I clicked on a link posted at Say Uncle, and a few clicks later I found this article on gentrification.  In a crazy nutshell, it likens gentrification to colonialism and says that it’s wrong and you’re a a racist.

It’s good to know that the ghost of George Wallace is still active in the left in America.  The author’s (who should probably be named Bull Dyke Conner) ENTIRE argument against the left’s most hated nemesis, gentrification, is “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.”

The old hate was “Black people shouldn’t be allowed to move into neighborhoods that white people live in, because the black people will ruin them.”  That is racist.  The new, anti-gentrification movement is “White people shouldn’t be allowed to move into neighborhoods that black people/POCs live in, because the white people will ruin them.”  That’s progressive.

See, when even Slate comes out and says gentrification really isn’t bad for the poor, you know you don’t have an economic leg to stand on.  The reality is that gentrification doesn’t drive the poor/POCs out of neighborhoods.  In fact, it’s good for the poor.

It’s really a simple concept to understand.  When new people, people with money, move into a neighborhood, they bring their money with them.  They start businesses or cause business to move into the neighborhood.  Sure, there are the hipster coffee bars and micro-brews.  But also grocery stores, pharmacies, and other business that provide the basic necessities of life.  As an area gets gentrified, employment goes up (someone needs to stock shelves) and crime goes down.  The result of all of this is … most poor people stay in gentrifying neighborhoods to take advantage of the improvement in their communities.

Sure, leftists like to point to cities like San Francisco and the problems they have with gentrification.  But here’s the kicker.  Those problems are THE DIRECT RESULT of left wing, anti-gentrification, drawbridge mentality.  San Francisco doesn’t build new homes, so the smallest lofts go for huge bucks.  The liberal San Francisco solution to housing the working class and POCs is to stick them on the other side of the bay in Oakland, then wring their hands and attack Google buses for bringing billions of dollars in revenue to the city social justice.

If you were to shove all the poor blacks into the ghetto and say “that to keep them away from our nice homes and stuff.”  You’d be destroyed as a racist (and rightfully so).  But if you were to say “we should respect the authenticity of that working class, minority neighborhood and not go in and develop it.”  You’d be praised for your awareness of social justice and might even be on the San Francisco zoning board.  You’d also be a racists, but I repeat myself.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

2 thoughts on “Same old hate, great new look (Pt 2)”
  1. I agree with all the positive aspects of gentrification as noted above and in the articles, but there are big negatives that neither this post nor any of the links discuss.

    First there’s displacement of seniors because of dramatic increases in property taxes, in many cases an exponential increase. One could call this positive and say “But that’s capitalism!” In my opinion, it’s bad because it’s government increasingly taking what is already yours. Displacement of long-term residents solely due to taxes got so bad in Atlanta during the ’90s, that laws/rules exempting low-income seniors from property tax increases was finally passed.

    Another big negative that isn’t mentioned is the destruction of existing cultures (but not the type you’re probably thinking of), in particular the music culture in an area. I frequently attend music events, but not large-scale ones like music festivals or ones held at stadiums/arenas (they’re expensive, a PITA, and generally feature large-crowd pop artists I don’t care for). Gentrification threatens the smaller venues I attend as property values increase and owners sell out (it’s their right, of course), gentrifiers move in and complain about the venue, and/or the local government forces onerous restrictions to essentially force a sale (or force eminent domain) so they’ll end up with more taxes due to the nature of the replacement. Once those facilities/venues are lost, they are not replaced by equivalents. What are they replaced by, usually? Apartments, apartments, and apartments — or maybe “mixed-use” developments. I can’t go see Wanda Jackson (yes, she still tours), Hank Williams III, Southern Culture on The Skids, Rev Horton Heat, Unknown Hinson, Suicidal Tendencies, The Lords of Acid or any other performers at an apartment complex, and you sure won’t see those types at a stadium. You might not care about music, but think about what happens to firing ranges or race tracks — it’s the same thing.

    Heck, you probably like to eat, right? Well, due to gentrification your favorite restaurant might disappear: http://www.tonetoatl.com/2015/12/alfredos-latest-victim-of-apartment.html Yep, more apartments!

    To change Pastor Niemöller’s famous poem: First they came for the music venues, but I said nothing because I don’t care about music. Then they came for the restaurants, but I said nothing because I don’t care about restaurants. Then they came for the race tracks, but I said nothing because I don’t care about race tracks. Then they came for the gun shops and firing ranges…

  2. I shake my head slowly at the whole anti google bus movement. It basically goes like this:

    “Look at those damn richies riding the bus a hour an a half each way to their 80 hour a week job, where they get their 24/7 free buffet [so that they work through lunch… and dinner… and maybe even breakfast the next morning]. They live in their 700 sqft luxury studio apartments, while I scrape by with my entitlements that they pay for. Fuck them!”

Comments are closed.

Login or register to comment.