Detroit Entrepreneur guy meme

[antongast]

You can’t force a building owner to continue to provide low-income housing.

Why not? It's called rent control. Lots of cities do it. I'm not saying Detroit should necessarily do it, but it's been done, and it's perfectly legal.

Any type of government intervention will either be unfair to building owners

So maybe it's unfair to building owners. That by itself shouldn't eliminate it from consideration. It should be one thing that gets weighed in the decision-making process, but it shouldn't be the only thing. If unfairness to low-income tenants doesn't by itself make gentrification intolerable, why should unfairness to building owners by itself make rent control intolerable?

or will mean using tax money to pay for low-income people to live in now middle/higher income neighborhoods...which I don’t think too many people would support.

This already exists too. It's called Section 8 vouchers.

My using of neighborhood change for the non-poor was just to illustrate that “unfair” neighborhood change isn’t exclusive to the poor. “Filtering” isn’t new, but nearly everyone I know that live in “middle class” suburbs have talked about “lower class” people moving into their neighborhood since housing prices dropped. They typically attribute it to more homes being for rent than for sale in their neighborhoods. Of course the housing crisis affected lower class neighborhoods more than middle & higher class ones...but that doesn’t invalidate my point that change can happen anywhere and that neighborhood change isn’t always fair to those already living there.

I get all that, and I didn't mean to imply that your point wasn't valid. I just think it's worth pointing out that poor people tend to catch more than their share of the negative effects of basically every kind of neighborhood change, because it ties back into my broader point about why we need policy interventions.

Don’t get me wrong, I know where you’re coming from. Ideally, it would be nice to have mixed-income buildings or neighborhoods. Or even better yet, enabling the poor to have true upward mobility. However, I don't think either of these are easy to accomplish [[and may be impossible in a capitalist society).

Mixed-income neighborhoods exist, I promise! I didn't just make them up.

[iheartthed]

Again, I agree. Completely shutting new high-end development out of low-income areas would be a completely boneheaded policy, which is why nobody is advocating it.

One thing New York does is require new housing developments that take advantage of tax credits to dedicate a certain percentage of housing to low income residents. The city then auctions off the units in a lottery system that NYC residents are able to participate in if they fit the income requirements:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/housinginfo/...tunities.shtml

[Zug]

Rent control is illegal in Michigan [[or at least that's what I was told a few years ago when I lived in Ann Arbor). So that's not a possibility [[unless I'm wrong...which is possible). And section 8 housing isn't as widely available in suburban areas...and are typically only offered in lower-income suburbs. There may be a few in some middle class suburbs, but I doubt there's any in affluent areas. Section 8 has to be rentals...so maybe in apartment buildings?

I know mixed income neighborhoods exist...but they're tough to regulate and maintain in a stabilized way. Especially when you're talking about a mix of building owners. It is possible...however, enabling upward mobility of all poor people is probably impossible because someone will always be "poor" in a capitalist society.

[Zug]

googled:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[hsh...me=mcl-123-411

"[[2) A local governmental unit shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential property. This section does not impair the right of any local governmental unit to manage and control residential property in which the local governmental unit has a property interest."

[gnome]

Can someone point me to this gentrified Detroit Eden? I want to see anyplace with a bunch of rich folk just rolling around with their designer dogs and togs. I want to see those pinkies extended in tribute to their superior taste and unmatched insight.

i don't ache to just see a pocket of gents; no, a whole enclave of them is the only thing that will answer my need. I don't want to see a temporary coven of them. An entire nesting site is required.

[Zug]

One thing New York does is require new housing developments that take advantage of tax credits to dedicate a certain percentage of housing to low income residents. The city then auctions off the units in a lottery system that NYC residents are able to participate in if they fit the income requirements:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/housinginfo/...tunities.shtml

Are you sure it's all new housing developments? All the locations listed are in The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Harlem.

Anyway, I could see something like this working in Detroit...but it doesn't seem like there's many "lottery units" per building. I wonder what the required percentage is. My guess is probably not enough to halt displacement of poor in a neighborhood.

[antongast]

googled:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[hsh...me=mcl-123-411

"[[2) A local governmental unit shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential property. This section does not impair the right of any local governmental unit to manage and control residential property in which the local governmental unit has a property interest."

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. Doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle, but it does make it a lot harder.