i haven't done preachy in a while

**please note that my arguments below on gentrification are neither complete, or intended to be (i'm not writing the counter arguments made, or taking the thousands of available variables into consideration, etc.).  that argument would take up many volumes of many books i am neither willing nor qualified to write at this time.  i'm just relaying a conversation and some of the jumbled thoughts in my head.  no hate mail, please.**

wow, i've never actually felt the need to write a disclaimer before.  surreal.  

anyhow.  i don't pride myself on a lot of things.  writing, maybe.  my stubbornness, definitely.  but my arguing abilities have been something i've worked on over the past three years and, for the most part, i've always felt that they were one of my more developed skills.  i've learned to argue logic, not emotion.  i've learned to keep calm and to always, above all else, think of the counter arguments first and last.  this, after all, is what a good lawyer does.

so arguing, when i know my subject matter, is never something i thought i had to worry about.

and then i had a debate with friends about gentrification.

for those who are unaware, the merriam-webster dictionary defines gentrification as "the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents."  this displacement occurs because 1) these renovated buildings in traditionally low-income neighborhoods are sold or rented at prices too high for the existing community to afford, and 2) the presence of these newer, pricier spaces, as well as the influx of the middle- to upper-class population that comes with it, increases the overall property tax of the area, making it difficult (or, in many cases, impossible) for the existing community to remain in that neighborhood.

coupled with this already tragic reality is the fact that, in this country, economic lines still break and racial lines, so the traditionally low-income families, homeowners and community members who are displaced by gentrification are typically people of color.

now, what came out of this conversation as a whole is that there's no easy answer to this issue.  from the perspective of a commercial or residential property developer, this sort of work is really your bread and butter.  it is definitely most profitable to purchase property at an extremely low cost, flip it, and sell/rent it at a much higher price.  and as the purchaser of one of those flipped properties, gentrification of the surrounding area is often times good news because this displacement process nearly ensures that this previously low-income and probably unsafe area will see huge growth in the years to come.  the benefits to businesses, consumers, etc. go on because, yes, gentrification does tend to make a neighborhood "safer," and therefore increase the number of business owners willing to move into an area which, along with a new type of resident, will in turn increase the amount of security present in that neighborhood.

but the point of it all is that the area is not made safer for those already living there.  after all, the families who have lived in the area for generations were forced to move when their property taxes were raised.  gentrification essentially chases away the poor (aka, "the dangerous," "the problem," and the people of color) to make room for the affluent.  what was once a community made up primarily of people of color has not only changed economically, but racially as well.  and those people are forced to move elsewhere to areas where - you've guessed it - are poorer and more affordable still.

now, in my day to day life, i rarely have to explain this concept, or argue on behalf of the displaced.  ever since i fell into my undergraduate major, most of the people i've been surrounded with have either been a part of my major (meaning they've critically studied privilege, race and identity as part of their academic careers), have been ethnic studies scholars, or have been other people of color themselves.  furthermore, living where i live right now, gentrification and its implications are ever-present and disheartening.

but i found myself having to explain/defend my point in this debate with friends.  and i also quickly found myself losing control of all previous argument skills i thought i had.  i could no longer separate logic from emotion.  i could not longer not take things personally.  i heard too much behind the words of friends, too many biases, too much of what i considered - at the time - to be unintended racism or disappointing ignorance of privilege and a lack of compassion.  and that's just not me, and it's definitely not them either.

so while the conversation wasn't easy, i'm glad i was a part of it.  because i learned more about myself than i had known before it.  i learned the value of taking a deep breath, and maintaining my composure when i otherwise wouldn't.  i learned that while i could firmly believe i was on the side of the morally and ethically right, it didn't give me free reign to read more into the words of others than what they really meant.  i learned to listen, and to speak so that i'm heard.

and that's sort an invaluable lesson in and of itself.

****************************************************************
if you're interested in an example of a development project which manages to be profitable (though perhaps not as profitable) and socially conscious at the same time, a model which will hopefully catch on around the country, check out the asian community development corporation's project in boston, ma.

communities are not just groupings of buildings.  they're homes and lives and people.  it just can't be right to push people out of their neighborhoods for the sake of a profit, and i feel like that would be apparent if we all just put ourselves in one another's shoes every once in a while.