Is Gentrification A Threat?
Edward J. Dodson
[Reprinted from
GroundSwell, September-October 2005]
It is no secret that beginning in the late 1960s many of the oldest
industrial centers in the United States suffered from the departure of
businesses and the relatively well-compensated workers they employed.
As economies moved into heavier concentrations of the "FIRE"
sector (i.e., finance, insurance and real estate), high technology,
health care and other service businesses, the cities increasingly lost
out to surrounding suburban development.
The central cities did not fold up and return to agriculture,
although urban agriculture has arisen as an "interim use" of
land in city neighborhoods eroded by depopulation, abandonment of
buildings and decaying of infrastructure. Downtowns continued to
maintain some degree of vitality, and some neighborhoods remained as
enclaves of stability surrounded by decline.
Slowly and assisted by billions of dollars raised by taxation and
borrowing, city leaders structured public/private partnerships to
construct and fill new downtown office towers. Encouraged by long-term
tax abatements, developers such as James Rouse brought suburban-style
retail shopping to the cities, and historic neighborhoods became
anchors for an invigorated - and higher income - residential core.
Urban universities began to recognize the need to become involved in
the health of their surrounding community rather than build a
protective wall around their perimeter. Tools such as inclusionary
zoning were increasingly utilized to create, new "mixed income"
housing opportunities for racially diverse populations.
Fast forward to mid-2005. One of the most dynamic city mayors of the
era of revitalization, John Norquist, former mayor of the City of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, now heads the Congress of the New Urbanism. In a
recent article*, he talks about the constructive side of "gentrification"
(i.e., the gradual displacement of lower income households from
neighborhoods as affordable rental housing is renovated and converted
to single-family dwellings for homeownership, followed by the
appearance higher priced restaurants, retail stores, high-rise
apartment and condominiums). As John Norquist. Observes, "
so
late 20th century urban policy focused on strategies to attract people
and capital back to cities. When signs of revitalization appeared in
the strongest of the big cities -- New York, Chicago, San Francisco --
the policy focus adjusted to include concern for a new problem,
displacement of the urban poor by the affluent."
Despite sincere efforts made to achieve some sort of balance between
the need for investment dollars, for households who could pay taxes
and would spend money on local goods and services, and creating
opportunity for those of lesser means, gentrification has continued to
push many people out of the way. Norquist suggests that, on balance,
gentrification is better than the previous trend. "People,
particularly middle-class and affluent whites, were fleeing the city
to the suburbs. Rents and sale prices declined or stagnated, and when
rents decline, investment shifts to other places. This was doubly bad
for the poor." Saying that "investment shifts to other
places" is a polite way to describe the practice of putting as
many people as possible into a dwelling while allocating little or
nothing to maintenance, while taking advantage of depreciation and tax
law at the expense of community.
Norquist has on a number of occasions made statements in support of
taxing land values more heavily and lifting the burden of taxation
from property improvements. Yet, in this recent commentary, he reveals
a poor understanding of the connection between how government raises
its revenue and the market prices for all types of goods, particularly
housing. He states: "People, no doubt, would love to pay low rent
and experience neighborhood economic prosperity at the same time, but
this is difficult unless others -- other taxpayers? -- subsidize
rising rent payments." What he does not understand is that when
location rental values are captured for public use via taxation, the
pressure on land prices is downward - as owners of land compete with
one another for buyers. Even with government continuing to follow the
revenue policies that contributed to decline, Norquist views the trend
in cities with optimism:
"One hopeful characteristic of successful urban
redevelopment is that, by its nature, it often includes a wider
variety of housing types at a wider spread of price points than
sprawl. Less pricey units can be placed in the same building or on
the same block with expensive dwellings. For example, people with
impressive views pay more than those in units facing the alley.
Unlike sprawl, urban infill and rehabilitation at least offer the
possibility of people of various incomes living in close proximity."
"If allowed to decide for themselves, low-income people might
choose to divert some of their scarce income to paying higher rents
and thus take advantage of the benefits of living in improving
neighborhoods. In fact, research by Lance Freeman, Columbia
University Professor of Urban Planning, found that low-income
residents were no more likely to move from gentrifying neighborhoods
than those not experiencing gentrification. He found that many
people valued other benefits more than low rents such as lower crime
and restored amenities like shopping or better access to jobs."
Access to decent, affordable housing is an important need for many
people, but so is the opportunity to earn higher incomes "if
ending poverty is the goal" of government policies.
Norquist is highly critical of the Reagan-to-Bush moves to effect a
tax shift away from those with the highest marginal incomes onto the
backs of those who labor for wages. He also sees as a related cause of
societal disharmony the "globalization of the manufacturing
sector."
Returning to the issue of gentrification in our cities, Norquist
looks at places such as San Francisco as anomalies. Most other cities
are experiencing only mild gentrification, so that this "should
logically be among the lowest priorities." Better to focus on
stemming sprawl development, even if the result is to add to
gentrification. "The poor have more opportunity in metro areas
with compact and economically healthy urban cores," concludes
Norquist. This certainly makes sense. The irony, of course, is that
the very same public policies could be implemented to curb sprawl
without causing housing to become unaffordable in the cities for
working-class families.
Mr. Norquist is in a particularly unique position to influence the
decisions of many civic leaders around the country. In the past, he
demonstrated some understanding of the virtues of the Georgist
approach to raising revenue for public goods and services. He
apparently is in need of a much more thorough education in the
functioning of land markets and the wrong-headed approach still being
taken with regard to taxing policies. If he wants investment in
commerce, in employment and in new buildings, the policy response is
to stop taxing commerce, stop taxing wages and stop taxing property
improvements.
* "Is Gentrification Really A Threat?" An Op-Ed column,
PLANETIZEN, 6 June 2005.
(http://www.planetizen.com/oped/item.php?id=150)
|