Gentrification And Wealth Accumulation

http://www.placemakers.com/2015/03/16/gentrifiction-redux-wealth-opportunity-community/?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader_medium=rss&utm_ca...

Corner Cafe in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York
gopixpic.com

Hello Everyone:

It seems that everyday, in the United States, there is a fresh news item about race, income inequality, and public policy.  As each headline makes the media rounds, it becomes more evident that everyone has opinion about the subjects.  In his article for PlaceShakers and Newsmakers, titled "'Gentrification' Redux: Wealth, opportunity, community," Ben Brown writes that all the finger pointing and plaintive cries of "you just don't get it," really go nowhere.  Mr. Brown tells us, "We seem to keep picking away at the edges of problems, focusing on sub-issues that fit our predisposition and ignoring everything that complicates our perspectives."  Therefore, what exactly are we just not getting and how do we remedy the situation?

San Diego Trolly courtesy of REconnecting America
switchboard.nrdc.org

The conservative side of the aisle sound the alarm over the "moral hazard" of disrupting the wisdom of free markets.  There liberal counterparts wring their hands over how "the game is rigged to serve the oligarchs."  The debate goes around and around with no solution in sight.  Quoting New Yorker's Jill Lepore March 16, 2015 pointed analysis of this dysfunctional state, Mr. Brown writes,

The reason Democrats and Republicans are fighting over who's to blame for growing economic inequality is that, aside from a certain amount of squabbling, it's no longer possible to deny that it exists-a development that's not to be sneezed at, given the state of the debate on climate change.  That's not to say the agreement runs deep; in fact, it couldn't be shallower.  The causes of income inequality are much disrupted; so are its costs.  And knowing the numbers doesn't appear to be changing anyone's mind abut what, if anything should be done about it.

Werne's Row 4th and Hill
Louiville, Kentucky
en.wikipedia.org  

Ben Brown adds, "Kaid Benfield is probably overly charitable when he characterizes elements of the dilemma as 'the paralysis of imperfect choices.'"  Mr. Benfield and PlaceMakers writer Scott Doyon have been engaging in the general subject by grounding their persuasive arguments in "gentrification." (Mr. Brown's quotes, not Blogger's)  Mr. Benfield discusses realistic policy for easing the impact on less moneyed residents when new money disrupts the local economy and culture.  Mr. Doyon, intermittently, looks at the implied ironies "...in the whole discussion and calls for a little common sense and a lot of neighborliness."

Ben Brown sums up his colleagues's observations as "levelheaded and compassionate," while describing his observations as "way grumpier."  Why is Mr. Brown so grumpy?  He writes, "I'm old.  I grew up going to segregated schools in a city and region dominated by leaders who could be confident of business and political support by spouting inherently racist ideas, including variations on this theme:"

Segregation must be maintained because it "protects" African-American communities against cultural and economic disruption and African-Americans themselves against broader, more integrated society they aren't "ready for.

Right.  How did that whole "separate but equal' thing work out?

Waiting for a train
Stamford, Connecticut
citylab.com

Now those arguments are back, only this time they are being made by agonizing liberals and this is shocking, simply shocking.  What this translates to is "denying low-income neighborhoods invests in the name of preserving them, a strategy no white, middle class leader would advocate for places where they live."  More so, it is possible that the affluent members of society's tendency to separate themselves from the middle class poor rabble may indicate a more worrisome trend that we associate with gentrification.  Ben Brown points to the Washington Post' Emily Badger critiques of the current research on the topic (http://www.washingtonpost.com).

Ben Brown writes, "My wife and I recently bought a cottage in Asheville.  It's in a walkable, eclectic neighborhood in a part of the city reclaimed from decay by the usual mix of artists, hipsters and small-scale entrepreneurs.  Now, similar to the cycle of neighborhood redevelopment Scott Doyon outlines...our future community has evolved for the 'risk-oblivious' to one for the 'risk-aware.'"  All the familiar gentrification-related tensions are present in Asheville.  While some of the long-term residents are making a profit on the spike in their property values and business opportunities, others who no longer can afford to live their neighborhoods are moving out.

San Francisco traffic
sf.streetsblog.org

Ben Brown and his wife are caught in a vicious, yet ironic circle.  Their new home is being rented by millennials, who many in the community see as part of the problem.  However, when the Browns move in, they will be forcing these poor hipsters into the less affordable housing environment.  Ironic, no?  Yet, what is happening in Asheville and other cities, where the attractiveness of urban living is the driving engine behind redevelopment, is a rebuttal to the idea that a city or a neighborhood is a static organism.  Not news here.  Cities as dynamic organisms is something that Jane Jacobs reminded us but, quoting Scott Doyon's on target observation, Mr. Brown writes,

Fueled by the demographic bulk and emerging urban amenities of both the Baby Boomers and the Millennials, American cities-and city neighborhoods-are finding themselves attractive to outside investment.  Not necessarily because they're affordable (in many areas, that ship has sailed) but because they deliver the things people are looking for-walkable, car-lite or car-free convenience, neighborhood schools, and architectural charm to name but a few.

New York City Brownstone
stvinc.com

Currently, the growing appeal or urban amenities is driving the market and will supersede effort to shield long-tern, low-income residents who have no means to adapt and perhaps profit from the market's effect.  Mr. Brown asks, "Wouldn't it be better, then, to direct policies towards expanding the adaptive capacities of those in the paths of inevitable change rather than wasting time and resources resisting the inevitable?" This brings us to a conversation on adaptive capacities. Essentially, it is about wealth.

When we say wealth, we are not necessarily referring to the fabled one-tenth of one-percent of the American population.  Wealth, in this case, means "resources in reserve to overcome unexpected setbacks and invest in a future."  For an average family, this means not only having enough money to meet daily and unexpected needs, but also reserves set aside for a down payment on a house, college tuition, or retirement.  Simply focusing on income inequality makes too easy to narrow the focus on jobs.  Sometimes we can overlook the fact that you can still work yet not be able to accumulate wealth, this is a fact with most Americans living at or below the poverty line. Mr. Brown writes, "An inability to accrue and leverage wealth is a severe disability when it comes to participating in America's economy and society."  This point is quite clear in contemporary times as those with a superior education, professional networks, and the capital can advantageously position themselves; mitigating the risk factors.

Demographic Divides Between Nonvoters and Likely Voters
placemakers.com

 Blogger, like Ben Brown, is not surprised that those with wealth to protect are motivated to defend and perpetuate the status quo.  Older white with higher education and income (Blogger presumes that Mr. Brown is excepting himself) are more likely to vote and to contribute to political causes than younger, less affluent, less educated minorities.  This means that those put into office will likely make policy that corresponds to wealth building and protection.  These policies take the form of tax credits and benefits for investment income; first and second home mortgages; and inheritance.

There's nothing inherently evil with any of this, particularly if you subscribe to the "primacy of the individual and look with suspicion upon appeals to 'the common good.'"  Specifically, we are referring to taxes-taxes that people do not have to pay are considered threats to the American way of life.  They are likened to the reviled government "handouts" to the less wealthy, regardless if dollars saved or earned have equal value.

It is sadly ironic that both the affluent and less affluent behave rationally from their own perspectives; acting on their rationales, they increase the chances of remaining rich or poor.  From the affluent perspective, it is about influencing policies and programs; investments of time and resources to accomplish this goal.  The result is the rich get richer.  The less affluent perspective is less trusting and less likely to participate in a process that serves the wealthy and disregards them.  The end result is the poor remain poor.  Sounds a little like the definition of insanity-"do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."

Rundown Detroit, Michigan neighborhood
huffingtonpost.com

It may be depressing to read this but it is also an unsustainable situation.  There is ample evidence to support Ben Brown's conclusion, "...excluding more and more people from meaningful participation in the economy and culture is not only morally reprehensible, it also increases the costs of maintaining the economy and culture."  Nothing lasts forever. This is a truism when we talk about transportation infrastructure.  It also applies to education, health, and other vital services needed by the disappearing middle class and poor.  Awareness of the situation seems to be making its way through the halls of local, state, and federal governments but will anyone be willing to set aside partisan differences and do something meaningful?  Unless there is a radical re-thing of the whole mythology of individualism, change will be policy in a similar manner as inequalities built into the system is guided by policy.  What of those policies?  At first, they will, at the very least, avoid all that ear-splitting screeching about "handouts" and racial preferences "by embracing wealth-building opportunities for all at scales beyond the household or even the neighborhood."

Southwest Detroit neighborhood
archive.freep.com

Could this mean more and better employment opportunities?  Why not?  However, not every job is the same.  Ben Brown writes, "Low-paying work that requires long hours and long commutes inhibits responsible parenting and depletes savings that build wealth."  What about affordable housing?  Sure. However, rent subsidies, such as Section 8, are pointless if they go toward housing that is "badly designed, badly located housing that further isolates and stigmatizes struggling families..."  This wealth gap was allowed to grow based a mix of bad ideal allowed to become something larger.  Everything Mr. Brown points is not news, especially to those who live in subpar housing and must navigate long commutes to just-above-minimum wage jobs.  Mr. Brown suggests "a more integrated approach to narrow it."

Colorful brooms in East Los Angeles
Photograph by James Rojas
citylab.com

Some of the suggestions he proffers are: more transportation options, dignified housing, better performing schools, quality childcare, access to affordable health care, more grocery stores offering healthy food, and places to exercise.  These are amenities typically built into tax bases and community wealth in urban infill areas and well-to-do suburbs. After all, wealth generation is a benefit of gentrification.  However, Mr. Brown points outs, "...right now, we're allowing the price for those advantages to be bid up to level that only a narrowing percentage of families can pay and still build wealth.  Why not invest in strategies that value in more equitable ways?  Why not spread out the costs community-wide?"  Why not, indeed.

Atlantic Yards project under construction
indypendent.com

Sound familiar?  Well, yes it does because until right at this very moment any palpable sense of urgency and political will to shift funds and rules toward real wealth creation has been invisible.  A recent Urban Land Institute analysis, which studied wealth accumulation between 1963 and 1983 (http://www.uli.org) concluded:

* Families near the bottom of the wealth distribution (those at the 10th percentile) went from having no wealth on average to being about $2,000 in debt

*Those in the middle roughly doubled their wealth-mostly between 1963 and 1983

* Families near the top (at the 90th percentile) saw their wealth quadruple.

* And the wealth of those at the 99th percentile-in other words, those wealthier than 99 percent of all families-grew six fold.

Number of eligible Latino voters
placemakers.com

 Finally, what about political clout.  Changing American demographics tell the story.  Ben Brown writes, "The combined 150 million Millennials and Boomers have within their populations voters unsettled by the diminished choices they have in their different stages of life.  Many feel priced out of opportunities for full community participation as aging citizens or as career and family-launching young people."  This translates to a lack of motivation to take part in the electoral process while the current participants continue skewing government policy toward those who have benefitted the most over the past two decades.

With next presidential election cycle looming large in the horizon, demographic trends show that there will be large number of young Latino Americans eligible to vote.  Latinos are natural constituents of the Democratic party, whose policies have historically tilted toward narrowing the wealth gap.  What Blogger finds particularly interesting is now that two Latinos (Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz) have declared their candidacy for higher office, how will this affect eligible Latino voters.  If the hammering the Democrats took in last year's mid-term election mean anything, according to the Pew Research Center, "Democrats won the Latino vote by a margin of 62% to 36%."  This bodes well but we will have to see what the next nineteen months bode.