Essay On The Pros And Cons Of Gentrification

The process of gentrification, renovating and improving urban neighborhoods to suit a middle-class lifestyle, may be romanticized to many middle-class individuals, but hold grand consequences to lower-income individuals who originate from urban situations. Individuals come into a neighborhood and buy buildings and apartments to flip them to be higher-quality, thereby raising rent, taxes, and the cost of living. This neighborhood is now unaffordable to those who live there, causing displacement and erasure of urban identity. Those who decide not to move or do not have the means to move are even more impoverished because their rent is too expensive for them to afford much else. Low-income neighborhoods tend to be low income for undesirable reasons,

but improving conditions raises prices and forces low-income individuals out, inherently implying that the system America is built on believes that those individuals do not deserve quality living conditions. While at a glance, this may seem like solely a problem regarding capitalism, it fulfills the environmental justice frame due to the fact that it directly impacts people of color and low-income individuals.
There are multiple stages of gentrification - early, middle, and late. In a collection of case studies by Diane K. Levy, Jennifer Comely, and Sandra Padilla titled “In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement”, they explore each stage using a different city facing gentrification in the United States. The early stages are focused on raising interest in developers. The authors claim this is done rather than preserving or creating more affordable housing for current residents. Displacement is not a characteristic of this phase but lack of action from the community and local government will eventually allow it to grow. Barlett Park in Midtown of St. Petersburg, Florida is one of the “first neighborhoods in the early 1990s to develop a neighborhood plan” (Levy, 2006) that would attract investors by developing solid infrastructure and beautifying the city. Their plan worked, attracting mainly young, white, mid-high income individuals which is proved through a 43% rise in average income according to the census. Low income housing has yet to become an issue but respondents believe it is inevitable.
The middle stages of gentrification involve increased pressure but still have considerable affordable housing and developable land, and begin to see city agencies and nonprofits turn to private partners, making it more difficult to maintain low income housing. Atlanta, Georgia saw an increase in home values and population after gaining a large amount of federal, state, and private funds after hosting the 1996 Olympics. Unfortunately, the Olympics were the beginning of displacement in the city as “many low-income residents [were displaced] for the Olympic facilities” (Levy, 2006). Reynoldstown had been a predominantly black community since World War II but now have experienced an influx in diversity. Private developers have begun catering to new populations, building new single family housing rather than bungalows. Lots that were “selling for $5,000 five years ago now sell between $30,000 and $40,000” (Levy, 2003) while single family homes had been no more than $80,000 will now cost people between $150,000 and $200,000. There is no public outlash against gentrification due to the fact that it is still early in the stage and there are still programs attempting to keep affordable housing in existence. However, home ownership for low income residents is now far out of reach.
The late stages of gentrification now see constrained affordable housing and a strong market for private housing. The Central Area of Seattle, Washington has seen the impact of skyrocketing housing costs. Since having gone through the first 2 stages, there was an increase of white population along with a decrease in black population, and the average home value “increased by 81% ($153,000 to $277,000)” while surrounding neighborhoods saw an increase of 43%. Residents of the areas had never had a strong backbone for affordable housing, but they have recently put in a plan called the Neighborhood Action Plan since the negative impacts of gentrification have set in. However, direct action has yet to be seen. Unfortunately, there is no data in order to track displacement so scholars rely predominantly on anecdotal evidence. Many worry about elders being able to stay in their homes due to deferred maintenance to higher-income housing and the heightened cost of upkeep and rent. Many respondents who were displaced are concerned about their inability to move back to their old homes. New business chains are outrunning family owned businesses, so new income and economic growth does not directly benefit the community.
The argument pro-gentrification holds legitimacy, as it strengthens the middle class and lowers crime rates, but the injustice presented to those who already face discrimination requires attention and solution. A study in Montreal, Canada concluded that gentrification “could have beneficial health effects for those living in gentrifying neighborhoods”(Steinmetz-Wood 2017). But as the cost of living increases, the low-income individuals originally in the areas are forced to leave and no longer receive said benefits. According to a study by the Bureau of Fiscal and Budget Studies, the median rent in New York City has risen by 75% from 2001 to 2014 (Stringer 2014). The middle class is predominantly full of white individuals, so displacing and potentially erasing urban diversity in order to gain more power and wealth is the environmental justice issue. Individuals become victims of its success as it widens the gap between middle and low class and makes middle class an even less achievable dream.
While new jobs are created, those in gentrified neighborhoods originally are not the ones to benefit from them. A study by Rachel Meltzer and Pooya Ghorbani shows that “employment effects of gentrification are quite localized. Incumbent residents experience meaningful job losses within their home census tract” (Meltzer 2017). The types of jobs available also shift. Rather than trade-based, service related, good production, or minimum wage jobs, they become more focused on chain businesses that are not interested in hiring locals, jobs that have high levels of competition for employment, or jobs that require college degrees. Unfortunately, low-income areas have lower rates for high school graduates and college graduates, making individuals ineligible for new opportunities. A study by Kevin Lang, Jee-Yeon K. Lehmann present the concept that these new businesses may be prone to subconsciously discriminate based on race and class due to their networks to other middle/upper-class communities (Lang 2012).
Neighborhoods of low-income and minority residents face a number of other issues such as access to education that gentrification may solve but original residents do not reap the benefits. Public education is under the state’s control so there is no ability to equalize how much funding and grant money an area obtains. Even in area in which each school gets the same dollar amount from the state, higher-income areas are able to make private donations to their schools and attract better teachers. Schools in low-income, high-minority areas are at a disproportionate disadvantage. Not only does this directly limit the opportunities and futures of children, but it encourages the school to prison pipeline. Rather than focusing on education, many states allocate funding into juvenile and criminal justice systems. An article in the Huffington Post by Rebecca Klein titled “States Are Prioritizing Prisons Over Education, Budgets Show”, prison related spending has increased more than 140% between 1983 and 2013 which K-12 only increased by 63% in the same time period (Klein 2014). While gentrification allows new opportunities to grow in a disadvantaged area, disadvantaged people are not benefitted.
The issue of gentrification violates the principle of recognition and procedural justice, hence making it a concern in the eyes of environmental justice.

Many individuals do not recognize gentrification as a problem in any sense. They are only able to view the positives in regards to who reaps the benefits rather than see the damage and displacement forced upon the victims. It is also a matter of procedural justice because residents in areas facing gentrification have no say in who can come in and zone business and residential areas. There are also laws in place that discourage and prevent minorities from owning homes and properties due to longstanding biases from an era of legalized redlining, making them more vulnerable to displacement. Evidence of inequality in regards to distribution and procedure also exist. Low-income individuals do not reap the same benefits as those who are wealthy and has been so throughout history, and these individuals do not have any power over what happens to the neighborhoods that they live

in.
Due to the lack of power distribution in gentrified situations and situations that lead to gentrification, the injustice falls can be defined as a structural process claim.

The history of redlining, the act of favoring loans towards home ownership to white individuals, is the root of the problem. Redlining is now illegal as it is a direct act of discrimination but as discussed in class, it is still subconsciously practiced in modern mortgage companies (Luna, 2017). Since people of color had systematically and lawfully been at a disadvantage in regards to owning a home, they are always more vulnerable to unstable housing and have minimal control over it. Minority and low-income individuals are already more likely to rent than their white counterparts, causing tem to be pushed and displaced when their communities gain higher standards of living. In an article by Bernice Ross titled “Why Redlining and Discrimination Are Still Real Estate’s Problem”, she exposed a number of lawsuits filed regarding violations to the Fair Housing and Opportunities Act. In United States v JP Morgan Chase Bank, “the complaint had alleged that the defendant charged African American and Hispanic borrowers higher rates and fees for wholesale mortgages than similarly situated white borrowers” (Ross

2017).
Rather than more fortunate individuals moving into lower-income neighborhoods and renovating it to fit their personal ideal, policies should be put in place to allow those already living there to gain equal footing. People of color and low-income individuals deserve clean air and economic opportunities as much as the any other individual. Policies to reform education and the prison to pipeline problem that many urban cities face may be necessary due to the fact that middle-class people who are buying buildings, businesses, and apartment complexes require a college degree to do. A main reason that makes people of color susceptible to displacement is the systematic oppression regarding home ownership. There also should be a cap on rent averages based on the rent in the surrounding neighborhoods so as not to force out potential victims due to rent increase along with a shift in focus to mixed-income housing rather than low or high income housing.