Gentrification
Atlanta has had a gentrification problem for the past few years. The problem part of it is what cracks me up. Let's say someone moved into your neighborhood and fixed up what used to be a crack house, into a nice home. Let's also add that your new neighbor has a job, and doesn't shoot guns at 3AM Tuesday morning. You'd think that was a good thing, wouldn't you?
Not necessarily.
Once again, we have to whine about the poor, poor pitiful poor. After the neighborhood becomes a decent place to live, the city raises property taxes. This is really where the injustice lies, since the folks that gentrified the neighborhood typically require less government services than the previous residents. Less police, less welfare. Especially in Atlanta, the gentrifiers are often gay, so there's pretty much no children. But, the new residents have more money and governments will always try to suck as much money as they can.
The latest renovation is one that's been talked about for a number of years; Atlanta's Beltway Project. It seems like a pretty good idea. Certainly, Atlanta could stand to plan a more livable city.
If it wasn't for the ridiculous corruption, high taxes and poor infrastructure that plagues the city of Atlanta , I would consider moving to the beltline.
Not necessarily.
Once again, we have to whine about the poor, poor pitiful poor. After the neighborhood becomes a decent place to live, the city raises property taxes. This is really where the injustice lies, since the folks that gentrified the neighborhood typically require less government services than the previous residents. Less police, less welfare. Especially in Atlanta, the gentrifiers are often gay, so there's pretty much no children. But, the new residents have more money and governments will always try to suck as much money as they can.
The latest renovation is one that's been talked about for a number of years; Atlanta's Beltway Project. It seems like a pretty good idea. Certainly, Atlanta could stand to plan a more livable city.
If it wasn't for the ridiculous corruption, high taxes and poor infrastructure that plagues the city of Atlanta , I would consider moving to the beltline.
posted by Exador at
9:33 AM
5 Comments:
So, do you or do you not think poor people should be displaced from their community as a result of rising property taxes and rent?
By
Unknown, at 10:11 AM
As far as rent; rent should be whatever the landlord can get for it.
As for property taxes, I think they should only be levied to the extent needed to support the local government, and the government should be as limited as possible.
By
Exador, at 10:29 AM
OK, fine, but you do realize that these policies displace folks from their communities. That may not be a problem to you, but you can see why others would consider it a problem.
I think, in a lot of cases in Atlanta, the city government actually paves the way for gentrification. Look at how development projects are targeted. This isn't the free market at play, but rather the city bribes developers to build things in blighted neighborhoods. They build new condos and retail space to attract outsiders into the community. That is development intended to gentrify the neighborhood, and displace the poor residents.
Some will look at the situation and see that criminals and drug addicts are forced to leave the community. Clearly that is true, but plenty of other working class residents are out-priced as well.
It's interesting that you mention the Beltline. That is a good example of government sponsored gentrification. You are right though, the end goal seems to be increased taxes and such for the city government. Imagine a government that actually worked for the benefit of it's citizens..
By
Unknown, at 8:31 AM
I can understand a city government wanting to improve the overall quality (and revenue) of a city.
Everytime new building begins, there is a march, or candlelight vigil, or whatnot, to force the builder to "set aside" X% of the building to affordable housing. People are so quick to petition their government for this handout, but apparently unwilling to get worked up about forcing their government to become small enough to not require the taxation that makes ALL the housing unaffordable. Wouldn't that be better? If the tax burden is lifted, the free market could provide housing for all incomes.
Drastically slashing government services would make it possible to slash the bureaucracy necessary to manage those services. Removing these two expeditures alone could allow a massive cut in taxes. The elimination of social services would reduce the welfare recipients that the city doesn't want anyway, while not effecting the working class, of which you spoke.
By
Exador, at 10:01 AM
How exactly do you connect slashing taxes to affordability when rents are still being set by a rampant speculative market? If I don't have to pay 10% tax on a million dollar condo, woopdeefriggin doo, oh wait I don't have that million do I?
The problem with gentrification is that it solves nothing. I don't understand how you can be so gung ho about how it makes certain neighborhoods better, but fail to address that these problems simply move elsewhere. Are you against just having the government invest into solving the problems rather than move them whenever it is convenient?
By
Anonymous, at 9:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home