← Articles · Social, Economics, Theory
Gentrification Is Over-represented
By WesternLibertarian ·
Introduction
The claim of gentrification is over-represented and emphasized, In this short article I will explain and provide counter arguments to some of the common arguments against gentrification, and explain why the economic effects are more complicated than the simple narrative that gentrification inevitably harms existing residents
"a process in which a poor area (as of a city) experiences an influx of middle-class or wealthy people who renovate and rebuild homes and businesses and which often results in an increase in property values and the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents" - Merriam-Webster
Gentrification is generally seen as a process in which increased investment into a low-income neighborhood and renovations within the community result in high property taxes and displacement from said taxes. While this is seen as a bad thing, It also has many net positives that are hidden under the surface and not advertised. As left leaning studies want to have the public see the concept as "muh capitalism is ruining our society, so we need muh communism!!"
I. Property Taxes, Property Value
One of the most common arguments against gentrification is that increased wealth and investment in a neighborhood cause property values to rise, and therefore property taxes to rise aswell, eventually forcing poorer residents out.
However, this argument overlooks a important distinction between costs and wealth
Property taxes are generally based on the assessed value of a property, although the exact value is determined by other factors such as jurisdiction and local laws. When demand for a neighborhood increase, the market value of the properties can rise as well. This isn't necessarily because the physical structure on land itself has changed. The value of the property also is assessed on desirability, accessibility, economic activity, infrastructure and opportunities associated with the property itself.
For example, a homeowner may own the same house before and after a neighborhood experiences significant investment. The house itself may remain largely the same. Yet it's market value can increase because more people want to live in the area and the surrounding community is more desirable for new citizens.
This creates a counterargument to the point that rising property values are purely harmful to poorer residents. An existing homeowner may face higher property taxes, but they also posses a substantially more valuable asset. The increase of property value can also result in other forms of additional equity.
This benefit is particularly important for longtime homeowners, As someone who purchased the property when the neighborhood was relatively inexpensive and underdeveloped may see their wealth increase substantially as demand for the area grows. While that wealthy doesn't automatically equal disposable income, It still accounts for wealth that the homeowner has.
II. More Businesses, More Opportunities
Continuing on the point of poor residents, we have to ask the question of: "Why is X group of people poor?". A very important factor may be a lack of businesses, jobs and pathways to economic advancement.
With investment and expansion, local business activity can help address these factors by creating significantly more employment and increasing opportunities for residents to improve their financial circumstances.
For example, Lets say an investor wants to build an office complex. They would likely hire a local construction company which would then need to hire workers, train employees and bring in designer and engineers. This not only creates employment opportunities for local residents, but also opens the door for new residents with experience in these fields to become a part of the community.
As demand for these positions grow, more businesses and workers are attracted to the area, ultimately creating a positive economic cycle and net positive economic return for the community.
III. Less Crime
"Hm... wonder what race causes most of the crime in these lower-income areas...."
Its no secret that areas with higher incomes and greater economic stability tend to experience lower rates of crime, When residents have access to stable employment, higher wages and more economic opportunities, It generally results in people committing less crime.
This also contributes a net positive to the local economy, since there is less time, money and resources being spent on dealing with crime. While I'm not saying that crime wont happen, much less seems to occur in communities with the following factors.
Finale
Thanks for reading, please leave any feedback about my points in the comments. I appreciate every one and feedback helps me improve my personal knowledge, skills and much more.
This is a very short rant/article, And i did obviously omit a lot of details, however I am always open to redoing this another time. I just wanted to get something out instead of being a DNB.