I dunno if hypocrisy is the right word. But there's certainly fallacies going on.
I had a discussion with a liberal cousin of mine who was complaining about gentrification. And I do think that 'gentrification' (or the demonization of it at least) seems to be common in leftist / liberal discussion groups.
--------
Lets really talk about it though. Gentrification is caused by the rise of housing prices in an area. The rise in housing prices causes... yes... land-owners to mostly win (land owners are then taxed more, they complain about it but lets be frank: paying their fair share of the gains is fair), and renters to pay more money.
That 'renters pay more money' part is the crux of the problem, because raising the rent prices causes them to be displaced (they no longer can afford the area and are forced out).
I don't think anyone disagrees that displacement is a traumatic experience, especially if it was forced upon you by things outside of your control (be it weather, be it crime, or 'gentrification' causing your rent prices to become unattainable).
------
Where I think liberals get things wrong, is that the traditional conservative viewpoint is that you want to encourage people to be homeowners instead. Sure, not everyone can afford a house, but home ownership literally solves this problem. When housing prices rise in an area, let the owner of the house benefit (and hopefully they aren't renting).
Furthermore: this should solve the NIMBY problems largely, because home owners will want to do things that improve their home values (because they'll largely benefit from the rise in home prices). So the people in your own, if they are owners, will want better schools, better transporation, lower crime, etc. etc. All the things associated with rising home prices.
------
But if the liberal "anti-gentrification" viewpoint is: forcibly prevent housing prices from rising (through a variety of means: rent controls, or even sabotaging useful transportation projects to prevent progress), then that's certainly not helpful to anybody.
And its not like I'm dumb about it either: we know that liberals will use excuses like the environment to stop a road from being built, or new train tracks from being laid down, or whatever (even if these mass-transit options would benefit the community). Attracting the NIMBY vote is certainly a thing liberals like to do.
Well, conservatives too to be frank, but its done through different language. (Conservatives can be NIMBY, but they'll never use the environment and/or gentrification as an excuse).
I think the gist of the video is that hypocrisy is largely limited to "those in power".
If you're in a liberal state, the liberals will be hypocritical. If you're in a conservative state, the conservatives will be hypocritical.
If you're not in power, you won't be able to make decisions in general, and therefore can't be hypocritical.
------------
With that being said: hypocrisy is weird when applied to a group, because any group is composed of many individuals. All of the individuals could be 100% pure and trustworthy people. But the group can be come hypocritical based off of the movement of the individuals.
Showing off where and how liberals are taking care (or not taking care) of their necks of the woods (be it California or whatever) is an important part of the discussion. At least, as important as criticizing conservative areas. And I think liberals do "own up" to being the party of anti-gentrification, so to speak.
I don't think liberals disagree that wider home ownership would be a great solution, but rather that enabling renters-who'd-rather-own to do so is very difficult.
The usual solution is to tell people to move to somewhere cheaper. But doing moving (a) costs money that many renters don't have, (b) often means a lower-paid job, so they're net no better off, (c) destroys culture and community, forcing people out of areas their families and community have lived in for many years and away from all their support networks, and (d) assumes that it's just a simple matter of dollars, rather than a much more complex combination of different life skills, different expectations and values, health issues, language issues, etc, etc, etc.
Slowing down gentrification (which has other side-effects not discussed here as well) is (a) something that can be relatively simply enacted (via zoning, or rent controls, or etc) can avoid all those issues. But doesn't address the longer term issue that there is a large cohort using that protection, and basically just kicks the can down the road as they, and their children, never get to start building the generational wealth of home ownership.
Liberals tend to value the personal, community and cultural outcomes; conservatives tend to value the absence of government control.
None of which addresses the point of hypocrisy: liberals are all for anti-gentrification until it's the property they own that is subject to rent control, and conservatives are all in favor of minimal governance until someone builds a factory next to their dream home. It's a human condition, independent of political leaning.
Right, it’s not liberal or conservative, it’s have and have-not. Different groups pull different levers.
Gentrification is when newcomers raise the prices for the extant residents. If the extant residents can afford price rises, that’s called inflation otherwise. Newcomers are coming in, there’s some mobility assumed. If you’re insufficiently well off, you will get priced out of your location. Mild economic Darwinism.
6 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 28.5 ms ] threadI had a discussion with a liberal cousin of mine who was complaining about gentrification. And I do think that 'gentrification' (or the demonization of it at least) seems to be common in leftist / liberal discussion groups.
--------
Lets really talk about it though. Gentrification is caused by the rise of housing prices in an area. The rise in housing prices causes... yes... land-owners to mostly win (land owners are then taxed more, they complain about it but lets be frank: paying their fair share of the gains is fair), and renters to pay more money.
That 'renters pay more money' part is the crux of the problem, because raising the rent prices causes them to be displaced (they no longer can afford the area and are forced out).
I don't think anyone disagrees that displacement is a traumatic experience, especially if it was forced upon you by things outside of your control (be it weather, be it crime, or 'gentrification' causing your rent prices to become unattainable).
------
Where I think liberals get things wrong, is that the traditional conservative viewpoint is that you want to encourage people to be homeowners instead. Sure, not everyone can afford a house, but home ownership literally solves this problem. When housing prices rise in an area, let the owner of the house benefit (and hopefully they aren't renting).
Furthermore: this should solve the NIMBY problems largely, because home owners will want to do things that improve their home values (because they'll largely benefit from the rise in home prices). So the people in your own, if they are owners, will want better schools, better transporation, lower crime, etc. etc. All the things associated with rising home prices.
------
But if the liberal "anti-gentrification" viewpoint is: forcibly prevent housing prices from rising (through a variety of means: rent controls, or even sabotaging useful transportation projects to prevent progress), then that's certainly not helpful to anybody.
And its not like I'm dumb about it either: we know that liberals will use excuses like the environment to stop a road from being built, or new train tracks from being laid down, or whatever (even if these mass-transit options would benefit the community). Attracting the NIMBY vote is certainly a thing liberals like to do.
Well, conservatives too to be frank, but its done through different language. (Conservatives can be NIMBY, but they'll never use the environment and/or gentrification as an excuse).
If you're in a liberal state, the liberals will be hypocritical. If you're in a conservative state, the conservatives will be hypocritical.
If you're not in power, you won't be able to make decisions in general, and therefore can't be hypocritical.
------------
With that being said: hypocrisy is weird when applied to a group, because any group is composed of many individuals. All of the individuals could be 100% pure and trustworthy people. But the group can be come hypocritical based off of the movement of the individuals.
Showing off where and how liberals are taking care (or not taking care) of their necks of the woods (be it California or whatever) is an important part of the discussion. At least, as important as criticizing conservative areas. And I think liberals do "own up" to being the party of anti-gentrification, so to speak.
They like to say the same thing about racism too.
The usual solution is to tell people to move to somewhere cheaper. But doing moving (a) costs money that many renters don't have, (b) often means a lower-paid job, so they're net no better off, (c) destroys culture and community, forcing people out of areas their families and community have lived in for many years and away from all their support networks, and (d) assumes that it's just a simple matter of dollars, rather than a much more complex combination of different life skills, different expectations and values, health issues, language issues, etc, etc, etc.
Slowing down gentrification (which has other side-effects not discussed here as well) is (a) something that can be relatively simply enacted (via zoning, or rent controls, or etc) can avoid all those issues. But doesn't address the longer term issue that there is a large cohort using that protection, and basically just kicks the can down the road as they, and their children, never get to start building the generational wealth of home ownership.
Liberals tend to value the personal, community and cultural outcomes; conservatives tend to value the absence of government control.
None of which addresses the point of hypocrisy: liberals are all for anti-gentrification until it's the property they own that is subject to rent control, and conservatives are all in favor of minimal governance until someone builds a factory next to their dream home. It's a human condition, independent of political leaning.
Gentrification is when newcomers raise the prices for the extant residents. If the extant residents can afford price rises, that’s called inflation otherwise. Newcomers are coming in, there’s some mobility assumed. If you’re insufficiently well off, you will get priced out of your location. Mild economic Darwinism.