user1111 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
I ran up $76k in credit cards at one point.

Damn, how did you sleep with that over you!! But wait, aren't gentrifiers supposed to be "rich white assholes" instead of someone willing to put it ALL on the line in a gamble on a neighborhood and work his ass off?

May I point out "real" gentrifying is not a slam dunk. Lafayette and the nearby pretty but poor hoods have kicked the crap out of repeated waves of investors, obstinately refusing to turn the corner. I bet on the Palisade & Congress area 10 years ago, and it has taken this long to finally look like it's getting some momentum. 2 years ago I was getting appraisals as low as 65% of purchase on it.

bergen-lafayette is just too far from convenient public transport to gentrify. i'd bet on the heights, union city, bayonne, harrison and east new york before BL.

Admit it, you have never been to BL if you did you would know they have three lightrail stations to the heights one. You seem to make up shit, when every thing you say can be verified at a click of a button.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
I ran up $76k in credit cards at one point.

Damn, how did you sleep with that over you!! But wait, aren't gentrifiers supposed to be "rich white assholes" instead of someone willing to put it ALL on the line in a gamble on a neighborhood and work his ass off?

May I point out "real" gentrifying is not a slam dunk. Lafayette and the nearby pretty but poor hoods have kicked the crap out of repeated waves of investors, obstinately refusing to turn the corner. I bet on the Palisade & Congress area 10 years ago, and it has taken this long to finally look like it's getting some momentum. 2 years ago I was getting appraisals as low as 65% of purchase on it.

bergen-lafayette is just too far from convenient public transport to gentrify. i'd bet on the heights, union city, bayonne, harrison and east new york before BL.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
I ran up $76k in credit cards at one point.

Damn, how did you sleep with that over you!! But wait, aren't gentrifiers supposed to be "rich white assholes" instead of someone willing to put it ALL on the line in a gamble on a neighborhood and work his ass off?

May I point out "real" gentrifying is not a slam dunk. Lafayette and the nearby pretty but poor hoods have kicked the crap out of repeated waves of investors, obstinately refusing to turn the corner. I bet on the Palisade & Congress area 10 years ago, and it has taken this long to finally look like it's getting some momentum. 2 years ago I was getting appraisals as low as 65% of purchase on it.

MDM wrote:
I ran up $76k in credit cards at one point.

brewster wrote:


Among the many problems with this thesis is that the real gentrifiers, not the carpetbagger developers that follow them, are hardly rich.

ianmac47 wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between an upwardly mobile minority population ascending into a higher social class and entering into a domain that traditionally prohibits them -- that is, a black family working into the middle-class and buying into a white neighborhood -- and bourgeois whites descending upon a working class neighborhood simply because they can and the people living there lack the financial solvency or legal status to remain.

The transformation of upper and middle-class white neighborhoods into upper and middle-class black neighborhoods is not at all the same thing as rich white assholes buying up property in neighborhoods filled with poor minorities and displacing them.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
This is spurious because the phantom white menace you describe does not exist. White people move for the same reasons other people move--for cheaper rent or a smaller mortgage, a bigger or better house, better schools. There is no malice or "assholedom". You complain about white people moving out of certain neighborhoods in the white flight era, and then complain about white people moving back into the same neighborhoods in the gentrification era. Only one or the other can be morally wrong--they can't both be.

To be clear, that most of those people are assholes has nothing to do with their gentrification, but simply an observation that most rich white people tend to be assholes.

ianmac47 wrote
To be clear, that most of those people are assholes has nothing to do with their gentrification, but simply an observation that most rich white people tend to be assholes.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
This is spurious because the phantom white menace you describe does not exist. White people move for the same reasons other people move--for cheaper rent or a smaller mortgage, a bigger or better house, better schools. There is no malice or "assholedom". You complain about white people moving out of certain neighborhoods in the white flight era, and then complain about white people moving back into the same neighborhoods in the gentrification era. Only one or the other can be morally wrong--they can't both be.

To be clear, that most of those people are assholes has nothing to do with their gentrification, but simply an observation that most rich white people tend to be assholes.

wow I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
This is spurious because the phantom white menace you describe does not exist. White people move for the same reasons other people move--for cheaper rent or a smaller mortgage, a bigger or better house, better schools. There is no malice or "assholedom". You complain about white people moving out of certain neighborhoods in the white flight era, and then complain about white people moving back into the same neighborhoods in the gentrification era. Only one or the other can be morally wrong--they can't both be.

To be clear, that most of those people are assholes has nothing to do with their gentrification, but simply an observation that most rich white people tend to be assholes.

Conformist wrote:
This is spurious because the phantom white menace you describe does not exist. White people move for the same reasons other people move--for cheaper rent or a smaller mortgage, a bigger or better house, better schools. There is no malice or "assholedom". You complain about white people moving out of certain neighborhoods in the white flight era, and then complain about white people moving back into the same neighborhoods in the gentrification era. Only one or the other can be morally wrong--they can't both be.

ianmac47 wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between an upwardly mobile minority population ascending into a higher social class and entering into a domain that traditionally prohibits them -- that is, a black family working into the middle-class and buying into a white neighborhood -- and bourgeois whites descending upon a working class neighborhood simply because they can and the people living there lack the financial solvency or legal status to remain.

The transformation of upper and middle-class white neighborhoods into upper and middle-class black neighborhoods is not at all the same thing as rich white assholes buying up property in neighborhoods filled with poor minorities and displacing them.

marullos88 wrote:
It doesn't matter who was there first.

What matters is that everyone needs a place to live, within reasonable commuting distance to employment.

This concerns not only low wage workers, but middle class workers as well. Housing in the NYC metro area (which JC is part of) is increasingly unaffordable, so much so that even the so called middle class can't afford to live in it either.

I think gentrification would be great, if neighborhoods maintained a mixed housing quality to it. Who doesn't like a cleaner, safer place, with interesting amenities? But let's not forget everyone needs a job, and a place to live that isn't 2 hours away from it.

user1111 wrote:
Yes, this is true. They were Black Jews

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
For me, the most patronizing - and historically inaccurate - attitude expressed by those who criticize the renewal of urban neighborhoods is that it is "urban colonialism". Most of the neighborhoods that see an influx of new residents, in NYC and DTJC, where built in the late 1800s/early 1900s, well before the historic black and Puerto Rican (I'm less clear on other Latin/Central American communities) migration of the mid-20th century. Many, many of these neighborhoods are attractive in part because of their proximity to the city center and their substantial building stock - they were built by residents of means.

The socio-economic subtext is true - but this is an old story. My maternal grandparents were "gentrified" out of their old Polish-American neighborhood in Chicopee, MA in the 1960s and 70s - they were never property owners, but took meticulous care of their rented homes.

If we are going to question whether the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban neighborhood and a related increase in rents and property values, and changes in the district's character and culture is a good thing or not, it's only fair to ask if continuing to enable poor people, who won't or can't become stakeholders or contribute to the enhancement of their neighborhoods, is a bad thing.

I agree. Harlem, was majority White until the 1920s, when it turned majority-Black. East Harlem used to be heavily Italian until it went majority Hispanic in the mid-20th Century. So this notion (as posited by Spike Lee for example), that newer arrivistes are "bogarting" or "columbus-ing" is both self-serving and historically inaccurate.

Harlem was black day 1, Harlem was developed for whites but the whites back then thought it was too far uptown, so blacks from The Union Square area were moved there instead. Since the 1920s, Harlem has been known as a major African-American residential, cultural and business center.

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:

Harlem was black day 1, Harlem was developed for whites but the whites back then thought it was too far uptown, so blacks from The Union Square area were moved there instead. Since the 1920s, Harlem has been known as a major African-American residential, cultural and business center.

Wikipedia disagrees. But to each their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem#Population_and_demographics

user1111 wrote:

Harlem was black day 1, Harlem was developed for whites but the whites back then thought it was too far uptown, so blacks from The Union Square area were moved there instead. Since the 1920s, Harlem has been known as a major African-American residential, cultural and business center.

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
For me, the most patronizing - and historically inaccurate - attitude expressed by those who criticize the renewal of urban neighborhoods is that it is "urban colonialism". Most of the neighborhoods that see an influx of new residents, in NYC and DTJC, where built in the late 1800s/early 1900s, well before the historic black and Puerto Rican (I'm less clear on other Latin/Central American communities) migration of the mid-20th century. Many, many of these neighborhoods are attractive in part because of their proximity to the city center and their substantial building stock - they were built by residents of means.

The socio-economic subtext is true - but this is an old story. My maternal grandparents were "gentrified" out of their old Polish-American neighborhood in Chicopee, MA in the 1960s and 70s - they were never property owners, but took meticulous care of their rented homes.

If we are going to question whether the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban neighborhood and a related increase in rents and property values, and changes in the district's character and culture is a good thing or not, it's only fair to ask if continuing to enable poor people, who won't or can't become stakeholders or contribute to the enhancement of their neighborhoods, is a bad thing.

I agree. Harlem, was majority White until the 1920s, when it turned majority-Black. East Harlem used to be heavily Italian until it went majority Hispanic in the mid-20th Century. So this notion (as posited by Spike Lee for example), that newer arrivistes are "bogarting" or "columbus-ing" is both self-serving and historically inaccurate.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
For me, the most patronizing - and historically inaccurate - attitude expressed by those who criticize the renewal of urban neighborhoods is that it is "urban colonialism". Most of the neighborhoods that see an influx of new residents, in NYC and DTJC, where built in the late 1800s/early 1900s, well before the historic black and Puerto Rican (I'm less clear on other Latin/Central American communities) migration of the mid-20th century. Many, many of these neighborhoods are attractive in part because of their proximity to the city center and their substantial building stock - they were built by residents of means.

The socio-economic subtext is true - but this is an old story. My maternal grandparents were "gentrified" out of their old Polish-American neighborhood in Chicopee, MA in the 1960s and 70s - they were never property owners, but took meticulous care of their rented homes.

If we are going to question whether the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban neighborhood and a related increase in rents and property values, and changes in the district's character and culture is a good thing or not, it's only fair to ask if continuing to enable poor people, who won't or can't become stakeholders or contribute to the enhancement of their neighborhoods, is a bad thing.

Monroe wrote:
Not my favorite guy, but Sweeney continues to push for common sense shared services-but his fellow Democrats (especially in the Assembly) oppose it because of union opposition. Which is why it's needed in the first place!

Monroe wrote:
in NJ, is that we have about the same land mass in Essex County as Las Vegas, but have dozens and dozens of police forces-each with their own chain of command replicated over and over.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
At this point we can distinguish between public and private sector unions. Private sector unions are pretty much self supporting, it's the public sector unions that cost the average taxpayer so much due to their political influence.

There could be some truth to this. Just consider how the police unions have bilked NYC out of millions in overtime payments, high pensions, and outrageous healthcare all while systematically oppressing minorities and abusing their power. Where are the unions on that? They're disrespecting de Blasio -- at funerals no less while obstructing any kind of change that would address the concerns of civil rights activists. And these kinds of abuses aren't just happening in NYC, but everywhere.

Monroe wrote:
At this point we can distinguish between public and private sector unions. Private sector unions are pretty much self supporting, it's the public sector unions that cost the average taxpayer so much due to their political influence.

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this is primarily relevant because correlating with the declining role of labor unions has been the declining percentage of the percent of GDP held by the middle-class, parallels the decline in real wages, and the growing wealth disparity, and a strong middle-class would have more power to withstand the assault of rising costs that comes with gentrification.

Finally, if you aren't joking about the power of labor unions, if you truly, honestly believe they are dangerous and power cabal of working people meant to steal your money, that is yet another symptom of the decline of labor unions' power: an unsophisticated electorate so critically simplistic that it accepts conservative propaganda from spokespeople paid to feed them talking points.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
...unions are undermined in their political power...

Quote:

ianmac47 also wrote:
The best way to fight the negative effects of gentrification is through building a strong middle-class that has the economic power to resist gentrification and the political power to defend themselves. That means stronger unions, higher corporate taxes, and better public services.

Your post was well reasoned and you had me until you said the above. Unions are way too powerful (particularly in our region) and I don't see how you draw a link between unions and gentrification and middle class. From where I stand, I see unions as nothing more than power hungry organizations, led by wolves in sheep's clothing that claim to be looking out for their members but are drawing exorbitant salaries and/or perks and are nothing short of extortionists.