Gentrification: Can Lexington Get it Right? A Response to the Lexington Forum
On the morning of Thursday, October 1st at 7:15am, the Lexington Forum, an affiliate of Commerce Lexington, held another edition of their monthly Members/Invitation-only discussions. On the off chance you heard about it and were interested in attending, the guest ticket was $20. Aimed at providing “healthy discussion and analysis of community and regional issues that affect people in the Bluegrass”, this month’s roundtable was focused on the question of “Gentrification or Accommodation: Can Lexington get it right?” featuring East End residents Tanya and Christian Torp and developers Van Meter Petit and Rock Daniels. By fortuitous circumstances, one of us was able to attend. We would like to share some of what was addressed for those who, understandably, had no idea this was happening and/or would be unable to go.
The event began by talking about how the definition of gentrification is contested, with some seeing it as a good thing, and others bad. But the definition of gentrification is a pretty clearly defined term, one which most people find to be negative. It’s only those in a position of power who attempt to weigh the “pros and cons” of gentrification. Many of those individuals involved in making money off of the displacement of working class residents (who are often people of color) from their homes and neighborhoods in favor of generally wealthier and whiter demographics don’t much like being identified with such a self-evidently negative process. The supposed benefits of gentrification touted during the forum by the likes of Rock Daniels, Thomas Tolliver or Tom Eblen in the pages of the Herald-Leader, are not benefits for all residents, but instead only for those who were lucky enough to not be displaced from or priced out of their homes. Attempting to redefine gentrification as anything other than a fundamentally exclusionary process is simply an effort at escaping culpability.
And while Tanya and Christian Torp offered up the stories of real people who were forced to move out of their neighborhoods and connected these stories with the histories of systematic racism and impoverishment in the East End, most of the discussion was dominated by a kind of homeowner populism, or the belief that housing is a private problem for which everyone is personally responsible to solve through individual homeownership. While freeing people from disempowering landlord-tenant relationships is laudable, doing so by enmeshing individuals and families in new kinds of debt relations — especially ones shown to discriminate widely against low-income and minority populations — hardly seems like a solution to the ills of gentrification. Indeed, it’s worth noting that the gentrification of northeast Lexington has been intensified by the mortgage foreclosure crisis that erupted in 2007. In recent years, many speculative investors have specialized in gobbling up distressed housing at bargain-basement prices, looking to make lots of money. The U.S. housing market crash was precipitated by predatory lending, or what some refer to as ‘reverse redlining’ on account of the racially discriminatory character of subprime loans, which inundated people of color with high-risk credit even when they qualified for standard loans. As a result of the crooked actions of banks that intentionally capitalized on the notion that traditional homeownership is the only option for achieving security, roughly 10 million people have been dispossessed in the past decade. A narrow handful, on the other hand, have figured out ways to engage in newly opened up opportunities for predatory activity that allow them to profit from previous rounds of exploitation. This reality should give us pause and implore us to transcend the empty promises of past policy by establishing more far-reaching and socially-oriented programs that secure the right to affordable and decent housing for all.
When the floor was open to questions, one person inquired, “What can we do?” referencing the very real complexities and daunting nature of “solving” gentrification. Rock Daniels, a key player driving the gentrification of northeast Lexington, especially around Rand Avenue, repeatedly stated that the blame for gentrification is placed on developers, while is should be placed on those landlords whose neglect of properties and exploitative tendencies (in rent prices and rent collection) cause poverty and people being priced-out of their neighborhoods. Rock urgently pushed this argument, going to the extent that he himself proposed a landlord tax, stating (paraphrasing): “[landlords] are running a business, they should be taxed like a business.” Rock blatantly ignored any role developers have to play. Only when asked if he would be open to a similar tax on developers, as developers like himself are also running businesses, he said he’d be open to such an idea if he knew the taxes were going to fund affordable housing. This is, it should be noted, the very same Rock Daniels who admitted to flipping properties — buying at an extremely low price, investing some amount of money and time into renovations, and then selling for a much higher price in order maximize profit margins. As we’ll discuss in more detail in future posts, properties Rock has been involved with sell for an average of more than 3x what they were purchased for, with some properties selling for roughly 6.5x what they were purchased for at price per square foot values comparable to homes on Ashland Avenue, an interesting contrast to his supposed concern for affordable housing.
Summarizing the event, The Lexington Forum stated on their website that:
“While it felt all too brief, the discussion brought some great points and questions to light… [For example] ‘Is it actually wrong to displace people or does it lead to healthier communities in the long run?’”.
The fact that such a question is even raised is enough to begin answering the forum’s overarching question of “Can Lexington get it right?” Based on the tenor of that Thursday’s discussion, it would seem unlikely. Such important discussions being held behind (relatively) closed doors, at a prohibitive time and cost to many, especially those for whom the effects of gentrification are a daily reality, isn’t a good start in the right direction. Neither is a discussion founded on the premise that the most important thing worth protecting in the process of neighborhood change are the profits of gentrifiers, rather than accessible and affordable housing for all Lexingtonians.
Gentrification isn’t something we should worry about ‘getting right’, it’s something we should worry about getting rid of.
