2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt

brainchild · Apr 20, 2019

Kirblar said:
This is not the case and you are missing something important. They are describing two patterns here.

The definition of gentrification I have been using incorporates displacement. It is essential to it, because the displacement is fundamentally the problem. The one they are using is not incorporating displacement as a necessity. Without the displacement, I would use a different term. So what would make these a "gentrification without displacement" different than a "gentrification with displacement."? A lack of demand pressure.

If you are looking at gentrification solely through a racial lens, there's a type that induces displacement, and a type that doesn't. The type that does will involve a housing shortage that is going to sharply raise rents from increased demand meeting a lack of supply. This forcibly pushes incoming and existing people down the socioeconomic ladder. This is very much the primary factor at play in a place like Minneapolis where you can see the housing supply vanishing at the same time rents are skyrocketing across the city.

The type that doesn't is going to likely be less due to economic pressure and more due to our national de-leading crashing the crime rate and making neighborhoods on the margin more appealing to people moving in or around the region. If there is adequate housing stock in the region, this is unlikely to be displacing people in the short or medium term because people in upper-income areas feel no pressure to move to lower income ones. It will alter the composition of the neighborhoods, and likely improve their socioeconomic status over time (which could cause issues in the long run as small incremental improvements occur) but the people moving in are not directly displacing the existing residents.

Actually, definitionally, the scholars have it right:

gen·tri·fi·ca·tion
/ˌjentrəfəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun

the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste.
"an area undergoing rapid gentrification"
- the process of making a person or activity more refined or polite.
  "soccer has undergone gentrification"

Displacement is not inherent in the definition of gentrification; the definition of gentrification only really covers the literal transformation of values/qualities of the neighborhood/region. Of course, displacement is almost always a result of such a transformation, but not always; some incumbent residents resist displacement by eating the price hikes and acclimating to the change if they can afford it, though these people are obviously in the minority.

As for the 'housing shortage', that is also an effect; a result of urban development intentionally attracting affluent people to confined geographical spaces that cater to those gentrifiers' 'tastes' to the point where housing supply that can accommodate existing residents and the new potential residents is non-existent. Out of all of the housing available in a society, it's not a randomly distributed coincidence that upper class people tend to migrate to regions of upper class interest that are in short supply; demand for affluent urban homes didn't emerge out of a vacuum, so logically, it cannot be considered a fundamental cause of gentrification. Looking at the reasons for the demand to gentrify a neighborhood will get us closer to understanding the causes of gentrification than starting at the point where the demand has already arisen and isn't sufficiently supplied.

SweetNicole · Apr 20, 2019

So, I saw these floating around on the Twitter-verse today from South Bend residents (AJ_Indiana and AKM). Some food for thought.

Fork said:
will the Monmouth poll ever released?

Maybe the monmouth poll was the friends we got along the way

dlauv said:
Did they ever say they had a new one coming? I thought the tweet was just making fun of redactions.

Pretty sure that there is a new one coming. The pollster for Monmouth tweeted something about teasing it too iirc. I'd expect it to come out Monday (timed just in time for the town halls on CNN).

Damisa · Apr 21, 2019

The only good way to stop gentrification is massively increasing the supply of housing in order to drive down prices. There are only so many homes available in Manhattan and San Francisco. You have to decide who lives there somehow.

Sure things like rent control will let poorer people who already live there have a chance to stay, but how about a poor person who doesn't live there yet but wants to? Tough luck should have gotten in earlier?

Increasing supply is the best way of helping all poor people, not just the ones who were lucky enough to have gotten in while it was still cheap

https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/...g-supply-helping-moderate-prices-seattle-area

samoyed · Apr 21, 2019

Damisa said:
but how about a poor person who doesn't live there yet but wants to? Tough luck should have gotten in earlier?

Kick someone rich out!

But no really I don't know how to answer this question. Because the way you phrased it reminded me of the situation with immigration and "open borders", and I have to say I'm in favor of open borders so logically I must also be in favor of open city borders.

Of course I still think rent control is necessary alongside build up of housing because we can't just keep kicking people out when the rent goes up (or allowing them to go up all the time anyway). Even better would be mixed rent/mixed use apartments so that people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum can benefit from the amenity improvements that tend to chase residents on the upper end of the spectrum.

brainchild · Apr 21, 2019

Damisa said:
The only good way to stop gentrification is massively increasing the supply of housing in order to drive down prices. There are only so many homes available in Manhattan and San Francisco. You have to decide who lives there somehow.

Sure things like rent control will let poorer people who already live there have a chance to stay, but how about a poor person who doesn't live there yet but wants to? Tough luck should have gotten in earlier?

Increasing supply is the best way of helping all poor people, not just the ones who were lucky enough to have gotten in while it was still cheap

https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/...g-supply-helping-moderate-prices-seattle-area

There is a logistical limit to supply; there are only so many houses you can add before the land you're building on extends beyond the confines of the region that attracted affluent people to it in the first place. In other words, the scope of urban planning has to scale with the increase of housing supply if you want to avoid displacement.

There's also the issue that displacement isn't purely the result of market-based factors:

https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/displacement_lit_review_final.pdf

kambaybolongo · Apr 21, 2019

SweetNicole said:
So, I saw these floating around on the Twitter-verse today from South Bend residents (AJ_Indiana and AKM). Some food for thought.

Pretty sure that there is a new one coming. The pollster for Monmouth tweeted something about teasing it too iirc. I'd expect it to come out Monday (timed just in time for the town halls on CNN).

Hmm who to trust, some rando on twitter or Steve Kornacki? 🤔

Vector · Apr 21, 2019

Steve Kornacki being a mess and non-verified on Twitter is so in character for him lmao.

But yeah I'm not seeing the minority appeal with Pete. He has some potential work Hispanics but he's going to struggle with black votes. His ceiling might not be that high.

Lentic · Apr 21, 2019

A thought popped into my head earlier today that the "anti corporation" sentiments have been bubbling up a lot since 2016. I feel like people are generally more negative of companies like Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google than they were pre-2016. I don't remember there being this much negativity directed towards them before. I suspect it's big factor for the increased Bernie/Warren support this time around.

Hopefully they'll be able to leverage that during the debates. The other candidates don't seem to be as hard on corporations. I think that will be a contrast that will stand out to people.

ebs · Apr 21, 2019

There are factions on the left who fabricate and spin as many false and disingenous narratives as the right these days, case in point Buttigieg.

Sadsic · Apr 21, 2019

SweetNicole said:
Pretty sure that there is a new one coming. The pollster for Monmouth tweeted something about teasing it too iirc. I'd expect it to come out Monday (timed just in time for the town halls on CNN).

I don't see anything coming out on Monday but I could be wrong

brainchild · Apr 21, 2019

Kirblar , Damisa

Here's the full research paper/study (415 pages!) that includes the literature review on gentrification and displacement that I posted earlier, and is quite rigorous in its analysis of the topic, including explanations for why "just make enough houses for everyone" cannot be a clean-cut solution to dealing with gentrification:

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-310.pdf

____________________________________________________________________________

Helio said:
Hellzzz yeah

This is one of the best videos I've seen on the issue and really makes a good argument for why capitalism is fucking us over when it comes to housing.

Damisa · Apr 21, 2019

The snippet you posted just says NIMBYism makes building supply harder, not that increased supply doesn't work. Sure high rise buildings with elevators are more expensive to build but it still makes sense in places like San Fran and NYC and the increased supply will still drop home prices for the area.

That said there are certainly other issues related to housing with things like race that need attention along with increasing supply, but I still think supply is the most important thing.

I am saying this as someone who moved to New York in 2009 and saved a lot and still can't afford to buy anything. I do a lot of thinking and follow a lot of stories about home prices.

kambaybolongo · Apr 21, 2019

This definitely won't come back to haunt him

less · Apr 21, 2019

kambaybolongo said:
This definitely won't come back to haunt him

Lmao. Every candidate is thanking Biden now.

RailWays · Apr 21, 2019

kambaybolongo said:
This definitely won't come back to haunt him

That's our gaffe king

dlauv · Apr 21, 2019

lol, Pete's standing on tables now and blaming Bernie fans for 2016.

I don't dislike the guy, but I wish people would stop upholding him on some kind of weird pedestal.

Kyra · Apr 21, 2019

kambaybolongo said:
This definitely won't come back to haunt him

He's very prone to this. He's a liability.

Deleted member 2426 · Apr 21, 2019

dlauv said:
lol, Pete's standing on tables now and blaming Bernie fans for 2016.

I don't dislike the guy, but I wish people would stop upholding him on some kind of weird pedestal.

He is a snake that will sooner or later show his true face. We'll see if he manages to keep up once it happens. All that religious and military boot licking talk was a signal.

Vector · Apr 21, 2019

kambaybolongo said:
This definitely won't come back to haunt him

Lol.

dlauv said:
lol, Pete's standing on tables now and blaming Bernie fans for 2016.

I don't dislike the guy, but I wish people would stop upholding him on some kind of weird pedestal.

Can't load that tweet - what did he say about Bernie fans?

Madison · Apr 21, 2019

"thats how we got where we are"

lol, what an absolute joke. I would like to see the full clip though, maaaybe theres something that makes it better in context.

dlauv · Apr 21, 2019

He basically talks about economic anxiety and that leading to populist leaders like Bernie and Trump.

Tamanon · Apr 21, 2019

Raster said:
Lol.

Can't load that tweet - what did he say about Bernie fans?

He said that the fact the "good" economic numbers aren't being felt by everyone could lead you to someone who wants to blow up the system. And that's how you get either Bernie or Trump. I mean, it's literally the argument people are making *for* Bernie, so not sure what the issue is.

Ichthyosaurus · Apr 21, 2019

kambaybolongo said:
This definitely won't come back to haunt him

It's quotes like that which make me wonder why he isn't a Republican.

Vector · Apr 21, 2019

Fork said:
"thats how we got where we are"

lol, what an absolute joke. I thought that unity was important?

Oh god. Bye, Felicia.

Him equating Bernie to Trump is so disgusting and exposes him as the anti Bernie plant he is in this race.

BoboBrazil · Apr 21, 2019

First Pete came for Beto. Now he comes for Bernie. Can't wait for Bernie's clap back. Where's Sirota at?

kambaybolongo · Apr 21, 2019

Fork said:
"thats how we got where we are"

lol, what an absolute joke. I would like to see the full clip though, maaaybe theres something that makes it better in context.

wowwwwwwwww

alienating bernie supporters is definitely a great strategy

Kusagari · Apr 21, 2019

For someone who is so intelligent and eloquent, Pete has a habit of speaking in very suspect ways.

That statement would have been nowhere near as bad without the "that's how we got where we are."

kambaybolongo · Apr 21, 2019

Kusagari said:
For someone who is so intelligent and eloquent, Pete has a habit of speaking in very suspect ways.

That statement would have been nowhere near as bad without the "that's how we got where we are."

pete knows capitalism is the reason we got here but if he let that slip his fundraising would plummet

Deleted member 2426 · Apr 21, 2019

BoboBrazil said:
First Pete came for Beto. Now he comes for Bernie. Can't wait for Bernie's clap back. Where's Sirota at?

I think Beto or Bernie calling out Pete would be a mistake. At least for NOW. He is the golden shiny boy.

It's better to let him continue say dumb stuff like this and then use his words to haunt at the debates. They are only 2 months away, anyway.

Dream Machine · Apr 21, 2019

Pete's getting painted with the Bernie 2016 "he's anti-minority" message, so he's clapping back on... Bernie. It's like poetry or something?

Kirblar · Apr 21, 2019

People getting their political information from youtube is so bad for the world.

Vector · Apr 21, 2019

If you had any doubt about what kind of candidate Pete is

Ortix · Apr 21, 2019

Raster said:
If you had any doubt about what kind of candidate Pete is

Nothing wrong with this.

Dream Machine · Apr 21, 2019

kambaybolongo said:
This definitely won't come back to haunt him

The condescending whisper really sells it though.

Talk to them like they're a powerless child he's about to grope, and he's got them in the palm of his hand

figuratively

for now

Kirblar · Apr 21, 2019

Raster said:
If you had any doubt about what kind of candidate Pete is

This is fine for any candidate. Going pure small donors in a 10+ candidate field requires you to have a preexisting donor network. That will not be possible for most and IIRC this debate was an internal blowup in Warrens campaign, where shes just not raising much money and is relying on her transferred Senate funds.

Lentic · Apr 21, 2019

Good ol Pete "All Lives Matter" Buttigieg
Also "Social Justice Warriors" and "Virtue Signalling"

Dude gets a yikes from me. Red flags everywhere.

Vector · Apr 21, 2019

Kirblar said:
This is fine for any candidate. Going pure small donors in a 10+ candidate field requires you to have a preexisting donor network. That will not be possible for most and IIRC this debate was an internal blowup in Warrens campaign, where shes just not raising much money and is relying on her transferred Senate funds.

Sorry but I'm going to trust the small donor-funded candidates a lot more as they're not beholden to any network of big donors. Bernie and Liz have given us no reason to think they're serving the interests of the elite class.

Bronx-Man · Apr 21, 2019

A running theme of this thread is not only is there no problem with the Dem party turning into an oligarchy, but that it's actually good that it does, for some reason.

Billionaire donors are our friends, baby.

Manmademan · Apr 21, 2019

kambaybolongo said:
wowwwwwwwww

alienating bernie supporters is definitely a great strategy

It actually is. Those people arent going to swing to him in the primary, and the rest of the democratic supporters are fed the fuck up with the way they behave.

Vector · Apr 21, 2019

Bronx-Man said:
A running theme of this thread is not only is there no problem with the Dem party turning into an oligarchy, but that it's actually good that it does, for some reason.

Billionaire donors are our friends, baby.

I'm honestly flabbergasted at the people seeing this and being like "ok? I have no problem with this"

It's not impossible to start small and build a small donor base if you're inspiring enough. Look at Bernie 2016, Beto 2018, and now Yang, to an extent.

These are all bs reasons to excuse what is frankly disqualifying tactics.

kambaybolongo · Apr 21, 2019

Manmademan said:
It actually is. Those people arent going to swing to him in the primary, and the rest of the democratic supporters are fed the fuck up with the way they behave.

lmao

Ortix · Apr 21, 2019

Manmademan said:
It actually is. Those people arent going to swing to him in the primary, and the rest of the democratic supporters are fed the fuck up with the way they behave.

I mean, those were actually the voters that were swinging to him in his poll surge. I think the better argument is that the majority of Bernie fans aren't going to hear about a throwaway line he made. Only the internet fanatics will.

Dream Machine · Apr 21, 2019

Manmademan said:
and the rest of the democratic supporters are fed the fuck up with the way they behave.

Because it reminds them of how they also behave online?

Ortix said:
I mean, those were actually the voters that were swinging to him in his poll surge. I think the better argument is that the majority of Bernie fans aren't going to hear about a throwaway line he made. Only the internet fanatics will.

And only dem party internet fanatics hear or care about how Bernie Bros behave.

Everyone's fighting in their closed garden, arguing today's rules for Calvinball, for the most part

Madison · Apr 21, 2019

Manmademan said:
It actually is. Those people arent going to swing to him in the primary, and the rest of the democratic supporters are fed the fuck up with the way they behave.

Please remember that this is the kind of daily behavior that Bernie supporters have to deal with.

sphagnum · Apr 21, 2019

Bronx-Man said:
A running theme of this thread is not only is there no problem with the Dem party turning into an oligarchy, but that it's actually good that it does, for some reason.

Billionaire donors are our friends, baby.

It takes the financial pressure off the working class. It's actually a form of charity!

SerAardvark · Apr 21, 2019

As much as I dislike Biden, that twitter video is misleading. It was part of a larger speech talking about inequality in the United States and he was talking about how the system is skewed to protect the wealthy - his point about Paul Ryan's taxes was that they had to target programs that support things like Social Security and Medicare in order to fund themselves.

He does also talk about things like making adjustments to programs, needing to be pro-growth, etc. but the tweet basically ignores the shitty thing Biden actually DOES argue for in order to score cheap points. There's plenty of obvious stuff to go after him on without making stuff up.

Kirblar · Apr 21, 2019

Raster said:
Sorry but I'm going to trust the small donor-funded candidates a lot more as they're not beholden to any network of big donors. Bernie and Liz have given us no reason to think they're serving the interests of the elite class.

The idea that every campaign should be primarily a "GoFundMe"relying on the backs of small donors is a fantasy.

Bronx-Man · Apr 21, 2019

Kirblar said:
The idea that every campaign should be primarily a "GoFundMe"relying on the backs of small donors is a fantasy.

Shouldn't we aim to make it reality? Isn't getting big money out of our politics a plank on the Dem platform?

kambaybolongo · Apr 21, 2019

SerAardvark said:
As much as I dislike Biden, that twitter video is misleading. It was part of a larger speech talking about inequality in the United States and he was talking about how the system is skewed to protect the wealthy - his point about Paul Ryan's taxes was that they had to target programs that support things like Social Security and Medicare in order to fund themselves.

He does also talk about things like making adjustments to programs, needing to be pro-growth, etc. but that particular tweet is framing it incorrectly. There's plenty of obvious stuff to go after him on without making stuff up.

The full video makes him come off even worse, who are you trying to fool?

Within the first minute he gives an unabashed defense of billionaires.Then he makes a bunch of vague throwaway lines about how the tax code is unfair and follows it up with calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Deleted member 2145 · Apr 21, 2019

Bronx-Man said:
A running theme of this thread is not only is there no problem with the Dem party turning into an oligarchy, but that it's actually good that it does, for some reason.

Billionaire donors are our friends, baby.

"money is a corrupting influence on politics and undermines the power of an individual's vote"

"yeah but that's actually not a bad thing"

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt

Independent Developer

The Old Guard

Independent Developer

Independent Developer

One Winged Slayer

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer

The Eggplant Queen

user requested account closure

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt

user requested account closure

Election Thread Watcher

User requested account closure