Tackling the G Word

Gentrification is the one topic that is guaranteed to, paradoxically, either shut down a conversation or enflame it.  Neighborhood change in cities like Philadelphia is fraught with dynamics that have significant historical and racial components to them, and it is rightly infuriating (and in some cases triggering) when people weigh in while being oblivious to these dynamics or willfully opting to ignore them.  (Have been guilty of this myself at times, I must confess.)  Sometimes it is appropriate to put a big red stop sign up when people act a fool by thinking you can address neighborhood change without respecting the existence of past and present institutional racism.

  

But sometimes it is appropriate to lean into a conversation about neighborhood change.  The Philadelphia Fed’s recent paper on how gentrification isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be, and in fact can produce benefits for the very households thought to be hurt the most by it, is such an opportunity.  I appreciated my friend and former co-worker Jonathan Tannen’s take on the matter, as expressed in this Twitter thread. 

  

I support where Jonathan is coming from.  Gentrification has had and can have extraordinarily disastrous effects on the very households that are least equipped to bear such negative impacts.  Of this there is no doubt.  But it is unfair, if you want to actually do something about it, to simply cry foul and not explore further what is actionable that moves the ball in the right direction. 

To be more specific, it is impossible to put a lid on market forces.  If an area becomes more attractive, people who have choices will want to move into it.  It is what we want for all people, is to have choices and to be able to exercise those choices freely.  To attempt to bottle up these impulses is to create all manner of unintended consequences and to miss out on the benefits. 

A countervailing “Yes in my Backyard” (YIMBY) movement latches onto the notion that when demand goes up for an area, either supply must go up to meet that demand, or absent that, then (remember freshman year econ?) price will go up.  Hence, goes this line of thinking, displacement pressures are alleviated and not exacerbated by the addition of new supply.

But this is only partially true.  Adding million dollar homes doesn’t do much, directly and immediately, for folks can only afford $100,000 homes.  (I say “directly and immediately” because in the long run there is a benefit to adding any kind of supply, because of the way housing markets “filter down” such that the addition of new homes does yield some alleviation to upward price pressure.)  Hence, one of Jonathan’s points about being strategic about the provision of affordable housing in hot real estate markets so that the increase in demand for an area is met by a commensurate increase in affordable supply so as to minimize upward price pressure and protect low-income households. 

His other point warrants attention too.  I have said many times, publicly and privately, that I do not know the answer to the negative effects of gentrification, but I know that it cannot be that neighborhoods in danger of gentrifying aren’t allowed to have nice things.  Many of the nice things that make a neighborhood great are inherently equitable in nature, in that they are freely available and therefore do not segregate based on what you can afford.  For example, a kick-ass park or a transit hub or a decent public school.  All of these provide the same benefit whether you make minimum wage or a million bucks.  Jonathan’s point is that there are mechanisms for getting incoming (more affluent) households to help pay for these public goods. 

There’s a lot of conversation left to be had on this subject.  This country is still in need of a reckoning concerning its shameful past racism and the resulting institutional and behavioral wrongs that continue into the present.  The mechanics of implementing and executing sound public policy to move the ball forward in an effective and equitable manner are still up for discussion.  All I ask at this point is the following.  If you are not in the discussion, wade in; your privilege may buffer you from directly feeling the pain of displacement, but it should matter to you anyway.  If you are in the discussion and are not aware of or assign little weight to its historical and racial aspects, wake up; how do you expect to contribute in the future if you don’t know the past?  And if you are tempted to yell “gentrification!” and roll your eyes in despair or outrage, choose engagement and exploration instead, because there’s progress to be made here if we all work for it.