Author Topic: Baltimore Cleaner than DC  (Read 26521 times)

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #45 on: June 16, 2005, 05:38:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Sir HC:
   
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
  That's because all of the poor uneducated minorities were driven out of San Francisco by ridiculous housing costs, to Oakland and beyond.
 
   
It's a good thing that's not happening in DC, LA, NY, Chicago, or any other big city in America. [/b]
Two friends in the SF area:
 
 1.  1200 sq foot condo near Japantown.  $710,000.
 2.  Looking at places in Marin.  1350 sq ft.  $1,100,000.
 
 Nothing comes close to that here that I see. [/b]
Well, I've just shopped for a condo here and saw a shitload of 800 sq foot places for $500,000 in neighborhoods that were marginal just a couple years ago (Logan, east U Street, Columbia Heights).  No, I can't price a 1200 sq foot place because it was way beyond my price range.  
 
 I know, I know, California is the one place putting DC to shame real estate price-wise, I won't argue that, but it ain't to walk in the park here anymore.

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #46 on: June 16, 2005, 05:41:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
 No, I can't price a 1200 sq foot place because it was way beyond my price range.  
 
Actually friends just sold a townhouse on Bryant Street right off North Capitol Street for $685,000.  It's probably in the 1200 sq foot range, and in a dicey neighborhood with tiny pockets of gentrification (when I say tiny pockets, I mean like a row of three houses on a tough block).  Gangs and drug deals a block or two away.
 
 Other townhouses on the same block are being split into one-floor condos going for over $400K a piece. (The whole townhouse would have sold for under $200K just two to three years ago).

mischief1702

  • Guest
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #47 on: June 16, 2005, 06:00:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
  Well I did see a whole lot more people sleeping on the streets of San Francisco than I do on the streets of DC.
Probably because it doesn't snow here.  The weather is nice year round making it attractive to the homeless.  Our Mayor has a new program that is trying to help the homeless situation here and in it's first year the results have been fairly positive.  I his good work continues because the homeless situation here is in dire need of attention.
 
 [/b]
To further add to the hijacking of this thread...
 In '92 and '93 I was the night supervisor of the homeless shelter at Polk and Geary, in the Tenderloin.  It's true that the city has an enormous homeless population, and I always attributed it to a couple of things.  First is that this was the height of the crack epidemic (but there may be more meth users there now than there were crack users then, so the numbers may not have gone down any), and second was the fact that -- at the time -- S.F. had one of the most lenient residency policies when it came to welfare.  I don't remember how long exactly, but it seemed like you only had to live there for a few days in order to be eligible.  Other jurisdictions knew this and on more than one occasion we would get a newcomer claiming (with proof) that the welfare authorities or police department of whatever place they came from put them on a one-way bus for S.F. saying some variant of "Go to San Francisco.  You'll love it there. It's sunny all the time and the welfare checks are huge!"
 
 Of course, then there were all the annoying hippies who wouldn't be homeless if it weren't for the fact that they forgot what decade it was...

Dr. Anton Phibes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1089
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #48 on: June 16, 2005, 06:03:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
  Perhaps it was just the neighborhoods I was hanging around in, but I just returned from San Francisco, which I can say was the dirtiest, ugliest city full of fucked up degenerates in America. You want to see loser white people, just go to San Fran.
 
 Good food, cd shopping and thrift store shopping there though, I'll give them that.
>>>Well,it sounds like you had a wonderful visit to my old neighborhood! The Haight. In all fairness I lived in the upper Haight area all the way on top of Ashbury street.There are some real scumbags there on the streets that's for sure. It has gotten so much worse since I lived there in the early 90's. And it was bad then! What is amazing is the amount of young,white losers that have just given up........at 23 years of age..... and have decided that this is how they plan to make a living........forever!...Panhandling and drug using....what a future!.....I used to give it back to them on a daily basis...scream right in their face....what's a shame is the fact that there are some true homeless and destitute that roam the streets and are truly needy.....mentally deficient and thrown out of facilities and on to the streets...at 60 years old.....and vets who have returned home to nothing and found there way to the sidewalks of San Fran......I ran into as many that had reason to be there as young assholes that didn't to be honest with ya....

frostytheswami

  • Guest
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #49 on: June 16, 2005, 10:51:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Sir HC:
  Two friends in the SF area:
 
 1.  1200 sq foot condo near Japantown.  $710,000.
 2.  Looking at places in Marin.  1350 sq ft.  $1,100,000.
 
 Nothing comes close to that here that I see.
A friend of mine and his wife just sold their 1500 sq foot townhouse in Adams Morgan for $740,000...they had multiple offers over 700K.

Sir HC

  • Member
  • Posts: 4059
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #50 on: June 16, 2005, 11:34:00 pm »
This is disturbing.  It seems the west coast IS losing its highest place.  I am in shock.

swimk

  • Guest
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #51 on: June 17, 2005, 03:34:00 pm »
I don't care what formula they use, there is no way that Baltimore is a cleaner city than DC.  Baltimore is a dump.

sonickteam2

  • Guest
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #52 on: June 17, 2005, 03:52:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by tbsbn:
  I don't care what formula they use, there is no way that Baltimore is a cleaner city than DC.  Baltimore is a dump.
and you're an asshole but you dont see us complaining!

eltee

  • Member
  • Posts: 3809
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #53 on: June 17, 2005, 04:17:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
  So by your logic (the greater the population, the more homeless people), NYC should have the largest homeless population, by far. Where do they keep them all?
 
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by El Tee:
   
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
     
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
  Well I did see a whole lot more people sleeping on the streets of San Francisco than I do on the streets of DC.
Probably because it doesn't snow here.  The weather is nice year round making it attractive to the homeless. [/b]
You got it. Your water (they bay) has to be cleaner than the Potomac. In addition, there are a helluva lot more people in San Fran.
 However, I have noticed a decline in DC in the past 5-10 years. [/b]
[/b]
Guilliani cleaned up the city...used to be more

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #54 on: June 17, 2005, 05:33:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
  So by your logic (the greater the population, the more homeless people), NYC should have the largest homeless population, by far. Where do they keep them all?
 
Hoboken

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2005, 05:12:00 pm »
Rhett, I'll be sure to share your thoughts on the area tonight.
 
 Mid-Market plan: Gentrification or revitalization?
 Public to comment on blueprint at meeting tonight
 By Marisa Lagos
 Staff Writer
 Published: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:36 AM PDT
 
 A city plan to "revitalize" Market Street between Fifth and 11th streets is either a rare chance to create a vibrant art district in one of The City's most crime-ridden areas or the latest attempt to push poor people out of San Francisco, depending on whom you ask.
 
 Both sides will be on hand tonight to offer reasons why the Planning Commission should approve or reject the Redevelopment Agency's 30-year plan for Mid-Market. In the works for 11 years, the redevelopment plan would attempt to create a mixed-use neighborhood that includes new housing as well as arts, culture and entertainment outlets.
 
 Carolyn Diamond and others on the Project Area Committee that has worked with The City for 10 years to develop the plan see it as the beginning of a unique new neighborhood in an area plagued with crime and neglect. In 30 years, Diamond can imagine young students and families strolling along Market Street on a Saturday night, taking in a play, enjoying a late dinner and then walking to their home only blocks away.
 
 "And they wouldn't think twice about doing it, because it would be safe," she explained. "It would be a self-contained, self-sustained neighborhood â?¦ with a feel similar to North Beach."
 
 For activist Richard Marquez and others, however, redeveloping Mid-Market is simply "the final nail in the coffin in terms of pushing low-income people out of this portion of San Francisco." Marquez said 150 people have shown up at each of two meetings sponsored by community groups who are railing against what they see as unfair gentrification that will displace low-income residents.
 
 "Most artists and nonprofits have been ignored in this plan â?¦ [it] is dominated by the voices of property owners and big businesses," he said.
 
 Marquez says The City's characterization of affordable housing in the area, 60 percent of the average median income, will prevent many low-income residents from actually being able to live there, which Diamond disputes. City law will prevent anyone from being displaced, Diamond added.
 
 "What's the alternative? Leave it as it is?" she asked. "That's shameful."
 
 For Max Bagheri, owner of Opi's Grill and Café on Market and Sixth streets, change cannot come soon enough. Only three days ago, Bagheri's business was broken into and the cash register stolen.
 
 "I think it's a good idea, but so far it's all talk," he said. "I have to fight with people every day who are disturbing my customers â?¦ I'm hoping it gets better."
 
 The Planning Commission will consider the plan tonight at 6 p.m. If it is passed, the Redevelopment Commission and the Board of Supervisors must also approve the plan before Mid-Market becomes an actual redevelopment area.
27>34

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2005, 05:19:00 pm »
Studies: Gentrification a boost for everyone
 By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
 
 Everyone knows gentrification uproots the urban poor with higher rents, higher taxes and $4 lattes. It's the lament of community organizers, the theme of the 2004 film Barbershop 2 and the guilty assumption of the yuppies moving in.
 
 But everyone may be wrong, according to Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University.
 
 In an article last month in Urban Affairs Review, Freeman reports the results of his national study of gentrification â?? the movement of upscale (mostly white) settlers into rundown (mostly minority) neighborhoods.
 
 His conclusion: Gentrification drives comparatively few low-income residents from their homes. Although some are forced to move by rising costs, there isn't much more displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods than in non-gentrifying ones.
 
 In a separate study of New York City published last year, Freeman and a colleague concluded that living in a gentrifying neighborhood there actually made it less likely a poor resident would move â?? a finding similar to that of a 2001 study of Boston by Duke University economist Jacob Vigdor.
 
 Freeman and Vigdor say that although higher costs sometimes force poor residents to leave gentrifying neighborhoods, other changes â?? more jobs, safer streets, better trash pickup â?? encourage them to stay. But to others, gentrification remains a dirty word.
 
 "All you have to do is talk to people around here," says James Lewis, a tenant organizer in Harlem, New York's most famous black neighborhood. "Everybody with money is moving into Harlem, and the people who are here are being displaced."
 
 Even residents who have survived gentrification tend to believe it forces people out.
 
 Maria Marquez, 37, has slept on the sofa for 12 years to give her mother and son the two bedrooms in their apartment in Chicago's gentrifying Logan Square area. But eventually, she says, "we're gonna get kicked out. It's a matter of time."
 
 Kathe Newman, assistant professor of public policy at Rutgers University, argues that Freeman's research in New York understates the extent of displacement. But she says he has raised a good question: How, in the face of relentlessly higher living costs, do so many poor people stay put?
 
 A hot-button issue
 
 Gentrification has spawned emotional disputes in cities around the nation:
 
 â?¢In northwest Fort Lauderdale, where streets are named for the district's prominent old African-American families, three of four new home buyers are white, according to a survey by the Sun-Sentinel. City Commissioner Carlton Moore told the newspaper his largely black constituency fears displacement, even though he says it won't happen.
 
 â?¢In the predominantly Latino working class barrio of East Austin, the new Pedernales Lofts condominiums have raised adjacent land values more than 50% since 2003. Last fall, someone hung signs from power lines outside the lofts saying, "Stop gentrifying the East Side" and "Will U give jobs to longtime residents of this neighborhood?"
 
 â?¢In Charlotte, a City Council committee voted in December to remove language from a city planning department report that downplayed gentrification's threat to neighborhoods. Development could uproot some people, councilman John Tabor told the Charlotte Observer "If there are people in these neighborhoods who have to move because they can't afford their taxes, that's who I want to help," he said.
 
 â?¢In Boston's North End, the destruction of the noisy Central Artery elevated highway promises to attract younger, more affluent new residents and dilute the traditional Italian immigrant culture.
 
 In the two decades after World War II, government urban renewal schemes tore down whole neighborhoods and scattered residents.
 
 Gentrification, which appeared in the 1970s, was something else. Motivated by high gasoline prices, suburban sprawl and a new taste for old architecture, some middle class whites began moving into neighborhoods that had gone out of fashion a generation or two earlier.
 
 Here's how it works: A dilapidated and depopulated but essentially attractive neighborhood â?? solid housing stock, well laid-out streets, proximity to the city center â?? is discovered by artists, graduate students and other bohemians.
 
 Block by block, the neighborhood changes. The newcomers fix up old buildings. Galleries and cafes open, and mom 'n' pop groceries close. City services improve. Finally, the bohemians are joined by lawyers, stockbrokers and dentists. Property values rise, followed by property taxes and rents.
 
 To some urban planners, gentrification is a solution to racial segregation, a shrinking tax base and other problems. To others, it is a problem: Poor blacks and Hispanics, who've held on through hard times and sometimes started the neighborhood's comeback, are ousted by their own success.
 
 Jose Sanchez, an urban planning expert at Long Island University in Brooklyn, says some changing neighborhoods stabilize with a mixture of people. But he says the poor â?? and the bohemian pioneers â?? can also be "washed out" by scheming landlords or government policies such as rezoning and urban renewal.
 
 The poor stay put
 
 Freeman and Vigdor say gentrification has gotten a bad rap. When they studied New York City and Boston, respectively, they found that poor and less educated residents of gentrifying neighborhoods actually moved less often than people in other neighborhoods â?? 20% less in New York.
 
 For his national study published this year, Freeman found only a slight connection between gentrification and displacement. A poor resident's chances of being forced to move out of a gentrifying neighborhood are only 0.5% greater than in a non-gentrifying one.
 
 So how do some neighborhoods change so dramatically? Freeman says it's mostly the result of what he calls "succession": Poor people in gentrifying neighborhoods who move from their homes â?? for whatever reason â?? usually are replaced by people who have more income and education.
 
 Freeman and Vigdor say skeptics who view gentrification merely as " 'hood snatching" should remember three things:
 
 â?¢Many older neighborhoods have high turnover, whether they gentrify or not. Vigdor says that over five years, about half of all urban residents move.
 
 â?¢Such neighborhoods often have so much vacant or abandoned housing that there's no need to drive anyone out to accommodate people who want to move in. A quarter of the housing in one section of Boston's South End was vacant in 1970; the population had dropped by more than 50% over 20 years. Today, the population has increased more than 50%, and the vacancy rate is less than 2%.
 
 â?¢Rising housing costs in gentrifying districts may ensure that poor residents who do move leave the neighborhood, rather than settle elsewhere in it. Since their places usually are taken by more affluent, better educated people, the neighborhood's character and demographics change.
 
 Vigdor argues that hatred of gentrification is largely irrational: "We were angry when the middle class moved out of the city," he says. "Now we're angry when they move back."
 
 He asks whether Detroit, which in 50 years has lost half its population and most of its middle class, would not have been better off with gentrification than it has been without it.
 
 A housing shortage
 
 Gentrification is a symptom of a bigger problem: Metro areas don't create enough housing, Vigdor says. When prices in the suburbs get high enough, home buyers start looking at "undervalued" urban housing. If it's close to downtown and has some period charm, so much the better.
 
 But critics insist gentrification does real harm to real people. Lewis, the Harlem organizer, says he can't get statements from people who were forced out because he doesn't know where they went.
 
 A surprising number of poor people, however, manage to hold on. Some explanations:
 
 â?¢Homeownership. Homeowners face rising property taxes, but unlike renters they also stand to gain from rising values. Idida Perez, 46, complains that taxes and escrow payments on her two-family house near Logan Square in Chicago have jumped $300 a month over the past few years. But the house, which she and her husband bought for $200,000 in 1990, is now worth $400,000.
 
 â?¢Rent control. Samuel Ragland, 82, pays $115 a month for his one-room rent-controlled apartment on fast-gentrifying West 120th Street in Harlem. His building is being converted into condos, but under New York law, his landlord can't move him out unless he's given a comparable apartment at a comparable rent in the same area.
 
 â?¢Government subsidies. Carole Singleton, 52, had to retire from her job as a hospital administrator after she got cancer. But she's been able to stay in Harlem because she pays only $300 of the $971 rent for her apartment; a federal housing subsidy covers the rest.
 
 â?¢Doubling (or tripling) up. After the rent on Ofelia Sanchez's one-bedroom apartment in the Logan Square area went from $500 to $600, she and her two kids moved into a three-bedroom with Sanchez's mother and her sister's family. The apartment houses 10 people. Sanchez and her son share a bed, and her daughter sleeps on the floor. But Sanchez won't move; she works as a tutor at the local elementary school, and her mother babysits while she takes classes at Chicago State University. "This is home," she says of the neighborhood where she's lived for 26 of her 27 years. "I don't know anyone anywhere else."
 
 â?¢Landlord-tenant understandings. In return for $595 monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment, tenant Maria Marquez rakes the leaves and shovels the front walk. She lays floor tile, repairs holes in the porch and changes light fixtures. It enables her, her son and her mother to stay in an area of Chicago where two-bedrooms rent for $1,000.
 
 â?¢More income devoted to rent. Poor New York households in gentrifying neighborhoods spent 61% of their income on housing, compared with 52% for the poor in non-gentrifying ones, Freeman found. Klare Allen, who is in her mid-40s, has been able to keep her three-bedroom apartment in Roxbury, a black neighborhood close to downtown Boston. But she has to pay $1,400 a month â?? 75% of her monthly income.
 
 â?¢Prayer. Alma Feliciano, 46, of Boston asked God for an affordable apartment that would allow her and her four children to stay in Roxbury and continue to attend her church, Holy Tabernacle. Her prayers were granted â?? a unit in a federally subsidized complex. Otherwise, she says, she would have had to leave the city.
 
 One reason poor families make such heroic efforts to stay is because the quality of life is improving â?? partly thanks to gentrification.
 
 In the Logan Square area, Marquez says, an influx of higher-income newcomers has coincided with what seems like more aggressive policing.
 
 "The gang bangers are not around as much, and you don't see the prostitutes on the corners like you used to," she says.
 
 Idida Perez hates the rising prices but admits, "There are a lot more small cafes owned by people from the neighborhood, and I am a big coffee drinker." And new businesses mean new jobs: Someone has to pour those lattes.
 
 Contributing: Associated Press
 
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-19-gentrification_x.htm#

godsshoeshine

  • Member
  • Posts: 4826
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2005, 05:39:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
  So by your logic (the greater the population, the more homeless people), NYC should have the largest homeless population, by far. Where do they keep them all?
 
Hoboken [/b]
hahaha...hoboken is like the most yuppified place in north jersey. nice, though
o/\o

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 3533
Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2023, 10:40:03 am »

Re: Baltimore Cleaner than DC
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2023, 10:43:44 am »
so is life is now cheaper in DC?
slack