I'm traveling in the mid east and saw this on Al Jazeera late last night. I thought it was super interesting that they did this story, and the piece itself is very well done.
This was a real well done piece. Sometimes I wish the major US news could do stuff even half this good. Its pretty basic, but it a thoughful look at why the black community in DC has been angry over gentrification.
Most Americans are so isolated and stupified by propaganda that there's not even a chance that they'd be capable of processing something like this even if it somehow made it onto their televisions.
Clearly this is just enemy propaganda generated by The Terrorists in order to divide our nation.
I'm more than a little tired of this "white people are the devil/white people are kicking us out of the neighborhood" theme coming from certain elements of the black community (see, Courtland Milloy for example).
First of all, this type of thing is flat out racist. If you had a white person saying this kind of stuff about black people (i.e., black people are kicking white people out of the neighborhood) he/she would be immediately and overwhelmingly be condemned. But here in DC we apparently tolerate it and certain politicians actually revel in it and encourage it.
Second, the notion that white people are kicking black people out is completely false. In my neighborhood, I have middle-class black neighbors who bought their house right before me and are fixing up their place just like I'm fixing up my place. So, basically, they are gentrifiers just like me.
What I see happening (and this is just anecdotal) is that a certain socio-economic class of people (who for the most part are black, I will admit) have not put any emphasis on educating their children or holding steady employment. As a result, you have grandchildren living with grandparents in rowhouses in DC. When the grandparents die, the grandkids (who didn't go to college and don't have a job) inherit the house and immediately sell it for half a million dollars. The grandkids then take off to who knows where to count their winnings.
So don't tell me that these people are being kicked out. Most if not all are selling their houses in DC for hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they paid for them.
Are you talking about in general, or this video specifically? I haven't finished watching it yet, but the portrait of the developer who was renovating abandoned houses in Anacostia certainly seemed pretty fair.
The bottom line is, it *is* complicated. Some long-term homeowners really welcome gentrification. Most long-term renters hate and fear it.
I thought it was quite interesting when long-time resident Howard Croft pointed to a row of gutted, falling-down buildings, and said, "You know, if the city wanted to, they could come in an buy all these buildings and fix them up." Which, as anyone with any knowledge of the story of H Street (or of abandoned buildings in other parts of town) knows is a total over-simplification.
Basically, folks want the government to come in, wave a magic wand, and make their neighborhoods look like Georgetown, but with no private investment, and without changing the demographics of the population, and without affecting rents at all.
Sure it's impossible, but it's an understandable desire.
Ok, the segment at 8:30 was a bit ridiculous. The narrator essentially argues, the black population peaked in 1970, then began a rapid decline, mostly because middle-class blacks wanted to chase the dream of suburban success.
My guess is that the entire city burning in the '68 riots followed by 20 years of violent crime and upheaval may have had something to do with it.
jj, did you watch the video? The people in the video arent going "send the white devils home". They are simply saying these main points. Even with crime, poverty etc, they have built a community and, in cases like Barry Farm, they are being forced out. Secondly, the businesses that are coming arent aimed to service them, they are used to service the "newcomers" be they whites, asian or even black.
Im not saying that I agree with all the arguments, but you have to understand their point of view. Its hard for me, and I supect, many others white people in DC to get alot of this. I've moved around a ton. The people in the piece have a feeling about "community" that i'm not sure i really understand. I suspect that when they say community they have a different meaning than what I do. Perhaps, when you are poor and have less the support of the community matters more, i dont know. Their reactions and statements are similar to those that I have seen on people who are losing a family farm or family land.
I was speaking in general (which the piece highlights).
I agree that the situation is more complicated -- every city should offer some form of low-income housing in my opinion.
Your point about the Howard Croft quote is well taken and I think this goes to my point -- certain socio-economic elements of this city appear to have a deep-set culture of victimization/looking to the government for subsidies. So, rather than looking at themselves and taking the initiative to become better educated or look for work, they like to sit back and say its white people's fault or the government needs to come in and renovate my block.
It would have been nice if the piece could have addressed this issue, but I don't fault them for not touching it since it is complicated.
Huge props to the producers of this segment for including the footage of the black middle-class gentrifiers of Anacostia. This is a more nuanced treatment of gentrification than any of the Washington Post articles I've seen in recent memory.
The whole black/white thing is obviously what drives a lot of the dialogue, but I think it miscasts the issues. What if all of DCs poor blacks where displaced to the suburbs, and where replaced with middle-class black lawyers? What would the critique be then?
Yes, I did watch the piece. And its fairly well communicated by the people that are interviewed that they believe white people (specifically, white gentrifiers) are "kicking" them out.
But again, how are white people kicking them out? The piece doesn't say nor do do I think they could because, in fact, white people are not kicking them out. Most have VOLUNTARILY chosen to sell their homes for hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they paid for them and are moving to the suburbs. So, sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who like to punch a gift horse in the mouth...
Right, but I think you're looking at two different groups of people. There are homeowners, who have mainly received mixed benefits, versus renters, who've seen an increase in public safety and some city services, but mostly felt the downside.
You appear to be faulting the latter group for not celebrating the benefits which have accrued to the former group.
Well yes, renters by and large get the short end of the stick with "gentrification".
But then, renters get the short end of the stick in everything really - that's part of renting. You don't own the property. It's not yours. Arguing that that its unfair that you can't afford to rent a place because property values are going up (becuase people are selling houses to those who wish to then improve them as homes) along with the other improvements that come along with it is ridiculous.
It's like arguing that it's "unfair" that rich people pay so much money to buy Bentleys and Maybachs because it drives up the rate at which I'm normally able to rent those cars - and oh by the way, when I do rent them I'm not worried about scratching the paint or curbing the rims because after all - it's only a rental.
I'm being flippant here, but that's the point. There is a sens of "entitlement" if that's what you want to call it, when you're a renter. I understand this - I grew up with parents that never owned a home. You pay the rent and the bills and SOMEONE ELSE is responsible to fix things, keep the house in working order, etc.
When I hear renters complain that they're being "driven" out be gentrification I roll my eyes. It's just plain ignorance and self-pity. As a renter you can and should have the right to fight against unsafe living conditions - but YOU CANNOT complain that those conditions are getting too good (i.e., the rent's going up).
Furthermore there are countless abandoned hundred-year old rowhouses throughout this city that were being sold by the District for like a dollar as long as you agreed to move in and fix the place up. Well, there's your ticket to upward mobility. That's where I bought my home from. Someone that grew up in a chronically underdeveloped neighborhood put forth the effort to fix up an abandoned property and sell it. I didn't drive him out - he left with a smile on his face. Go track him down and complain about "gentrification".
But then, renters get the short end of the stick in everything really - that's part of renting. You don't own the property. It's not yours. Arguing that that its unfair that you can't afford to rent a place because property values are going up (becuase people are selling houses to those who wish to then improve them as homes) along with the other improvements that come along with it is ridiculous.
As evidenced by the National Teabagger Movement, folks seldom behave rationally when they perceive their quality of life is at risk. But I'd say that, for poor renters who see rising rents in their future, voting to keep those rents from going up *are* acting pretty rationally.
Certainly so in an age of white middle-class retired folks taking to the streets to "keep the Gummit's hands off my Medicare!"
Just a reminder to anyone who buys into the cost of living drove lots of innocent folks off narrative that:
1. DC protects homeowners who live in their homes by capping the increase in property taxes at 10% per year; and
2. many renters are similarly protected, so long as they are renting from someone who owns 4 or more units as DC similarly caps the percent that the landlord can increase the rent on someone who chooses to continue to rent at the end of their initial lease (when I last rented it was usually around 2-3% and can never top 10% IIRC). Such an increase is only permissible once a year.
Wonder if the media will ever point out any of these facts instead of just continuing to push this antigentrification line that near as I can tell is a largely factually inaccurate opinion of a recently-vocalized minority.
Just watched the whole video. Great stuff, alot to digest. But I have to echo earlier comments, in that, if I posted a video of me and my white friends saying "Yeah I saw a black person in my neighborhood yesterday just standing around loitering. You know the neighborhoods about to change", I can only imagine the blowback. This is reverse racism at its most obvious. White people are vilified for wanting to live in a certain area. All of this of course, leaves out all of the amazing, great things that gentrification brings.
Living in the city is a privilege. If you can't afford that privilege then boo hoo. I can't afford to visit the international space station, you dont see me crying.
[an alternate voice] Wow, there's a lot of blaming going on here. I think before we deny renters the right to be upset about gentrification and being priced out of their neighborhoods, we need to look at the reasons why they are not homeowners. Let's not even look at race right now.
There are a number of people who rent because they want the mobility and freedom that comes with it. That's great. These people are generally younger and are still finding their place in the world. However, the majority of renters do so because they don't have access to the resources required to own a home.
We're talking about POWER here. They may lack the stable, well-paying job needed to afford to purchase, pay taxes on, and upkeep a home. They may come from families where homeownership has never been a reality, and thus lack the knowledge of basic maintenance and repairs, how to go about purchasing a home, or where to even find this information. They may have poor credit because they had parents who, for whatever reason, were unable to teach them about personal finances, and attended a school lacking such curriculum. We're looking at generational oppression, power structures that keep resources (property, decision making power) in the hands of people who already have them, and do not allow those without resources (renters, non-management workers, those who lack quality education) to accumulate. Just as wealth tends to stay in families (it takes a lot to f*** up and lose an entire family's wealth in just one generation), poverty does the same. It takes extraordinary circumstances to overcome the barriers facing someone who has grown up in poverty, barriers those in the middle class never have to think about.
Now let's put a tiny piece of race back in the picture. Redlining in the 50s and 60s contributed to white flight, property values in the cities declined, and in some instances, as you saw in the video, low-income blacks who owned their own homes (declared worthless by the government) were displaced and put into public housing or rental properties, because they lacked the decision-making power and the wealth to stop it. This wasn't based on choice... they now have a NEED to rent. Contrast this with the white middle-class, who owned homes with equity, and whose children inherited those paid-off homes, thus creating generational wealth, and eliminating the NEED to rent.
Certainly if someone is mobile enough (i.e.: has cashflow to move at will), they probably have little right to be mad that their choice to rent an affordable apartment is being threatened. But for those who have no choice but to rent, they seem quite justified in being a little bit pissed off at being forced to leave the only homes they have access to.
As for the cap on rent increases, this law only effects those properties owned by landlords with 4+ rental units. That exempts a lot of rental units. Also, this year the allowable rate increase was around 6%. For a $1,500/month apartment (which is modest, especially if you're talking about a family), that's an increase of nearly $100 a month. That may not seem like much to someone with a savings account and a stable job, but for someone living paycheck to paycheck without annual cost-of-living raises, that's nearly enough to price one out of the apartment.
20 comments:
I'm traveling in the mid east and saw this on Al Jazeera late last night. I thought it was super interesting that they did this story, and the piece itself is very well done.
This was a real well done piece. Sometimes I wish the major US news could do stuff even half this good. Its pretty basic, but it a thoughful look at why the black community in DC has been angry over gentrification.
Most Americans are so isolated and stupified by propaganda that there's not even a chance that they'd be capable of processing something like this even if it somehow made it onto their televisions.
Clearly this is just enemy propaganda generated by The Terrorists in order to divide our nation.
I'm more than a little tired of this "white people are the devil/white people are kicking us out of the neighborhood" theme coming from certain elements of the black community (see, Courtland Milloy for example).
First of all, this type of thing is flat out racist. If you had a white person saying this kind of stuff about black people (i.e., black people are kicking white people out of the neighborhood) he/she would be immediately and overwhelmingly be condemned. But here in DC we apparently tolerate it and certain politicians actually revel in it and encourage it.
Second, the notion that white people are kicking black people out is completely false. In my neighborhood, I have middle-class black neighbors who bought their house right before me and are fixing up their place just like I'm fixing up my place. So, basically, they are gentrifiers just like me.
What I see happening (and this is just anecdotal) is that a certain socio-economic class of people (who for the most part are black, I will admit) have not put any emphasis on educating their children or holding steady employment. As a result, you have grandchildren living with grandparents in rowhouses in DC. When the grandparents die, the grandkids (who didn't go to college and don't have a job) inherit the house and immediately sell it for half a million dollars. The grandkids then take off to who knows where to count their winnings.
So don't tell me that these people are being kicked out. Most if not all are selling their houses in DC for hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they paid for them.
We should all be so put out...
@jj,
Are you talking about in general, or this video specifically? I haven't finished watching it yet, but the portrait of the developer who was renovating abandoned houses in Anacostia certainly seemed pretty fair.
The bottom line is, it *is* complicated. Some long-term homeowners really welcome gentrification. Most long-term renters hate and fear it.
I thought it was quite interesting when long-time resident Howard Croft pointed to a row of gutted, falling-down buildings, and said, "You know, if the city wanted to, they could come in an buy all these buildings and fix them up." Which, as anyone with any knowledge of the story of H Street (or of abandoned buildings in other parts of town) knows is a total over-simplification.
Basically, folks want the government to come in, wave a magic wand, and make their neighborhoods look like Georgetown, but with no private investment, and without changing the demographics of the population, and without affecting rents at all.
Sure it's impossible, but it's an understandable desire.
Ok, the segment at 8:30 was a bit ridiculous. The narrator essentially argues, the black population peaked in 1970, then began a rapid decline, mostly because middle-class blacks wanted to chase the dream of suburban success.
My guess is that the entire city burning in the '68 riots followed by 20 years of violent crime and upheaval may have had something to do with it.
#historyfail
jj, did you watch the video? The people in the video arent going "send the white devils home". They are simply saying these main points. Even with crime, poverty etc, they have built a community and, in cases like Barry Farm, they are being forced out. Secondly, the businesses that are coming arent aimed to service them, they are used to service the "newcomers" be they whites, asian or even black.
Im not saying that I agree with all the arguments, but you have to understand their point of view. Its hard for me, and I supect, many others white people in DC to get alot of this. I've moved around a ton. The people in the piece have a feeling about "community" that i'm not sure i really understand. I suspect that when they say community they have a different meaning than what I do. Perhaps, when you are poor and have less the support of the community matters more, i dont know. Their reactions and statements are similar to those that I have seen on people who are losing a family farm or family land.
@oboe,
I was speaking in general (which the piece highlights).
I agree that the situation is more complicated -- every city should offer some form of low-income housing in my opinion.
Your point about the Howard Croft quote is well taken and I think this goes to my point -- certain
socio-economic elements of this city appear to have a deep-set culture of victimization/looking to the government for subsidies.
So, rather than looking at themselves and taking the initiative to become better educated or look for work, they like to sit back and say its white people's fault or the government needs to come in and renovate my block.
It would have been nice if the piece could have addressed this issue, but I don't fault them for not touching it since it is complicated.
Huge props to the producers of this segment for including the footage of the black middle-class gentrifiers of Anacostia. This is a more nuanced treatment of gentrification than any of the Washington Post articles I've seen in recent memory.
The whole black/white thing is obviously what drives a lot of the dialogue, but I think it miscasts the issues. What if all of DCs poor blacks where displaced to the suburbs, and where replaced with middle-class black lawyers? What would the critique be then?
@dcjaded,
Yes, I did watch the piece. And its fairly well communicated by the people that are interviewed that they believe white people (specifically, white gentrifiers) are "kicking" them out.
But again, how are white people kicking them out? The piece doesn't say nor do do I think they could because, in fact, white people are not kicking them out. Most have VOLUNTARILY chosen to sell their homes for hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they paid for them and are moving to the suburbs. So, sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who like to punch a gift horse in the mouth...
@jj,
Right, but I think you're looking at two different groups of people. There are homeowners, who have mainly received mixed benefits, versus renters, who've seen an increase in public safety and some city services, but mostly felt the downside.
You appear to be faulting the latter group for not celebrating the benefits which have accrued to the former group.
Well yes, renters by and large get the short end of the stick with "gentrification".
But then, renters get the short end of the stick in everything really - that's part of renting. You don't own the property. It's not yours. Arguing that that its unfair that you can't afford to rent a place because property values are going up (becuase people are selling houses to those who wish to then improve them as homes) along with the other improvements that come along with it is ridiculous.
It's like arguing that it's "unfair" that rich people pay so much money to buy Bentleys and Maybachs because it drives up the rate at which I'm normally able to rent those cars - and oh by the way, when I do rent them I'm not worried about scratching the paint or curbing the rims because after all - it's only a rental.
I'm being flippant here, but that's the point. There is a sens of "entitlement" if that's what you want to call it, when you're a renter. I understand this - I grew up with parents that never owned a home. You pay the rent and the bills and SOMEONE ELSE is responsible to fix things, keep the house in working order, etc.
When I hear renters complain that they're being "driven" out be gentrification I roll my eyes. It's just plain ignorance and self-pity. As a renter you can and should have the right to fight against unsafe living conditions - but YOU CANNOT complain that those conditions are getting too good (i.e., the rent's going up).
Furthermore there are countless abandoned hundred-year old rowhouses throughout this city that were being sold by the District for like a dollar as long as you agreed to move in and fix the place up. Well, there's your ticket to upward mobility. That's where I bought my home from. Someone that grew up in a chronically underdeveloped neighborhood put forth the effort to fix up an abandoned property and sell it. I didn't drive him out - he left with a smile on his face. Go track him down and complain about "gentrification".
But then, renters get the short end of the stick in everything really - that's part of renting. You don't own the property. It's not yours. Arguing that that its unfair that you can't afford to rent a place because property values are going up (becuase people are selling houses to those who wish to then improve them as homes) along with the other improvements that come along with it is ridiculous.
As evidenced by the National Teabagger Movement, folks seldom behave rationally when they perceive their quality of life is at risk. But I'd say that, for poor renters who see rising rents in their future, voting to keep those rents from going up *are* acting pretty rationally.
Certainly so in an age of white middle-class retired folks taking to the streets to "keep the Gummit's hands off my Medicare!"
@Harshification:
I think your post could be more succinctly put as "The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must."
Of course, in America, power is political power, and there's nothing that's ridiculous if you can elect it into being.
Just a reminder to anyone who buys into the cost of living drove lots of innocent folks off narrative that:
1. DC protects homeowners who live in their homes by capping the increase in property taxes at 10% per year; and
2. many renters are similarly protected, so long as they are renting from someone who owns 4 or more units as DC similarly caps the percent that the landlord can increase the rent on someone who chooses to continue to rent at the end of their initial lease (when I last rented it was usually around 2-3% and can never top 10% IIRC). Such an increase is only permissible once a year.
Wonder if the media will ever point out any of these facts instead of just continuing to push this antigentrification line that near as I can tell is a largely factually inaccurate opinion of a recently-vocalized minority.
Not to mention that if a renter doesn't like the direction that the neighborhood is taking, they can move.
All those black middle class folks with jobs and education who move into our hood and fix up their cribs are just acting white :)
Just watched the whole video. Great stuff, alot to digest. But I have to echo earlier comments, in that, if I posted a video of me and my white friends saying "Yeah I saw a black person in my neighborhood yesterday just standing around loitering. You know the neighborhoods about to change", I can only imagine the blowback. This is reverse racism at its most obvious. White people are vilified for wanting to live in a certain area. All of this of course, leaves out all of the amazing, great things that gentrification brings.
-Jordan
Living in the city is a privilege. If you can't afford that privilege then boo hoo. I can't afford to visit the international space station, you dont see me crying.
This video is racist.
[an alternate voice] Wow, there's a lot of blaming going on here. I think before we deny renters the right to be upset about gentrification and being priced out of their neighborhoods, we need to look at the reasons why they are not homeowners. Let's not even look at race right now.
There are a number of people who rent because they want the mobility and freedom that comes with it. That's great. These people are generally younger and are still finding their place in the world. However, the majority of renters do so because they don't have access to the resources required to own a home.
We're talking about POWER here. They may lack the stable, well-paying job needed to afford to purchase, pay taxes on, and upkeep a home. They may come from families where homeownership has never been a reality, and thus lack the knowledge of basic maintenance and repairs, how to go about purchasing a home, or where to even find this information. They may have poor credit because they had parents who, for whatever reason, were unable to teach them about personal finances, and attended a school lacking such curriculum. We're looking at generational oppression, power structures that keep resources (property, decision making power) in the hands of people who already have them, and do not allow those without resources (renters, non-management workers, those who lack quality education) to accumulate. Just as wealth tends to stay in families (it takes a lot to f*** up and lose an entire family's wealth in just one generation), poverty does the same. It takes extraordinary circumstances to overcome the barriers facing someone who has grown up in poverty, barriers those in the middle class never have to think about.
Now let's put a tiny piece of race back in the picture. Redlining in the 50s and 60s contributed to white flight, property values in the cities declined, and in some instances, as you saw in the video, low-income blacks who owned their own homes (declared worthless by the government) were displaced and put into public housing or rental properties, because they lacked the decision-making power and the wealth to stop it. This wasn't based on choice... they now have a NEED to rent. Contrast this with the white middle-class, who owned homes with equity, and whose children inherited those paid-off homes, thus creating generational wealth, and eliminating the NEED to rent.
Certainly if someone is mobile enough (i.e.: has cashflow to move at will), they probably have little right to be mad that their choice to rent an affordable apartment is being threatened. But for those who have no choice but to rent, they seem quite justified in being a little bit pissed off at being forced to leave the only homes they have access to.
As for the cap on rent increases, this law only effects those properties owned by landlords with 4+ rental units. That exempts a lot of rental units. Also, this year the allowable rate increase was around 6%. For a $1,500/month apartment (which is modest, especially if you're talking about a family), that's an increase of nearly $100 a month. That may not seem like much to someone with a savings account and a stable job, but for someone living paycheck to paycheck without annual cost-of-living raises, that's nearly enough to price one out of the apartment.
Post a Comment