15 Old House Features that we were wrong to abandon...

[LizzieMaine]

I think the ancient Hebrews had the right idea. Land was held by tribes and could be sold between tribes as needed -- except that every fifty years, land ownership automatically reverted to the original tribe. When I'm dictator that's how we'll do things.

Interestingly, the phrase embossed on the Liberty Bell -- "Proclaim liberty to all the land and all the inhabitants thereof" -- comes from the section of Leviticus which established this system. The freedom being proclaimed was freedom from economic thralldom.

 

[pawineguy]

All that the guy from NYC can do in the property tax conversation is :Cry:

+1 - when we moved from CT to PA, we could have chosen either the Princeton area or across the river in Buck's County. 12 - 13K per year in property taxes vs 8K. Oh, and no trash pickup and a volunteer fire department.

 

[pawineguy]

I think the ancient Hebrews had the right idea. Land was held by tribes and could be sold between tribes as needed -- except that every fifty years, land ownership automatically reverted to the original tribe. When I'm dictator that's how we'll do things.

Interestingly, the phrase embossed on the Liberty Bell -- "Proclaim liberty to all the land and all the inhabitants thereof" -- comes from the section of Leviticus which established this system. The freedom being proclaimed was freedom from economic thralldom.

Yes, but it also establishes slavery and human beings as property to be handed down to your children. Leviticus is full of contradictions.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Of course. And take off that blended-fabric suit you're wearing, you abomination unto the Lord. I'm merely approving of the principle in this particular case.

On the point you raise, though, that section of Leviticus also mandates that all slaves were to be freed in the fiftieth year. Yahweh had little truck with propagating long-term inherited wealth.

 

[pawineguy]

Of course. And take off that blended-fabric suit you're wearing, you abomination unto the Lord. I'm merely approving of the principle in this particular case.

On the point you raise, though, that section of Leviticus also mandates that all slaves were to be freed in the fiftieth year. Yahweh had little truck with propagating long-term inherited wealth.

Only Israeli slaves. Slaves from other nations were free to be passed along to their children.

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

But regardless, I totally understand your point. I'm keeping an eye on a piece of property in CT that I'd love to have back some day. When can we start this?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Hebrew slaves were freed every *seven* years, or on the "Sabattical," as laid out in Deuteronmy 15:12. *All* slaves were supposed to be freed on the Jubilee, as stated at Leviticus 25:10 -- "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."

I'll grant, though, that neither of these laws were always observed in practice, and were quite often ignored. Or perhaps it's another of those contradictions you pointed out. I'm not a biblical literalist, by any means. I'm more interested in the principles suggested.

As for Connecticut, I think the Indians probably have a better Jubilee claim on that property than you, but we'll see how it goes.

 

[Edm1]

It didn't establish slavery....however..when a warring group, in battle, killed all the men of a tribe and demolished their homes, would you rather them just leave the women and children to die? Or take them as slaves? Make sure you aren't looking at slavery in the bible the same you look at slavery in America. They were NOT the same thing. And I'm not saying either was right. But in the bible, God let's humans do some things, that we do. That is not the same as condoning it.

 

[tonyb]

Bite your tongue, Tony. Bite your tongue.

 

[Stearmen]

In fairness to Down Town Gentrification, before that happened here, our Down Town was almost a ghost town, now we have a thriving community. Wish I had bought a couple of lofts four years ago, when they were going at Fire Sale prices. Now, I can't afford one!

 

[tonyb]

Yeah, I can dig that.

I'm reminded of the Pike Place Public Market, in Seattle, which nearly fell to the wrecker's ball about 45 years ago. Before it was "saved," respectable types wouldn't be seen there, which was a large part of its appeal to me. The market and its surrounding district was flophouses and seedy bars and "amusement" arcades. And I knew, even back then, that the long overdue restoration work couldn't help but fundamentally change the character of the place. And it surely did.

But I accept that it really had to change. When the market was new, it was indeed a respectable place. By the time I encountered it it was decidedly down at the heel. And that just doesn't pay the bills over the long term. I do believe it was either gentrify or die, even if a big part of me would rather it not be so.

 

[Fading Fast]

Stearman and Tony B - fair points. Some gentrification takes out functioning "lower econ" neighborhoods and I wish there was a way to stop that as many good businesses and communities get uprooted, but I've also seen it take over truly blighted areas - where most business are shut down and the few that are open look like fortresses / the streets are truly dangerous and drugs and other crime is the main activity - and improving those areas, IMHO, is a sign of a functioning country trying to make things better. There were parts of upper Manhattan that have gone through that type of gentrification (and some that need it now) and, now, you can walk through them without taking your life in your hands.

But again, unfortunately, it also has taken out some very old, not upscale neighborhoods that were functioning fine, but young "artists" and / or "urban professionals," etc. discover it and drive the residential real estate up while upscale businesses move in to serve the "artists" and drive the commercial real estate up and, over several years, the old stores and residents get priced out. Sad.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Gentrification is one of those things that's easy for Chambers of Commerce and Tourism Boards and such to rationalize, and people nod and say "well, they've got a point." And then one day they look around and it's come to *their* neighborhood, and before they know it, everything they knew and loved about where they lived has been taken away and mutated into some kind of genericized "hipness." And then, suddenly, they can no longer afford to live where they've lived for generations. And that's how real neighborhoods, real towns, and real cities die.

As far as drugs go, our drug problems here are much worse since the "gentrification" wave began. Those yuppies and "artists" love their dope.

I don't even much like the word "gentrification." I prefer "colonization." Maybe if people like me behave ourselves and bow deeply enough before the altar of the buck, they'll set up some working-class reservations for us.

 

[tonyb]

My primary objection to gentrification is that the new arrivals -- in all their (often) self-absorbed, self-admiring glory -- are oblivious to the effects they are having on the long-established culture of the communities they are now occupying. It's particularly galling to hear the talk about how they "saved" this "depressed" district, and aren't they just the finest people for having done so?

But then, everything was new once. And cities aren't museums. Kids grow up and move away. Old people die.

In Seattle there are about half a dozen designated "Landmark Districts," where the old structures are protected and matters such as changes to signage are subject to review and approval by a landmark districts board. But saving the structures doesn't preserve the culture. Indeed, the unspoken aim is to change the culture, to move out one sort of use in favor of another.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Indeed, the unspoken aim is to change the culture, to move out one sort of use in favor of another.

Exactly right. And when they talk about "use" that's pretty much always a euphemism for "people."

 

[tonyb]

It's among the loveliest of ironies that newly gentrified "historic" districts were there to "save" because they were made so undesirable by the Great Post-War Suburban Rush that the real-estate values didn't warrant the cost of demolition and redevelopment, especially in light of all that surrounding countryside being mere minutes away via the new limited-access highways. Mile a minute.

 

[Fading Fast]

My sentiments are with preserving - culture, businesses, architecture and people - but as Tony B says, cities / towns / neighborhoods aren't museums and while we know there have been assaults on areas to push "some" people out, there are many who leave voluntarily over time or over generations.

The best we can do is strike a balance with zoning laws, preservations rules, etc., but we also need to allow for organic change. As I noted in an above post, I lived in NYC in the '80s and there were blighted, crime-ridden areas - devoid of charm, character, safety for the residents and even basic provisions - and, for a variety of reason, as the city came back, many of neighborhoods have come back.

Some have become precious gentrified "artists," and "urban professional" enclaves with all the artisanal this, that and the other over-priced store, but others have come back because immigrants and other lower-economic groups have moved in and revived these neighborhoods. These aren't precious neighborhoods, but thriving working-class ones which usually take on one or two dominant cultural identities, but the stores feel real (and are affordable) and the neighborhoods have a new life and new identity. All revival (is it gentrification if a crime-ridden area is revived to a livable working-class neighborhood?) isn't bad.

Again - IMHO - it's a balance that isn't easy to strike and isn't easy to predict how it will work out. If I am honest, NYC is much better than it was 30 years ago and while we lost some great neighborhoods to obnoxious high-end gentrification, we also have seen some blighted ones come back organically to provide opportunities for lower-income families.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Gentrification, by definition, is colonization by "the gentry," or a situation where upper-middle-class folk move into an area traditionally the home of working-class folk, and thru their weight of their class power come to overwrite the local culture with their own. That's not the same thing as immigration, such as has occured with the Somalian community now thriving in downtown Lewiston, Maine. It would be gentrification if a bunch of white trustfunders from Westchester decided that they wanted a piece of the Lewiston action and pushed the Somalis out.

 

[pawineguy]

Gentrification, by definition, is colonization by "the gentry," or a situation where upper-middle-class folk move into an area traditionally the home of working-class folk, and thru their weight of their class power come to overwrite the local culture with their own. That's not the same thing as immigration, such as has occured with the Somalian community now thriving in downtown Lewiston, Maine. It would be gentrification if a bunch of white trustfunders from Westchester decided that they wanted a piece of the Lewiston action and pushed the Somalis out.

So what is the difference if the local culture is changed by Somali immigrants or the upper middle class? Besides a dislike of the upper middle class? It's still change.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Economic power excercised as a cultural bludgeon is the difference. No Somali immigrant ever priced a Mainer out of his neighborhood.

 

[Fading Fast]

Economic power excercised as a cultural bludgeon is the difference. No Somali immigrant ever priced a Mainer out of his neighborhood.

True, but tongue-in-cheek: the immigrants that actually pay rent chased out the drug dealers who basically squatted in the buildings (in parts of the Bronx for example), so the immigrant money chased out the drug dealers. Clearly it is much more complex than that and had much more to do with crime prevention and policing, but the landlords are much happy renting their buildings to paying immigrants versus having having the drug dealers squat in them.

Also, some Hasidic Jewish communities in NYC have priced out Hispanic or Black communities not in the traditional gentrification way, but over time, as the Hasidic community that bordered the Hispanic or Black community grew, they slowly encroached on the Hispanic or Black communities. There is (I'm assuming) an economic element to it as the Hasidic community must be paying more than the other communities or they wouldn't be able to do it (but most of the Hasidic communities are far from anything most people would consider rich or - honestly - even middle class as most are closer to lower middle class).

Hence, away from the traditional gentrification, there are definitely cultures being pushed out of communities by others with (my guess) only marginally more money or owing (in my first example) to better policing - it's something I've followed closely for decades as I've lived in some of these neighborhoods, have had many friend who have and I've seen the change at the ground level while also following it in the news.