DC Gentrification

[DFW HOYA]

Thursday's Washington Post discusses what could be a major political issue in the District over the next decade--a shrinking African-American population that, within 10 or so years, will no longer be the majority in DC.

The article discusses gentrification and more DC residents moving out.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602840.html?nav=hcmodule

[hoyatables]

dfw said:

The article discusses gentrification and more DC residents moving out.

To be fair, DC is gaining more new residents than it is losing.

And I'm not entirely sure that in the case of the District, gentrification should be a dirty word. In fact, a little gentrification is exactly what a city with no potential for land expansion needs. The District has a limited land supply that is actually far less than it appears to be because so much is owned by the feds. There are a few large sites that could be developed with new housing, but the truth is that those large sites will be mired in political and social debate that will slow their development. Further, there is widespread opposition as well as statutory limitations on building the city "up" -- even around its transit hubs.

So the city can't grow out, and it can't grow up, and it has some land left to fill in, but that will take some time. The city needs to increase its tax revenue to provide the services its citizens want. It's already bleeding tourists dry; the sales taxes far exceed the outlying areas; and the income taxes exceed the suburbs. The only option is to increase real estate taxes on commercial or residential properties or both. No one wants to be the one to do that, and Fenty has promised not to do it. But increasing revenue by adding new residents in high revenue generating properties through higher property tax returns does just that. And it is realistically the only solution that DC has on the revenue side.

Also, I think that it has had a positive effect on areas of the city that are west of Rock Creek Park, which is a good thing. Columbia Heights, U Street, 14th Street, H Street NE, Barracks Row SE, Southwest, Takoma, Fort Totten, Fort Lincoln. The list goes on. And the city has tapered the effects by mandating affordable housing in new developments, and a number of developers are creating all-affordable developments as well.

[thebin]

I am not really sure how "gentrification" got a bad rap at all. But oh my the DC I knew could use bucket loads of it. At least in about 1999, Adams Morgan was already one of the more desirable neighborhoods in NW and I frequently heard gun shots. Now I am as tired of Starbucks and the Gap as the next guy...unless the next guy prefers dilapidation and crime to overpriced coffee milkshakes and poorly-made bland threads. The people who use "gentrification" as a dirty word are generally the jerks lamenting that you are no longer likely to get mugged walking past hookers and drug dealers in Times Square anymore. (There are PLENTY of people who attacked Giuliani for exactly this without irony.) I understand that Times Square is not a place worth spending time if you have any taste, but its still better than the dangerous cesspool that it was under Dinkens/Koch/Cuomo.

[DFW HOYA]

Jimmy Breslin used to get on TV in the 1990's and deplore the "new" Times Square, longing for its old and seedy days when families weren't walking along the streets.

He sounded like he was in a time warp from 1965.

[Deleted]

thebin said:

At least in about 1999, Adams Morgan was already one of the more desirable neighborhoods in NW and I frequently heard gun shots.

Some things never change, bin. From February, 2007:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401293.html

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Speaking from my new apartment in Chinatown I can say that I love gentrification but can understand how its used as a bad word. If the city is interested in housing lower income residents then it needs to step up with some zoning ordinanaces like density bonuses for developers who build apartment or condo complexes with a certain percentage of units set aside for housing lower income residents or adding supplemental assistance for those receiving section 8 housing assistance.

[thebin]

I live in a diverse urban environment myself. I am no suburb type. I understand the merits of diversity in terms of quality of life. And yet I have a philosophical problem with government subsidizing a select group of people's desire to live in a certain neighborhood in which, due to market fluctuations, they can no longer afford to live.

I am reminded of the recent purchase of that huge (by Manhattan standards) parcel of land that private developers just bought up in the Alphabet City area on the east side. All sorts of artists, teachers, etc who belonged to the right group had been living for $500 a month up in arms because now they would have to pay real prices to live in Manhattan. Well I am sorry, but I won't lose sleep for them. Rent control in highly desirable neighborhoods seems to me on the whole a grossly unjust racket for the government to be endorsing. I would love to live in a 1200 sq foot 2 bedroom apartment in lower Manhattan for $500 a month too but I don't expect other people to foot the bill so I can bring some political diversity to the neighborhood.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

That's why I like the idea of zoning density bonuses that allow more units in a complex if the builder puts in a certain number of units for lower income persons - in that case its not like rent controls which spread out the cost of housing lower income persons to all of the city - the cost is just on the other residents of the building and as a housing consumer a person can decide whether they want part of the cost of their condo going to the program.

[hoyatables]

stpetersburghoya said:

Speaking from my new apartment in Chinatown I can say that I love gentrification but can understand how its used as a bad word. If the city is interested in housing lower income residents then it needs to step up with some zoning ordinanaces like density bonuses for developers who build apartment or condo complexes with a certain percentage of units set aside for housing lower income residents or adding supplemental assistance for those receiving section 8 housing assistance.

The District has been promoting affordable housing for years through the PUD process--these were case-by-case developments where the developer offered certain benefits, including affordable housing, for additional height and density. Recently, the city has actually passed an ordinance that provides up to 20% bonus density for developments that include affordable housing as a matter of right. The problem is that the city's height limit, combined with historic preservation and other zoning restrictions, really limit the areas where the developer can fully utilize all 20%. The result is that the developer ends up being required to provide the affordable housing but can't balance it out with the full amount of bonus density.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

bin, if it becomes unrealistic to live in a 1200 sq ft. 2BR in Manhattan for $500 a month, how ever would we be regaled by the stories of our pals from "Friends?"

I understand your reasoning, but disagree.

1. Rent control is about socio-economic diversity, not political diversity, because teaching, artisanship, etc., are not politically-oriented professions, they are vocations that the market does not reward in dollar terms. I support government efforts to protect and reward valuable positions like teaching and art with other benefits and protections.

2. Rent control and subsidization acts as a balancing factor by protecting those who are susceptible to harm by market fluctuations; e.g. teachers, artists, young professionals, government workers, and working families. Government, in this case and in my opinion, is performing one of its highest functions: protecting people from harm by way of providing a service that the market is either unwilling or unable to perform (in this case, both).

3. I personally want to live in a mixed-use, mixed-income, walkable, unique, vibrant, walkable, racially-ethnically-and socio-economically diverse neighborhood; I don't see a market solution to achieve it; I see rent control as a good tool to achieve it; I also see Hope IV grants and other subsidies as a tool to achieve it, even though I think these are less-good than rent control. If you can think of a way to make market fluctuations work in favor of lower rents for people with lower incomes, I'm all for it, but I don't think market fluctuations should be the only driving force in determining where people can live.

If I had to choose a government policy favoring a rich developer or a bunch of under-paid teachers, I choose the one that favors the teachers.

That said, I do think that gentrification, developers' wishes to maximize profits, and housing security for middle-to-lower income earners can work together. I think a policy that allows people to stay where they are (for renters by rent control, and owners by tax breaks) but allows developers to profit as much as possible in the same neighborhood has promise.

thebin said:

I live in a diverse urban environment myself. I am no suburb type. I understand the merits of diversity in terms of quality of life. And yet I have a philosophical problem with government subsidizing a select group of people's desire to live in a certain neighborhood in which, due to market fluctuations, they can no longer afford to live.

I am reminded of the recent purchase of that huge (by Manhattan standards) parcel of land that private developers just bought up in the Alphabet City area on the east side. All sorts of artists, teachers, etc who belonged to the right group had been living for $500 a month up in arms because now they would have to pay real prices to live in Manhattan. Well I am sorry, but I won't lose sleep for them. Rent control in highly desirable neighborhoods seems to me on the whole a grossly unjust racket for the government to be endorsing. I would love to live in a 1200 sq foot 2 bedroom apartment in lower Manhattan for $500 a month too but I don't expect other people to foot the bill so I can bring some political diversity to the neighborhood.

[HealyHoya]

Well said, Coast.

[hoyatables]

tothebeach said:

bin, if it becomes unrealistic to live in a 1200 sq ft. 2BR in Manhattan for $500 a month, how ever would we be regaled by the stories of our pals from "Friends?"

I understand your reasoning, but disagree.

1. Rent control is about socio-economic diversity, not political diversity, because teaching, artisanship, etc., are not politically-oriented professions, they are vocations that the market does not reward in dollar terms. I support government efforts to protect and reward valuable positions like teaching and art with other benefits and protections.

2. Rent control and subsidization acts as a balancing factor by protecting those who are susceptible to harm by market fluctuations; e.g. teachers, artists, young professionals, government workers, and working families. Government, in this case and in my opinion, is performing one of its highest functions: protecting people from harm by way of providing a service that the market is either unwilling or unable to perform (in this case, both).

3. I personally want to live in a mixed-use, mixed-income, walkable, unique, vibrant, walkable, racially-ethnically-and socio-economically diverse neighborhood; I don't see a market solution to achieve it; I see rent control as a good tool to achieve it; I also see Hope IV grants and other subsidies as a tool to achieve it, even though I think these are less-good than rent control. If you can think of a way to make market fluctuations work in favor of lower rents for people with lower incomes, I'm all for it, but I don't think market fluctuations should be the only driving force in determining where people can live.

If I had to choose a government policy favoring a rich developer or a bunch of under-paid teachers, I choose the one that favors the teachers.

That said, I do think that gentrification, developers' wishes to maximize profits, and housing security for middle-to-lower income earners can work together. I think a policy that allows people to stay where they are (for renters by rent control, and owners by tax breaks) but allows developers to profit as much as possible in the same neighborhood has promise.

thebin said:

I live in a diverse urban environment myself. I am no suburb type. I understand the merits of diversity in terms of quality of life. And yet I have a philosophical problem with government subsidizing a select group of people's desire to live in a certain neighborhood in which, due to market fluctuations, they can no longer afford to live.

I am reminded of the recent purchase of that huge (by Manhattan standards) parcel of land that private developers just bought up in the Alphabet City area on the east side. All sorts of artists, teachers, etc who belonged to the right group had been living for $500 a month up in arms because now they would have to pay real prices to live in Manhattan. Well I am sorry, but I won't lose sleep for them. Rent control in highly desirable neighborhoods seems to me on the whole a grossly unjust racket for the government to be endorsing. I would love to live in a 1200 sq foot 2 bedroom apartment in lower Manhattan for $500 a month too but I don't expect other people to foot the bill so I can bring some political diversity to the neighborhood.

Two thoughts:

1) Affordable Housing is not usually about creating opportunities for low-income housing. In many cities, there is actually a relatively decent supply available for those who need it. It is really often about creating realistic and livable options for workforce housing, so that policemen, firemen, post office workers, and teachers can actually afford to live -- and by that I mean purchase -- a home in the community they serve. It's also -- for some -- about wealth creation, because the idea is that these people can then sell the units at market rates when they leave and make some money (others contest that it should remain affordable for the next generation).

2) Affordable housing for workforce persons is not just an urban issue. It is a problem in suburbs and rural areas too -- I'll bet that if we went back and polled our high school teachers, 75% of them did not live in the town they taught in because they "couldn't afford it."

Also, I don't think Manhattan should ever be cited by itself in a discussion. It's an anomaly, and to focus on only Manhattan neglects the other four boroughs that do contain more reasonable housing options.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Thanks, Healy.

Good points, 'tables. You're absolutely right that affordable housing issues are a problem in suburban, exurban, and rural communities too. You also highlighted the subjects of my main concern: mainly, a community/city/locality's capacity and ability to house its workforce. Unfortunately, as lower and middle incomes continue to stagnate and higher incomes continue to rise, it's becoming a trend that "workforce" and "low-income housing" go together.

FWIW, I knew many of my high school teachers very, very well (my mom and step-dad are both teachers in the community I grew up in, too), and most lived within a 15 minute drive of my school---some as close as accross the street. I do agree that it's tragic that teachers can't afford to live in the communities in which they teach. Is there any other profession for which that's true of the median income earner? Doctors? Lawyers? Accountants? Nurses?

[HealyHoya]

This link shows one end of the problem. [Might need to cut-and-paste the link].

www.nypost.com/seven/05222007/news/regionalnews/lured_by_suburbs_sirens_regionalnews_c_j__sullivan__selim_algar_and_leonard_greene.htm

NYPD provisional rookies make a salary of $25,000. How many places in Manhattan can you live on that salary? Granted, after the 6-month provisional period passes the base jumps to $32,500 but to what degree does that alleviate the problem.

Rent control apartments for the Upper West and East Sides, midtown, the financial district, etc. are really the only way NYPD can live anywhere near their patrol/precinct areas.

Of course, we could bump base pay for New York's finest roughly 20K across the board and solve the problem but that just ain't gonna happen. NYFD face much the same problem. Teachers. Social Service professionals.

[hoyatables]

healyhoya said:

This link shows one end of the problem. [Might need to cut-and-paste the link].

www.nypost.com/seven/05222007/news/regionalnews/lured_by_suburbs_sirens_regionalnews_c_j__sullivan__selim_algar_and_leonard_greene.htm

NYPD provisional rookies make a salary of $25,000. How many places in Manhattan can you live on that salary? Granted, after the 6-month provisional period passes the base jumps to $32,500 but to what degree does that alleviate the problem.

Rent control apartments for the Upper West and East Sides, midtown, the financial district, etc. are really the only way NYPD can live anywhere near their patrol/precinct areas.

Of course, we could bump base pay for New York's finest roughly 20K across the board and solve the problem but that just ain't gonna happen. NYFD face much the same problem. Teachers. Social Service professionals.

This points to the reason why rent control may just be appropriate in NYC, even if it isnt the best approach for other cities.