To level set, it’s safe to assume that you answer to all of my questions are “No”.

Thank you so much for your comment. I have already learned a lot!

I also wished that commenters on this post would engage in more stimulating discussion rather than saying displacement of families is just “life.”

Can you please share what LIHTC and IZ mean? The first one being low-income housing….

I am asking you this question. If you don’t want to answer, that is fine.

Do you, or anyone really, have data on how long biotech, finance, etc. workers stay once they move here? I was under the assumption that they were more transient like if they wanted to have kids, they would move farther out into the ‘burbs or they move into a state with a LCOL.

What can we do to minimize the impact of gentrification?

Have you gone to any Boston Civic Meeting or Zoning meeting in any neighborhood? Have you asked you local Politician their position on this before you voted for them? Have you talked to any homeowners who have benefited any the increased value of their home or their family’s home? I can only assume the answer to each of these questions.

So who entitles someone to live in a neighborhood?

Just how long does one need to live in a neighborhood before they are entitled to live somewhere?

It’s important to step back and look at what is causing things to happen as they do. Boston is experiencing economic growth in high end sectors like biotech and finance - this brings in lots of high paying workers. This drives up costs for existing “nice” areas and prices out the people who may have bought there.

As a result, people who may have in the past bought in the “nicer” areas look for cheaper options. As they buy up real estate in less affluent areas it drives up prices, businesses come as the money comes, and there you have it - gentrification. This is normal and expected anytime a city is in a growth cycle. So how do you stop it?

More property is the obvious answer. Affordable housing may seem like the best option and it certainly has its place, but that really just increases the gap in neighborhoods and causes more people to need affordable housing. So while it helps, what you really need is more market rate housing - not luxury, but market rate - in existing “nicer” areas. This keeps slows the process of gentrification.

There is no easy answer. No short term fix. And at the end of the day, gentrification can’t be stopped, and won’t be stopped. But there are things that help - and the easiest and fastest is more market rate housing.

Thank you

This is my favorite answer here so far. I’m currently taking a housing policy course and if there’s one main theme throughout, it’s that every housing policy has its pros and cons. Discussing housing solutions requires a LOT of nuance that gets lost here on Reddit discussions.

Based on what I’ve learned so far in my class, adding more supply is in my opinion the best way to go about addressing the housing crisis in the long run. There are studies that have shown that building more market rate housing does lower the price of buildings in the new housing’s immediate surroundings. Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the tools we already have like LIHTC and inclusionary zoning to ensure that low-income families have housing options. (And even then, LIHTC and IZ don’t help extremely low income families so that’s an issue)

However, new developments take a LONG time and the LIHTC buildings have expiring requirements (only require affordable housing for a certain amount of time and then they can charge market rate rent). For families who are faced with no-cause evictions as an example, they need a place to live now, not three years from now. That’s why housing choice vouchers are so important. And for families whose income hasn’t grown as much as their rent, they need housing now and rent stabilization is the quickest way to ensure they’re not gonna be on the streets.

All that to say, housing is a huge clusterfuck, and no one solution is going to be perfect. I just wish people would talk about this topic with more humility, openness to learning and new ideas, and compassion for families who are victims of the shitty housing crisis.

Then why can’t affordable housing be built? The developers can receive subsidies or tax breaks or whatever.

Can you expand on your first point about the high standard of living? I think I am missing how rent control would affect that. (Serious)

Also, is there low demand for east-west rail? I genuinely would use it but I don’t know the stats.

Ok, and how do you think we should help displaced families and individuals?

Nice things do cost money. We need to increase wages across the board. But your use of “higher quality residents” is disgusting.

I am not sure of this. There are management companies and landlords that will keep (expensive) units vacant. I will have to look into the prevalence of this in Boston and the surrounding areas.

To your second point, can government subsidize the units that middle-class renters would be in? Do you think it is plausible or possible? Any other ideas on how to make affordable units affordable?

Okay. That is certainly a possible solution!

Ok, you are kind of all over. Luxury apartments are priced at market rates. You are also looking at this with an economist’s view, talking about the market CoRrEcTiNg.

Do you have any responses to the questions I posed above?

[removed]

Agree! I will look into Shane Phillips.

Like why build more housing if more people are going to be displaced? We have to help everyone, not just those with money.

Or stepping in the elevator pee

I don't have an opinion except to say if we taxed billionaires their fair share (not 3.4%) maybe we could use that money to alleviate the problem somehow.

I mean, if you want the homeless to build their own homes you can look to India and see how that’s panned out. Massive, poorly built and unregulated shanty towns aren’t exactly the answer most people want to the question of “how do we solve homelessness”

“Some neighborhoods that are full of tech bros were once full of Irish immigrants.”

It’s okay to say Southie. Lol

“Neighborhoods change, that’s what they do. No neighborhood has remained static in this city, ever.”

Try getting the goddamn NIMBYs to understand this.

You’re operating with two fundamental flaws.

First is the the fundamental flaw of thinking that “market rate” and “luxury” are synonymous.

What’s marketed is luxury is a means of easing the sticker shock of rent, and is only luxury when compared to the existing housing stock which was built 30-40 years ago.

These are “luxury” in Boston in the sense that a new Honda Civic would be a “luxury” car in Cuba, where the average car on the road was imported before the moon landing.

The more supply that hits the market, the cheaper rent will be.

Second, more importantly, is that the increase in price is always gentrification. You cannot ignore external market forces that depressed the price of real estate in many communities, and cry “gentrification” when the market corrects and those once desirable neighborhoods are desirable again.

Some neighborhoods that are full of tech bros were once full of Irish immigrants. Some African American communities were once Jewish. Fuck, in Boston most land used to be water.

Neighborhoods change, that’s what they do. No neighborhood has remained static in this city, ever.

I think we need an all of the above strategy that combines policies that foster much greater housing construction of all types with all the tools in the toolbox for preventing displacement. I'd recommend the affordable city by Shane phillips, which I think does a much better job of articulating this case than I could!

We use WECO hospitality, they are a local food delivery company.