Gentrification, as an idea, seems good and philanthropic. The goal is beneficial for the community in most economical, political, and social aspects. Everybody wants to live in a safe, economically stable, and thriving neighborhood and to be able to provide that same lifestyle to others. However, the process of gentrification, and actually putting those ideas into practice, have been met with unfavorable protests, backlash, and seen some negative results.
I vote No on Proposition 555 for a few reasons. 1) The statement,”through the conversion of old housing stock to high-rent loft space”, provides no accommodation to the current low-income residents. Those people will inevitably have to relocate. There is no promise that those displaced will have another place to stay, much less housing that is of somewhat equal value to their current housing. 2) With the moving in of wealthier, larger corporations, the small local businesses can’t compete with rising overhead costs, and the culture will change, often for the worse, as it often molds to that of the mundane and homogenous that is seen in large cities across America. 3) Public schools will suffer from budget cuts diverted towards the project and from lack of diversity in the student body. Gentrification often displaces low-income residents and pushes homeless people out for the benefit of wealthier, middle-upper class, residents and large conglomerates. It gives low income residents no promise of a place to stay, either equal or lesser quality of living than their previous home by the “conversion” of the targeted homes. In San Francisco, “the Mission Economic Development Association (MEDA) estimates that landlords evicted 925 households in the Mission district during the 1990s, a greater number than in any other neighborhood in the city”(Gentrification, Issues & Controversies). …show more content…
And those low-income residents who try to stay in gentrifying neighborhoods struggle financially to pay rent, as well as other basic necessities, like food and clothing. As a result, they face a greater danger of being evicted.
However, researchers Lance Freeman, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University, and Jacob Vigdor, an economist at Duke University, have found evidence suggesting otherwise. Tenants aren’t necessarily being pushed out of their homes because of gentrification. In fact, “...studies suggest that in any five-year period, populations change on their own, that almost half of the tenants in [a] given neighborhood will move on their own—regardless of what economic factors are affecting the community at the time”(Cravatts).
Frank Braconi, an advocate of urban renewal, echoes his sentiments in his research project of New York Gentrification, “Low-income households actually seem less likely to move from gentrifying neighborhoods than from other communities”(Cravatts). But Freeman doesn’t dispute the fact that poor people suffer through this process. According to data he compiled, “poor households in gentrifying parts of New York City spent 61% of their income on housing, while poor households in non-gentrifying neighborhoods spent 52%”(Gentrification). Thus, it still stands that gentrification is a detriment to the lower income people in gentrifying neighborhoods. Downtown areas vary in income levels greatly from almost block to block. It is notoriously a very expensive area to live in and usually even low to mid-scale apartment buildings aren’t affordable. Homeless people are often found in downtown areas because public services are centralized in that area of town. Lower income residents are usually left with no choice but to move to the outskirts due to the rising and already-high costs of living downtown. San Francisco’s Mission district has undergone massive changes. One of the more recent is the new Golden State Warriors Arena proposed to be built in the Mission District. It has been facing difficulties and protests from several parties. The Mission Bay Alliance protests the building of the new arena because the UCSF hospital is right across the street. They cite a number of problems brought on by the construction and business of the new arena. Taken from the group’s website: “The proposed stadium will have a disastrous impact on the health and welfare of thousands of patients and families by: blocking access to lifesaving medical services; creating a parking nightmare — the several hundred parking spaces dedicated to this arena are not enough to serve a stadium of 18,500 people; grinding traffic in and
I vote No on Proposition 555 for a few reasons. 1) The statement,”through the conversion of old housing stock to high-rent loft space”, provides no accommodation to the current low-income residents. Those people will inevitably have to relocate. There is no promise that those displaced will have another place to stay, much less housing that is of somewhat equal value to their current housing. 2) With the moving in of wealthier, larger corporations, the small local businesses can’t compete with rising overhead costs, and the culture will change, often for the worse, as it often molds to that of the mundane and homogenous that is seen in large cities across America. 3) Public schools will suffer from budget cuts diverted towards the project and from lack of diversity in the student body. Gentrification often displaces low-income residents and pushes homeless people out for the benefit of wealthier, middle-upper class, residents and large conglomerates. It gives low income residents no promise of a place to stay, either equal or lesser quality of living than their previous home by the “conversion” of the targeted homes. In San Francisco, “the Mission Economic Development Association (MEDA) estimates that landlords evicted 925 households in the Mission district during the 1990s, a greater number than in any other neighborhood in the city”(Gentrification, Issues & Controversies). …show more content…
And those low-income residents who try to stay in gentrifying neighborhoods struggle financially to pay rent, as well as other basic necessities, like food and clothing. As a result, they face a greater danger of being evicted.
However, researchers Lance Freeman, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University, and Jacob Vigdor, an economist at Duke University, have found evidence suggesting otherwise. Tenants aren’t necessarily being pushed out of their homes because of gentrification. In fact, “...studies suggest that in any five-year period, populations change on their own, that almost half of the tenants in [a] given neighborhood will move on their own—regardless of what economic factors are affecting the community at the time”(Cravatts).
Frank Braconi, an advocate of urban renewal, echoes his sentiments in his research project of New York Gentrification, “Low-income households actually seem less likely to move from gentrifying neighborhoods than from other communities”(Cravatts). But Freeman doesn’t dispute the fact that poor people suffer through this process. According to data he compiled, “poor households in gentrifying parts of New York City spent 61% of their income on housing, while poor households in non-gentrifying neighborhoods spent 52%”(Gentrification). Thus, it still stands that gentrification is a detriment to the lower income people in gentrifying neighborhoods. Downtown areas vary in income levels greatly from almost block to block. It is notoriously a very expensive area to live in and usually even low to mid-scale apartment buildings aren’t affordable. Homeless people are often found in downtown areas because public services are centralized in that area of town. Lower income residents are usually left with no choice but to move to the outskirts due to the rising and already-high costs of living downtown. San Francisco’s Mission district has undergone massive changes. One of the more recent is the new Golden State Warriors Arena proposed to be built in the Mission District. It has been facing difficulties and protests from several parties. The Mission Bay Alliance protests the building of the new arena because the UCSF hospital is right across the street. They cite a number of problems brought on by the construction and business of the new arena. Taken from the group’s website: “The proposed stadium will have a disastrous impact on the health and welfare of thousands of patients and families by: blocking access to lifesaving medical services; creating a parking nightmare — the several hundred parking spaces dedicated to this arena are not enough to serve a stadium of 18,500 people; grinding traffic in and