I did my research so I had a few ideas about where I wanted to live.  But finding a place I love, in a neighborhood I can be happy in is easier said than done.  And I’m not the only one; I’ve found other home searching folks who are as confused and discouraged as I am.

We checked all the usual suspects.  The neighborhoods with  established reputations that promised a lively artsy, cultural and fun atmosphere and constant happenings. Let’s call these neighborhoods the “old goodies”.

What a lot of people don’t know is that hip, cool and trendy don’t come cheap, at least not anymore.  In the Old Goodies, I found rent on one bedroom duplexes in the upper $800’s and rent for two bedroom houses and townhouses starting in the $1200’s, and my dream home was $1785 a month.

All WAY out of my league.

I sat in my car trying to figure out how, why and when the price of rental housing in the Old Goodie neighborhoods got so high.  Then I noticed all the older couples, and the people walking their strollers, and the mommy cars.  And that’s when it hit me.  This is what gentrification looks like.  She drives a Volvo.

I wasn’t going to be able to live in an Old Goodie neighborhood. Most of the units were way out of my price range, and the ones that WERE in m price range were unrenovated, and in some cases uninhabitable.  I was sad, but I realized that I had bought into the REPUTATIONS of the Old Goodie neighborhoods.  I wanted to live in what I THOUGHT those neighborhoods were; where the cool, hippy, artsy (mostly single, young, and poor)people lived.  Where the rent was cheap, and the bars are open late. Where there is always something fun and exciting happening. Those places still exist, just not where I was looking.  Mostly because the people who currently live in the Old Goodie neighborhoods aren’t the people who made them cool in the first place. Those people are long gone.

The neighborhoods have changed in other ways as well.  For starters, back when the Old Goodie neighborhoods were home to artsy, hippy, creatives; the housing stock wasn’t great, the neighborhoods, weren’t entirely safe, and all those restaurants and bars were just getting started or didn’t even exist. It has taken years of establishment, and turnover, and investment to make the Old Goodie neighborhoods desirable.

The conundrum with gentrification is that neighborhoods do improve; housing quality, investment, safety.  We should celebrate that. Unfortunately, those good things usually lead to changes in the composition and the character of the neighborhood.  They become different places.  The old people (usually lower income) leave, and new people (with money) come it.

So where do people go when they are pushed out of their old neighborhoods? They move where the rents are cheap.

There are new up and coming neighborhoods that are becoming the NEW Goodies.  And it’s really exciting to see how these neighborhoods are changing. A dozen new restaurants have opened, several new art galleries have sprung up, lots have been redeveloped, homes and other buildings are being renovated.  The neighbors are out and about. The neighborhoods seem to be coming alive.

I hope these neighborhoods can avoid the traps that the Old Goodies fell into.  “Cheap rent” doesn’t coincide with “new and trendy” for long. The new blood has made these new neighborhoods popular, but popularity may come with a price.

The San Francisco Chronicle wrote an article about the report’s findings.  I must say that I am impressed with the different ways the report said that communities are using the funds, however, some of them can still be problematic.  Let’s take them one by one.

-Purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed homes to be used for low-income housing: Before any money should be allocated to purchasing and rehabbing homes for low income families, I want to know where these homes are located.  Are these home in the far out suburbs where the nearest Food Lion is 10 miles away, and families need to have cars to get anywhere? Are these homes that were build on the edges of towns where the land was cheap and vulnerable homeowners were promised that commercial businesses and other developments would follow them out there? 

I wonder if these homes are near dependable public transit? Are these homes near good jobs, schools, day care, grocery stores? If they aren’t then they are useless, and shouldn’t be marketed to low income families.  Without good support services, housing a family in the middle of nowhere is stupid.

-Assisting low-income buyers with home financing: I’m about to say something controversial, and I hope you still like me when I’ve said it.  Everyone does not need to be a homeowner.  I understand that down payments, closing costs and other fees that must be paid upfront are what is keeping us from buying into the American dream, but for others of us, we just flat out don’t make enough money to be homeowners.  Unless our monthly mortgage payments are subsidized, we would never be able to afford a home.  (Maybe this is what this program does, I don’t know for sure).

If this program is subsidizing mortgage payments, and is allowing low income families to own property in nice, attractive, desirable neighborhoods in good school districts, with adequate support services, then I think this is an awesome program.  But if this program will likely turn into a revolving door of residents who can’t afford their mortgages because have bitten off more than they can chew, then I think it is unduly setting people up to fail.

-Redeveloping foreclosed properties and vacant land for other purposes: I love this idea.  I believe that many of the foreclosed properties (I’m imagining those cul de sac developments on the edge of town, in sprawling metropolis with no sense of community) shouldn’t have been built in the first place.  At the very least, commercial districts and greenspace could be included to simulate a village environment.

-Demolition of blighted structures: I’m imaging neighborhoods that I driven through in inner city Atlanta when I visit my little sister in college.  I see block after block of blighted, empty, boarded up, unattractive, condemnable homes.  I remember thinking (and likely saying out loud) that the city should move all the people out and blow up this neighborhood. Sometimes there are very few or no redeemable qualities about a neighborhood, and the best thing is to get rid of everything and start over or return simply it to nature.  Also see my Shrinking Cities article.

-Buying and holding foreclosed properties for later rehab or redevelopment: One question. So what do these neighborhoods look like in the meantime? A war zone? Who maintains these properties in the interim to insure that neighbors who stick around aren’t left with declining home values?

Bottom line people: Think about the best interests of the people you are serving and be aware of unintended consequences.  Just because there is lots of housing available doesn’t mean it’s the right kind of housing for low income families. Just because a solution solves a problem doesn’t mean it doesn’t make another problem worse.