Hacker News Reader

Comment by wallflower | Hacker News Reader

This article conveniently sashays around the real effects of gentrification due to the "entitlement" mentality of the more recent newcomers.

For example, I heard of a neighborhood ballpark that was used for decades by Latino children to play ball. The newcomers with dogs would chuck their dog's droppings over the fence and onto the ballpark.

Latinos who used to play dominos outside at another park. Until they were continually harassed by cops to stop gathering in a public area to play dominos. Seems like the newcomers didn't like the bodega feel when they were out walking their dogs.

See also: "Inside the Barista Class"

http://www.theawl.com/2014/03/the-service-economy-trap-insid...

View on HN

So many logical fallacies in a single post. Well done sir.

If you substitute 'newcomers' with 'foreigners', and 'Latino' with 'white', your post reads as exactly the same xenophobic screed I've heard over and over for years.

Ad hominem, appeal to emotion, guilt by association, and straw man.

Although to be fair that's the fallacy fallacy.

It's entitlement all the way down. People who live somewhere feel entitled to stay there indefinitely because they were there "first". People who don't live there feel entitled to buy their way in because that's how supply and demand work.

I don't think people who live in bad neighborhoods feel entitled.

The choice is often moving from one bad neighborhood to another. Moving is expensive and a hassle for everyone, it's no wonder people don't want to move without a strong incentive.

Define bad? Do you mean bad as in poor or bad as in dangerous and unsafe. I mostly hear gentrification in the context of poor neighborhoods rather than unsafe.

I don't think gentrification is happening in dangerous and unsafe neighborhoods. It's my opinion that is where many displaced residents move. Note: opinion, not fact.

I actually agree with your overall point - unless you own, you shouldn't feel entitled to stay. You should, however, be entitled to a safe neighborhood and legitimate opportunity.

"entitled to a safe neighborhood and legitimate opportunity"

That's kind of a meaningless statement. What does it even mean? Let's say you're correct and people are entitled to living in a safe neighborhood. Now let's say they live in an unsafe one. Now what? They're entitled to a safe neighborhood! It's their right! Who is required to give it to them exactly? Me? You? The states? The feds?

You can call something an entitlement or a right all you want. Go ahead. But in cases like this it's an incredible hollow gesture.

Of course it’s a meaningless statement. If they were entitled to or had the right to safety and opportunity, it wouldn’t be a bad neighborhood, they wouldn’t have to move, and there wouldn’t be gentrification.

This reads like an attempt to counter data saying that gentrification reduces churn from the pre-gentrified population with anecdotes about dog feces and dominos.

First off, anecdote != data.

But I'll bite.

> The newcomers with dogs would chuck their dog's droppings over the fence and onto the ballpark.

This seems more like douchebaggery than entitlement. If I had to hazard a guess, douchebaggery isn't limited to gentrifiers.

> Seems like the newcomers didn't like the bodega feel when they were out walking their dogs.

Seems like a function of (middle-to-upper-class) western life and its disappearing third places. But perhaps playing dominoes in the park is illegal?

Wait...Did you just argue that gathering in a park (a public gathering place) and playing a board game can be illegal? Where do you live that has laws like that?

I believe it's relatively common to gamble on dominoes, and gambling is often illegal. Even so, it's an innocuous crime and probably not the real reason they were hassled.

Today I learned that people gamble on dominoes. Not that I agree with gambling, or with it being illegal, but I suppose that is more justified than just playing dominoes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com