The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Or at least the negative side to seeing communities raised up.

Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values.[1] Gentrification is typically the result of investment in a community by local government, community activists, or business groups, and can often spur economic development, attract business, lower crime rates, and have other benefits to a community.


I really don't get Spike Lee ... never really have. He seems like a racist guy who loves to give the finger to white people whenever he can. I get that. What I don't get is how he can turn that into a mission to knock cities upgrading the neighborhoods.

So it's bad to ignore inner city issues but when you raise the property value by cleaning things up it's just as bad ... or even worse?  :-\

Here is what the rub is. Usually when these cities undertake such a project, it is not with the mindset of helping the people who live in that area. The mindset is to improve the area in such a way that the current population is unable to live there any longer and new people are moving in taking away from the traditions and history of that particular neighborhood/community.

I'm not sure what your specific issue is or why Spike Lee is brought up.

It is a mixed bag, but the definition of gentrification is a really PC one for what actually occurs much of the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/us/new-york-spike-lee-gentrification/

I didn't just pull Spike Lee out of the air. He went on an expletive-filled rant about it a couple of days ago and has been making the talk show rounds.

"taking away from the traditions and history of that particular neighborhood/community". This makes no sense to me. Most neighborhoods aren't what they were 30 years ago ... good and bad.

Gentrification is when a population (usually black) lives somewhere for a long time and over time, neighborhoods are made nicer (sometimes by support from local government).

Then, the poor people's housing values go up and they sell, where the neighborhoods become rich and white.

But the downside is that it can kill culture of these urban neighborhoods.

Spike was complaining that the neighborhood he grew up in had lots of black culture.  His dad used to play African drums or something like that every night.  Then, the white people moved in and called the cops for noise disturbance.

And lastly, he was complaining that now that it's a white neighborhood, that cops actually care, when they didn't when he lived there.

...something like that.  Spike was kinda yelling and cursing, so it was hard to make everything out.

But, the positive side of gentrification is that it takes poor people and gives them higher property values, so they can sell and make enormous profits.

I see both sides to the issue. It isn't a black and white and definitely falls into a gray area. Gentrification does not always make money for the displaced though. One great example, the damaged homes in New Orleans after Katrina. The developers are buying cheap, improving, selling higher and running out the culture that made the city famous.

His dad played an acoustic bass guitar.  The drums reference was to Mount Morris Park.

I make this clarification because there's a huge difference between calling the cops for someone playing an acoustic guitar and playing the drums.

This is the insidious part.  In more detail, since the upper-income whites have arrived:

- the trash is picked up much more frequently
- more police resources are devoted to the area
- local public schools receive more funding

Why aren't these things happening when it's lower-income minorities that reside there?  Because they don't have the same political clout.

That would only help "poor people" who meet the minimum qualification of being an urban homeowner.  Poor renters (i.e. the overwhelming majority of the "poor") get priced out of their homes and are forced to move.

Classic chicken or egg argument...

All of these items are directly a result of the increased funding.  You add money by increasing the amenities seen by the area.  The result is as stated above.

If these things had existed before, then by definition, it wouldn't have been a "low-income" area. 

Brian, please explain why the city of New York chooses to allocate funding to that area differently now that upper-income whites live there.

You don't pay taxes for your block, and public schools are not individually funded by the taxes of the parents who send kids there.  The increased spending is because NYC officials decided to reallocate money to those areas, pure and simple.

The type of argument you are trying to make would work for gentrification of a suburb (or something similar), where there is a sizable change in municipal revenue and the services reflect that.  It does not work for gentrification of an urban neighborhood; the area is no more or less a part of NYC than it was before the gentrification, and NYC's total municipal revenue is not likely to have changed to a degree that would reflect the changes in services.

Let's be clear, I'm not making an argument.  Not at all.  I couldn't care less about this discussion.

I'm just saying that from my perspective:

- Want more trash collection? Hire more garbage men, buy more trucks
- Want more police resources?  They cost money.  Hire more officers.
- Want better schools?  Hire more teachers, build new facilities.

These things cost money.  Its true on every level, suburb and bigger.  You 're talking about LOCAL government investing in particular areas, and these are examples of how that money can be spent.

I get all that.  The point is that NYC officials didn't think it was worth it to allocate that kind of money to that area when lower-income minorities were living there, but post-gentrification, the area suddenly became a higher priority for spending.  Why?

This isn't a "the chicken or the egg" argument.  Every dollar that NYC spends providing services to this newly-important neighborhood is a dollar they don't spend on some other lower-income part of NYC.  Why are these people so special that their garbage needs to be collected every day?

Do we know they are getting trash picked up every day? That seems pretty odd to me even in a rich public neighborhood and is a whole different subject.

I found this on our good friend Wikipedia.


Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values.[1] Gentrification is typically the result of investment in a community by local government, community activists, or business groups, and can often spur economic development, attract business, lower crime rates, and have other benefits to a community. Despite these potential benefits, it has been suggested that urban gentrification can lead to population migration, which may involve poorer residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers; separate studies by Lance Freeman (Columbia University) and Jacob Vigdor (Duke University) indicate that there is no more displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods compared to non-gentrifying neighborhoods, however.[2]
In a community undergoing gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases. Poorer pre-gentrification residents who are unable to pay increased rents or property taxes may be driven out. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. New businesses, which can afford increased commercial rent, cater to a more affluent base of consumers—further increasing the appeal to higher income migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor.[3][4]
Political action is often the community's response, either to promote the gentrification or oppose economic eviction.[5] Local governments may favor gentrification because of the increased tax base associated with the new high-income residents, as well as other perceived benefits of moving poor people and rehabilitating deteriorated areas.[citation needed]

Ohhhhh, I'm a pro on gentrification and some of the issues with it.

Firstly, I recommend a very, very good documentary on the history of Fort Greene. It's called Brooklyn Boheme. It's streaming on Netflix. To understand a bit where Lee is coming from you have to understand that Fort Greene used to be a HUGE cultural center for black arts, music, etc. So, then you have whites moving in because they want to soak up some of that culture and what makes the neighborhood great, but in doing so they kill the vibe of the neighborhood and get rid of those very people that made the neighborhood have culture. (For the record, Lee's father is a jazz musician. Hearing his music IS what made that area have culture.)

Now, I've been on both sides of the coin here. I first moved to Victoria Park in FTL when everyone thought I was crazy. It was full of gay hustlers, crack heads, and just plain rundown. BUT, on the flip side of that there was a vibe to the area. It was full of artists and interesting people. It was also near the beach and downtown. SO you had all the bars, etc.

Fast forward a few years and it's caught on that Victoria Park is the place to be. In comes the yuppies. At first, you're thrilled because you finally have a grocery store in the neighborhood. BUT, then they start tearing everything down and building new. They complain about the random drum circle in someone's backyard or what have you. Now, the entire neighborhood has changed and it's just another boring ass neighborhood.

And now, I'm kind of an undercover gentrifier in my current neighborhood. I now live in the POOREST zip in Broward county. It's a primarily black community. There are no gyms, grocery stores (not in the entire zip!), nothing. It is what many call the GHETTO. But, it's safe has low crime stats for the most part.

And it has it's own culture. Little shops, Jamaican places to grab food, etc. Once it gets out that property is cheap here and it's relatively safe that will all change.

But, here's the thing. Don't you think the people that live here want businesses in their community just like the gentrifiers will? Don't you think they want better safer schools? More cops? Better, cleaner streets?
So, I get what Spike is saying.

i lived in victoria park in the 80s .. my elementary school is in victoria park

just remember that before you had gentrification in victoria park you had white flight from victoria park

it's the constant urban cycle

Yup...round and round it goes.

That's another factor to consider (that doesn't really apply here in CA because of our insane ballot measure system):

By driving up property values, gentrification can result in longtime homeowners being forced to sell because they can't afford the increased property taxes.  While it's easy to sit back and say "well, they should just sell and move," telling a 75-year-old that they have to relocate from the home they've lived in for the last 40 years is not quite that simple.

There is also the issue of older small businesses being forced out because of skyrocketing rents, but those small businesses have other major problems (like megacorp competition) that go beyond the scope of this discussion, so I'll leave that alone.

Is that something that is factually documented or just going by Spike Lee's rant?

I don't know what it is like right now in NYC, but I know there was a study in the 1980's the poor section schools were getting more dollars per student, but in the wealthy sections still had better schools.  Why? Because in the bad schools the schools were spending much of their budget repair vandalism while in the better schools the money got put to better uses.

Likewise if a low crime area has 50 cops and a high crime area has 100 cops, the 50 cops might be able to deal with things like loitering and noise violations while the 100 cops can barely deal with the gang wars.  Doesn't mean that the low crime area is getting more money just better able to make the most use of it. 

I understand Spike's viewpoint of the local vibe being pushed out by new residents.  But why didn't Spike keep living there if it was so great??  Did he invest in the area to make it a better place to live??  Why does he have a mansion on the Upper East Side of Manhattan??  I live in a relatively small city and hear people complain that the city is not the same as it was in the 60's or 70's, well yeah its called change.  That's what happens in life, for good or bad.  There are always going to be people that don't agree with the change that has occurred.

Lee still keeps an office in Fort Greene and films as much as possible in Brooklyn. He insists on hiring locals and people in the area. So, I suppose that's his way of investing in the area.

It is entirely possible that Lee was lying or mistaken about the claims that he made (increased police presence, more money in the schools, more frequent trash pickup).  If so, then I agree there is no problem; if the same resources simply go farther when you have different people living there, then fine.

However, would you agree that if that's not the case and there is a change in city-allocated resources since the upper-class whites have moved in, there is a problem?

Yes.
 
If it is the case that more total resources are allocated than I agree that would be a problem.  If it is a matter of changing of how the resources are used, (e.g. more frequent trash collection but less money spent on removing graffiti), than it is not a problem. 

So if your neighborhood has freshly paved streets or a shiny new park, that means you get a reduced head count for your local fire station?

I don't think the funds should be fungible in that manner.

It really depends and you'd have to know the whole story before you could actually make an educated assumption.

In our county they have been putting in reclaimed water lines in the upper class neighborhoods over the last few years. This doesn't include mine which is middle class. I'd love to have reclaimed water as it's much cheaper to irrigate and promotes healthier grass.

The problem is the affluent neighborhoods use much, more more than ours as their lots are larger and they irrigate at every opportunity.  Unfortunately for me it only makes sense for the County to give them reclaim before me as its more beneficial to our drinking supply.

In other areas more affluent HOAs donate to projects that directly impact their areas. Again ... using the same resources from the government more can be done to improve it.

I am not going that far.  But if the cities DPW handles both trash collection and graffiti removal, I have no problem with different neighborhoods each using their limited DPW funds in different ways.   

This thread reminds me of an incident from high school:

A black activist from the urban city next to my suburban town was making a huge stink about the inequities of the two school systems, including that despite my school being fourth the size inner city school my school had 3 AP English classes to the other schools only one.  Could this fact be related to another statistic: that 1/3 of the kids in the city high school were in ESL, while my town had several elementary aged kids in ESL but due to the combined effort of the school and PARENTS absolutely none in the upper grades?  (A question only pondered in an opinion piece in my high school newspaper but nowhere else.)  The editorial writer was born in Cambodia moved my town in 1st grade knowing only 6 words of English.  Two weeks after they moved here his parents barred the speaking of anything but English in the house until all the kids were out of ESL and in mainstream English.  He was now a senior and getting an A in AP English.  Over 60% of the ESL students in the urban school were born in the USA and over 30% were second generation or later. 

Another "FACT" about how the schools got disparate treatment was the desks & lockers.  Photos were shown of the student desks and lockers.  One set looked like they were battered destroyed and about 100 years old, the other set looked practically new. 

This second poin bothered one of my classmates ( and as an inspiring investigative reporter and using the freedom of information act she did some research.)  Here are the facts she uncovered: the lockers in the suburban schools were 12 years old, the lockers in the urban school 7.  The average age of the desks in the suburban school 8, in the urban school 3.  She also uncovered a wide disparity in the level of enforcement regarding school vandalism. 

This and more about the actually funding allocations were published in my high school's newspaper on the front page.

The original allegations made the front page of the local paper and the lead story on all the local TV stations.  My classmates investigation made none of the TV stations and was got a small article buried inside in which the newspaper said something to the effect of, "a student a XXX is alleging but we have been unable to independently verify"  this despite the fact she provided all the media outlets with photocopies of the FOIA reports she had obtained.   

When the adviser of school paper contacted the various media outlets about the lack of coverage of the follow up report most ignored him, but one told him the truth, "if we pay attention to her report we will be accused of being racist."  The lack of news converge was the lead story in the high school newspaper the following month, but noticed nowhere else.   

As Paul Harvey would say .... Now you've heard the rest of the story.

It really hard to know all the facts unless you are involved but it has been my experience that most things that seem ludicrous really aren't true.