” This is such a simplistic illustration.”

” This is such a simplistic illustration.”



You made one observation so far.
I didn’t attest to its accuracy or precision or correctness.
You made one observation so far.
Its quality is simple.

I want you to illustrate further.

So far, you have not.


“You don’t know what the observation is predicated on. “


As it stands, it’s a hollow, vacuous comment. A void.


It is. People toss it back and forth as if it is full of meaning but as it stands alone it is void of content and dismissable.


That’s different for it is establishing an equivalence.

In a set of bigot{“People who hate LGBT”,…}.

But “simple minded” carries a weak meaning and “simplistic illustration” carries weak meaning.


Bigot has a “stinky goo” stuck to it as a concept but you can substitute partisan, which has less stinky goo stuck to it.


My main point is: You’re dodging. Your comment so far is equivalent to writing “fake af” on a Youtube video or “Fake News” in a comment section.

I want to know why. Contribute.


“Gentrification. What’s the good and bad of it?”

Find a better illustration. Answer with your opinions on gentrification. Or, just continue with what you’re doing. Or stop. Any of that is fine.


So far though, it’s a C for class participation and a 0 for content.


So far, my statement is proven 100% correct. I get an A+ until further information is provided.


Facts don’t care about your feelings. And thank you for participating.

Thing is, the jobs are usually not filled by native dwellers but by new population.


It’s not. I think with city planning, gentrification CAN boost a local economy and create jobs for folks that live there. But without city planning, gentrification contributes to urban and suburban sprawl.


They’re first pushed OUT OF their neighborhoods then have to commute back IF the gentrifying city hasn’t already had its jobs filled by people who moved in to fill them, such as students, artists, middle class, etc.


That’s because those areas aren’t gentrified, silly.


But the people pushed out don’t get full access to the new hipster dream city.


Why does homelessness ALWAYS follow gentrification? Where’d those folks come from?

They never left.


Not full access = “can’t afford to [live, eat, work, play]” in a place they grew up.


Gentrification is complicated. I’ve watched it. Seen benefits and drawbacks alike.

It can lead to a vibrant middle class from humble beginnings. Or it can lead to homelessness. And any number of other directions.

But what’s astounding is how common the patterns are.


What’s also amazing is the SOLUTION is actually REALLY simple.

Affordable housing. People should live somewhere that isn’t on a bench or pushing the people out, not solving anything for them at all.

I grew up two towns away from Newark NJ. I saw the 3% tax incentives, the “broken window theory” applied. Good and bad alike. Everybody learning as they go.

But bad ideas scrapped, good ideas kept. Successful gentrification —- but before the champagne corks could hit the floor, runaway housing prices.

(and taxes don’t push poor people out)


There is no tax revenue from renting. The reason is precisely to encourage landlords to work in areas they wouldn’t normally. It helps prevent homelessness and folks can get wealthy by renting out.


It was. And thank you for illustrating further. That’s all I wanted. Conversation.

I find the US process for wealth creation through rental fascinating though.

You scaffold. Charge $200/month more than you pay in mortgage for rent.

Grow to manage 8 rental units and you’ve got $1600 tax free income per month.

Parlay that into more rental properties.

It’s a standard process for wealth creation in the USA.

But if you get greedy and charge $600/month more per unit, now you’re making $4800/month tax free for 8 units.

But now you’ve just priced out natives. They go homeless or move.

It all comes down to managing rental excess.

(actually, the ULTIMATE solution will be too drastic but I think necessary one day not far in the future:

Reevaluate ALL property value in the USA and DROP IT all at once.


Negative effect won’t be immediate except on paper and the positive will be immediate, boosting the economies of EVERY part of the USA.


The “big drop” of all property values in the USA will ‘pull down’ the total wealth of the largest property owners the most with less and less of a negative effect the less property you own.

By the time you get to single family home owners and renters, they’ll only see more money to spend.

Who does the most active spending in the USA? Instant economy boost.


It’s not my original notion though. I *think* it’s a George Soros brainchild. (he complained in 2009 that President Obama would not give him an audience to present his solution to the mortgage lending crisis).

Obama’s solution worked – as we can all see – and continues to work.

But, it’s a stop-gap which will have to be faced again in a few years.




[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − = 3

Leave a Reply