Development
GGW discusses: Displacement and NPR in Anacostia
An NPR Morning Edition story yesterday, entitled "DC, long 'Chocolate City,' becoming more vanilla," discussed demographic shifts increasing the proportion of white residents of DC and profiled two people who recently moved out of Historic Anacostia.
Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.
The two are Robert Adams, who is black, and David Garber, who is white. The story quickly touched off criticisms on Twitter from many of our contributors, who feel the story missed the mark.
Here are edited-together responses from three contributors, including Garber, one of the two subjects of the story. Garber is now the ANC commissioner for the Near Southeast/Navy Yard/ballpark neighborhood, just across the river from Anacostia, and blogs at And Now, Anacostia.
Erik Weber says:
The same hackneyed story line pops up in the left-leaning, intellectual press over and over, like this recent story in the Atlantic.
It goes like this: admiration over an old neighborhood's attractive urban form; consternation and lament for its previous neglect; hope at recent glimmers of revival; and subsequent hand-wringing that one's current attention and interest is driving "all those poor people" out of their homes. It's like a '90s pop song formula.
Eric Fidler adds:
This alleged displacement story is not truly one of displacement. The man (or his wife, as the story suggests) wanted a bigger house, and that's fine. If you don't want to spend more money, but want a bigger house, you typically will have to move farther out where the prices per square foot are lower.
This is not unique to Anacostia, and I'm frustrated that NPR portrayed the man as being "displaced" when the real reason that he moved is that he (or his wife) wanted a bigger house and did not want to pay much more money. That's a common story as to why people move farther out, but this anecdote doesn't support Morning Edition's claim that white people are "pricing out" this man.
David Garber says:
First, Kellogg's evidence that black people are being forced out is based entirely on the story of one man who chose to buy a larger and more expensive house in Prince George's County than one he was considering near Anacostia. Second, he claims that Anacostia is becoming "more vanilla" by talking about one white person, me On a personal note, I was disappointed that he chose to sensationalize my move out of Anacostia, which had absolutely nothing to do with the much-reported-on break-in that occurred at my 2009 holiday party. In fact, I moved eight months later, was very transparent about my reasons for doing so, and am still working (and hosting parties) in the Anacostia neighborhood.
I'd suggest he and other writers step back from the canned story that's been told before about every other neighborhood, look around, and realize a few key points.
Anacostia, and the River East community in general, is becoming more and more economically diverse, but mostly at the hands and monthly mortgage payments of black professionals, not white ones.
Check out the Historic Anacostia Block Association or River East Emerging Leaders, and you will see a very impressive mix of people, the majority of whom are black. Patronize Anacostia's newest businesses, Big Chair Coffee and Uniontown Bar & Grill and you will meet the friendly (and black) owners.
Take in a meeting of the Friends of Logan Park/Old Market House Square, a group run out of St. Philip the Evangelist Episcopal Church that is working to rebuild the park at the heart of Historic Anacostia. That will surely add to the look and feel of the neighborhood and make it more attractive. Most of the members involved in this effort, although quite age diverse, are black.
But hold on. Pause. Are we really still getting worked up about skin color?
White people are moving into Anacostia. So are black people. So are Asian people, Middle Eastern people, gay people, straight people, and every other mix. And good for them for believing in a neighborhood in spite of its challenges, and for meeting its hurdles head on and its new amenities with a sense of excitement.
And good for the countless residents who have stayed in the neighborhood through its worst times, many of whom are glad to see signs of progress. A few months after I moved into Anacostia, my next-door neighbor If that's the kind of change that's coming to Anacostia, then amen and hallelujah.
Erik Weber continues:
The real story is not about displacement in Anacostia but rather the lack of it. Any other neighborhood so centrally located, with its tight-knit urban fabric, historic properties, proximity to Metro and literally dozens of bus routes would be ripe for displacement were it anywhere in the city other than east of the Anacostia River.
The city has run out of neighborhoods that already possess all these, indicated by the shift of development and real estate speculation to H Street NE in anticipation of a future rail line.
Why has Anacostia been spared the "gentrification" that Logan Circle and Columbia Heights, U Street and Hill East have undergone? In that question lies the real story.
Erik Weber has been living car-free in the District since 2009. Hailing from the home of the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, Erik has been interested in transit since spending summers in Germany as a kid where he rode as many buses, trains and streetcars as he could find. Views expressed here are Erik's alone. 
Eric Fidler has lived in DC and suburban Maryland his entire life. He likes long walks along the Potomac and considers the L'Enfant Plan an elegant work of art. He also blogs at Left for LeDroit, LeDroit Park's (only) blog of record.
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- DC's divide need not be black and white
Right, but most of this stuff is about grappling for political leverage. And you don't accrue any political capital by saying, "Oh well, old timers are moving for larger houses, and those moving in are racially and economically diverse. Yay!"
My experience is in Hill East, but every single middle-class person I know who bought a house in the last ten years bought it from an elderly couple who had hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, whose kids had grown and moved to the suburbs, and who wanted to move. Identical to the middle-class neighborhood my parents live in--with a handfull of old white folks, and a bunch of Hispanic and Asian families.
My parents are considering moving in the next few years--probably to a small condo in a golf community. This infernal gentrification has *got* to stop!
by oboe on Feb 16, 2011 1:39 pm
by andrew on Feb 16, 2011 1:40 pm
by Erik Weber on Feb 16, 2011 1:45 pm
by Michael Perkins on Feb 16, 2011 1:49 pm
by David Garber on Feb 16, 2011 1:49 pm
by Canaan on Feb 16, 2011 1:52 pm
by andrew on Feb 16, 2011 1:54 pm
Funny, because we "displaced" a white lawyer who made a handsome profit on the sale and had not been occupying the building, thus allowing prostitutes to set up shop behind the house. We moved in, cleaned up the rear patio, installed new lighting and established a regular presence in the neighborhood.
by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 16, 2011 2:10 pm
by Jason on Feb 16, 2011 2:13 pm
PG County is not becoming "more diverse", PG County is becoming uniformly black.
by Ward 2 on Feb 16, 2011 2:20 pm
On the other hand, it's par for the course as far as local journalism goes. Tell a fairy tale, and hope that someone agrees. It's no different than what's going on at the Times and the Post. Is this the state of of a journalism degree today?
by eb on Feb 16, 2011 2:25 pm
So yeah, the trend is less black people and more white people, but no one here has been "forced out"
by TimK on Feb 16, 2011 2:28 pm
Fair enough, I chose my words poorly. Regardless he complains about the area he's moving out of being less black while simultaneously moving into a place that is becoming more black.
by Canaan on Feb 16, 2011 2:59 pm
It's a shame there are still areas in this country where people still have to worry about being profiled and targeted for something as irrelevant as their skin color - but it's the unfortunate truth.
You never hear the African-American residents complain about African-American gentrifiers... Which leads me to believe that to some, it really *is* about race and not the money, which I find very sad.
by Josh C. on Feb 16, 2011 3:03 pm
@Josh C... Clearly you haven't been to many community meetings East of the River. There are Black residents who complain about Black newcomers. Some neighborhoods over here have a strong tension between Black newcomers (usually 20-30 somethings) and long time residents (middle-age and seniors). I have been in community meetings where newcomers were basically told to "sit down and shut up". That tension is NOT reflective of every neighborhood, but let it be known that it exists.
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Feb 16, 2011 3:34 pm
What happened in the '50s and '60s was the problem, when Whites were abandoning the city, leaving their Black neighbors behind with no tax base and few resources. If the color of the skin of a new neighbor incites fear or resentment, we really have not progressed that much as a nation in the last fifty years.
by Dave Murphy on Feb 16, 2011 3:40 pm
by movement on Feb 16, 2011 3:46 pm
by SJE on Feb 16, 2011 3:54 pm
Just sayin'.
by Allyn on Feb 16, 2011 3:56 pm
So I wonder are we reading more into the article than actually is.
For instance, David complains that he sensationalized the break-in. While that may be true, Alex (the author) also notes that David INSISTS the break-in was not the reason he decided to move. The response (by Adams)to David's belief that "prices are really low" was "to whom."
Now everything I've read suggests that DC is no longer "Chocolate City" and that is what the story reiterates. Maybe it's not PC but if the city is becoming less chocolate, then what is it becoming more of? Amber?
Also, contrary to the posts here, the article never says that Anacostia is becoming more "vanilla." Instead, it stated that DC is becoming more vanilla - which it is.
I did not read anywhere in the article, a line about how whites are pushing blacks out. Where are the rest of you reading that?
IMO, the article seems to suggest that longtime (black) residents of Anacostia can't afford to purchase there. This is why the black guy said he moved to PG. He got more bang for his buck.
I welcome anyone to show me how what the article stated is untrue or something we haven't heard before.
Like this:
Blacks thinks whites are moving in. They are.
Whites thinks it's affordable. It is.
by HogWash on Feb 16, 2011 4:07 pm
by ImWhite&GraduatedfromAnacostiaIn1949 on Feb 16, 2011 4:09 pm
by ImWhite&GraduatedfromAnacostiaIn1949 on Feb 16, 2011 4:09 pm
The article specifically references this guy being "priced out."
In fact, he actually moved to a more expensive house in Prince George's.
Displacement implies forcing someone out. There is no force here, this guy left of his own volition.
by Alex B. on Feb 16, 2011 4:28 pm
Further, I'd say this story was offensive to some people, particularly some white people, because:
1) it uses the words 'gentrification' and 'displacement', and
2) it implicitly talks about racism, suggesting that it still exists.
For some white people, suggesting that gentrification and/or displacement occurs, and that racism still exists, is just a double-whammy -- it's an untenable 'accusation' (aka 'reality') that has to be vigorously disputed.
It's hardly worth going through the disparaging remarks about the article because not a single one of them is true. Which leaves us with the explanation from HogWash, and my explanation, which just takes HogWash's explanation one step further.
Here's the dialogue:
by Peter Smith on Feb 16, 2011 4:30 pm
My preference would be for a 3 - 4 bedroom detached row home on or near 15th St & R St NW, and I think it would be fair for me to pay $280k.
Unfortunately, the market has other ideas.
Having illustrated that our own ideas on affordability are irrelevant, I'm not prepared to move to Warrenton for a house that meets my desired size at my desired price. We all must make our own assessment on the value of our chosen community.
by Will on Feb 16, 2011 5:14 pm
Middle class?
by oboe on Feb 16, 2011 5:31 pm
http://wamu.org/news/10/04/27.php
by Allison on Feb 16, 2011 6:32 pm
I bring up this information and my opinion to say that we must all treat one another equally in everything we do, because respecting others means we respect ourselves. In reference to this piece, I believe that most everything aims at treating others with respect, but it does not explicitly say that, which I would think should be the locus of this piece.
by C. R. on Feb 16, 2011 6:46 pm
Thanks but if you check the article, I don't think it ever mentioned the word "displacement." This GGW article does.
@Peter, Good looking out!
@Oboe, Oh Really? Well since you want to ignore the obvious, in jest I'll (by your statement) reasonably conclude that you're saying the less black people in DC the larger the middle class will be?
by HogWash on Feb 16, 2011 7:14 pm
"If it means people like him can't afford to stay in their old neighborhood, that bothers him, he says. In Prince Georges County, where he lives now, the black population has grown 11 percent in the last decade."
It doesn't actually say the word displacement but there is a different inference of it? Do you disagree? That's what the article says and the response by GGW (David, Erik, and Eric) says that thats not necessarily the conclusion to make.
by Canaan on Feb 16, 2011 7:29 pm
Can you find them in the places that are so crowded that nobody goes to them?
by davidj on Feb 16, 2011 8:22 pm
http://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1534-15th-St-NW-20005/home/9868477
by d on Feb 16, 2011 8:59 pm
And I honestly don't know what you'd call this place. It sure looks like a rowhouse ...'cept where it's contempararies?
by Lance on Feb 16, 2011 9:55 pm
Listen to the clip. The guy says he's been "priced out" of DC. They clearly imply displacement, despite the fact that he bought a more expensive house outside of DC.
by Alex B. on Feb 16, 2011 10:38 pm
No need to listen to the clip -- the transcript is online:
Sometimes the world is a more complex place than just 1s and 0s -- there are in-betweens, grey areas, points along a continuum, etc.Because so many (white) people are unable and/or unwilling to recognize and/or talk about racism and classism and gentrification, articles are apparently required to be absolutist in their statements and conclusions -- there is no room for nuance when it comes to talking about race and class and gentrification -- or, so many (white) people believe/demand.
Some people just want to be outraged at the outrage, feel compelled to ratchet-up their own feelings of victimization, etc. Me? I'm gonna ride this white thing out (audio NSFW).
by Peter Smith on Feb 17, 2011 1:21 am
INSKEEP: So you've got African-Americans going to the suburbs now.
KELLOGG: That's right. And we followed a guy, Robert Adams, a delivery truck driver who moved out to the suburbs because he was priced out of the city.
...
KELLOGG: That's right, and a lot of residents don't even know it well. It was sort of a no-go zone for whites and a lot of blacks, as well, for years. And now, even though it's one of the poorest, least-educated and least-safe parts of the city, it's a place where people feel like they can get a deal. But Robert Adams felt like he was priced out. That was difficult for him, because he was an elected official there who fought for changes that are now coming.
by Alex B. on Feb 17, 2011 7:41 am
However, Mr. Adams feelings don't constitute objective reality. He choose bigger, cheaper, with no fixing required over closer, cheaper, smaller, and needing to add some appliances. Those are choices everyone makes in buying real estate. They are choices he freely made. He might not love the trade off, but I don't know too many people who really do love not being able to get everything they want.
by Kate on Feb 17, 2011 9:28 am
As far as Anacostia is concerned, the so-called "pundits", none of whom are from this area , fail to recognize the FACT that Anacostia was, for most of it's history, white working and middle class- and that a big wave of Appalachian migration took place to DC after 1890 and continued until after WW2. DC was not the only city to experience this phenomenon- all of the major cities on the periphery of the Appalachians had aquired distinct Appalachian neighborhoods by WW1- these include DC, Baltimore, Pittsburg,Columbus,Cleveland, Detroit,and Chicago. It is a part of American history that still has not been accounted for. So we have not One but TWO great migrations from the south and the mountains of the south- not just ONE- as is the party line media version of history. These white folks gradually moved out of Anacostia as Navy Yard jobs died out after the closing of the mighty gun factory [ another ignored part of DC history] and the GI Bill and cheaper bigger housing became available in PG. Now the same is happening with the blacks that moved into Anacostia in the early 60's. It is a cyclic situation and tied to economics and trends and not at all a function of old style racism. For NPR to characterize this change as racist is a manifestation of their incredible ignorance and shows their lack of real knowledge of this city and our complex history. As a previous commentor noted- it is not all black and white- there is grey and more of a transition that evidently is too hard for these media people to grasp coherently.
by w on Feb 17, 2011 9:50 am
Shortly thereafter, the owner of a Foxhall Road estate proposed to donate the home and grounds for an official Mayor's residence. More howls of protest, that the Mayor's home shouldn't be located west of Rock Creek Park.
These arguments defy logic, but one just can't win.
by Sarah on Feb 17, 2011 9:55 am
that's just not true. or it is completely true. or only 51% true, or 49% true, or 51% false, or 49% false. or some other combination of percentages of true and/or false.
i'd argue that he was 'priced out,' even tho he is quoted as saying that was able to 'afford it.' whether his 'pricing out' was 'minor' or 'substantial' or 'near-total' is really the only thing we need to discuss on that specific matter.
like, i can afford to eat out every night (i am not 'priced out' of it), but that would make my life too much of a struggle, so i don't do it (i take my eating talents to homebeach). so, was i 'priced out', or did i 'drive till i qualified'? both. or neither. depending on who you ask.
that's my whole point -- these things don't happen in a vacuum -- they happen in the context of myriad factors -- not in 1s and 0s, but along a continuum, in this case, of push and pull. and everyone involved -- landowners, citizens old and new, local and voluntarily-moved and displaced -- can all be telling the complete truth as best they know it, and can all draw different conclusions about what happened. welcome to the real world.
whether this one particular guy was 49% 'forced out' or 49% 'drive-till-he-qualified', or 51% 'forced out' or 51% 'drive-till-he-qualified', or some other percentage combo -- is missing the point -- gentrification is happening, black people are moving out, and presumably, at least some of those people are being forced out/priced out. All we have to is decide if this is a set of circumstances that we either want to abide by or encourage or even discourage.
think of the Jerry Sloan case -- long-time coach (20++ years?) of the Utah Jazz NBA/basketball team -- he 'quits' the team the other day -- boom -- shocker -- but not that much of a shocker, really, not if you were paying attention to what was going on down/out there.
was he 'forced out', or did he 'quit'? depends who you ask. one guy says he quit -- mostly. one guy says he was forced out -- mostly.
well, who's telling the truth?
they both are!
but what does the former coach himself say? shouldn't that count for a lot, or a lot more than anyone else? maybe, maybe not. he says he quit -- or, he says, rather cryptically, "It was time."
at the end of the day does it matter if he 49% quit vs. 51% quit? not really -- all of the various actors involved in that particular drama are going to have to figure out if they're proud of the way things went down, of what ultimately happened, and if they're actually going to do anything about it -- whether to remedy the situation, or to make sure it never happens again. so, we'll see.
Anacostia, DC, and gentrification in general? we'll see.
there will be people who continue to think that racism and gentrification and force-outs don't exist. and there will be people on the other side, like me.
i think gentrification can be a complex topic, and defensiveness and ignorance from (white) people is extremely problematic -- it's like trying to have a conversation about the Idaho Stop with people who have never ridden a bike in the city -- frustrating, and they just get all red in the face and stomp off. at some point we're going to have to do a better job of educating people about what gentrification is, how it effects people, etc. -- shoot, or even convince them that it exists. that has to happen before we'll be able to have any meaningful discourse about it.
you could argue that NPR shouldn't have tackled a gentrification piece in 7 minutes, or that they should have been more careful with their wording, or that they should have used a better example of someone who would not be accused of 'drive-to-qualify', or that NPR now owes to us entitled folks a follow-up to get to the heart of the matter -- "Is gentrification real or is it just a figment of folks' imaginations?" -- but i don't think liberals/progressives/whites/anyone always need to be coddled -- sometimes a little truth and plain speech is a good thing.
Personally, I thought it was a great story. But I'm not easily offended when people talk about racism and its myriad deleterious effects. I actually really liked that the guy had all these different things pushing and tugging at him -- loyalty to/love of the City, love of his wife/respect for her happiness, the pull of greater opportunity in the 'burbs and/or the chance to escape to that great Disneyland of greenery and traffic -- Suburbia, the rapidly-rising home prices which would put ever-rising pressure on property taxes, the sense of resignation in his voice about what type of neighborhood Anacostia used to be, while at the same time hearing that tinge of regret for leaving - wondering what might have been if only he could have decided that, unlike Jerry Sloan, it was not his time to go. It was not fully spelled out for us what we were supposed to think about the situation -- it was like, here's some info -- check out the human side of this situation -- it's not black and white -- it's complicated, just like life -- are you going to do anything about it?
@Kate -- some of what you say makes sense to me, but I definitely disagree with your assertion that this was a simple case of deciding which type of cheese to take home from the supermarket -- i.e. that Mr. Adam's was presented with a choice, and he chose, so case closed. That just minimizes, if not completely discounts, the very real effects of gentrification. what would be more instructive for me is if you said something like, "Yes, gentrification is/not happening in DC and/or Anacostia, and it is/not good/bad/right/other, and Mr. Adams was/not forced out, and we should/not do anything about gentrification." So, you said some things I could agree with, but ultimately, it seems we disagree on what really matters here.
@w -- gentrification and/or racism is 'just economics' and 'cycles'? zowie.
These arguments defy logic, but one just can't win.
reminds me of Chris Rock's line -- "If white people are losing, who's winning?!" poverty/joblessness/infant mortality/police brutality/etc. -- nothing to see here -- move along.
by Peter Smith on Feb 17, 2011 10:04 am
My reading of his "couldn't afford it" statement meant that he couldn't afford to have what he wanted, in the area of the city he grew up in. With a 50k salary, I can fully understand. He couldn't afford what he "wanted" in the poorest, least educated, part of the city. So, in his view, he HAD to move.
It seems as if you all read "I can't afford it cuz the whites moved in-displacing me," which he nor the article stated. I have to agree with Peter on this. Many of you, as progressive and "untouched" by racism/bigotry as you are, really have a hard time discussing race.
@Kate, Adams feeling as if he had to move out to PG in order to afford a home with more room that didn't need fixin up while he would prefer living in DC is not objective thinking? Freely made choices can't be objective?
I think your conflating the actual story with the commentary by those implicating the article as saying something it never did.
by HogWash on Feb 17, 2011 10:06 am
Of course he couldn't afford the house he wanted in the location he wanted. Neither can I.
I read "I can't afford it cuz the whites moved in-displacing me," because that's exactly the tact that NPR took with their piece, despite the fact that it wasn't supported by any of their interviewees.
I'm not disputing how this guy feels. His feelings are his own. I am disputing how NPR presented it, since they've set this up as some inexorable economic displacement instead of the freely made choices we see in reality.
My objections to the story (not offense, but objections) stem from innaccurate reporting, not from some racial objection.
@Peter Smith
you could argue that NPR shouldn't have tackled a gentrification piece in 7 minutes, or that they should have been more careful with their wording, or that they should have used a better example of someone who would not be accused of 'drive-to-qualify'...
That's exactly what I am arguing and what I've been arguing all along.
How are you going to talk about subtlety and nuance when you can't even pick out the basic structure of my argument?
by Alex B. on Feb 17, 2011 10:18 am
But to your point, if you have a decent job and couldn't afford to purchase a home in an area that you grew up in, which happens to be the poorest, most uneducated, violent in the city and you STILL couldn't afford it, I can imagine how you could think you were being priced out. This isn't simply about you deciding that you couldn't live in Foxhall - the area you grew up in.
I think you posting the parts in the article you disagree with would be helpful. Saying that "well NPR seems like they were doing XYZ," when the transcript doesn't support it, isn't really helpful.
by HogWash on Feb 17, 2011 10:34 am
by Canaan on Feb 17, 2011 10:49 am
Here's the thing - the guy could afford to purchase a home in Anacostia. We know this because he said so. The house he bought in PG was more expensive than the one he was looking at in DC. He opted for the 'burbs because he could purchase a bigger, newer, home that required less work to fix up. This has always been true of suburbs and urban growth. He had two competing value sets to deal with - his desire for a larger home and his desire to stay in Anacostia, and they were in conflict.
He had to make a choice. We all have to make these kinds of choices. This is not unique to his situation or to Anacostia at all, nor is it really the product of gentrification.
Again, I'm sure he feels like he's been priced out, but the data does not support that conclusion. Feelings are emotions, they're not based on fact or reason many times. NPR reports on his feelings (which is fine) and then asserts that there is actual price displacement based on this story - despite a complete lack of evidence to support that conclusion.
by Alex B. on Feb 17, 2011 10:49 am
I'm not quite so persuaded by this story, but the pressure of rising rents on low-income families is not really deniable. It's very unfortunate, and the most effective way to make the housing more affordable is to allow developers to build more, say, in Kensington.
by Neil Flanagan on Feb 17, 2011 11:49 am
*Everybody* has to make that choice. Why should that guy be any different?
by lou on Feb 17, 2011 11:51 am
by Tina on Feb 17, 2011 11:54 am
I think what you guys are missing is that Anacostia is the wrong neighborhood to locate a story about DC going from chocolate to vanilla. As David G points out, most of the new residents in Anacostia and east of the river communities are black...so NPR does a disservice to its listeners by trying to make Anacostia something that its' not. That's why people are calling it lazy journalism, because anyone who knows the area knows that it's patently false that there are a large numeber of whites moving to the area. As we Washingtonians know, Shaw, Petworth, etc are the neighborhoods he should have focused on =, if he wanted to be ACCURATE. Also at issue, I think, is that the reporter, on his way to make this specious point, mangled the FACTS; and by doing so made a fool of himself. So setting aside all the other issues that people are bringing up here, the report is an F because the assertion and the location of the story is plain WRONG.
I'm out.
by Econ4 on Feb 17, 2011 12:06 pm
And this is supposed to highlight the tragedy of "displacement through gentrification"? Pardon my French, but you're fucking kidding me, right?
There are a relatively small number of working-class and poor folks who rent, and get priced out of neighborhoods they've had a stake in building. That's an inevitable tragedy of working to make places where people want to live.
As folks have pointed out above, a middle-class guy moving to a neighborhood where he can get a bigger house for less money is not illustrative of the tragedy of "displacement". It's the story of the American middle-class for over a half-century. In the light of our country's shameful history, the fact that this guy's got dark skin and can move wherever the Hell he wants should be celebrated.
by oboe on Feb 17, 2011 12:07 pm
These white folks gradually moved out of Anacostia as Navy Yard jobs died out after the closing of the mighty gun factory [ another ignored part of DC history] and the GI Bill and cheaper bigger housing became available in PG.
And let's not forget, that was *only* an option for white folks, not blacks. Which is why black folks stayed in such large numbers until the 70s, when they were able to get loans and move into previously restricted communities.
@Peter Smith:
whether this one particular guy was 49% 'forced out' or 49% 'drive-till-he-qualified', or 51% 'forced out' or 51% 'drive-till-he-qualified', or some other percentage combo -- is missing the point -- gentrification is happening, black people are moving out, and presumably, at least some of those people are being forced out/priced out. All we have to is decide if this is a set of circumstances that we either want to abide by or encourage or even discourage...
So how should we discourage this phenomenon of black folks moving where they want, based on housing stock and price? Perhaps we should bring back the "good" parts of Jim Crow?
by oboe on Feb 17, 2011 12:14 pm
a home? yes. a suitable home? no.
the guy has two kids already -- where is everyone going to sleep? the house he looked at in Anacostia had only two bedrooms, which would have already forced his kids to share a bedroom -- forget about having more kids.
would he have liked to find a bigger place, with more bedrooms, in Anacostia, for some price he could afford to house at least his existing family? yes.
could he find a house that fit that very reasonable criteria? no.
why? because he was priced out (i.e. prices rose to unattainable heights).
why did prices rise so rapidly? because he worked hard to improve his hood, and in doing so, the 'investment tipping point' happened, and fast money started rolling in (no doubt, in part, due to banks 'unblacking'/de-redlining the area) and raised prices to the point he could no longer afford a place with the minimal requirements that could house his family comfortably.
existing residents suffer during the bad years, help build the place up, which moves housing prices skyward quickly, then long-timers get kicked out right when the place finally starts to turn. white people bring their 'fast money' and turn the place upside down, without adequate measures to protect the local population. it's not right.
I also don't understand Hogwash's or Peter Smith's points.
the question is, does this guy, his family, and people like him, have a right to stay in their neighborhood? their neighborhood? a place they help nurture back to health for years, and as Jane Jacobs wrote about so eloquently, stability of population is a hugely important aspect of nurturing a community/neighborhood back to health. does this family have a right to the city?
to be African-American is to make (a lot) less money than whites/asians/latinos/etc. that means, as property taxes go up, they disproportionately affect African-Americans -- this is unfair. property taxes are an inherently regressive tax mechanism and should be replaced with a progressive tax, like an income tax. this would be a good first step towards addressing gentrification -- allowing people to work to improve their neighborhoods without real/legitimate fear that they are only signing their own eviction notices.
we know that cities are where the 'action' is these days -- namely, economic opportunity. sixty years ago, planners worked hard to boost the suburbs -- pouring untold sums of subsidies into the burbs, and intentionally or through neglect, ghetto-izing the cities, in a massive social engineering project that primarily benefited whites at the expense of blacks.
today, the exact opposite process is occurring. the question for us is, should we let them punish African-Americans again?
note today, all the talk you hear about 'cities subsidizing the suburbs' and how unfair it is. where was all that talk when only white folks lived out in the burbs?
now that white people are flooding back into the city centers, it's all, "Hey -- why are we subsidizing those poor African-Americans out in the suburbs? They chose to live out there, not us. Boom -- they didn't need that Amtrak service. Bye. Boom -- they didn't need that bus service. Bye."
This is part of why we need walk and bike infrastructure everywhere, including and especially the suburbs -- that's where the poorest people are getting shoved -- they're going to be desperately poor, and desperately dependent on once-an-hour bus service, only they'll be living in far-flung places, so transit service for them will be even more miserable than anyone currently has it in the city, if that's even possible to fathom. We have to plan for racism not going away -- we have to plan for the worst, and hope for the best -- so we need to work to allow people to get around under their own power -- we can't continue to work so hard to screw the poor.
That's an inevitable tragedy of working to make places where people want to live.
No, it's not inevitable.
by Peter Smith on Feb 17, 2011 12:40 pm
Yes, pressures on rising rents are indeed a potential problem.
It's disappointing that NPR then showed no evidence of rising rents or of renters being forced out of the city. That's the fundamental problem with this piece - their data do not support their conclusions.
by Alex B. on Feb 17, 2011 12:40 pm
Nonetheless, it took me all of 5 seconds to have Google/Trulia tell me that the 'Median Sales Price' of a home in 'Historic Anacostia' increased 70.9% in the last year.
by Peter Smith on Feb 17, 2011 12:51 pm
by Alex B. on Feb 17, 2011 1:02 pm
Of course he does. Or to choose to leave if he likes. What are you proposing? That we give him subsidies to move out of his three bedroom house into a five bedroom house and make up the difference? What if he wants to have a few more kids? Should we finance an addition for him?
...to be African-American is to make (a lot) less money than whites/asians/latinos/etc...
I'm not sure whether to feel offended or amused about Peter Smith's comments.
@HogWash, help a brother out! :)
by oboe on Feb 17, 2011 1:03 pm
I'm sure he's not the only one of any race to be able to do that, I definitely can't afford to buy what my parents bought in my hometown for the price they paid (a rural place rapidly becoming exurban).
Regardless, rising property taxes aren't an issue for this gentleman because he's a new buyer. Even if there wasn't property taxes at all that doesn't mean that the houses may be worth more.
by Canaan on Feb 17, 2011 1:22 pm
No, it's not inevitable.
Oh, and yes...it is inevitable. We can implement policies that mitigate the problem, but even with "affordable housing" set asides (even if those set-asides amount to 1005 of replacement), there will be displacement. That's because "gentrification" changes the commercial nature of neighborhoods as well as the residential nature. Folks move out because all the "good" stores and restaurants moved out of the neighborhood just as much as they do because they couldn't afford rent.
What's your solution to that?
by oboe on Feb 17, 2011 1:23 pm
by oboe on Feb 17, 2011 1:25 pm
So you don't believe that the city is becoming less black and more vanilla? Ok fine. The actual facts suggests otherwise.
@Alex, yes this happens everywhere. But the story is about here in DC. Why are you all so against hearing about what's happening in Anacostia - regardless of what happens everywhere else. It's like you want to downplay the story because you didn't like the "perceived" angle in which it was written.
@Econ "I think what you guys are missing is that Anacostia is the wrong neighborhood to locate a story about DC going from chocolate to vanilla. As David G points out, most of the new residents in Anacostia and east of the river communities are black...so NPR does a disservice to its listeners by trying to make Anacostia something that its' not.
And hey, you also missed an important point. The article never says that ANACOSTIA is going from chocolate to vanilla. What is does say is that DC is going from choco to vani. The subsequent commentary has concluded that NPR posited this about Anacostia and it's simply NOT true. As I said earlier, it never mentions the word displacement and the only mention of "gentrification" comes from a white entreprenuer. Those are the facts in the article.
@Oboe, And this is supposed to highlight the tragedy of "displacement through gentrification"? Pardon my French, but you're fucking kidding me, right?
Fucking kidding you? Of course not. You're kidding yourself. In fact, many of your otherwise smart GGW readers conveniently placed things in the article that never was. "Displacement through gentrification." And the actual mention of the word came from where? This website.
Further discussion about how people are displaced through gentrification comes from where? This website.
You can attempt it all you want. But at this point, you are only interested in proving me wrong when (again) the facts suggests otherwise. You can "infer" all you like, but the words in the article speak for itself.
NOTHING in it talks about displacement NOR Anacostia becoming less black and more vanilla. That's you and everyone here who supports your complete ignorance of the FACTS, problem.
by HogWash on Feb 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Whites and Asians..different story.
by HogWash on Feb 17, 2011 1:42 pm
Fair enough; let's go to the tape:
"Before I moved out I can tell you when the first family — the first white family — moved back. "It was like a buzz, like 'I told you they was coming back.'" Adams says he likes diversity, and wants to see it, "but at what expense?"
If it means people like him can't afford to stay in their old neighborhood, that bothers him, he says. In Prince Georges County, where he lives now, the black population has grown 11 percent in the last decade.
So, yes, the claim *is* that folks like Adams "can't afford to stay in their old neighborhood". And it's patently obvious that that's untrue. Or at least, it's just as true to say that I can't afford to stay in my neighborhood--if I decide I want a 5000 square foot house on a big lot.
If it weren't for all these pink yup-yups driving up the price of real estate--in fact, if only my neighborhood were depopulated and littered with shells of abandoned homes--I could easily build my dream house here!
Anyway, most commenters were responding to Peter Smith's caricature of an anti-gentrification polemic, as opposed to the NPR piece.
by oboe on Feb 17, 2011 1:52 pm
by Canaan on Feb 17, 2011 2:22 pm
by wdc on Feb 17, 2011 2:50 pm
you gotta be kidding me. this was funny. :-D
What's your solution to that?
i've already offered what i believe would be a boon to society as a whole, not just the least well-off -- start taxing the rich again (income taxes), and stop relying on property taxes -- simple. what else? allow people to walk and bike everywhere -- simple. just those two simple steps alone would produce wonders. the rest we can figure out as we go.
on property taxes -- wow -- i really thought they were like 6 and 7% per year -- boy was i wrong. i mean, for residential property, DC's is like less than a percent (it seems). that's crazy. i had a _complete_ misconception about property taxes -- i still don't get how i could have been so mislead about that for so long. did something just drastically change in the last couple/few years? like, this Republican governor sweep just cut every state's property tax in half or something?? it seems like the average property tax rate is 1% or less, and none are above 2%. dude -- i need to get into the slumlord business!
i guess the property tax scene is still a disaster, tho -- school-wise.
Oh and Peter, I don't think we're behind latino's in wage earnings.
you're right! I'm wrong. darn. my bad. i guess i extrapolated from the 'household income' numbers, which i thought were a good-enough proxy for personal income -- guess not!
so, the highest-to-lowest earners, goes something like asians, whites, blacks, hispanics -- with asians and whites pretty far separated from blacks and hispanics.
household incomes put hispanics before blacks.
I'm not sure whether to feel offended or amused about Peter Smith's comments.
see @oboe? no need to feel offended or amused -- you can join in on a conversation of reality, no matter how offensive or amusing you may find that reality to be. :)
most demographic changes in DC neighborhoods aren't a result of displacement because our government already acted progressively to prevent it.
exactly what i was thinking -- in fact, most demographic changes in DC nabes are a result of....???
hey, i'm willing to believe that folks aren't being forced out, but i'm gonna need a little bit more than "the government acted [aggressively?] to prevent it" -- so therefore it must not be happening, right?
i mean, the federal government acted aggressively to stop terrorism (allegedly), yet it's increasing. the federal government acted aggressively to stop forceclosures (allegedly), yet they're increasing. etc.
_if_ the DC government acted progressively/aggressively/whatever-ly, then maybe they didn't act whatever-ly enough? black people are disappearing from DC, and either gentrification doesn't exist, or the nature of this exodus from DC is different from that of every other city in America where the same process has been going on, so what is the reason blacks are jetting DC? inquiring minds want to know.
by Peter Smith on Feb 17, 2011 4:10 pm
There's so many other factors that go into this, but the bottom line is that we each suffer the human condition, irrespective of all else. Since one of the things that makes us all unique is that no two people ever have the same set of choices presented to them in their lifetimes, we must be careful not to generalize others' thoughts, and not attempt to marginalize their rationale.
by C. R. on Feb 17, 2011 4:48 pm
I think one of the problems, Peter, is that you're extrapolating wherever it is that you're familiar with to DC. As numerous commenters have pointed out to you, there's the Homestead Exemption, and the senior citizen's tax break. The number of folks who are being forced out of their homes by the Big Bad Taxman may be substantial wherever it is that you're living. Here it's non-existent. Rent control is also very, very strong here.
Pretty much the only way to displace a renter who wants to stay is to convert your apartment to condominiums, and even then tenants are supposed to have right of first refusal to buy the building...
DC is not Dallas, or Portland, or Sacramento, or wherever.
by oboe on Feb 17, 2011 5:12 pm
possible. i lived in downtown DC (11th and Mass) for a couple of years (place was gentrifying like crazy, still, at the time), and in Reston for a few months, and worked in Bethesda, and Crystal City, and Reston, and...
[come to think of it, i've lived in gentrifying Brooklyn/NY, gentrifying Tenderloin/SF, gentrifying Mission/SF, etc. it all works the same.]
right now i live in downtown San Jose. i'm one of the few. there are a few new high-rise luxury condos that the developers managed to get exempted from inclusionary -- they've sat empty for a couple of years and are now being converted to rentals.
some folks believe downtown SJ is 'coming back'. my pov? not so much, or maybe just a little. pov of almost everyone i know and meet? "ghetto. hate it." it'll gentrify eventually, tho, b/c the baby boomers are done building their wealth, and now they want a convenient/easy lifestyle, and they're gonna do it on the backs of poor people, so the poor people need to be cleared out of downtown.
As numerous commenters have pointed out to you, there's the Homestead Exemption, and the senior citizen's tax break.
i've known about these for at least several months, since the first time they were pointed out for me. i still don't like that you have to apply for at least one of them - they're probably better for homeowners than for renters.
The number of folks who are being forced out of their homes by the Big Bad Taxman may be substantial wherever it is that you're living. Here it's non-existent. Rent control is also very, very strong here.
i've no idea if or how many folks are being forced out by taxes - in DC or elsewhere (keeping in mind that renters just pay higher rents, not land/housing property taxes directly), but i know the black population of SF (and, apparently, DC) has been disappearing for years now. SF has strong rent control and landlord controls, too, allegedly, and that means they're not completely meaningless, but laws are laws, economics are economics, and reality is reality - i.e., there are myriad ways to get rid of 'undesirables'.
SF, like NYC, Toronto, DC, and other places, is gentrifying and becoming more boring. i honestly don't know what the end-game is. i'm guessing probably a continuing shift to smaller-town living on the edges of the city, for non-professionals, more sustainable living, with affordable small-town environs able to support art scenes and smaller rental budgets, etc., until they, too, are gentrified. once the small/satellite towns are gone, then i don't know what happens. maybe some kind of equilibrium is reached where most city centers become sterile/homogeneous, but that then enables a Portland-type creativity to take hold? maybe some Paris-style rioting by unemployed teens? that's basically what DC has right now -- except all the rioting is happening on the Metro. i guess it's easier to move minorities to the outskirts of the city rather than actually address inequality.
i read a few of the blog posts regarding the NPR piece and they're weird, and ridiculous, a bit entertaining, and sad. and it seems very typical, i guess. typical of a certain kind of person or personality. some people think that by not telling the truth about their town, good things will somehow happen. like, life should be a constant PR campaign or something.
for instance, out here, Oakland (just across the Bay from SF, where broke people go to live) is a disaster, and it shows no signs of hope. it's still a super-cool town, but it's got serious problems. every time you think it might start to turn -- boom -- daylight rapes, gang rapes, murders, sexual assaults, robberies, etc.
many/most of the 'booster' bloggers over there sincerely believe that everyone who lives in SF, including everyone who writes for the major SF newspaper, the SF Chronicle, actively slant their coverage to make Oakland look bad. so, whenever the SF Chronicle writes a very common-sensical article about Oakland, Oakland cheerleaders blow. up. -- they really just lose their minds -- they can't handle it -- they get all irrational and talk about conspiracy theories and all sorts of wild stuff.
and if you try to explain to them that daylight gang rape in the middle of downtown on a weekday is not normal, they don't want to hear it -- they think you're affiliated with the SF Tourism & Convention Bureau (b/c, it seems, Oaklanders would like to believe that Oakland competes with SF for tourism dollars). really.
that's how i read this reaction from many of the critics of this NPR piece -- just uninterested in anything but acting outraged at the outrage. because to talk about gentrification/displacement in DC and/or Anacostia is to call all the former, current, and future residents of the town/area monsters. or something. and such.
by Peter Smith on Feb 17, 2011 6:56 pm
by Alex B. on Feb 17, 2011 8:07 pm
I also know what it took to get a neighbor who violated her lease in just about every way possible and threatened her neighbors evicted. It was a multi-year process that ended in a jury trial.
by Kate on Feb 17, 2011 11:03 pm
said the guy whose 'media criticism' consists of lambasting an article about "gentrification" and folks being "priced out" for not talking more about prices. that is totally awesome.
it's like, NPR and all these other outlets should include totally meaningless/extraneous numbers in their stories because otherwise, when white people are offended that someone said the word 'gentrification', or when neighborhood advocates/cheerleaders/boosters hear that their town is not perfect, those people are going to attack the veracity of the story, and so the story needs to spend extra time/money/effort/space boring most everyone with facts that we already know -- all in the service of the 'fee fees' of privileged people who will attack the veracity of the story regardless of how much effort is poured into citing commonly known and available facts and figures which are not central to the story.
if you truly don't believe that gentrification happens, or that people get forced out, or whatever -- just say it. don't complain about how the story didn't mention inflation or the heavy snowfall this year or the myriad other meaningless nitpicks that have nothing to do with the story -- we're never gonna get anywhere if people aren't honest about what they think is really going on. i am. i take a lot of heat for it too, but i'd rather we put it all on the table and sort it out instead of just pretend that this massive disconnect on one of the most important aspects of urban planning doesn't really exist.
it never ceases to amaze me when folks will just dig in and fight until the bitter end instead of just fessing up and saying, "Yeah - you know what - what I said was wrong/stupid - brain fart - maybe i'm tired - I have no idea."
or, people will simply refuse to say what's on their mind, because it's not politically correct. it's the internet -- you can go pseudo-anonymous if you need to! you don't have to be a jerk about it when you say something that could be considered 'off' or as going against conventional wisdom, but we need a little more honest discussion -- this 'shoot the messenger' stuff is not helpful. it all reminds me of 'the weather problem' criticism that JHK got -- let's talk about anything except that which actually matters.
it's ok to make a mistake. vanity is boring.
I also know what it took to get a neighbor who violated her lease in just about every way possible and threatened her neighbors evicted. It was a multi-year process that ended in a jury trial.
that's sounds a lot like the Mickey D's coffee case -- this lawsuit was frivolous (allegedly), so most/all lawsuits are frivolous. similarly, this one person was tough to evict, so therefore we can ignore the fact that black folks are leaving DC in droves.
so let's build a new hypothesis then. i have mine -- it goes something like this -- "Gentrification -- it works!" -- that's why blacks are leaving DC -- i.e. they are being forced out/displaced through any number of means -- not every single one of them, but many/most of them.
but you and others obviously disagree -- so, what's your theory? what is anyone's theory who doesn't buy into gentrification/displacement?
did black folks in DC just decide to be generous and leave it to the white folks? or are blacks actually streaming into DC and/or Anacostia, and the Census people and NPR reporters are really just engaging in a conspiracy to misreport/lie about what's "really going on" there, maybe for the purposes of making Anacostia and/or DC look bad for the purposes of....'[insert reasoning here]'? Or, maybe blacks are just 'profit-taking' -- selling their homes for the extra cash and moving out to the suburbs? or, maybe they're all 'driving-till-they-qualify'? or, maybe blacks, seeing the area changing, just aren't interested in living in a mixed-race area, or what will soon be a all-white area, or a gentrified/upscale/sterile/whatever area, or in a safe, clean, crime-free, walkable and bikeable area with lots of economic opportunity and great schools? or maybe this whole topic, whether true or untrue, is just boring and not really worth talking about? or maybe, as one 'critical' blog put it, the NPR piece wasn't doing its journalistic duty because it failed to show Anacostia/DC in an appropriately-positive light? [That gave me a good chuckle, too.]
i'm just asking the question, since i tend to believe that there are actors and policies that actively shape our world -- things don't just happen, passively.
i was just struck by a parallel -- white folks don't like to talk about racism ('gentrification'), and rich folks don't like to talk about classism ('class warfare'). there's a reason for that.
by Peter Smith on Feb 18, 2011 3:05 am
He didn't want to spend a few extra bucks to buy some new appliances. boo hoo to him.
I wish I would have bought a bunch of .com stocks in 1999 and sold then spring of 2000 and cashed in royally. boo hoo for me, I didn't do that.
Maybe Adams should consider a new career that pays more so he can afford more. Maybe Adams is an entitled American that feels he should be able to get whatever he wants whenever he wants. boo hoo to him, life doesn't work that way.
Maybe Adams should be happy where he now lives as he has more room and a higher mortgage. His wife is happy as she didn't like Anacostia. Boo hoo to him for marrying a lady that didn't like his 'home town'.
Such is life, Adams made decisions. He wanted to better the community years back, but didn't invest in property.
I have no sympathy for this guy. He made his decisions in life.
I don't feel sorry for the thug chumps that find themselves displaced in my neighborhood.
Everyone has to find something to blame for the unfair moments of life. Blame the whites or middle class for buying a shell of a property in a downtrodden neighborhood in which half of the homes were going to be bulldozed in 10-20 years if the community stayed the same Take ownership for your own life and quit making excuses. Sounds to me like living a life of constant regrets... what a terrible way to live...but have fun chumps.
by LDP Bloomingdale on Feb 18, 2011 11:37 am
Sometimes I wish I still had a hundredth of your capacity for outrage.
i was just struck by a parallel -- white folks don't like to talk about racism ('gentrification'), and rich folks don't like to talk about classism ('class warfare'). there's a reason for that.
Actually, I think it's important to talk about both--but not to over-apply the terms. Otherwise, we risk diluting them.
Anyway, at the risk of being glib, it seems like lots of white folks lover to talk about gentrification. I don't know any rich folks, but from what I saw of the CPAC conference and various Fox News talking heads, they seem to like to talk about class warfare as well.
by oboe on Feb 18, 2011 1:01 pm
We certainly have not progressed in all those years. Fact remains that, as long as we continue to allow folks to prosper from the perpetuation of this mentality, we wiil stay stuck in this state of mind like puppets. Look at how we got played on the Iraqi war, like lambs to slaughter and, it was a lie. Problem is that it's hard to get sheep to realize they're being herded. If you truely remember the powder keg this town was in the 60's, then you have to know that we have got to learn to live and effectively communicate (with) one another.
by 4Therecord on Feb 18, 2011 11:33 pm
Actually I wouldn't say most of UDC's students live near St Elizabeth.
I took some classes there a few years ago for leisure and we had to do a survey of the students and where they resided; this was for a geography class and was around the time when the idea of moving to St. Elizabeth came up.
Most lived in Wards 5, 6 & 7 while the others mostly lived in Ward 1, 8, PG County, Charles County and Montgomery County. There were a few that lived in Northern Virginia and other parts of DC & Maryland. There was a surprising amount of people who lived in PG and Charles County that went there.
Most of the Maryland residents were scattered all of the three counties; the places I can remember are Accokeek, Beltsville, Bladensburg, Brandywine, Capitol Heights, Chevy Chase, Clinton, Greenbelt, Hyattsville, La Plata, Landover, Lanham, Largo, Oxon Hill, Rockville, Silver Spring, St Charles, Suitland, Waldorf and White Oak.
Most decided to attend because of the price, majors offered (mortuary science was listed alot), convenience (to home, work, friends or family) and the consortium
by kk on Feb 19, 2011 2:01 pm
by 4Therecord on Feb 19, 2011 6:24 pm
somehow, i doubt Mr. Adams was made aware of this fact.
by Peter Smith on Feb 20, 2011 9:13 am
Thank you!!!! I am so glad that I am not the only one who sees this. When gas prices hit $4.47 a gallon, when the only legitimate development ONLY takes place near walkable, bikeable, multimodal transportation-centered locations, when the next economic recesion (related to travel, not just transportation hits because of the psychological side effects we see happening all around the Middle East, and because of the unrelated growing demand in emerging countries like China and India) hits us equally as hard as the one a few years ago...when it all comes to a head, once the smoke clears...only those who are living near the aforementioned transit areas will be larglely unscathed. The same will not be said for those who do not. This isn't just a wake-up call.
Such a confluence of events (such as those happening right now) can only mean a fundamenetal lifestyle change (and ensuant paradigm shift like the one we're currently undergoing) will get everyone to realize how much of a mistake it was to disconnect people from the most effieient uses of land.
Right now, even though Peak Oil has not hit, it's coming...soon. We all recognize it, and we are attempting to mitigate its horrible coming effects, but the fact of the matter is: no matter how much we do in anticipation of Peak Oil, far too many people will be unaware of it before it hits, and its effects will (with respect to those who died because of it) have the same as an atom bomb, in that it will wipe us out economically. I feel so sorry for the people who are largely unaware because so many have had no say or no hand in creating this mess (Suburbia), and amny have simply been forced to inure this, having been told to believe that such a way of life is sustainable despite all signs pointing to the contrary.
We have the greedy oil, road, and related lobbyists to blame for this, but blame will not alleviate the sheer levels of outright misery that will come to pass. To me, this is why profligate boondoggles such as the ICC are cause for concern, and with planned projects like the Waldorf Bypass, Techway, and Manassas Bypass, we all have a cognizant understanding that greed is immense and never ending among those who champion the deleterious effects of building more roads. Though this provides some level of relief (but not much), developers are largely shying away from building single family developments along the ICC becuase of the huge pro-transit contingent in the Montgomery and Prince George's County Councils and Executives offices.
I can say that we are truly blessed that we have so much transit in this area. Before I was made aware of how important it is to use land effectively and efficiently, I thought that all re-investment was the same. Now that others are catching on and have started to act on this realization (largely because of market demand) none (yes, none) of the areas near ANY Metro station (and perhaps any of the planned light rail stations) will ever be vacant. Ever. This is quite an expensive lesson to have to learn, but the fact that, in this area, 60% of all new houses built were apartments and condominiums, and the price of single family houses is STILL depreciating to this very day, means that we are starting to learn our lesson, albeit the hard way.
Thank you to everyone who posts on here who recognizes the true value of transit, and for making your voice heard. Though our job of ensuring that everyone recognizes the true value in transit as we have is not finished, we must continue onward until it is.
by C. R. on Feb 20, 2011 10:13 am
@Oboe, Oh Really? Well since you want to ignore the obvious, in jest I'll (by your statement) reasonably conclude that you're saying the less black people in DC the larger the middle class will be?
Yes. It's an indictment of our country's shitty racist history, but yes, if DC's poor people are displaced by middle-class people, that means the black population of DC goes down. Is that even debatable?
The population of middle-class Washington will still be considerably more diverse than middle-class America, though.
by oboe on Feb 21, 2011 10:09 am
Of course not. The entirety of the US economy is founded on the perpetuation of the fantasy. The growth of DC's middle class over the last decade or so has consisted primarily of the few folks who can read the writing on the wall, and are "shorting" the suburbs.
I often talk to old-timers in my neighborhood who find it *inconceivable* that these dumb white folks are moving into the hood, buying *tiny* *ancient* houses for ridiculous amounts of money when you can get a giant beautiful new house twenty miles out Penn Ave.
As a quasi-"doomer", you feel a bit like someone running inland after hearing about an impending tsunami, and passing a bunch of folks coming the other direction laughing at you because you're going the wrong way.
"Run for your lives!!!"
"Hey! The beach is that way, ya big dummy!"
by oboe on Feb 21, 2011 10:15 am
by SJE on Feb 21, 2011 5:04 pm
Add a Comment