just like Master P in 1996
@Louise, no it doesn't. If anything, the city needs to encourage the construction of new homes that are energy efficient and seismically sound.
ADD: I know I sound fatalistic (and condescending!) about all this, but let me be constructive (and condescending!):
1. The battle for this neighborhood is lost. Find a new working class(ish) neighborhood to preserve.
2. Start building and strengthen the biggest coalition of home and business owners you can BEFORE the rich people decide they like that area.
3. Make sure the politicians know about your coalition and find it useful to them.
4. Get rules/laws passed that actually make it difficult for rents to rise or for homes to be partially or wholly demolished for new development.
5. You've done it, Judge! You've saved the fabric of a neighborhood!
Want to bet what happens? I bet your new neighbors are all for trees and preservation and neighborhood character.... right up until it's time to pass rules/laws that actually would restrict what they do with the property they own. You know, the property they could sell to rich folks/developers for three times what they paid for it. Get out of debt, pay for their kids college, pay for a nice retirement condo, fund their retirement, etc. I predict that before you achieve item 4, you'll have learned exactly how many people truly care about fabric that isn't green.
This is some Grade A wind-pissing, Judge. The owner sold the house. The lot is going to be developed. Everything north of Broadway between MLK and I-5 will continue to gentrify in this way. Many people will be completely fine with it, many people will complain about it. It's not a global tragedy, it's obviously part of a cycle repeating endlessly in cities and always has winners and losers. It's how cities renew themselves, and it's invariably not pretty to the displaced.
Complain about the unfairness or collateral damage all you want, but it's not going to change anything. Power only respects power. Either get busy acquiring some to put toward your goals, or you will only have a lot of impotent whining ahead of you.
@Stinky. The market (i.e. all the people who buy and sell residences and get to more or less make decisions about whether to occupy/rent/sell them) doesn't give a fuck what I'm OK with, so what I'm OK with doesn't matter.
I wish a Pearl penthouse was in my price range. I wish an Irvington mansion was in my price range. I wish I could have steak for the price of hamburger. I wish lots of things were affordable to me. They aren't. So I'm not entitled to own them. I don't tell myself and others that I "deserve" steak at hamburger prices, to use your word.
Renters (especially ones occupying a single family home on prime property) believing that their rent should essentially be frozen when a neighborhood's value takes off are acting out of entitlement. They could give a shit about "neighborhood fabric" in the abstract: what they really care about is that they have to move to a less convenient neighborhood and/or pay more rent. Sooner or later, we all get forced to live within our means - it's called growing the fuck up.
Oh sweet, Portland needed more wrongheaded people of breathtaking entitlement.
For years, we talked about smart growth. Dense growth. Up, not out. Encourage walking, cycling, mass transit use. Now one renter wants to save one of a jillion average old houses on the inner east side to avoid a complex that will serve 100 people and further every smart growth metric there is.
Let's cut the shit: the dispute isn't about historical preservation, it's not about preserving neighborhood integrity - it's about stereotyping every last new resident as a rich, white butthole who doesn't deserve to live there. Why don't they deserve to live there? Because they can afford to pay more rent than the last generation or two of white invaders (who have all been SO busily preserving the neighborhood's precious architectural and social fabrics for the last 10-15 years).
Dear editors: can we kill comments yet?* Is shitwit traffic really the only thing keeping the lights on over there?
* No, YOU stop looking at them.
"[Y]ou should avoid starting a family when you're only making minimum wage, especially as a single parent."
WINNER: Outstanding Achievement in Commenting, 2015
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |