Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ColdJay64 t1_izfmf4m wrote

Point Breeze would already be on the level of East Passyunk if it weren’t for Kenyatta Johnson

72

__init__RedditUser t1_izfr72o wrote

Why?

9

Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izfssf5 wrote

He is anti-development. Refuses to engage in good faith about zoning changes. Plays into the "gentrificaiton!!! all the whites are going to steal from the blacks and erase CULTURE!" that stiffles development from the never-satisified and corrupt RCOs that coordinate with him and appeal and delay development proposals. Look at Washington Ave east vs Wasginton Ave west and the sentiment/ vibe of how the discussions are facilitated.

71

NonIdentifiableUser t1_izg1ubj wrote

Yep. The end result is one thing - you can disagree on what the best configuration is (though one is clearly preferable in every way exact for automobile throughout), but the way KJ handled the whole thing was so slimy. It’s pretty much his MO, hence the federal corruption trial.

11

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh0yr8 wrote

And then she complains about having to move to one of the less developed neighborhoods in the article LOL. It’s like a parody but actually sad because these are the people voting against helping their own neighborhoods. Places are expensive because people want to live there and cheap because people don’t.

7

Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izha0tk wrote

In the article is says she was living in the house her grandmother passed down to her mother, who then passed it down to her. Is that implying she sold her house in Point Breeze to go rent in Oxford Circle?

3

shark_skin_suit t1_izgjw7j wrote

well, if black people are not involved in development in an equitable way, why open the flood gates to venture capitalists to own half the city?

−7

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh2te8 wrote

First off just remove black people from the sentence and replace it with the long time residents. They are not being forced out because they are black so acting like that is a valid argument is disingenuous at best. Maybe 60 years ago but the girl who inherited a home in a great area is not a victim.

Now that we peeled that off - the long term residents are absolutely benefiting because a) their home prices are going up b) the area is becoming safer and c) businesses create opportunity to get better jobs than if they were stuck in a war zone looking area.

Next, let’s change the venture capitalists to a word like investor because for some reason you act like a venture capitalist is an evil word. Investors fund people who wouldn’t be able to otherwise afford it to start their business. Without these kinds of investors the only person who can start a business is someone already wealthy. So the investors give out loans because the area is improving and they think they will make a profit.

The business owners receiving the loans get a chance to make their dreams come true and you start to see small stores and resteraunts flourish. Better businesses mean more people want to go there and live there which means the price will go up because we don’t build enough. So people that are struggling decide to sell their home, not forced out of it, and move back to an area similar to where they started.

The opportunities were there and even if they couldn’t take advantage they likely still made a killing on their home value. Everyone is better off except for the selfish people who wanted the area to stay shitty because they wanted to stay there for cheap.

If you want more black people to be successful in these scenarios encourage them to be the ones who start the small shops and stores when things start getting better. Teach them that investors can help them and they’re not evil all the time. People like Kevin Hart that actually do this in poor neighborhoods are hero’s and people like you are helping ruin their futures.

15

AbsentEmpire t1_izgnfg6 wrote

Because the venture capital is coming either way, right now the main person benefiting from it is Johnson, and only Johnson.

11

ifthereisnomirror t1_izfutpg wrote

Because he’s not engaging with pricing his constituency out of their homes.

−17

ColdJay64 t1_izfzn52 wrote

That's why he blocked the entire Washington Ave. safety improvement plan for his half?

That's why he has blocked the sales of vacant lots to developers, wanting to leave them vacant?

That's why anyone who wants to develop on Point Breeze Ave. has to bribe him for a zoning variance? Why do you think that area is so dead/rundown despite all the new residents in the neighborhood?

The neighborhood could be far more vibrant and safe if he cared about anything beyond keeping himself in office, which he doesn't. Also evidenced by him previously being on trial for corruption.

Johnson is the epitome of what's wrong with Philadelphia leadership.

Edit: fixed typo

32

ifthereisnomirror t1_izg39d6 wrote

I mean yes it is part of why he did a lot of those things?

Those sorts of improvements lead to an increase in property values which lead to increased costs of living for the people he represents. If those people stop living there he is less likely to get elected.

I’m not saying I agree with his policies.

I think there’s plenty of bad leadership here in the city, it’s unfair to give that title to Johnson so easily.

−22

-Ch4s3- t1_izg9n8q wrote

Blocking improvements to amenities to keep down home prices is kind of perverse isn’t it? Surely his constituents deserve to benefit from the growing wealth of the city.

How does this even stop displacement? Won’t new and wealthier people eventually start buying up the limited housing stock in the neighborhood if nothing changes?

16

ifthereisnomirror t1_izgb94s wrote

People often don’t act in their own best interest.

A lot of the sentiment that I’ve encountered living in Johnson’s district for the past few decades is that people want things to stay the way that they are.

I don’t think it’s stopping change or displacement in the area, it’s inevitable.

Eventually a reasonable person will run and take the seat from him, it just hasn’t happened yet.

−3

-Ch4s3- t1_izgbqup wrote

I totally get the impulse to keep things the same, but it just isn’t realistic and cities have never stayed the same over decades. It’s a real failure of politicians to promise that they can freeze a neighborhood in amber.

It’s sad to me because space could be carved out to help people stay and to give them better city services while allowing the change to happen.

8

ifthereisnomirror t1_izgei2i wrote

Totally. If only we could get more honest politicians.

Maybe. Services cost money.

2

-Ch4s3- t1_izgf11y wrote

For sure, but a little population growth can generate a lot of revenue. The next few years might be tough but investments need to be long term in focus.

3

ColdJay64 t1_izgarh2 wrote

We live in the poorest big city in America. Believe it or not, preventing safety improvements to roads, keeping amenities out of neighborhoods, limiting the tax base, etc. won't help the current residents with anything except keeping them in poverty. Is that really the best outcome?

I don't know all the answers, but keeping an area an objectively worse place to live for everyone, just to keep property values down, isn't it.

There is definitely plenty of bad leadership. I'm saying he's exemplary of everything that's wrong with it - corrupt, self-serving, shortsighted, misguided, etc.

8

AbsentEmpire t1_izgwdw8 wrote

Keeping the place deprived of amenities isn't keeping property values down either, because at its core Point Breeze is a transit accessible neighborhood to Center City, and Philly overall has a housing shortage in in demand locations, hense what's driving Point Breeze.

3

geriatric_tatertot t1_izh0ydo wrote

But he is. By blocking new development he put a premium on the existing housing. So older folks sell and move away and the younger folks that grew up in the neighborhood are priced out. No apartments or anything that they could rent or buy for a reasonable price. In the 10 years I rented I was pushed further south in his district, from South St. to Christian to Federal and finally Mifflin before buying a house on the southwest side of Passyunk. My friends who still rent can’t find a 1br apartment and are stuck renting houses w/roommates they don’t really want to have at 40 years old. Allowing new development and multifamily housing would alleviate a lot of the issues. Theres more than enough room for everyone, but not if only single family housing is allowed.

9

AbsentEmpire t1_izh5fvx wrote

Preach!

If duplexes, triplexes, and 5 over 1s, were allowed by default in the zoning code there would be no affordability problem anywhere in the city.

3

thecoffeecake1 t1_izjpkj2 wrote

If you're dumb enough to believe supply and demand is the primary driver of property value, then yea maybe.

2

Pantone802 t1_izfw5yv wrote

1000%. I’ll also add Albert Littlepage

8

SaltPepperKetchup215 t1_izg1zwb wrote

Whenever that man talks I always think about the Billy Madison scene when during the game show the host makes the argument that we’re all a bit dumber for hearing it

5

AbsentEmpire t1_izgnrpc wrote

That man is so fucking dumb, I don't understand how manages to get around in life.

3