Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rockybalBOHa t1_ix85icv wrote

Reply to comment by JKnott1 in City reaches 300th homicide for 8th year in a row by Maxcactus

Population is increasing in gentrified areas and falling rapidly in crimeridden poor areas. The best hope for Baltimore is to keep gentrifying and pushing the boundaries of redevelopment into poorer areas while the 100% gentrified areas become pricier. That's how other US cities have cut crime. That's really the only formula that has shown to be effective. This is of course politically unpopular, though it is happening.

In any case, median income in the city has increased much more than the national median since 2000. This is a major sign of gentrification - weathier, more educated people are moving to Baltimore.

Also, even though overall population has fallen, the number of households has increased a lot in recent years. We still have a relatively high persons per household number. It will likely continue to fall until we are on par with wealthier cities.

54

yes______hornberger t1_ix87zpr wrote

Always appreciate the more optimistic takes on this sub! Agree on all fronts, especially after watching the gentrification controversy play out in the last city I lived in.

Anecdotal, of course, but since the WFH shift started in 2020, for every person I know who’s been chased up to the county by “crime and/or taxes”, I’ve met 2-3 new folks doing the “DC salary paying Baltimore bills” migration.

13

rockybalBOHa t1_ix9xro0 wrote

Yes. I think Baltimore faired better than most cities during to the pandemic. People who wanted city living, but at less cost, moved to Baltimore.

5

Bun_Bunz t1_ix8dv4b wrote

I'm sorry but where the hell do you expect the poor, displaced people to go when you kick them out of their neighborhoods???? They don't magically make more money and can afford these newly built gentrified areas.

13

VirginBarryGaming t1_ix8fpj6 wrote

They move into the cheaper surrounding areas - there’s been an ongoing exodus from baltimore city to county of the lower income earners because of cheaper conditions

23

Appropriate-Lab-5015 t1_ix9eq1s wrote

Baltimore County poverty rate and Title I schools is approaching what City has now.

The county also has a high overall enrollment and more black students then city schools.

1

VirginBarryGaming t1_ix9iu1d wrote

Sources on the poverty?

1/5 of baltimore city resident are in poverty, compared to baltimore county which is less than 1/10, less than half the poverty rate

Sources:

City: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/baltimorecitymaryland

County: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/baltimorecountymaryland

1

codyvir t1_ix8uy67 wrote

Hot take: Gentrification creates jobs and opportunity. In areas that are gentrifying or redeveloping there are increased opportunities for low and moderate-skill workers in the service industry and trades, and opportunities for entrepreneurship. An increased tax-base means additional municipal employment opportunities. Besides, population pressure isn't the problem in Baltimore - there's plenty of space for everyone who lives here, plus quite a few more. The problem is an opportunity and employment deficit.

15

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_ix9lp1v wrote

Exactly. I was on the Amtrak yesterday and every time I see entire neighborhoods of Baltimore, literally tens of square miles, of abandoned row homes and single family homes collapsing into themselves. There is NO population pressure, so “gentrification”, which is a bad word, in reality, is all the things you said, and more. Revitalization of an area improves opportunities for all and expands tax base.

11

iamthesam2 t1_ix8k8ij wrote

that’s easy… they go somewhere cheaper.

10

diopsideINcalcite t1_ixa4p9r wrote

I saw this happen as Remington gentrified. I lived there for a number of years and there were a lot families that couldn’t afford the rising property taxes as their home values increased. Often times they had to sell houses they didn’t want to sell and leave a neighborhood they didn’t want to leave. It was even worse if you were a longtime renter. Landlords sold a lot of the homes for development or redevelopment.

You can’t argue with the result though, as Remington did a 180. Whether or not it was worth it probably depends on whether you lost your house or benefited from the new development. Definitely pros and cons for each side of it.

7

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_ix9lf32 wrote

>they don’t magically make more money

Firstly, they often do, because new industry and tax base raises wages.

>can’t afford newly built gentrified areas

Sometimes. Sometimes they can. Sometimes the cycle persists where the “victim” is able to benefit from the positive change in wages and housing availability that was never present before.

Gentrification is code for NIMBY.

3

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_ix9l6i3 wrote

100% of the discourse surrounding gentrification is completely unproductive and like it was shown in DC, Denver, Detroit, New York, Atlanta, and almost every other city in the US, “gentrifying” areas is a genuine net positive because it’s a made up word that, in reality, represents accessible housing, safe neighborhoods, public parks and public services, robust public transit, thriving small businesses, wealth generation, and collaborative business that raises GDP.

Gentrification is NIMBY code. The transformations that have happened in DC’s Navy Yard/SE, Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward, and others, representing double-digit BILLIONS of dollars worth of investment, touches every part of the city and is an immense net positive.

People complaining about gentrification would prefer those places remain weed-filled cracked parking lots and piles of wind-strewn trash caught up against abandoned and condemned buildings in what is literally a wasteland.

Don’t let NIMBYs fool YOU.

9

todareistobmore t1_ixbd40p wrote

> 100% of the discourse surrounding gentrification is completely unproductive and

obviously self-contradictorily, you're sallying into a thread about the homicide rate to ally with the cryptoconservative who introduced the diversion.

the best option re: housing in terms of mitigating any socioeconomic precursors to crime should be centered around mitigating those disparities. A fun game to play when people talk about gentrification as a means to trickle-down equitization is to ask them if they support landlords being required to accept voucher tenants bc, well, you know the answer.

0

rockybalBOHa t1_ixfz150 wrote

I guess I'm the "cryptoconservative"? Nice word you made up there.

I don't consider myself a conservative. I'm more of a pragmatist. I see what has worked in other cities and think that's what needs to happen here because no one has done it any other way. Sure, it would be great if people could make any neighborhood safe and prosperous without population turnover, but that hasn't been the reality in America, and I doubt Baltimore is going to be the first city to figure it out.

1

Laxwarrior1120 t1_ixa08d7 wrote

I've never understood why "gentrification" was ever seen as an even remotely bad thing...

"Oh no an overall increase in wealth, whatever will I do!?!"

8

2020steve t1_ixaijkq wrote

An overall increase in wealth for whom, exactly?

The people who get priced out of neighborhoods have to go somewhere and the problems that devalued their homes don't really get solved. If one of the residents is a convicted felon in that neighborhood, he's a convicted felon somewhere else too. If they were on Suboxone in Reservoir Hill, they're on Suboxone in Landsdowne.

Not only that but just because you think a neighborhood is terrible and the people don't really want you there doesn't mean it's not someone's home. It's functional for them. Maybe they won't be able to function as well elsewhere. Maybe they won't be so welcome.

The other longer term problem is that it's investors, often out-of-towners, who buy these properties and rent them out. The people who live there tend to live where it's trendy and will move onto the next big thing in a few leases. You really don't want investors owning chunks of a city. That's how Baltimore got into this mess in the first place.

−2

Anarcho-Crab t1_ix8hi0i wrote

This take is disgusting. Just push poor people out of sight and out of mind so you don't have to think of the human toll our economic system has created??? Ignore any continued crime caused by poverty in whatever neighborhoods you've exiled us to? Remove the generational Baltimoreans who actually built this town and take advantage of our work? Fuck that.

And reminder, you want gentrification but who make your stupid ass coffee or artisanal pizza or stock the shelves at anthropology? Oh right, under paid folks. I'm not about to let my city turn into some bubble of wealthy people where we lose our city's culture. Kick rocks.

−14

Appropriate-Lab-5015 t1_ix8r2fv wrote

They get pushed to middle river, essex, whitearsh/perry hall, parkville, timonium, cockeysville, owings mills, etc.

Lots of section 8 in Baltimore county now.

13

Cheomesh t1_ix95h3i wrote

>timonium

Really? I'm up there a time and again but it didn't seem low income to me.

−2

Xhosa1725 t1_ix8lr5r wrote

Given the massive food deserts in the poorest parts of our city, the argument can be made that residents would be better off leaving. And I say that as Price Rite just announced they're closing the SoWebo location in a few weeks, leaving thousands of people without access to decent food.

5

Anarcho-Crab t1_ix8ngr0 wrote

I'd really rather spend the rest of my days fighting to get affordable grocery stores and community gardens in our communities as well as jobs then leave. My moms family have been Baltimoreans since the start of the 1800s, we arent leaving no matter how hard this shit gets.

2

Xhosa1725 t1_ix99ap9 wrote

Yes, of course. You're exactly right. I guess from my perspective I just want to see people be able to live comfortably with affordable access to quality food. In some cases, that isn't possible without leaving though. I don't want to see your mother's family leave either but I also don't want to see them struggle just for the sake of staying, if there are better alternatives out there.

4

rockybalBOHa t1_ix9y3xt wrote

A lot of people living in the city would have a much better quality of life living somewhere else. Hence the decline in population in poor neighborhoods. It's unfortunate, but part of the cycle many cities experience.

5