Our housing prices tripled, and new buyers don't blend into the community

[CowboyAndIndian]

Is it solely a wealth gap or a culture gap as well?  My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being filled by immigrants, mostly from India.  Not from just one part of India, but different areas, cultures, and religions within India.  Not only do they not interact with the mostly native born original residents, they maintain their cultural and religious affiliations within the community.  Carpools, nannys, and social gatherings are very clannish.  They are civil but not friendly to outsiders.

The Bay Area was a nice place to live prior to the late 1980's.  Not so much today for a lot of reasons, this being one of them.

Wow, I cannot believe the bias you show.

So, you are surprised that they did not drop their culture and immediately convert to whatever religion you follow.

First generation immigrants always do this. See the Italians and the Irish. The second generation will melt into the melting pot.

There is no bias.  It's an observation.  When the US was largely a European derived population and value was placed on assimilation, what you described happened.  No value is placed on assimilation today and I see second generation immigrants staying within the closed community.  There seems to be a split in the Vietnamese community.  Some embrace the broader American culture, some do not.

It's not about religion or cultural background, what religion you practice or how you celebrate your cultural traditions.  It's about whether you in some way join and participate in your larger community.  If I'm biased, it's in favor of assimilation to some degree into the broader American culture.

So, I guess you do not like the Indians and the Vietnamese. Who's next? The Chinese? I guess the only acceptable community is the one you are from.  You could have argued about housing and prices without bringing in any specific community.

I love the "European derived population" statement. This was the argument used in discrimination against Asians (Asian Exclusion Act) in the first half of the twentieth century (1917).

 I do sense a strong undercurrent of bigotry with a dash of racism thrown in. Sorry for being blunt, but in my old age, I do not tolerate BS.

This is the last I am going to post on this thread. I am done with it.

[Another Reader]

"So, I guess you do not like the Indians and the Vietnamese. Who's next? The Chinese? I guess the only acceptable community is the one you are from.  You could have argued about housing and prices without bringing in any specific community.

I love the "European derived population" statement. This was the argument used in discrimination against Asians (Asian Exclusion Act) in the first half of the twentieth century (1917)."

You clearly did not read what I wrote and you raised a bunch of irrelevant history so you could call me names and devalue what I said. 

In the past, the population was dominated by people originating in Europe.  Therefore, while not completely homogeneous, the culture was predominately European derived.  Assimilation into that culture as modified here was what most immigrants, also largely from European countries, sought to achieve.  Things are different now.  If, as you say, you are older, then you have seen the change.

The thread was not originally about housing and prices, it was about neighborhoods changing in ways that make the existing residents uncomfortable.  Sometimes is money, sometimes it's cultural differences that causes that.  In the OP's case, highly educated professional people with money were replacing the historical residents, and not integrating into the existing community.  With very few exceptions, my neighborhood has always appealed to highly educated professionals.  The people choosing not to participate in the larger community here are immigrants, largely from India.  People that value neighborhood here are not happy about losing that amenity and some are uncomfortable with the change.  The issue is the same, whatever the cause.

[Abe]

I agree with Spartana and others. I can see how your new neighbors aren’t excited about hanging out with you and rather want to stick with people they already know. I’m sure you’ve realized your insistence on them assimilating won’t help and can be ostracizing. Maybe they just don’t think your neighborhood ‘s culture (I assume it has some distinct culture you haven’t articulated yet) isn’t to their liking. Also, as others point out, people may have support networks outside of their immediate geographical area, mostly due to the existence of vehicles and telecommunications.

My neighborhood has people for varied social and economic backgrounds and some of us hang out while preserving our cultures of origin. My question for you is should my Lithuanian neighbors behave more like me, or me more like them, in your ideal scenario. Or should we be more like our Chinese neighbor? Maybe the Cubans down the street? The world changes, make of it what you will.

[Another Reader]

I really don't care what people do or who they associate with.  I don't insist that anyone do anything.  I am older than the people moving in here and not having school age kids I would probably not have much in common with the new residents anyway.  That's not my point.  I am making an observation about what is happening.  The OP's community is changing and she is losing her sense of community.  The same thing is happening here, for different reasons. 

As for Spartana's comment, I did not say one way was better than the other.  I simply made an observation about the past being different than today.  The difference makes for less slow evolution in neighborhoods and more jolting change.  That is difficult for a lot of people to accept, especially people that have lived in a neighborhood for a long time.

[runbikerun]

The idea that European populations assimilated into America is, to put it mildly, balls. It looks that way because you're conditioned to see the differences as marginal - the Polish identity of northwest Chicago, or the Irish edge to Boston, are just mild differences compared to those Indians coming in, right?

Except the ancestors of those Dropkick Murphy's fans in Boston and those sausage obsessives in Chicago were regarded as being just as different and put up with just as much bullshit, and the fact that those spots in America even now retain that intense identity is pretty clear evidence that they didn't simply assimilate. The cousins of my ancestors who left Ireland put up with a torrent of bullshit bigotry for decades, and it was only when more visible ethnic minorities started appearing in America and Britain that the Irish started being seen as equal to the preexisting white populations.

[Dances With Fire]

This is happening in my community, except homes are being purchased as "vacation homes or rentals" and the real owners of the homes are rarely actually in my town, or interacting with our community. Instead, random VRBO guests come every weekend, and the neighborhoods are now just filled with tourists who stay up late drinking, being super loud, and parking in really annoying ways. What used to be a quiet small town is now completely unsustainable because of real estate prices, and the demand for short term rentals...it's pretty much ruining our neighborhoods, and small town community.

The DW and I were looking at a small town with lake access. I started noticing the increase in traffic, the excess drinking (and boating at the same time) loud music, and generally people who didn't care about others living in the area.

We backed out of a deal for various reasons but those were issues that pushed us to reconsider buying in that area.

[Hula Hoop]

I took the OP and this thread to be about a wealth or income gap between older and newer residents.  Not a difference in ethnicity.  As I said above, my old neighborhood has been taken over by extremely wealthy people, which has completely changed the neighborhood.  Their ethnicity is beside the point - the neighborhood has always been a mixture of new immigrants (like my parents) and Americans whose families have been there generations.  It's their extreme wealth that has caused issues.

[Bloop Bloop]

It's a free world. Perhaps the old resident should assimilate to the new resident's culture / socio-economic niche. I don't think it's possible for one group to tell another group to assimilate; the other group could just as validly (or invalidly) ask the first group to assimilate. I don't really believe in there being any such thing as an incumbency when it comes to free movement.

I can understand consternation if newcomers to a neighbourhood are committing crimes, dabbling in drugs, etc. But it seems this is not what the thread is about.

[FrugalToque]

Much of the Bay Area suffers from rampant xenophobia...don't get sucked into this narrative, it creates an "us" vs. "them" mentality and will only make you miserable. Accept those "outsiders" into your community, most of us will be or have been an outsider at some point in our life.
...

Your pompous, arrogant attitude is offensive.

Xenophobia by the existing residents is not the issue.  It's the new immigrants that rebuff becoming part of the larger neighborhoods and stick to their clans.  It's kind of funny to see people of the different cultures from India not interact other than superficially with people from other cultures from their own country.  At least they are not killing each other here, as happens sometimes in India. 

You're not going to convince anyone that "xenophobia isn't a problem" by talking about a specific group of foreigners that way.

Toque.

[GuitarStv]

I really don't care what people do or who they associate with.

That's not what your posts would seem to indicate though.  You appear to care very deeply about what people do, who they associate, and what cultural practices they follow.

You said that Indian people are making the Bay Area a bad place to live:

Is it solely a wealth gap or a culture gap as well?  My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being filled by immigrants, mostly from India.  Not from just one part of India, but different areas, cultures, and religions within India.  Not only do they not interact with the mostly native born original residents, they maintain their cultural and religious affiliations within the community.  Carpools, nannys, and social gatherings are very clannish.  They are civil but not friendly to outsiders.

The Bay Area was a nice place to live prior to the late 1980's.  Not so much today for a lot of reasons, this being one of them.

You implied that your Indian neighbours would not be willing to share food, flashlights, and information with you in a crisis:

I'm older, from an era where everyone knew their neighbors and relied on them to some extent.  The evening after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake demonstrated the value of having neighbors that you know and trust.  No power, no phones or internet, and only the car radios for information.  People shared food, flashlights and information with their neighbors.  The response to the next disaster will likely not be as neighborly.

You then argue that it's important to participate in a larger community.  But only if it's not Vietnamese. . . forgetting that Vietnamese Americans are also American, and contribute to American culture.

There is no bias.  It's an observation.  When the US was largely a European derived population and value was placed on assimilation, what you described happened.  No value is placed on assimilation today and I see second generation immigrants staying within the closed community.  There seems to be a split in the Vietnamese community.  Some embrace the broader American culture, some do not.

It's not about religion or cultural background, what religion you practice or how you celebrate your cultural traditions.  It's about whether you in some way join and participate in your larger community.  If I'm biased, it's in favor of assimilation to some degree into the broader American culture.

You made another argument that Europeans desperately sought to emulate American culture:

In the past, the population was dominated by people originating in Europe.  Therefore, while not completely homogeneous, the culture was predominately European derived.  Assimilation into that culture as modified here was what most immigrants, also largely from European countries, sought to achieve.  Things are different now.  If, as you say, you are older, then you have seen the change.

Yet you appear to have forgotten the many distinct communities that European immigrants started and maintained.  How many cities still have a 'Little Italy', or German, Polish, Ukranian, Irish neighbourhood?  Look at the Pensylvania Dutch, who have never given up their German roots.  I really think that you're forgetting that every group of immigrants has always banded together and brought over customs and culture from their original home.  Nothing that Indian or Vietnamese people are doing is particularly different


Another argument that these immigrants are totally different, and terrible.  With a side order of 'they could all turn into murderers at the drop of a hat . . . like they are in their own country'!

Xenophobia by the existing residents is not the issue.  It's the new immigrants that rebuff becoming part of the larger neighborhoods and stick to their clans.  It's kind of funny to see people of the different cultures from India not interact other than superficially with people from other cultures from their own country.  At least they are not killing each other here, as happens sometimes in India.

Viewed together, it's hard to see your arguments as anything other than an ethnocentric kind of xenophobia.

[Tyson]

I really don't care what people do or who they associate with.

That's not what your posts would seem to indicate though.  You appear to care very deeply about what people do, who they associate, and what cultural practices they follow.

You said that Indian people are making the Bay Area a bad place to live:

Is it solely a wealth gap or a culture gap as well?  My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being filled by immigrants, mostly from India.  Not from just one part of India, but different areas, cultures, and religions within India.  Not only do they not interact with the mostly native born original residents, they maintain their cultural and religious affiliations within the community.  Carpools, nannys, and social gatherings are very clannish.  They are civil but not friendly to outsiders.

The Bay Area was a nice place to live prior to the late 1980's.  Not so much today for a lot of reasons, this being one of them.

You implied that your Indian neighbours would be willing to share food, flashlights, and information with you in a crisis:

I'm older, from an era where everyone knew their neighbors and relied on them to some extent.  The evening after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake demonstrated the value of having neighbors that you know and trust.  No power, no phones or internet, and only the car radios for information.  People shared food, flashlights and information with their neighbors.  The response to the next disaster will likely not be as neighborly.

You then argue that it's important to participate in a larger community.  But only if it's not Vietnamese. . . forgetting that Vietnamese Americans are also American, and contribute to American culture.

There is no bias.  It's an observation.  When the US was largely a European derived population and value was placed on assimilation, what you described happened.  No value is placed on assimilation today and I see second generation immigrants staying within the closed community.  There seems to be a split in the Vietnamese community.  Some embrace the broader American culture, some do not.

It's not about religion or cultural background, what religion you practice or how you celebrate your cultural traditions.  It's about whether you in some way join and participate in your larger community.  If I'm biased, it's in favor of assimilation to some degree into the broader American culture.

You made another argument that Europeans desperately sought to emulate American culture:

In the past, the population was dominated by people originating in Europe.  Therefore, while not completely homogeneous, the culture was predominately European derived.  Assimilation into that culture as modified here was what most immigrants, also largely from European countries, sought to achieve.  Things are different now.  If, as you say, you are older, then you have seen the change.

Yet you appear to have forgotten the many distinct communities that European immigrants started and maintained.  How many cities still have a 'Little Italy', or German, Polish, Ukranian, Irish neighbourhood?  Look at the Pensylvania Dutch, who have never given up their German roots.  I really think that you're forgetting that every group of immigrants has always banded together and brought over customs and culture from their original home.  Nothing that Indian or Vietnamese people are doing is particularly different


Another argument that these immigrants are totally different, and terrible.  With a side order of 'they could all turn into murderers at the drop of a hat . . . like they are in their own country'!

Xenophobia by the existing residents is not the issue.  It's the new immigrants that rebuff becoming part of the larger neighborhoods and stick to their clans.  It's kind of funny to see people of the different cultures from India not interact other than superficially with people from other cultures from their own country.  At least they are not killing each other here, as happens sometimes in India.

Viewed together, it's hard to see your arguments as anything other than an ethnocentric kind of xenophobia.

Well, European Americans are allowed to keep their cultural identity because they are the REAL Americans, dontchaknow?  /sarcasm

[Another Reader]

"Well you made a comment on another post that the Bay area used to be nice in the '80s but not so much anymore."

It was even nicer in the 1950's.  The population growth, the automobile traffic and the air pollution have all negatively impacted QOL.  Also the COL.  When I went to college, there was a big uproar because UC was going to add a $100 tuition per quarter, making it $200 a quarter plus books to go to UC.  Now it's far more competitive and expensive.

I'm not going to even bother to address GuitarStv's twisting of my words.

Spartana describes a different version of what is happening here that happened in Orange County.  It's happened a lot of places over decades, centuries, and probably millennia.  As far as who would share what in an emergency, I have no idea what the attitude is of people I do not know.  I do know the remaining original neighbors that were here in 1989 during Loma Prieta and would be comfortable relying on them.  I don't know where you get the idea that I don't like the Vietnamese.  There are now multiple generations made up of everyone from the original boat people to new immigrants.  My observation is that there has been a split over time, with some adopting mainstream culture and some preferring to stay insulated within their communities.  Look at the City Council for San Jose.  It represents a broad range of cultures and is largely reflective of the cultural makeup of San Jose today.

I'm addressing the OP's comments.  The reasons are different, but the feelings of not belonging for a lot of people in the community as the community changes are the same.  Sorry, but xenophobia by the existing residents is not the issue here.  Neighborhood and community comprise a two way street.  If new people want to be part of the community, they need to do their part, as do the existing residents.  If either side does not step up, the community is the worse for that failure.

 

[mm1970]

Beyond parking, what about other infrastructure concerns?  Look at the traffic in the greater DC area.  And what about schools?  More homes in the area means more kids to educate.  But we've filled all the land with schools, so where do the kids go?  What about sewage systems and electrical grids and water supplies in drought-prone areas?

I think it's easy to assume those who don't want to increase density are simply NIMBYs who don't want lower income people in their vicinity.  But there are very real problems and I think we dismiss them at our peril.  Perhaps some of them are solvable or mitigate-able (Traffic?  Build better public transport--although that may be hard to do when you've already eaten up all the land with the extra homes.  But water in SoCal?  More challenging. ).  But just "more homes=more affordable housing=good", and "people who don't want more housing density just don't want change, or don't want poor people around them".

It's an incredibly complex issue.

Oh yes.  I just finished reading a book about ... um ... waste.  Very educational about human waste and infrastructure (or lack thereof).  It's The Big Necessity, if you wanted to read the book.

Waste, water, electricity, schools - all sorts of things are important.

Parking is an interesting topic to me because I grew up rural (parking not an issue), moved to the city (Pittsburgh, home of the Parking Chair) - but I didn't have a car, so it didn't matter.  Then on to the DC area, where it was parking by permit only.  You had to have proof that you lived there (like an electric bill), and you had to pay for your permit.  (I never bothered to do that, so I got a few tix for parking in front of my house when I couldn't fit in the driveway).  In high rise apartments, each apt came with assigned parking.

In So Cal here, some of the locations have paid and permitted parking.  Downtown areas and wealthier areas near apartments.  Also, some of the older downtown homes have no off-street parking - they are on flag lots.  I was pretty shocked at people complaining at the cost to park at UC (these are employees, and you have to buy a permit), as in the 1990s, we were paying $75-100 a month to park at work in DC. 

Obviously people who already live in a neighborhood don't want to lose their off street parking (esp since there are often 3-4 cars per house - sometimes because that many adults, sometimes because people like cars).  If a 20 unit apartment building is built with 20 parking spots, that's at least 20 more cars that will spill onto the streets.  Kind of sucks.  So: permits.

Of course people would prefer free parking.  I do too unless I'm with my kids, then I pay to be closer.  I think it's really funny here - we just got our first Target store.  But it's a mini.  And there is very little parking, so it has messed up traffic. Our large, and very much dying mall is next door - they've put up signs "no Target parking".  Puh-leeze.  I'll park at the far end of the building, wander through the mall window shopping (with my reusable bag), shop at Target, and repeat on the way back.  So will plenty of other people.  (Actually, I don't shop...)

[mm1970]

^ But why is "the way it was and the way its always been" better? And if your new neighbors felt your way was better wouldn't they want to emulate it? Perhaps instead of assuming your way, the old way, the way it always was is the way things should remain, you can try to join in with the new neighbors for a new, and perhaps improved, future for your community.

Plus I can't speak for his particular neighborhood - but every Indian, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc family I know has quite easily and happily integrated into the community, if not first generation than second generation.

My first-gen Indian friend married to a second-gen Indian - they live in Fremont and complain/ rage against the sheer amount of competitiveness in the schools up there.  If that's not assimilating, I don't know what is!

[GuitarStv]

I'm not going to even bother to address GuitarStv's twisting of my words.

You don't have to address my comments, but could you explain why you consider quoting you in context to be twisting your words?

[former player]

I took the OP and this thread to be about a wealth or income gap between older and newer residents.  Not a difference in ethnicity.  As I said above, my old neighborhood has been taken over by extremely wealthy people, which has completely changed the neighborhood.  Their ethnicity is beside the point - the neighborhood has always been a mixture of new immigrants (like my parents) and Americans whose families have been there generations.  It's their extreme wealth that has caused issues.

Moving away from race/ethnic issues, I'm with Hula Hoop that my neighbourhood is also suffering from an influx of the extremely wealthy.  Or rather, it's suffering from an influx of their money, as they themselves are mostly conspicuous by their absence.  These are people who can afford to spend half a million or a million on a house to knock down and rebuild, or three quarters of a million on a house which they turn into an Airbnb.  They can buy a house costing one and half million within 2 days of its going on the open market and use it for only 6 weeks a year.  They are happy to leave a property empty for 5 years while they put in 10 different planning applications for redevelopment which is contrary to the local policies.  They present themselves in the village as a couple with young children who will go to the local schools (badly in need of support in an ageing population) and then it turns out that the home they have bought will be a holiday home and the kids go to private schools up country.

And while all of this is going on the housing mix in the area is disappearing (many fewer small properties for non-millionaires to buy or rent), the social groups are disappearing for lack of new members, the services which are kept going by volunteers rely on smaller and smaller groups of the same faces.  A lifelong resident of the area told me last week that he never goes to the village of his birth any more "because there is nothing left".  And the money just keeps on coming.

[Imma]

I took the OP and this thread to be about a wealth or income gap between older and newer residents.  Not a difference in ethnicity.  As I said above, my old neighborhood has been taken over by extremely wealthy people, which has completely changed the neighborhood.  Their ethnicity is beside the point - the neighborhood has always been a mixture of new immigrants (like my parents) and Americans whose families have been there generations.  It's their extreme wealth that has caused issues.

Moving away from race/ethnic issues, I'm with Hula Hoop that my neighbourhood is also suffering from an influx of the extremely wealthy.  Or rather, it's suffering from an influx of their money, as they themselves are mostly conspicuous by their absence.  These are people who can afford to spend half a million or a million on a house to knock down and rebuild, or three quarters of a million on a house which they turn into an Airbnb.  They can buy a house costing one and half million within 2 days of its going on the open market and use it for only 6 weeks a year. 

And while all of this is going on the housing mix in the area is disappearing (many fewer small properties for non-millionaires to buy or rent), the social groups are disappearing for lack of new members, the services which are kept going by volunteers rely on smaller and smaller groups of the same faces.  A lifelong resident of the area told me last week that he never goes to the village of his birth any more "because there is nothing left".  And the money just keeps on coming.

I feel it's the job of local authorities to prevent this from happening. It's not an easy task to fix but at least they should be trying. In my city it's now required for building projects of a certain size to build homes in several sizes and price categories. Not just cheap studio's and expensive family homes, but apartments with several bedrooms for example. They are also trying to target people who run fulltime AirBnB's - what they are doing is basically run an illegal hotel without the necessary paperwork and health and safety rules. If you want to own a business in the tourist industry, you need to follow the same rules.

That doesn't always mean that the right people still get to live in the houses meant for them - landlords still get to decide who can rent and it seems landlords much prefer DINKs for those bigger apartments than couples with several kids and maybe a SAH or parttime parent, but at least local authorities are trying to influence builders to build what the city needs instead of what makes the developer earn the most money. A new big apartment building that's being built close to my home will contain loads of homes targeted at families, but also smaller studio's and apartments targeted at older people who are downsizing. I'm curious to see how that will work out. Since it's close to several good schools I'm hopeful that a lot of families will want to live there and put down roots, which will be good for the community. A lot of people originally didn't want a high rise building but this project looks really good.

[seattlecyclone]

Beyond parking, what about other infrastructure concerns?  Look at the traffic in the greater DC area.  And what about schools?  More homes in the area means more kids to educate.  But we've filled all the land with schools, so where do the kids go?  What about sewage systems and electrical grids and water supplies in drought-prone areas?

If you're inherently biased against density, it's easy to think of a million reasons why your city couldn't possibly handle more residents. If you view increased population density as a necessary and good thing, these concerns become solvable problems rather than intractable roadblocks. These concerns can mostly be addressed with money: namely the tax money generated by the people living in the new buildings.

Here in Seattle we actually shuttered a bunch of schools in latter part of the 20th century as people had fewer kids than they did during the baby boom years. The overall population dipped slightly from 1960-1980, but the school-age population dipped much more. Some of these schools were sold off, while the district mothballed a few of them and offered long-term land leases to private businesses in a few other cases. Keeping up with the increasing population is a challenge for the school district, but I think they're responding pretty well to it. There's a formerly mothballed middle school in my neighborhood that has been acting as a temporary home for various elementary schools as their permanent buildings are renovated and expanded. A lot of these old schools have a bunch of deferred maintenance that needs to be addressed whether population is growing or not. Each year they pick a school to move into the temporary building for a year, do the necessary renovations (or complete demolition and replacement in some cases where it's seen as more cost-effective), and in the process they add a few more classrooms to the old school to handle the growth in the neighborhood.

For sewage systems, at least here in Seattle we have a legacy "combined sewer" where storm water and household waste water goes in the same pipes. The pipes can therefore handle quite a bit more average flow from toilets and stuff, so long as the peak usage during heavy rains can be reduced somehow. Toward this end we have regulations about ground permeability and storm water retention that new construction needs to comply with. The result is that new buildings tend to place less load on the sewer system than what they replaced.

Water supplies in drought-prone areas are something I have less knowledge about, but surely there are ways to economize here too? Like, start charging enough for water usage past basic survival needs that nobody in their right mind would think of watering a lawn?

[BlueHouse]

Objectively, I don't see that much of a difference between a person who would spend $1MM vs $3MM on a house. Perhaps I don't understand. It seems out of reach for a household of a teacher and a plumber to afford the first value. Many of those households probably also have a working tech person or skilled medical clinician. I would argue that perhaps when you spent $1MM on your home, you may have displaced the first round of people who were truly lower working class and you might not have noticed it.

I live in a mixed income community.  Some of the houses were sold at market rate (near or over $1M), some of the houses were intended for teachers and police and plumbers.  Those "workforce" houses are worth nearly as much, but the city holds a $100,000, zero interest loan that is payable in 30 years.  There is also "affordable housing" in the form of rentals where residents pay 1/3 of household income.    This is gentrification and it's actually nice to live in a place with economic diversity.  It's easier for me to understand more about how the "other half lives".   

Is it perfect?  No.  But it seems to get a little easier for some and it's too much for others to bear.  Some people move away (typically out of the city) where they can control who lives next door to them.  Others accept that people are different and learn to deal with the differences.   There does seem to be some culture clash, but as the neighborhood kids grow up and play with each other at school, then they start to play with each other at home as well.  I hope these things will make a difference in the long run, and we shall see.

For the OP, if you want the new buyers to blend into the community, sometimes you have to be the one to reach out.  Invite them into your home for dinner.  Or bring cookies over to their house to welcome them to the neighborhood.  Make an effort. 

[GreenToTheCore]

The idea that European populations assimilated into America is, to put it mildly, balls.

This. How is history so easily forgotten?

Ah, parking. This seems to be the one thing that is most likely to get otherwise reasonable people riled up into a frenzy where new development is concerned.
 

Amen! It should be possible in the US to develop housing that does NOT include guaranteed free parking, or any parking for that matter!

Amen +2
When did driving a personal vehicle become a right?


@Another Reader: You’re not coming across well, but you aren’t devolving into a crazy passionate responses either. Thank you.

I propose an improvement in future comments: not mentioning ethnicity as a generality when you’re talking about an individual’s actions that you observe. For example:
“My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being filled by immigrants, mostly from India.  Not from just one part of India, but different areas, cultures, and religions within India.  Not only do they not interact with the mostly native born original residents, they maintain their cultural and religious affiliations within the community.  Carpools, nannys, and social gatherings are very clannish.  They are civil but not friendly to outsiders.”
--> “My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being sold and repurchased by new owners who do not interact with original residents. They are civil but not friendly to other residents.”

Your original writing had an emphasis on peoples’ background and not on the action that was irritating you.  You even addressed the current residents with labels: “native born original”, “outsiders”, etc. (I’m pretty sure you weren’t the first ones to inhabit the area). Since this is an internet post, this emphasis is what us readers see and makes us think that your issue is more about ethnicity than about the non-inclusive behavior that you’re perceiving. 

You also use many words to express an Us vs Them mentality: they, those people, clan, immigrants, etc.
How about using: my neighbors, the community, the family on the other street, etc?
Just food for thought. Maybe next time you feel an audience is misunderstanding you then you can be aware that your vocabulary is impacting your message and making you sound like a biggot.   

[merlin7676]

We are on both sides of this coin.

My husband and I live in Capitol Hill in Seattle. The gayborhood of Seattle. Many years ago it was very run down and nasty and then gay and lesbians moved in, cleaned it up, made it fabulous, and then everybody else wanted to live where it's trendy and nightlife, etc. 

In the past several years, we've had both an influx of straight families and tech workers which has basically made it unaffordable for a lot of people that have lived there many years. Even us who own our own condo are struggling with the property taxes going up and up and all the new development that brings in tons of people, traffic, and pets.  And yes we do have a huge homeless population and drug/mental health people, garbage, feces, etc.

Many people we know have moved away, mostly to the south and west of seattle neighborhoods or further. We have our condo on the market and are moving to said south and west.  The neighborhood we are moving to is lower income, and more "gritty" but it's also being revitalized. New bars, new restaurants are going in, little coffee shops and cafes are popping up, etc. 

The townhouse we're buying is bigger than our condo but will be cheaper as well. The plot it's on used to be the "projects".  So in effect as we're being pushed out of one area, we're moving into another than is also being redeveloped and I don't have any illusions that we (collectively) won't be pushing some of those people out of that neighborhood too. As the prices there for housing are rising and there is a lot of development happening, it will push a certain amount of people out of there who will no longer be able to afford to live there.

I'm not sure what the solution is though.

[GreenToTheCore]

In regards to the OP: I hear your frustration that you feel your values aren’t being addressed in how the neighborhood is changing. From what I heard, the changes that you mentioned were the lack of interaction between neighbors and that the larger spenders don’t have the skills that the neighborhood has previously traded around (wood working, emergency preparedness, legal expertise, etc.)
You said that your neighborhood was a place where “people walk/bike outside a lot to get places.  We have neighborhood events and even babysit the neighbor's kids (not for money, for free). It's not really a complaint, but the only problem I run into is that I have to allow an extra 5 minutes to get to the subway because neighbors will often stop to talk on the street.”  This combined with all the fantastic skills that are being traded make for a pretty ideal neighborhood, where can I sign up? :)

While your neighborhood experience doesn’t match mine, I think they are great community characteristics to continue, so how are you showing the new residents what your neighborhood is all about? If one bbq fails it isn’t the end, it’s just one lightbulb design that didn’t work. Onto the next outreach effort!

Can we help the OP think of some ways to involve the new residents?
@Villanelle, I appreciated the perspective on the small No Buy group. I tend to go too big.
@BlueHouse, great suggestions

Outreach Brainstorm
-   Buy Nothing Group
-   Dinner
-   Food offering
-   BBQ out front
-   Front yard games on Saturday
-   Figure out a way to mention all the great skills that are being traded around. Tactfully ask what skills they could share with the community.


*ETA another bullet

[Tyson]

I kind of feel like gentrification IS the solution.  If the people being displaced own their homes, they are getting a massive windfall, maybe the biggest ball of cash they will ever see in their lives.  They can use it to move someplace cheaper and have more financial independence, or use it to pay for things they might not be able to afford otherwise, like college for their kids.

If gentrification doesn't happen, then the city stagnates.  Then you end up with entrenched poverty. 

And to all the people complaining about parking and costs - you just got a MASSIVE increase in value on one of your investments (your home), and you're complaining?  Really? 

I mean seriously, I never thought I'd hear anyone complain - "Oh man, my neighborhood is becoming TOO NICE".  WTH?

[GreenToTheCore]

I mean seriously, I never thought I'd hear anyone complain - "Oh man, my neighborhood is becoming TOO NICE".  WTH?

I think one issue comes from lower-cost options being pushed out, so that the current residents are priced out of the area even when they want to keep their homes (homes=neighborhood & community as well as a physical structure).
Some examples from above: the local pub where you could get a simple beer and sandwich was pushed out by a place with $15 pints and up-charged meals (or something like that), and the situation where the less expensive grocers were replaced with Whole Foods.

On a broader level, who easily excepts change? Especially when it's quick, you're not asked your opinion on it, and it replaced your go-to shops(habits) with new ones?
Seems like a generally helpful approach is to avoid an Us vs Them mentality as quickly and as much as possible. However, it takes a lot of effort to interact with a new group of people and to create situations where relationships are built.

[Tyson]

Re: renters, agreed it's crappy for them.  But as a renter, that's an inherently unstable living situation.  IME renters move a lot, even when there's not gentrifiation. 

I've been through gentrification twice during the past 12 years here in Denver.  First it was a small condo in a re-claimed industrial section just south of Downtown, and now it's to the west of Denver near Sloan's Lake.  In both cases there were really run down, crappy areas that got bought and developed first.  Which lifted the whole neighborhood.  Then when my daughter was a bit older, we moved West to be near her elementary school.  Great neighborhood, old 1950s brick houses.  Mostly working class 5 years ago.  And more than a few abandoned lots or places that were completely neglected and run down.  3 years later, all the crap lots are gone, replaced by very nice new homes.  2 years after that, the smaller houses have been bought and built into larger, nicer, more expensive homes.  My house went from $455k when I bought it to $710k now.  That's awesome.  That makes me very happy.  And guess what, my next door neighbors, they didn't even buy their home, the inherited it from their parents.  They now are sitting on $700k that they can cash out any time they want. 

Yes, we have a Natural Grocers, but we also still have Sprouts and King Soopers (Safeway).  And a Costco a few miles away and a SAMS, etc...

Re: taxes, that seems to vary quite a bit from state to state.  Here in CO it's about .6%.  So my neighbors can easily afford that.  But at some point, they have the option to sell their current home, move 2 miles west to Wheat Ridge and get a new, nicer, bigger home for half the price.  And they aren't alone - I asked around, most people here bought their homes for less than $100k around 20 years ago.  So everyone like that is sitting on a massive windfall.  And the crap houses are all gone now and there's much nicer homes in their place. 

Saying "but its our home and we feel like we're being forced out", dunno that just sounds very complainypants to me.  Sorry if that's harsh.  I think it's because I grew up with my dad in the Air Force and we moved around a lot so I just don't have these weird attachments to buildings that others seem to.   

[Another Reader]

The idea that European populations assimilated into America is, to put it mildly, balls.

This. How is history so easily forgotten?

Ah, parking. This seems to be the one thing that is most likely to get otherwise reasonable people riled up into a frenzy where new development is concerned.
 

Amen! It should be possible in the US to develop housing that does NOT include guaranteed free parking, or any parking for that matter!

Amen +2
When did driving a personal vehicle become a right?


@Another Reader: You’re not coming across well, but you aren’t devolving into a crazy passionate responses either. Thank you.

I propose an improvement in future comments: not mentioning ethnicity as a generality when you’re talking about an individual’s actions that you observe. For example:
“My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being filled by immigrants, mostly from India.  Not from just one part of India, but different areas, cultures, and religions within India.  Not only do they not interact with the mostly native born original residents, they maintain their cultural and religious affiliations within the community.  Carpools, nannys, and social gatherings are very clannish.  They are civil but not friendly to outsiders.”
--> “My neighborhood of 30 year-old houses on large lots is slowly being sold and repurchased by new owners who do not interact with original residents. They are civil but not friendly to other residents.”

Your original writing had an emphasis on peoples’ background and not on the action that was irritating you.  You even addressed the current residents with labels: “native born original”, “outsiders”, etc. (I’m pretty sure you weren’t the first ones to inhabit the area). Since this is an internet post, this emphasis is what us readers see and makes us think that your issue is more about ethnicity than about the non-inclusive behavior that you’re perceiving. 

You also use many words to express an Us vs Them mentality: they, those people, clan, immigrants, etc.
How about using: my neighbors, the community, the family on the other street, etc?
Just food for thought. Maybe next time you feel an audience is misunderstanding you then you can be aware that your vocabulary is impacting your message and making you sound like a biggot.

Personal vehicle usage is not written into the Constitution, but try taking it away from the vast majority of people that want that mode of transportation.  Not going to happen.

The non-inclusive behavior is cultural in origin in this particular case.  Saying anything else is inaccurate and misleading.  In other cases, non-inclusive behavior results from other differences, such as education or money.  The OP's situation is an example.

Your arrogance and condescension are showing.  How something is interpreted by someone with your obvious bias and dictatorial attitude is unimportant to me.  Your "Newspeak" doesn't fly with me and I certainly would not take direction from you on what to say or how to behave. 

[Tyson]

It's amazing to me how many people on this thread don't like change.  For the anti-gentrifiers, they hate that things are getting nicer and more expensive.  For the anti-immigrants, they hate that the new neighbors are "not American" and "ruining the neighborhood". 

Now, I'm originally from the South, so I've seen a LOT of bigotry from "nice white people" re: the 2nd situation.  So Another Reader's soft bigoted views are par for the course, IME.  I'm shocked at the anti-gentrification ideas though.  Just blows my mind.

[former player]

It's amazing to me how many people on this thread don't like change.  For the anti-gentrifiers, they hate that things are getting nicer and more expensive.  For the anti-immigrants, they hate that the new neighbors are "not American" and "ruining the neighborhood". 

Now, I'm originally from the South, so I've seen a LOT of bigotry from "nice white people" re: the 2nd situation.  So Another Reader's soft bigoted views are par for the course, IME.  I'm shocked at the anti-gentrification ideas though.  Just blows my mind.

To the extent that "gentrification" means investment in better houses, cleaner streets, better schools, I don't suppose anyone is going to argue with you.  Unfortunately that's not all it means.  Gentrification doesn't just mean the effects you can see, it means a great many effects you can't.  It means that working class kids can't live near their parents, fracturing families between the generations and isolating young parents from their support systems and meaning that their kids might not get such a stable family upbringing.  It means ageing pensioners seeing the community they grew up in disappear, and they too lose their support systems and social interactions.  It means teachers can't afford to live near the schools they teach in but have to commute long distances.  It means police are separated geographically from the communities they are supposed to understand in order to serve.  It means homelessness - and homelessness is not just rough sleepers on the streets, there are "hidden homeless" too.  You just don't see them.

[Another Reader]

It's amazing to me how many people on this thread don't like change.  For the anti-gentrifiers, they hate that things are getting nicer and more expensive.  For the anti-immigrants, they hate that the new neighbors are "not American" and "ruining the neighborhood". 

Now, I'm originally from the South, so I've seen a LOT of bigotry from "nice white people" re: the 2nd situation.  So Another Reader's soft bigoted views are par for the course, IME.  I'm shocked at the anti-gentrification ideas though.  Just blows my mind.

To the extent that "gentrification" means investment in better houses, cleaner streets, better schools, I don't suppose anyone is going to argue with you.  Unfortunately that's not all it means.  Gentrification doesn't just mean the effects you can see, it means a great many effects you can't.  It means that working class kids can't live near their parents, fracturing families between the generations and isolating young parents from their support systems and meaning that their kids might not get such a stable family upbringing.  It means ageing pensioners seeing the community they grew up in disappear, and they too lose their support systems and social interactions.  It means teachers can't afford to live near the schools they teach in but have to commute long distances.  It means police are separated geographically from the communities they are supposed to understand in order to serve.  It means homelessness - and homelessness is not just rough sleepers on the streets, there are "hidden homeless" too.  You just don't see them.

Exactly. Not one adult child that grew up in my neighborhood has moved back.  Maybe a few could, but none has.

[Tyson]

It's amazing to me how many people on this thread don't like change.  For the anti-gentrifiers, they hate that things are getting nicer and more expensive.  For the anti-immigrants, they hate that the new neighbors are "not American" and "ruining the neighborhood". 

Now, I'm originally from the South, so I've seen a LOT of bigotry from "nice white people" re: the 2nd situation.  So Another Reader's soft bigoted views are par for the course, IME.  I'm shocked at the anti-gentrification ideas though.  Just blows my mind.

To the extent that "gentrification" means investment in better houses, cleaner streets, better schools, I don't suppose anyone is going to argue with you.  Unfortunately that's not all it means.  Gentrification doesn't just mean the effects you can see, it means a great many effects you can't.  It means that working class kids can't live near their parents, fracturing families between the generations and isolating young parents from their support systems and meaning that their kids might not get such a stable family upbringing.  It means ageing pensioners seeing the community they grew up in disappear, and they too lose their support systems and social interactions.  It means teachers can't afford to live near the schools they teach in but have to commute long distances.  It means police are separated geographically from the communities they are supposed to understand in order to serve.  It means homelessness - and homelessness is not just rough sleepers on the streets, there are "hidden homeless" too.  You just don't see them.

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Homelessness is a whole other problem that I don't see tied to gentrification at all.  I see it more as people with long term mental health issue or serious ongoing addiction issues.  Those are real problems that need to be addressed but keeping rich people out won't do that.  Hell, if anything having the rich people see it might actually drive some positive change.  They might look at it and think "this is a problem now that it's in my back yard".  Otherwise they won't see it and they won't care.  Trust me, the things that rich people care about, those things get fixed.

[former player]

There are people on this board who are not American, you know.  Who are from different cultures and with different experiences and have moved between different countries.  Some of which might be "nations of immigrants" and some of which might not.  And which can have different experiences of family and of social and economic conditions.

What makes you think that rich people moving into a neighbourhood will see and understand the "hidden homeless" problem, let alone do something about it, other than expecting those people to move out of their way?

[Tyson]

There are people on this board who are not American, you know.  Who are from different cultures and with different experiences and have moved between different countries.  Some of which might be "nations of immigrants" and some of which might not.  And which can have different experiences of family and of social and economic conditions.

What makes you think that rich people moving into a neighbourhood will see and understand the "hidden homeless" problem, let alone do something about it, other than expecting those people to move out of their way?

Well the rich will definitely see it and they might not understand it at first.  But if it gets irritating enough, they'll start to complain and possibly try to understand it.  Humans are like this - we tend to deal with whatever we see in front of us.  If we see homeless people hanging around constantly where we live and work, we might be moved to do something about it.  If we don't see it, then we likely won't.  My main point was really more that rich people have more political pull, so if they did in fact decide to take up the cause, they'd get way more traction within the system than working class or poor people would. 

[Shane]

Beyond parking, what about other infrastructure concerns?  Look at the traffic in the greater DC area.  And what about schools?  More homes in the area means more kids to educate.  But we've filled all the land with schools, so where do the kids go?  What about sewage systems and electrical grids and water supplies in drought-prone areas?

If you're inherently biased against density, it's easy to think of a million reasons why your city couldn't possibly handle more residents. If you view increased population density as a necessary and good thing, these concerns become solvable problems rather than intractable roadblocks. These concerns can mostly be addressed with money: namely the tax money generated by the people living in the new buildings.

It's pretty easy to come up with a bunch of reasons why things can't be done. I liked your earlier suggestion that housing purchases be decoupled from parking. If people who wanted a parking spot could purchase one on the open market and then pay ongoing taxes on it, that would go a long way towards making it possible to build more affordable housing for people who don't want/need to have their own car parked right near where they live. Housing and taxes for people who only need a place to live and don't need/want a car would thus become much cheaper. I'm all for letting people who insist on driving cars everywhere pay for the real costs of their lifestyle choices. Why should people who don't want/need to have a car pay for the cost of building parking lots/garages?

[MonkeyJenga]

Beyond parking, what about other infrastructure concerns?  Look at the traffic in the greater DC area.  And what about schools?  More homes in the area means more kids to educate.  But we've filled all the land with schools, so where do the kids go?  What about sewage systems and electrical grids and water supplies in drought-prone areas?

If you're inherently biased against density, it's easy to think of a million reasons why your city couldn't possibly handle more residents. If you view increased population density as a necessary and good thing, these concerns become solvable problems rather than intractable roadblocks. These concerns can mostly be addressed with money: namely the tax money generated by the people living in the new buildings.

It's pretty easy to come up with a bunch of reasons why things can't be done. I liked your earlier suggestion that housing purchases be decoupled from parking. If people who wanted a parking spot could purchase one on the open market and then pay ongoing taxes on it, that would go a long way towards making it possible to build more affordable housing for people who don't want/need to have their own car parked right near where they live. Housing and taxes for people who only need a place to live and don't need/want a car would thus become much cheaper. I'm all for letting people who insist on driving cars everywhere pay for the real costs of their lifestyle choices. Why should people who don't want/need to have a car pay for the cost of building parking lots/garages?

Agreed! I don't want to have a parking spot built into the cost of my home, when I don't own a car. It might also encourage more people to question their car ownership.

[Villanelle]

Beyond parking, what about other infrastructure concerns?  Look at the traffic in the greater DC area.  And what about schools?  More homes in the area means more kids to educate.  But we've filled all the land with schools, so where do the kids go?  What about sewage systems and electrical grids and water supplies in drought-prone areas?

If you're inherently biased against density, it's easy to think of a million reasons why your city couldn't possibly handle more residents. If you view increased population density as a necessary and good thing, these concerns become solvable problems rather than intractable roadblocks. These concerns can mostly be addressed with money: namely the tax money generated by the people living in the new buildings.

Here in Seattle we actually shuttered a bunch of schools in latter part of the 20th century as people had fewer kids than they did during the baby boom years. The overall population dipped slightly from 1960-1980, but the school-age population dipped much more. Some of these schools were sold off, while the district mothballed a few of them and offered long-term land leases to private businesses in a few other cases. Keeping up with the increasing population is a challenge for the school district, but I think they're responding pretty well to it. There's a formerly mothballed middle school in my neighborhood that has been acting as a temporary home for various elementary schools as their permanent buildings are renovated and expanded. A lot of these old schools have a bunch of deferred maintenance that needs to be addressed whether population is growing or not. Each year they pick a school to move into the temporary building for a year, do the necessary renovations (or complete demolition and replacement in some cases where it's seen as more cost-effective), and in the process they add a few more classrooms to the old school to handle the growth in the neighborhood.

For sewage systems, at least here in Seattle we have a legacy "combined sewer" where storm water and household waste water goes in the same pipes. The pipes can therefore handle quite a bit more average flow from toilets and stuff, so long as the peak usage during heavy rains can be reduced somehow. Toward this end we have regulations about ground permeability and storm water retention that new construction needs to comply with. The result is that new buildings tend to place less load on the sewer system than what they replaced.

Water supplies in drought-prone areas are something I have less knowledge about, but surely there are ways to economize here too? Like, start charging enough for water usage past basic survival needs that nobody in their right mind would think of watering a lawn?

And I didn't say and don't believe these are insurmountable problems.  But the glib "just build more houses and increase density!" argument fails to take these things in to account. 

DC has a system where storm and wastewater combine, I believe.  And as I understand it, it leads to untreated sewage being released into the river on a semi-regular basis.  And that's great that your community has mothballed schools.  Many don't. 

Again, these problems are all fixable, but require money (generally massive amounts) and that money is needed BEFORE these new homes are built and occupied since they are going to need water and power and parking and schools and roads from day 1, not after a year of paying those increase property taxes. 

Again, I'm not necessarily against increasing density.  I just don't think it's realistic when people toss out "just build more houses!" as though it's not a massive undertaking with huge repercussions that go far beyond constructing new dwellings. 

[Radagast]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Homelessness is a whole other problem that I don't see tied to gentrification at all.  I see it more as people with long term mental health issue or serious ongoing addiction issues.  Those are real problems that need to be addressed but keeping rich people out won't do that.  Hell, if anything having the rich people see it might actually drive some positive change.  They might look at it and think "this is a problem now that it's in my back yard".  Otherwise they won't see it and they won't care.  Trust me, the things that rich people care about, those things get fixed.

I am in complete agreement. I support gentrification. Extreme income inequality could be a problem, but gentrification is good.

Again, I'm not necessarily against increasing density.  I just don't think it's realistic when people toss out "just build more houses!" as though it's not a massive undertaking with huge repercussions that go far beyond constructing new dwellings. 

From an engineering perspective the issues you raise are relatively straightforward. Pipes, electricity, water, space for buildings, integrating green space; there is really nothing stopping those. The issues are political will-power and passing the costs through to those who most want to pay them, in other words allowing developers to pay for the infrastructure and then pass it on to willing customers.

[former player]

What makes you think that rich people moving into a neighbourhood will see and understand the "hidden homeless" problem, let alone do something about it, other than expecting those people to move out of their way?

Well the rich will definitely see it and they might not understand it at first.  But if it gets irritating enough, they'll start to complain and possibly try to understand it.  Humans are like this - we tend to deal with whatever we see in front of us.  If we see homeless people hanging around constantly where we live and work, we might be moved to do something about it.  If we don't see it, then we likely won't.  My main point was really more that rich people have more political pull, so if they did in fact decide to take up the cause, they'd get way more traction within the system than working class or poor people would.

You have completely missed the point I was making.  Please look up the phrase "hidden homeless".  No, the rich don't see these people.  They may employ them, at rock bottom wages, to make their lives more pleasant, of course.  But do something about their need for housing?  Pffft.

Here's a lovely example of the utter cluelessness of the rich towards people at the bottom of the economic pile.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word - Coupon-cutting congresswoman stumps big bank CEO.

I am in complete agreement. I support gentrification. Extreme income inequality could be a problem, but gentrification is good.

Extreme income inequality like the difference between $16.50 an hour and $31 million a year, maybe?  That leaves a mother and daughter sharing a bedroom and still not able to make ends meet?

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Make new friends?  What about my acquaintance in his 80s, who never goes to the village he grew up  in any more "because there is nothing left"?  Tell me, how is he supposed to "make friends" with the woman from the big city who 5 years ago closed down the village shop to turn it into a private home and has left it empty ever since?

[Hula Hoop]

It's amazing to me how many people on this thread don't like change.  For the anti-gentrifiers, they hate that things are getting nicer and more expensive.  For the anti-immigrants, they hate that the new neighbors are "not American" and "ruining the neighborhood". 

Now, I'm originally from the South, so I've seen a LOT of bigotry from "nice white people" re: the 2nd situation.  So Another Reader's soft bigoted views are par for the course, IME.  I'm shocked at the anti-gentrification ideas though.  Just blows my mind.

To the extent that "gentrification" means investment in better houses, cleaner streets, better schools, I don't suppose anyone is going to argue with you.  Unfortunately that's not all it means.  Gentrification doesn't just mean the effects you can see, it means a great many effects you can't.  It means that working class kids can't live near their parents, fracturing families between the generations and isolating young parents from their support systems and meaning that their kids might not get such a stable family upbringing.  It means ageing pensioners seeing the community they grew up in disappear, and they too lose their support systems and social interactions.  It means teachers can't afford to live near the schools they teach in but have to commute long distances.  It means police are separated geographically from the communities they are supposed to understand in order to serve.  It means homelessness - and homelessness is not just rough sleepers on the streets, there are "hidden homeless" too.  You just don't see them.

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Homelessness is a whole other problem that I don't see tied to gentrification at all.  I see it more as people with long term mental health issue or serious ongoing addiction issues.  Those are real problems that need to be addressed but keeping rich people out won't do that.  Hell, if anything having the rich people see it might actually drive some positive change.  They might look at it and think "this is a problem now that it's in my back yard".  Otherwise they won't see it and they won't care.  Trust me, the things that rich people care about, those things get fixed.

 

This is exactly how things are in my old neighborhood.  Not a single person I grew up with in NYC (and went to public school with) still lives in the city.  My friends are scattered all over the US - the closest ones to NYC are in New Jersey.  The old neighborhood contains old "normal" people like my parents and young, incredibly wealthy families - most of whom work on Wall Street but there are also some movie stars and people who were born rich.  None of them grew up anywhere near the old neighborhood.

That's fine I guess if you accept people constantly moving around and geographical separation but most working/lower MC class families I know, even in the US, tend to stay in the same geographical area for various reasons.   

[Bloop Bloop]

I get that you care about income inequality and you want less social stratification in housing. Not everyone agrees with your views. I would be happy for my neighbourhood to gentrify. Unearned capital gains? Passive net worth increase? Sounds positively mustachian to me. Isn't that the whole point of frugality - so that your investments perform well and you can make money in your sleep.

[Hula Hoop]

I get that you care about income inequality and you want less social stratification in housing. Not everyone agrees with your views. I would be happy for my neighbourhood to gentrify. Unearned capital gains? Passive net worth increase? Sounds positively mustachian to me. Isn't that the whole point of frugality - so that your investments perform well and you can make money in your sleep.

I suppose that's fine if you see your home as purely an "investment" rather than part of a vibrant community.  From an investment point of view, my dad has done amazingly well and he knows it.  He's elderly so I guess we as his heirs will probably do well out of it too.  However, some things are more important than money and community is one of them.

[BlueHouse]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

Someone shared a Persian adage with me once.  It was in another language, so my translation really messes it up, but you'll get the idea:

It's very hard to pull a stone out of the ground, but once that stone has been pulled out, it's very easy to move it to another spot.   

[Another Reader]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Please don't move into my neighborhood.  People with your attitude are the problem.

[Tyson]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Please don't move into my neighborhood.  People with your attitude are the problem.

No, the problem is CHANGE.  You're not willing/able to embrace it and so you are miserable.  I, on the other hand, fully embrace it.  And guess what?  I'm happy. 

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Please don't move into my neighborhood.  People with your attitude are the problem.

No, the problem is CHANGE.  You're not willing/able to embrace it and so you are miserable.  I, on the other hand, fully embrace it.  And guess what?  I'm happy.

I can understand the dissatisfaction--the neighborhood has a certain character (e.g. neighbors that are frequently outside and interact a lot) that brings a person joy.  I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to object to the removal of that source of joy.

Personally, I strongly dislike the phrase "change is good," because there are plenty of changes that are *not* good.  Can you imagine the reaction I'd get if I went into the Off-topic subforum and started a thread entitled "Trump's changes are good" or "We should just embrace climate change"? :D

You are correct that one's personal happiness is strongly influenced by one's attitude.  But I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to embrace any and all change.

[Another Reader]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Please don't move into my neighborhood.  People with your attitude are the problem.

No, the problem is CHANGE.  You're not willing/able to embrace it and so you are miserable.  I, on the other hand, fully embrace it.  And guess what?  I'm happy.

No, you would likely be an unpleasant person to have as a neighbor.

Do you participate in your kids' schools?  Do you belong to any local organizations?  Do you contribute time and money to them?  I doubt it based on what you have said.  If you don't, you don't really contribute anything to your community and you have no vested interest in it.   My preference is to have neighbors that care enough about the community to participate.

[Tyson]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Please don't move into my neighborhood.  People with your attitude are the problem.

No, the problem is CHANGE.  You're not willing/able to embrace it and so you are miserable.  I, on the other hand, fully embrace it.  And guess what?  I'm happy.

I can understand the dissatisfaction--the neighborhood has a certain character (e.g. neighbors that are frequently outside and interact a lot) that brings a person joy.  I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to object to the removal of that source of joy.

Personally, I strongly dislike the phrase "change is good," because there are plenty of changes that are *not* good.  Can you imagine the reaction I'd get if I went into the Off-topic subforum and started a thread entitled "Trump's changes are good" or "We should just embrace climate change"? :D

You are correct that one's personal happiness is strongly influenced by one's attitude.  But I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to embrace any and all change.

I agree with you - not all change is good.  Maybe the neighborhood changes for the worse, and things like crime goes up and properties start to devolve into crack/meth dens.  Happens.  In that case, you should probably embrace the (negative) change and move to a better neighborhood.  On the other hand, change can also be good.  Like people moving to the neighborhood and making improvements to it.  That's a good change.  IME it's very rare indeed for a neighborhood to not change.  Especially nowadays with cities growing like crazy.  Complaining about it a bit like tilting at windmills, I think. 

Taking a step back, I just get frustrated with the "get off my lawn" mentality of these posts.  I'd expect that type of sentiment over on Bogleheads but not here on MMM.

[Tyson]

I'm sorry but a lot of that is just sentimental crap.  If you move to a new place, get a job near where you choose to live next.  We are a nation of immigrants, you can't tell me people are suddenly unable to cope with moving a few miles?  Or even to a new city?  Have these people never moved for a job before?  Now that I think about it, the LARGE majority of extended families I know are already split apart geographically. 

And losing your social interactions?  Seriously?  Make some new friends.  There's all kinds of new/interesting/cool people out there.  Hell, if rich people move into your neighborhood, these are upwardly mobile connections that you'd probably never had access to before.  Use them. 

Please don't move into my neighborhood.  People with your attitude are the problem.

No, the problem is CHANGE.  You're not willing/able to embrace it and so you are miserable.  I, on the other hand, fully embrace it.  And guess what?  I'm happy.

No, you would likely be an unpleasant person to have as a neighbor.

Do you participate in your kids' schools?  Do you belong to any local organizations?  Do you contribute time and money to them?  I doubt it based on what you have said.  If you don't, you don't really contribute anything to your community and you have no vested interest in it.   My preference is to have neighbors that care enough about the community to participate.

I like how you shifted the topic from how your unhappy with change to an attack on my re: being a bad neighbor.  Not exactly solid debating skills there....

[Another Reader]

This is not a debate.  I'm stating the problem is not the generic concept of change.  And who says I'm miserable?

If you can't say that you participate in and contribute to your local community, I would rather have someone that does as a neighbor.  Living next door to someone that does not participate could be problematic or at least uncomfortable at times.  Oh, and it should be obvious that this has nothing to do with your race, culture or country of origin.  It's your attitude.

[Tyson]

This is not a debate.  I'm stating the problem is not the generic concept of change.  And who says I'm miserable?

If you can't say that you participate in and contribute to your local community, I would rather have someone that does as a neighbor.  Living next door to someone that does not participate could be problematic or at least uncomfortable at times.  Oh, and it should be obvious that this has nothing to do with your race, culture or country of origin.  It's your attitude.

I actually do participate and not just in the neighborhood but with my daughter's school too.  I work from home so I'm also in my neighborhood about 90% of the time.  And I know my neighbors and talk to them, too! 

On the other hand, I find the whole idea of "a good neighbor" kind of stupid.  I have moved around a ton of places in my life and everywhere I've landed has had awesome people to get to know.  As a result, "my tribe" is actually a bunch of people strung across several cities/states/countries.  I love all those people and I'm so happy that I had a change to meet them and get to know them.  And I'm even more happy about meeting some of the new people that are moving into my current neighborhood. 

I mean, I suppose I could bitch that the new, big homes are "blocking my view of the lake".  But really, what would be the point of that?  Or I could complain that some of the new people tend to keep to themselves.  But so what?  Not everyone needs to behave how I want them to behave.  Obviously not EVERY change is always for the better.  The only thing I know for certain is that things WILL change, and my only real choice is about how I respond to it.  I choose to be positive. 

[Candace]

Here's a hint. People here generally don't like jokes about rape, even if you're being fun and flighty.

Sorry about that, you're right.  I was being careless with language there, I'll be more careful in the future.

Bravo HBFIRE, and thank you.