Gentrification
Scared of the “boogieman”? Nobody really knows what the boogieman is but, all fear him. GENTRIFICATION is the boogieman in some communities.
Neighborhoods improve or decline. Trader Joes planned a Northwestern U.S. store in a food desert. It is still a “food desert” because local “community leaders” protested potential “gentrification”. How sad.
Gentrification has different meanings and interpretations. Some think that the poor get booted out of a neighborhood when too expensive to remain because of an influx of wealth. Rents and property taxes rise as do the home and condominium prices. Streets get repaired, grocery stores open, fine dining and entertainment arrive. Can the poor is find an affordable place? Do they benefit from the available jobs? Who benefits most? Often developers who grease the politicians for mutual profit. Resident owners who bought property when it was cheap can sell at geometrically high prices. Resident owners might receive exceptions to tax increases. They may resist redevelopment because they fear higher property tax, and, may be acquiring rental properties. If Section 8 renters leave, the demands in rental property change to required convenience items like automatic dishwasher, garbage disposal, business center, health club, bike room, WiFi, as needs of a gentrified community.
Those I’ve met at the last ten meetings use “gentrification” fear without considering how asking for neighborhood development, CAUSES gentrification. Gentrification encourages city and private investment in a community. It therefore makes the community more livable and attractive. Property values and rents rise with gentrification.
The Alliance of the SouthEast wants neighborhood improvement. They aligned with Unions. Does this contradict or help? Work becomes available in needy communities that Unions want and receive through the City. The cost to slow traffic holding a sign down might escalate to more than $30 per hr. It creates a living wage, but fewer people. Union scale can leave locals unemployed. Neighborhoods with 20-40% unemployment have few union contractors. Uniom jobs seldom improve the local hiring and income. The effort to demand local jobs with “Community Benefit Agreements” might bring local benefit. At the ACE Tech Charter School meeting. We encouraged Community Benefits Agreements for tax supported development. It is a good concept if we agree on what benefits the community. Components include a living wage, (undefined) local hiring (undefined), and affordable housing. Each concept is frequently misinterpreted and misdirected.
The South Shore dilapidated 71st street commercial district adjacent to Jeffery Plaza was supposed to begin street-scaping in 2013. It would include benches, bike lanes, sidewalks and lighting with hanging flowers. About 5% was REQUIRED to go to local employment. Unfortunately, it was not 5% of the labor budget, or of the employment. It is 5% of HOURS. The change from % of employees to hours worked was to prevent developers from hiring employees that would not be retained or show up. An employee could be listed as hired, but never kept on the payroll. Developers meet the requirement, but locals received no benefit. This new percent of hours method was to add fairness with an HOURS method with a new loophole.
A developer can hire TWENTY 40-hour per week union workers at $50 per hour, and, one $10 per hour local. HOURS are the same. Why not make it 5-10% of the total payroll with an independent auditor? There are few benefit agreements and many ways to cheat.
A $100 million in labor would bring only $2 million in local employment.
Can we communicate honestly but avoid being the messenger with bad news that gets shot? We need mutual goals. How do we get politicians to upgrade our deteriorating neighborhoods? Can we provide community benefit without triggering the fear of “gentrification”? Some communities have deteriorated as dumping ground for Section 8 housing. Property values decline as home ownership declines. Deflated property values historically precede gentrification and benefits wealthy insiders. Poverty profit is difficult for those most affected to comprehend.
People who lived in a neighborhood for 3 generations and see a decline, are hurt by the degradation, gang violence, and decay of streets and appearance. They want it to be as it when it had attractive stores, quality groceries, jobs and entertainment without shootings and drugs. These residents are frequently the most involved community members and best educated. They want both the benefit of gentrification, without the perceived detriments of gentrification. They want good restaurants, clubs, culture, repairs, safety, violence abatement, but without the inflated rents, taxes, or preventing them from buying rental buildings at a low price. Can we stay between narrow lines of improvement but, not so much that sparks “GENTRIFICATION”? Does that sound easy? Thom
The blog article is very interesting. How can we as a community brainstorm on improvements in our community without driving up overall prices?
I think it is accomplished by avoiding a knee jerk reaction to resist all change and fear it.
Revitalization is good. With it should come a welcoming of diversity, not a thinning of diversity or changing a segregated community of underserved into a segregated community of well served.
We learn from people of varied backgrounds and want our kids to get the broadest knowledge that will create a successful future for them.