Love him or hate, he is a popular guy. His message was an important one to me, housing affordability. Actually, his speech mostly focused on gentrification. Bernie and crew met within a mile of a few of the properties I own to rent, and where I live. So, I know a thing or two about gentrification- which Dictionary.com defines as: the process of repairing and rebuilding homes and businesses in a deteriorating area (such as an urban neighborhood) accompanied by an influx of middle-class or affluent people and that often results in the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents
So todays’ blog is on gentrification. Just like the messenger, Bernie Sanders, gentrification is a lightning rod, and both mean more than just a positive or a negative. As an example, look no further than the above definition, which starts out with the line “the process of repairing and rebuilding… in a deteriorating area”. Forgive me, but this is a noble and honorable thing for us to do. In fact, for years people did NOT fix up or rebuild deteriorating areas. For decades, people instead build isolated subdivisions mile and miles away for our urban cores. The laundry list of social ills created from that approach is also miles and miles long. Interestingly enough, the highest growth rate of poverty over the last decade has not been in urban cores, but in the suburban neighborhoods. Surprised? Check out the report by the Brookings Institution: The Suburbanization of Poverty: Trends in Metropolitan America, 2000 to 2008. Its researchers concluded that “suburbs saw by far the greatest growth in their poor population and by 2008 had become home to the largest share of the nations poor.” In the report, Brookings predicted the trend would continue, representing an “ongoing shift in the geography of American poverty.” That trend has continued from 2008 to 2018.
There are many reasons for this trend; stagnant wages; job loss; high transportation costs; and so on. The study goes on to say that it is not caused by poorer people moving to suburbs, it’s just that middle class families are shrinking in society. History proves that wealth concentrates itself in urban centers. Density helps everyone. Sharing services, parks; transportation; sidewalks and so on make us happier and healthier too.
Back to the definition of gentrification. It is the second part of that definition that draws the ire of some- “displacement”. Since I’m a positive guy, I like to believe that repairing and rebuilding homes and businesses are good for an area, and its existing neighbors. But, there are those who become displaced, and that does not need to be the case. As mentioned in my last blog, antiquated zoning laws often are more to blame in displacing residence, than those of us who are actually improving an area and living near downtown. Gentrification should mean there is a place for all of us to live, middle class, fixed income, and well off. That can happen if we take a proactive approach to allow greater density in our historic and well placed urban neighborhoods. Blaming one side or the other solves nothing. Which is what both sides of the political isles do, place blame. I’ve got an idea. Stop pointing fingers and let’s solve affordable housing together. Strip the books of zoning laws that prohibit affordable dwellings of all shapes and sizes near our urban core. Allow three residences where there use to be one.
Instead of displacing anyone, let’s work together to allow more places for us all to live. More houses helps everyone. It will also help stop the freight train of higher rents. More places to live equal lower rents. It also means we could economically integrate our neighborhoods and not just loss residents because rents go up.