How to Lessen the Effects of Gentrification
Introduction
The issue at hand is the negative effect that gentrification has on longtime residents of low-income communities. Although gentrification is a topic that has been prevalent recently, it has actually been a rampant issue since at least the 1970s. A 1983 study conducted of five cities including Cincinnati, Boston, Seattle, Richmond, and Denver found that an astounding 23 percent of residents in these urban neighborhoods were displaced due to eviction, increased rent, or because the house they were renting was sold between 1978–1980. (Florida). Gentrification has a common pattern and leads longtime residents to suffer from evictions, increased rent, and displacement from their homes. There has always been a disharmony between longtime residents and gentrification because of the adverse effects it has on them. In San Francisco, for example, the boom of gentrification comes from the influx of tech jobs and these higher paying job opportunities cause wealthier residents to flood into low-income neighborhoods. Historically poor communities in San Francisco, like the Mission District, are now home to new rich tech workers. Gentrification forces out longtime residents who can’t keep up with a fast-changing neighborhood. In other cities across America, such as Brooklyn which is a newly gentrified neighborhood, where “…the African-Americans and West Indians who have made their homes for generations in this Brooklyn neighborhood are scattering, muscled out by surging rents and…. landlords who harass tenants, withhold repairs or use evictions to make room for higher-income renters. Some move in with relatives. Some scrabble for a foothold in one of the city’s remaining cheap areas. And some give up on New York altogether.” (Yee). Gentrification causes these people to have no choice but to abandon the homes and cities that they or their families have lived in for generations. The residents who lived their whole lives there are now giving up their homes and their lives in these cities, usually leaving behind jobs or family, to white college graduates and high-income families.
Gentrification occurs in big cities all over the world, not only in San Francisco. The question is, how can big cities better deal with the issue of gentrification and reduce the negative impact on longtime residents? A recent example in California is Proposition 10, which sought to answer this question on the midterm ballot. Proposition 10 would repeal the state law that restricts the extent of rent control policies that cities and local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. Creating more rent-controlled housing for those who are in the working-class or low-income communities, can help create a healthy relationship between longtime residents and gentrification due to new residents. By having this protection under the law, rent control can prevent the rising rent costs that cause many residents to become evicted or have no choice but to leave. Rent control, vacancy control, and creating affordable housing are the various options that can ease the harmful effects on residents of the long-detested issue of gentrification.
Vacancy Control Under Proposition 10
If Proposition 10 were to be enacted in California, it would result in more rent-controlled housing and vacancy control. In an article by Conor Dougherty titled “Why Rent Control Is a Lightning Rod” published in the New York Times, he states “Tenants’ rights organizations argue that California’s affordability crisis demands more rent-controlled units, as well as tools like vacancy control. They say the disparity between rent-controlled units and market rate prices encourages landlords to evict poorer residents in favor of people who can pay more.” Since landlords have the incentive to evict without a just cause in order to make a profit, vacancy control is a tactic to prevent this from happening. Vacancy control can be used to lessen the negative effects on residents by not allowing these low-rent apartments to go up to market price all at once after it becomes vacant for whatever reason, such as eviction or a voluntary move out. Under vacancy control, the rent increase and the price of rent would still be regulated and only be permitted to increase by the percentage that is allowed by the local jurisdiction. This way landlords cannot evict low-income residents to make room for wealthy residents because they would not be allowed to increase the rent up to market price right away, but instead at a gradual rate. It will create a safety net for those living in neighborhoods that are becoming gentrified and will offer them security in their own homes. The strongest reason to have vacancy control is that if landlords don’t have the incentive or legal right to evict residents to raise rent prices to profit off the new high-income population, they will be less inclined to do so.
Rent Control Under Proposition 10
Rent-controlled units can alleviate the detrimental effects of gentrification. Rent control would stop landlords from having no limit on rent increases, which usually drives out the working-class residents. In an article titled “California Tenants Take Rent Control Fight to the Ballot Box” by Conor Dougherty in the New York Times, he explains how California lacks affordable housing for working-class and low-income people which leads to cramped households, unnecessarily long commutes, and a rise in homelessness. These issues can no longer go unaddressed by state and local governments. The rapidly rising rent leaves people displaced and homeless and rent control is a way to help create and regulate affordable housing. In an article in SF Gate titled “A citywide crisis in gentrification? New SF residents make far more money than those leaving” by Michelle Robertson, the author describes even those who are highly educated and make six figures a year have trouble staying in San Francisco. Affordable housing under rent control will provide more homes for those who don’t make six figures a year. It will also reduce the pressures off of someone moving into a unit and fearing that rent will unfairly skyrocket to eventually displace the resident. (Zuk). In another article from the New York Times titled “California Today: The Expensive Rent Control Fight on the State Ballot” by Conor Dougherty and Inyoung Kang, they explain that if rent-control were to be legislated through Proposition 10, apartment buildings built after 1995 will gain the right to rent control. This would open up a world of new units that could be occupied by those who need affordable housing. Since many units were built after 1995 and are still being built today, it would create opportunities for those who are struggling to keep living in a big city. Millions of renters in big cities such as San Francisco are constantly at risk of losing their homes because of the exceedingly rising rent prices. Cities need more tools to address the issue of gentrification and help vulnerable families and communities from losing their homes, getting evicted, or being hassled to move out.
Current Cities Taking Action to Protect Residents
Rent control, as well as rent stabilization, is already taking place in New York City, and it effectively helps people stay in their homes without having to be forced out due to disproportionate rent increases. San Francisco needs to take an approach similar to New York City, where according to article “Rent Control vs. Rent Stabilization in NYC, Explained” from Curbed New York by Emily Nonko, rent stabilization sets a maximum legal rent for each apartment so more people are able to afford housing, without suffering astronomically high rent prices or facing evictions. San Francisco is trying to take a different approach by building new units for people to live in. According to an article in Curbed San Francisco titled “More than 60 Percent of SF Renters Have Rent Control, Says City” by Adam Brinklow, the city has struggled to significantly improve housing affordability for low- and middle‐income households and does not have a complete idea of how various policies and resources can work together to achieve affordable housing for everyone involved. This shows that a similar approach to New York’s rent control and stabilization will be more effective in preventing rapidly rising rent costs. As of right now, there are rent-controlled buildings in San Francisco, but there are certain limitations on it, such as buildings built before 1995. Proposition 10 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act which was enacted in 1995 and allow California cities to place local rent-control restrictions on newly created housing, in order to create affordable housing for more people. If San Francisco wants to continue innovating and being a hub for the technology industry, there needs to be a better way to house those working in the technology industry, without forcing out longtime residents out of their homes they have lived in for decades. If there was a cap on rent and restrictions on rent increases like in New York, longtime residents could continue living in their homes.
Opposition to Prop 10
Ultimately, Proposition 10 did not pass during the midterm elections and people have their reasons for opposing this proposition. Realtors were strongly against this proposition, considering it would cut their profits. The strongest reason that people are against the proposition is because they believe that it will eventually worsen the already existing housing crisis and housing shortage that many renters are faced with today. An article by Paul Chinn in the San Francisco Chronicle discusses why people are against Proposition 10, “But more rent control and more local government control will probably further suppress the supply of housing and deepen the crisis for the state. More housing is the way out of the housing shortage. Proposition 10 is not.” As mentioned before, it seems that generally, those opposed to rent control and vacancy control believe that the best way to help residents is to create new housing. This idea seems contradictory since new housing developments are usually extremely expensive and not protected under rent control. According to Chinn, rent control can have unintended consequences as well, such as lowering rent for one group of renters but raising it for the rest. Rent control could also give landlords a reason to not keep up with building maintenance if they aren’t receiving the returns they need to upkeep it. Lastly, opposers to the proposition believe it discourages mobility of residents which in turn reduces the availability of housing.
Closing Thoughts
In conclusion, major cities across America, including San Francisco have not taken the right approach to overcrowded cities and the shortage of housing. Gentrification will steadily still harm low-income communities as long as these issues go unaddressed. There are ways to relieve the effects of gentrification such as passing laws to rent control more buildings, vacancy control, and overall creating affordable housing. If cities continue to ignore these issues, residents will keep getting evicted, or end up having nowhere to live. Homelessness is a serious issue that is widespread in big cities, especially in San Francisco, and will only get worse unless something is done about it. If cities take initiative and help residents instead of creating new ways to push them out, the negative effects of gentrification can be greatly lessened.
Works Cited
Yee, Vivian. “Gentrification in a Brooklyn Neighborhood Forces Residents to Move On.” The
New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2015,
www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/nyregion/gentrification-in-a-brooklyn-neighborhood-force
S-residents-to-move-on.html.
Robertson, Michelle. “A Citywide Crisis in Gentrification? New SF Residents Make Far More
Money than Those Leaving.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 16 Apr. 2018,
www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/Who-s-moving-to-San-Francisco-The-ri
ch-the-12805760.php.
Zuk, Miriam, et al. “Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment: A
Literature Review.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco, 24 Aug. 2015,
www.frbsf.org/community-development/publications/working-papers/2015/august/gentri
fication-displacement-role-of-public-investment/.
Dougherty, Conor. “Why Rent Control Is a Lightning Rod.” The New York Times, The New
York Times, 12 Oct. 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-control-explained.html.
Dougherty, Conor. “California Tenants Take Rent Control Fight to the Ballot Box.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/california-rent-control-tenants.html.
Dougherty, Conor, and Inyoung Kang. “California Today: The Expensive Rent Control Fight on
the State Ballot.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Oct. 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/us/california-today-rent-control-prop-10.html.
Florida, Richard, and University of Toronto’s School of Cities and Rotman
School of Management. “The Complex Connection Between Gentrification
and Displacement.” CityLab, 8 Sept. 2015,
www.citylab.com/equity/2015/09/the-complicated-link-between-
gentrification-and-displacement/404161/.
Nonko, Emily. “Rent Control vs. Rent Stabilization in NYC, Explained.” Curbed NY, Curbed
NY, 28 Aug. 2017,
ny.curbed.com/2017/8/28/16214506/nyc-apartments-housing-rent-control.
Brinklow, Adam. “More than 60 Percent of SF Renters Have Rent Control, Says City.” Curbed
SF, Curbed SF, 12 July 2018,
sf.curbed.com/2018/7/12/17565192/housing-needs-trends-report-rent-
control-san-francisco.
