At 7/10/14 06:43 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 7/10/14 06:35 PM, Little-Kinky wrote: Oh, c'mon! We need some more inspiration for those cool, old-timey gangster flicks~

What about Detroit then

But.. Isn't Detroit just stray dogs and abandoned buildings?

Or.. Am I thinking of Sochi?

At 7/10/14 05:45 PM, orangebomb wrote: So what you're saying is to let them rot in a certain neighborhood and just do nothing about it? Frankly, that's even more irresponsible than what you suggest, and it's easy to say that should be left alone, but to do so is basically only means that you're letting them be homeless and a blight on the city itself, not something that outsiders look towards if they want to visit a city for vacation or to live.

Well, people that are poor and working-class aren't exactly "homeless," but nice try. The homeless should obviously be given homes--not very expensive ones, but still, homes. Taxes should be sent to pay for shelter services at the expense of police services. And again, outsiders moving to big cities is a problem that we have to combat--at least at this point in time. We have too many population and luxury development issues to accommodate new guys and girls.

Everyone gets affected by gentrification, but the positives usually outweigh the negatives in the long term, plus no one who is poor wants to be poor for long, but they often (not always) become poor because of bad decisions in their lives.

After a while most of us become content with where we are. A lot of poor people don't really think about paths to upward mobility because it's really just not necessary, or there are too many roadblocks created by the millionaires and billionaires from Pluto that decided to move to Earth, and built their residences all over Manhattan and Brooklyn. You can say that bad decisions can be a factor in why people are less fortunate than others, but the real reason is that the world's richest people control almost 50% of the world's wealth, are very well connected and often come from the same family (think the Koch brothers, Walton family, Rockerfellers, etc,). The result is that the rest of us simply don't have a fair shot and will never come close to attaining that level of success. So what can we do? Bring them all down, level the playing field, and make them or anyone high up and in some way tied to them (even if they don't know it) incapable of transforming our urban landscapes.

So what if they aren't from the city? They only come to help bring a city up rather than tear it down because there would be no financial sense to do so. What you're telling me is that you're against progress and and insisting that major cities don't do anything to improve their cities' standing and reputation.

Usually what makes financial sense to the rich guys doesn't make the same sense to current inhabitants.

For real though, stagnation is better and safer.

Except that it doesn't, usually. For example, the Arena District and the Short North of Columbus, Ohio were known for being industrially depressed and had no real advancement for growth due to widespread poverty and bad decision making in the 60's and 70's. It wasn't until the late 80's and 90's when the city realized that they had a potential gold mine and something that can turn around the image of Columbus, so they invested in making more shops and more upscale properties, and now they're one of the best neighborhoods in the city and the city rakes in many millions for other projects.

The only people who complain about gentrification are old folks who long for the old days and simple-minded idiots who can't seem to understand the big picture on how a major city works.

Maybe you should listen to those old people. Many know quite a bit about how major cities work if they've lived in them for at least 20 years, but many have lived in them for much, much longer.

Hell, many of the old people here can remember our old 5 cent subway fare. For decades starting in 1904, and even through those tumultuous years such as the Great Depression and WWII, our subway fare remained 5 cents. It wasn't until 1948 that our fare was raised to 10 cents. In the decades since, our fares have been going up way more than is normal and that has got to stop. The more you stop and think about it, the more you really want to know what's going on behind the scenes. More than likely: dirty business. Very dirty business. And that dirty business is undoubtedly going on with regards to real estate development in poorer areas. There's never-ending dialogue from the elite as to how to expeditiously get rid of the lower-class, when the affluent outsiders are in fact the real undesirables. These areas are definitely gold mines/opportunities for people with money, but you see, not everyone has money. As I pointed out, people with money tend to be from the same family and/or very well-connected. The same is true with politics. How many more Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys, etc. do we need? One of each was enough.

The good ones are able to keep much of the old history while building the future, and Columbus, Ohio is one example of this. Even then, old historical buildings and integrity means nothing in the grand scheme of things and is only valued by sentimentalists and the old guard who insist that life was better back then, when that is highly debatable at best and nostalgic ignorance at worst.

I'm not advocating destroying all of the old history of a city, but there is a place for them, (the museum or renovation) and the price of progress is worth it in the long term. Don't let nostalgia and sentimentalism cloud your way to progress.

We can't simply have remnants of old parts of a city relegated to the interior of a museum. That's nonsense. Large (and I mean large) amounts of old space needs to go untouched, with any and all development restricted.

Exaggeration will get you nowhere. New York is in a better place now than it was in the 70's and 80's, and it's hard not to see what caused it, or at least one of the reasons for it. With gentrification, there is always going to be short term pain but a long term gain for everyone involved.

No way in hell. When people didn't want to come here, this place was a lot better. My family members that were alive back then can all attest to that.

At 7/10/14 08:03 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: People move places to make a better life for themselves, I don't see why I gotta hate on em for it.
Gentrification can stay.

Right on dude. Let's hang out at a chain restaurant where there's no one stabbing us.

At 7/10/14 08:03 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: People move places to make a better life for themselves, I don't see why I gotta hate on em for it.
Gentrification can stay.

It's kinda stating the obvious and going backwards but, you know, they improve their own lives by fucking everyone else's?

Also, the current politicians that talk about income inequality are mainly just talking. They are also rich. They don't go nearly far enough and are also part of the problem.

At 7/10/14 08:37 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: yeah why not
you aren't going to reverse the trend, however hard you try
may as well leave and find somewhere else

Rezoning and major taxing on the upper income brackets, which I believe is in the works now, is a start.

But it doesn't go far enough.

Also, I refuse to succumb to the pressure to leave which is exactly what these people want.

You sound like a bitter old man. Like, someone who is at least in his 50s or 60s. But your profile says 24. Clearly your problem is you live in an increasingly affluent area when you don't have the money for it. But instead of moving to an area which might be more suitable for you or instead trying to improve your own monetary situation, you bitch and complain that newcomers are changing everything and prices keep going up. If you were 60 you might have a point but honestly it's a bit laughable for someone who isn't even 30 yet to have that mindset. And no, it's not because you're "wise beyond your years" or some such. I didn't say you sound like a wise old man. I said bitter. There's a difference.

What you want is a fantasy and you're living in the past. Unless you can build a time machine you'll never have that again and you need to accept this although you probably won't. Also you have a tendency to paint anyone who disagrees with you as "the rich aristocracy" or some such and you need to stop doing that because you couldn't be more wrong. It's funny too because you're someone from a rich state (whether you yourself are rich or not) denigrating people from poor states while espousing some sort of pseudo-activism for the poor displaced by rich and you don't see the hypocrisy in that.

And also take your own advice. I fully believe if you believe strongly in something to apply it to yourself. So do so. You believe strongly that people who aren't native to an area don't belong there and should leave. Well are you any part Native American at all? If not get out of not just New York but the entire US because according to your own ideology you don't belong here. So as long as you stay it just makes you one huge hypocrite. Talk about displacing people who were there first!

And if you want to throw that right back at me, well it won't work because I happen to be Native American so even if I held your same values and beliefs, which I don't, I wouldn't be the one leaving the US.

At 7/10/14 09:19 PM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote:

can't blame people for wanting to move to new york

You can totally blame people for that. Just not for his reasom

At 7/10/14 09:14 PM, NeonSpider wrote: You sound like a bitter old man. Like, someone who is at least in his 50s or 60s. But your profile says 24. Clearly your problem is you live in an increasingly affluent area when you don't have the money for it. But instead of moving to an area which might be more suitable for you or instead trying to improve your own monetary situation, you bitch and complain that newcomers are changing everything and prices keep going up. If you were 60 you might have a point but honestly it's a bit laughable for someone who isn't even 30 yet to have that mindset. And no, it's not because you're "wise beyond your years" or some such. I didn't say you sound like a wise old man. I said bitter. There's a difference.

I probably come across as a bitter old man because in my 24 short years, I've seen and experienced just about as much if not more than they have in their 60+ years. All of the old people I talk to now are terrified by what's going on now more than ever before, as far as what the future holds and the ability to have some kind of economic equilibrium. We're at a point where we really need complete wealth redistribution and urban decay to the point where the undesirables need to be chased away by means of obviously deteriorating conditions.

What you want is a fantasy and you're living in the past. Unless you can build a time machine you'll never have that again and you need to accept this although you probably won't. Also you have a tendency to paint anyone who disagrees with you as "the rich aristocracy" or some such and you need to stop doing that because you couldn't be more wrong. It's funny too because you're someone from a rich state (whether you yourself are rich or not) denigrating people from poor states while espousing some sort of pseudo-activism for the poor displaced by rich and you don't see the hypocrisy in that.

It's blatantly obvious to me that almost everyone that has disagreed with me thus far (yourself included) has lived a life of privilege, and it shows in how they simply brush off gentrification as a good thing, part of life in a big city, and something that we should accept. It may be easily prone to happening, but in no way should it be regarded as good and to do nothing about it. NY is a rich state with a lot of poor as fuck areas. Because it is one of the richest states in the US, it also has one of the widest income gaps in the US. You will notice the same thing in CA as well. I make just about as much if not less than people in poor states.

And also take your own advice. I fully believe if you believe strongly in something to apply it to yourself. So do so. You believe strongly that people who aren't native to an area don't belong there and should leave. Well are you any part Native American at all? If not get out of not just New York but the entire US because according to your own ideology you don't belong here. So as long as you stay it just makes you one huge hypocrite. Talk about displacing people who were there first!

This just proves you don't comprehend my ideology, so I have to explain it further so that you do. Native as in born here. Of all races and ethnicities. I have roots here by birth, and those roots have been further cemented due to the fact that I was also raised here. Yes, I am in fact part Native American but in any event, when it comes to dealing with some of my older, long gone ancestors from other countries, I have nothing to do with them, and I'm not from their respective countries. I was born here, from here, and I always will be, because it's on my birth certificate. Can't say the same thing for...oh, I don't know, the thousands more that come in every day?

At 7/10/14 10:03 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: It's blatantly obvious to me that almost everyone that has disagreed with me thus far (yourself included) has lived a life of privilege, and it shows in how they simply brush off gentrification as a good thing, part of life in a big city, and something that we should accept.

Okay well I'll just say that you couldn't be more wrong. And you're just proving my (and everyone else's) points further. You literally paint everyone who disagrees with you as "rich aristocracy". You're doing it here. Do you even know what our lives are like? No you do not. How dare you be so arrogant and presumptuous!

Also where the hell did I say gentrification was a good thing? I want you to point out specifically where I said that because I did not. I did say you need to change with the times and sometimes that means accepting and moving on, but it doesn't mean change is necessarily good. But if you can't adapt you're only hurting yourself. When you are greatly outnumbered you can stay and fight if you want, but you're going to lose.

At 7/10/14 10:16 PM, NeonSpider wrote: Okay well I'll just say that you couldn't be more wrong. And you're just proving my (and everyone else's) points further. You literally paint everyone who disagrees with you as "rich aristocracy". You're doing it here. Do you even know what our lives are like? No you do not. How dare you be so arrogant and presumptuous!

"Rich aristocracy." I didn't drop that phrase even once. Having lives of privilege doesn't exactly make you an aristocrat or necessarily make you linked to one, but it does make you more detached from the reality of the effects that gentrification has on people, which is the whole point of this thread.

Also where the hell did I say gentrification was a good thing? I want you to point out specifically where I said that because I did not. I did say you need to change with the times and sometimes that means accepting and moving on, but it doesn't mean change is necessarily good. But if you can't adapt you're only hurting yourself. When you are greatly outnumbered you can stay and fight if you want, but you're going to lose.

"But really it just sounds like you're mad because the world's changing around you and you can't adapt. Well you know what they say. Adapt or die. That's the law of natural selection." <- Clear-cut social Darwinism right there. Do you really think certain people should be predisposed to wealth and then use it to their advantage to clear out lower class neighborhoods? Sure, you may not have explicitly said that, but that kind of social Darwinistic thinking is exactly what that leads to, like it or not.

"The logical thing to do would be either adapt to the changes or move some place that is more to your liking."

"Well times change. Adapt."

Adapt adapt adapt = you.

If we all just made the same amount of money to begin with, there would be no issues.

Here's why I get why Gory is pissed off. According to The New York Post the average cost of a brownstone in Brooklyn is up to $2.2 million dollars. Can anybody here afford that? Even if you could would you buy a freaking brownstone with all that money when you could buy a much better house somewhere else and not have to listen to your neighbors have sex through the walls?

So let's say you already live in Brooklyn and you already own a brownstone, well then a winner is you. I call that come up. If you bought that house twenty years ago you just fucked the market sideways. Sell that bitch.

But let's say you're twenty four years old, chances are you didn't buy a house when you were four and you're just now reaching the point in your life where you're ready to buy a home. Now you've been priced out of your own neighborhood and it's time to pack your shit and say goodbye. That kind of sucks.

Now let's say you're seventy four years old, living on a fixed income, and you've been renting a home in Brooklyn all these years. Ain't nobody give a fuck about your purple heart or how many friends you got in the community old man. We're gonna raise your rent slowly until we bleed you dry and then toss your ass. Go suck a dick in the streets.

I also get that it can't be helped. I don't resent rich people for it. In the big picture it's probably better for the city as a whole. But it's not just hopelessly poor neighborhoods and people who are getting displaced. It's a far more nebulous phenomenon than that, with winners and losers from all walks of life. I get why everybody is coming at Gory's biscuits on this, but I'd be a little pissed off too if I was the one getting fucked for the greater good.

At 7/10/14 10:37 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

At 7/10/14 10:16 PM, NeonSpider wrote: Okay well I'll just say that you couldn't be more wrong. And you're just proving my (and everyone else's) points further. You literally paint everyone who disagrees with you as "rich aristocracy". You're doing it here. Do you even know what our lives are like? No you do not. How dare you be so arrogant and presumptuous!

"Rich aristocracy." I didn't drop that phrase even once. Having lives of privilege doesn't exactly make you an aristocrat or necessarily make you linked to one, but it does make you more detached from the reality of the effects that gentrification has on people, which is the whole point of this thread.

But I don't have a life of privilege. You assume (incorrectly) that I do. You assume (incorrectly) that anyone who disagrees with your points of view is privileged whether you explicitly use the term "aristocratic" or not. I can almost guarantee you have more money than I do. But I don't bitch about my place in life. It's not fair. That's life.

Also where the hell did I say gentrification was a good thing? I want you to point out specifically where I said that because I did not. I did say you need to change with the times and sometimes that means accepting and moving on, but it doesn't mean change is necessarily good. But if you can't adapt you're only hurting yourself. When you are greatly outnumbered you can stay and fight if you want, but you're going to lose.

"But really it just sounds like you're mad because the world's changing around you and you can't adapt. Well you know what they say. Adapt or die. That's the law of natural selection." <- Clear-cut social Darwinism right there. Do you really think certain people should be predisposed to wealth and then use it to their advantage to clear out lower class neighborhoods? Sure, you may not have explicitly said that, but that kind of social Darwinistic thinking is exactly what that leads to, like it or not.

"The logical thing to do would be either adapt to the changes or move some place that is more to your liking."

"Well times change. Adapt."

Adapt adapt adapt = you.

If we all just made the same amount of money to begin with, there would be no issues.

Yes I am somewhat of a social Darwinist. That's perhaps the only thing you've correctly surmised. I don't think the ludicrous wage gaps are fair. I think tons of stuff flat-out sucks. I would prefer things be different than they are, but whining about something which is impossible to do anything about does absolutely no good. So what - do you want people to feel sorry for you? Is that it? Again, life isn't fair. Deal with it.

At 7/10/14 11:54 PM, Joelle wrote: To summarize: You hate rich people because you aren't rich. Building new buildings and lowering crime is good. All those paragraph's were you crying about not being rich.

But teh atmosphere. Think about teh atmosphere.

At 7/10/14 11:43 PM, NeonSpider wrote: But I don't have a life of privilege. You assume (incorrectly) that I do. You assume (incorrectly) that anyone who disagrees with your points of view is privileged whether you explicitly use the term "aristocratic" or not. I can almost guarantee you have more money than I do. But I don't bitch about my place in life. It's not fair. That's life.

"That's life." You know, I hear that a lot as a justification for why the upper echelon of people make the property purchases they make, getting rid of long established residents and businesses. My stomach hurts as I'm writing this--that's how sick I am.

Yes I am somewhat of a social Darwinist. That's perhaps the only thing you've correctly surmised. I don't think the ludicrous wage gaps are fair. I think tons of stuff flat-out sucks. I would prefer things be different than they are, but whining about something which is impossible to do anything about does absolutely no good. So what - do you want people to feel sorry for you? Is that it? Again, life isn't fair. Deal with it.

My opinions may have taken center stage but ultimately, this is a solutions based thread. I know there are people out there that know how changing neighborhoods have forced decades old residents and people out and unwelcome newcomers, big corporations and luxury condos in. Space is shrinking and the only people entitled to whatever space remains are native NYers. That's it. No ifs ands or buts. I've already proposed my solutions but the more I hear, the better off we are. And while it may be easy to argue that gentrification improves the economy, creates jobs, and so on, you're fucked if you don't earn enough to keep up with the rising prices, or if your business or your boss' business that has been around for ages is forced to close due to market changes. My solutions are extreme but anyone that agrees with me (obviously not you) is free to offer alternatives.

I mean I get why you're upset. Don't get me wrong. But I just don't think there's anything you can do about it. I absolutely hate seeing independent businesses forced to close due to economy and such. I much prefer to support local independent businesses over big chains and I always advocate people do this. I personally hate the very concept of money to be honest. But I'm not "world king" or "world dictator" so I can't just go changing complex sociological problems on a whim. I can do my part locally, but I am but a small gear in the clockwork. I support local independent businesses and the arts. I give money to street musicians and street artists because I value them.

And yes it sucks very much if you have to move from where you are because you've been priced out of your own neighborhood as someone else put it, but times change. Places change.

oh just another Butthurt Gory thread about people moving into his city.

Here's some Affordable apartments for Rent

TIME TO MOVE TO THE BIG APPLE!

At 7/11/14 12:34 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh just another Butthurt Gory thread about people moving into his city.

Here's some Affordable apartments for Rent

TIME TO MOVE TO THE BIG APPLE!

You're the last person that belongs here.

Also:

"Price Unavailable" is what's indicated on the majority of these listings, in what I am well aware are extremely expensive neighborhoods. The images available also reek of splendor and comfort accessible only to the very very high classes, and that those on the far lower end of the spectrum (or even the middle end) can only dream of. It shouldn't be that way, and it won't...at least, if the winds of change finally start moving in the direction that I want it to move.

At 7/11/14 12:30 AM, NeonSpider wrote: I personally hate the very concept of money to be honest.

I agree with this; but in today's world, it's the ONLY real dividing factor between who gets to be considered 'upper class' and 'lower class'. Communist have the right idea in some ways, but is still not a total solution; but with capitalism, it will always be dog eat dog, and survival of the wealthiest

At 7/11/14 05:45 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

At 7/11/14 12:34 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh just another Butthurt Gory thread about people moving into his city.

Here's some Affordable apartments for Rent

TIME TO MOVE TO THE BIG APPLE!

You're the last person that belongs here.

aww come on it would be fun I even have family there! im looking at prices now.

At 7/11/14 06:55 PM, SansNumbers wrote: I thought you were leaving forever, OP?

Really? Did it ever occur to you that I wasn't going to leave--that I was going to continue to fight for the city I was born and raised in because I don't like the direction it's currently headed?

Gory just move to the Bronx its cheaper though you have to deal with the crazies. Also Staten Island is an option.

I gotta agree with Luis that some degree of gentrification is good. I've seen ghettos turn into decent places to live in where I'm from but with it came community centers, after-school programs, etc. It sucks for any family businesses or local bodegas that are directly affected by chain stores or big corporations buying them out, maybe there's some way to petition to the mayor to keep things like that?

But like someone else said, all the people that lived in the ghettos don't just disappear. They move into decent neighborhoods and any delinquents/small time criminals fuck it up for the rest of their time there.
It's already happened to my neighborhood, and it does suck but hey, maybe in a few decades or so gentrification will happen in my town and then the ghettos will go back to being the ghettos.

It seems like just one fucked up cycle

NYC should increase its minimum wage so that people can afford to live there. It could also do a lot more, policy-wise, to provide incentive to get affordable housing in all these new developments. There are laws like that here in MA so it isn't as much of a problem. Whenever a major development is made, it has to somehow also result in a certain percentage of 'affordable housing'.

But, your idea of somehow driving away people that aren't moving there is pretty crazy. Turn the place into a shithole and the only people that stay are the people who literally can't afford to go anywhere else because they're crippled by their poverty, which won't be improved by the place they live being turned into a shithole.

I think you're conflating two problems here that irk you: other people coming into NYC (which is unreasonable and cannot be solved) and gentrification driving the poor inhabitants of a neighborhood out forcibly (which is reasonable and can be addressed). I think if you want to have any success, you should get your neighborhood organized to the effect of the latter and not the former problem.

Because, honestly, I fucking hate New York City but I'd consider living there just to spite you.

At 7/11/14 09:07 PM, ToddM wrote: Gory just move to the Bronx its cheaper though you have to deal with the crazies. Also Staten Island is an option.

I see you're from Milwaukee and I'm not sure about your level of familiarity as far as NYC is but here goes...

Staten Island, as it is right now, needs to be either left alone or go further downhill. I vote for further downhill. I said in my first post that the Fresh Kills Landfill there needs to be re-opened, because I truly think it does. They're in the middle of building a park there which will be about 3 times the size of Central Park. We have enough parks in NYC as it is, and pretty parks do have an enormous effect on property values. I should know as a bit of an insider here...I'll say no more.

Let's focus our attention now to the North Shore of SI, especially on St. George. Right next to the ferry, there's a large scale project currently underway to "revitalize" (not in my world at least) SI and create an outlet mall and a huge as wheel (one of the world's largest, in fact) next to the ferry. The intent is to encourage millions of tourists to come to SI and if anyone thinks that's a good thing, fucking ugh. There's no doubt that will spread to the rest of they will want to stay there and take over even historically ghetto neighborhoods such as Stapleton and Clifton, then spread all the way to the South Shore and then there you have it--Staten Island, currently the least populous borough of NYC, is theirs.

Going back to the Bronx now...I'm as familiar with it as I am with the rest of NYC. Yes, most of it is much cheaper than the rest of NYC, but it could go even cheaper than it is, and that's why I encourage far lower living standards and conditions that will hopefully spread throughout the rest of the city. However, I've seen places like Mott Haven and Port Morris have clear undesirables that were once not normal, and whenever I hear the word SoBro used as a way of saying the South Bronx, my homicidal side immediately comes out.

Also, since when is "dealing with the crazies" a bad thing? It never was, is or ever will be.

At 7/11/14 09:37 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

At 7/11/14 09:07 PM, ToddM wrote:

Also, since when is "dealing with the crazies" a bad thing? It never was, is or ever will be.

I have some family friends there that feel the same way as you do but they have there much longer than you have been alive. My city has had some gentrification but we welcome it as the areas being gentrified were really industrial and was an eyesore. The crazies are the ones doing the muggings and open drug use is what I mean.

At 7/11/14 09:18 PM, Evark wrote: NYC should increase its minimum wage so that people can afford to live there. It could also do a lot more, policy-wise, to provide incentive to get affordable housing in all these new developments. There are laws like that here in MA so it isn't as much of a problem. Whenever a major development is made, it has to somehow also result in a certain percentage of 'affordable housing'.

The first part is kind of makes sense as an alternative solution to everything I was proposing, and still strongly believe in.

In NYC whenever a new development is made, developers aren't mandated by law to create affordable housing. They do, however, get tax credits if they allocate 20% of their units for "affordable housing." Selection is based on a lottery system, then an interview, then formal paperwork. That makes the other 80% unaffordable housing, and the inhabitants of those 80% are just perpetuating the problem with every step they take and every dollar they spend. It's disgusting. They're disgusting.

Also, given how much poverty there is in NYC, competition for each unit designated as "affordable housing" by HPD is intense. Just 20% in each new development for developers that want the tax credits, and even if there were 100%, it still wouldn't be enough to meet the demand. The best solution is to spread the wealth and make conditions deteriorate over time.

At 7/11/14 09:37 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

Also, since when is "dealing with the crazies" a bad thing? It never was, is or ever will be.

Which burrough is Daredevil in? I always wanted to meet him.

At 7/11/14 10:27 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: You could also take advantage of the fact that this re-development is occuring. If it ever happens in your area and you happen to own any property (unless you're a renter, which I will assume) then you could flip the property you own for a substantial gain relative to it's value before, then move to a cheaper area from there.

Yes, I am a renter.

Property flipping is what keeps property values up in newly gentrified neighborhoods. People do it all the time--the seller reaps all of the benefits and if the property is leased out to lower income tenants, they get fucked. Then when the seller moves to a cheaper area, likely in another state, they are likely to fuck their new community over too with their newfound riches. Such activity should always be discouraged, and wherever current property values are now, we want them as low as possible. I'll keep saying it over and over: lower, not higher. It's for the greater good, and it's the right thing to do.

At 7/11/14 09:18 PM, Evark wrote: But, your idea of somehow driving away people that aren't moving there is pretty crazy. Turn the place into a shithole and the only people that stay are the people who literally can't afford to go anywhere else because they're crippled by their poverty, which won't be improved by the place they live being turned into a shithole.

I'm not sure why I forgot to reply to this part of your post earlier, but I did and that changes now.

The only residents that I hope will be driven away by deteriorating conditions are the transplants, not the natives who've seen it all. And yeah, we'll just be left with brothers and sisters all from here stuggling equally without worrying (hopefully) about the big guys that think they're doing us good by "saving" us. I am one of those people that think Detroit should have been left alone in its state of disrepair and debt and because there are hipsters there that have done and continue to damage there, well, that's a problem. If we become the next Detroit, I say we are to be left alone and only to get help if we solicit it. No more, no less.