May 17, 2007
District Won't Be Majority-Black for Much Longer
From the front page of this morning's Washington Post, it seems the last person anyone expected to be right about anything, perennial whack-a-doo mayoral candidate Faith, wasn't actually that far off the mark during last year's campaign: Chocolate City is rapidly becoming Vanilla Villa. The District of Columbia will likely no longer be majority-African American within the next 13 years.
The 14 percent increase in non-Hispanic white District residents and 6 percent decrease in blacks from 2000 to 2006 are probably the result of the gentrification of once-affordable city neighborhoods, demographers said.
The impact on the city's racial makeup is noticeable. In 2000, blacks made up 60 percent of the District's population. By 2006, that figure was 55 percent.
If the trends continue, the city will almost certainly cease to be majority black by 2020, said Robert E. Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. "It will wind up more like a Los Angeles or a New York, with no clear majority."
The history of Washington, D.C. is inextricable from its identity as a place that a significant population of African Americans calls home. African Americans were 25 percent of the population of the city in 1800, the majority of them enslaved. By 1830, most D.C. blacks were free people despite slavery still existing, and during the Civil War (1861-1865) and Reconstruction (1865-1877), a huge influx of freed slaves from other parts of the country moved to Washington. By 1900, the city had the largest African-American population in the country, a fact which paved the way for the Shaw/U street area becoming a booming cultural and social center for the black community in the early 20th century. It wasn't until 1957 that Washington's African American population became the majority ethnic group in the city, making it the first predominantly black major city in the United States. By the 1970s, the city's black population topped 70 percent, and they were clearly leading the politics and cultural make-up of the city, as they do still today.
Of course, the increased costs associated with living in the District of Columbia in recent years have meant that many lower-income African Americans have since moved to cheaper suburban locations in Virginia and Maryland. It's a demographic trend that no one, but perhaps especially longtime residents who see the changes happening right before their eyes, can ignore. The racial tension that accompanies gentrification is a frequent topic of conversation on this site, and the numbers suggest the same trends will continue over the next 20 years. D.C. will become less black, while the suburbs will become more so. Nothing could change the significant role African Americans have and will continue to play in leading this city -- but it does seem it's time to once again revisit one of our favorite topics: what exactly the city ought to be doing to ensure that longtime residents aren't displaced by the march of economic growth?
Photo by Ronnie R.
Historical information from Marya Annette McQuirter, Ph.D. on the Cultural Tourism DC site as well as ExploreDC.org.
|
"Vanilla Villa??" Seriously, guys, not only is that a stupid appellation, but it completely contradicts both what's written in the Post story and what appears later in your own damn posting. Specifically, that DC will likely end up with no one predominant racial group.
I for one welcome our new gay and latino overlords. Hello Appletinis and Chimichangas! Goodbye malt liquor and halfsmokes!
Black talk radio will resound with discussions of THE PLAN today. This is the conspiracy theory, certainly active since the 80s, purporting a concerted effort by the white political and business establishment to remove the African American population of the District.
I'm puzzled that the article in the Post doesn't mention this well-known concept.
The Post article has some funny math. If the rate of AA population decreases by 1% per year (as from 2000-2006), it will cease to be majority black in just five years, not thirteen.
And... keep in mind that many of those AA's leaving the city are not being "forced out". They are taking advantage of rising real estate prices and selling out. Seniors in particular are largely protected from real estate tax increases, and are leaving voluntarily.
All Post articles have funny math. The newspaper has extremely low journalistic standards.
The Post story's online comments are full of nuts. I am amazed - but not surprised - that some people actually believe THE PLAN exists. Do they really think city government officials are smart enough to actually carry out anything like this? This city can't even figure out how many employees it has, yet it supposedly has a secret plan for forcing out black residents and bringing in white residents? Oy vey. It reminds me of the utterly loony Arab conspiracies that "the Jews" knew beforehand about 9/11 and that's why they all took the day off from work at the World Trade Center.
A bigger question about this story is: So what? Should the government play ANY role in ensuring long-time residents stick around? Shouldn't the government's focus be on providing services to its residents, not trying to play sociology overlord? Cities change. It's the way it goes. Georgetown used to be a black enclave; Anacostia used to be nearly all-white. So? People move because of various factors: jobs, crime, affordable housing, big back yards for kids, nicer climate, etc. Once the government gets involved in plans to make sure this or that group stays in town, look out b/c there's going to be all sorts of lobbyists looking for handouts.
What surprises me is that Hispanics haven't yet stepped up to claim their share. It could be that many aren't citizens - or legal resident. I dunno. But city politics is going to be very different in a decade.
JM: Do not underestimate pressures on older African American homeowners in DC. Tax and utility costs are rising for all, as has the cost of maintenance for older housing stock. Many African American seniors worked extremely hard in the bad old days to become homeowners, and their emotional investment in those houses cannot be overstated. They hope to live out their years in dignity in those homes, but are now under pressure from younger family members to sell out and share the wealth now. The fact that seniors will have to find new housing in an expensive market is not considered by the younger generation.
DC Bubble hates the defensiveness and guilt surrounding these numbers. While some African American fear there is a "masterplan" to turn Chocolate City into a place only for the blonde-and-blue eyed, many whites engage in hand-wringing because they are forcing out black families. How many blacks have been forced out of Noma or downtown where the condos were built on brownfields? Or sorry can you feel for the black family that moved from DC to PG county where the schools are better?
If the rate of AA population decreases by 1% per year (as from 2000-2006), it will cease to be majority black in just five years, not thirteen.
A 1% decrease of 60% does not result in 59%. It results in 59.4%. A 1% decrease from 59.4% results in 58.81%, and so on and so forth.
Much like increasing the sales tax from 5% to 6% doesn't increase the sales tax "1%", it increases the sales tax by 20%.
When people have this debate it always reminds me of Chocolate City by P-Funk.
But seriously who cares. Y'all make it sound like a city is a static thing. Washington DC breathes, moves and reacts to the movements of people.
JM, you are misinterpreting the numbers. The Asian popualtion is now 3%, up 20%. That doesn't mean that it was -17%. It means it is 120% from its previous number (which if it is now 3%, was 2.5%).
Cranky, I couldn't agree with you more. The city shouldn't DO anything about changing racial demographics. It should try and make the city a better (subjective, I know) place to live.
Milk Chocolate City
The areas in DC losing the largest amount of black residents are Wards 7 and 8, which have seen almost no gentrification and where housing prices are still low for the surrounding area. Large movements out of here have been going on for decades. Its not accurate to label gentrification and rising housing prices as the sole cause of blacks leaving the city. Black suburbinization has been a trend here and throughout the country since the riots. Many people simply don't want to live in Anacostia and have been moving to the suburbs when they can afford it.
I do care in that I don't want DC to become another soulless city. And believe me, I am NOT saying that white people are soulless (being white myself). I just think that you can't buy out old houses (and force out the residents, regardless of race) and either renovate the place and sell it for over a million dollars, or knock it down and build a condo.
There has to be something about DC that makes it worth living in other than the political scene. There HAS to. If a vibrant black population is going to leave, then what do we have left? Drunk college kids in GTown and Adam's Morgan?
Sommer, I know you're white, but this could have been written a bit more inclusively. "They"?
By the 1970s, the city's black population topped 70 percent, and they were clearly leading the politics and cultural make-up of the city, as they do still today.
I never understood how THE PLAN was supposed to work? Isn't the DC government overwhelmingly black? If so, the whole idea of the DC government advancing THE PLAN to get rid of blacks through forcing gentrification, rising taxes, etc., is, well, stupid.
Even if there were some secret white cabal of business and political types, they'd have to have the active cooperation of the DC government to pull it off.
And thank you, JM, for pointing out that DC has special exemptions for the poor and elderly so they aren't displaced by real estate taxes.
Yes, utilities are rising as well. But DC has very low utility costs as it is, and again there are numerous programs for low income / elderly residents for utility bills.
Sure, I hate to see anyone lose a house they love. But to suggest it's anything other than the natural cyclical nature of cities is unsupportable.
Blah, if you are correct about Wards 7 and 8, the movement of African Americans has more to do with bad schools and crime than anything else.
Mocha Sunrise Metropolis?
Burnt Sienna Burg?
Here we go with the PC police.
It's funny how the Post and others will decry the District becoming more white, yet they won't show the same emotion for the loss of whites in Prince George's County. The county was nearly 85% white in the early 70s and now is something like 60–70% black.
To clarify my previous comment: Even if the author were African American, it would be a stretch to assume that she were part of the 1970s black population who led the politics and cultural make-up of the city. Sorry if I came off a bit snarky, but I don't see the problem here.
At least 2/3 of this city is rundown crap. If demographic trends coincide with city-wide improvements to previously unliveable neighborhoods, I'm all for that.
Thanks for the clarification James.
The "they still do today" sounds to me like an assumption that "we" here reading this are all white. To my ears it's exclusionist -- literally, "us vs them" -- and the concept could have been phrased neutrally. Sue me for caring.
Let's be honest, techne -- 99% of DCist readership is white.
Finally, we have proof that THE PLAN works! Also, the Klan owns KFC, Marlboro, and Snapple, so every time you buy their products you're contributing to genocide.
Who cares? Three-hundred years ago, DC was majority Native American and swamp. Thirty-years from now, it'll be majority Asian, Indian, and Latino. I don't see how any of these people will be "forcing out" those who already live in DC: you sell them your house, you get their money, they go someplace nicer, dcist and the Post gets to write a handwringing article about how people are free to go wherever they can afford.
And they forgot to mention that DC's loss is P.G. County's gain. Don't see the tax collectors in Annapolis crying over this one.
I tell y'all white folk why 99% of yo' readers be white is coz' y'all ain't talkin' 'bout nothin' worth really reading. This stupid ass site is like watching The damn Weather Channel.
Y'all know this stupid ass blog be for bored ass white folk sitting on they ass at work.
Vanilla Villa? Okay y'all white folk need to come up with something better coz' y'all really stupid.
I know y'all white folk think it's all cool and shit to be pushing black folk out they neighborhoods and then complainin out loud and on tv when those same black folk be returning to the neighborhood to go to the same church.
When all the black folk is out of DC then maybe y'all white folk can throw a block party or whatever it is that you wonderbreads do.
Y'all white people got some issues with shit.
i don't care what races are in DC as long as it's majority gay!
Rainbow: What about bi? Do they count? And I don't mean the countless "I've never done this before" Republican staffers that are still claiming bi status years later.
Male bisexuality is exceedingly rare outside of Canada, its natural habitat.
Let us not forget those august words of enlightenment from the mouth of Ray Nagin: "How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink."
O sage, bestow upon us your wisdom and your clever flavored beverage metaphors.
I've always distrusted the 'twelve pack bi' guys if they are beyond college age. They inevitably want to blame you the next day (not that I would know personally..... I'm only going by what I hear on the internets tubes). Being a big ho and blaming it on alcohol and/or your sex partner's inherent sluttiness/comehitherness - fun in college, annoying as an adult.
What does this have to do with DC become a frothy mix of mocha cinnamon goodness instead of delicious deep black chocolate? Nothing really.
Let's be honest, techne -- 99% of DCist readership is white.
99.9% is more like it, I feel like a fly in the buttermilk here.
I have been amazed at the sheer number of guys in this city trolling for gay sex but who claim they're really bi. In my entire life, I've met all of one guy who might have been a true bisexual, in that he really was into both guys and women. He was engaged to a woman, who was also bi (I'm more willing to believe in female sexual flexibility than male), she knew about it, and they had their rules for play on the side. The fact that he was upfront about it and it wasn't a secret between him and his soon-to-be wife makes me believe him. This was in NYC, FWIW. But people are more fun there generally, though.
I guess it's the Republican influence, and the fact that so many people in DC are from the South, but gay people here are sexually repressed to a degree I've never seen since I was in college.
Cities are now attractive playgrounds of sophistication rather than necessary destinations for the menial labor class. Masses of Blacks, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese etc that came here to find...ahem.."work" had better learn Microsoft Office or get a Law degree.
"I never understood how THE PLAN was supposed to work? Isn't the DC government overwhelmingly black? If so, the whole idea of the DC government advancing THE PLAN to get rid of blacks through forcing gentrification, rising taxes, etc., is, well, stupid."
Hillman: I actually very much believe that a variant of "The Plan" exists. Moreover, it is open and public. The DC Government makes no bones about wanting to attract demographics with a higher income. And, if one looks at income by race, it's clear that a disproportionate number of blacks will lose.
The key distinction is that at the core the issue is not one of race, but one of money and resources. It should be no surprise that race, class, etc, are what is discussed instead. That's, like, the story of the world.
But THE PLAN is specific to blacks (often called "Negro Removal"). Those that believe in it never talk about economics. They talk of it in terms of race.
I guarantee you that if most DC officials had their druthers the new middle class would be black, not white.
Attracting demographics of middle income is reasonable, given that a city can't survive on the income from liquor stores taxes, very poor people's taxes, and the occasional baseball ticket sale, given the stunning social program burdens we have (not to mention the lack of commuter tax, the tax free property in DC, etc.).
With higher incomes come better manners, taste and usually more local civic responsibility. The people who claim that we will have a "soulless Urbia" are advocating tax breaks for people based on their ethnic charisma value.
And for anyone that thinks DC is magically turning upper and middle class, I'd say you need to get out more.
Yes, a FEW relatively small neighborhoods are turning, fairly dramatically. But huge sections of the city are not. There is some middle class east of the Anacostia, but it's a fair statement to say there's also tons of affordable housing there. Ditto for literally miles in NE and parts of NW.
It always cracks me up how many well-meaning liberals will go on and on about how a ten block radius in Logan is turning expensive while ignoring areas 20 times that size in parts of town they've never heard of, much less been to.
That's not to say affordability isn't an issue. More correctly, reasonably safe affordability is an issue.
We have a public safety crisis in DC (if you can call a forty year continuation a crisis). We do not have an affordability crisis. There are plenty of affordable areas. It's just that they are often unsafe.
How DARE you suggest that the poorer sections of this city are unsafe sir. If marauding bands of YUPPIES that are ruining our town!
How DARE you suggest that the poorer sections of this city are unsafe sir. It's marauding bands of YUPPIES that are ruining our town!
I think if more middle class blacks moved back into the city from PG and Charles county, you would not have as much debate over the racial aspect of gentrification.
I think the same thing that is happening to DC has been happening to Brooklyn for a long time. Housing sky rockets and it makes way for more whites to move in. Who would have thought that you would see whites walking around Fort Greene in 2007. Talk about a school plan, I think Washington has stole the art of gentrification from none other than the Big Apple. It once felt good to be say "Im from D.C. or Brooklyn, we got our own way of talking, walking, partying, etc.... " Now it's just wow I can't believe that white people are moving to my 'hood. But people of color are not openly accepted in parts of say Far NW or Tribeca(Jay-Z). It's just hilarious thinking about the whole thing. "You're not home you're just guest, remember that!"
Long and the short of it is the Masterplan is working...working...working...ha ha ha
It's cyclical. The dream of people living thru the industrial revolution was to leave the dirty tenements, overcrowding and crime of city life to live in a proper house like their upper class overlords. They left behind any individual or ethnic group that couldn't make it to the Middle Class and get out to the burbs. Now kids that have a couple of generations behind them want the excitement of cities that have become much safer in the last couple of decades (though still not quite safe enuff to raise kids).
Yes, my apologies. I seem to forget how many yuppies are out there jacking people up in the street.
As for people of color not being accepted in far NW, that's just not the case, by and large. I'm sure there are examples of racism in upper NW, but this is a very cosmopolitan city, with people of a trillion different races calling Upper NW home (in large part because of the embassies in NW).
Is some gangbanger with pants drooping around his knees going to get stares in Woodley Park? Yes. Is a distinguished middle-aged black gentleman from an embassy going to be harassed in the same neighborhood? Probably not by the residents.
I still have not met this mythical upper middle class white guy racist who freaks out when he sees a "gasp" negro, I have met ghetto thugs who jack white folks for fun though.
Jesus, techne, do we need a lesson in basic sentence diagramming? "They" is a pronoun that replaces to the compound noun "the city's black population," which appears earlier in the sentence. If she doesn't use the word "they" the sentence would read, "By the 1970s, the city's black population topped 70 percent, and the city's black population was clearly leading the politics and cultural make-up of the city, as the city's black population still does today."
And that would just be poor writing.
To look at it from another angle, let's take a hypothetical sentence from a nonexistent sports article:
"They" is a pronoun that replaces "The Detroit Pistons' offense". But if the Detroit Pistons' offense is primarily black, and I, the writer, am white, is my use of the word "they" racially motivated and a sign of lack of inclusivity in my writing?
Let's try to keep the idiotic knee-jerk reactions to a minimum and think before we speak, shall we?
I just don't believe that. Just yesterday I was talking with a female Salvadoran friend about the ways and spirit of whites. Overall, just unconcerned un-caring, un-_____ Fill in the Blank please. Its not all whites(I credit that to Rob/Cheeda; What u know bout that connection? My advisor Dr. A who always stayed on my case about doing good in college; I gotta alot of love for u Andrea that's from the heart!) Not one trying to be hip or from the ghetto, but one that is genuinely affectionate and REAL. Really I ask God why I think this way but its not forced trust me its instilled. I just think the city is becoming one big fake NY or metropolis or whatever direction this city is going in. It's fake, fake, fake, fake...Let the people who really care about the city and really want all people to prosper step up and all the people with fake motives(in it for money and contracts or whatever dumb reason to buy and rent from people whom knowingly send prices sky high)fall back, don't speak now, and forever hold your peace.
There is plenty of bigotry to go around by both white and black people but I find it quite ironic when someone like chris lee claims he's never seen the stereotypical racist white man while at the same time bemoans the existence of the "menial labor class" of "Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans" who came here to "ahem...work." If that doesn't reek of ethnic and racial snobbery, then I don't know what does. If you have such a byzantine attitude toward your fellow white man who came here 100-150 years ago, then one can only imagine what you think of blacks, hispanics and asians.
I am black. That says something about your assumptions doesn't it? But I doubt you will acknowledge it. I am saying that what "work" was in 1900 to the "average" person has changed a hundred years on. And also BECAUSE of those generations from then till now people like ME can make such callous arrogant remarks. Likewise city livin' and the meaning of life or what you can do with your earthly life has changed for the common man, such as "vous et moi". ;) (pardon my french..really)
Hillman: Maybe I missed it- did anyone really claim anything was happening by magic?
On the other hand, more than one commenter in more than one DCist thread has identified DC as a historic repository for the region's poor (mostly black), and has used that claim to advocate for sending the poor to MD and VA.
The way I see it, those community leaders who talk about "The Plan" identify it as a racial rather than an economic construct because it is (I'd like to say was) advantageous for them to do so. Though plenty of other leaders talk about the need to protect affordable and workforce housing, and so speak of (I think needed) protectionism to a broader demographic.
Hey, what do you think of property taxes and rent control?
DC in African American (east coast) Migration was the midway point between the Northern cities. There of course was a mid Atlantic plantation culture but if you were from the southern states you could sort of settle in to DC if you didn't want to go up to Boston, NYC, Philly and so on and still have something of a city feel. I feel the blacks that went further north were more a part of the industrial revolution and interfaced more with European immigrants themselves SOMEWHAT outsiders to the White wasp establishment.
There are some really stupid posts here today.
All my coworkers read DCist every morning and I'm the only white one. What, is it news to you that Asians are good at the internet? That's an ironic commentary on technology and racism, btw. DCist is 99% white? Try 60%.
The house I bought in DC had a whites only covenant on it from when it was built (1916) to 1948. My neighborhood (Columbia Heights) was Whites Only up until 1948.
Well the African American community must feel some sense of loss in all this, but when one sells property to the highest bidder then one sees racial turnover. This is the same process that allowed African-Americans to break the color line and move into Columbia Heights.
I talked to a friend once who really, truly believed in The Plan. He knew about "red lining" which was a process where banks wouldn't loan money to people in "bad" neighborhoods and then no one could get their house repaired in those neighborhoods so they became slums. That kind of mysterious "plan" is real.
I spend time with my elderly neighbors who love us. My baby boomer neighbors hate me. my teenage neighbors hate me. My new neighbors love me.
I will never forget what Mr. Joe called it. Bless him that's really what he told me to call him. He looked at me, two hands resting on his cane and said, DCer, you know what I call this [meaning gentrification] I call it...
Last Brother on the block is a MILLIONAIRE!
he passed on before the real estate market collapsed.
DCer
"perennial whack-a-doo mayoral candidate Faith..."
FYI, if any of you out there are familiar with the musical (& movie) "Gypsy," about vaudevillian cum stripper Gypsy Rose Lee & her sister who became actress June Havoc, the above-mentioned Faith is really Faith Dane, who was not only the inspiration for the role of burlesque trumpeter Miss Mazeppa, but played her on Broadway & in the movie. "If ya gotta bump it, bump it with a trumpet!" Faith is now ~83 & even at that advanced age, still has great legs & not a bad body, thanks to her decades of dance, bump & grind.
Rent control - there are numerous studies out there that show that it actually does the exact opposite of it's intent. It creates an incentive for landlords to dump their rentals and make them condos, thereby reducing affordable housing infinitely more than if there were no rent control.
It also creates substandard housing. If a landlord is restricted to making, say, $75 a month profit on an apartment no matter what, then why should he put in nice new appliances or other amenities? It's no wonder a lot of apartments in DC suck (of course, I'm not discounting the cheapness of some landlords.... that's a factor as well).
And it creates artificially low rent for a select few, who then stay in place (or illegally sublet) for decades. This also means less affordable housing for others.
I say if the city wants affordable workforce housing then they should build it themselves, or give incentives to private developers to develop it. They shouldn't penalize private landlords by forcing them into an unwieldy and ultimately counterproductive program like rent control.
The rationale cities use is fairly unsupportable and is applied unfairly only to landlords. Yes, rents are high in certain parts of town. But so are other costs. But you don't see city officials implementing 'grocery control' on food sellers to make sure there are affordable groceries. Or 'gas control'.
Why place the 'affordability' burden on landlords only? Because it's easy to hate landlords, so the city has an easy target, and in DC especially it's a giant political plus to demonize landlords as a class generally. Sure, there are slumlords out there. But there are also a lot of decent landlords, and many aren't getting rich like people assume.
People act all mystified when they talk about why so many rentals went condo in the past five or six years. It's simple. If you have a property that's worth, say, three million dollars as condos and you could clear a million or more in profit by selling it, but the city restricts you to making, say $20,000 profit on it per year through rent control (plus adds some fairly restrive renters rights laws on top of that), what are you going to do? Many people would make it condos.
Property taxes - no one likes taxes. Unless someone else is paying them.
One last point - the city, while touting the glories of rent control, makes an exception. That is, landlords can pass through the cost of increased property taxes to tenants, even those under rent control. Funny how the official line about affordable housing changes when it's time for the city to collect it's cash.
The funny shit is that to the extent there ever was a 'Plan' it involved INCOME transfer not people. Since the 1970s the DC government has taken from high-income whites and given to blacks. Some of this was plain old welfare style benefits, but a lot was middle-class type city jobs and government contracts for black businesses. The biggest black benefactors then up and left the city for PG. Damn near everyone got what they wanted. The people who complain are just sorry losers who need to bitch about something.
Some of you people ought to try being a landlord . See how easy it is to collect rent from poor AND affluent people on time. The poor ones cry broke, the affluent ones cry litigation. Sure there are bad landlords but there are also lots of very bad tennants as well. Add taxes to that and you are going to want the most money and generally speaking the best class of tennant for the inevitable headache.
To continue my rent control rant -
It's always struck me as dishonest.... how there is no means testing for rent control apartments. There are quite a few people out there making $300,000 a year and living in rent controlled apartments.
Why no means testing? After all, rent control is essentially demanding something for free - demanding that a landlord provide you a service often drastically below market value, based on the premise that the recipient can't afford more. But turns out quite often they can afford more.
Apparently this question has been asked to rent control advocates in DC before. Stunningly, they sometimes take the position that to do means testing is an invasion of privacy.
So, you're demanding that someone else give you something for free, to lose money on your behalf, but to check to see if you actually qualify is an invasion of privacy? That's a bit of hubris if I've ever seen it.
And I wonder how many recipients of rent control would be willing to have their incomes subject to arbitrary control.
For instance, say an ER worker making $70,000 a year or a doctor making $200,000 gets a rent control apartment.
Would she then be willing to have her salary artificially decreased? After all, health care costs have skyrocketed and there really is a need for affordable health care.
As we all know, I'm incapable of stopping once on a rant....
Rent control, especially in DC, is mostly an acknowledgment of the failure of the local government.
DC is incapable of making 2/3 of the city safe, so there is an artificial lack of safe housing. How does the city react? By actually policing and making neighborhoods safe? No. Of course not. That'd involve actual work. Instead, they pass law forcing private citizens to artificially lower rents, especially in areas that are marginally safer than others.
Second, DC focussed all of it's public housing money on the very poor, totally ignoring the working and lower middle class. And they followed that up with decades of allowing public housing to degenerate into unsafe hellpits. Plus, they didn't require able public housing recipients to work, further adding to the crime and hell of public housing.
Again, the solution would seem to be to reform public housing and add a workforce component.
Does the city do that? No. Again, that would require actual work.
It's much easier to simply punish landlords.
And, like it or not, there is a racial element here. Quite a few in DC government view landlords as being white (and Jewish) and, by extension, fabulously wealthy and uncaring. I've heard this sentiment expressed more than once in city offices and amongst rent control advocates.
Chris Lee: Yes.
It seems like every long time or native black Washingtonian I meet either is from or has close family ties to North Carolina. A few will say Richmond. In this way, DC is like New Orleans' Chicago.
Hillman: All I really wanted to do by mentioning rent control and property taxes was to point out that "The Plan" is one way of framing one part of a larger economic discussion.
Mark: I don't really understand the connection you are making between rent control and The Plan.
Hillman: I'm making the argument that "The Plan" as discussed by community leaders is not really at it's core about race- that's just a (formerly?) convenient way of framing it. At it's core it is about economic protectionism for a category of people. As is rent control, various property tax proposals, etc. They all go to a similar economic motive, though their means and tools of argument differ.
NEWSFLASH: There IS a plan. It's probably not what the paranoiacs conceive it is. You see that's what officials DO. They PLAN and MANAGE things. People insist on reducing things to childish binaries like "black folks and white folks"..beleive me, if you are black and make 200k a year, you will have NO problem finding a good condo in DC. The preference for city planners though is to have affluent, educated, civic minded, law abiding, tax paying, revenue generating people. NOT illiterate, immoderate, anti-social, non-revenue generating people.
Rent control is a joke in DC.
I lived in a "rent controlled" apartment for five years, in that time my rent increased almost 40% and my landlord (actually his drunken wife) was still bitching about what I was paying. It was a nice, well-maintained place that had been renovated right before I moved in, so it's not like I felt like I was getting a bad deal; but an 8-10% rent increase every year is no joke.
Mark:
Thanks for the clarification. I understand now.
I'm no expert on The Plan, but every time I've heard it mentioned it always has a racial context. Specifically, it's the removal of all black people, regardless of income, by evil and oddly unidentifiable white people.
But I will admit the phrase "Urban Renewal is Negro Removal" was a brilliant line. Doesn't make it true. Just funny.
Hill Rat:
Yes, it does suck to have rent go up eight to ten percent a year.
But that's a lot less than the cost of buying real estate has gone up over the last five years. It's gone up, what, 150% in the same time your rent has gone up 35 to 40%?
And I'm willing to bet your landlord's real estate taxes have doubled as well. And it's a safe bet to say his labor costs have at least outpaced your rent increases. Have you tried to hire an electrician or plumber lately? The last plumber quote I got was $200 to show up (a 'service appointment surcharge'), $160 an hour after that. And the billing starts when the plumber leaves his house in Pennsylvania.
But I will agree that rent control in DC is a joke. Albeit I bet we agree for different reasons.
"But I will admit the phrase "Urban Renewal is Negro Removal" was a brilliant line. Doesn't make it true. Just funny."
Catchy, maybe, but not funny. It's a tragic and divisive slogan enngineered to motivate people, who deserve to be respected and appealed to on a rational basis.
Hill Rat: Gentrification catches up to everyone, eventually. I don't think there's a top rung on that ladder.
When are people going to grow up in this kind of public discussion. City living is competition for space. Land is scarce and the price of it in a capitalist society is determined by demand and supply. Adults accept that and don't complain about some half-ass "Plan Conspiracy" simple observation will reveal that their are many black, gay, hispanic etc yuppies finding apartments
But that's a lot less than the cost of buying real estate has gone up over the last five years. It's gone up, what, 150% in the same time your rent has gone up 35 to 40%?
That's a total red herring. What's at issue here is what my landlord was charging me and I know damn well his expenses didn't go up 40% in the time I was living there.
It's interesting that there hasn't been more resistance to gentrification (with the exception of kids throwing rocks at yuppie bikers going past Cardozo -- something I'd do if I were a kid too).
I think the answer to this conundrum is that many of the people who have lived here for decades under atrocious conditions, with hideous schools, are happy for a chance to get out. They are not being forced. Moving to PG is pursuing the American Dream, just as whites once saw cities as a place to escape from.
It seems to me like most of the teeth-gnashing about gentrification comes from hand-wringing whiteys, who are upset about a Target going into Columbia Heights when they'd rather see an indie book store, or white suburban kids who no longer feel sufficiently badass when they go to the 930 club.
Bottom line, if we wanna give people who live here a better reason to stay, they just want what the gentrifiers want as well -- better schools, less crime.
>
are you SERIOUS? ...Jesus.
Hill Rat:
Have you received any sort of raise or career advancement in the past four years? Yes? If so, can we come in as outsiders and determine that it's too much and cut it back to a figure we like better? Perhaps put an artificial cap on it so you'll never earn more than a certain amount?
No? If not, then why should you be able to do that to your landlord's income?
Hillman - You are comparing apples and handguns, but I'll play along because you're totally wrong.
There are caps and restrictions on how much and how quickly people can make money in numerous areas. Government employees like police officers, fire fighters, soldiers, sailors, etc. all have restrictions placed on their income and, just like landlords, they have made a choice to enter into those fields of work where there are restrictions on their income.
Also, you used a really clever rhetorical device by saying, "why should you be able to do that to your landlord's income". It's also quite disingenuous, because I as an individual don't have the power to restrict my landlord's income and you damn well know it.
Stop with the ridiculous red herring arguments already, it's getting really old.
Actually, if you are arguing for rent control, which you seem to be doing, then you are in fact advocating limiting your landlord's income. Pretty much by definition.
Comparing landlords to cops, soldiers, etc., isn't really valid. But, then, I didn't limit it to government employees. You chose only salaried positions in government. Not exactly free market economy of a similar privately-held item like rental housing. The better comparison would be to an actual free market activity, like selling groceries, selling haircuts, selling gas, medical care rates, plumber rates, etc.
Even salaries for cops and such are theoretically set by what the market will bear. It's not an artificial cap based on what you 'should' earn. It's supposedly done after an analysis of what it takes to get people to do those jobs and to make sure that most of them don't jump ship to another job or another locality.
I'm not saying it doesn't suck to have your rent raised. Of course it does. But I'm curious as to why you may think the landlord isn't entitled to raise rent to whatever the market will bear, and by extension I'm curious as to why that wouldn't apply to other privately provided services, and to your job.
Actually, if you are arguing for rent control, which you seem to be doing, then you are in fact advocating limiting your landlord's income. Pretty much by definition.
Comparing landlords to cops, soldiers, etc., isn't really valid. But, then, I didn't limit it to government employees. You chose only salaried positions in government. Not exactly free market economy of a similar privately-held item like rental housing. The better comparison would be to an actual free market activity, like selling groceries, selling haircuts, selling gas, medical care rates, plumber rates, etc.
Even salaries for cops and such are theoretically set by what the market will bear. It's not an artificial cap based on what you 'should' earn. It's supposedly done after an analysis of what it takes to get people to do those jobs and to make sure that most of them don't jump ship to another job or another locality.
I'm not saying it doesn't suck to have your rent raised. Of course it does. But I'm curious as to why you may think the landlord isn't entitled to raise rent to whatever the market will bear, and by extension I'm curious as to why that wouldn't apply to other privately provided services, and to your job.
Hillman:
There is strong reason and precedent that the price of a necessary but limited commodity (housing, oil, medicine etc) should be controlled (to some extent) by the government so that the controlling individual/individuals do not raise that price to a degree which negatively impacts the public good. This is the basis for the rent control argument, and many others.
By the way, some people's jobs/salaries are controlled in this very same way, so your question to Hill Rat isn't really valid. For example, the right to collective bargaining and, even more to strike, is effectively or outright prohibited in "critical" service sectors. Think air traffic controllers or military, or various other private and public sectors.
I think it's dangerous for the rest of us when someone can get *everything* they want... We need a balance of incentive and, well, balance.
Housing is not a limited commodity. It's just that some housing is more desireable than other housing.
A artificially cheap-ass apartment in a trendy and expensive spot like U Street is not a necessity. Basic housing is a necessity. But in DC it is in no short supply.
I guarantee you I could find you numerous affordable apartments on Craigslist and in the WP classifieds, posted in just the past day or so. It is not a limited commodity. It's just that they won't be in trendy neighborhoods with urban conveniences.
And, again, if we really think it's a problem, the government needs to start building their own affordable housing. But, then, that would require subsidy by all taxpayers. Are where would the fun in that be? When you can't punish landlords arbitrarily and selectively?
And we don't have price controls on oil or medicine (your examples), by and large. In fact, I can't think of any examples of oil or medicine price controls in the US, in the private market system.
And barring collective bargaining for air traffic controllers isn't exactly analagous. If an individual landlord raises his rates the economy doesn't cease to function, as would happen if air traffic shut down.
And even given your limited example of air traffic controllers.... they are still allowed career advancement and higher salaries as they progress. This is often denied to landlords under rent control, who see costs rising but are forever artificially limited by rent control.
I have yet to have anyone tell me why apartments should be under rent control but groceries, gas, hair cuts, medicine, etc. shouldn't be under similar controls. Aren't affordable gas, medicine, and groceries just as big a deal as affordable housing?
Of course, we're not even discussing the fact that rent control actually decreases the available affordable housing stock.
I should clarify a bit. Affordable housing can be found both in DC (albeit often in areas where crime is a problem that neither many of the residents nor the city seem to take seriously) and certainly in the burbs (and often with no crime issue). Which are, whether we urbanites like to admit it or not, an actual housing option.
Hillman:
If you don't even recognize that land is a fixed commodity, that zoning restricts the density of housing on said land, and that housing is therefor a limited commodity, it's not clear we can discuss this in any sort of real-world way.
Cheers,
Mark
Mark:
Land is a fixed commodity, but we haven't even come close to exhausting our land possibilities in the DC area, especially for the rental housing market (i.e., no massive houses on giant corner lots).
There are acres, probably miles, of undeveloped or underdeveloped land in DC. All you have to do is go down Bladensburg Road, NY Avenue, or many other areas to see that. Or even look at the baseball stadium area.
Even given the height and zoning restrictions, you could build tens of thousands of condos in the DC area. And with zoning revisions you could build hundreds of thousands (aren't we supposed to be encouraging higher residential masses in metro-friendly areas anyway?)
And the burbs have tons of open space.
Even with the housing we have now there are quite a few vacant and boarded up properties in DC and some in the burbs.
And I can easily find you quite a few apartments for rent in many price ranges in DC and the greater DC area.
Plus, zoning limits are arbitrary and can be changed given the need.
Sure, theoretically there is a limit. We couldn't build six billion apartments in the DC area. But as it is now, we've got more apartments than we do people, and we have the capacity to build pretty much as much as we'd need for the next 20 years.
Given all this, it's reasonable to say housing in the DC area is not a limited commodity.
And housing is no more a limited commodity than other private services. Certainly no more than many medical services. Yet I don't see us telling doctors they can only charge so much per procedure.
And of course the ultimate limited commodity (far far more so than housing even in an extreme housing crunch, which we do not have) would be certain medicines, of which there may be only one choice.
But I don't see us telling drug companies they can only charge so much for that medicine even when they have an absolute monopoly on it and without it people may literally die within days.
Nope. We save arbitrary and selective income limitation for landlords only.
Actually, if you are arguing for rent control, which you seem to be doing, then you are in fact advocating limiting your landlord's income. Pretty much by definition.
No, no, no! Rent control is not about limiting a landlord's income; if that were the case, then rent control would be tied to your mortgage and other expenses versus what you're collecting every month in rent.
People who smoke are evil incarnate. You're being discriminated against by those no-good Black people of DC; they yell shit at you when you walk down the street and won't file your paperwork quick enough to suit you at DCRA. Your tenants are fucking you over with rent control. I don't know where you get this insane sense of righteous indignation about everything; but you need to get over yourself homie 'cause you come off sounding like a whiny, spoiled, entitled, unbearably bratty teenager who thinks the world should revolve around what's best for him.
Hill Rat:
Even if rent control wasn't 'about' controlling landlord income, that is the very real effect it has. By design.
I'm sorry you're so upset.
But, you are twisting my words out of context.
First, I never said people who smoke are evil. I said people who smoke on others are selfish. Big difference.
I never said the "Black people of DC" are discriminating against me in the way you are suggesting (indiscriminately). I said a lot of blacks in DC discriminate, just like a lot of whites do elsewhere. Only in DC it's still considered acceptable, as you yourself proved when you routinely ridiculed and downplayed examples of black on white racism I cited to you.
And I never said my tenants were fucking me over generally. I tend to have pretty decent tenants, with a few stunning exceptions.
I argue against rent control because it's stupid and it's an unfair system based on class hatred and hatred of one group of people - landlords.
But I can't help but notice that you chose to attack me personally instead of addressing my arguments.
That's a shame. Because in the past you've shown yourself to be a bright and humorous guy. I was really looking forward to what you had to say on the subject. Apparently, all you have at this point are personal attacks.
Hill Rat:
To clarify one of your comments that I just can't less pass without some sort of correction.... when I was attacked in DC by three black kids they held a gun to my genitals and told me I'd be one less reproducing white person.
That's a bit more than the "yell shit at you as you walk down the street" scenario you suggested.
Son, you are so out to lunch on this I don't even know where to start.
First, I never said people who smoke are evil. I said people who smoke on others are selfish.
Puh-leeze! You have probably made at least 50 posts railing against smokers, forgive me if I didn't catalog every name you called smokers.
I said a lot of blacks in DC discriminate, just like a lot of whites do elsewhere. Only in DC it's still considered acceptable, as you yourself proved when you routinely ridiculed and downplayed examples of black on white racism I cited to you.
No, what I did was try to get you to step outside of your own narrow view of the world to see that there might be another explanation for what you perceived as discrimination. Unfortunately, you're so caught up in your own drama that you were just as dismissive as you accused me of being.
I argue against rent control because it's stupid and it's an unfair system based on class hatred and hatred of one group of people - landlords.
Riddle me this then my friend. If being a landlord is such a bad deal, then why are there still rental properties in DC and why haven't you sold your properties? I'll tell you why, because you're still making money off of them. All this bullshit about the free market is just that: bullshit. The gov't regulates our lives right down what you're allowed to put in your body, but God forbid the gov't keep someone from making as much money as they think they *could* be making on their property.