A look at what's going on in Trinidad, on H Street, and in the larger area north of Capitol Hill.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
USA Today: King's Vision on H
The owner of George's Place is one of those interviewed USA Today looks at H Street, as well as neighborhoods in Chicago and Kansas City to evaluate progress and short fallings over the past forty years.
71 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Butler, who also is concerned that black residents are being "priced out of this city, and this corridor," doesn't want his business to be left behind. He plans to sell more polo shirts, button-down collared shirts and khakis that he hopes will appeal to the new residents.
"About 60% of the stores on H Street today are black-owned, and about half of those owners also own their buildings, Saleem says. "We didn't have that opportunity in '68," he says. "We have it now."
Then why isn't the corridor any better? Is it because the other 30% are keeping it down? Seems that a majority of that 60% could care less about an improving H St. Think "opposition to BID" as one small example. Or, maybe its because of this business owner's attitude (also from the article) that's holding H St down:
"The revival brings hope but also worries for longtime residents and business owners such as George Butler. After the riots, Butler opened his men's store, George's Place, at 10th and H streets NE with the help of a government grant.... but he fears that King's dream of equal opportunity will be threatened if blacks are pushed out as the neighborhood gentrifies. 'The neighborhood now has taken a different type of turn because what they're trying to do here is to bring another Georgetown to this area.'"
Would someone please explain this to me? Mr. Butler has no desire for this corridor to get better because he fears it gentrifying (translation "becoming too white"), but if 60 % of the African Am. business owners have been unable to "improve" the corridore over the last 40 years what's the harm in welcoming more diversity to give it a shot instead of fearing that its going to "change your culture" Do you honestly think the current culture is a healthy, productive one?
People will argue why do the posts always lead back to "race." Race & gentrification is a huge issue in our neighborhood stagnation and improvement and until the problem is out on the table we'll never see improvements. Racism in ANY form keeps people down. I think this is equally true of reverse-racism.
You'd think with all the positive buzz H St. is generating vis a vis the NY Times, USA Today, we could get a grocery store interested in locating to H St.
I'm no marketing genius, but someone should be putting all these articles in a nice bundle and send it to Trader Joes/Whole Foods with a note saying "Get on the train!"
I live near Mr. Butler's store. I can't speak to the racial make-up of his clientele, but considering that his clothing is pretty much exclusively high-end, I'm kind of perplexed by his anxiety. Upper income blacks are just as likely to move into the H Street area as upper-income whites. And both subsets are likely to need the kind of business attire he sells.
Anonymous said: "Then why isn't the corridor any better? Is it because the other 30% are keeping it down? Seems that a majority of that 60% could care less about an improving H St. Think "opposition to BID" as one small example. Or, maybe its because of this business owner's attitude (also from the article) that's holding H St down:"
Are you serious? Do you really believe that these business owners want winos, crackheads and misguided youth loitering in front of their businesses? If that is what you believe, then I am dismayed by your ignorance. Throwing the blame on the business owners over-simplifies the issues facing Washington DC. For a number of years, the H Street Corridor was a forgotten neighorhood and it's only since the middle-class and businesses have been priced out of the affluent Northwest DC that it has become the new area for "diversity". Now the police want to actively patrol. Now there are condos popping up all over the place. And now former slumlords want to renovate and clean up the neighborhood.
Anonymous also said: "but if 60 % of the African Am. business owners have been unable to "improve" the corridore over the last 40 years what's the harm in welcoming more diversity to give it a shot instead of fearing that its going to "change your culture" Do you honestly think the current culture is a healthy, productive one?"
I am a professional middle-class black woman who moved into a building near H Street a little over 2 years ago. If I tried to moved into my building today, I would not be able to afford the rent. Let's be honest with ourselves... The transformation of the H Street Corridor into "The Atlas District" has not been an effort to diversify. It is driven by money. Those who have it, can stay. Those who don't... Well, they don't really matter, do they? Especially, since their current culture is so unhealthy and unproductive (BTW, there is more to DC culture than what you allow yourself to see on H Street... You may not understand it, but please do not imply that it is all negative). If this renaissance is truly an effort to diversify, will these new condos have a program in place for lower income families such that they can get a piece of the ever elusive "American Dream"? Will we have Rehabilitation Centers for the crackheads and the winos that loiter the street? Or will the police continue to push them off the block until they become someone else's problem?
It's not just poor people who are being priced out of H Street and if the black residents continue to move outside of the city, these businesses will lose their clientele. Once again, let's be honest with ourselves, middle class blacks and middle class whites are not likely patronize Butler's store for "business attire." Gentrification is and should be a concern to them.
The article and the comments contained are racist...against white people. But it is still racism. If you don't want rich people displacing poor people, say that. But it is not about income - it is about race. No one seems to wave the gentrification flag when young affluent black professionals come into the area. But the fact that many of the new H street dwellers are white, for some reason, is cause for alarm.
Simone Grant said... "Do you really believe that these business owners want winos, crackheads and misguided youth loitering in front of their businesses?"
Yes, I think most of our dozens of liquor stores are fine with it, which is why they work so hard against the single beer ban.
I agree totally with Anon. 2:51. And Ms. Grant THANK YOU for being a "professional middle class black woman" willing to live near H over 2 years and doing your part to support the community. Guess what, I am a professional middle class white male that moved into the H St. neighborhood 2 years ago. We both want the same thing for OUR H St. (it is neither "yours" anymore, nor is it "mine", it is ours). However, I do think it a little niave for you to think, as you stated, "will these new condos have a program in place for lower income families such that they can get a piece of the ever elusive "American Dream"? Will we have Rehabilitation Centers for the crackheads and the winos that loiter the street?" Good Lord, I pray that they don't. These types of things have been offered to boost up this area up for 40 years and it FAILED! Its time to move on, it's time to look forward. How have social programs helped this area? The only thing I see helping is people having a viable econimic vision for the neighborhood. Won't new jobs be the best "social program" these poor people could have?
Yes, race is a huge barrier to our woes, but get over it. Recognize it for what it was and move on. Until then we're going to remain stuck in "oh, the blacks aren't doing this" or "oh, the whites are doing this to me" and before long you realize that while you were complaining, 40 years have passed and we're left with nothing to show for it.
Anyone interested in this general topic that would like a well-constructed and well-researched opinion on these social issues should check out some of Manhattan Institute Scholar John H. McWhorter's writings:
*Losing The Race: Self-sabotage in Black America (2000)
*Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America (2006)
"Yes, I think most of our dozens of liquor stores are fine with it, which is why they work so hard against the single beer ban."
I offer:
I will say in Family Liquor's defense that they are trying very hard to diversify their stock of beers to include for example, Stella, Peroni, and Pilsner (to name but a few) in an effort to appeal to a larger clientele base (read as non-whino, if you like). I've been an around-the-corner neighbor and a regular patron since moving to the neighborhood in '04. Jerome is truly making an effort - perhaps consider showing him some support.
Grace deli across the street is another example that comes to mind. I'm typically the only white guy in there in the mornings, yet they offer good breakfast sandwhiches, BLT's, and they are very nice people. Not every location on H Street can be a trendy restaurant, coffee shop, or funky bar. Neighborhood businesses that have been here for awhile deserve support as well - not just the ones that we deem to be the places for the "cool cats".
Glad to see both the post and the opinions expressed here about it - it's good to have people talk about about the economic and demographic changes in our neighborhood.
The changes on H Street inevitably mean some decent people are going to get pushed out, but it also will push out folks whose absence will be missed by no one and will be a benefit to longtime residents and newcomers alike. There just isn't an efficient or fair way to separate the one from the other and in a more or less free market there is going to be some displacement of long-term residents (or businesses) both good and bad.
Obviously, the fact that the vast majority of people being displaced are black and the majority of those replacing them being white makes this an uncomfortable reality for some people.
The other night, I sat and read a few of the gentrification links on this blog. The Next American City-dc article made me aware of a stunning fact, one that I have never been aware of....DC contains 12% of the metro region's population, YET it has 55% of the public housing and 40% of the homeless. Now, let's look at the city....Ward 3 and parts of Ward 4 "Just say NO". So pressures for these things are shifted to yet an even smaller area of the city.
Any new development always seems to have a portion of the housing specified as affordable. Inclusionary Zoning has been under discussion at the Zoning Commission, I'm not sure where they stand on that...still discussing or some action in place.
So, we've touched the third rail. God help us all.
It's the culture, not the race, baby.
First, neighborhoods change. To try to artificially keep them one race or another is silly and counterproductive.
I got little sympathy for those that lived around H Street for forty years and had the opportunity and never bought their house (or business). Home ownership is hard work, but the reward is that you can't be displaced when a neighborhood changes. And they all change. Sooner or later.
There is a myth out there that says gentrification drives out homeowners, in large part because of higher real estate taxes. This is simply not true in DC. DC has a ton of programs designed to make sure that poor homeowners are not displaced because of rising taxes. In fact, you can actually get your entire tax bill deferred until after your death if you so choose (assuming you meet certain income category requirements).
What it does do is displace renters. But even that is mitigated heavily, with our fairly draconian rent control system.
And if you choose to rent for decades then you have no right to complain when your rent rises. Renting is easier, but it comes with a very real price - uncertainty.
But, yes, neighborhoods get more expensive. That's why you buy your house when it's cheap, taking a risk like so many of us did years ago.
Anonymous said: "And Ms. Grant THANK YOU for being a "professional middle class black woman" willing to live near H over 2 years and doing your part to support the community."
Please do not "THANK" me. It comes across as patronizing (despite what good intentions you may have). The funny thing is I almost didn't mention my race because I knew that by mentioning it, I would become the "Black Representative" for "MY" community (Never mind the fact that I was born and raised in New York and have lived in DC a mere 2 years). However, I wanted to make it clear that there are other types of people being pushed out of the H Street Corridor. Never did I imply that the neighorhood should solely be for Black people. Nor should it solely be White. I am just stating that this "renaissance" is not an effort to diversify. And by "Diversify", I mean more than just race. If I was white, I still wouldn't be able to afford the rent in my building. And since I have to make it explicitly clear, I don't want Rich People displacing Poor (or Middle Class) People. I don't think it should be a luxury to live and work in the district.
Some older white folks I know moved from Capitol Hill in the late 60's to Silver Spring for a backyard and better schools. The Italian and Irish neighborhood became black. Was this a tragedy? Some of my other friends from Cheverly, Md recently died. In the 35 years that they lived in their suburban community, it went from 90% white to 90% black. Is this a tragedy? Cities change. Suburbs change. It is a fact of life. Most of the time, demographic and social-economic change isn't kind to a lot of people on the margins. A lot of things have changed in the last 40 years. Many successful blacks would rather live in Bowie than Petworth. Why hold this against them? Many so-called white hipsters prefer Columbia Heights to Springfield. Again, more power to them.... Longer life spans, transient societies, the drug epidemic, the familial abandonment of the elderly and the mentally handicapped, broken families, the erosion of the industrial and manufacturing economy, all these things have contributed to massive upheavel in the modern day city. To try to understand it all, to glean perspective in a USA Today paragraph or two is pure folly.
funny. i was reading the parkerstreet newsgroup the other day. there's an account of two elderly black men were walking by parker street and one of them reportedly made a remark about senate square, pointed out some renovated buildings and said that the area is known as faggot park.
so you see? it's not always about income or race....
poop oo said: "so you see? it's not always about income or race...."
that is correct. Sex informs all aspects of life. In some cultures (Latino and Italiano come to mind) the written and verbal language are infused with sex-based inferences. (please don't argue the point unless you're fluent in Italian...)
Frankly, the world would be a better place if more men were comfortable with their own sexuality. (J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Craig come to mind) And if you're openly gay - that's great, but gay men often exhibit the same off-putting attitudes toward other men as straight men exhibit toward women. (leering, inappropriate comments, etc.) Don't think that being gay is a license to act like an ass.
"However, I do think it a little niave for you to think, as you stated, "will these new condos have a program in place for lower income families such that they can get a piece of the ever elusive "American Dream"? Will we have Rehabilitation Centers for the crackheads and the winos that loiter the street?" Good Lord, I pray that they don't. These types of things have been offered to boost up this area up for 40 years and it FAILED!"
they have NOT had programs to set aside low income housing in condo developments "for 40 years". Where on earth do you get such an idea?
Also, why would you pray that no rehabilitation facilities are established for alcoholics and drug addicts? That seems hopelessly backwards. What is your solution then? Lifetime imprisonment for public intoxication? Or acceptance of the alcohol/drug addicted homeless population as an incorrigible permanent fixture of H Street?
Finally, it is the height of ridiculousness to respond to a poster using a name with an anonymous reply. Are you in the Witness Protection Program? At least post with a nickname or other identifier.
ps: the word is spelled n-a-i-v-e. just think of the overpriced water and spell backwards.
ps: sudden displacement of groups from land is one of the most vexing problems of modern humanity and the source of many of history's conflicts. saying 'neighborhoods change' is a bit too obvious of a reply and undervalues the feeling of place, community, and other issues related to displacement anxiety. it is not about right or wrong, but about the more irrational nature of human beings to become attached to the familiar. when people are displaced due to changes in the market, discord is to be expected. the question is, if this is accepted as a given, what policies should be put in place to address it?
ps: Hillman, your comment about 'draconian rent control' was excessive. please look up what 'draconian' means. no one is flogging landlords. you might argue more convincingly that landlord/tenant law unfairly favors the tenant, but the rent control laws hardly qualify as 'draconian'. that description is FAR too extreme.
wow. You folks read/heard a different article than I did. I think that all of the merchants said that things are inproving on H. Why are you so defensive?
I quess that you haven't lived anywhere long enough yet to lament the loss of neighbors and friends.
Mr. Butler actually has a very nice store, it's really your loss if you settle for the Gap, or Macys.
Ok. How about 'rent control is excessive, stupid, classist, and an infringement on free enterprise?'
Is that more palatable?
Rent control is the artificial taking of someone's livelihood by government means, often using class warfare as it's impetus. It's applied arbitrarily and stupidly. For instance, we don't apply price controls on groceries or gas. And why no means test on rent control apartments? Could it be because a whole bunch of people are getting something for free and now they think they are morally entitled to essentially steal income from others?
Plus, of course, study after study has shown that rent control actually reduces the number of affordable housing units available, and it creates substandard conditions in those remaining housing units.
But, hey, it's a popular political thing, and in an idiotocracy like DC that's good enough.
"And if you're openly gay - that's great, but gay men often exhibit the same off-putting attitudes toward other men as straight men exhibit toward women. (leering, inappropriate comments, etc.) Don't think that being gay is a license to act like an ass."
This is a joke, right? I'm as gay as it gets, and I've got to say that it's been my experience after decades of being around gay men that gay men very rarely harass straight men. Certainly not to the extent some straight men harass women.
Is there really an epidemic of gay men forcing themselves on straight men? Really?
When I venture out with my straight buddies I'm fairly constantly shocked when I see what straight women put up with from some straight men. It's FAR more extreme than I ever see gay men doing to straight men.
And I'll trade you. I'll make sure gay men never look at a straight man 'too long', making him uncomfortable (actually, any straight man that gets upset from benign interest from a straight man is a moron and has other issues in play), if you will keep straight people from beating and killing gay men.
"when people are displaced due to changes in the market, discord is to be expected. the question is, if this is accepted as a given, what policies should be put in place to address it?"
There are already alternatives to displacement. It's called buying your home or apartment (or business). It's been done since the modern city was created. And it's never been easier than it has been in modern times, particularly in DC in past decades.
A whole bunch of people chose not to buy in DC in years past. Now many (but not all) of those folks are demanding that we now dream up ways for them to stay exactly where they are indefinitely.
Quite often in DC we're not talking about a 'displacement' where people are priced out of the entire region. Rather, we're simply saying a neighborhood has gotten trendy and the 'affordable' line has moved five or ten blocks one way or another. It's not like people are being forcibly relocated to Siberia.
I think that demand is unreasonable and unfair to those that did take a risk and buy their homes back when.
There is plenty of affordable housing in DC. Literally miles of it. It's just that it's not always in a high-demand trendy neighborhood. And, admittedly, it's not often safe housing. But that's a whole different issue.
We should try our best to provide decent affordable housing for those willing to work. However, there is no moral impetus on us to provide that housing in a particularly trendy location.
Its a deal IF you throw in a mechanism to reign in gays like Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. Mark Foley (sexual text messages to teenage male pages, remember him?). Frustrated gays really do create problems for the targets of their desire AND their families (wives).
I've got a straight buddy that is actually very sad every time he comes to a gay function with me because no one hits on him. I'm not really sure why - he's not bad looking and he's a lot of fun to be around. The first couple times we hung out he was absolutely certain he'd have to be fighting off men with a stick, to the point that he was asking me how to decline interest gracefully (I told him the easiest way was to casually bring up how much he likes hot ladies). He was genuinely hurt when that never happened.
Larry Craig is a creation of straight society. If I had my way there'd be no need for the Larry Craig's of the world.
It's not gay people that are creating a situation where some men feel they must pretend to be straight.
As for Mark Foley, that wasn't a gay thing. It was an inappropriate abuse of power thing. And that's universal, regardless of orientation.
As for gay men making problems for their 'straight targets', that's fairly laughable. The incidence of gay on straight sexual assault is stunningly low, FAR FAR lower than straight man on woman.
Hillman you rock! Do you have your own blog? I'd love to participate in that.
And SoulSearcher said, "Also, why would you pray that no rehabilitation facilities are established for alcoholics and drug addicts? That seems hopelessly backwards. What is your solution then? "
Let me clarify, No rehabilitation facilities are established for alcoholics and drug addicts...in my back yard - they make my property values go down. I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't want one next to you either.
And one other thing SoulSearcher, you can be a real A**hole sometimes. That's spelled A.(blank,blank)H.O.L.E.
Sincerely, Anonymous Fag (that's spelled A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. F.A.G.) - hey, maybe that could be my new signature line.
No blog for me. I'm far too self-centered to actually read what someone else would post to my blog.
As for rehab centers, public housing, etc...... I find it sortof silly when people suggest that opening a meth clinic will fix what ails H Street. Folks, we already have tons of rehabs, clinics, transitional housing, etc., in this neighborhood.
We've had these programs for 40 years. You'd think at some point someone would notice that they aren't working as planned.
Some real fixes that would work?
Overhaul our mental health system (or lack thereof). It's a moral outrage, how we treat our mentally ill. By and large we let them sit in our parks and rot. This is in part because we don't want to fund real treatment, and in part because 'homeless advocates' have convinced us that we don't have a right to demand that the mentally ill get treatment. So, instead, we let them literally rot away in parks and on streetcorners.
Then, we set up homeless shelters, public housing programs, and a variety of other programs that at best enable people to continue a self-destructive life.
Does anyone seriously think opening up one more shelter will really solve the problem? Really?
We need to provide real funds for treating addictions, but at the same time we MUST require accountability. We can't say it's ok to live on the street, begging by day and robbing people by night. That's simply unacceptable, both because it's unfair to those of us that go to work all day and because in the end it destroys the individual living on the street.
And we need to end our sense of entitlement. No one is entitled to a free or drastically reduced apartment. No one is entitled to liquor sales a certain way. No one is entitled to live on the street. No one has a right to insist that a certain property or area remain artificially cheap.
Fully fund treatment and housing programs. But demand that people accept accountability, even if that means forcibly removing them from a street culture where they are destroying themselves.
Use our assets wisely. Sell these homeless services buildings in stunningly expensive areas(the Mitch Snyder center sits on an entire block worth probably $200 million). Use that $200 million to build a comprehensive kick-ass full service facility in some area that isn't so damn expensive.
Homelessness has exploded in modern times, despite our catering to the ever-growing 'homeless services' industry.
I'm afraid you'd find my use of a casting couch for staffers to be too much of a sacrifice for you.
But it may be a sacrifice worth making, if only for Oop Oop's sake. That way after a rousing couch session I'd be less inclined to go the gym and stare luridly at his awesome equipment, thereby hopefully preventing yet another psyche-scarring example of gayness being thrust upon him.
Plus, there's that little matter of me demanding that my supporters transfer their paychecks directly to me, give me their homes when they die, etc. Apparently some find that inappropriate. I don't see why. It seems to work for preachers.
DC contains 12% of the metro region's population, YET it has 55% of the public housing and 40% of the homeless. Now, let's look at the city....Ward 3 and parts of Ward 4 "Just say NO". So pressures for these things are shifted to yet an even smaller area of the city.
This is the point I find so often gets overlooked. The question is not whether DC is going to provide services to the indigent, drug-addicted, alcoholic, etc... It's a question of how much of the *regional* burden is the city expected to take on.
When you can point to anywhere in Montgomery County (or Alexandria, or Arlington, etc...) that has the massive concentration of services you see on the North Capitol Street corridor between Mass and Florida Avenues, those arguments will have a lot more weight...
Mental health has come a long way in the United States, but I agree that it still has a long way to go.
Here is a glimpse of what conditions were like immediately following WWII:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lobotomist/
Oh, and Larry Craig makes a choice to behave the way he does. The fact that he's gay may not be a choice, but choosing to live a lie for 60+ years is his doing, and not a function of "society".
So you don't understand why some gay men, especially those that are older, try to live as straight?
I guess you've never had to choose between being beaten senseless or not, between being fired or not, between being evicted or not, between being disowned or not, between being constantly harassed or not, between being treated as a full citizen or not, being told literally from birth that you MUST be straight, being trained from birth for straightness even though you aren't straight. Faced with those choices, an attempt to live as straight suddenly seems like a reasonable choice, if only for self-preservation.
Gay men and women face this decision every day in America. Even here in DC, as your 'gay mens are hittin on me every time I step out my front door' silliness demonstrates (albeit admittedly to a less striking degree).
This is a function of straight society's backward views of gay people.
Interestingly, one of the favorite old canards of the gay-hating crowd is the 'gay men are always looking at me wrong' allegation, suggesting it ain't safe for straight guys to walk the streets because of all the gayness out there, just piling up in giant pink piles on nearly every streetcorner.
Ranks right up there with 'all gay people are rich' and 'gay men are morally suspect because a tiny fraction of them give in to the pressure and try to live a straight life'.
Pretty much sure to inflame those that don't like gays to begin with. And pretty much hogwash.
I'm not justifying any gay man that knows he's gay getting married to a woman and not telling her he's gay. I'm just saying I understand how confusing and difficult it was for gay men in decades past (especially with society demanding that they marry and deny any confused sexuality feelings they had), and I know it continues at some level to this point. I don't think most that do this intentionally deceive. I think most are firmly convinced (and convinced by those around them) that they really can make themselves be straight.
The irony, of course, is that all of us mos are out there waiting to try out our gayness on them every chance we get, what with our First Gay Commandment, which is "Thou Shalt Sexually Assault One Straight Guy Per Day".
Hillman is right. The last thing that DC needs is more programs for them to screw up, mismanage and run into the ground. Anything new will just be viewed as a jobs programs anyhow.
What DC needs is a smaller government and to loosen up the rules already in place.
I was struck by something that I saw while driving in from Hyattsville. There are a lot of shopping centers and commercial activities and all of the development ends once you cross Eastern Avenue into the District.
Hillman wrote: ". . .study after study has shown that rent control actually reduces the number of affordable housing units available, and it creates substandard conditions in those remaining housing units."
Since you've referred to "study after study" here, can you give me cites for two?
I have no idea whether you're right. I don't have strong feelings for or against rent control -- I don't feel like I know enough about the subject to *have* strong feelings. But your statement above runs counter to my own personal experience in a couple of places I've lived -- especially in Boston, where an admittedly very small amount of reasonably-priced rental property during the rent control era went to absolutely none after rent control was abolished.
And here's another two. I can't vouch for the legitimacy of these generally, but a simple Google search shows up tons of studies, most of which say rent control is quackery at best and at worst actually reduces the amount and quality of rental stock. Plus, of course, it's a fairly selective use of government force to redistribute income, but it only falls on landlords, not on grocers, gas stations, lawyers, accountants, etc.
I agree with Hillman - rent control only ties landlords' hands so they don't have the cash to improve their properties (and why bother if you know most of your tenants aren't going anywhere so they don't give up a rent controlled apartment) and developers have no incentive to build anything but high-end rentals since they know their potential to increase cash flow is basically capped as soon as the property is leased up, so you might as well start with the bar as high as possible.
Also, going back to an earlier comment, all public assistance programs including housing should be means-tested on a regular basis. You have plenty of people living in subsidized housing whose incomes have grown far beyond the initial low-income threshold...these are people that could afford to pay more but don't leave because of ridiculously low rents, preventing truly needy people from getting to move into those units.
a friend in new york LOVES rent control. he's a consultant, and lives right next to columbia university in a two bedroom apt. for something like $800 a month.
he is subletting that from another young professional, who is subletting from another young professional, and so on. i think they've been doing this for decades.
i don't see that thing going to 'poor folks' anytime soon. not with their white collar network.
heck my friend could probably rent it out to some other professional easily for $1500 or more nowadays.
oh yeah, and there's another friend, philip, doing the same thing.
i have no idea where the "economically challenged" live.
And please don't misunderstand. I fully support the idea of trying to maintain affordable housing. It's a laudable goal.
But it's just that we do it so bass-ackwards.
First, we devote the VAST majority of our public resources to providing public housing that is not for the working poor. Rather, it is for the non-working poor to the exclusion of the working poor.
Of course we need to house the elderly and those that are incapable of working. But so much of our funds go to house generations of people that don't work.
This takes away from funds we could be using to create worker housing.
It also tends to create social conditions that are extremely counterproductive. So we throw money at the problem (public housing ain't cheap to create or maintain),and we actually make social problems worse.
So our government fails miserably in the housing provision business, in large part because they are terrified of looking like they are 'against affordable housing'.
So to shift the blame they put most of the responsibility for creating affordable housing for the working poor on landlords, by creating rent control.
But they they don't require means testing, so from day one the system is abused and manipulated. It becomes primarily a system that allows a select few to get super cheap housing in pricey trendy areas, like Manhattan, or similar pricey areas of DC (on a DC scale of course).
And it allows the city to claim they are maintaining affordable housing, so they can ignore the fact that the real affordable housing - literally miles of it in the eastern parts of the city - has become drug and crime infested.
One major reason for such infestation? They very ill-designed public housing entitlement mentality that the city itself administers.
Why can they do this? A lot of it is class warfare. People love to hate a landlord, and they assume all landlords are wealthy (this just ain't true). So defending landlords is a political loser.
And let's face it. A lot of poorly educated people associate landlords with being Jewish. I can't count the number of times I've heard many in DC refer to their 'Jew landlord' or make other references to Jews and landlording. There's a good deal of racism and anti-Semitism in the whole idea of rent control in DC.
But now I really must take a break. I've bloviated all day, and at some point I exhaust even myself.
Except there isn't a Latino culture. Ask how much an Argentinean from Buenos Aires has in common with someone from the Yucatan. The answer is not much. Most Romance languages have a male and female gender for nouns. The slavic languages do as well. I'm not quite sure what your point is. BTW, Italian not Italiano. We are still speaking English albeit of the American variety.
The etymology of the word "Latino" includes "Derived from Latin" and encompasses all Spanish-speaking cultures. (I'll wait while you look it up)
So, trace it all back to Imperial Europeans (look it up, there is a place called Spain now...) and you have a nexus for Latin culture. Even the US Government has one box on the Census for you to check regardless if you're from Mexico, Spain, Cuba, etc. Yes there are exceptions in terms of language (Portuguese, for instance) but *that wasn't my point*. My point is that gender distinctions are dominant in Italian and Latin *cultures.* In Italy, automobiles are distinctly feminine - it is encoded into the language. (I'll wait again while you look it up)
Oh, and, more gays who F- things up for society at large: The Catholic Priesthood. Or the North American Man/Boy Love Association:
Seriously, the only thing I have against gays is the generally accepted notion that gays are somehow more enlightened and less dangerous than straight people. Its equivalent to saying that white people are superior, and we all know what a bunch of nonsense that it. (or do we?) So I guess you could say I'm against mindless pro-homosexual attitudes as much as I am against mindless pro-Caucasian attitudes. (and I'm a cracka')
trust me, little oop oop, there is no 'box' for portuguese speaking luso cultures in latin america. i know. i've been working with federal agencies to try and create one. oh yeah, and for arabs to, ignoramus. I'M SURE YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK THAT WORD UP.
but i digress.
i admire your postings. it takes quite some guts to post the stuff that you do. and i encourage it, really.
as a matter of fact, i'm going to contribute to jerry lewis' foundation this weekend in support of folks like you.
i admire your postings. it takes quite some guts to post the stuff that you do. and i encourage it, really.
Darn, just when you were about to come out, someone voices an opinion that suggests being gay doesn't automatically equate to being enlightened. Fragile, aren't you?
Don't people get it yet? Doo Doo is a small, small man.
He needs little challenges and victories to feel smart.
It doesn't matter the topic, or what positions are offered up.
He spaces out his comments as he believes it adds weight to his postings.
He likes to insult people, make smarmy coments, whatever...
Mention where he has lived, his experience in DC, whatever...
It's all about craving an identity, so people will 'know' him.
Maybe one day, people will say, "Remember that guy Doo Doo on the Frozen Tropics site? Yah, he really called those suckers out. Man, I wonder what happened to him?"
Small dreams for small men.
Now why would someone spend so much effort?
Is he the naughty child that figures bad attention is better than no attention? Probably...
Or is he more like the fat redneck who poses on chat rooms as the rich solcialite? More likely.
Between this string and the one on Jimmy's Tires, it seems the discussions are Frozen Tropics are dwindling down to what you see on CraigsList's Rants and Raves.
Completely off topic; personal attacks; accusations of bigotry and ignorance; failed attempts to draw parallels between one group of people and extremists…. That’s all I could take before skipping the rest.
If we could all stay a little more on topic it would be nice. I don't think the original article mentioned anything about anyone being gay. And the personal attacks aren't cool, just annoying.
I totally agree. And to suggest that lewd behaviour by drunken frat boys is representative of the behaviour of all straight men, is simply preposterous. Give it a rest, already.
With all do respect, many of the gentrification issues in major cities center around professional gay males willing to move into these blighted, left-behind areas and revitalizing them.
Therefore, like it or not, in articles such as these we are amiss by overlooking "the gay discussion". To ignore their contribution is just another form of bigotry - and in reference back to the article, were we even a part of "King's Vision on H"?
I have to agree with Anonymous. Discussion of gays in transitioning neighborhoods is an important discussion.
A good many folks in areas where perhaps education isn't so strong buy into the myths about gays (especially gay men) - that we are all wealthy and privileged, that we are constantly trolling for sex from straight men, etc.
This is a particularly big problem in DC.
Gay issues were a part of MLK's experience. Several of his top advisors were gay, and he had to decide how to deal with that. Coretta Scott King was quite emphatic in her statements that gay civil rights and black civil rights were intertwined, and she pleaded for more understanding between gays and blacks, particularly in the struggle to stabilize and improve urban living.
And to clarify - I never meant to suggest that all straight men disrespect women. Not at all.
i totally disagree with your stance on rent control.
one, it is meant to prevent the unchecked expansive growth in the cost of housing. not everyone can buy b/c quite frankly, there are more people than available spaces for sale (this is universally true in every large city, as the prospect of approximately half a million units being for sale at one time is improbable to the point of nigh impossibility).
there will always be a market for rental housing. people will always rent.
as such, if there is agreement that place and community are things to be valued, policies should be in place to prevent regular mass displacement by unchecked increases in rent.
rent and groceries are not NEARLY parallel...you can go to a different grocery store if one raises food prices...the competition in the market for food does not lend itself to astronomic growth in price within narrow periods of time. food prices traditionally parallel the ordinary rate of inflation. rental prices here in DC (and other large cities) do not. rent, unchecked, could conceivably go up 10-20%/year. The cost of a tomato? Not likely to ever go up that much in our economy, year on year.
You are literally comparing apples and oranges.
There is a limited supply of land. Food is produced/replenished endlessly, season upon season.
That's why grocery prices and rent aren't comparable in an argument about the validity of price control.
Your definition of 'affordable housing' seems out of sync as well. Miles of affordable housing available in DC? What is 'affordable'? The median house price in the DC metro area is 438k. who is that 'affordable' for? you're dead wrong on this issue, sir.
the cato institute are libertarian and thus ideologically predisposed to oppose rent control as government intervention. can you cite a study by a group that isn't already convinced of the outcome before they look at the question?
the city journal article is journalism, not an academic study (which means that it utilizes a less stringent mode of analysis than an academic study, among other issues) (for example: although it does refer to consensus on the issue from economists, it doesn't discuss contrary findings by legal academics, sociologists, etc; consensus by economists alone hardly closes the issue, even assuming such consensus has been accurately described by this one journalist). the article also limits its discussion to new york city, thereby limiting its applicability to this discussion (DC being markedly different from NYC).
The last link you cite is broken (although the New York Post in the link title makes it a bit suspect, being that the NY Post is hardly considered the pinnacle of journalism and hopefully the article appended is not a sqipe from the NY Post).
ps: 'quackery' is not the kind of language that should be used in polite discourse/debate. if you're going to argue with someone, assume that they have a valid point and you have a valid point, not that you're sane and they're quacks (or that their position is quackery, which implies that the supporter of said position is a quack). very reasonable people can be on either side of this issue. if you want to devolve into ad hominems, we can cut this short.
No, not really. The DC area isn't exactly at full occupancy. It's just that the trendy and downtown areas are expensive. I can find you plenty of undeveloped land in DC and the surrounding suburbs.
Yes, egads, the suburbs. Yes, you may have to live someplace 'uncool'. But it is more affordable.
Or, you could just go east of the Anacostia. There's literally miles of affordable housing, both for rent or for sale. Or, continue a bit further into Maryland, where it gets even cheaper.
Your statistic about median housing price in the DC area being $438,000 is misleading. First, that's single family house. Most people starting out in urban areas can't afford a single family house.
A simple search on Craigslist shows over 1200 properties for sale in the DC at less than $250,000, all posted within the last week.
"the competition in the market for food does not lend itself to astronomic growth in price within narrow periods of time. food prices traditionally parallel the ordinary rate of inflation."
That ain't exactly true either. I've seen food prices go up by 20% or more in a year. Often it's milk or meat, depending on supply and demand, the competition in a particular market, etc.
And you seem to be missing the point. My point isn't the economics per se. It's the unfair application. Food is a major cost for poor and working class people. So is housing. So is gas / transportation. Why do we feel it's morally ok to price cap one artificially, arbitrarily, and without means testing, and not the others.
And you conveniently leave out my other example - gas. Gas is certainly prone to massive price increases. Why don't we artificially set a gas price ceiling?
And one other quickie Craigslist search shows 174 2 bedroom apartments listed at $1000 or less in the DC area, just in the last week.
A quick review of the Washington Post housing ads show a slew of apartments priced at $1000 or less. And that's just those that advertise. Many of the huge apartment complexes don't bother with print or online advertising.
It's just that these are for the most part not in trendy neighborhoods.
"as such, if there is agreement that place and community are things to be valued, policies should be in place to prevent regular mass displacement by unchecked increases in rent."
That's not how cities evolve. Rather, that's how natural growth and population patterns are stifled and distorted.
But, if that's really your goal, how about if you pay for it, rather than demanding that only a small group of others (landlords) foot the bill for it? If artificially allowing people to stay in a certain location is indeed a worthy goal, perhaps the cost should be shared by all. Perhaps a special tax could be assessed on each city resident, to pay to allow people to have artificially cheap rent in exactly the location they desire, for the rest of their lives, and perhaps for the lives of, say, ten generations into the future?
No? If it's a worthy goal, surely it's worth everyone paying for.
And, again, we're not talking about forcing people to move to Siberia. At most people priced out of H Street can simply move about ten blocks north or east. Or, at most, twenty blocks.
71 comments:
Butler, who also is concerned that black residents are being "priced out of this city, and this corridor," doesn't want his business to be left behind. He plans to sell more polo shirts, button-down collared shirts and khakis that he hopes will appeal to the new residents.
Oy vey.
"About 60% of the stores on H Street today are black-owned, and about half of those owners also own their buildings, Saleem says. "We didn't have that opportunity in '68," he says. "We have it now."
Then why isn't the corridor any better? Is it because the other 30% are keeping it down? Seems that a majority of that 60% could care less about an improving H St. Think "opposition to BID" as one small example. Or, maybe its because of this business owner's attitude (also from the article) that's holding H St down:
"The revival brings hope but also worries for longtime residents and business owners such as George Butler. After the riots, Butler opened his men's store, George's Place, at 10th and H streets NE with the help of a government grant.... but he fears that King's dream of equal opportunity will be threatened if blacks are pushed out as the neighborhood gentrifies.
'The neighborhood now has taken a different type of turn because what they're trying to do here is to bring another Georgetown to this area.'"
Would someone please explain this to me? Mr. Butler has no desire for this corridor to get better because he fears it gentrifying (translation "becoming too white"), but if 60 % of the African Am. business owners have been unable to "improve" the corridore over the last 40 years what's the harm in welcoming more diversity to give it a shot instead of fearing that its going to "change your culture" Do you honestly think the current culture is a healthy, productive one?
People will argue why do the posts always lead back to "race." Race & gentrification is a huge issue in our neighborhood stagnation and improvement and until the problem is out on the table we'll never see improvements. Racism in ANY form keeps people down. I think this is equally true of reverse-racism.
Great post inked.
You'd think with all the positive buzz H St. is generating vis a vis the NY Times, USA Today, we could get a grocery store interested in locating to H St.
I'm no marketing genius, but someone should be putting all these articles in a nice bundle and send it to Trader Joes/Whole Foods with a note saying "Get on the train!"
I live near Mr. Butler's store. I can't speak to the racial make-up of his clientele, but considering that his clothing is pretty much exclusively high-end, I'm kind of perplexed by his anxiety. Upper income blacks are just as likely to move into the H Street area as upper-income whites. And both subsets are likely to need the kind of business attire he sells.
Anonymous said:
"Then why isn't the corridor any better? Is it because the other 30% are keeping it down? Seems that a majority of that 60% could care less about an improving H St. Think "opposition to BID" as one small example. Or, maybe its because of this business owner's attitude (also from the article) that's holding H St down:"
Are you serious? Do you really believe that these business owners want winos, crackheads and misguided youth loitering in front of their businesses? If that is what you believe, then I am dismayed by your ignorance. Throwing the blame on the business owners over-simplifies the issues facing Washington DC. For a number of years, the H Street Corridor was a forgotten neighorhood and it's only since the middle-class and businesses have been priced out of the affluent Northwest DC that it has become the new area for "diversity". Now the police want to actively patrol. Now there are condos popping up all over the place. And now former slumlords want to renovate and clean up the neighborhood.
Anonymous also said:
"but if 60 % of the African Am. business owners have been unable to "improve" the corridore over the last 40 years what's the harm in welcoming more diversity to give it a shot instead of fearing that its going to "change your culture" Do you honestly think the current culture is a healthy, productive one?"
I am a professional middle-class black woman who moved into a building near H Street a little over 2 years ago. If I tried to moved into my building today, I would not be able to afford the rent. Let's be honest with ourselves... The transformation of the H Street Corridor into "The Atlas District" has not been an effort to diversify. It is driven by money. Those who have it, can stay. Those who don't... Well, they don't really matter, do they? Especially, since their current culture is so unhealthy and unproductive (BTW, there is more to DC culture than what you allow yourself to see on H Street... You may not understand it, but please do not imply that it is all negative). If this renaissance is truly an effort to diversify, will these new condos have a program in place for lower income families such that they can get a piece of the ever elusive "American Dream"? Will we have Rehabilitation Centers for the crackheads and the winos that loiter the street? Or will the police continue to push them off the block until they become someone else's problem?
It's not just poor people who are being priced out of H Street and if the black residents continue to move outside of the city, these businesses will lose their clientele. Once again, let's be honest with ourselves, middle class blacks and middle class whites are not likely patronize Butler's store for "business attire." Gentrification is and should be a concern to them.
The article and the comments contained are racist...against white people. But it is still racism. If you don't want rich people displacing poor people, say that. But it is not about income - it is about race. No one seems to wave the gentrification flag when young affluent black professionals come into the area. But the fact that many of the new H street dwellers are white, for some reason, is cause for alarm.
Simone Grant said...
"Do you really believe that these business owners want winos, crackheads and misguided youth loitering in front of their businesses?"
Yes, I think most of our dozens of liquor stores are fine with it, which is why they work so hard against the single beer ban.
Only 3-4 of the stores selling beer, wine, or liquor opposed the singles ban. The others signed on through voluntary agreements.
I agree totally with Anon. 2:51. And Ms. Grant THANK YOU for being a "professional middle class black woman" willing to live near H over 2 years and doing your part to support the community. Guess what, I am a professional middle class white male that moved into the H St. neighborhood 2 years ago. We both want the same thing for OUR H St. (it is neither "yours" anymore, nor is it "mine", it is ours). However, I do think it a little niave for you to think, as you stated, "will these new condos have a program in place for lower income families such that they can get a piece of the ever elusive "American Dream"? Will we have Rehabilitation Centers for the crackheads and the winos that loiter the street?" Good Lord, I pray that they don't. These types of things have been offered to boost up this area up for 40 years and it FAILED! Its time to move on, it's time to look forward. How have social programs helped this area? The only thing I see helping is people having a viable econimic vision for the neighborhood. Won't new jobs be the best "social program" these poor people could have?
Yes, race is a huge barrier to our woes, but get over it. Recognize it for what it was and move on. Until then we're going to remain stuck in "oh, the blacks aren't doing this" or "oh, the whites are doing this to me" and before long you realize that while you were complaining, 40 years have passed and we're left with nothing to show for it.
Looks like it would be a great location for a Gap.
Anyone interested in this general topic that would like a well-constructed and well-researched opinion on these social issues should check out some of Manhattan Institute Scholar John H. McWhorter's writings:
*Losing The Race: Self-sabotage in Black America (2000)
*Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America (2006)
anon 3:06, you wrote:
"Yes, I think most of our dozens of liquor stores are fine with it, which is why they work so hard against the single beer ban."
I offer:
I will say in Family Liquor's defense that they are trying very hard to diversify their stock of beers to include for example, Stella, Peroni, and Pilsner (to name but a few) in an effort to appeal to a larger clientele base (read as non-whino, if you like). I've been an around-the-corner neighbor and a regular patron since moving to the neighborhood in '04. Jerome is truly making an effort - perhaps consider showing him some support.
Grace deli across the street is another example that comes to mind. I'm typically the only white guy in there in the mornings, yet they offer good breakfast sandwhiches, BLT's, and they are very nice people. Not every location on H Street can be a trendy restaurant, coffee shop, or funky bar. Neighborhood businesses that have been here for awhile deserve support as well - not just the ones that we deem to be the places for the "cool cats".
Glad to see both the post and the opinions expressed here about it - it's good to have people talk about about the economic and demographic changes in our neighborhood.
The changes on H Street inevitably mean some decent people are going to get pushed out, but it also will push out folks whose absence will be missed by no one and will be a benefit to longtime residents and newcomers alike. There just isn't an efficient or fair way to separate the one from the other and in a more or less free market there is going to be some displacement of long-term residents (or businesses) both good and bad.
Obviously, the fact that the vast majority of people being displaced are black and the majority of those replacing them being white makes this an uncomfortable reality for some people.
The other night, I sat and read a few of the gentrification links on this blog. The Next American City-dc article made me aware of a stunning fact, one that I have never been aware of....DC contains 12% of the metro region's population, YET it has 55% of the public housing and 40% of the homeless. Now, let's look at the city....Ward 3 and parts of Ward 4 "Just say NO". So pressures for these things are shifted to yet an even smaller area of the city.
Any new development always seems to have a portion of the housing specified as affordable. Inclusionary Zoning has been under discussion at the Zoning Commission, I'm not sure where they stand on that...still discussing or some action in place.
So, we've touched the third rail. God help us all.
It's the culture, not the race, baby.
First, neighborhoods change. To try to artificially keep them one race or another is silly and counterproductive.
I got little sympathy for those that lived around H Street for forty years and had the opportunity and never bought their house (or business). Home ownership is hard work, but the reward is that you can't be displaced when a neighborhood changes. And they all change. Sooner or later.
There is a myth out there that says gentrification drives out homeowners, in large part because of higher real estate taxes. This is simply not true in DC. DC has a ton of programs designed to make sure that poor homeowners are not displaced because of rising taxes. In fact, you can actually get your entire tax bill deferred until after your death if you so choose (assuming you meet certain income category requirements).
What it does do is displace renters. But even that is mitigated heavily, with our fairly draconian rent control system.
And if you choose to rent for decades then you have no right to complain when your rent rises. Renting is easier, but it comes with a very real price - uncertainty.
But, yes, neighborhoods get more expensive. That's why you buy your house when it's cheap, taking a risk like so many of us did years ago.
Anonymous said:
"And Ms. Grant THANK YOU for being a "professional middle class black woman" willing to live near H over 2 years and doing your part to support the community."
Please do not "THANK" me. It comes across as patronizing (despite what good intentions you may have). The funny thing is I almost didn't mention my race because I knew that by mentioning it, I would become the "Black Representative" for "MY" community (Never mind the fact that I was born and raised in New York and have lived in DC a mere 2 years). However, I wanted to make it clear that there are other types of people being pushed out of the H Street Corridor. Never did I imply that the neighorhood should solely be for Black people. Nor should it solely be White. I am just stating that this "renaissance" is not an effort to diversify. And by "Diversify", I mean more than just race. If I was white, I still wouldn't be able to afford the rent in my building. And since I have to make it explicitly clear, I don't want Rich People displacing Poor (or Middle Class) People. I don't think it should be a luxury to live and work in the district.
Joe Englert said:
Some older white folks I know moved from Capitol Hill in the late 60's to Silver Spring for a backyard and better schools. The Italian and Irish neighborhood became black. Was this a tragedy?
Some of my other friends from Cheverly, Md recently died. In the 35 years that they lived in their suburban community, it went from 90% white to 90% black. Is this a tragedy?
Cities change. Suburbs change. It is a fact of life. Most of the time, demographic and social-economic change isn't kind to a lot of people on the margins. A lot of things have changed in the last 40 years. Many successful blacks would rather live in Bowie than Petworth. Why hold this against them?
Many so-called white hipsters prefer Columbia Heights to Springfield. Again, more power to them....
Longer life spans, transient societies, the drug epidemic, the familial abandonment of the elderly and the mentally handicapped, broken families, the erosion of the industrial and manufacturing economy, all these things have contributed to massive upheavel in the modern day city.
To try to understand it all, to glean perspective in a USA Today paragraph or two is pure folly.
funny. i was reading the parkerstreet newsgroup the other day. there's an account of two elderly black men were walking by parker street and one of them reportedly made a remark about senate square, pointed out some renovated buildings and said that the area is known as faggot park.
so you see? it's not always about income or race....
it's a very complex issue.
poop oo said: "so you see? it's not always about income or race...."
that is correct. Sex informs all aspects of life. In some cultures (Latino and Italiano come to mind) the written and verbal language are infused with sex-based inferences. (please don't argue the point unless you're fluent in Italian...)
Frankly, the world would be a better place if more men were comfortable with their own sexuality. (J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Craig come to mind) And if you're openly gay - that's great, but gay men often exhibit the same off-putting attitudes toward other men as straight men exhibit toward women. (leering, inappropriate comments, etc.) Don't think that being gay is a license to act like an ass.
anon 3:15 said:
"However, I do think it a little niave for you to think, as you stated, "will these new condos have a program in place for lower income families such that they can get a piece of the ever elusive "American Dream"? Will we have Rehabilitation Centers for the crackheads and the winos that loiter the street?" Good Lord, I pray that they don't. These types of things have been offered to boost up this area up for 40 years and it FAILED!"
they have NOT had programs to set aside low income housing in condo developments "for 40 years". Where on earth do you get such an idea?
Also, why would you pray that no rehabilitation facilities are established for alcoholics and drug addicts? That seems hopelessly backwards. What is your solution then? Lifetime imprisonment for public intoxication? Or acceptance of the alcohol/drug addicted homeless population as an incorrigible permanent fixture of H Street?
Finally, it is the height of ridiculousness to respond to a poster using a name with an anonymous reply. Are you in the Witness Protection Program? At least post with a nickname or other identifier.
ps: the word is spelled n-a-i-v-e. just think of the overpriced water and spell backwards.
ps: sudden displacement of groups from land is one of the most vexing problems of modern humanity and the source of many of history's conflicts. saying 'neighborhoods change' is a bit too obvious of a reply and undervalues the feeling of place, community, and other issues related to displacement anxiety. it is not about right or wrong, but about the more irrational nature of human beings to become attached to the familiar. when people are displaced due to changes in the market, discord is to be expected. the question is, if this is accepted as a given, what policies should be put in place to address it?
ps: Hillman, your comment about 'draconian rent control' was excessive. please look up what 'draconian' means. no one is flogging landlords. you might argue more convincingly that landlord/tenant law unfairly favors the tenant, but the rent control laws hardly qualify as 'draconian'. that description is FAR too extreme.
wow. You folks read/heard a different article than I did. I think that all of the merchants said that things are inproving on H. Why are you so defensive?
I quess that you haven't lived anywhere long enough yet to lament the loss of neighbors and friends.
Mr. Butler actually has a very nice store, it's really your loss if you settle for the Gap, or Macys.
Ok. How about 'rent control is excessive, stupid, classist, and an infringement on free enterprise?'
Is that more palatable?
Rent control is the artificial taking of someone's livelihood by government means, often using class warfare as it's impetus. It's applied arbitrarily and stupidly. For instance, we don't apply price controls on groceries or gas. And why no means test on rent control apartments? Could it be because a whole bunch of people are getting something for free and now they think they are morally entitled to essentially steal income from others?
Plus, of course, study after study has shown that rent control actually reduces the number of affordable housing units available, and it creates substandard conditions in those remaining housing units.
But, hey, it's a popular political thing, and in an idiotocracy like DC that's good enough.
"And if you're openly gay - that's great, but gay men often exhibit the same off-putting attitudes toward other men as straight men exhibit toward women. (leering, inappropriate comments, etc.) Don't think that being gay is a license to act like an ass."
This is a joke, right? I'm as gay as it gets, and I've got to say that it's been my experience after decades of being around gay men that gay men very rarely harass straight men. Certainly not to the extent some straight men harass women.
Is there really an epidemic of gay men forcing themselves on straight men? Really?
When I venture out with my straight buddies I'm fairly constantly shocked when I see what straight women put up with from some straight men. It's FAR more extreme than I ever see gay men doing to straight men.
And I'll trade you. I'll make sure gay men never look at a straight man 'too long', making him uncomfortable (actually, any straight man that gets upset from benign interest from a straight man is a moron and has other issues in play), if you will keep straight people from beating and killing gay men.
Deal?
"when people are displaced due to changes in the market, discord is to be expected. the question is, if this is accepted as a given, what policies should be put in place to address it?"
There are already alternatives to displacement. It's called buying your home or apartment (or business). It's been done since the modern city was created. And it's never been easier than it has been in modern times, particularly in DC in past decades.
A whole bunch of people chose not to buy in DC in years past. Now many (but not all) of those folks are demanding that we now dream up ways for them to stay exactly where they are indefinitely.
Quite often in DC we're not talking about a 'displacement' where people are priced out of the entire region. Rather, we're simply saying a neighborhood has gotten trendy and the 'affordable' line has moved five or ten blocks one way or another. It's not like people are being forcibly relocated to Siberia.
I think that demand is unreasonable and unfair to those that did take a risk and buy their homes back when.
There is plenty of affordable housing in DC. Literally miles of it. It's just that it's not always in a high-demand trendy neighborhood. And, admittedly, it's not often safe housing. But that's a whole different issue.
We should try our best to provide decent affordable housing for those willing to work. However, there is no moral impetus on us to provide that housing in a particularly trendy location.
Hillman, I can't speak for anyone else, but I am very offended by the gays. They NEVER hit on me.
What the hell?
Deal?
Its a deal IF you throw in a mechanism to reign in gays like Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. Mark Foley (sexual text messages to teenage male pages, remember him?). Frustrated gays really do create problems for the targets of their desire AND their families (wives).
Thanks
Jamie:
I've got a straight buddy that is actually very sad every time he comes to a gay function with me because no one hits on him. I'm not really sure why - he's not bad looking and he's a lot of fun to be around. The first couple times we hung out he was absolutely certain he'd have to be fighting off men with a stick, to the point that he was asking me how to decline interest gracefully (I told him the easiest way was to casually bring up how much he likes hot ladies). He was genuinely hurt when that never happened.
Larry Craig is a creation of straight society. If I had my way there'd be no need for the Larry Craig's of the world.
It's not gay people that are creating a situation where some men feel they must pretend to be straight.
As for Mark Foley, that wasn't a gay thing. It was an inappropriate abuse of power thing. And that's universal, regardless of orientation.
As for gay men making problems for their 'straight targets', that's fairly laughable. The incidence of gay on straight sexual assault is stunningly low, FAR FAR lower than straight man on woman.
Hillman you rock! Do you have your own blog? I'd love to participate in that.
And SoulSearcher said, "Also, why would you pray that no rehabilitation facilities are established for alcoholics and drug addicts? That seems hopelessly backwards. What is your solution then? "
Let me clarify, No rehabilitation facilities are established for alcoholics and drug addicts...in my back yard - they make my property values go down. I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't want one next to you either.
And one other thing SoulSearcher, you can be a real A**hole sometimes. That's spelled A.(blank,blank)H.O.L.E.
Sincerely,
Anonymous Fag (that's spelled A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. F.A.G.) - hey, maybe that could be my new signature line.
No blog for me. I'm far too self-centered to actually read what someone else would post to my blog.
As for rehab centers, public housing, etc...... I find it sortof silly when people suggest that opening a meth clinic will fix what ails H Street. Folks, we already have tons of rehabs, clinics, transitional housing, etc., in this neighborhood.
We've had these programs for 40 years. You'd think at some point someone would notice that they aren't working as planned.
Some real fixes that would work?
Overhaul our mental health system (or lack thereof). It's a moral outrage, how we treat our mentally ill. By and large we let them sit in our parks and rot. This is in part because we don't want to fund real treatment, and in part because 'homeless advocates' have convinced us that we don't have a right to demand that the mentally ill get treatment. So, instead, we let them literally rot away in parks and on streetcorners.
Then, we set up homeless shelters, public housing programs, and a variety of other programs that at best enable people to continue a self-destructive life.
Does anyone seriously think opening up one more shelter will really solve the problem? Really?
We need to provide real funds for treating addictions, but at the same time we MUST require accountability. We can't say it's ok to live on the street, begging by day and robbing people by night. That's simply unacceptable, both because it's unfair to those of us that go to work all day and because in the end it destroys the individual living on the street.
And we need to end our sense of entitlement. No one is entitled to a free or drastically reduced apartment. No one is entitled to liquor sales a certain way. No one is entitled to live on the street. No one has a right to insist that a certain property or area remain artificially cheap.
Fully fund treatment and housing programs. But demand that people accept accountability, even if that means forcibly removing them from a street culture where they are destroying themselves.
Use our assets wisely. Sell these homeless services buildings in stunningly expensive areas(the Mitch Snyder center sits on an entire block worth probably $200 million). Use that $200 million to build a comprehensive kick-ass full service facility in some area that isn't so damn expensive.
Homelessness has exploded in modern times, despite our catering to the ever-growing 'homeless services' industry.
Funny how we never ask why that is.
Hillman, after you get your soapbox, I'll help you run for office:) Great posts.
8th and El:
I'm afraid you'd find my use of a casting couch for staffers to be too much of a sacrifice for you.
But it may be a sacrifice worth making, if only for Oop Oop's sake. That way after a rousing couch session I'd be less inclined to go the gym and stare luridly at his awesome equipment, thereby hopefully preventing yet another psyche-scarring example of gayness being thrust upon him.
Plus, there's that little matter of me demanding that my supporters transfer their paychecks directly to me, give me their homes when they die, etc. Apparently some find that inappropriate. I don't see why. It seems to work for preachers.
DC contains 12% of the metro region's population, YET it has 55% of the public housing and 40% of the homeless. Now, let's look at the city....Ward 3 and parts of Ward 4 "Just say NO". So pressures for these things are shifted to yet an even smaller area of the city.
This is the point I find so often gets overlooked. The question is not whether DC is going to provide services to the indigent, drug-addicted, alcoholic, etc... It's a question of how much of the *regional* burden is the city expected to take on.
When you can point to anywhere in Montgomery County (or Alexandria, or Arlington, etc...) that has the massive concentration of services you see on the North Capitol Street corridor between Mass and Florida Avenues, those arguments will have a lot more weight...
Mental health has come a long way in the United States, but I agree that it still has a long way to go.
Here is a glimpse of what conditions were like immediately following WWII:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lobotomist/
Oh, and Larry Craig makes a choice to behave the way he does. The fact that he's gay may not be a choice, but choosing to live a lie for 60+ years is his doing, and not a function of "society".
So you don't understand why some gay men, especially those that are older, try to live as straight?
I guess you've never had to choose between being beaten senseless or not, between being fired or not, between being evicted or not, between being disowned or not, between being constantly harassed or not, between being treated as a full citizen or not, being told literally from birth that you MUST be straight, being trained from birth for straightness even though you aren't straight. Faced with those choices, an attempt to live as straight suddenly seems like a reasonable choice, if only for self-preservation.
Gay men and women face this decision every day in America. Even here in DC, as your 'gay mens are hittin on me every time I step out my front door' silliness demonstrates (albeit admittedly to a less striking degree).
This is a function of straight society's backward views of gay people.
Interestingly, one of the favorite old canards of the gay-hating crowd is the 'gay men are always looking at me wrong' allegation, suggesting it ain't safe for straight guys to walk the streets because of all the gayness out there, just piling up in giant pink piles on nearly every streetcorner.
Ranks right up there with 'all gay people are rich' and 'gay men are morally suspect because a tiny fraction of them give in to the pressure and try to live a straight life'.
Pretty much sure to inflame those that don't like gays to begin with. And pretty much hogwash.
I'm not justifying any gay man that knows he's gay getting married to a woman and not telling her he's gay. I'm just saying I understand how confusing and difficult it was for gay men in decades past (especially with society demanding that they marry and deny any confused sexuality feelings they had), and I know it continues at some level to this point. I don't think most that do this intentionally deceive. I think most are firmly convinced (and convinced by those around them) that they really can make themselves be straight.
The irony, of course, is that all of us mos are out there waiting to try out our gayness on them every chance we get, what with our First Gay Commandment, which is "Thou Shalt Sexually Assault One Straight Guy Per Day".
Oop Oop, does anyone really speak Latino?
Hillman is right. The last thing that DC needs is more programs for them to screw up, mismanage and run into the ground. Anything new will just be viewed as a jobs programs anyhow.
What DC needs is a smaller government and to loosen up the rules already in place.
I was struck by something that I saw while driving in from Hyattsville. There are a lot of shopping centers and commercial activities and all of the development ends once you cross Eastern Avenue into the District.
There would be no "Gay Rights" if no one came out - Period. It's as simple as that.
Hillman wrote: ". . .study after study has shown that rent control actually reduces the number of affordable housing units available, and it creates substandard conditions in those remaining housing units."
Since you've referred to "study after study" here, can you give me cites for two?
I have no idea whether you're right. I don't have strong feelings for or against rent control -- I don't feel like I know enough about the subject to *have* strong feelings. But your statement above runs counter to my own personal experience in a couple of places I've lived -- especially in Boston, where an admittedly very small amount of reasonably-priced rental property during the rent control era went to absolutely none after rent control was abolished.
Sure. Not sure if I can post links here, but..
Here's a Cato Institute study
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274es.html
And here's another two. I can't vouch for the legitimacy of these generally, but a simple Google search shows up tons of studies, most of which say rent control is quackery at best and at worst actually reduces the amount and quality of rental stock. Plus, of course, it's a fairly selective use of government force to redistribute income, but it only falls on landlords, not on grocers, gas stations, lawyers, accountants, etc.
http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1602
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-rent_controls.htm
I agree with Hillman - rent control only ties landlords' hands so they don't have the cash to improve their properties (and why bother if you know most of your tenants aren't going anywhere so they don't give up a rent controlled apartment) and developers have no incentive to build anything but high-end rentals since they know their potential to increase cash flow is basically capped as soon as the property is leased up, so you might as well start with the bar as high as possible.
Also, going back to an earlier comment, all public assistance programs including housing should be means-tested on a regular basis. You have plenty of people living in subsidized housing whose incomes have grown far beyond the initial low-income threshold...these are people that could afford to pay more but don't leave because of ridiculously low rents, preventing truly needy people from getting to move into those units.
a friend in new york LOVES rent control. he's a consultant, and lives right next to columbia university in a two bedroom apt. for something like $800 a month.
he is subletting that from another young professional, who is subletting from another young professional, and so on. i think they've been doing this for decades.
i don't see that thing going to 'poor folks' anytime soon. not with their white collar network.
heck my friend could probably rent it out to some other professional easily for $1500 or more nowadays.
oh yeah, and there's another friend, philip, doing the same thing.
i have no idea where the "economically challenged" live.
And that's what Carrie Bradshaw did on Sex and the City too!
- Wqunda (This was my "word verification", I'm serious. I like it and think I'll use it for my new signature. That should make SoulSearcher happy)
And please don't misunderstand. I fully support the idea of trying to maintain affordable housing. It's a laudable goal.
But it's just that we do it so bass-ackwards.
First, we devote the VAST majority of our public resources to providing public housing that is not for the working poor. Rather, it is for the non-working poor to the exclusion of the working poor.
Of course we need to house the elderly and those that are incapable of working. But so much of our funds go to house generations of people that don't work.
This takes away from funds we could be using to create worker housing.
It also tends to create social conditions that are extremely counterproductive. So we throw money at the problem (public housing ain't cheap to create or maintain),and we actually make social problems worse.
So our government fails miserably in the housing provision business, in large part because they are terrified of looking like they are 'against affordable housing'.
So to shift the blame they put most of the responsibility for creating affordable housing for the working poor on landlords, by creating rent control.
But they they don't require means testing, so from day one the system is abused and manipulated. It becomes primarily a system that allows a select few to get super cheap housing in pricey trendy areas, like Manhattan, or similar pricey areas of DC (on a DC scale of course).
And it allows the city to claim they are maintaining affordable housing, so they can ignore the fact that the real affordable housing - literally miles of it in the eastern parts of the city - has become drug and crime infested.
One major reason for such infestation? They very ill-designed public housing entitlement mentality that the city itself administers.
Why can they do this? A lot of it is class warfare. People love to hate a landlord, and they assume all landlords are wealthy (this just ain't true). So defending landlords is a political loser.
And let's face it. A lot of poorly educated people associate landlords with being Jewish. I can't count the number of times I've heard many in DC refer to their 'Jew landlord' or make other references to Jews and landlording. There's a good deal of racism and anti-Semitism in the whole idea of rent control in DC.
But now I really must take a break. I've bloviated all day, and at some point I exhaust even myself.
Oop Oop, does anyone really speak Latino?
My precise phrasing was "cultures", not "languages".
So, yes, there is a Latino culture, and no, there is no Latino language.
Now if only your reading abilities were a match for the comments section of this blog, we wouldn't have such misunderstandings.
Except there isn't a Latino culture. Ask how much an Argentinean from Buenos Aires has in common with someone from the Yucatan. The answer is not much. Most Romance languages have a male and female gender for nouns. The slavic languages do as well. I'm not quite sure what your point is. BTW, Italian not Italiano. We are still speaking English albeit of the American variety.
brasil is in south america, but the culture is lusophone, not latino.
and they speak portuguese, not spanish.
i'm just sayin'....
Wow...clearly, a lotta love on this blog. I think some of these comment makers have clearly missed the point of Dr. King's message.
The etymology of the word "Latino" includes "Derived from Latin" and encompasses all Spanish-speaking cultures. (I'll wait while you look it up)
So, trace it all back to Imperial Europeans (look it up, there is a place called Spain now...) and you have a nexus for Latin culture. Even the US Government has one box on the Census for you to check regardless if you're from Mexico, Spain, Cuba, etc. Yes there are exceptions in terms of language (Portuguese, for instance) but *that wasn't my point*. My point is that gender distinctions are dominant in Italian and Latin *cultures.* In Italy, automobiles are distinctly feminine - it is encoded into the language. (I'll wait again while you look it up)
Oh, and, more gays who F- things up for society at large: The Catholic Priesthood. Or the North American Man/Boy Love Association:
Seriously, the only thing I have against gays is the generally accepted notion that gays are somehow more enlightened and less dangerous than straight people. Its equivalent to saying that white people are superior, and we all know what a bunch of nonsense that it. (or do we?) So I guess you could say I'm against mindless pro-homosexual attitudes as much as I am against mindless pro-Caucasian attitudes. (and I'm a cracka')
trust me, little oop oop, there is no 'box' for portuguese speaking luso cultures in latin america. i know. i've been working with federal agencies to try and create one. oh yeah, and for arabs to, ignoramus. I'M SURE YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK THAT WORD UP.
but i digress.
i admire your postings. it takes quite some guts to post the stuff that you do. and i encourage it, really.
as a matter of fact, i'm going to contribute to jerry lewis' foundation this weekend in support of folks like you.
be well, kiddo. be well.
trust me, little oop oop, there is no 'box' for portuguese speaking luso cultures in latin america.
Reading comprehension error; try again.
Try, try again. Thats the best you can hope for; to succeed after multiple failures. You CAN do it!
i admire your postings. it takes quite some guts to post the stuff that you do. and i encourage it, really.
Darn, just when you were about to come out, someone voices an opinion that suggests being gay doesn't automatically equate to being enlightened. Fragile, aren't you?
Can we cut the crap now?
Claiming you're fine with the gays, then posting to a NAMBLA site?
I'd prefer it if you'd just go ahead and admit to being a bigot. I prefer my hate out front, rather than hiding behind cute fronts and false denials.
NAMBLA is NOT representative of gays in general, and you damn well know it.
This whole game with you and your poorly disguised hatred of gays is getting tiresome.
I was willing to entertain your crap earlier on when there was at least a possibility you were just misinformed.
But at this point the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you are filled with hate. And stupidity.
So stop it already. It's disrespectful to the gay people in your community.
But at this point the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you are filled with hate. And stupidity.
If that helps you to get through the night. go with it.
(Its called 'solipsism'; look it up)
Don't people get it yet? Doo Doo is a small, small man.
He needs little challenges and victories to feel smart.
It doesn't matter the topic, or what positions are offered up.
He spaces out his comments as he believes it adds weight to his postings.
He likes to insult people, make smarmy coments, whatever...
Mention where he has lived, his experience in DC, whatever...
It's all about craving an identity, so people will 'know' him.
Maybe one day, people will say, "Remember that guy Doo Doo on the Frozen Tropics site? Yah, he really called those suckers out. Man, I wonder what happened to him?"
Small dreams for small men.
Now why would someone spend so much effort?
Is he the naughty child that figures bad attention is better than no attention? Probably...
Or is he more like the fat redneck who poses on chat rooms as the rich solcialite? More likely.
Hillman, its obvious that Oop Oop is as gay as we are (unfortunately). He just has a much wider stance.
Your sista'
Wqunda
Between this string and the one on Jimmy's Tires, it seems the discussions are Frozen Tropics are dwindling down to what you see on CraigsList's Rants and Raves.
Completely off topic; personal attacks; accusations of bigotry and ignorance; failed attempts to draw parallels between one group of people and extremists…. That’s all I could take before skipping the rest.
Bill,
I couldn't agree more.
People, stop feeding the trolls on this blog. Please ignore their ridiculous comments so we have our fun website back.
If we could all stay a little more on topic it would be nice. I don't think the original article mentioned anything about anyone being gay. And the personal attacks aren't cool, just annoying.
Amen...
I totally agree. And to suggest that lewd behaviour by drunken frat boys is representative of the behaviour of all straight men, is simply preposterous. Give it a rest, already.
With all do respect, many of the gentrification issues in major cities center around professional gay males willing to move into these blighted, left-behind areas and revitalizing them.
Therefore, like it or not, in articles such as these we are amiss by overlooking "the gay discussion". To ignore their contribution is just another form of bigotry - and in reference back to the article, were we even a part of "King's Vision on H"?
I have to agree with Anonymous. Discussion of gays in transitioning neighborhoods is an important discussion.
A good many folks in areas where perhaps education isn't so strong buy into the myths about gays (especially gay men) - that we are all wealthy and privileged, that we are constantly trolling for sex from straight men, etc.
This is a particularly big problem in DC.
Gay issues were a part of MLK's experience. Several of his top advisors were gay, and he had to decide how to deal with that. Coretta Scott King was quite emphatic in her statements that gay civil rights and black civil rights were intertwined, and she pleaded for more understanding between gays and blacks, particularly in the struggle to stabilize and improve urban living.
And to clarify - I never meant to suggest that all straight men disrespect women. Not at all.
hillman,
i totally disagree with your stance on rent control.
one, it is meant to prevent the unchecked expansive growth in the cost of housing. not everyone can buy b/c quite frankly, there are more people than available spaces for sale (this is universally true in every large city, as the prospect of approximately half a million units being for sale at one time is improbable to the point of nigh impossibility).
there will always be a market for rental housing. people will always rent.
as such, if there is agreement that place and community are things to be valued, policies should be in place to prevent regular mass displacement by unchecked increases in rent.
rent and groceries are not NEARLY parallel...you can go to a different grocery store if one raises food prices...the competition in the market for food does not lend itself to astronomic growth in price within narrow periods of time. food prices traditionally parallel the ordinary rate of inflation. rental prices here in DC (and other large cities) do not. rent, unchecked, could conceivably go up 10-20%/year. The cost of a tomato? Not likely to ever go up that much in our economy, year on year.
You are literally comparing apples and oranges.
There is a limited supply of land. Food is produced/replenished endlessly, season upon season.
That's why grocery prices and rent aren't comparable in an argument about the validity of price control.
Your definition of 'affordable housing' seems out of sync as well. Miles of affordable housing available in DC? What is 'affordable'? The median house price in the DC metro area is 438k. who is that 'affordable' for? you're dead wrong on this issue, sir.
http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/Pages/MetroPrice
several of king's top advisors were gay or just bayard rustin?
the cato institute are libertarian and thus ideologically predisposed to oppose rent control as government intervention. can you cite a study by a group that isn't already convinced of the outcome before they look at the question?
the city journal article is journalism, not an academic study (which means that it utilizes a less stringent mode of analysis than an academic study, among other issues) (for example: although it does refer to consensus on the issue from economists, it doesn't discuss contrary findings by legal academics, sociologists, etc; consensus by economists alone hardly closes the issue, even assuming such consensus has been accurately described by this one journalist). the article also limits its discussion to new york city, thereby limiting its applicability to this discussion (DC being markedly different from NYC).
The last link you cite is broken (although the New York Post in the link title makes it a bit suspect, being that the NY Post is hardly considered the pinnacle of journalism and hopefully the article appended is not a sqipe from the NY Post).
ps: 'quackery' is not the kind of language that should be used in polite discourse/debate. if you're going to argue with someone, assume that they have a valid point and you have a valid point, not that you're sane and they're quacks (or that their position is quackery, which implies that the supporter of said position is a quack). very reasonable people can be on either side of this issue. if you want to devolve into ad hominems, we can cut this short.
Soul Searcher:
So, 'draconian' and 'quackery' is too strong for you?
You may want to develop a thicker skin if you're going to blog.
Beyond that....
The Cato Institute is many things. Can you find actual fault with their study, or do you just dislike them?
There are dozens of studies out there saying rent control is a sham. Yes, a sham. Is that too strong a word?
Here's yet one more..
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_34.htm
And the City Journal article referenced,what, half a dozen studies, most of which you could probably Google and locate directly.
But it's suspect because it's an article?
"There is a limited supply of land."
No, not really. The DC area isn't exactly at full occupancy. It's just that the trendy and downtown areas are expensive. I can find you plenty of undeveloped land in DC and the surrounding suburbs.
Yes, egads, the suburbs. Yes, you may have to live someplace 'uncool'. But it is more affordable.
Or, you could just go east of the Anacostia. There's literally miles of affordable housing, both for rent or for sale. Or, continue a bit further into Maryland, where it gets even cheaper.
Your statistic about median housing price in the DC area being $438,000 is misleading. First, that's single family house. Most people starting out in urban areas can't afford a single family house.
A simple search on Craigslist shows over 1200 properties for sale in the DC at less than $250,000, all posted within the last week.
"the competition in the market for food does not lend itself to astronomic growth in price within narrow periods of time. food prices traditionally parallel the ordinary rate of inflation."
That ain't exactly true either. I've seen food prices go up by 20% or more in a year. Often it's milk or meat, depending on supply and demand, the competition in a particular market, etc.
And you seem to be missing the point. My point isn't the economics per se. It's the unfair application. Food is a major cost for poor and working class people. So is housing. So is gas / transportation. Why do we feel it's morally ok to price cap one artificially, arbitrarily, and without means testing, and not the others.
And you conveniently leave out my other example - gas. Gas is certainly prone to massive price increases. Why don't we artificially set a gas price ceiling?
And one other quickie Craigslist search shows 174 2 bedroom apartments listed at $1000 or less in the DC area, just in the last week.
A quick review of the Washington Post housing ads show a slew of apartments priced at $1000 or less. And that's just those that advertise. Many of the huge apartment complexes don't bother with print or online advertising.
It's just that these are for the most part not in trendy neighborhoods.
"as such, if there is agreement that place and community are things to be valued, policies should be in place to prevent regular mass displacement by unchecked increases in rent."
That's not how cities evolve. Rather, that's how natural growth and population patterns are stifled and distorted.
But, if that's really your goal, how about if you pay for it, rather than demanding that only a small group of others (landlords) foot the bill for it? If artificially allowing people to stay in a certain location is indeed a worthy goal, perhaps the cost should be shared by all. Perhaps a special tax could be assessed on each city resident, to pay to allow people to have artificially cheap rent in exactly the location they desire, for the rest of their lives, and perhaps for the lives of, say, ten generations into the future?
No? If it's a worthy goal, surely it's worth everyone paying for.
And, again, we're not talking about forcing people to move to Siberia. At most people priced out of H Street can simply move about ten blocks north or east. Or, at most, twenty blocks.
Not exactly the Trail of Tears.
Post a Comment