It sounds like you're saying this:

The problem is that gentrification breaks down communities by displacing long term residents. The solution is for communities to actually become the strong communities they claim to be.

Strong communities buttress and heal dysfunctional family structures which, by themselves, cannot respond to the inevitable changes in a community. This can happen through churches that are more engaged in the local community and young professionals/retirees that are more engaged in the children in a community.

I really like this, as far as it goes. What I feel like it misses is the public policy element of gentrification. No amount of strong families could have maintained Paris' urban communities when Haussman renovated Paris in the 1860s. In the same way, the radically regressive mortgage interest deduction in the U.S. subsidizes luxury condo construction, when no corollary subsidy for renters exist.

If newcomers and long term residents were at least playing on an equal playing field, without the govt tipping the scales in favor of newcomers, then communities would have a fairer chance at strengthening.

by Ken Archer on Nov 11, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report

I don't see how a series of dysfunctional families becomes part of the gentrification debate. A dysfunctional family is dysfunctional whether it is in Anacostia or Chevy Chase. A neighborhood with too many dysfunctional families is more likely to be poor, and therefore more likely to be overtaken by gentrifiers, but that would appear to be a good thing: having more functional families as role models, etc. Of course, one of the reasons most "gentrifiers" are not people with kids is precisely because the families and schools in a region are dysfunctional. If it ceased to be dysfunctional, you would only accelerate "gentrification"

by SJE on Nov 11, 2010 4:42 pm • link • report

@Ken - 70% of american households own there homes. It's not like the homeownership subsidy is given just to owners of luxury residences.

That said, I wish the tax credit was never enacted but for different reasons that you. I think it's artificially driven up housing prices by creating more demand and purchasing power rather than given a true benefit to homeowners. I own but I'd probably prefer not to own. Mainly because I'm disgusted by the fees associated with a real estate transaction. Between the realty commissions and local jurisdiction recordation taxes you're paying 8-10% of the sale price is transaction costs. Gross. It might had made sense for realtors to earn 6% when housing cost 150K. But I fail to how the realtors have done enough to warrant a commission of 24K on a 400K sale.

I'm going to use a discount broker like Redfin in my future real estate transactions. Even in this economy resales in my building have been snapped up in < 2 weeks in my building. No way am I letting the real estate industry get 6% off me for so little effort...

by Jason on Nov 11, 2010 4:58 pm • link • report

@Ken... Public policy is definitely needed as well. But it goes back to the part 2 discussion of bringing people out of poverty.

@SJE... I understand your point. Yes there are dysfunctional families everywhere, but 1) this discussion took place at the East of the River Forum and 2) its a huge difference when an entire community has dysfunctional families. Until you address the family structure in poorer areas, the cycle of poverty continues. The point that my group was making is if you can shore up the families that are dysfunctional, then you can educate the children and provide job training for the teenagers/young adults. As long as the cycle of poverty continues, it puts them in a vulnerable position to be displaced as the economics of the neighborhoods change.

I'll give a personal example. I've been a Big Sister to a 12-year old girl from Congress Heights for four years. She has 2 older brothers and a young brother being raised by the system. She is being raised by a grandmother because daddy is not around and mom is on drugs. At the age of 8 she witnessed her mom try to set her grandmother on fire. Her grandmother suffers from every illness imaginable. Since she was 8 I have been taking her to college campuses, bringing her to my job, showing her what life is like in different parts of the region, and encouraging her to respect herself and her body. I'm the only person in her life that has ever been to college. I don't have children (thank goodness), but I put a significant amount of time and effort trying to save this one from all the statistics facing her with teen pregnancy being number 1. Now imagine of all the "gentrifiers" moving into the community did the same thing. Imagine if all the childless, tried to save one child each.

At the end of the day it's about creating strong communities.

by Veronica O. Davis (MIss V) on Nov 11, 2010 5:11 pm • link • report

This has been an interesting series, but I fear this last part is where most people will tune out.

Pat Moynihan warned decades ago that gov't policies were destroying black families and were doing nothing more than ensuring multi-generational poverty and self-perpetuating ghettos. For his insight, he was decried as a racist. Yet time has proven him right.

When it comes to dysfunctional families, I don't think there is a macro solution to the problem. At the micro level, folks like Miss V can undertake the hugely laudable task of being a Big Sister/Brother to child that would otherwise be just another face and eventual statistic.

And sure, it's easy to say that if enough people replicate this on the micro level, we'll eventually start having a macro effect. But it would take decades. And it's doubtful you'd have as many selfless and dedicated people as Miss V to do this.

There's also the issue of culture - of minority kids being harassed by other minority kids for "acting white." Mrs. Fritz is a non-DC teacher in a public school with lots of black and Hispanic kids. The peer pressure on incredibly bright minority kids to not "act white" is astounding. A very few ignore that peer pressure and go on to academic success; most do not and wind up academic underachievers, thereby foregoing the potential of college and a better career path.

This issue - how do you stop families' self-destructing behavior - is absolutely the most difficult issue in addressing poverty. Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic, but I just don't see there being any solution to this issue. A person can get a good eduction and have a decent job, but if their home life is a disaster, sooner or later they will self-destruct.

The formerly central role of black churches is also quite interesting. My impression is that most black churches from 50-100 years ago were small and based in the neighborhood. Now, it seems that those old churches - and here I'm specifically thinking of some of those in Georgetown - have a small and ever-dwindling congregation that has very little connection to the neighborhood, other than memories. Even with the larger churches like Shiloh Baptist, it seems that most of its congregation comes into DC once a week for a few hours and otherwise has little to do with the neighborhood (yet it still believes it should have veto power over neighborhood development - witness the liquor license saga of Queen of Sheba and the long-vacant rowhouses along 9th Street NW).

I appreciate Miss V's views on these issues and her thoughts on solutions.

by Fritz on Nov 11, 2010 5:57 pm • link • report

Should black churches be challenged to assign members to small groups based on their neighborhood?

Randy Frazee, pastor of one of the largest churches in Texas, does this and writes about it in The Connecting Church.

Most Christians drive past dozens of churches on their way to church anymore. Frazee writes that churches that think that their congregants can minister to and disciple one another when they live all over the place are kidding themselves.

Frazee's solution, assigned small groups based on location, flies in the face of the consumeristic churches that present a plethora of age and theme oriented small groups and classes.

by Ken Archer on Nov 11, 2010 8:08 pm • link • report

@Fritz... I definitely agree this is when people tune out. It's easy to talk about the physical infrastructure, but social infrastructure becomes tough. The problem feels overwhelming. I don't even begin to claim to be a sociologist, but with all the big brains in DC we have to be able to come up with some sort of solution to repairing the family structure.

It is unfortunate that education isn't emphasized in minority communities. My dad was VERY strict with speaking the Queen's English in his presence. What was the most important thing I said in that sentence? My Dad.

@Ken... Thanks for sharing the link to the book. I did a search online for a spoiler analysis. He breaks the congregations into zones based on where they live, then within each zone breaks them up by 5-10 families based on proximity. I like the concept of taking a geographic community and adding a layer of spirituality.

My neighborhood and I were just talking about the churches near us. We have 6 churches and 1 mosque within walking distance. These churches have programs and events all the time, but there is no outreach to community. I typically learn about the church fish fry because I drive by. I attended a church located in NE and our churches mission is to no only open the doors to the community, but be "fisher's of men" and bring the community in the church. We start with the kids. Once the kids become regulars we noticed their parent(s) start coming to church. Now imagine if all the churches East of the River engaged in the same type of outreach.

by Veronica O. Davis (MIss V) on Nov 11, 2010 10:41 pm • link • report

I wasn't sure of this series until the end, where Miss V and her cohorts nail it. There has to be a strong aknowledgement of personal responsability if any government program will have a chance to work. There are many low income neighborhoods that are relativley safe becasue the traditional social fabric hasn't been turned upside down. If you're walking down a street and the young men rule the street, if the elderly folks have no say over them, they you have a seriously dysfunctional situation. The most dangerous person in society is an unattached young male. Bravo for looking at the family, I would be in favor of any program that tried to restore some order to these tattered families, and if a Korean, Salvadorian, or White Berkley Grad Hipster moved in next door, I woud welcome them as I would want to be welcomed. Go Miss V

by Thayer-D on Nov 12, 2010 6:29 am • link • report

Education and job training are part of the tool box. But, by themselves, they don't even begin to provide the institutional supports that a workforce\moderate income community needs to withstand the, uhhh, "benefits" of most forms of gentrification.

Note that I just wrote MOST forms.

At bottom, and given the current turmoil and long-term uncertainty in the mortgage markets, the only reliable basis for what you might call "community-oriented (re)development" is a formal, rather large public sector presence in the housing market. And that is both before and after The Great Works have been completed.

When we're talking about transit-oriented gentrification, the need for a significant public sector presence in the community, particularly the housing market, is even greater.

There is no cookie-cutter for this. Most so-called gentrification is very site- and neighbourhood-specific. So the remedies to the unwanted (and often unconscionable) "bidding up\bidding out" process that accompanies a lot of redevelopment these days will also have to be tailored to each specific community, neighbourhood and development project.

But the underlying strategy would probably be the same almost everywhere there is a clear and present danger of "gentriplacement." The public sector will have to be or lead the effort to ensure that those (of us) who survived The Worst can afford to stick around long enough to enjoy (or at least survive) The Best.

Harold Foster; AAG-ProfGeog, AICP
Acting Executive Officer
The Americas Institute
Petworth
DC

by Harold Foster on Nov 12, 2010 9:37 am • link • report

There is a perception that newcomers enter a community and things get better because the newcomers come with a list of demands. Our group elder asked, why do we have to wait for newcomers for things to get better? Why aren't some of the residents east of the river motivated to want a better living environment?

The demands of middle- and upper-middle class residents are fairly homogenous. Not so with the poor and working poor.

To paraphrase Tolstoy, all happy families are the same; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

What's most important? Job training? Cheap housing? Safe housing? Quality housing? Substance abuse treatment? Youth services? Etc, etc, etc...

by oboe on Nov 12, 2010 9:55 am • link • report

This was an interesting series. Although I do believe we are conflating "gentrification" with the "state of black america" in a not so great way, it's good to see/discuss the issue anyway. There are a hosts of things our community needs to solve (not address) that is outside the scope of gentrification, which will continue to happen across the country.

By the way, I'm not sure if I would relate our problems to "ghetto victim mentality" as I problems go well beyond the ghetto. It's much easier to hit down than up.

@Fritz, I hear a lot about the challenges our kids face with this notion of "acting white." I agree that this is a problem but offer that I heard the same things as a child growing up in the 80's. "Acting white" was a common phrase then. the problem is that so many of us aren't doing our jobs educating each other that "acting white" seems to be the culprit. Maybe ignorance is a better word.

by HogWash on Nov 12, 2010 10:08 am • link • report

There is a perception that newcomers enter a community and things get better because the newcomers come with a list of demands. Our group elder asked, why do we have to wait for newcomers for things to get better? Why aren't some of the residents east of the river motivated to want a better living environment?

Some of this is probably due to attitudes towards police. I'm a white, middle class gentrifier, and if I see something shady happening I'll call the police without thinking twice. Some of my neighbors who are long time residents will do the same, but others have a great mistrust of the police, and won't call in order to not be involved with them.

Some of it also is probably due to the response of police, whether it's real or perceived. When I call the police, I expect action to be taken, and I've found response to be very good. Do residents of a housing project have the same expectation, or receive the same prompt response?

This piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates really struck a chord with me. He's an educated, intelligent, middle class man struggling with how to teach his son to interact with the police. It makes me wonder what kids less fortunate than his son are learning. It's a real problem, and I don't know how you even begin to solve it.

by jcm on Nov 12, 2010 10:43 am • link • report

You need an economically integrated community.

All of this mess and dysfunction began when the black middle-class fled these neighborhoods for the suburbs, leaving behind uniformly poor and working poor blacks.

The question is, how do we return to that economically diversity? Obviously, the only way to do that is by bringing in middle-class residents. Which we call gentrification.

Problem is, you can't bring in new residents without displacement. So around we go...

But thinking through this, I'm more and more struck by the point that the forces of anti-gentrification on one hand, and that of strong communities with opportunities for the poor are essentially at odds with one another. You can either keep middle-class residents out, or you can create an environment in which the poor can lift themselves out of poverty--you just can't have both.

by oboe on Nov 12, 2010 11:28 am • link • report

@Hogwash... Speaking specifically of East of the River, the issues of Black America and gentrification are correlated. Based on the comments on the last two posts, by consensus at the heart of gentrification is economics. Those that "have" displace those that "have not". Those that "have not" can only "have" if they are educated and trained in jobs, but you can't tackle education and job training until you deal with the dysfunction of the community. We can provide government assistance and legislation until we are blue in the face, but we have to address the family structure.

@Harold... great insight.

by Veronica O. Davis (MIss V) on Nov 12, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report

Veronica: the black poor suffer from all sorts of problems, from poor schools, police brutality, etc. Gentrification arguably hurts this community too (helps in other ways). But, making them so related has a number of negatives
1. It becomes part of the story that gentrifiers are somehow oppressing the poor black community, or are part of the problem. This only leads to racial tension.
2. They are different problems, with different solutions. Conflating them avoids discussing the solution.
3. I question to what extent "displacement" is really a problem. A problem in many poor communities is the cycle of poverty, and the lack of a bigger world view, all of which is enhanced by being stuck in one place. See TaNehisi Coates writes elegantly on this point. For an example, New Orleans has been dysfunctional for years. A lot of those who were forced out by Katrina and moved to Houston are finding better jobs, better schools, etc.

So, the fact of being forced OUT is less of a problem, to my mind, than ensuring that the people have somewhere to go. Why should this have to be in the same city? Cities change all the time, and Washington is increasingly professional and has less jobs for the working class. Perhaps it would be better to move to a place where the qualifications are better matched to the job environment. A number of my relatives have done this very thing, rather than working in menial jobs in the DC region.

by SJE on Nov 12, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

@SJE 1. I never stated nor alluded to gentrifies oppressing poor people. My point is we have to address the family dysfunction in order to up lift people out of poverty. Yes poor people have other issues like poor schools, drugs, etc, but at the root of all of that is the family structure. For East of the River I'm encouraging the young professional and retirees to engage with the young people of our community. On this side of the town most of the newcomers with high incomes are Black, so racial tension isn't the issue. I'm encouraging the churches to open the doors and reestablish their place as the anchor of the community.

2. They are different problem with different solutions.

3. Displacement in and of itself isn't always a bad thing. However, some times you are just relocating the issue somewhere else. Take Henson Ridge as an example. It was a large public housing complex in Congress Heights. Under Hope VI it was redeveloped into mixed use and mixed income housing. Some residents return and some were relocation to other parts of the City. While aesthetically it's a nice development, they are having all types of issues. Placing a dysfunctional family in new housing is a dysfunctional family in new housing. My point is as a community of newcomers and old timers we need to work together to build and strengthen the community.

Thayer-D and Ken Archer provided a great breakdown of my point pulling all piece of the series together.

by Veronica O. Davis (MIss V) on Nov 12, 2010 2:42 pm • link • report

Veronica,

1. The gentrification issue is often phrased in racial, or class, terms. Thus, while I agree that you were not making that leap yourself, you were conflating gentrification with part of the problems afflicting the community.

2. If they are different problems, why discuss that problem in the same breath with the other problem.

3. Displacement from one part of the region to another is not going to do much for someone whose skills are already not in high demand in the region. Most high school graduates in DC recieve an education that puts them at a disadvantage in competing for higher paying jobs in this region.

by SJE on Nov 12, 2010 3:01 pm • link • report

@Veronica, I understand your view but disagree. We can talk about gentrification and the benefit/lack thereof it offers depressed communities. We can also talk about the historic cycle of dysfunction (many times self-perpetuated) in our depressed communities.

However, my point is that those two should not be combined for many of the reasons SJE suggested above. IF our depressed communities were not depressed, we likely wouldn't have many discussions about the cons of gentrification as the community would already be economically functioning. The reason that discussing "gentrification" spirals down is that you really are, in ways, changing the fabric of these areas, much to the ire of its residents.

Now our problems, education, poverty, government dependency, violence etc. are existing problems (that must be addressed) outside of a discussion about gentrification. The same issues are unfortunately prevalent across the country in places where gentrification is not happening.

Sure we can view solving the aforementioned challenges as an answer (of sorts) to gentrification. But that also limits the reach of the discussion.

I think your points are valid. I just don't believe they are necessarily related.

Henson Ridge is an example of what happens when you mix homeowners with renters, especially in low-income areas such as that one. Considering the area, There isn't really a way around this particular challenge.

by HogWash on Nov 12, 2010 3:22 pm • link • report

I too have enjoyed the dialogue throughout this series. It has been a refreshing and collegial change from this blog's usual posts (not to say they don't have their place).

@Fritz - While it may be rare for young professionals like Veronica to mentor young people, it's not as rare as you'd think. I, a young African American professional, assumed custody of a teenage male. I did this to give him a chance at living a highly productive life and not becoming an unfortunate urban statistic. So far, it's working well (albeit I don't believe I'd like to naturally have children of my own after this rewarding experience, lol). I would also argue that it will not take decades for positive fruit/change to bud from a mentoring commitment. The young man I am raising has blossomed to the point that he's a fisher of men and encourages other young people at his school (and other places) to excel based upon him seeing that it's possible. The change doesn't have to directly come from adults, but can also come from those being mentored/raised.

@JCM - It might be the "gentrifier" in me, but I am not afraid to call the police when there's trouble brewing in my neighborhood. I practically have the police and 311 on speed dial. I do find that it's almost unconscionable that my neighbors don't bother to call to report concerns. As an example, I've called 311 when the grass at a nearby vacant house has overgrown; a tree fell into the street after a recent storm; a fire hydrant was opened during a hot summer day; etc. I don't think the inclination to call the authorities for assistance is strictly a black/white issue, but may be a class issue which is why we're termed "gentrifiers".

@oboe - I agree that many older, urban African American communities would greatly benefit once more middle class residents move into these areas. I, however, disagree with your statement that new people moving in to specific communities occurs through displacement. I bought my home without "displacing" the previous owner. She died. I bought her house. The end.

by the truth on Nov 12, 2010 6:15 pm • link • report

One thing is for certain, that new Homeland security complex being built is going to gentrify Ward 8 entirely and when that happens D.C. won't be D.C. anymore......

ehhh looks like its PG county for me, until that gets gentrified too.

I'm wondering though, where is this all leading to? Pushing the poor into rural areas and forget about them? This country is fuckin hilarious.

by MikeWard7 on Nov 15, 2010 12:07 am • link • report

@MikeWard7.... My prediction is that PG County is going to benefit more from Homeland Security than Wards 7 or 8. The Naylor Road and Suitland Metro stations are surrounded by low-density commercial areas. I think they'll redevelop before East of the River DC because there isn't a residential community to have to negotiate with and there is more land available.

by Veronica O. Davis (MIss V) on Nov 15, 2010 12:28 pm • link • report

While gentrification may be bad for some individual residents, it is probably good for those who stay and for those who own or owned homes. On the other hand, fixing dysfunctional families is necessary whether or not you own your home, whether you leave or stay, etc. THus, lumping gentrification as one "discontent" ignores the benefits that gentrification provides to some residents.

by SJE on Nov 15, 2010 12:38 pm • link • report