Late last week, I ran into Mark Alan Hughes op-ed encouraging low-income residents of up-and-coming urban neighborhoods to take the money and run. (via Philebrity via America's hometown).
Pointing to skyrocketing property values in North & South Philly, Mr. Hughes suggests that many of the low-income residents of those communities would be better of taking the proceeds from selling their homes and renting... elsewhere.
This type of faulty, one-dimensional logic enrages me so much that I can barely steady my fingers to type. And here's why:
1 -- Hughes open this piece by saying:
A few years ago, I wrote a series of columns about the need to have wealthy residents in a city.
Yes. Every City needs wealthy residents in order to support its arts & culture economy, operate businesses, and pay taxes out of their humongous salaries and for their sprawling estates or luxurious condos. However, where American cities and suburbs are failing over and over and over again is in the inability to sustain people of varying income levels in the same locale. The suggestion here is: Make way, we've got bigger and better plans for your neighborhood.
It doesn't matter how long people have lived in these neighborhoods -- in many cases, we're talking GENERATIONS. There is money to be had, so history, tradition, family values, and neighborhood commitment are meaningless.
2 -- Hughes writes:
We're so comfortable with the image of Philadelphia as a warehouse of poor, elderly and lower-wage working folks...
READ: Now that we've got the rich folks here, we shouldn't have to deal with this in anymore. Please take it some place else. Anywhere away from my backyard, please.
As Center City becomes less and less affordable and the wealthy find themselves wanting a better bargain in the next up-and-coming neighborhood, they want to expel any of the problems that come with moving into those risky areas. It's not hard to understand that many of those "problems" are considered throw-aways in American society: the poor, the elderly, and people of color.
Obviously, no one wants to have drug dealers and prostitutes in their neighborhood. But, in many of the now gentrifying communities, residents & community groups have been working to combat these issues for years. Now that the young & wealthy have no place else to go, all of those who have been fighting for those neighborhoods should just up & leave?? Just allow the rich, white people to come in and take over?? Whitey knows best, right??
Wrong!
I would like Mr. Hughes to propose where these folks are going to go????
When people are forced to sell homes their homes and leave their neighborhoods because property values are rising, they are generally forced into another, deteriorated, low-income neighborhood where they can afford the rent or the mortgage & property taxes. All this does is concentrate poverty and maintain the cycle whereby the poor get poorer because of their distance from the tools to economic success.
But, I guess so long as the poverty isn't concentrated where Mr. Hughes and his rich friends can see it, then everything is hunky dorey.
3 --
The proceeds from such sales ... would generate a transfer to lower-income people that's long overdue.
I will allow that those in these poorer communities are long overdue their share of the city's wealth. But the way to give it to them is not to force them out into poorer communities. Let's be clear: If a family Brewerytown sells their house for a $50K profit, they're probably not moving out to Newtown to settle down and live large. They're going some place cheaper, where they can afford rent or mortgage on whatever salary they make.
Even if they are able to afford a rental in the same community where their home was, faced with the influx of wealthy property owners, they will likely never again be able to purchase a home in that area. And eventually, the rents will increase, and they will likely be priced out of their neighborhood altogether.
That sale is a band-aid. That sale is the equivalent of Dubya's $300 tax rebate. It makes us feel good while we're holding the check in our hands, but it doesn't do anything to affect our economic situation in life. If we really want to talk about giving these families their due, let's talk about sharing tax-base resources that are concentrated in the wealthy regions of the city and let's talk about helping poor folks in impoverished, but up-and-coming communities with resources to rehab their homes.
4 --
For many folks, becoming a renter with $50,000 in the bank is a smarter move than remaining a homeowner worried about rising property taxes.
Let's help poor owners exercise that option rather than play on fears that maintain a political status quo.
Mr. Hughes is right. We should not continue to suffer the status quo. However, his suggestion doesn't help anyone other than wealthy, bargain-hunting speculators. It doesn't offer a fix to any of the institutional problems that keep poor people poor. Rather, it suggests that poor people need to stay in their right place -- and that's out of the way of the rich.
The way to help poor people cope with rising property taxes is not to strip them of their properties. Nor is it to fight growth and development in poor communities. We need to foster mixed income communities, in which rich and poor families can live side by side and share the resources for success, including quality infrastructure and education systems. Instead of focusing resources on programs that court and pander to the wealthy, we need to develop programs that educate those who are under-educated, helping them to better navigate economic, political, and social resources. That means providing resources that help people build wealth by starting businesses, buying homes, and going to college.
We need to respect the contributions that existing residents have made to the now up-and-coming communities, and we need to allow them to stay and share in the benefits as these neighborhoods prosper. In fact, we need to help them become part of its prosperity.
(Cross-posted on Poetry Class )
Mark Alan Huges Op -Ed
Larraine
I read it and you know what, I sent him an email congratulating him. I'm 58 years old and remember when people laughed at Philadelphia as a place where the sidewalks were rolled up at 5:00.I was in high school and college when the restaurant renaiisance started. When Philadelphia prices started going up - especially in South Philadelphia - I cheered. HUD made a CONSCIENCE decision to bring Section 8 housing into South Philadelphia and the Northeast. South Philadelphia has come back. The Northeast is still limping. Busloads of Chinese from New York come to the Northeast, knock on doors and offer cash. Then they bring renters, many of whom are drug users and many on welfare. My 81 -yr-old father-in-law had a prostitute and her john husband living next door. While she "entertained" clients, he went up to Lincoln H.S. and broke into cars. Excuse me if I have no sympathy for a lot of those people. With luck they'll move to Camden or Chester. A lot of older people can barely make their tax payments. Giving them a decent price for their home and helping them with assisted living and HUD housing for the elderly would be one solution. Most people would not care if elderly-only housing was nearby.I have been living in Maryland for years in a suburb (ugh!) and am looking forward to "retiring"in the city. We're going to do that very soon and I can't wait. Excuse me if I would prefer to live in a gentrified neighborhood. We are not wealthy people and cannot afford $500,000+ for a home. We CAN afford South Philadelphia and areas like Northern Liberties.I'd like to live in a place where entrepreneurs want to provide services that are more than bodegas. My son bought a house in South Philadelphia and has put a lot of work into it. He was careful to find a good neighborhood - one without a lot of rentals. I have to tell you that my husband and I are both very liberal in many ways but I don't see the need to subsidize drug dealers, junkies and prostitutes. You should be GLAD Philadelphia is doing so well that people want to live there.
I'm sorry...
I am very glad that Philadelphia is doing well and that people want to live here, again. I'm sorry for your experiences. And I think that opening the dialogue -- so that the experiences of residents past, present, and future can be heard and incorporated into the city's growth -- will ultimately make the city stronger.
You both have good points
Ultimately if we can grow, while not leaving those behind that are struggling to get by - we will indeed be stronger. We need the investment and with higher income residents comes more jobs. Which speaks to my next point.
There are plenty of hard working families near the poverty line, that are just barely getting by. What troubles me is that we so rarely hear our leaders talk about them.
The bus driver who moonlights as a store clerk. The janitor who does moving and odd jobs. The cashier, with two kids and a disabled husband. The list goes on.
Hopefully with investment comes better paying jobs and a halo effect on neighborhoods that surround those that are experiencing a rebirth.
Autumn.....
Larraine
Exactly which "experiences" are you talking about? The answer is not to simply dismiss the middle class out of hand. I understand your point about the poor but the writer was correct when he suggested that they sell their homes,invest the proceeds and rent. Too many of the people in those homes can't afford to keep up their homes OR don't have any idea how to keep them up. I have no problem with helping someone who works for a living relocate. I DO have a problem with bleeding for drug dealers, junkies and prostitutes. You should too. Feeling sorry for them and trying to "help" them relocate is not the answer. The fact that Philadelphia's neighborhoods are recovering and gentrifying is a good thing. Queens Village is not far from public housing. Both places seem to coexist well although it's not safe to leave anything of any value in your car in those neighborhoods. I understand that Phildelphia has, along with the rest of the country, deindustrialized. My suggestion is give a hand to the elderly and working poor. If more neighborhoods have some gentrification, businesses will respond with supermarkets and similar businesses which the working poor and the elderly need.
I completely agree...
Larraine,
You seemed to be speaking very specifically from your own experience of drug dealers and prostitutes in your father's neighborhood...
But, regardless, I complete agree with you about giving a hand to working poor and the elderly, and my problem with the article is that I don't think that the working poor and the elderly are necessarily best-served by selling and then renting. The cycle of poverty is only perpetuated when we encourage people to divest assets to make way for the wealthy, which is what I feel the MAH op-ed proposes.
I feel like we need to make policy changes to the way that gentrification is handled -- capping taxes based on income, perhaps, and creating programs that subsidize home improvements -- so that working poor & elderly families are not displaced, but rather can share in the wealth and benefits of their neighborhoods' renewal.
Many of the working poor and elderly have remained commited to neighborhoods, to fighting the crime and negative influences -- my belief is that we should focus on retaining their commitment (or at least giving them more options beyond selling). I'm not trying to suggest that we need to subsidize junkies, drug dealers, prostitutes -- most of those folks aren't property owners anyway.
Not Exactly
"The cycle of poverty is only perpetuated when we encourage people to divest assets to make way for the wealthy, which is what I feel the MAH op-ed proposes." This is not true - if a person sells their home and experiences a windfall, the cycle of poverty (or middle classness) could be broken...that's the point of MAH's suggestion - if you don't have a lot of money and then you do, it usually means you're better off.
Just focusing on this part of your postion - I happen to agree with the rest of what you've said...tax increase caps, home improvement assistance programs, all great ideas.
Cash doesn't equal wealth,
JAF - Your point makes logical sense. Its tough to dispute.
It still seems to me that cash doesn't automatically equal wealth, especially without education and a place to live. MAH is talking about encouraging people to sell their primary residence. I'm not sure if people have priced homes in the far Northeast. There's rowhomes and twins selling immediately at 200 - 300K asking prices. Ridiculous.
Regardless, 250K can be squandered pretty easily now-a-days, even if a primary residence could be converted directly to cash. Not to make a joke, but MC Hammer blew through millions of dollars in just a year or two, because he had no idea how to handle the money from his music career. It would take far less scandalous spending to blow through a couple hundred thousand.