Landlord rights?

So you are telling me that the poor are not being forced out of neighborhoods?

I suspect that I'm wasting my time here.

Garfunky wrote: ** Who do you think lived in Park Slope before it was ungentrified? Hint: in 1890 it was the wealthiest community in the United States. **

hint - since i pointed that out eariler in the thread i am aware of it.

i have wondered if 5th ave was considered "gowanus" at the time.
look for old references to the old stone house. youll see it listed as gowanus ...

True, what was considered to be Park Slope has changed considerably, hasn't it?

filmlover44 wrote: So you are telling me that the poor are not being forced out of neighborhoods?

I suspect that I'm wasting my time here.

Apparently, they are less likely to be displaced from a gentrifying neighborhood than a non-gentrifying one, according to the data, which is a remarkable finding I think; something I didn't expect. I am repeating what I read in Gentrification and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s. Park Slope was included in the gentrifying neighborhoods studied.

You are certainly wasting everyone's time, if, having demanded facts, you then ignore the data because it doesn't fit your picture.

i have lived a little over a block from 5th ave since ...89 90
i dont even remember.
for many many years i walked portions of it a bare minumum twice a day.
sometimes at 8 am 6 pm midnight or 4 in the am.

therefore govt provided data about what happened to the color and visible affluence or lack thereof to the immediate area and the changes to the businesses and people have far less value than what i witnessed/am witnessing with my own two eyes.

one of you noted the other had digressed from the topic.
it might be worth having a gander at the OP

Garfunky wrote: therefore govt provided data about what happened to the color and visible affluence or lack thereof to the immediate area and the changes to the businesses and people have far less value than what i witnessed/am witnessing with my own two eyes.

What you've witnessed: do you think individual people were displaced, or replaced? Did they move because they couldn't pay the rent or for some other reason? And if some were displaced, I wonder whether that happened more often near 5th and Union vs. Caton and Flatbush? This is not an abstract question, it matters whether people are forced to move because they can't continue to pay for their housing.

I may never be rich enough to afford to live in the neighborhoods I lived in as a child, but I don't feel I was displaced.

doctorj wrote: [quote=Garfunky]therefore govt provided data about what happened to the color and visible affluence or lack thereof to the immediate area and the changes to the businesses and people have far less value than what i witnessed/am witnessing with my own two eyes.

What you've witnessed: do you think individual people were displaced, or replaced? Did they move because they couldn't pay the rent or for some other reason? And if some were displaced, I wonder whether that happened more often near 5th and Union vs. Caton and Flatbush? This is not an abstract question, it matters whether people are forced to move because they can't continue to pay for their housing.

I may never be rich enough to afford to live in the neighborhoods I lived in as a child, but I don't feel I was displaced.

I think that maybe you need to go to some poor neighborhoods that are in the process of being "gentrified" and talk to some of the long time residents there or come to my neighborhood (I actually talk to my neighbors) where people are being priced out. I saw it happen on the Upper West Side where my father lived for 20 years and then in Park Slope. You would have to be blind or ignorant not to see what is going on in this city.

Oh, maybe the former residents of Park Slope left because they don't like white people and they wanted to move to crappy run-down neighborhoods high crime rates and bad transportation! That must be it.

interesting article from the U.K. about gentrification and the different ways that liberals and conservatives perceive displacement.

http://www.radstats.org.uk/no069/article2.htm

Garfunky wrote: i have lived a little over a block from 5th ave since ...89 90
i dont even remember.
for many many years i walked portions of it a bare minumum twice a day.
sometimes at 8 am 6 pm midnight or 4 in the am.

therefore govt provided data about what happened to the color and visible affluence or lack thereof to the immediate area and the changes to the businesses and people have far less value than what i witnessed/am witnessing with my own two eyes.

one of you noted the other had digressed from the topic.
it might be worth having a gander at the OP

That's actually a very interesting article that DoctorJ posted. 1) It's pro stabilization and 2) it compares the number of poor people who MOVE in poor neighborhoods to the number of poor people who MOVE in "gentrified" neighborhoods. I have no doubt that poor people often live in deteriorating homes or can't pay the rent and are often forced to move or forced onto the streets regardless of where they live. That doesn't make forced displacement in "gentrified" neighborhoods "ok".

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/142/gentrification.html for a better critical analysis than mine.

The original topic was from someone asking advice about how to get rent stabilized people out of their homes. Do I win?

Usually the last man left standing in a blog argument is either the one who has presented the most compelling, cogent arguments backed by overwhelming evidence and has left his counterparts speechless and in awe of his seamless logic; or, the one who has been so obstinate and absurd, and has refused for so long to actually engage in a thoughtful point and counterpoint, that his opponents have simply given up in disgust and walked away.

I intend to keep playing until at least the first Godwinning.

Ladies and Germs , we have a split decision.
Joey Bagodonuts scores it 96-91 to the challeneger
Hakim Muhammed scores it 94 - 93 to the champion
Devoroa Bat Baruch scores it 95-94 to the c.....

wait! this just in !

The governing body of the IBBF has declared BOTH contestants disqualified.

as a result , the new IBBF champion for most thought provoking and relevant post is
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................

*fanfare of trumpets spontaneously bleat out
"theme for the common man"
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................

PACSE !!! (applause)

OMG dam dyslexia LOL

ESCAP !!!! (more appluase)
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................

la plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose.

doctorj wrote: I intend to keep playing until at least the first Godwinning.

Oh, keep joking. I'll bet the Nazis thought it was hilarious when they "gentrified" Europe too.

And....



That's a wrap.

linusvanpelt wrote: [quote=doctorj]I intend to keep playing until at least the first Godwinning.

Oh, keep joking. I'll bet the Nazis thought it was hilarious when they "gentrified" Europe too.

Ouch. You did the Nazi comparison. Low blow, out of line and just plain wrong.

On Edit: I have a knee jerk reaction to the Nazi comparison, but I do take your point and understand that the emotional nature of the dissapearance of a whole class of people can make you so angry that you become incoherent. This isn't a funny subject.

Garfunky, I just want to know how you get to be a referee? Is it a self appointed thing or was there an election that I missed?

escap wrote: that his opponents have simply given up in disgust and walked away.

In that case, I am definately going to be the loser because i give up.

Filmlover, you need to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

filmlover44 wrote: Oh, maybe the former residents of Park Slope left because they don't like white people and they wanted to move to crappy run-down neighborhoods high crime rates and bad transportation! That must be it.

Suggested reading is "The Social Atom" by Mark Buchanan, specifically Thomas Schelling's model of housing segregation. It gives an interesting insight into the social dynamics that transform an undesirable neighborhood into a desirable one.

There's more to it evil, nasty capitalist landlords raising rents to keep themselves in caviar

l-O

I'm still looking for the "right wing" think tank article. I say livetotravel and all the other well off RS renters give up their apts to the poor..those that really need them. Then once they die that's the end of the RS for that apt.

Oh charlesbklyn: "The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable."

I suggest your mother offer them closer to $25,000 to move. If there is no income she is going to lose the house in a foreclosure. At that point she will either be on the street or living with you. Considering what houses in this neighborhood are going for even $50,000 off the purchase price should leave her well off.

"eggcream" wrote: I'm still looking for the "right wing" think tank article. I say livetotravel and all the other well off RS renters give up their apts to the poor..those that really need them. Then once they die that's the end of the RS for that apt.

Oh charlesbklyn: "The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable."

Look on the Manhattan Institute website. they have a study about how de-regulation in Boston, Brookline and adjoining areas has actually stimulated housing construction, and lowered overall rents in the state.

Carnivore wrote: Filmlover, you need to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

LOL. Thanks.