• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Hypocrisy and Harm of the Left in the US #1 (Gentrification/Housing in Leftist Cities)

Is the left hypocritical when it gentrifies neighborhoods across the country


  • Total voters
    18
I may have already said this, but it’s developers that are responsible.

Sorry, but developers build what the market wants, otherwise they go out of business.


Young people are the vanguard. They don’t have a lot of money, so they end up in poorer areas. Their energy makes the place better. Then the trendy start coming because it’s cool now.

That sounds like something Richard Spencer would say.

Then the developers notice.

Right, the developers give them what they want.
 
No, it's not just "improving" the neighborhood. Gentrification drastically changes the entire neighborhood and drives out the non-rich.
Again, it's capitalism at work. What is your suggestion to prevent this? What law would you pass to eliminate gentrification?

Improving neighborhoods brings in business. This means more available jobs.
 
If we improve our zoning laws then it should be possible for new residents who want to live there to move in, without displacing the existing residents. Even if the new residents are much wealthier, it shouldn't cause a rise in rents because the housing supply will expand. It will improve the lives of the original, poorer residents because the new crowd would bring a lot more economic opportunities with them.

I don't think gentrification or people moving to new areas is itself the problem. It's the NIMBYism that often accompanies it.
I still hear what you're saying to a degree but it doesn't change the reality of the actual real life situation in which people move into buildings that have evicted its poorer tenants and in which the developers are constantly incentived to build more high end housing. All of which displaces the original inhabitants. The people that advocate for racial equality and opportunity have the full ability to not contribute to that.
The new crowd doesn't bring economic opportunities, poor communities are not going to whole foods or a Pilate studies. That money stays in the hands of that new crowd
 
Again, it's capitalism at work. What is your suggestion to prevent this? What law would you pass to eliminate gentrification?

Improving neighborhoods brings in business. This means more available jobs.
Its bringing in business that the poorer communities cant afford or have no cultural interest in
 
I still hear what you're saying to a degree but it doesn't change the reality of the actual real life situation in which people move into buildings that have evicted its poorer tenants and in which the developers are constantly incentived to build more high end housing. All of which displaces the original inhabitants. The people that advocate for racial equality and opportunity have the full ability to not contribute to that.
The new crowd doesn't bring economic opportunities, poor communities are not going to whole foods or a Pilate studies. That money stays in the hands of that new crowd
Unless they are full blown communists, this isn't hypocrisy. Gentrification does bring in business. It does create jobs. You can't force people to get an education and hold down a job. You can, however, assist them with doing so if they so choose.
 
I still hear what you're saying to a degree but it doesn't change the reality of the actual real life situation in which people move into buildings that have evicted its poorer tenants and in which the developers are constantly incentived to build more high end housing. All of which displaces the original inhabitants. The people that advocate for racial equality and opportunity have the full ability to not contribute to that.
What I would propose is YIMBYism (pro-growth housing policies) combined with some form of modest rent control to protect existing residents. Maybe a law that landlords can only raise their rents once per year, and it's capped at CPI+1 (or some other reasonable amount). Then let developers build all the housing they want (high-end or not), and the existing residents won't be subjected to more than a modest rent hike each year.

The new crowd doesn't bring economic opportunities, poor communities are not going to whole foods or a Pilate studies. That money stays in the hands of that new crowd
I disagree. Someone needs to work at that new Whole Foods and pilates studio. Lots of new job opportunities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
Again, it's capitalism at work.

If it were capitalism, the term "gentrification" wouldn't even exist, because the housing supply would drastically expand in any market with high prices. But capitalists aren't allowed to control the supply of housing. Instead it's up to rich, stupid, corrupt politicians. The state controls where you may build, what you may build, how many you build, and literally how its built.

What is your suggestion to prevent this? What law would you pass to eliminate gentrification?

Improving neighborhoods brings in business. This means more available jobs.
 
If we improve our zoning laws then it should be possible for new residents who want to live there to move in, without displacing the existing residents. Even if the new residents are much wealthier, it shouldn't cause a rise in rents because the housing supply will expand. It will improve the lives of the original, poorer residents because the new crowd would bring a lot more economic opportunities with them.

In progressive cities they don't want the housing supply to expand. Those zoning laws exist for a reason, and that reason is to limit the supply of housing.
 
Unless they are full blown communists, this isn't hypocrisy. Gentrification does bring in business. It does create jobs. You can't force people to get an education and hold down a job. You can, however, assist them with doing so if they so choose.

Sure it is. They are displacing a demographic they claim to care very deeply about.
 
Sure it is. They are displacing a demographic they claim to care very deeply about.
It is not. To deliberately avoid improving a neighborhood in order to keep the poor destitute and keep their living conditions squalid would be hypocrisy.
 
If it were capitalism, the term "gentrification" wouldn't even exist, because the housing supply would drastically expand in any market with high prices. But capitalists aren't allowed to control the supply of housing. Instead it's up to rich, stupid, corrupt politicians. The state controls where you may build, what you may build, how many you build, and literally how its built.

‘Free market is magic and perfect’ people are adorable.
 
Everyone keeps bringing up developers like they arent incentivized by people who are moving there with more income.

Regardless of the developers the leftist person has a choice as to whether they decide to move and displace people.
You act like eighties don’t like cool new places to hang out and then live.

You don’t have any data to support that idea. Because there isn’t any.

You made an attack op and it didn’t go the way you hoped.

That happens here when you try to deliver a narrative you swallowed whole to people who know better from experience.

The wealthy people you mention don’t want to live in run down housing. So who makes it nice for them? The landlords, or developers, that’s who. Folks who want to profit from the cool new place.

So is it the developers or landlords or their customers? Or the reality it is both. But it’s profit that causes folks to be displaced.

Y’all can’t question profits, so it makes sense you can’t consider it.
 
If we improve our zoning laws then it should be possible for new residents who want to live there to move in, without displacing the existing residents. Even if the new residents are much wealthier, it shouldn't cause a rise in rents because the housing supply will expand. It will improve the lives of the original, poorer residents because the new crowd would bring a lot more economic opportunities with them.

I don't think gentrification or people moving to new areas is itself the problem. It's the NIMBYism that often accompanies it.
The sad thing about the process is that it has a lifespan. Folks move there because it’s cool. Then you get a Starbucks and a chipotle and what have you and the cool fades. So those drawn to that start looking for the next cool place to take over. And the original one begins to decline because the young folks who made it cool go priced out and moved on.

Rinse and repeat.
 
If it were capitalism, the term "gentrification" wouldn't even exist, because the housing supply would drastically expand in any market with high prices. But capitalists aren't allowed to control the supply of housing. Instead it's up to rich, stupid, corrupt politicians. The state controls where you may build, what you may build, how many you build, and literally how its built.
Those folks are in the pockets of, wait for it, landlords and developers who want rents as high as possible. They and their donations buy those zoning laws.
 
In progressive cities they don't want the housing supply to expand. Those zoning laws exist for a reason, and that reason is to limit the supply of housing.
Which keeps rents and housing costs high.

Capitalists love that and donate lots of money to get those laws passed.
 
Republican gentrification=shack with pick up in driveway to include gun rack. Usually an old washing machine on front porch, perhaos a 1982 old Chevy with a Busch1 bumper sticker, sat in an overgrown yard with dog sleeping in front seat.


Describes what i see in Trump country
 
The state controls where you may build, what you may build, how many you build, and literally how its built.
As well they should in earthquake country. Each significant quake brings changes in building codes as we learn more about how structures react to strong vertical as well as horizontal shaking. We also have regulations as to how close to a fault line construction can occur.
 
The long awaited sequel to the critically acclaimed prequel is finally here

Lets tackle another fascinating hypocrisy of the left.

The left is a major "activist" for disadvantaged people. Its this that installs their feeling of moral superiority over others. Though how true is this?
The left always talks about how people of color are being discriminated against, hunted in the streets, and disproportionately effected by things like violence, prisons, wealth and others.
Yet... these same leftist decide to move from their home location into areas of predominately poorer communities and or of people of color and uproot their culture, homes and communities by the process known as gentrification. Growing up in Los Angeles I have seen this first hand. Rich tech leftist coming in to communities of people of color and contribute to the phenomena of gentrification in which these people in these communities are forced to leave their homes, their families, their cities, in order to find somewhere they can afford to live as a flurry of condominiums are built where apartments and liquor stores used to be. All so that these hypocritical leftist can go and complain about the racial injustice from their lofts that cost them thousands of dollars a month that used to be the home a family of color.
They love to speak about colonialism yet they colonize other peoples communities.
They love to talk about opportunities for people of color while they destroy their businesses and homes to open up Starbucks, Whole Foods, juiceries and pilates studios.

This is aided by the leftist policy of rent control which provides no incentive for landlords to build affordable housing because its not as profitable of a business to manage. What we see in turn is that landlords are stuck with building high end condos and complexes that escape the boundaries of rent control laws. Therefore these areas meant for the poor become for the rich because only expensive housing gets built. The attention and care into now rent controlled building plummets and they become riddled with structural issues, and even cheaper landlords who often turn to section 8 and management companies who bully and intimidate its tenants, especially the elderly.

The left becomes baffled at how many homeless people there are when its the direct consequence of their policies and gentrification that forcibly removed entire communities. They blame it on the "non empathetic right" and how the right doesn't care. They then make policies like we see in LA where the homeless are untouched by law enforcement. There is no consequences for putting your tent, crack needles, and propane tanks on the sidewalks that tax payers work for. There is nothing done about the homeless who harass women, stab people, scream down the streets at 3am. Their stuff is not removed by law enforcement, they are just allowed to live on the streets because leftist policies says its not fair. Then in a sunny states like California where the it doesn't freeze, there's free showers and water by the beach, free wifi at cafes, and free welfare and food stamps from the state. It just incentivizes loads of people to be homeless and not to work out of it, for criminals with warrants in other states to come to LA and be homeless.

Then the left goes even further by decriminalizing crimes like theft and drugs in cities they just moved into and proclaim that its better for the people of color. They inhibit the bad behavior that plagues these communities and allow it to go on which furthers the perpetual cycle of poverty in these communities. Yet they think providing consequences for these crimes is in someway racist or bad for the communities.

{snip for char limit}


After thinking about it, no.

What you are describing is emergent behavior from a complex system and not any real political policy position. People in that system are making individual economic choices that are aimed at very different goals from the situation that emerges. At that level of abstraction from every day life, assigning individual blame no longer makes sense.

Also it’s ignoring that these things are cyclic. For example, Parma Ohio was once an considered to be quite the high end neighborhood near Cleveland and now it’s almost an embarrassment to live there as nothing has been really updated since the Robber Barons. Akron is largely the same with the gory days of rubber being largely over.

These places will have their heyday and cycle down as well.

60 years from now when todays progressives are the new reactionary conservatives boomer types (freaking out about AI rights or whatever the controversy is at the time) people will be having this discussion about whatever city is hot at that time.
 
Last edited:
The only way to bring housing prices down across the board in LA and SF, is for the cities to allow the construction of more housing. Ultimately it's just supply and demand: there are a lot of people who want to live in those cities, and not enough housing to accommodate them.


Its the same in Boston. The city is small and there not filling in the Bay for Housing.
 
I may have already said this, but it’s developers that are responsible.

Young people are the vanguard. They don’t have a lot of money, so they end up in poorer areas. Their energy makes the place better. Then the trendy start coming because it’s cool now.

Then the developers notice.

And it goes downhill fast from there.

The political affiliation of those developers is not Germaine to the topic.
I follow you until "developers notice And it goes downhill fast frm there."

Someone has to develop the real estate for it to improve. Vacant land is developed on, or older places are refurbished or expanded. That's what a developer does. It costs money for materials and both blue collar and white collar humans are required to do the job while complying with zoning laws, building codes, construction standards, employment laws and tax laws, etc. A developer doesn't have the money to do the development work and not pay employees or buy materials and incur all the other costs/expenses. So, obviously, each housing unit costs something, whether it is in a market among willing developers dealing with willing buyers and sellers, or whether it is a government bureaucracy which determines what and where to build and commissions the work to be done.

So, if developers are responsible -- what are they responsible for? Developing properties? Selling them?

What alternative can be suggested that would actually improve the situation? Don't have developers? Prohibit improved housing?

\How about eliminating demand, but not allowing people to buy on a first come, first served basis - have a house built and mandate the developer be compensated only at X% over building costs, and then have a State lottery to see who gets to live in them - anyone who wants to move in, gets in the lottery and can buy the house for the set price, not a market price?

Any other ideas?
 
It is not. To deliberately avoid improving a neighborhood in order to keep the poor destitute and keep their living conditions squalid would be hypocrisy.

Does kicking them out of their apartments make them better off or worse off?
 
You guys are all shying away from the fact that individuals who proclaim to want to defend and stick up people of color also go and remove them from their communities and take it over. How is that not contradictory??? actually answer the question instead of trying to turn it onto what you perceive to be my conservatives/capitalist beliefs. If you cant which you haven't then who have admitted you're wrong.
That sort of blanket statement is exactly my point. It's not true. Not everyone on the left, nor everyone who supports the civil rights of pocs is a white American liberal! You are pretending that anyone on the left who does not fit your narrative doesn't exist.
 
Sorry, but developers build what the market wants, otherwise they go out of business.
At bottom, it is an opposition to a market and capitalism which is at the heart of this. At the heart of opposition to the free market is disbelief in the idea of freedom itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom