentrified at a rapid pace for a couple of decades now. Low income people have been forced out by increasing rents. Most of the interesting arts/and music spaces that gave the area its character and appeal (and its value to real estate developers) in the first place have also been forced to close down (and a lot of sketchy/illegal things have happened behind the scenes throughout these processes). The building's owner, John P DiGiovanni, who regularly provides the maximum legal amount of donations to several city council members (his wife does too), controls the Harvard Square Business Association, and sits on the Harvard Square Advisory Committee, operated with next to no transparency throughout the process of purchasing the building and asking tenants to leave and tenants' attempts to contact him were ignored and avoided until most tenants had moved out. The building was owned by a shell company called "Ledgemoor," which made it next to impossible for anyone to even find out who really owned the building until the notices to quit were sent out (to only a fraction of the tenants, because DiGiovanni's company, Trinity Property Management, had next to no involvement with the tenants in the building he purchased site unseen) back in February. DiGiovanni didn't agree to communicate with tenants until a lot of public pressure was placed on him. Furthermore, tenants are not legally required to leave a property they're renting in Massachusetts until a landlord has obtained a court order that requires them to leave.
Gentrification sucks, but it is a natural product of the free market in a capitalistic society. Can you deny a landlord the retirment he earned by selling off a building that he wished to no longer manage?
I agree that we should try to, as a community, keep the arts thriving. I suppose the solution to this would be garnering the attention of donors who would like to support your cause in purchasing up and supporting buildings that allow these musicians/artists to create.
If you can't garner that type of funding/backing for the arts, then it might ultimately mean that you have to move your arts to a different place where it is appreciated, you can get funding, and the rent is cheaper. Overall what this means is that children of rich kids will be able to afford making devoid trendy art in the city and the tourmented artist who puts more of his life experience into his art will have to make art in the outskirts or drive into the city in order to provide his skills/product.