• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Working class neighborhood

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have thought about shutting down this thread a couple times because of some of the comments that I thought were borderline or inferred something that is borderline.

Gentrification is a word that describes what is happening; it is something that should not be controversial, it is just a fact.

Years ago it was considered a good thing, a neighborhood was distressed, and people came in and invested and made it better by improving homes that were not in ideal shape. the school district might have gotten more funding, the crime might have dropped and property values increased.

Today, it has been portrayed as "racist" by some in that it is chasing some people out of their neighborhoods for various reasons. How does an improved economy and neighborhood the majority of folks? There are winners and losers in every situation but if the overall result is positive how is that bad?

JFK said a rising tide lifts all boats referencing economics. His mistake was saying "all" and not most but he made a good point.

There is nothing borderline or subtle about the root of the word. It refers to people. It is a word better avoided unless you intend to reveal your bias in your work as you have in this post. You should close this thread based on your contribution to it.

1566187593226.png
 
Gentrification is a process of changing the character of a neighborhood through the influx of more affluent residents and businesses.[1] This is a common and controversial topic in politics and in urban planning. Gentrification often increases the economic value of a neighborhood, but can force out low-income residents due to the increased cost of rent and higher cost of goods.

Gentrification often shifts a neighborhood's racial/ethnic composition and average household income by developing new, more expensive housing, businesses and improved resources.[2] Conversations about gentrification have evolved, as many in the social-scientific community have questioned the negative connotations associated with the word gentrification. One example is that gentrification can lead to community displacement for lower-income families in gentrifying neighborhoods, as property values and rental costs rise; however, every neighborhood faces unique challenges, and reasons for displacement vary.[3]

The gentrification process is typically the result of increasing attraction to an area by people with higher incomes spilling over from neighboring cities, towns, or neighborhoods. Further steps are increased investments in a community and the related infrastructure by real estate development businesses, local government, or community activists and resulting economic development, increased attraction of business, and lower crime rates. In addition to these potential benefits, gentrification can lead to population migration and displacement. However, some view the fear of displacement, which is dominating the debate about gentrification, as hindering discussion about genuine progressive approaches to distribute the benefits of urban redevelopment strategies.[4]

 
It's not "racist" (gentrification) but it often impacts minorities and low-income people in a negative way. Oakland CA is going through this. People who have lived there for generations are being economically squeezed out. Some have to live in their cars or old RV's parked along the streets. Other cities in the East Bay are also going through this. Cops and teachers can't afford to live where they work.

How is that good?

OK, let us take minority out of the equation. There are many minority people who are educated and do well. Low income people suffer because of, well, their low income. The question is, does gentrification help or hurt a neighborhood? It was a well-accepted idea that gentrification was good for a neighborhood. Now, some, a limited some, are calling gentrification racist and harmful.

Is it better for neighborhoods to remain bad or to improve neighborhoods for the benefit of the majority?

I don't know what the "East Bay" area is but I know that San Fran is not allowing anything that wold solve their problems. Why don't they look to other cities and allow housing that is 5-10 stories?
 
There is nothing borderline or subtle about the root of the word. It refers to people. It is a word better avoided unless you intend to reveal your bias in your work as you have in this post. You should close this thread based on your contribution to it.

View attachment 41315

I have seen stupid, judgmental posts on this forum for over 15 years and your post is close to the most ignorant in that time period. It is a appraisal term; look it up in the texts that you most likely do NOT have.
 
"Working class neighborhood" a good descriptor of entry level homes and the two job buyers who have purchased them.

Well the other day I was in what could best be described as a "NON-Working" class neighborhood. I have never seen so many able bodied adults sitting on their porches in the middle of a week day.
Don't be a racist....bigot....why were you driving through section 8 housing anyway?? Are you sure it wasn't an antifa meeting?
 
Is it better for neighborhoods to remain bad or to improve neighborhoods for the benefit of the majority?

The fact that an area has been blighted for generations is what should be called to task, not the fact that some pioneers are willing to risk their money and often times their safety to try and turn the area around. If they are successful they will turn a profit. Therein lies the rub. Profit has become verboten in a significant sector in today's society, as has success.
 
Funny, when I go into the million $ neighborhoods, I see a house full of people sitting by the pool doing nothing every day of the week. A few women look like they just got done playing tennis or shopping. Maybe dropping kids of at private school or piano lessons is considered work, I don't know.
 
"there's a trend toward remodeling and redevelopment" > gentrification.

There are several definitions of Gentrification. One of them I do not like to use.

1. the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste.
2. is a process of changing the character of a neighborhood through the influx of more affluent residents and businesses. (This is a common and controversial topic in politics and in urban planning.)
3. The process of wealthier residents moving to an area, and the changes that occur due to the influx of wealth. As wealthier inhabitants move into an area that is already populated with lower-income residents, the neighborhood begins to change as well. Often this will spark an urban renewal process, which cleans up the town, but often leads to an increase in rent, taxes, and other items. Sometimes this change means that the previous residents can no longer afford to live in that neighborhood, which is why gentrification can sometimes be used in a negative context. However, many good changes also historically accompany gentrification, such as decreased crime rates and increased economic activity.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/gentrification.html

Since I am a Orginalist when it comes to the Constitution and a Capitalist, I am deeply conflicted over the gentrification process. If it was a free market I would not have a problem. Where it becomes a problem for me is when those with means use the force of Government to initiate and conclude a taking to the detriment with of those of less means.

One of the worst Decision the Supreme Court has ever made: https://ij.org/case/kelo/


I am also against 'Spot Zoning' - Like Pittsburgh Pete said recently in response to a Re-Zoning Hearing thread I started in the CG forum - "....de facto Taking'
That involved my Brothers property and the Petitioner. The County Commissioners total disregard for the Established Rules. The rule they did no enforce was the Burden of Proof is the Petitioner must prove definitely the requested change would not impact the adjoining land owners. (that would be expressed in monetary terms)
 
Perhaps you would better serve the reader of your report by specifying the median household income in the census tract in which you are appraising and compare it to the larger metro or county household income.

That would be strictly descriptive, informative, and with no trace of potential subjective or biased perspective.

Working class means different things to different people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top