[Note: Blog posts are an ongoing series where EMA members explore their personal views and experiences relating to issues of development and community organizing. While the general spirit of the postings may reflect the opinions and work of EEMA the views expressed have not been reviewed or agreed to by the group as a whole.]
I had an interesting discussion a couple months back regarding two buyers of a $200,000, one-bedroom townhouse, located off Penn Avenue. Apparently, some younger people across the street had been yelling at them for being gentrifiers. The townhouse owners walked over and mentioned that they did not fit into society’s dominant categories, in terms of race and sexual orientation, to which one of the yellers retorted, “it’s about class issues.”
There are so many ways to look at questions of exclusion and inclusion.
Most often changes come as a result of institutional decisions that have little community involvement. Millions of dollars can flow into a community quite quickly and in unexpected ways. The new Children’s Hospital cost roughly the same to build as the value of all the houses in Bloomfield. Since its initial construction, we see not just a corresponding rise in property values, but also how space itself is used. [It's unclear what impact, if any, the layoffs and consolidation at West Penn will have on development trends in the area.]
Take the example of a duplex near Friendship Park, fairly run down. The new owner fixed the property up, turning it into a more upscale one-bedroom house. He cut a large swath through the second floor to create an uninterrupted, large sky light. In the end, we have a significantly more expensive property and we end up with less housing, both of which increase upward pressure in a real estate market already experiencing speculative purchases.
A close friend of mine lives in an apartment building near Millvale Avenue. She’s been paying about $550 a month, gas included. The apartments in that building that have become vacant were recently rented for $800. This is an extra $3,000/year in rent. One of the long-time renters in the building is a woman in her 60s who takes care of her 80-something year old father. Where are they going to go if their rent increases? How will this impact their quality of life? How does this affect the larger fabric of the community, especially the social relationships that provide much of the emotional and material support for our elders who may not own property and are living on fixed incomes?
The question of fault is also complicated. Some will blame the building owner or property manager. Others will focus on the people who will choose to move in. Others will say it is simply market forces at work, entirely ignoring questions of how institutions that are supposed to represent community wishes shape market conditions, often acting directly on behalf of their political benefactors against the wishes of their constituents. Most will ignore the important question: How do we make sure that we are actively constructing the world we live in, being cognizant of how the decisions we and others make will impact our physical and social environment? Further, how can we address one of the main root causes of displacement and neighborhood instability: the alternating trends of disinvestment/deterioration and speculation/expansion?
We all have a stake in development because we are not isolated individuals. The whole community in any geographic area is interconnected. Anyone who rents has a stake in the building of townhouses if the owners are going to be driving up rents. A small number of people make a lot of money from huge, speculative, increases in property values. A large number of people shell out more every year in rent and taxes. Further complicating the picture is that incremental increases in value are important to maintain the retirement security of many home owners. Some anger from those who are on the losing end of capital flows is understandable. However, it is also worth saying that if you can only intervene at the point at which something is built and sold, it is probably too late.
And truthfully, almost all current work on housing issues is reactive. The only more permanent solution is to find a way to take some portion of housing out of the profit and speculative system. Maintaining neighborhood stability is helped when individuals with a commitment to the community buy property, but this is only a partial solution. Many lack sufficient access to capital to acquire a place to live and over the long haul rising taxes and vastly increased valuations can increase pressure to cash out. The land trust model is a promising area to explore because it creates a more permanent base of affordable housing, but it necessitates a lot of start-up capital if it is to become anything more than a niche experiment.
The Wikipedia link is broken, it’s missing a colon! (must have been taken by black market organ dealers). — I enjoy these posts, though as a recent Pgh transplant, feel like I have little to say in response. Cheers.