Hacker News Reader

Comment by imgabe | Hacker News Reader

Which are? There was a recent study which showed low income people in gentrifying neighborhoods don't move any more frequently than low income people do generally. And for those who actually own property, they get a huge windfall.

View on HN

A 'huge windfall' of sorts - they can sell their property for much more than they paid, but they may not be able to stay in the neighborhood, because their property taxes will have grown proportionately.

Are we supposed to care if people that get a huge windfall can't stay in their neighborhood? Like seriously, who cares? This isn't a real problem.

Because moving sucks. I hate moving and I do it a lot. And one thing I hate even more than moving is being forced to do something unpleasant through no fault of my own.

Yeah but, what rights are being violated? Less importantly, why do you expect me to care that you don't like moving? Is there a more irrelevant thing to be brought up for public policy discussions?

It is very cool and pragmatic of you not to care about the misfortunes of others. I am deeply impressed.

Getting a windfall and having to move is not a misfortune. Having to move is not a misfortune of any magnitude meriting sympathy. I don't like tying shoes. Big deal, who cares?

Boo hoo hoo you made a lot of money. You could sell some of that value to pay the property taxes, even doing a leaseback.

The property tax thing would not be true in California. Tax value is based on purchase price.

Low-middle income people get evicted. Poor families tend to not move very much -- those transition numbers don't reflect that as the hardcases are very mobile.

My city, which is basically at the median for prices nationally has a 60% home ownership rate. The poorest wards have a home ownership rate between 10-20%.

Maybe some residents benefit from gentrification, but it seems that gentrification actually speeds up housing prices.

Sources: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/real-estat...

Summary: Nice houses in nice neighborhoods cost more than crappy houses in crappy neighborhoods.

This seems... reasonable.

So you're agreeing with the criticism then? Property owners get stacks of cash, rich people move in and "take over" the neighbourhood, and the "commoners" get zilch.

Owning a generally appreciating asset then selling it generates more income than renting it and leaving. That seems pretty tautologically correct, doesn't it? I don't see how stating basic economic/mathematical facts can be considered a "criticism."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com