Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TenzeFiyer t1_iu8ukht wrote

A little gentrification is OK. If everyone is poor in the city, the city won’t generate enough taxes to keep things going and making a beautiful. This is coming from a guy who was born and raised here. I’m OK with a little gentrification because what has been happening for the majority of my life here in the city wasn’t working.

26

Towers_Oh_My27 OP t1_iu98skm wrote

I get it, but I seen all the people I grew up with bave to move to irvington or east orange, or stay in the projects that is slowly being condemned. While richer people are moving in, owning houses they won't live in, while artificially inflating rent prices...

5

TenzeFiyer t1_iu99yss wrote

I wouldn’t call them “rich”. Do they make more money? Yes! Nothing wrong with people coming in “buying” property to live in. When people purchase a property they take care of it. These are properties that the majority of Newark natives wouldn’t have purchased any ways because the majority of us are renters. I think newark residents rent at a staggering 80%. And with the new developments these are places where no one was living anyways. It’s empty lots that make the city look back. Taxes and costs of materials and maintenance are up. Let me ask you this; So should landlords do nothing to make those properties look better and function well just to keep the rents low? Or should they put money in thier investments to make the place livable and nice? But that do come at a cost which will cause rent to be higher. No one stays anywhere for long. People will have to move out eventually. It sucks but it’s the way it is. Hoboken and jersey city wasn’t always as nice as it was. Newark is next on that list. Areas change all the time. I’d like to see Newark in a much better light before I leave this earth. It would be a great thing to see Newark at its best.

7

surrealchemist t1_iu9irut wrote

Landlords and property owners don't make things look nice to make it nicer to live there. They make it nicer to justify charging the rent. If you just keep letting more and more in without any pushback then the other landlords are going to look at the market and start raising it as well because the whole average gets thrown out. Then it just spirals. There isn't much push back because people just see construction and new shiny things and think its good because it looks pretty and you can go to a starbucks or whatever.

9

sutisuc t1_iu9j83f wrote

It’s like half the people on this sub haven’t seen what happened to jersey city over the years. Couldn’t possibly build more in a city of that size over the last 20 years and it’s more unaffordable than ever. Why people want to price themselves out of Newark I have no idea. Maybe there’s more property owners on this sub than I’ve realized

10

VroomRutabaga t1_iu9lywa wrote

I would argue this sun is 80% a mix of developers and property owners foaming at the mouth.

7

twinkcommunist t1_iua7k15 wrote

This country has freedom of movement. You have no choice but to let as many in as want to move in. What you can control is whether enough new housing gets built to accommodate newcomers or if they have to compete with residents for existing homes.

3

surrealchemist t1_iua95p2 wrote

There are other types of housing though the city can encourage. Things like renter co-ops, low income units, non-profit housing. They can put caps on rent if they wanted. The recent push to put extra tax on vacant properties is good as well if it can prevent landlords from sitting on a unit to wait to replace it with a higher rent tenant.

5

twinkcommunist t1_iuaa0zo wrote

I'm fine with those other things if theres actually enough money behind any of them to actually get them built. Price caps usually have really bad second order effects. I don't think a vacancy tax would be useful because less than 6% of units in Newark are vacant which usually just means that landlords wait a month or two between tenants; things aren't sitting empty long term. (Especially in a city that has a lot of structures that aren't habitable but would count as vacant because they have walls and a roof). I'd rather just have a universal higher property tax that goes to a public housing developer that builds apartments to rent slightly above the cost of maintenance.

3

DrixxYBoat t1_iuak98c wrote

A city needs a prominent middle class in order for it to have a flourishing economy.

New developments attract this middle class.

The displacement of people is real and the rent increases aren't good, but we can't be a poor city just for the hell of it. Mars doesn't want to hire our citizens as they are now.

In order to stave off gentrification, Newarks school system must be stellar. A city with a good school system is a city that prepares its kids to graduate college and be able to work and play in the city.

4