More on unaffordable housing (Yes, gentrification is part of the program in DC)

STAKING THEIR CLAIM A Dream on W Street. The block that includes Capital Manor's three buildings is in the middle of one of the District's hottest gentrification wars. Just about all the rowhouses on the north side have been renovated; they are valued as high as $800,000. Next to them, loft condos are planned. This map shows some of the neighborhood's major projects. Washington Post graphic.

There has been a good discussion the last few days on the Columbia_Heights (@yahoogroups.com) e-list about the curent vision-economic development strategy in the District of Columbia. Some say it is overly-focused on high income singles, while others say that what people want in "good" neighborhoods doesn't really vary much by income, although there is some dissent about whether or not "high income singles" care about schools--the response was "many singles end up not being singles" down the road... (This was a discussion independent of the NLIHC report mentioned in the previous entry.)

I think the real issue is that in a market economy, particularly in a hyper-real estate market, extraordinary measures are required to preserve housing for people of lower-incomes, otherwise constant upward pressure on prices and rents will displace all but those with the most money and assets. (See Remaking New York: Primitive Globalization and the Politics of Urban Community and Super-gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City.)

Expensive and renovated townhouses across W street are reflected in the doorway of one of the Capitol Manor apartment buildings. They are a cluster of three buildings, 102 apartments on the 1400 block of W Street NW, a one-lane, one-way street that was once Washington's busiest open-air heroin market. Now, the developers have showed up and threatened the homes of the Capitol Manor tenants to high income bidders.

The articles in the last two day's Washington Post, "At Each Hurdle, Stronger Resolve" and "The Purchase Of a Lifetime" about how three Columbia Heights DC lower-income apartment buildings were converted to lower-income owned cooperatives, and the attempt to create the Anacostia Community Land Trust (discussed in the Post article a couple days ago about how DC United is buying, oops, I mean organizing, support for a new soccer stadium in Ward 8--"It's All About the Pitch for United") are focused ways of allowing lower-income folks to remain in a city where the real estate market is exceptionally strong.

D.C. United wants to build a soccer stadium at Poplar Point in Anacostia. The team says the project also would include a hotel and housing. (By Bill O'leary -- The Washington Post)

On the other hand, the way that the Sursum Corda group structured its agreement with KSI seems to provide little in the way of long-term protection to the current co-op owner-tenants, unlike the projects discussed above. OTOH, many city officials are clued into this problem, but the contract that the owner-tenants agreed to is signed.

Sursum Corda. Photo: Michel duCille, Washington Post.

I do think focusing on dealing with that, rather than bandying about terms like "high-end" or "low-end" demographics is more effective, if effective is what we are after. As long as all the real estate remains at play in a strong market, it's only "natural" that lower-income people be priced out.

That's why other programs, such as those referenced above, or in an article from Shelterforce about NYC, which is cited in my blog entry Community Preservation and Development need to be pursued simultaneously so that a "rising tide can truly raise ALL boats." (The blog entry doesn't mention co-ops and land trusts.)

There is no question that the City hasn't really addressed this in a systematic way comparable to NYC, and that's why people are so up in arms about displacement and "gentrification."

Flickr photo by DC photographer-blogger Urban Pioneer. Extra-normal involvement is required, otherwise the "market" will steamroll over everybody unable to participate on a market basis.

Photo by Beth Lawrence, on her street, near Howard University.

The issue, as it comes down to it, is whether or not provisions were made to maintain the ability of people of middle- and lower-incomes to continue to live--rent or own--in the District of Columbia in the context of a real estate market responsive to the increased willingness of people of higher incomes to live in the city.

One can argue, as William does, that the failure to do this was deliberate. Or others can say, "that's crazy talk, maybe mistakes were made, but no one intended for this to happen."

I have to say that this conversation has convinced me that use of the "G" word, gentrification, is legitimate, and I might even have to begin using the word myself.

Marxist sociologists describe gentrification as a process where higher-income people (re)produce spaces at the expense of lower-income people. If provisions had been made to reduce the likelihood of displacement, then it wouldn't be called gentrification, but merely "neighborhood reinvestment."

In short, it's not crazy talk, even though it may seem like it to individuals who never intended that their individual choiceswould end up displacing anyone. It's the cumulative impact that matters, and whether or not public policy efforts work in tandem to ensure that we grow an "inclusive city" or not.

Index Keywords: housing; gentrification