Submitted by Both-Level-6493 t3_1140r78 in StamfordCT
Alex3917 t1_j8u3fat wrote
Reply to comment by Pinkumb in Why has rent in Stamford gotten so high?? It’s more expensive than West LA now! by Both-Level-6493
> Additionally, the luxury apartments naturally attract high-performing, highly mobile, high-earners early in their career.
I get that for the 20-somethings, but how is it that even though more luxury buildings are built every year, the poverty rate is also going up every year? The public schools are now up to 57% FRPL the last time I checked. This is the only city I've ever seen that seems to be both gentrifying and getting poorer at the same time.
The-Magic-Sword t1_j8uctt5 wrote
The inequality is increasing if I had to guess, with some families still in homes they actually own outright but without the income that would now be required to back it up.
Pinkumb t1_j8wwy8e wrote
Yes, exactly.
Pinkumb t1_j8wwuam wrote
The increase in value is the result of property prices going up. If you don't own property (like a home), you're not capturing any of that new wealth. Even if you do own property, you're not capturing the increase until you sell your home. If you purchased a home 10 years ago, then the increase of your property value has resulted in a much higher property tax every 3-4 years (whenever the citywide evaluation is done). So your costs have gone up and you're feeling the squeeze. Unless you sell, which most people don't want to do if they have a life here already. Of course, I would guess most families using FRPL are renting and don't own property.
This is another reason why anti-development is counterintuitive but it's specifically for an argument that rich people don't like. If you build more housing, then property values won't be artificially inflated due to a shortage. This means property values... won't go up as much. Of course, if you're already wealthy and you're living within your means you want property to increase in value so you can get a return on your investment (owning property).
One thing you could do is build more of the "missing middle." Condos and multifamily homes. This is property that renters could reasonably afford without necessarily impacting the property value of homes because people who want homes — outside the city, big yard, away from downtown — don't want a condo. But the city doesn't build those units because they change the "character of the neighborhood." They'll say they care about parking and water/drought, but it just so happens it prevents "poor people" (i.e. someone who is not rich) to move into the neighborhood.
Also minor point, Stamford doesn't fit the definition of gentrification. All of the new housing is built on dilapidated land, brownfields, or formerly industrial zoning. With the exception of the Smith which replaced affordable housing, but that's because the owners sold it since they couldn't maintain it anymore. To the extent people are getting "priced out of their neighborhood" it's because of the lack of housing being built, not because old housing is being replaced with expensive housing.
heutral t1_j8xd9gd wrote
the high schools free and reduced is a bit higher too cuz a lot of families with the means pull their kids out of the public schools for high school bc they have a not so good reputation
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments