Demographics
GGW discusses: Displacement versus gentrification
Yesterday, Erik Weber, David Garber, and Eric Fidler reacted to the NPR story about two people who chose not to live in Anacostia. In our discussion, other contributors had some broader thoughts about displacement, gentrification, and the difference between the two.
Photo by sebat85 on Flickr.
Alex Baca writes:
There is no stable definition of gentrification. Ask anyone One thing common to many definitions of gentrification, both in academic and popular discourse, is that it often becomes a synonym, or at the very least a signifier, for the process of displacement.2
Gentrification and displacement aren't the same and should not be inextricably linked as frequently as they are, because it is possible for a neighborhood to "gentrify" without substantially displacing its long-term residents. Part of this thought is drawn from the fact that there is little quantitative work or research done on displacement.3
There are no exit surveys when one sells their house or ends their lease, so there is no real way of telling precisely why someone has left, and whether or not they left against their will. Say a son or daughter of a home's original owner, who has since passed away, sells the property because they aren't personally interested in it or, say an apartment complex is bought, developed into condos, and sold at prices far out of the range of the inital residents.
Both scenarios look like displacement once they're said and done, but they are wildly different. So, discussions of displacement, and whatever's causing it, inevitably become based on our personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, because we've got nothing else to work with.
Gentrification has also come to imply long-term, poor African Americans kicked out of their neighborhood by unsympathetic, middle-class whites. If you, as I do, consider gentrification a class-based, rather than race-based, process (it is, after all, about who can afford the mortgage), then this trope loses some of its steam.
Veronica Davis says:
Somehow somewhere, gentrification has become a code for "young, middle-class white people" moving into the a poor, black neighborhoods. In my examination of "Gentrification East of the River, I explored how it is disingenuous to discuss the concept of "gentrification" without acknowledging that people move in and our of a community for many reasons and based on personal preferences.
There have been articles on the influx of white residents in DC and the impact on neighborhood demographics. In my Hillcrest sub-neighborhood of Fairfax Village, most of the new residents are young, professional and black. Neighborhoods in Ward 7's Southeast have seen an increase in young, white families moving into the single family homes. Some of them relocated from other parts of the city in search of a larger house and a lawn.
It's important to point out in these middle class neighborhoods, many white families didn't leave during the era of "white flight" to the suburbs. Is a white middle class family purchasing from a black middle class family "gentrification"? Or is it just a family making a decision to sell and another family making a decision to buy?
If the academics can't agree, no wonder common discourse has trouble with consistency, too! I find that the best way to address gentrification is to assume everyone has their own, intensely personal, definition of what it is and how it works.
2 The exceptions on the academic side are Alexander von Hoffman and Lance Freeman.
3 Lance Freeman's There Goes the 'Hood is the only example I know of. In it, Freeman finds that long-term residents of a micro-area of Harlem have chosen to stay in their neighborhood, rather than leave, because the amenities they've waited for finally began to arrive when the neighborhood "gentrified." 
Alex Baca holds B.A. degrees in English and American Studies from the University of Maryland, College Park, and is currently pursuing a Master of Historic Preservation at the same institution. She works for Washington City Paper, but views here are her own. She lives near the U Street corridor and occasionally blogs at Good Hope. 
Veronica O. Davis, PE, has over 9 years of experience in planning transportation, urban areas, civil infrastructure, and communities. She co-owns Nspiregreen, LLC, an environmental consulting company in DC. She is also the co-founder of Black Women Bike DC, which strives to increase the number of Black women and girls biking for fun, health, wellness, and transportation.
Comments
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
by Canaan on Feb 17, 2011 2:41 pm • link • report
Think this phrase will ever gain the cultural cache of that other similar sounding phrase? ;-)
by Tina on Feb 17, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report
by Tina on Feb 17, 2011 3:33 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Feb 17, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report
by charlie on Feb 17, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report
by Marian Berry on Feb 17, 2011 3:52 pm • link • report
by charlie on Feb 17, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report
Me - "We'll be happy to take back any specific issues you are really concerned about to the campaign for a return call!"
Her - "I'm very, very concerned about this whole gentrification thing. It's just terrible. People being priced out of their homes? Awful!"
(blink)
(blink)
(Looks back over shoulder of woman at workers doing full, expensive gut and remodel)
Me - "So, uh...looks like you just moved in! How do you like it?"
Her - "Yeah, just a few weeks ago. It's great!"
Me - "Glad you like it! Well, we'll take your concerns to the candidate."
Her - "Thanks! I really want to vote for someone who will do something about the problem of gentrification. It's just so bad what is happening to people!"
True story.
by John on Feb 17, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
by Tina on Feb 17, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report
I doubt it.
Every since I've heard of the term, it has always referred to when whites move into black neighborhoods. This was especially true after I moved here to DC.
While I understand that it rattles people, let's please not try to act as if the term gentrification was taken out the crack of our asses, especially when news story after news story after news story covers the subject in the same way.
After Clinton dropped his load in Harlem, do you recall reading stories of blacks gentrifying the area? Whether we actually did or not, do you remember news outlets covering the story as such? Of course you don't.
So the term didn't rise from the ashes of the black community. That much, I know for sure. :)
by HogWash on Feb 17, 2011 5:22 pm • link • report
I'd argue that more mixing of races is a good thing, as it helps each side to learn from and appreciate other perspectives. If you are white and you have black neighbors, its harder to see all black people as "other" and can see their perspective better. Having some money being brought into a neighborhood brings with it more local jobs, shopping, and some additional connections, both of which are lacking in poor neighborhoods (of whatever color).
by SJE on Feb 17, 2011 5:29 pm • link • report
The word gentrification comes from England, where the 'gentry' were moving into lower class urban neighborhoods. It had nothing to do with race. Gentry refers to economic class. It's not even an American term, really.
by Alex B. on Feb 17, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report
by John on Feb 17, 2011 5:46 pm • link • report
Yes, because in America there is absolutely no link between race and economic class, and if there is, it's purely coincidental.
The intersection of gentrification and race is blind spot for Urbanists in general and GGW in particular. I'm not sure whether we could, or should, do anything about white residents replacing black residents in certain neighborhoods, but we shouldn't pretend the problem doesn't exist.
by mw on Feb 17, 2011 5:50 pm • link • report
Alexander von Hoffman and Lance Freeman discuss this class-before-race characteristic much more ably than I do, which is why I cited their books. They also discuss race. As you note, the two are correlated, and it's rare in D.C. to discuss one without the other--for obvious, and good, reasons. However, in neighborhoods elsewhere, it's extremely evident that gentrification is class-based. Japonica Brown-Saracinon explores this in her book "A Neighborhood That Never Changes," which discusses communities in Illinois and New England.
by alexbaca on Feb 17, 2011 6:45 pm • link • report
Thanks for the response. I guess it comes down to whether you see the connection of race and class as a mere correlation or the product of our country's awful history of racial conflict. Given that history, I'm bothered by what's going on here in DC, even if there are cases of pure class gentrification in other parts of the country.
To be fair, I know that in prior posts you have floated some ideas about ameliorating (sp?) the displacement effects of gentrification. In addition to those ideas, I would like to see urbanists try to undue policies that inflate home prices, which fuel both displacement and suburbia. For example, the mortgage interest deduction helps some upper middle class buyers overbid for urban housing and and helps other upper middle class buyers purchase McMansions outside of the urban core. Meanwhile, the deduction does almost nothing for those with lower incomes because they don't pay much in income tax.
by mw on Feb 17, 2011 8:49 pm • link • report
Racial relations are by no means perfect, but we need to keep in mind the fact that as human beings, we have a tribal nature, so the present amount of movement across racial boundaries in my humble opinion, is nothing short of miraculous. Focusing on the positive is not being pollyanaish if one keeps the overall arc of human history in mind.
by Thayer-D on Feb 18, 2011 6:42 am • link • report
by MattF on Feb 18, 2011 8:21 am • link • report
Too much, IMO, is made of this "issue" which is really about cities and places changing every so-often.
Again- where was the hue and cry when the Appalachians left Anacostia and southern Blacks moved in? No one paid any attention at all because both groups were basically poor or working class and the outsider NW DC oriented media people never went east of the Capitol building for any reason at all in the early 1960's.
Gentrification is merely a propaganda tool employed by those who do not want any change at all. Change is part of the human condition and it will happen as long as a city is healthy and vibrant ,like DC is. We should be happy about new investment.
There are other more important issues than "gentrification"- such as the destruction of the urban fabric- I consider displacement of local retail and the monotonous rehabbing of mixed use buildings into total residential to be more destructive- there are now entire parts of DC with NO local retail- and every neighborhood in DC once had it. We need to recover the old mom & pop stores and prohibit rehabs where a building is made into just a house- and allow buildings that once housed stores to go back to historic mixed use. This will keep tax money and shoppers in the city and bring back vitality and get people out of cars.
by w on Feb 18, 2011 9:00 am • link • report
It sucks. It makes researching this stuff really difficult, and it makes talking about it really hard. I don't like that everything has to be anecdotal, either,
by alexbaca on Feb 18, 2011 9:11 am • link • report
by alexbaca on Feb 18, 2011 9:12 am • link • report
That said, I find finance and real estate really, really complicated. I know "I've always struggled with math" isn't an excuse, but if I were to speculate, I think that's one of the reasons urbanists don't always address financial/fiscal policy as related to growth and development. That's something I'd like to change and something I'm working to better educate myself on.
by alexbaca on Feb 18, 2011 9:18 am • link • report
1) Issue 1 is a generational issue from the aging baby boomers. Many of them are older, crotchety and don't like any change in their neighborhood. They have a deep an largely unfounded "ownership" of DC as 'theirs' because they survived the bad times. However, go to any old people's neighborhood and they say the same thing. The difference is no one makes money off of writing articles about this type of stuff unless you can link it to race and victim-hood which are best sellers.
2) Issue 2 younger people complaining that they can't move into their parent's neighborhood. It's pretty universal in almost any modern society. Almost no one can move into their parent's neighborhood at any socioeconomic level. The kids who grew up in the near-in suburbs now have to live in the far away suburbs too. Blah, blah blah. It's not really a problem, it's just different.
The long and the short of it, is no one's really being deprived of anything that their 'entitled' to. It makes for best selling books and good copy as an outlet for frustrations about not being as rich as you want to be, but then that's what makes people reach for more and what makes America work as a nation.
by eb on Feb 18, 2011 9:25 am • link • report
I was recently riding the METRO red line, and as the train passed the new Harris Teeter in NoMA, and older black couple started scoffing. Basically they said something to the affect of 'This new Harris Teeter is ridiculous - we gotta have nice new shit like this so the new white people have a place to shop'
I chalked this one up to ignorance, but I'm new to DC so I'm just wondering if this is a common attitude. I know there are a lot of neighborhoods that are 'gentrifying' or have yet to be 'gentrified' that lack grocery stores - and I would think a large new grocery store with quality food would be looked upon as a good thing, not a bad thing. Maybe the new Harris Teeter to them just symbolized things to come, like the g-word?
by Scooter on Feb 18, 2011 10:34 am • link • report
by Hattie on Feb 18, 2011 11:22 am • link • report
by dc denizen on Feb 18, 2011 11:25 am • link • report
Now for urbanists, the end goal is healthy cities--which means cities with a diverse socio-economic and racial profile. That is exactly what's happening in DC. The idea that DC is the Chocolate City, and that 70% black--but more importantly, a much, much, much greater level of poverty than the surrounding jurisdictions--is a *good* thing is something that needs to change. Especially as the black middle class makes the decision to trade their bungalows for 5 bedroom houses in the exurbs.
The problem of the 80s and 90s was that DC was a Chocolate City in which the black bourgeoisie no longer wanted to live. So we had, in large part, unmitigated poverty.
by oboe on Feb 18, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
by Scooter on Feb 18, 2011 12:28 pm • link • report
by John on Feb 18, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report
by dc denizen on Feb 18, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report
Now for urbanists, the end goal is healthy cities--which means cities with a diverse socio-economic and racial profile. That is exactly what's happening in DC. The idea that DC is the Chocolate City, and that 70% black--but more importantly, a much, much, much greater level of poverty than the surrounding jurisdictions--is a *good* thing is something that needs to change. Especially as the black middle class makes the decision to trade their bungalows for 5 bedroom houses in the exurbs."
it is nice to read it when you are not making fun of or ridiculing other commentors- you can sometimes make some very good contributions oboe.
by w on Feb 18, 2011 1:04 pm • link • report
[ i.e.- the Mount Pleasant riots of the early 90's]
...which seems to be rather overt and sometimes violent. Hopefully this thugish mentality will change. I would like to see some of the folks who so routinely get homes out in Centerville and Rockville make their homes in the city- and for the city government to not insult these people but to welcome them. DC was, up until WW2, a multi ethnic city and was much like other US cities in that new immigrants moved to the city and not to the exurbs where a lot of their contributions are watered down by that crummy lack of community and car-oriented lifestyle.
These people have a lot to offer and should be welcomed- and the city should do something to try to attract heritage ethnic groups like the Chinese,Greeks and Germans who once were so common in DC's neighborhoods.
by w on Feb 18, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report
What offends some people's sensibilities is that poor and often black people are being the ones pushed out when other people move in. This wouldn't be an issue if the US had less income inequality and if educational attainment was similar between races and sexes.
Instead of spending time wondering how we can better educate more Americans and how we can have a society with less income inequality, we have too many people talking about fancy grocery stores or where people with college degrees should or should not live.
People who talk about gentrification as some big, bad bogey man are completely missing the real story. And I just don't get why people can't think bigger. What many people call gentrification is very good on many levels.
Having more socio-economic classes and races moving into an area is a good thing. It's good for the future of America. It's good for America right now.
Gentrification provides that. It also provides reinvestment in urban cores that offer a more environmentally friendly and healthier way to live. People are also happier in walkable, urban areas.
So, the real debate should not be about gentrification, but rather about education and income inequality. There is nothing that local politicians can really do about income inequality on a macro level, but there is a lot that local politicians and communities can do about education.
Fix the DC schools. Every child in America should go to a good school and have the opportunity for a good education. Let's stop wasting our time talking about gentrification and start talking about ways to fix real issues.
by Patrick Thornton on Feb 18, 2011 1:23 pm • link • report
Many ethnic groups- even those w/o traditions of education- have produced stellar scientists, artists, writers, captains of industry, etc...making excuses and playing the victim or the race card should be seen as backwards and as a way to shake dwon the system- as it truly is at base.
by w on Feb 18, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
A lot of people left the city back in the day because of taxes, which was a terrible model and really threw cities into a slump. It wasn't ALWAYS a black white issue like people make it out to be. I believe another poster at one point brought of Appalachia migration, European immigrants, etc... Some more well to do residents didn't want to deal with these folks and moved.
DC is like 30% white, a far cry from being the majority.
Why do people get all up in arms about race... sounds like it only highlights the real problem, lack of a decent education so they fuel their thoughts on ignorance. The people b!tching about the new HT...well I wouldn't want them to shop next to me at the new HT as they sound like miserable people to begin with that probably have a laundry list of "hate" brewing inside.
I live in a gentrifying neighborhood but I see affluent blacks moving in just as much as whites. I welcome anyone that has a head on their sholders and brings safety and comfort to the neighborhood. NO one feels bad about seeing the drug houses getting forclosed on or renovated. No one feels bad for the abandoned houses that sit for years on end and create eyesores for the neightborhood. I feel for my neighbor down the street, a very old black woman whose grandson sells drugs out of the house. She is on deaths door and has thuglies coming in the house all the time to swap $ for drugs. The other drug houses are all rentals...and they are slowly shutting down too... The guys aren't investing in the community as 1) they don't own property 2) the are selling some of life vices on their porches. I could give two sharts where they end up when someone buys the P.O.S. property and rehabs it with state of the art interiors. They would be a cancer to any neighborhood...black white purple gay chinese etc....
by LDP Bloomingdale on Feb 18, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report
I don't have anything to say on gentrification. But I do know a bit about tax reform. DC (and Maryland) especially should do the following:
(1) Reduce the number of brackets and increase standard deductions and personal exemptions to compensate. Smaller rate on larger base is better. Fewer changes in marginal rates is better.
(2) Reduce top marginal brackets to somewhere around 5-7%. Lower is better.
(3) MD needs to eliminate marriage penalty (make sure married standard deduction and brackets are exactly twice what they are for singles)
(4) Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax
(5) Reduce top Unemployment Insurance rates.
(6) Get rid of all "extraneous" credits (R&D, jobs, investment, etc.).
DC should also reduce their corporate income tax rates.
Check out this for an example of how some Iowa CPAs say state and local taxes there should be reformed there. We could learn a lot from them. And the Tax Foundation is a great source, too.
by WRD on Feb 18, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report
The tendency here towards denial about this issue is unhealthy. The District's $1B budget deficit from '11 & '12 is largely due to adopting gentrification as pretty much the sole public policy for economic development. In 2004 the District adopted a policy of aggressively subsidizing gentrification with funds designed to stabilize low and moderate income persons and families and invest in core neighborhood infrastructure. Much of smart growth's rhetoric as evolved to gloss over this fact or give civic, social, even moral plausible deniability to the GGW set. The suggested $8M tax abatement to bring in WholeFoods in the middle of a budget is a good example of the city's policy of subsidizing gentrification. Another, is covering up the irresponsible way the H street cars line is/was being handled. Another is the AM/CH Circulator line, all holy and almost beyond questioning for many in the GGW set.
Gentrification is one thing, taking most public unobligated resources towards its end is another.
by W Jordan on Feb 18, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report
It turns out that DC actually has far lower property taxes than any of the surrounding areas. With your first residential property you get a Homestead break- which is quite substantial.
I believe that many people move to this area and they do what others who have come before them do- they are followers- and do not do their homework. In many ways it is far more expensive to live in Montgomery County or in parts of NoVa when all is added up.
I work in a place where no one lives in DC who is over 50 years of age- the new comers all came here and did what everyone else did- no sense of individuality at all- and now they no longer ridicule me for having decided to stay in DC . Many of them seem to envy me my decision to stay - despite the fact that it was more of a family decision to help my elderly parents [ no "hipster here- I was BORN in DC] what I am trying to point out is that I have little empathy for those who just blindly do what their peers tell them to do or move into a particular place because it confers status. That kind of thing can be fleeting- and can change overnight. A lot of this notion that DC is more expensive than surrounding areas to me is nonsense. I have a lot more time on my hands because I do not live in salisbury Maryland or Getysburg Pa like many of my co-workers. That time I do not spend driving is all mine to deal with. That can be worth more than a few less square feet or higher income taxes
[ now THAT is DC's big problem- high personal income taxes- as is our high commercial property taxes- another topic]
by w on Feb 18, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report
Pretty controversial, I know, but the only way you "fix DC schools" is by increasing the proportion of middle-class parents in the system. Montgomery County has one of the best school systems in the country; generally speaking it's also wealthy as a whole, but not uniformly poor.
Everyone's got a plan for creating an excellent general public school system where the student population is overwhelmingly poor. Unfortunately, those plans never work in practice.
by oboe on Feb 18, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report
again you are making sense and not bickering.
I am rather impressed.
In addition to your points- a super important thing that is uniformly over looked about DC schools - that is- having parents that read to their children- or at least parents not hostile to their children learning to read or to reading.
You can have the best teachers in the world & spend $9000 per student
[ DC is at about this price amount now]
but if there is resistance to learning the absolute basics and zero parental involvement in the schools it will remain staus quo in DC. It is ridiculous that DC's schools should have ever gotten this bad- no other city in the world has as many free museums and libraries open to the public as DC- and yet I seldom see DC school groups going to the National Gallery or to even to the MLK Library.
by w on Feb 18, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report
They settle in Seven Corners and Annandale instead.
by Juanita de Talmas on Feb 18, 2011 3:06 pm • link • report
Leaving aside that fact, I'm continually surprised that folks are surprised that providing a public education for a poor population of children is more expensive than providing an education for wealthy ones. Have you taken a look at the number of kids in special education for behavioral/learning disabilities? The sheer numbers swamp the capacity of the system, it becomes dysfunctional, and suddenly we're educating hundreds of those kids at private placements under court order.
So, in short, no we don't spend $9000 per student. We spend a crap-ton on a small segment of the student community. And on necessary bureaucracy.
As far as school groups going to the National Gallery, this does happen, but field trips have a cost in money and parental involvement (i.e. chaperones). It's far more effective to partner with these entities to have in-school visits and presentations. This has the added benefit of being cheaper *and* more effective--as far as day-to-day learning, kids probably get more out of that than walking around the East Wing of the NG.
by oboe on Feb 18, 2011 3:30 pm • link • report
by w on Feb 18, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
when you get people nitpicking the definition of words, you know they don't want to talk about it, and are hiding something. the most famous case i can think of is Bill Clinton wondering what the definition of 'is' is.
there is also a bit of Al Gore's 'no controlling legal authority' line to the gentrification debate -- the gentrifiers justify their actions by telling themselves that it's not against the law, per se, even though we all know it's wrong, and further there's nobody there to really enforce this wrongness -- except when community organizers step up -- so it must be ok.
Gentrification and displacement aren't the same and should not be inextricably linked as frequently as they are, because it is possible for a neighborhood to "gentrify" without substantially displacing its long-term residents.
disagree. gentrification must, be definition, include displacement -- otherwise, why bother even talking about it?
displacement does not require gentrification -- say, in direct ethnic cleansing examples from Africa when some roving terrorist organization drives out the local population by force, overnight -- but gentrification is, by definition, displacement driven by coercive, if not necessarily violent, measures.
if there's no displacement, it's not even that interesting, and we can move onto more pressing matters.
since there is massive and rapid displacement, however, we should talk about it. DC doesn't have to go the route of Paris.
if you have gentrification, you probably have ghettoization -- many people here seem fine with that, and that's alarming, imo.
Gentrification and displacement aren't the same and should not be inextricably linked as frequently as they are, because it is possible for a neighborhood to "gentrify" without substantially displacing its long-term residents.
as mentioned, they are essentially the same thing -- that is, displacement is, by definition, a requirement of gentrification. if you don't have displacement, you don't have gentrification. simple.
as for whether there has ever been a city/town/neighborhood 'gentrified' (i.e. 'made nicer' -- as in, 'gotten nicer' via less crime, more amenities, more policing, better health care, more city money/time spent on management of the area, more investment from banks, more money for the schools, more money for small 'slow-money' developers instead of big money for big, 'fast-money' developers, etc.) without substantial displacement of its current/long-time residents -- yes! absolutely! That has almost certainly happened somewhere -- at least, gentrification/displacement has been slowed substantially, if not outright stopped in its tracks, all while making the neighborhood better by most standards.
i can't think of any off the top of my head, but i'm sure they exist. that's the whole point of view of us folks who are not sympathetic to gentrification -- we don't need your 'fast money' -- just give people a chance, treat them fairly, don't divert public resources (like policing) away from poor areas of the city to rich areas, don't allow banks to redline, don't allow rich people to get away without paying taxes, don't allow property taxes to fund schools so that poor areas of town have failing schools, don't allow the City to designate our neighborhood as 'blighted', etc.
it may be true that waving hundred dollar bills in front of (predominantly white) investors is an easy way to make a neighborhood nicer, but it has severe repercussions for the people who currently live in that neighborhood.
why should we bother to institute policies that are fair to everyone instead of just leave things as they are and let certain people get richer while others suffer? it's so easy to just leave things as they are -- why can't we just continue going down this road?
we can. i don't think we should, but we can. it seems many folks here think we can and should. disappointing, but not wholly surprising.
If you, as I do, consider gentrification a class-based, rather than race-based, process (it is, after all, about who can afford the mortgage), then this trope loses some of its steam.
Race and class are not exactly the same thing always, but it is convenient and accurate to make generalizations about race and class, whether on an individual basis or at the public policy level. Folks who object to the notion that gentrification/displacement is bad will not want to settle on common-sense definitions that will enable us to talk about important topics like gentrification -- that's their prerogative, but we don't have to buy into the notion that defining the word 'is' is an overly-complex topic -- we can just be rational, decent, compassionate human beings who want to discuss important matters.
There are no exit surveys when one sells their house or ends their lease, so there is no real way of telling precisely why someone has left, and whether or not they left against their will.
this idea that God Herself will one day come down from the sky and bestow upon us The Perfect Data Set is a red herring -- it's not necessary -- we can see with our own eyes what is happening and use the information we do collect to draw reasonable conclusions about what is happening, and why.
this 'no perfect data' argument was used by VC folks in the US for 30+ years, and they virtually stopped progress on cycling in America for that entire time -- let's just use common sense and proceed apace - when those near-perfect studies eventually come out, they'll confirm what we knew to be true all along.
In my examination of "Gentrification East of the River, I explored how it is disingenuous to discuss the concept of "gentrification" without acknowledging that people move in and our of a community for many reasons and based on personal preferences.
this is kind of like saying, "Well, there's a war going on in Afghanistan, and lots of people are being killed (i.e. 'permanently displaced from Afghanistan'), but it's disingenuous to talk about this killing because lots of people moving into and out of Afghanistan for many reasons based on personal preferences (say, some joined the US Army, and some joined the jihad against the US Army)."
it's ridiculous. the problem of people being 'permanently displaced' is a serious/grave problem, regardless of the 'natural turnover/churn' of various people into and out of the country for various 'personal reasons'.
Is a white middle class family purchasing from a black middle class family "gentrification"? Or is it just a family making a decision to sell and another family making a decision to buy?
again, i understand that folks who don't want to talk about gentrification will try to focus on individual anecdotes that may or may not confirm that gentrification is taking place, but why not look at the broader behavior? for instance, proponents of bike helmets will talk about how a helmet saved one person's live when they fell off their bike and hit their head on the curb. proponents of being able to ride without an egg shell strapped to their heads often cite the 'safety in numbers' principle? who's right?
they both are -- but the 'safety in numbers' folks are _more_ right, which is why wearing a helmet should not be, and is not, mandatory in most places -- like the Netherlands, Denmark, United States, etc.
so is it possible some someone knows of some anecdote that did not fit the 'gentrification storyline' to a T? of course, so let's look at the overall trends -- DC is becoming whiter and richer, blacks are moving out in droves, intellectuals (Florida, Glaeser) are falling all over themselves to flatter predominantly-white urban dwellers, the skin color of political leadership in cities is already changing in American cities, the rhetoric against funding the suburbs - where most poor people are being forced to live - is being dialed up to an all-time high, etc. that's the trend. we can dwell on the exceptions to the rule, or we can dwell on the rule.
Basically they said something to the affect of 'This new Harris Teeter is ridiculous - we gotta have nice new shit like this so the new white people have a place to shop'
i could see that being said, especially in a joking manner, and the thought that comes to their minds right after that is, "Why couldn't _we_ have this nice stuff, _before_ the white people started moving in?"
the answer? because y'all don't make enough money.
why? because y'all aren't 'trained in the right professions.'
why? because y'all were born poor and/or working class, and you'll be lucky if you are able to maintain even that -- which is true for most Americans, but especially true for minorities.
I think it would be a bad thing to go from 70% black to 70% white in a short amount of time, but what's wrong with DC being 50-50%?
sounds good to me (don't worry about 'the binary' -- we get what you mean -- some mix of racial (and economic) diversity that is healthy) -- so, let's get started. like an alcoholic, the first step is to recognize that we have a problem. from the general thrust of the comments around here, that could be a problem.
And, there is a lot of diversity in the black population too. Let's not lump all blacks into the same group either.
i don't think we need to focus on the fact that there are black latinos, and white latinos, and caublinasions, and whatever else -- we need to talk about racism, classism, and social mobility, or lack thereof. in general, if you are a member of an unprivileged minority class (blacks and Hispanics/latinos), then you are probably being removed from DC. if you are Asian or Asian-Indian or some other 'privileged' minority class, then you are effectively 'white' -- that is, you are 'only' constrained in your social mobility by the class you were born into, _not_ also substantially constrained by your color/race.
Every second we waste talking about gentrification -- a symptom not a cause -- we don't spend talking about, thinking about or doing anything about real problems.
you're missing something -- we have been unable to even define this symptom as something that is either good or bad, desirable or undesirable -- that's part of why we're talking about it. we have other folks who believe that gentrification is _not_ actually happening, or that _displacement_ is not actually happening. we have to come to some kind of understand of what _is_ happening before we can talk meaningfully about _why_ it is happening.
All neighborhoods are constantly in flux. To deny that is to deny reality.
really?
Having more socio-economic classes and races moving into an area is a good thing. It's good for the future of America. It's good for America right now.
all of this may or may not be true -- the question for you and everyone else here is, "Do you believe that displacement is OK or desirable/good?"
and once you answer that, we can move onto the next important question -- "Is 'fast money'/gentrification/white-and-or-upper-class-people-moving-in required to improve a neighborhood?"
and then we can move onto a similar question: "Is displacement necessary to improve a neighborhood?"
the process of gentrification brings some good things to some people, and that's a good thing, but it is also a fact that the process of gentrification brings some bad things to some people, and that's a bad thing.
so, what to do about it? ignore it? cheerlead it? maybe try to increase the 'good' while decrease the 'bad'?
Fix the DC schools. Every child in America should go to a good school and have the opportunity for a good education.
i agree with all of this (and fixing the tax code, etc.), of course. i just don't think talking about gentrification is a waste of time. i wish we could, for instance, talk about what we're all going to do with our two-month paid summer vacations, but there are these other problems that exist in reality that require our attention.
Gentrification is one thing, taking most public unobligated resources towards its end is another.
word. yes. si. ha. oui. etc.
Pretty controversial, I know, but the only way you "fix DC schools" is by increasing the proportion of middle-class parents in the system.
no - lots of way to accomplish this, like taxing the rich.
by Peter Smith on Feb 19, 2011 5:02 am • link • report
Also, I would love to live in your world where if we spent more money we could just fix all out problems. Unfortunately, I live in DC where by the numbers we should have an excellent school system. We have high per pupil expenditures (around $14K per child), low student teacher ratios, and a low number of students who come to school with limited English skills. Still so sure that just taxing rich people will get us an excellent school system or are there other problems?
by Kate on Feb 19, 2011 6:59 am • link • report
i could, but i'm not going to. use the force.
or, just watch this video:
(one more reason why we need to get these cable companies/FCC/etc. to let us get Al Jazeera.)
Also, I would love to live in your world where if we spent more money we could just fix all out problems. Unfortunately, I live in DC where by the numbers we should have an excellent school system. We have high per pupil expenditures (around $14K per child), low student teacher ratios, and a low number of students who come to school with limited English skills. Still so sure that just taxing rich people will get us an excellent school system or are there other problems?
yes. more money, more-evenly spread around -- yes, that will actually solve all of our problems -- within reason, assuming that we'll never be able to achieve a 'perfect world', as there is no such thing. having no money, and/or having it unevenly distributed, is preventing kids from getting decent educations.
with education, we know that home life is super-important to student achievement -- well, if you have severe income inequality like DC, you're going to have severe problems at home, and severe student achievement problems - for at least a significant percentage of the population, regardless of how much money you dump into the school system. we need equality -- in income distribution, in housing, in transportation policy, and in education -- and they're interdependent -- ignoring one is going to impact all the others.
by Peter Smith on Feb 19, 2011 7:59 am • link • report
by Peter Smith on Feb 19, 2011 8:03 am • link • report
The majority of the recent newcomers to Congress Heights (where I live) and Anacostia (where I work) are first time black homebuyers and they are working closely with the long term residents in the community. Good neighbors are welcome into the community. It's not a black thing or a white thing or a "poor" thing or a "middle class" thing (although I would make the argument what does that look like because most of the new homebuyers I know are broke lol). For some reason that doesn't seem like a popular story to tell.
I could say more on this subject but honestly I don't see the point (and I am sure someone will be quick to debate my comment). It's one thing to live here and be informed first hand of what is going on and not to live here and speculate on it. If I have learned anything in my four years living in Ward 8 it is to forget what you thought you knew because it was dead wrong.
Never before have I seen perception be so different from reality. Sometimes I think DC residents know more about countries half-way around the world than the communities across the Anacostia River.
by The Advoc8te on Feb 20, 2011 12:29 am • link • report
so, are you saying that Anacostia doesn't actually have any, or many, white people living there?
or that the number of black people in Anacostia still represents greater than 50% of the population there, so therefore, all of this 'gentrification talk' is much ado about nothing?
and, since you are obviously a reporter, how would you choose to show the anecdotal and statistical evidence of white people moving into the hood? i'm just curious how a real, honest reporter would do it.
as for accusing Al Jazeera of intentionally twisting the truth, you're now in the good company of people like George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, and all the other great dictators, despots, and villains of our time.
as for accusing 30+-year residents of the neighborhood of intentionally twisting the truth, well that takes 'bold' to a whole new level.
and doing such a thing to 30+-year residents who are actually getting kicked out of their homes? well, that's just this side of sadistic.
For some reason that doesn't seem like a popular story to tell.
as long as i can comment here, there will be no intellectual defense of kicking black people out of their homes that goes unchallenged.
but you shouldn't feel like you hold the minority position here -- on the contrary, it seems most folks here agree with you more than they agree with me -- especially the folks who are actually blogging here, as opposed to just commenting. so, stay strong.
but for anyone who is actually somewhat interested in freedom and justice, you can actually hold onto that wonderful investment you just made in Anacostia without going completely nihilistic -- you can do something about it -- you can start today by calling up your rep and saying:
And then you go and find the activists in the community and you work with them to get guarantees, in writing, from the politicians that the people currently living in Anacostia get to stay in the new, nicer Anacostia. Life is not perfect, and individuals are not perfect -- but don't let guilt and denial stand in the way of your doing something decent. I figure 70% of my way of life tends towards the bad/harmful (for people, for the planet, etc.), and it could easily be 100% -- but I decided that if even 30% of my behavior is good/helpful, that could make a difference, and therefore is worth it.and then when the politicians and developers try to kick poor/black people out anyways, be prepared to sue them, because you will have to, because no matter what they put in writing, they will still try to kick out the poor/black people. so even when you get their guarantees in writing, do it with an eye towards future litigation. it's not necessarily possible to stop gentrification, but it's possible to make it difficult/slow/expensive/effort-consuming enough that the politician-developer tag-team will consider settling with you out of court, instead of dragging the issue into court for a years-long battle where they will eventually beat you anyways -- but for takers, time is money, so if we can make it difficult for them, they'll have to consider attacking some other poor neighborhood for a while.
The interesting part about getting that 'no more displacements' guarantee in writing from the politicians is that it would drastically slow, if not completely stop, the flow of fast money into the nabe, and that would drastically reduce the pressure to kick low-income/black people out of the hood.
I could say more on this subject but honestly I don't see the point (and I am sure someone will be quick to debate my comment).
when offering your point of view, you should always expect resistance.
It's one thing to live here and be informed first hand of what is going on and not to live here and speculate on it.
yes - just like nobody who lives in America is able to tell what's going on in Iraqistan because, you know, we don't live there -- so we're forced to 'speculate' based on 'reports' from Al Jazeera and other questionable sources, like the the corporate media, the independent media, student media, blogs and social networks, friends and family, etc. -- all known for intentionally twisting the truth as they are. got it.
Never before have I seen perception be so different from reality.
the dramatic plight of upper-class, persecuted gentrifiers will never get old...to the upper-class, persecuted gentrifiers.
by Peter Smith on Feb 20, 2011 6:33 am • link • report
This is what I was talking about.
@Peter Smith
Not going to debate this with you for the reasons I listed above. However, because it was so hilarious I will just clarify the following for you since it seems to mean so much to you (and it was hilarious to me).
I'm not a "reporter" at least not in the professional sense that I am sure you meant anyway. I'm a blogger EotR. For the past three years I have written a blog about my experience living in Congress Heights on www.congressheightsontherise.com, I also started a compilation blog of 35+ the EotR blogs on www.redcblogs.com. My newest project is Eat Shop Live Anacostia, www.eatshopliveanacostia.com. A community empowerment campaign to promote Anacostia from within.
My participation in the video (and the one below) was in front in the camera.
I moved to Congress Heights and I am black. Pretty sure I am not "upper class," if I am then someone needs to inform my bank book ASAP, especially after I spent 18 months living and being unemployed in Congress Heights (the case with a lot of people I know). Even if I was upper class and moved to Congress Heights what exactly would I be apologizing for?
We are a community of people. There is not this poor vs. less poor (because no one over here is rich) debate going on over here on the street level. The debates people see are in specific responses to these films, articles, etc. The issues we are talking about in real life on the street level are issues discussed in neighborhoods across DC. I make this point on my blog all the time that most reporters only want to discuss three things about Ward 8: crime, Barry, and poverty. Seems like I need to add "gentrification" to the list. Not to say these things should be ignored, only that we have a lot more to talk about EotR.
And because you asked, I personally haven't seen anyone displaced through forced economic displacement (people are allowed to move -- this is America). Not to say it hasn't happened but I just haven't seen it. We have a lot of vacancies and empty properties in Ward 8 -- even the "new" housing developments still have vacancies. My building used to be an apartment before it went condo and several of the original tenants decided to stay and now own. With the HPAP program there are people paying $650/month mortgage. The multiple Section 8 properties across the street are renting for $800 - $1150 a month (more than my mortgage). I can't speak on other parts of the city but in Congress Heights we have not exhausted or anywhere near exhausted the housing stock. There is a significant amount of boarded up buildings, empty lots, vacant houses.
The major issue here is jobs. People want and need jobs. We need companies and people to invest meaningfully here for job creation. It's happening, but it has been slow but it is coming around. From my perspective as a resident that is the hot button issue, that and wanting to have the same type and quality of goods and services experienced by other parts of the city. Ward 8 has 70,000 residents and is just now getting it's 4th sit-down restaurant (and I am being generous counting the coffee shop in Anacostia). Three years ago there was one -- Players Lounge in Congress Heights. It may seem like "development" is happening fast but when you consider where we have been, it's not even a drop in the bucket toward what we need. As it stands now we only have 1 major grocery store in Ward 8, also in Congress Heights. There is only one hospital EotR. In terms of nightlife there really isn't any. The recent launch of Uniontown Bar & Grill in Anacostia has given us a start but nothing like what you see in other more "developed" parts of DC.
But the truth of the matter is that the success in OUR community isn't going to be judged in the amount of new buildings that go up, it's going to be judged on the experience of our residents -- old and new alike-- that is where the true strength lies. You can't move EotR and not be engaged, not be incorporated into the fabric of the community -- its like a small town over here, everybody knows your name. In my 15 years in the metro area I have never seen such a close knit community like the ones EotR.
That's really all I have to say. I know what I am and I think the people who live here know who they are too. There is no need to justify your decision or right to live where you want. You just do.
Am I a "gentrifier"? Who knows? I like to think of myself as a resident homeowner and a decent person and I give all I have (and then some) because I want our community to be great -- for all of us.
I can live with that.
Nikki Peele
The Advoc8te
Good Hope: Anacostia from chris keener & goldenbear on Vimeo.
by The Advoc8te on Feb 20, 2011 9:11 am • link • report
Peter: Your comments of late seem to be getting increasingly bitter. On this topic in particular, the caustic nature of many comments and the tendency to jump to criticizing people for their background is deterring folks from wanting to contribute or comment.
I'm not going to allow that. Accusing people of being like Saddam Hussein, being sadistic, etc. is not constructive and not discussing the issues.
If you can't keep from having an emotional reaction that leads you to lash out at the author of a post or comment, please don't comment on that thread; and if you can't stop yourself, I will have to delete your comments.
by David Alpert on Feb 20, 2011 9:21 am • link • report
"Thank you," I really appreciate you saying something. I think we can all appreciate questions and constructive criticism on posts and comments. The dialogue is what makes this great, people learning from each other and I even understand the passion of topics such as these but the personal attacks (which in my opinion are increasing) are really out of bounds and that has been what has made me very hesitant posting on GGW. It's not exclusive to GGW, it happens on other outlets as well, even my blog where I try to discourage it.
For the few who do rely on the personal attacks I am left to wonder how do they expect to have a dialogue if the other person feels discouraged to talk? I'm no shrinking violet but with all that I have going on, the real issues here in the community (which account for about 90% of my life), commenting and cross posting at the cost of having to defend myself every few minutes isn't worth it in the big scheme of my life.
Try and think of it this way. In the case of discussing forced economic displacement the crux is disenfranchising people, not allowing them to be a part of the process. Ironic that is how some of us feel just in trying to have a conversation about it.
Let's try and start from a place that people mean what they say, without any ulterior motives. I moved here because I like it here, I work in the community because I believe, and I love my neighbors because we are all in this together, regardless of the color of our skin or the money (or lack thereof) in our pockets.
by The Advoc8te on Feb 20, 2011 9:46 am • link • report
Simply, choose for yourself to not let what others do get you down. I see the vitril spewed forth here and elsewhere as well, but I choose not to participate because I know it will only devolve into an never-ending cycle of intolerable things going back and forth, with no real end in sight until someone more mature than the parties involved has to do something drastic (like intervening by authority, such as a moderator or disallowing someone to continue to post) to put an end to the bickering and bantering.
We all have our own unique, varied choices. Though we can encourage one another to do that which we believe in our hearts to be right, each and every individual person must choose for themself to do it.
by C. R. on Feb 20, 2011 10:24 am • link • report
it may be true that my comments, either generally or on this topic, may be caustic.
i apologize to you and anyone who has been deterred from commenting here because of my comments -- that's not my intent, of course. I've often been deterred, and it just feels like a waste, so i'll try to cool out.
though I believe it is probably true that I appear to have the 'tendency to jump to criticizing people for their background,' it is only that -- i don't care if people are from Mars -- if I feel like they are offering offensive sentiments, then I want to let them know that those sentiments are not appreciated by at least me.
that idea that we either have to or should treat offensive comments with respect is, imo, misguided. have to respect folks' right to say whatever they want? absolutely. have to respect what they say? absolutely not.
further, it is just not possible to be perfectly precise without getting bogged down in the minutiae of grammar. so i often try to use phrases like 'upper class' and/or 'upwardly mobile' and/or 'highly educated' and/or 'professional' and/or 'whatever -- just to try to satisfy all the possible objections that someone could possibly have to the exact phraseology I chose, but sometimes that's not enough. people who feel embarrassed or ashamed for having been called out will invariably attack the messenger.
and, i believe you should allow a greater range of opinions about gentrification. this post, for instance, offers two opinions on the matter of alleged gentrification in Anacostia/DC -- one person who rejects it, and another person who mostly rejects it. how are we going to have an honest debate if we can't even have an opinion offered that accurately reflects the facts on the ground as best we know them?
I'm not going to allow that. Accusing people of being like Saddam Hussein, being sadistic, etc. is not constructive and not discussing the issues.
that's just ridiculous. if i wanted to call someone a rapist and murderer and torturer, i wouldn't do it without very strong evidence. that at least one person who commented here accused Al Jazeera of intentionally twisting the truth puts that person in the same league as Saddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld, and others when it comes to attacking this credible, award-winning news organization, and that, i would argue, is extremely harmful -- it is indicative of this person's willingness to violate the human rights of innocent people -- as when poor (black) folks are being forcefully evicted from their homes in Anacostia.
on being sadistic, i don't believe i've ever accused anyone of that either. most people i know break the law multiple times a day every day, but that doesn't make them
'criminals'. similarly, people can espouse sadistic points of view, but that doesn't not make them 'sadists'. that'd be like criminalizing racist thoughts -- insane -- nobody but a totalitarian could even conceive of such a notion.
i think one of the reasons for my 'caustic' comments (to the extent that they are, which is debatable) is that there is too much intellectual protection here, both in the blog posts and in comments, for what I consider to be repugnant views. as any non-white person can almost certainly tell you, the first time they pointed out to a white person that the white person said something extremely racist without even realizing it -- that white person either: a) felt horrible and apologized profusely, and/or b) lashed out in anger either immediately or to their other friends later. sometimes we have to tell people the truth, even if it's uncomfortable -- even if it makes them angry -- even if it sounds 'caustic' -- even if they get/feel/act offended.
i also think it's interesting that you refer to Saddam Hussein but not Donald Rumsfeld? Rumsfeld is a Princeton grad, the former head of the US Department of Defense, one of the most powerful men in the world, a trusted and respect member of his community, and by many accounts, an all-around swell guy. are you accusing me of accusing someone of 'being like Donald Rumsfeld' generally? how would I have any basis to know that someone commenting here is a swell guy or girl? i have no idea, and honestly, could care less. i just want a little honesty in the debate.
If you can't keep from having an emotional reaction that leads you to lash out at the author of a post or comment, please don't comment on that thread; and if you can't stop yourself, I will have to delete your comments.
i guess i'll hope to see more of a range of opinion on this alleged 'gentrification' thing, and try to keep my emotions in check. hopefully you won't have to delete any of my comments.
and hopefully there are some folks out there who have strong emotional reactions to some of what they read about here, and remain willing to signal their strong dis/approval, as respectfully as possible -- as Brother Cornel says, "with love", regardless of how uncomfortable it might make some people.
by Peter Smith on Feb 20, 2011 10:33 am • link • report
by Fritz on Feb 20, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report
I appreciate you trying to take a look at the tone of your comments and avoid deterring people. However, it doesn't seem that you've really taken to heart my request.
You wrote,
If your opinion is that you have a problem with "intellectual protection" of ideas, then I hope you will stop commenting, because that's absolutely what we strive for here.We are trying to create an environment where people can talk about issues without someone jumping up and say "I'm so offended, now I'm going to smack you down as hard as I can and make you hurt so that you don't say that ever again."
We need to have a serious conversation about these topics. There is some tension between white and black in DC. There is some tension between old and young, and between long-time and newcomer. Talking to each other, not screaming at people who try to talk, is the way to help bridge these divides.
How else are we going to stop having a situation where people like Mary Cuthbert and Anthony Muhammad say they can't believe anyone would bicycle, ever, and that even a trivial amount of federal air quality transportation dollars going to a bike facility is a waste?
Would it really be better if we only had young, white, west of the river readers and commenters who agreed with each other, and only talked about how great it is to see a baby boutique show up in a neighborhood?
I've been working hard to encourage voices from east of the river and a discussion about something other than bikes and Metro, and I'm serious about making that happen.
Unfortunately, C.R.'s response to Nikki basically said that he/she is not going to be involved in talking with us because of the negativity. And Nikki has basically said the same thing.
I've been encouraging her to discuss her very insightful and worthwhile thoughts, but when she tentatively does, you decide you have to "tell it like it is" to make absolutely sure she doesn't dare to speak up again.
No, that's not okay.
Ideas absolutely are protected here. You can disagree with them all you want, but you cross the line if you try to use a comment to dissuade someone who has those ideas from speaking. It's especially a problem for me when the people you attack are themselves African-Americans.
We protect all kinds of unpleasant ideas. Lance says a lot of stuff I completely disagree with, and I spend most of my time trying to push for an outcome very different than what he wants. Yet I do not try to make Lance feel bad for posting; if I ever have slipped up, I'm sorry. And when I see him at community activities, we have friendly interactions.
You have a choice. Put up with "intellectual protection" of ideas, or stop commenting.
What I think I am going to do is to put future threads about race or gentrification issues on automatic moderation. That will slow down commenting but it will mean that we can ensure that people are respectful. And I am going to have a very demanding standard of respect.
Because the bottom line is, I care infinitely more about having Nikki and Veronica feel comfortable posting as about anyone commenting. Sorry.
by David Alpert on Feb 20, 2011 6:26 pm • link • report
Wow. I knew you were a thoughtful person but your words really touched me. We can all learn a lesson (me included) on how to debate our points respectfully and without personal attacks. Thank you so much for doing what you can to make us all feel like our voices can be heard. It's definitely making me consider posting again to GGW.
by The Advoc8te on Feb 20, 2011 9:21 pm • link • report
consider it done.
there's no way i would lend my credibility to a site which traffics in gentrification denialism and then removes my ability to criticize such hurtful and harmful remarks.
intellectual protection of certain ideas -- be they racist, sexist, denialist, or of some other nature -- should not be tolerated, much less condoned or fostered. bad ideas can be knocked down -- that's not a problem -- but only if we allow people to criticize those bad arguments. your current policy provides intellectual protection to bad ideas by not allowing a full critique of them. with you choosing to go in this direction, you are placing yourself in the company of the vast majority of intellectuals throughout the history of time who have found the act of providing service to power to be very profitable. life is full of decisions.
the rest of your comments are more than a bit disingenuous -- for instance, you talk about the homogeneity of opinion here while you shut down any meaningful disagreement on one of the most important topics that can be discussed.
it's difficult to take the rest of your comments seriously.
best of luck.
by Peter Smith on Feb 21, 2011 9:02 am • link • report
We have other folks who believe that gentrification is _not_ actually happening, or that _displacement_ is not actually happening. we have to come to some kind of understand of what _is_ happening before we can talk meaningfully about _why_ it is happening.
Not very nuanced. Actually, the fact that folks are moving out (i.e. "displacement") is pretty uncontroversial. The debate is whether that dynamic is fueled primarily by gentrification. I'd argue not; at least not unless you define "gentrification fueled displacement" so broadly as to be meaningless.
@The Advoc8te: You'll have to excuse Peter. He's on the West coast, and while he hasn't got much experience with DC issues specifically, he's fond of extrapolating whatever his experiences in general to our particular case.
by oboe on Feb 21, 2011 10:27 am • link • report
If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're suggesting that Black people should live one place, White people another place (Asian and Hispanics can figure it out I guess), while rich people and poor people have their own places as well. And if people of one group want to move somewhere else that's not OK?
That's not the kind of country I want to live in.
Was there a secret summit that I missed where all of the Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, rich, poor, middle class, etc areas were demarcated? I'd like to know, because it's possible that I'm breaking the law by living where I am.
by Patrick Thornton on Feb 21, 2011 2:29 pm • link • report
You can't seriously be suggesting that David is intent on creating an echo chamber designed to provide "service to power." Come on. He (and others) have taken issue with the overly confrontational tone of your comments, not the content. No one's preventing you from making your points. You apparently believe that your ideas are being suppressed and that you are not permitted to provide a "full critique" of "bad ideas" (in your opinion) if you aren't able to use whatever language you want in your critique. That's obviously not the case, and to claim otherwise is to engage in the same type of intellectual dishonesty of which you're accusing David and others.
by dcd on Feb 22, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report
David that sounds like a good idea. Although I do question how effective it will be in guiding discussions. Based on my limited experiences here, discussing race has not be received well, and not just from Peter's side.
Also, it requires you guys @GGW to do what you can do best guide such discussions. The recent "displacement" article is a great example. Here, you extrapolated from the original article and presented things that clearly was not there. This allowed two additional articles to be written, much talking about the same things. IMO, you could have added some clarity. But didn't.
At least this is my view on how things went down.
by HogWash on Feb 22, 2011 2:21 pm • link • report
Add a Comment