Reader David Palmer asks:
“What is wrong with gentrification? Isn’t it good that old neighborhoods get rebuilt?”
It’s a mixed bag.
Yes, it’s good when truly decrepit, decaying buildings are replaced with newer stock. No one benefits from falling-down, boarded-up, housing stock.
But when merely old — not decrepit — buildings are replaced, the rents go up. Families with marginal finances may not be able to afford the new rent, and have to move.
Historically, this has disproportionately affected minority citizens and the poor.
For gentrification to work for society as a whole — rich and poor — a city needs to have enough affordable housing to accommodate those displaced.
When that doesn’t happen naturally (it almost never does) then local government can step in to help with regulations, such as requiring developers to set aside a certain percentage of housing units for lower-income residents who otherwise would be priced out of their neighborhoods.
A local example, from the Boston Globe: “Boston might require developers to set aside more low-income units: City officials are gearing up to review Boston’s policy later this year that requires builders to set aside units at modest rents, with an eye towards increasing those requirements. That would make it the second increase in three years.” (full story)
Permalink: https://wp.me/paaiox-h9
Want free notification of new content like this? Click here!
Have a comment? Want to ask Fred a new question? Click here!
