2:39 it's not just rich whites at this point, it's anyone with a paycheck. It's also poor whites being pushed out as well, dynamics have changed. Also you touch on tech workers, who are heavily Asian, yet didn't once mention them.
Personal opinion here. I don't see racism as a problem. The main issue we have is classism. If all the blue collar folk would unite, this country would be better. I love what happened with UPS and their employees getting a better pay
The issue with narratives like these is that they ALWAYS push a struggle story. I’m from 3rd ward in Houston which is predominately African American. 67% of us owned our homes and are enjoying the equity we have now. My 91K investment is worth over 350K today. Why is this conversation ALWAYS focused on victimhood?
Of course, I'm not from your community so I can't comment on the change exactly, but from what is written, 33% of people just got one step closer to becoming homeless. There's no reason to doubt that the landowners benefited from the further development of their community.
Because if you look at statistics black and brown individuals are living in poverty. Those are the facts, we need to stop thinking everyone can get rich if they work hard enough. Majority(yes a majority) of jobs pay just above the poverty line for most people. A lot of White people are in poverty but the key word is they are disproportionately black and brown.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to sell. A lot of these developers will use city officials to force people out of their homes using a process known as eminent domain. Also, you will not get 350k for it. I worked for companies that would underpay people or find loopholes to get the property cheaper. Also, most people living in apartment buildings that just sold will also be evicted or have to find elsewhere to live. Gentrification also causes everything to rise in price, making hard for natives to live in the area. If not they will have to move to areas that are high in crime already or far from the city and jobs.
@@sayiangod9404 All debunked talking points. There’s literally city blocks with one house holding out for a good sale price all over the city. They haven’t even been able to acquire the rural land needed for a bullet train in over 10 years much less come for your house. If someone is “developing” it as you say, that means there’s a demand. Not knowing your rights or real estate is your own problem.
I stopped by 3rd Ward when I was in town for Beyonce. I loved Emancipation Park. I stood in front of a group of rowhouses that featured artwork dedicated to activist Zin. I made my way over to 3710 Jazz Club. I get your point completely and entirely. The difference is home ownership. I too am a homeowner. I too have benefited by gentrification. My Auntie, who doesn't own a home, who is retired, not so much. Her retirement income as a Social Worker is $1800 per month. She is fortunate, my Dad's retirement income is $900 per month. My Aunts rent increased from $650 to $1000 when a new owner purchased her building from New York. We're in Cleveland. People who are hard working citizens who no longer earn income due to retirement, lack of employment or illness don't have the same opportunities as do you and I. They still need to live somewhere. The gentrification issue does focus on those who are displaced. I am happy for your success and mine. However, the likelihood my gains will be lost to care for people I love is a reality. As such, I too am impacted by gentrification and would like to see a more human approach to development that offers some protections for people who are renters or who can't afford the higher taxes because they are no longer in the labor force. Peace and Blessing to you. I'm looking forward to my next visit to Houston.
The definition of gentrification in this video isnt very accurate, gentrification is defined-by almost all scholarly and colloquial sources by its displacement effect, not an initial act of investment
@@goldenlioness868 The trail of tears doesn't define gentrification. If you don't upgrade your surrounding It will be upgraded without you in it. If the city wasn't falling apart it wont need to be upgraded (and that's basically what gentrification is)
@@goldenlioness868 Wasn't that ethnic cleansing? In theory, the Cherokee had a historical claim to the land. It's just not a claim that the Americans recognized.
The flaw in the logic here is that assuming gentrification brings change to everything but cant help the lower income folks prosper as well. More development means better paying jobs and well maintained facilities. The "low income" can benefit too, if its planned for. A rising tide raises all ships.
Gentrification will never include low income opportunities because everything about gentrification is about profits. Not to say there's anything wrong with gentrification, but gentrification has it's limits. In my opinion, gentrification's biggest problem is that it forces itself into a community rather than letting the community grow on it's own.
It's also predicated on the idea that all the residents in the gentrifying neighbourhood spent the money on cigarettes and alcohol instead of buying a house and paying off a mortgage. Lots of people in gentrifying neighbourhoods own their own house. And they won the real estate lottery. And now they can sell their house and buy a house in a nice town fifty miles away and enjoy an easy retirement with the shed load of money they made. And bonus factor....they don't have to live next to hypocritical pseudo lefties that created the gentrification. They can be around blue collar authentic people. The people who used to live in the neighbourhood. So it's win/win.
A rising tide raises the supertankers, containerships and aircraft carriers. The rowboats get swamped and sink. The mid-size ships rise until the hurricane comes along to swamp and sink them.
Mayors love gentrification because they can clean up their cities and get a kickback from developers and force poor people (i.e. people who can't make $200,000/year plus) to evacuate. It's the easy way out for a mayor! Can ANYONE explain how a normal person can make that much without becoming a druglord? Or choosing their parents wisely?
It's not that hard to understand. People who work and live in a community should be able to afford some kind of housing. You can't afford it based on the wage you get? Something is wrong with the city, not the person. There's no conflicting arguments. Everyone who works hard should be able to afford to live in that city. What's conflicting about keeping people off the streets? I genuinely don't get it.
And what is this city counsel guys solution? To be more thoughtful? The dude spoke for 3.5 minutes and said absolutely nothing other than to pave the roads.
@@ianschvrzmngomez104 not even complaining about socialism in this case. Saying fix the neighborhood doesn’t say anything. What policies would fix the neighborhood? His only solution that was proposed was to spend more paving the roads. I don’t think nicer roads is what the inner city neighborhoods need to create a better environment for social mobility, while it may be a nice addition.
This kind of thinking is why poor neighborhoods stay poor. Businesses dont move into a poor neighborhood only to hire people from outside it. Rich and middle-class people dont move into a poor neighborhood just to get a job there. Think about it. Doesn't it make more sense that the businesses would hire the local residents? In fact many cities require that they do. larger business also bring in increased revenue through higher property tax and sales taxes.
I know....in this bizarro world the absolute paradise is Detroit. It's cheap to live there and no middle class or rich person wants to go within fifty miles of the place.
Gentrification isn't the issue you think. The real issue is the NIMBY mentally that all people in the US has. If you make it easier to develop higher density, you increase supply, which at a point will cause prices to drop
Yeah. It’s been proven that the only way to keep low income residents in their housing is to build enough housing so rents don’t get pushed up as the general economic prospects of a city improve. Social housing plays a roll as well because at some point the landlord will chase the big money tenants but having a zoning code that’s flexible enough to allow for neighborhoods to adapt to changes in demand is critical as well.
@@rosskgilmourit literally is. People move to some areas for cheap rent. Landlords push out older residents and fix up the building. Richer people in the neighborhood means more investment and the cheap neighborhood soon becomes the same thing as the expensive neighborhood. In most cities you’d have to destroy neighborhoods to build more housing.
The number of people in the comments who want to pay almost nothing to live in the most beautiful part of town.... Who ignore that everybody craves these places and that this is BECAUSE they are neither common nor cheap... So much salt and so little sense, trying to blame this issue on everyone else who wants the same thing they do
So many ignorant people that are trying to dispute the facts of gentrification. Stop lying to people. This is the best explanation of gentrification i have found so far.
So neighborhoods becoming filled with homeless people, illegal immigrants, drug addicts (like happening in San Francisco) and making the neighborhoods less desirable and more “affordable” is better according to your logic here?
@@manuelperujo_ Or you could say that if you were a caveman, you would vote against bigger caves that can house or cave more cavemen.....sorry....cavepersons.
Gentrification is a buzzword. The challenge is poverty and economic mobility. The same problem that’s been challenging us for decades/centuries. Someone just changed the words we use at some point because poverty was/is hard to solve. Let’s stay focused on the real issues! Economic mobility = choices. Displacement = no choices.
In a sense, what people kind of need is cheap goods and services, even if this other stuff makes more jobs for a few people, whether you're rich or poor, whether you're broke or buy lattes, everyone wants cheap groceries and produce, bulk goods etc. something like costco or walmarts. Small existing places should be subsidized or something.
I still think gentrification is a good thing. The sacrifice of the few is necessary for the prosperity of the whole. However, there needs to be a balance and in-depth city planning for gentrification to work properly. The issue with most cities is a lack of proper city planning, allowing developers to just develop wily nilly in whatever areas are cheapest to build.
Gentrification is not the sacrifice of a few for the prosperity of the whole, its preserving the class and racial hierarchies of the us by maintaining real estate and profit in the hands of a few. Gentrification gate keeps access to opportunity, housing, and ability to participate in and affect the culture of a community. We have to build more housing, but we have to have to have to prioritize affordable housing, it shouldn't be hard for an average person to live in a nice neighborhood, that not equity, that's not gentrification creating prosperity for the whole.
It's just getting started. The youths are finally getting wise to the pseudo-lefty Baby Boomer NIMBYism talking points. "We're protective of the character of the neighbourhood.....blah...blah...blah." The kids are finally realizing it's rich Boomers who don't want anything built so their houses will be worth zillions of dollars buy suppressing supply. Say it with me kids.....I GOTTA PROPENSITY FOR INTENSE DENSITY....DENSITY...DENSITY!!!!!!
I assure you that drug activities definitely don't go down as a result of gentrification. However, the cops don't pursue white drug possession and use anywhere close to the extent that they pursue people with darker skin colors. Those same white people would also commit more crimes out of desperation if they were just as poor as people with darker skin colors.
Nope. Drug use is just as high among gentrifiers. They simply have means to get out of jail, charges, etc. through money and relationships. They also take part in drug use among others of their background in more “socially acceptable” contexts such as their homes, parties, etc.
The real problem with illegal drug use is not the drug use itself. It is the burglaries, larceny, prostitution, muggings, and various types of violent crime that low income drug users resort to in order to get their drug fix.
Also how why are these residents “original”? How often are the ones currently being displaced the same as the people that built or first occupied these central neighborhoods?
In the Dallas neighborhood of Joppa, residents successfully prevented a Habitat for Humanity development from being built in their area. One resident even accused Habitat of trying to gentrify their community.
"gentrification" is a vague term whose meaning shifts depending on the political goals of the speaker. "displacement" is a precise term referring to a measurable phenomenon. we should focus on preventing displacement, rather than defeating an amorphous concept of "gentrification." your argument that "gentrification" consists of an influx of money into low-income neighborhoods, and a corresponding rise in their attractiveness, is an argument against investing in poor neighborhoods, and that is simply bad policy. poor people deserve, and NEED, investment in their neighborhoods, and we should encourage such investment. what we need to prevent is displacement of poor residents, not investments and improvements in the places where they live.
Who the heck is going to pay for this all? The poor residents? When the place is fixed up and beautiful, rent is going to go higher.... I am all for making cities more beautiful, but the economic reason is non-existent in this discussion
Could it be that gentrification gets rid of the criminals and bums( people who prefer to be homeless, use drugs, alcohol, and don't want any help) who live in those areas?
@@intelligencehaswon5714 Gentrifiers are not innocent angels who’ve never gotten drunk or taken drugs. The difference is they do this in more “socially acceptable” contexts, I.e. at home, parties, etc. Gentrifiers will still be out on the prowl, just as inhibited by substances on a party night. I agree there are more homeless and more antisocial behaviors in many neighborhoods gentrifiers go into. That does need to be addressed in a hard manner. However, in 20-30 years, the gentrified neighborhood will be another cookie cutter version of what gentrifiers want after cleaning up the place. Then their young will go looking for more “excitement”, only to complain about the same things generations before them have and wanting to clean up the neighborhood again. The best bet for the lifestyle many gentrifiers actually go along with is to stay in their original areas among their own. Being bored and wanting excitement is a stupid reason to move when you’re over the age of 22.
A lot of the gentrification happening in the SF Bay area is done by the little guys, including Asian, mexican, and Black homeowners revamping thier houses and selling them. In essence, each race is doing it to themselves, race doesnt matter. When i travel in SFO and stay in a lot of Airbnbs done by the homeowner, frequently, in the neighborhoods you can see what is going on. I recently stayed in one next door to a house where there was an active worksite, and was warned about the possible noise as a part of being courteous on Airbnb, but It wasnt a big deal. The place i stayed at was recently revamped but the structure was at least 50 years old. Its not the big developers doing it, its every spare hammer around there keeping his day full.
“As if low income people are not deserving of a better place to live. “ the problem is the crime and the illicit activities in that community. You can have improved low income communities and have the neighborhood thrive, but because rent and animates are more affordable, you’ll also have the crime, drug use, and what not.
That's like saying the crack dealer isn't a charity....that he wants money. I don't know a single crack dealer....well that's actually literally true.....but I haven't heard of a crack dealer that buys and sells crack without marking it up. And do you think a plumber is gonna plumb your pipes for free? That's he's morally inferior because he wants money to fix your leaks. How about some leftist government bureaucrat? Do you think he's giving up his fat benefits or pension? Everyone wants money....and the more the better. Like Jeff Bezos amounts of money.
What appears to be taking place is that when richer, better educated people move into a neighborhood the top priority becomes getting rid of the riff-raff. And it has been figured out that the best way to do this is to raise rents and property values. However, the unfortunate byproduct is that far too often the decent people end up getting displaced along with the riff-raff.
The problem with gentrification is that the artist and performers can't afford to live in the city so they are pushed out thus YOU GET A BORING CITY!!! Silver Spring MD is perfect example of gentrified. Once all the performers and artist left Silver spring so did the residents. Now Silver spring is back to being mass shootings city! Great Job!!!
Pretty much. People buying-up the entire city. And then wonder why nobody will work the "peasant" jobs. Because they physically can't. They're not going to live in a car or tent. When it's easier to move to a place that's cheaper.
@@greyfox8310 because no one really wants to work that’s why. People just want to live and enjoy their life. You’re not getting it. No one wakes up and says, I want to spend 80% off my day working. Instead of saying my comment doesn’t make sense try to understand someone’s perspective. 😬 The cost of everything is rising but wages are not going up, which means people will have to work more. That is why they are forced…..what are you not getting?
If housing growth was allowed to keep up with demand, there would be near enough housing for everyone, and working class Americans could stay in their homes. However it's ILLEGAL to build low-cost housing on 100% of the land in many US cities due to zoning restrictions, parking minimums, and other arbitrary laws that were put in place with the intention of keeping low-cost housing out. The problem with gentrification is displacement. Displacement is happening largely due to the housing shortage.
New York's gentrification process was ridiculous when I was a kid. So many neighbors were getting illegal eviction notices creating conflict and question throughout my neighborhood in Brooklyn.
That's why you have to let developers build as much as they want. Because if they evict you then you just move into another apartment building. But the anti-density NIMBY types don't want that. And they control zoning.
@@drmodestoesq Okay Hell No. Because when they develop on empty foundations, the rain has no where to seep out. One of the many reasons why New York overflows with water today. The sewers are never enough. And the rent around the neighborhood will increase dramatically once regular landlords find out what developers are charging. Hell, I'm not even allowed to move out since $2K in rent for today on a 1 Bedroom is outrageous. My father finds it extremely stupid for prices like that. And if you say oh well, you do not have a damn clue of my POV of where I am coming from. Not to mention, I decide when I want to move and if it is illegal, I'm taking every effort to court.
@@KymaniCaracal Brilliant. And that kind of emphatic anti-density mentality results in a massive housing shortage. Because no on is allowed to build density. And at the same time you have mayors of these same major cities welcoming and encouraging hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.
The issue with gentrification imo isn't so much a change of demographic or even financial demographic. To me, it's the social change of a place going from serving a purpose for a specific culture, to having all that culture stripped away and instead becoming actively hostile to the people it historically was meant for. Many precious buildings that are sacred to some get bulldozed or repainted or turned into nothing. A place changing demographics or people simply moving in, buying property etc., you can complain but at the end of the day it's fair game. But what isn't fair and hurts everyone is flat out destroying the culture of a place rather than contributing to it. If you move in, contribute to the local culture, and eventually the new outsiders outnumber the original residents, well complain all you like but all that seems to have happened is they beat you at your own game. But move in, destroy the culture, push people out, and make the place bland and hostile only to move out a bit later, that just destroyed a place and helped no one. That's what I think the real anger people have over gentrification is about, home ceasing to exist and the people doing it being utterly in denial of it as if denying it exists is gonna make it end well.
Gentrification and displacement are two separate things. You can't stop people from moving to an area, but you can build the housing necessary to prevent lower income residents from being displaced from that area. Most US cities have occupancy rates of over 95% due to housing construction having plummeted since 1970 and especially after the 2008 recession while the population has grown steadily. Of course the little housing that's available will go up in price due to the low supply and higher population. We should be infilling parking lots and vacant land with as much dense housing as possible, subsidized even to bring down the cost of construction. Concerns about new units not being affordable can easily be combated by requiring a higher percentage of "affordable" units too. Evidence from many cities shows developers are more than willing to comply with such requirements, so there's no reason to oppose new construction.
I heard Spokane's mayor say recently in 2023 that you can't build your way out of a housing crisis. She is so wrong! The solution is to build more affordable housing and stipulate to builders that they must build a percentage of at least 40% for low income people.
Building stuff can resolve the housing crisis. Actually. Historically, there have always been sections of a city saved away for Working Class people. But nowadays, there's a lot of people lacking in knowledge. And yet want to be rich. As fast as possible.
Re: Poor people cannot afford to eat at the expensive restaurants. The vast majority of the people I know in the under 50 k a year club make their meals at home. Even if it's frozen pizza. Poor people can't afford to eat at McDonalds.
If we say people want a place to live out of the rain then it takes on a different perspective. Are you saying that people shouldn't want to live indoors? That not being homeless is destroying the planet?
Worry about yourself 🤷🏾♀️ us in Houston’s third ward are LOVING the home equity we have now. 67% of us owned our homes before revitalization. Stop bringing all of us into your woes
It's happening everywhere,as far as I can tell. Everywhere but Detroit...it ain't a black vs white thing either, the dividing lines are purely economic. You have the haves displacing the have nots and the have nots are running low on options...mark my words all this gentrification leads to genocide , sooner or later , and nobody gives a shit because it's just poor people that are going to suffer. Everyone else will have some sweet Air B&B vacation destinations. At this point I'm praying for nuclear bombs and economic depression to level the playing field ,and everything else too. FTW.
@@hellgato777s forced slave labor when you think about it. You have to kill yourself just to survive these days. It’s not worth it. Like I’ve said before, no one wants to be a slave to money, little by little we are forced to give up our basic needs to be met.
@@AliciaTheTroonSlayer I don't give a shit how they live, and yeah good for anyone not having to struggle, but don't drive up prices for regular working people, so that we can't survive anymore. That's creating the struggle. It also ruins the character of cities and towns, until they look boring and bland too.
It seems that upscale housing will always be more profitable to build or develop than affordable housing. Here is where the market does not work. There is plenty of demand for low- or moderate-cost housing, but there is little incentive to meet that demand.
Im so fascinated by this problem. Its like modern colonialism. Yet i also cant say gentrifiers are aiming for that, i think most just arent socially conscious, and are trying to build their own business and life somewhere they can afford... theres some really good restaurants and places you could consider to be a result of gentrification. Theres gotta be a way to mediate this.
We are going to have the Laissez-faire folks that refused developments. They see their neighborhood falling apart or crime-riding but don't want any changes because they are thinking with their pocket. They are afraid of changes. When richer, better-educated people move into a neighborhood white or black and property values go up the Laissez-faire folks would have to move. I say move them out change is coming we should not subsidize folks that don't want to improve their lives.
It’s usually very positive for everyone except those on fixed incomes or renters. People in bad Chicago neighborhoods like to complain about two things: Living in a bad neighborhood. Being priced out of that neighborhood when it improves via gentrification. Well? What do you want then? You want lower crime, better schools, and better shopping options? You get those things via an influx of more affluent residents. And what does that do? It makes the property more valuable. Rents in the area go up. That’s how it works. The people who complain about gentrification want it both ways. They want all of the benefits of living in a high-rent neighborhood, without the high rent. If you own property in the neighborhood that’s being gentrified, or you own a business there, it’s usually a good thing for you. You will make more money from the influx of more affluent residents.
All housing is affordable housing. By building more market rate apartments, the average price will remain low and older buildings will empty out as people choose the new ones. Its too expensive to build new "affordable" apartments so the older ones need to become the defacto affordable ones
Maybe any luxury development needs to cater for a percentage of their redevelopment to target low income customers. High income customers shpuld be barred from purchasing or using these preallocated percentage. Any property value increase from gentrified areas in cities should be taxed to develop more low income housing. The lekple most affected y transport costs are the lower income Edit: whoops, that's what the video covered. Good job
Taxing them is just going to increase the cost of the property (which got us here in the first place) And make the building out of the reach of middle class people
@@uromvictor , a targeted capital gains tax and anti-vqcancy measures for second properties would deter investors who would leave the property empty in dense city areas. We need people to live in those dense areas. This is because there is no way for developers to lower the cost of new properties even if you allow them to build up more living spaces. New properties always cost a premium and social housing always become slums, so we need to somehow get the profit seekers to have the same incentive to build a portion of lower income living spaces while the rich and corporates subsidizes part of the maintenance. The lower income would benefit mostly from less transport costs.
The hard thing is that the stores lower-income households are shopping at are usually mega big box stores like Walmart and Dollar Tree. So they are used to those prices, which are subsidized (at least the produce) by the government and don't reflect the true cost of the items. But what's ironic is those box stores are the very places that have sucked all the wealth out from the local community in the first place. So yes, new businesses and restaurants that open up aren't gonna be able to compete (on price alone) with those chain stores and are therefore gonna be harder to afford. But 9 times out of 10 the quality is better, and those stores hopefully are trying to pay a living wage to the employees that work there (or more ideally offering profit-sharing and shared employee ownership) to local residents. Suddenly the people that live there are the people that work at the local shops, making it a win-win. As the shops succeed, the residents are enriched and can afford to live where they work, which is the least they deserve. And then a culture of local resilience and economic independence is promoted, which we all desperately need.
It’s not in their control entirely it’s mostly real estate developers looking to make a buck. Basically gentrification is the opposite of white flight instead of white people or wealthy folks going to the suburbs to escape the city and take their wealth, the city is more desirable for their convenience to work, transit of other opportunities and since they’re willing to pay a premium for something that would otherwise be less then landlords see that and take the opportunity to make their properties only work for people of higher wealth and status
@@carlosnuckols8470 No it isn’t. I’m black and I owned my home and am enjoying ALL the value and equity I’ve gained. Stop lumping all of us into your woes, Felontavious. We don’t miss you 🤷🏾♀️
raising the minimum wage does nothing but make prices go up, and drive out small business that can't afford to pay it. The minimum wage has no effect on big businesses because they already pay above it. So the only people effected by it are the minimum wage jobs, which are the very places that the poor frequent. Big corporate restaurants don't determine and pay the wages in their restaurants, the franchise owner does. Many Mcdonald's and Taco Bells are run by small business owners and Rich people rarely eat out at these places and especially in poor neighborhoods. So who is the minimum wage helping except politicians that support it? higher prices also devalues what money you manage to save. If you think your social security savings goes up with inflation then you are a fool. It goes down with it.
False. Youre saying prices have been stagnant since bush raised it? Or that we don’t pay billions a year in social welfare programs for workers whose employers should foot the bill? 6 billion a year alone for Walmart workers.
@@cjthompson420 "False. Youre saying prices have been stagnant since bush raised it? Or that we don’t pay billions a year in social welfare programs for workers whose employers should foot the bill? 6 billion a year alone for Walmart workers." When did I say prices have been stagnant? "Bush raised prices"? What the fuck are you talking about? Inflation was less than 4% his entire administration. Besides the federal government is not the only thing responsible for the nations inflation rate. State wage laws has as much of an impact on the average inflation rate as anything the federal government does,. Inflation has averaged 9% since Biden took office. directly related to his policy's.
@@goldenlioness868 Then I guess they shouldn't be whining is they get priced out of a rich city's rental market. They have spiritual values. And they can enjoy that spiritual life living in a van down by the river.
I think Detroit has a bit of a gentrification problem with the new development, even with a $250k median price point. There's a lot of folks in Detroit where any rent or mortgage over $1000 a month is a lot of money. Most developers are committed to setting the 20% aside for affordable housing, but even that might not be enough to meet demand.
San Francisco is an interesting example, I'm confused why drugs and crime are such a problem throughout the city, given the level of gentrification mentioned in this video. Mind you, I really don't know much about it.
When you interview Dobbs, his voice comes out just in regular tone. but when you star asking unsettling question the voice tone shifts and it gave me the creeps. trust your gut always. like in the voice tone you can tell that he is upset you asked those questions and starts doubting his answers and tries to dress his anger. because what you tried to pull out of him made him anger. It's like you can hear in the voice tone his intentionts besides his polite answer speech. great topic Ima follow you.
Robert Kennedy Jr. has a weird tone to his voice. But that means nothing to me. He'd be a conspiracy nut even if he didn't have that speech impediment.
As far as affordable housing goes, your interviewi "set the target at 20 percent." and he "needed to figure out how to bring more money to the table." His job as a developer is part and parcel with selling his soul. His obligations are a part of a larger scale issue that is rarely addressed, but thank you for at least addressing it. This obsession with development has become a severe problem for cultural preservation, and quality of life for people such as myself, who prefer a minimalist lifestyle.
2:39 it's not just rich whites at this point, it's anyone with a paycheck. It's also poor whites being pushed out as well, dynamics have changed. Also you touch on tech workers, who are heavily Asian, yet didn't once mention them.
Personal opinion here. I don't see racism as a problem. The main issue we have is classism. If all the blue collar folk would unite, this country would be better. I love what happened with UPS and their employees getting a better pay
It’s 2023. All wokies know to do is scream about “yt people” 🤦🏿♂️ Talking to most under 25-30ish is a dead no for me these days.
I don’t think a 6% drop in hispanic population in a neighborhood does a good job illustrating your point that this is a racial issue.
Have you factored in time? 6% in a certain time period repeated over time would lead to a significant drop in any population.
@@TheOne-xu5oy seems more of an incidental factor and not a driving one with a nominal drop like that.
The issue with narratives like these is that they ALWAYS push a struggle story. I’m from 3rd ward in Houston which is predominately African American. 67% of us owned our homes and are enjoying the equity we have now. My 91K investment is worth over 350K today. Why is this conversation ALWAYS focused on victimhood?
Of course, I'm not from your community so I can't comment on the change exactly, but from what is written, 33% of people just got one step closer to becoming homeless. There's no reason to doubt that the landowners benefited from the further development of their community.
Because if you look at statistics black and brown individuals are living in poverty. Those are the facts, we need to stop thinking everyone can get rich if they work hard enough. Majority(yes a majority) of jobs pay just above the poverty line for most people. A lot of White people are in poverty but the key word is they are disproportionately black and brown.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to sell. A lot of these developers will use city officials to force people out of their homes using a process known as eminent domain. Also, you will not get 350k for it. I worked for companies that would underpay people or find loopholes to get the property cheaper. Also, most people living in apartment buildings that just sold will also be evicted or have to find elsewhere to live. Gentrification also causes everything to rise in price, making hard for natives to live in the area. If not they will have to move to areas that are high in crime already or far from the city and jobs.
@@sayiangod9404 All debunked talking points. There’s literally city blocks with one house holding out for a good sale price all over the city. They haven’t even been able to acquire the rural land needed for a bullet train in over 10 years much less come for your house. If someone is “developing” it as you say, that means there’s a demand.
Not knowing your rights or real estate is your own problem.
I stopped by 3rd Ward when I was in town for Beyonce. I loved Emancipation Park. I stood in front of a group of rowhouses that featured artwork dedicated to activist Zin. I made my way over to 3710 Jazz Club. I get your point completely and entirely. The difference is home ownership. I too am a homeowner. I too have benefited by gentrification. My Auntie, who doesn't own a home, who is retired, not so much. Her retirement income as a Social Worker is $1800 per month. She is fortunate, my Dad's retirement income is $900 per month. My Aunts rent increased from $650 to $1000 when a new owner purchased her building from New York. We're in Cleveland. People who are hard working citizens who no longer earn income due to retirement, lack of employment or illness don't have the same opportunities as do you and I. They still need to live somewhere. The gentrification issue does focus on those who are displaced. I am happy for your success and mine. However, the likelihood my gains will be lost to care for people I love is a reality. As such, I too am impacted by gentrification and would like to see a more human approach to development that offers some protections for people who are renters or who can't afford the higher taxes because they are no longer in the labor force. Peace and Blessing to you. I'm looking forward to my next visit to Houston.
The definition of gentrification in this video isnt very accurate, gentrification is defined-by almost all scholarly and colloquial sources by its displacement effect, not an initial act of investment
Earliest act of gentrification was the trail of tears.
@@goldenlioness868 The trail of tears doesn't define gentrification.
If you don't upgrade your surrounding
It will be upgraded without you in it.
If the city wasn't falling apart it wont need to be upgraded (and that's basically what gentrification is)
@@uromvictor forced removal is what they have in common. In worse case scenarios, the fires that where set in Hawaii.
@@goldenlioness868 Wasn't that ethnic cleansing?
In theory, the Cherokee had a historical claim to the land. It's just not a claim that the Americans recognized.
The flaw in the logic here is that assuming gentrification brings change to everything but cant help the lower income folks prosper as well. More development means better paying jobs and well maintained facilities. The "low income" can benefit too, if its planned for. A rising tide raises all ships.
Gentrification will never include low income opportunities because everything about gentrification is about profits. Not to say there's anything wrong with gentrification, but gentrification has it's limits. In my opinion, gentrification's biggest problem is that it forces itself into a community rather than letting the community grow on it's own.
It's also predicated on the idea that all the residents in the gentrifying neighbourhood spent the money on cigarettes and alcohol instead of buying a house and paying off a mortgage.
Lots of people in gentrifying neighbourhoods own their own house. And they won the real estate lottery. And now they can sell their house and buy a house in a nice town fifty miles away and enjoy an easy retirement with the shed load of money they made.
And bonus factor....they don't have to live next to hypocritical pseudo lefties that created the gentrification. They can be around blue collar authentic people. The people who used to live in the neighbourhood. So it's win/win.
A rising tide raises the supertankers, containerships and aircraft carriers. The rowboats get swamped and sink. The mid-size ships rise until the hurricane comes along to swamp and sink them.
Mayors love gentrification because they can clean up their cities and get a kickback from developers and force poor people (i.e. people who can't make $200,000/year plus) to evacuate. It's the easy way out for a mayor! Can ANYONE explain how a normal person can make that much without becoming a druglord? Or choosing their parents wisely?
It's not that hard to understand. People who work and live in a community should be able to afford some kind of housing. You can't afford it based on the wage you get? Something is wrong with the city, not the person. There's no conflicting arguments. Everyone who works hard should be able to afford to live in that city. What's conflicting about keeping people off the streets? I genuinely don't get it.
And what is this city counsel guys solution? To be more thoughtful? The dude spoke for 3.5 minutes and said absolutely nothing other than to pave the roads.
he basically said fix the neigborhoods without seeking profit. of course you'd say "socialist much?" ha ha
@@ianschvrzmngomez104 not even complaining about socialism in this case. Saying fix the neighborhood doesn’t say anything. What policies would fix the neighborhood? His only solution that was proposed was to spend more paving the roads. I don’t think nicer roads is what the inner city neighborhoods need to create a better environment for social mobility, while it may be a nice addition.
@@60015 he means just more tax $ to throw at the problem through govt and non profits funded by the govt
This kind of thinking is why poor neighborhoods stay poor.
Businesses dont move into a poor neighborhood only to hire people from outside it.
Rich and middle-class people dont move into a poor neighborhood just to get a job there.
Think about it. Doesn't it make more sense that the businesses would hire the local residents? In fact many cities require that they do.
larger business also bring in increased revenue through higher property tax and sales taxes.
I know....in this bizarro world the absolute paradise is Detroit. It's cheap to live there and no middle class or rich person wants to go within fifty miles of the place.
Gentrification isn't the issue you think. The real issue is the NIMBY mentally that all people in the US has. If you make it easier to develop higher density, you increase supply, which at a point will cause prices to drop
Yeah. It’s been proven that the only way to keep low income residents in their housing is to build enough housing so rents don’t get pushed up as the general economic prospects of a city improve.
Social housing plays a roll as well because at some point the landlord will chase the big money tenants but having a zoning code that’s flexible enough to allow for neighborhoods to adapt to changes in demand is critical as well.
@@rosskgilmour True
@@rosskgilmourit literally is. People move to some areas for cheap rent. Landlords push out older residents and fix up the building. Richer people in the neighborhood means more investment and the cheap neighborhood soon becomes the same thing as the expensive neighborhood. In most cities you’d have to destroy neighborhoods to build more housing.
Prices dropping is actually good
> that "all" people in the US has
yeah, with a pathetic generalization like that, your opinion's worth has dropped to 0
The number of people in the comments who want to pay almost nothing to live in the most beautiful part of town.... Who ignore that everybody craves these places and that this is BECAUSE they are neither common nor cheap... So much salt and so little sense, trying to blame this issue on everyone else who wants the same thing they do
So many ignorant people that are trying to dispute the facts of gentrification. Stop lying to people. This is the best explanation of gentrification i have found so far.
You clearly don't know the difference between fact and opinion
So neighborhoods becoming filled with homeless people, illegal immigrants, drug addicts (like happening in San Francisco) and making the neighborhoods less desirable and more “affordable” is better according to your logic here?
Yep....And poor people will be able to work at the restaurants. Oh...no wait....they all closed.
That's not happening in San Francisco
I’m black and I love gentrification it makes the area better and way more safe
The question is why was it not safe in the first place
Why can’t it be safe and affordable?
So, if you were a dinosaur, you would vote for the asteorid...
@@uromvictor The vast majority of time it's due to drug users.
@@manuelperujo_ Or you could say that if you were a caveman, you would vote against bigger caves that can house or cave more cavemen.....sorry....cavepersons.
Gentrification is a buzzword. The challenge is poverty and economic mobility. The same problem that’s been challenging us for decades/centuries. Someone just changed the words we use at some point because poverty was/is hard to solve. Let’s stay focused on the real issues! Economic mobility = choices. Displacement = no choices.
In a sense, what people kind of need is cheap goods and services, even if this other stuff makes more jobs for a few people, whether you're rich or poor, whether you're broke or buy lattes, everyone wants cheap groceries and produce, bulk goods etc. something like costco or walmarts. Small existing places should be subsidized or something.
I still think gentrification is a good thing. The sacrifice of the few is necessary for the prosperity of the whole. However, there needs to be a balance and in-depth city planning for gentrification to work properly. The issue with most cities is a lack of proper city planning, allowing developers to just develop wily nilly in whatever areas are cheapest to build.
Gentrification is not the sacrifice of a few for the prosperity of the whole, its preserving the class and racial hierarchies of the us by maintaining real estate and profit in the hands of a few. Gentrification gate keeps access to opportunity, housing, and ability to participate in and affect the culture of a community. We have to build more housing, but we have to have to have to prioritize affordable housing, it shouldn't be hard for an average person to live in a nice neighborhood, that not equity, that's not gentrification creating prosperity for the whole.
Everyone is feeling the pinch.
It's not a few that are being sacrificed.
This is how you get predominantly Black and Brown suburbs
This topic has been beat so dead at this point
It's just getting started. The youths are finally getting wise to the pseudo-lefty Baby Boomer NIMBYism talking points.
"We're protective of the character of the neighbourhood.....blah...blah...blah."
The kids are finally realizing it's rich Boomers who don't want anything built so their houses will be worth zillions of dollars buy suppressing supply.
Say it with me kids.....I GOTTA PROPENSITY FOR INTENSE DENSITY....DENSITY...DENSITY!!!!!!
One could only assume that gentrification also leads to less crime and drug activities as well
I assure you that drug activities definitely don't go down as a result of gentrification. However, the cops don't pursue white drug possession and use anywhere close to the extent that they pursue people with darker skin colors. Those same white people would also commit more crimes out of desperation if they were just as poor as people with darker skin colors.
Nope. Drug use is just as high among gentrifiers. They simply have means to get out of jail, charges, etc. through money and relationships. They also take part in drug use among others of their background in more “socially acceptable” contexts such as their homes, parties, etc.
The real problem with illegal drug use is not the drug use itself. It is the burglaries, larceny, prostitution, muggings, and various types of violent crime that low income drug users resort to in order to get their drug fix.
Because all the true hard drug users live in the suburbs and keep it a secret
The background music is very irritating. Just shifting between two chords -
race has nothing to do with it. people with more money are allowed to make nice places. this was completely asinine
Also how why are these residents “original”? How often are the ones currently being displaced the same as the people that built or first occupied these central neighborhoods?
In the Dallas neighborhood of Joppa, residents successfully prevented a Habitat for Humanity development from being built in their area. One resident even accused Habitat of trying to gentrify their community.
"gentrification" is a vague term whose meaning shifts depending on the political goals of the speaker. "displacement" is a precise term referring to a measurable phenomenon. we should focus on preventing displacement, rather than defeating an amorphous concept of "gentrification." your argument that "gentrification" consists of an influx of money into low-income neighborhoods, and a corresponding rise in their attractiveness, is an argument against investing in poor neighborhoods, and that is simply bad policy. poor people deserve, and NEED, investment in their neighborhoods, and we should encourage such investment. what we need to prevent is displacement of poor residents, not investments and improvements in the places where they live.
Who the heck is going to pay for this all? The poor residents? When the place is fixed up and beautiful, rent is going to go higher.... I am all for making cities more beautiful, but the economic reason is non-existent in this discussion
@@marsco2442Weird of you to assume we all rent 🤷🏾♀️ Sorry I’m enjoying the home equity like most of us “poor residents” in my area.
Guess what very important truth that's left out of this piece? People don't wanna talk about that truth.
Could it be that gentrification gets rid of the criminals and bums( people who prefer to be homeless, use drugs, alcohol, and don't want any help) who live in those areas?
@@intelligencehaswon5714 well it pushes them into the suburbs so avoiding dangerous areas doesn’t exist anymore.
@@BigPapiCapone
They need to be incarcerated and/or put in mental institutions until they can become functioning members of society.
Not everyone wants to be a slave to money, and no one should be forced to either.
@@intelligencehaswon5714 Gentrifiers are not innocent angels who’ve never gotten drunk or taken drugs. The difference is they do this in more “socially acceptable” contexts, I.e. at home, parties, etc. Gentrifiers will still be out on the prowl, just as inhibited by substances on a party night.
I agree there are more homeless and more antisocial behaviors in many neighborhoods gentrifiers go into. That does need to be addressed in a hard manner. However, in 20-30 years, the gentrified neighborhood will be another cookie cutter version of what gentrifiers want after cleaning up the place. Then their young will go looking for more “excitement”, only to complain about the same things generations before them have and wanting to clean up the neighborhood again. The best bet for the lifestyle many gentrifiers actually go along with is to stay in their original areas among their own. Being bored and wanting excitement is a stupid reason to move when you’re over the age of 22.
A lot of the gentrification happening in the SF Bay area is done by the little guys, including Asian, mexican, and Black homeowners revamping thier houses and selling them. In essence, each race is doing it to themselves, race doesnt matter. When i travel in SFO and stay in a lot of Airbnbs done by the homeowner, frequently, in the neighborhoods you can see what is going on. I recently stayed in one next door to a house where there was an active worksite, and was warned about the possible noise as a part of being courteous on Airbnb, but It wasnt a big deal. The place i stayed at was recently revamped but the structure was at least 50 years old. Its not the big developers doing it, its every spare hammer around there keeping his day full.
gentrification is just insidious segregation
“As if low income people are not deserving of a better place to live. “ the problem is the crime and the illicit activities in that community. You can have improved low income communities and have the neighborhood thrive, but because rent and animates are more affordable, you’ll also have the crime, drug use, and what not.
That's a more straightforward perspective.
@@markanderson7236 you’re welcome.
Well these real estate investment companies don’t exist to help people they exist to make money.
That's like saying the crack dealer isn't a charity....that he wants money. I don't know a single crack dealer....well that's actually literally true.....but I haven't heard of a crack dealer that buys and sells crack without marking it up.
And do you think a plumber is gonna plumb your pipes for free? That's he's morally inferior because he wants money to fix your leaks.
How about some leftist government bureaucrat? Do you think he's giving up his fat benefits or pension?
Everyone wants money....and the more the better. Like Jeff Bezos amounts of money.
What appears to be taking place is that when richer, better educated people move into a neighborhood the top priority becomes getting rid of the riff-raff. And it has been figured out that the best way to do this is to raise rents and property values. However, the unfortunate byproduct is that far too often the decent people end up getting displaced along with the riff-raff.
The problem with gentrification is that the artist and performers can't afford to live in the city so they are pushed out thus YOU GET A BORING CITY!!!
Silver Spring MD is perfect example of gentrified. Once all the performers and artist left Silver spring so did the residents. Now Silver spring is back to being mass shootings city! Great Job!!!
Yes
Riff Raff is relative and a matter of opinion , some might see middle class and lower middle class as riff raff.
What's the difference between white right and gentrification?
that's not how property values work
Those of y’all who see gentrification as a good thing have never been personally hurt by it
You can’t win in these situations. When wealthy people moved out decades ago it was a bad thing and when they come back it’s a bad thing.🤣
Lmao maybe because we owned our homes and are benefitting from it. And we don’t miss you, Felontavious 🤷🏾♀️
@@obamaphone5412 Its true very fascinating
and no one in the comment is talking about how to make the neighbourhood better,
Pretty much. People buying-up the entire city. And then wonder why nobody will work the "peasant" jobs.
Because they physically can't. They're not going to live in a car or tent.
When it's easier to move to a place that's cheaper.
19:34. But any improvements to the neighborhood would make it more attractive to any buyers which = gentrification.
This means its time to up your game quit the mindset of sitting back waiting for the next govt and tax payers handouts.
Well said!
Not everyone wants to be a slave to money, and no one should be forced to either.
@Golden Lioness 75% of America works and they are NOT being forced to so how are they slaves???? Your comment makes no sense!
@@greyfox8310 because no one really wants to work that’s why. People just want to live and enjoy their life. You’re not getting it. No one wakes up and says, I want to spend 80% off my day working. Instead of saying my comment doesn’t make sense try to understand someone’s perspective. 😬 The cost of everything is rising but wages are not going up, which means people will have to work more. That is why they are forced…..what are you not getting?
@@goldenlioness868Your victim mentality is what we’re not getting. 🤷🏿♂️
If housing growth was allowed to keep up with demand, there would be near enough housing for everyone, and working class Americans could stay in their homes. However it's ILLEGAL to build low-cost housing on 100% of the land in many US cities due to zoning restrictions, parking minimums, and other arbitrary laws that were put in place with the intention of keeping low-cost housing out.
The problem with gentrification is displacement. Displacement is happening largely due to the housing shortage.
Finally someone says it. Also, if you haven't already checked them out....the Oh, The Urbanity channel deals with these issues at length.
@@drmodestoesq I loooove that channel!
Best video on the topic I've seen thus far
Seen one?
New York's gentrification process was ridiculous when I was a kid. So many neighbors were getting illegal eviction notices creating conflict and question throughout my neighborhood in Brooklyn.
That's why you have to let developers build as much as they want. Because if they evict you then you just move into another apartment building.
But the anti-density NIMBY types don't want that. And they control zoning.
@@drmodestoesq Okay Hell No. Because when they develop on empty foundations, the rain has no where to seep out. One of the many reasons why New York overflows with water today. The sewers are never enough. And the rent around the neighborhood will increase dramatically once regular landlords find out what developers are charging. Hell, I'm not even allowed to move out since $2K in rent for today on a 1 Bedroom is outrageous. My father finds it extremely stupid for prices like that. And if you say oh well, you do not have a damn clue of my POV of where I am coming from. Not to mention, I decide when I want to move and if it is illegal, I'm taking every effort to court.
@@KymaniCaracal Brilliant. And that kind of emphatic anti-density mentality results in a massive housing shortage.
Because no on is allowed to build density.
And at the same time you have mayors of these same major cities welcoming and encouraging hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.
The issue with gentrification imo isn't so much a change of demographic or even financial demographic. To me, it's the social change of a place going from serving a purpose for a specific culture, to having all that culture stripped away and instead becoming actively hostile to the people it historically was meant for. Many precious buildings that are sacred to some get bulldozed or repainted or turned into nothing.
A place changing demographics or people simply moving in, buying property etc., you can complain but at the end of the day it's fair game. But what isn't fair and hurts everyone is flat out destroying the culture of a place rather than contributing to it. If you move in, contribute to the local culture, and eventually the new outsiders outnumber the original residents, well complain all you like but all that seems to have happened is they beat you at your own game. But move in, destroy the culture, push people out, and make the place bland and hostile only to move out a bit later, that just destroyed a place and helped no one. That's what I think the real anger people have over gentrification is about, home ceasing to exist and the people doing it being utterly in denial of it as if denying it exists is gonna make it end well.
Agree w this tale the most tbh
Gentrification and displacement are two separate things. You can't stop people from moving to an area, but you can build the housing necessary to prevent lower income residents from being displaced from that area. Most US cities have occupancy rates of over 95% due to housing construction having plummeted since 1970 and especially after the 2008 recession while the population has grown steadily. Of course the little housing that's available will go up in price due to the low supply and higher population. We should be infilling parking lots and vacant land with as much dense housing as possible, subsidized even to bring down the cost of construction. Concerns about new units not being affordable can easily be combated by requiring a higher percentage of "affordable" units too. Evidence from many cities shows developers are more than willing to comply with such requirements, so there's no reason to oppose new construction.
Baby Boomer NIMBYism and its control of zoning laws makes that out of the question.
I heard Spokane's mayor say recently in 2023 that you can't build your way out of a housing crisis. She is so wrong! The solution is to build more affordable housing and stipulate to builders that they must build a percentage of at least 40% for low income people.
The reason the mayor said that is because she is under the jackboot of zoning laws passed and supported by Baby Boomer NIMBYs.
Building stuff can resolve the housing crisis. Actually.
Historically, there have always been sections of a city saved away for Working Class people.
But nowadays, there's a lot of people lacking in knowledge. And yet want to be rich. As fast as possible.
Re: Poor people cannot afford to eat at the expensive restaurants.
The vast majority of the people I know in the under 50 k a year club make their meals at home. Even if it's frozen pizza. Poor people can't afford to eat at McDonalds.
It’s sad to see how much we are destroying each other and the earth for money and everyone thinks it’s okay.
If we say people want a place to live out of the rain then it takes on a different perspective.
Are you saying that people shouldn't want to live indoors? That not being homeless is destroying the planet?
Worried for us black folk.
Do something and stop worrying
@@chrisdanielchabalala281your missing the point.
@@chrisdanielchabalala281 I agree, black people love to complain but sit around and wait for someone to come and save them.
@@SEEDOFISRAEL12 bro wtf nobody can do anything about it
Worry about yourself 🤷🏾♀️ us in Houston’s third ward are LOVING the home equity we have now. 67% of us owned our homes before revitalization. Stop bringing all of us into your woes
Yuppie pricks, though they're called hipsters now. This is happening where I live.
It's happening everywhere,as far as I can tell. Everywhere but Detroit...it ain't a black vs white thing either, the dividing lines are purely economic. You have the haves displacing the have nots and the have nots are running low on options...mark my words all this gentrification leads to genocide , sooner or later , and nobody gives a shit because it's just poor people that are going to suffer. Everyone else will have some sweet Air B&B vacation destinations. At this point I'm praying for nuclear bombs and economic depression to level the playing field ,and everything else too. FTW.
@@hellgato777s forced slave labor when you think about it. You have to kill yourself just to survive these days. It’s not worth it. Like I’ve said before, no one wants to be a slave to money, little by little we are forced to give up our basic needs to be met.
How dare they not live the struggle life like you. Oh noooo 😒
@@AliciaTheTroonSlayer I don't give a shit how they live, and yeah good for anyone not having to struggle, but don't drive up prices for regular working people, so that we can't survive anymore. That's creating the struggle. It also ruins the character of cities and towns, until they look boring and bland too.
@@psychedelicfright85 Get over it 🤷🏿♀️ I’m enjoying my home equity and value like many others. Nobody owes you
It seems that upscale housing will always be more profitable to build or develop than affordable housing. Here is where the market does not work. There is plenty of demand for low- or moderate-cost housing, but there is little incentive to meet that demand.
Its too expensive a venture to attempt.
They try but it is cheaper to buy marble to and charge 3-4x the rent
Im so fascinated by this problem. Its like modern colonialism. Yet i also cant say gentrifiers are aiming for that, i think most just arent socially conscious, and are trying to build their own business and life somewhere they can afford... theres some really good restaurants and places you could consider to be a result of gentrification. Theres gotta be a way to mediate this.
No it isn’t 🙄
@@Anahi1991 oh what a relief
@@hannah-6080 typical Hannah 👧🏼 obsessed with making us victims 🤷🏾♀️
We are going to have the Laissez-faire folks that refused developments. They see their neighborhood falling apart or crime-riding but don't want any changes because they are thinking with their pocket. They are afraid of changes. When richer, better-educated people move into a neighborhood white or black and property values go up the Laissez-faire folks would have to move. I say move them out change is coming we should not subsidize folks that don't want to improve their lives.
It’s usually very positive for everyone except those on fixed incomes or renters.
People in bad Chicago neighborhoods like to complain about two things:
Living in a bad neighborhood.
Being priced out of that neighborhood when it improves via gentrification.
Well? What do you want then?
You want lower crime, better schools, and better shopping options? You get those things via an influx of more affluent residents. And what does that do? It makes the property more valuable. Rents in the area go up. That’s how it works.
The people who complain about gentrification want it both ways. They want all of the benefits of living in a high-rent neighborhood, without the high rent.
If you own property in the neighborhood that’s being gentrified, or you own a business there, it’s usually a good thing for you. You will make more money from the influx of more affluent residents.
All housing is affordable housing. By building more market rate apartments, the average price will remain low and older buildings will empty out as people choose the new ones. Its too expensive to build new "affordable" apartments so the older ones need to become the defacto affordable ones
That's too logical an argument for most people. I've tried to advance it but people are too stupid.
The solution is east make it easier to build more housing, are laws discourage from building dense multi family housing.
It's funny how the developer refers to "combative" situations. Did it ever occur to him why the combativeness is there in the first place?
Maybe any luxury development needs to cater for a percentage of their redevelopment to target low income customers. High income customers shpuld be barred from purchasing or using these preallocated percentage. Any property value increase from gentrified areas in cities should be taxed to develop more low income housing. The lekple most affected y transport costs are the lower income
Edit: whoops, that's what the video covered. Good job
Who wants to live next door to low income trash.
Taxing them is just going to increase the cost of the property (which got us here in the first place)
And make the building out of the reach of middle class people
@@uromvictor , a targeted capital gains tax and anti-vqcancy measures for second properties would deter investors who would leave the property empty in dense city areas. We need people to live in those dense areas. This is because there is no way for developers to lower the cost of new properties even if you allow them to build up more living spaces. New properties always cost a premium and social housing always become slums, so we need to somehow get the profit seekers to have the same incentive to build a portion of lower income living spaces while the rich and corporates subsidizes part of the maintenance. The lower income would benefit mostly from less transport costs.
whe the middle class always had the suburbs as an option as they mostly have cars, which shpuld cost more to have if they live in city areas anyway.
Is there such a thing as reverse gentrification? Basically neighborhoods changing in the other direction because of people moving in?
Forced out of the neighborhood and now living down by the river in tent city.
More like enjoying my home equity. Nice of you to assume we’re all poor though 🤷🏾♀️
DOG eats dog world....stronger one survives, sad but natural path of power
The hard thing is that the stores lower-income households are shopping at are usually mega big box stores like Walmart and Dollar Tree. So they are used to those prices, which are subsidized (at least the produce) by the government and don't reflect the true cost of the items. But what's ironic is those box stores are the very places that have sucked all the wealth out from the local community in the first place. So yes, new businesses and restaurants that open up aren't gonna be able to compete (on price alone) with those chain stores and are therefore gonna be harder to afford. But 9 times out of 10 the quality is better, and those stores hopefully are trying to pay a living wage to the employees that work there (or more ideally offering profit-sharing and shared employee ownership) to local residents. Suddenly the people that live there are the people that work at the local shops, making it a win-win. As the shops succeed, the residents are enriched and can afford to live where they work, which is the least they deserve. And then a culture of local resilience and economic independence is promoted, which we all desperately need.
Why is gentrification happening i thought our generation was all about equality
It’s not in their control entirely it’s mostly real estate developers looking to make a buck. Basically gentrification is the opposite of white flight instead of white people or wealthy folks going to the suburbs to escape the city and take their wealth, the city is more desirable for their convenience to work, transit of other opportunities and since they’re willing to pay a premium for something that would otherwise be less then landlords see that and take the opportunity to make their properties only work for people of higher wealth and status
So people should not gentrify or revitalize the inner city? We should just let the inner city be a crime ridden shit hole in the name of "equality"?
You kick out most of the black people mainly and other minorities by raising the prices after you build the property that is wanted
🙄
@@Anahi1991 yeah I said it and it’s a proven fact.
@@carlosnuckols8470 No it isn’t. I’m black and I owned my home and am enjoying ALL the value and equity I’ve gained. Stop lumping all of us into your woes, Felontavious. We don’t miss you 🤷🏾♀️
@@Anahi1991 It is and I’ve seen it in multiple cities, my dad talked to the Mayor of Seattle and she admitted this too. Check!
@@Anahi1991 I’m not some young poor kid. I’m about our people getting what is rightfully due to them. You need to do some research and history.
raising the minimum wage does nothing but make prices go up, and drive out small business that can't afford to pay it.
The minimum wage has no effect on big businesses because they already pay above it. So the only people effected by it are the minimum wage jobs, which are the very places that the poor frequent.
Big corporate restaurants don't determine and pay the wages in their restaurants, the franchise owner does. Many Mcdonald's and Taco Bells are run by small business owners and
Rich people rarely eat out at these places and especially in poor neighborhoods. So who is the minimum wage helping except politicians that support it?
higher prices also devalues what money you manage to save. If you think your social security savings goes up with inflation then you are a fool. It goes down with it.
False. Youre saying prices have been stagnant since bush raised it? Or that we don’t pay billions a year in social welfare programs for workers whose employers should foot the bill? 6 billion a year alone for Walmart workers.
@@cjthompson420 "False. Youre saying prices have been stagnant since bush raised it? Or that we don’t pay billions a year in social welfare programs for workers whose employers should foot the bill? 6 billion a year alone for Walmart workers."
When did I say prices have been stagnant?
"Bush raised prices"? What the fuck are you talking about? Inflation was less than 4% his entire administration. Besides the federal government is not the only thing responsible for the nations inflation rate. State wage laws has as much of an impact on the average inflation rate as anything the federal government does,.
Inflation has averaged 9% since Biden took office. directly related to his policy's.
Why not lower the price of housing?
Fix two problems with one solution.
Moral of the story….. get rich…. You might be born poor but being broke as an adult is a choice
Not everyone wants to be a slave to money, and no one should be forced to either.
@@goldenlioness868 Then I guess they shouldn't be whining is they get priced out of a rich city's rental market. They have spiritual values. And they can enjoy that spiritual life living in a van down by the river.
It's like Lightin' Hopkins sang.....It's a sin to be rich....but it's a low down shame to be poor.
Are you from Cincinnati?
I think Detroit has a bit of a gentrification problem with the new development, even with a $250k median price point. There's a lot of folks in Detroit where any rent or mortgage over $1000 a month is a lot of money. Most developers are committed to setting the 20% aside for affordable housing, but even that might not be enough to meet demand.
San Francisco is an interesting example, I'm confused why drugs and crime are such a problem throughout the city, given the level of gentrification mentioned in this video. Mind you, I really don't know much about it.
very well and clear explained. Good work.
The government should build more its that simple.
No more welfare housing.
What a great documentary!
When you interview Dobbs, his voice comes out just in regular tone. but when you star asking unsettling question the voice tone shifts and it gave me the creeps. trust your gut always. like in the voice tone you can tell that he is upset you asked those questions and starts doubting his answers and tries to dress his anger. because what you tried to pull out of him made him anger. It's like you can hear in the voice tone his intentionts besides his polite answer speech. great topic Ima follow you.
Robert Kennedy Jr. has a weird tone to his voice. But that means nothing to me. He'd be a conspiracy nut even if he didn't have that speech impediment.
As far as affordable housing goes, your interviewi "set the target at 20 percent." and he "needed to figure out how to bring more money to the table." His job as a developer is part and parcel with selling his soul. His obligations are a part of a larger scale issue that is rarely addressed, but thank you for at least addressing it. This obsession with development has become a severe problem for cultural preservation, and quality of life for people such as myself, who prefer a minimalist lifestyle.
I want to point out that the exact opposite also happens in neighborhoods, usually ones with aging populations and such. It's annoying both ways.