exc-55d61068e4b0f7482bcba1e9
The use of the word “gentrification” has increased in the United States in the past 10 years as places like Brooklyn, Portland, and San Francisco see a rise in migration of wealthy (often young) people and a driving-out of poorer renters as land values increase in response to the higher demand.
The new incoming wealth means more tax revenues and new local jobs, but some people must must move to new neighborhoods in response to their rent increasing beyond what they can afford.
The issue can often get emotional. In San Francisco, busses that brought Google employees to its campus represented a flash-point in frustration about gentrification, as protesters threw rocks through bus windows and blocked their routes]. Though the protesters demanded that Google pay the city to use bus stops (which it later did), the protesters primary focus was on gentrification in San Francisco.
There may be a moral dilemma for wealthy people moving into new cities or neighborhoods whose rents are rising. Some might think that it’s morally wrong for them to do so, as it displaces poor renters.
But here’s something to consider: what happens when wealthy people move not into a poor area, but out of it? Let’s take Detroit as an example: as the wealthy left the city, land values dropped and property taxes followed, meaning less in the city coffers for key services like education and transportation. One might argue that the poor, with fewer resources to move away, were disproportionately negatively impacted.
So one might see a moral quandary arising for wealthy people, much like in the example of quinoa: can wealthy people move anywhere without contributing to some social ill? If either moving into or moving out of a poorer neighborhood has negative effects on the poor, is it even possible for a wealthy person to move without becoming morally responsible for some negative social impact?
Leave your thoughts in comments below!
Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…
The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?
Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…
https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…
https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the…
View Comments
Clearly it is possible to move without producing significant negative social impact. Assuming that you can arrange to swap houses with someone of approximately the same level of wealth as you, this trade should produce relatively small effects of the type you mention in this article. So it is possible (though this solution probably isn't very practical).
Though this should still mean that a wealthy person moving from San Fransisco to Detroit could probably do so ethically, making both situations better. Unfortunately, this is exactly the direction that nobody actually wants to move (or at least statistically fewer want to move). So the question shouldn't be whether or not it is possible to move ethically, but how much responsibility one has to consider the impact of one's move on other people.
Both great points, definitely. Any thoughts on what kinds of policies could mitigate some of the social impact of moving the "wrong way?"
Nobody has a responsibility to move into, or out of, an area for the benefit of anyone else.
Renters who don't have a perpetual lease do not have a right to live where they are.... if they want to own, they can. (there are very few places where one can afford to rent, and yet not afford a comparable condo) The trade-off with renting is that they can leave when they want, leaving the landlord to find a new tenant. In exchange, they have no guarantee of pricing beyond the period of their lease.
I'd agree with you point about rights. Do you think there is some virtue in trying to act (including economically, but in other things as well) in a way that minimizes how much one frustrates or inconveniences others--especially the poor and vulnerable?
As an individual, no. If you want to protect the poor in general, that's what laws are for. While I'm no fan of laws that, for instance, forbid the person who owns a unit from living in it themselves if a tenant already has a lease, that is the simplest way to address those issues, or rent control, or government aid for rent. Safety nets make sense. Telling the well off not to make the most rational decision for themselves because someone might have to pay more rent puts responsibility where it doesn't belong.... first and foremost, on the renter themselves.... secondly, if you feel a safety net appropriate, on the society as a whole (through the government). It shouldn't fall on some other random individual.
sleep music
lofi
winter night
jazz music
relaxing jazz