Rich Man, Poorest People

April 16, 2020 Guest User

Gentrification is a complex word with multiple facets and contributing factors to its definition. It is also a serious word that American politicians have treaded lightly on for 50 years. Those who have seen and lived through gentrification know it as the uncomplicated event of rich folk moving into the ‘hood’.

Gentrification has been going on in America since right after World War II, always involving people either moving or transitioning into a city center. The theory for investors has traditionally been to purchase property in these under-appreciated areas, eventually improving upon their initial investment.

Similar to most business markets, dollar signs make the loudest noises in real estate. However, there are multiple unique aspects to all housing dynamics that, in similarity to national trends, have fluctuating job growth rates, mortgage rates and countless other related trends.

For instance, it is no secret that large U.S. cities, particularly those near the coasts, have been having quite the housing boon. These spikes in home purchasing have come at such a furious rate that there is only a surplus of one or two month’s worth of real estate available in some locations. Condos, townhouses, apartments and family homes are all staying on the market for no longer than a few weeks before being snatched up at unbelievable prices. The concept of lower income housing within a metropolitan atmosphere is fading into 20th century history books.

Not to be overlooked as one of the most controversial aspects of gentrification, race surrounds, permeates and is completely engrossed in this issue. In most instances, the investors are white and those being displaced are not.

It is difficult to prove that a person’s skin color can dictate a socio-economical displacement of urban inhabitants. This has created a debate that is comparable to the on-going one with global warming. Everyone knows it exists but there is safety in denial.

On one side of the debate there are those such as Daniel Chirot, a Sociology Professor at the University of Washington, who mainly believes gentrification is a natural and beneficial part of society, linked to reasons like bad traffic and the practicality of living closer to city centers.

“This (gentrification) is revitalizing cities in areas with good economies and making them in every way more livable,” said Chirot in an email interview.

Jason Hackworth, a Geography Professor at the University of Toronto who has extensively studied and written on the topic of gentrification, says it is initially difficult to disagree with theories similar to Chirot’s.

“In many cases, services improve, the neighborhood is safer, and opportunity generally grows, even for those down on the economic ladder,” said Hackworth, also via email. “In the long term, however, I think that the gentrification-is-okay-for-the-poor argument falls on its face.”

“Once the aforementioned opportunities become widespread enough it attracts a second wave of gentrifiers who understand that the neighborhood is now safer for investment. Property owners, realizing these opportunities, begin converting rental housing into ownership-based complexes (either co-ops or condominiums), and they are rarely interested in targeting the poorer groups currently living in the complex. The prices are often prohibitively expensive for the poor and they quietly move to another neighborhood.”

As mentioned earlier, gentrification isn’t just about money and property but people and community demographics also. A discussion paper prepared by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy noted that residential segregation occurs with the clear support of both the public and private sectors, leaving underlying questions unanswered.

Who benefits from gentrification? Is it those who use the term interchangeably with urban revitalization, those who are becoming disenfranchised with their neighborhoods, or rather those in power who unconsciously use the term despite racial and economical implications?

“By recasting a process (gentrification) as one that will help the poor by giving them role models, rather than one that physically removes them from their own neighborhoods, it absolves both the guilt and the policy responsibility of people in power to ameliorate the problem,” said Hackworth.

While the visible portion of gentrification can involve a family refinancing their home or a new condominium building being built, the hush-hush pieces of the pie include the skin color of your neighbor and the low-income housing complex down the street. Any time dollar signs, and race come within a boom box of each other, the result is certain to be politically charged. This is no different with gentrification, which in the end is only a word.

If you like this article, subscribe to our magazine on Issuu.

This article was originally published in Flossin Magazine. This article is edited by Edna Waters. This article is optimized for web by Steven Christian (Artist | Author | Podcaster).