Comments on: “Comeback Neighborhoods”

By: Rex Perry

Rex Perry — Thu, 06 May 2010 20:36:15 +0000

As the author of the feature in Southern Living, I struggled with the dilemma of spotlighting neighborhoods drawing in new investment and driving out existing residents. Can improvement and rising value be a negative? It’s not for homeowners who can sell at a profit, but it’s tough on renters. Neighborhoods on the rise provide better employment, but the workforce typically has to live elsewhere. East Nashville is one of the better neighborhoods retaining affordable rentals, mixed use, and racial diversity. In the end, the real estate market will continue to be a free market. We just have to ensure the free market has a heart and back it up with action.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:36:54 +0000

I agree with Chris’ comments in every respect but have at least one bright side at the micro level to share. I live in a neighborhood that has been experiencing gentrification for the past 15 years or so. One result of the rapidly escalating property values was that a number of seniors, many of which were approaching or at circumstances where they were unable to live alone or keep up a single family residence, were afforded a significant nest egg they never would have had during the years of disinvestment.

Thus, I’d say it’s important to never think of the issue in black/white, good/bad terms. What matters is that neighborhoods become stronger and more sustainable. What’s incumbent on all of us in any time of change is that the disadvantaged are identified and negative effects are mitigated through proactive means.

By: Chris Horst

Chris Horst — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:30:16 +0000

Indeed, this is a tough challenge. I was right in the midst of a very similar transition in an urban community in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I have a good friend who works in public housing in Denver, Colorado. We had a discussion about this issue and she had some great thoughts, which I’ll summarize:

On a macro level, gentrification is almost always good for the community. Derelict properties are renewed. Unsafe streets become safer. The city tax base increases, enabling better government services, more money for schools, and an increased police presence. Even in regards to public housing strategies, it has been proven that it is better if low-income families do not live all in one neighborhood. Having “mixed-income” neighborhoods benefits the wealthy and the poor alike.

On a micro level, however, gentrification is almost always bad. It means that families are pushed out of their homes, communities ethnic heritage often shifts, and individuals are forced to live elsewhere. It is a hard issue…and one we as the Church need to continue talking about.