Harnessing Gentrification instead of fighting it: An Idea

[Qubert]

Here's an idea I've been thinking of that would dramatically benefit low-income to working class urban dwellers and help mitigate displacement:

Within areas that primarily working class to low income, all development sites/air rights would become part of a community land trust. If a developer wants to build any sort of building in these areas they must give a majority equity stake (like say 80%) over to the community land trust, which then gives the proceeds out to those living in the area. In essence, if developers put up luxury buildings in a poor area, the majority of the proceeds go towards those living in the community.

What are the benefits to this idea?

1) It helps to close the racial wealth gap. One of the big drivers of racial economic disparity is household equity. White households more often live in higher-valued communities (and also are more likely to own their homes period) than Black and Latino households. By harnessing the power of gentrification, we can direct real estate equity to underprivileged households, helping to close this structural inequity. This to me is the definition of inclusive growth.

2) This will help build more housing. The reality is the political climate is deeply scarred by fear and resentment over the issue of gentrification. This has prevented cities from being able to make the necessary bold steps to build the amount of housing they need to continue to grow and prosper. A city that isn't growing is stagnating and eventually will decline. For cities to really prosper we need to have more housing of all flavors (yes, including luxury). Building more housing helps to over prices overall, and by directing those proceeds to our existing working class and low income communities we can help mitigate displacement and sooth some of the deep seated fissures that have opened up over this matter.

3) This will aid in integration. I don't need to show the litany of studies that show how socio-economic integration builds healthier communities. Cities thrive when they continue to be that clash of cultures and backgrounds they've always been.

4) This will continue to allow cities to receive the influx of high-income individuals that have helped to boost tax coffers and economic conditions while allowing these changes to benefit rather than alienate more vulnerable populations, helping to strengthen a city's social fabric. Humans tend to be aspirational: if cities are reserved exclusively for the poor than societies will come to reject urbanity as being inferior. It's not any wonder than societies where the wealthy and influential live in urban environments often support urban policies and culture. We should encourage this while still maintaining economic diversity.


I've said my piece, what's your thoughts?

[MonkeyRonin]

Is this how gentrification ever a actually works though - as luxury developments obliviously plopped down into low income neighbourhoods? There's usually a slow process of gradually wealthier and wealthier people moving into the area as they're priced out of more desirable adjacent areas.

The best way to avoid disruption from gentrification is simply to have strong rent controls, which protects tenants of all income groups in any area.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Here's an idea I've been thinking of that would dramatically benefit low-income to working class urban dwellers and help mitigate displacement:

Within areas that primarily working class to low income, all development sites/air rights would become part of a community land trust. If a developer wants to build any sort of building in these areas they must give a majority equity stake (like say 80%) over to the community land trust, which then gives the proceeds out to those living in the area. In essence, if developers put up luxury buildings in a poor area, the majority of the proceeds go towards those living in the community.

What are the benefits to this idea?

1) It helps to close the racial wealth gap. One of the big drivers of racial economic disparity is household equity. White households more often live in higher-valued communities (and also are more likely to own their homes period) than Black and Latino households. By harnessing the power of gentrification, we can direct real estate equity to underprivileged households, helping to close this structural inequity. This to me is the definition of inclusive growth.

2) This will help build more housing. The reality is the political climate is deeply scarred by fear and resentment over the issue of gentrification. This has prevented cities from being able to make the necessary bold steps to build the amount of housing they need to continue to grow and prosper. A city that isn't growing is stagnating and eventually will decline. For cities to really prosper we need to have more housing of all flavors (yes, including luxury). Building more housing helps to over prices overall, and by directing those proceeds to our existing working class and low income communities we can help mitigate displacement and sooth some of the deep seated fissures that have opened up over this matter.

3) This will aid in integration. I don't need to show the litany of studies that show how socio-economic integration builds healthier communities. Cities thrive when they continue to be that clash of cultures and backgrounds they've always been.

4) This will continue to allow cities to receive the influx of high-income individuals that have helped to boost tax coffers and economic conditions while allowing these changes to benefit rather than alienate more vulnerable populations, helping to strengthen a city's social fabric. Humans tend to be aspirational: if cities are reserved exclusively for the poor than societies will come to reject urbanity as being inferior. It's not any wonder than societies where the wealthy and influential live in urban environments often support urban policies and culture. We should encourage this while still maintaining economic diversity.


I've said my piece, what's your thoughts?

So, would all land within an area just be taken from their current landowners in order to put it into a land trust? I ask this because I've looked into CLT and they are usually really small areas, never anything resembling a neighborhood sized zone.

Second, why would anyone develop if they are going to give up 80% of their proceeds yet take all the risk(or am I reading this wrong?)?

[Double L]

Hell, I won’t have to work, I’ll just live next to a place getting new development and I’ll get free money.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Is this how gentrification ever a actually works though - as luxury developments obliviously plopped down into low income neighbourhoods? There's usually a slow process of gradually wealthier and wealthier people moving into the area as they're priced out of more desirable adjacent areas.

The best way to avoid disruption from gentrification is simply to have strong rent controls, which protects tenants of all income groups in any area.

Really? You may want to check out NYC and SF.

[mhays]

So basically take away most of the reason to build anything. This would stop development cold.

[liat91]

Gentrification is a good thing imo. You’ve got millions upon millions of illegals competing for affordable housing and no one is talking about that inconvenient truth. No one wants to pave over paradise either, which would subsequently make climate change worse.

People want easy answers for climbing out of a deep hole of our own making. Sorry for the drab commentary, but people continue to hide lipstick in their pockets, and the pig is always perking up.

[C.]

So I saw this proposal, and I thought of this thread.

A group of 37 homeowners in dilapidated prefabricated homes built in the 1970s approached a developer and asked them to purchase their homes at market value to allow for the property to be redeveloped. The developer agreed and just received approval to build a 50-storey residential tower with over 800 units, including 40 affordable units to allow income eligible current residents to stay onsite if they wish, a school, and a new public plaza.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...91#post8829891

It's a really neat proposal. More community groups should approach developers in this manner to get public and community benefits in exchange for land and support for redevelopment.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Second, why would anyone develop if they are going to give up 80% of their proceeds yet take all the risk(or am I reading this wrong?)?

Originally Posted by mhays

So basically take away most of the reason to build anything. This would stop development cold.

Exactly. This idea isn't merely "fighting" gentrification, it's killing it with a nuclear option. On the up side, at least no one will get displaced.

In practice this idea would be equivalent to a municipal ban on any new constructions in the zone in question. Works well if the goal is to avoid gentrification, doesn't work well if the goal is to see the neighborhood become more desirable and more urban.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by C.

So I saw this proposal, and I thought of this thread.

A group of 37 homeowners in dilapidated prefabricated homes built in the 1970s approached a developer and asked them to purchase their homes at market value to allow for the property to be redeveloped. The developer agreed and just received approval to build a 50-storey residential tower with over 800 units, including 40 affordable units to allow income eligible current residents to stay onsite if they wish, a school, and a new public plaza.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...91#post8829891

Solves absolutely nothing though, since they were owners.

To drive the point home, let's consider that out of these 37 owners, at least one wasn't an owner-occupier anymore; he'd moved out a while ago and decided to keep the place and rent it. (The rent was low, since it's dilapidated cheap-ass housing.)

This tenant, who was until now enjoying low rent a stone's throw from the Hudson in a strategic core location of JC, is suffering the archetypal effect of gentrification - he's basically kicked out of the neighborhood where he's living. No benefits for him. Maybe he'll pocket a couple free months of rent to make up for the eviction, but that won't be a net positive for him since he won't be able to find anything that cheap in the area now.

Gentrification is typically more bad than good for anyone who was _renting_ in the target neighborhood; anyone who was _owning_ in the target neighborhood shouldn't be pitied. They can stay in the area if they want, and they're now much better off than pre-gentrification. Or move somewhere else if they choose to, since they now can.

[Obadno]

Improving neighborhoods is a good thing. So people get priced out of rent... so what it happens, they move to an area they can afford and so on.

For people that own property in that area, for safety and crime, for schools and local government funding, for local businesses its all upside.

We should all put as much effort into figuring out and fighting why some neighborhoods decline and collapse, not why other neighborhoods improve and grow.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Improving neighborhoods is a good thing. So people get priced out of rent... so what it happens, they move to an area they can afford and so on.

For people that own property in that area, for safety and crime, for schools and local government funding, for local businesses its all upside.

We should all put as much effort into figuring out and fighting why some neighborhoods decline and collapse, not why other neighborhoods improve and grow.

It's erroneous of course to assume that gentrification equals decrepit, crime-ridden neighbourhood > successful, affluent neighbourhood. Or that more wealth = improvement.

A stable, livable working class area can gentrify too (if anything, that's more often the case) - and that usually doesn't contribute much in the way of positives to the community. Even for businesses. As we've been seeing here in Toronto recently, this leads landlords to jack up rents to the point where their tenants - often long-standing local shops - can no longer afford to operate. And then as is often the case, either end up leaving a vacant storefront and/or are replaced with something that local residents can't afford.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's erroneous of course to assume that gentrification equals decrepit, crime-ridden neighbourhood > successful, affluent neighbourhood. Or that more wealth = improvement.

A stable, livable working class area can gentrify too (if anything, that's more often the case) - and that usually doesn't contribute much in the way of positives to the community. Even for businesses. As we've been seeing here in Toronto recently, this leads landlords to jack up rents to the point where their tenants - often long-standing local shops - can no longer afford to operate. And then as is often the case, either end up leaving a vacant storefront and/or are replaced with something that local residents can't afford.

I would disagree more affluence is absolutely an improvement. I think its absurd to try and prevent neighborhoods from improving, because usually its in favor of stagnation or in search of some kind of unquatifiable preference "oh isnt it terrible this neighborhood used to be full of artists and eclectic people now its full of people with money and upscale restaurants"

Okay so to some people they personally feel like the neighborhood was "better" in some way when it was eclectic, but just as many people would prefer the neighborhood of high end restaurants and yuppies. SO who are you to artificially determine what a neighborhood should be like, when ha a community reached its ideal culture, wealth etc in your eyes?

Its basically a big nostalgia game.

And while I understand sympathy for local shop keepers and people that have to move because thats a pain in the ass, and maybe yeah, your small business might have to move or close in some unfortunate cases but are we really supposed to suppress change because you happen to enjoy some local deli that might close?

[McBane]

Here's what opponents of gentrification don't seem to grasp: neighborhoods are always evolving. A poor minority neighborhood undergoing gentrification in 2020 was probably not always a poor minority neighborhood. The need to define a neighborhood's character and freeze those demographics as if they always were there is utterly ridiculous. Of course, it goes both ways, too. There are lots of middle class white neighborhoods that are undergoing demographic changes - nobody would ever suggest legislating zoning to slow down or stop those changes, would they? As I said, neighborhoods are always evolving and it's just silly to think current demographics should be frozen in time and protected in perpetuity.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by McBane

As I said, neighborhoods are always evolving and it's just silly to think current demographics should be frozen in time and protected in perpetuity.

This.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Qubert

If a developer wants to build any sort of building in these areas they must give a majority equity stake (like say 80%) over to the community land trust, which then gives the proceeds out to those living in the area. In essence, if developers put up luxury buildings in a poor area, the majority of the proceeds go towards those living in the community . . . .

One of the big drivers of racial economic disparity is household equity. White households more often live in higher-valued communities (and also are more likely to own their homes period) than Black and Latino households. ?

So you basically want to discourage new development by taking the profit out of it and keep "lower value communities" old and run-down.

OK

This kind of social engineering NEVER works as intended. The way it's currently done--see the San Francisco thread active now--what it mainly does is require those buying/renting market rate homes to pay all the costs of development of below market rate as well as market rate units, thereby driving up the cost of the market rate units which almost everybody has to buy (as I pointed out, the odds of getting a BMR unit if you qualify are around 1 in 70).

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Obadno

SO who are you to artificially determine what a neighborhood should be like, when ha a community reached its ideal culture, wealth etc in your eyes?

Its basically a big nostalgia game.

Oh, I'm not anyone to determine anything. But y'know, maybe the local residents should have some say in the course of their neighbourhood?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Oh, I'm not anyone to determine anything. But y'know, maybe the local residents should have some say in the course of their neighbourhood?

Yes. But if someone is legally buying land in their neighborhood but they don't happen to look like them, what say do they have?

I am all for low-income people having as much protection as practically possible. Heck, I am even supportive of neighborhoods embracing an ethnic image, be it hispanic, black, asian, Irish...whatever. With that said, I am not comfortable, and no one should be, with the idea of making laws to specifically target keeping whites or Asians out of neighborhoods. The actual law will never say this(and a lot of old racist laws against blacks were vague with their language, but their intent was clear) but we all know whats up.

Neighborhoods change. Period. If they didn't, Chicago and NYC would still be like 90% white. That black or hispanic neighborhood was once white. Yes, a lot of messed up shit happened between the time those neighborhoods were white to them becoming minority, but we still live in a free country where you can move wherever the hell you want.

In the end, I want cities to promote smart and simple programs to help current residents(primarily renters). But I don't want them to try to step gentrification. Stop trying to make laws to control the market, we almost always lose out as a collective.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

Gentrification is typically more bad than good for anyone who was _renting_ in the target neighborhood; anyone who was _owning_ in the target neighborhood shouldn't be pitied. They can stay in the area if they want, and they're now much better off than pre-gentrification. Or move somewhere else if they choose to, since they now can.

This makes quite a bit of assumptions regarding owners in gentrifying areas. For example:
1 - assumes that owners did not already like their neighborhoods before gentrification.
2 - assumes that gentrification does not make their homes unaffordable in other ways, like property tax assessments and upkeep costs.
3 - ignores proliferation of intimidation and pressure tactics by predators trying to capitalize off of areas increasing in value.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Here's an idea I've been thinking of that would dramatically benefit low-income to working class urban dwellers and help mitigate displacement:

Within areas that primarily working class to low income, all development sites/air rights would become part of a community land trust. If a developer wants to build any sort of building in these areas they must give a majority equity stake (like say 80%) over to the community land trust, which then gives the proceeds out to those living in the area.

So basically, you're advocating for charitable donations by developers of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to low-income communities.

It's just a lovely idea.

The only issue I see here is that, from what I've learned over the years, the purpose of the real estate development business is to make money.