Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ifthereisnomirror t1_izfutpg wrote

Reply to comment by __init__RedditUser in Fishtown, Point Breeze have become far wealthier in the last 10 years and other new Census findings by Dryheavemorning

Because he’s not engaging with pricing his constituency out of their homes.

−17

ColdJay64 t1_izfzn52 wrote

That's why he blocked the entire Washington Ave. safety improvement plan for his half?

That's why he has blocked the sales of vacant lots to developers, wanting to leave them vacant?

That's why anyone who wants to develop on Point Breeze Ave. has to bribe him for a zoning variance? Why do you think that area is so dead/rundown despite all the new residents in the neighborhood?

The neighborhood could be far more vibrant and safe if he cared about anything beyond keeping himself in office, which he doesn't. Also evidenced by him previously being on trial for corruption.

Johnson is the epitome of what's wrong with Philadelphia leadership.

Edit: fixed typo

32

ifthereisnomirror t1_izg39d6 wrote

I mean yes it is part of why he did a lot of those things?

Those sorts of improvements lead to an increase in property values which lead to increased costs of living for the people he represents. If those people stop living there he is less likely to get elected.

I’m not saying I agree with his policies.

I think there’s plenty of bad leadership here in the city, it’s unfair to give that title to Johnson so easily.

−22

-Ch4s3- t1_izg9n8q wrote

Blocking improvements to amenities to keep down home prices is kind of perverse isn’t it? Surely his constituents deserve to benefit from the growing wealth of the city.

How does this even stop displacement? Won’t new and wealthier people eventually start buying up the limited housing stock in the neighborhood if nothing changes?

16

ifthereisnomirror t1_izgb94s wrote

People often don’t act in their own best interest.

A lot of the sentiment that I’ve encountered living in Johnson’s district for the past few decades is that people want things to stay the way that they are.

I don’t think it’s stopping change or displacement in the area, it’s inevitable.

Eventually a reasonable person will run and take the seat from him, it just hasn’t happened yet.

−3

-Ch4s3- t1_izgbqup wrote

I totally get the impulse to keep things the same, but it just isn’t realistic and cities have never stayed the same over decades. It’s a real failure of politicians to promise that they can freeze a neighborhood in amber.

It’s sad to me because space could be carved out to help people stay and to give them better city services while allowing the change to happen.

8

ifthereisnomirror t1_izgei2i wrote

Totally. If only we could get more honest politicians.

Maybe. Services cost money.

2

-Ch4s3- t1_izgf11y wrote

For sure, but a little population growth can generate a lot of revenue. The next few years might be tough but investments need to be long term in focus.

3

ColdJay64 t1_izgarh2 wrote

We live in the poorest big city in America. Believe it or not, preventing safety improvements to roads, keeping amenities out of neighborhoods, limiting the tax base, etc. won't help the current residents with anything except keeping them in poverty. Is that really the best outcome?

I don't know all the answers, but keeping an area an objectively worse place to live for everyone, just to keep property values down, isn't it.

There is definitely plenty of bad leadership. I'm saying he's exemplary of everything that's wrong with it - corrupt, self-serving, shortsighted, misguided, etc.

8

AbsentEmpire t1_izgwdw8 wrote

Keeping the place deprived of amenities isn't keeping property values down either, because at its core Point Breeze is a transit accessible neighborhood to Center City, and Philly overall has a housing shortage in in demand locations, hense what's driving Point Breeze.

3

geriatric_tatertot t1_izh0ydo wrote

But he is. By blocking new development he put a premium on the existing housing. So older folks sell and move away and the younger folks that grew up in the neighborhood are priced out. No apartments or anything that they could rent or buy for a reasonable price. In the 10 years I rented I was pushed further south in his district, from South St. to Christian to Federal and finally Mifflin before buying a house on the southwest side of Passyunk. My friends who still rent can’t find a 1br apartment and are stuck renting houses w/roommates they don’t really want to have at 40 years old. Allowing new development and multifamily housing would alleviate a lot of the issues. Theres more than enough room for everyone, but not if only single family housing is allowed.

9

AbsentEmpire t1_izh5fvx wrote

Preach!

If duplexes, triplexes, and 5 over 1s, were allowed by default in the zoning code there would be no affordability problem anywhere in the city.

3

thecoffeecake1 t1_izjpkj2 wrote

If you're dumb enough to believe supply and demand is the primary driver of property value, then yea maybe.

2