I received a letter today from Garnet Coleman, State Representative for District 147, regarding the danger of gentrification in the Third Ward, where I'm a homeowner. Now this is a complicated issue -- and there are some elements of what they are trying to do that I actually feel some agreement with. But, on the whole, this seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to keep white people out of the neighborhood. Please tell me I'm crazy. Here's the text of the letter, copied faithfully by me, word for word: The issue is coming up now, I assume, because we had a tornado blow through here in November and caused a lot of damage in my immediate neighborhood. My neighbor, a long-time resident, speculated (and I believe it) that probably many of these people did not have the insurance coverage they needed to be compensated. The area was declared a disaster area by the city and they requested aid from the State. But, I don't know how much that has or will relieve the burden of the damage. Does this letter seem to you like a discouragement from selling to whites (aka "outsiders")? Does this letter have a chilling effect on property owners willing to sell to whites? Would a property owner feel discouraged by this letter to sell to a black buyer coming from some other community? I bought an empty lot here a year and a half ago and built a house on it. I've lived here for a little over a year. If you can't tell yet, I am white and my wife is black/chinese. We've already experienced some resentment for my presence in the area. Some neighbors complained that we hired Mexicans to build instead of blacks (when local able-bodied blacks asked for work, my Dad offered them some but most of them didn't show up the next day. But mostly, we hired Mexicans because we had personal contacts). Also, my wife visited a poetry-slam at a local coffee shop where they complained about gentrification in Chicago and Houston and talked about how white people didn't belong in Third Ward. One guy told my wife that black people shouldn't marry or have sex outside the race (making both her marriage and her own conception abominations). So this letter seems to me to simply echo much of the racism already espoused in the neighborhood (by some -- most of my neighbors are pretty friendly). I understand the distaste for gentrification and share it. I don't want a bunch of townhouses here either. And, as I heard on the news, this mailing was in reaction to a lot of calls on residents from speculators hoping to take advantage of their financial distress (not only from the tornado, but also from rising property taxes and general poverty). But, at the same time, it seems like they are using too broad a brush and discriminating against whites as well as developers. Why should someone be encouraged to not sell to a white person who hopes to move into an existing home and maintain it? I'm not even sure such a plan would work anyway? Couldn't local residents do the same things to the neighborhood that they fear outsiders would do? This area has a lot of empty lots with owners who won't sell. It also has a lot of empty houses that are not maintained and are vandalized and broken into. We also have houses that are rented out in deplorable repair. We want these things to stop and for people to use the land they own. But, can local residents actually increase what properties they can invest in? And cannot outsiders actually contribute something positive to the neighborhood? I like to think I did the area a favor by building a single family home on an empty lot. Why would they want to keep people like me out?
I've always thought that the fear about gentrification was a fear of "outsiders" (people who aren't a part of the neighborhood) buying everything up and turning a "poor" area into an upper-middle-class area, slowly forcing long-time residents out of their own neighborhood and essentially giving lower-class Houstonions one fewer place to live. I'm sure the perception in the neighborhood is that the developers who'd be interested in such a process would be white. It sounds like a tricky issue, especially when you say you've got property owners who aren't particularly interested in improving/keeping up their properties. Gentrification doesn't seem like it would solve any of the neighborhood's problems so much as simply gradually remove a problematic neighborhood. The latent racism on both sides, of course, only complicates things. I can't say i have a solution; I mean, lower-class people have to live SOMEWHERE, and those areas aren't typically going to be the nicest places. Gentrifying those places will make people money and make for a nicer-looking inner-city, but it's not going to actually solve many of the problems you mentioned, just move them somewhere else.
A very interesting subject, JuanValdez. I think you are to be commended for taking your vacant lot and building a new home in the area. That area has needed interest in it just like yours for decades. What is ironic is that it is seen in a racial context. Ironic to me, anyway. My wife and I couldn't afford to buy a home here in Austin in the liberal, mixed race (but majority white) neighborhood we wanted to live in because it was close-in and prices had gone through the roof. So we ended up buying a home in a predominately Republican, almost entirely white, suburb of Austin that was relatively close in (for those things) and had good schools. We don't like it one bit. My point is that this happens to all close-in neighborhoods now. It's a trend that's been going on many years and it's not just Black or Latino areas that are affected... they are all affected. People want to live close to the central city now. It's just how it is. I hope the long-time residents in the Third Ward can find a way, with help, to afford to stay or get top dollar for their properties so they can move to a nice, affordable area and make a profit. It really bothers me that you've experienced discrimination. There is no excuse for it. I hope, with time, that the small number of people ignorant enough to act that way will see the light or move. I'm sure some of my fellow liberal friends will disagree with me on this issue, but that's how I feel (how I really feel has been poorly expressed and is more complex, but this is the best I can do at the moment) I've seen that area in it's poverty since I was a kid in the 50's. It's time for a change. The letter was strange, imo, and I hope that it doesn't lead to people not getting top dollar for their homes if they decide to sell. I think there should be a special tax rate for the current, long-time residents in the context of an historical district. Again, good luck. You and your wife don't deserve this bs.
JV, I don't really see it as a race issue, although that may play a part. Gentrification also always implies commercialization and chain-ization. Look at what the letter mentions - midtown. That place is all new and everything, but it is soulless and everything looks the same. Poor people are definitely moving out, but at least it is not like the past where they were forced out...they will make some money...just not be able to live in such a convenient place again. I also understand and sympathize with your personal issues, as that was basically my life growing up in a majority black area, schools, etc.. I dated some black girls and certainly uderstand the resentment. Usually, it is worse for black men with white women, but it is there regardless. Now the only real intolerance in my personal life comes from my extended family, so it has certainly changed.
It's odd. Being in San Francisco, I recently found the following letter in a cabinet at an antique show. I stole the letter of course, and you might find it relevant. -------------------------------------------------------------- March 14, 1850 Dear Neighbor and Fellow Property Owner, Change it bad. Do not sell anything to all these mining interests who are moving into our town. Call me first. We all would like to maintain the heritage of San Francisco, as a tiny, freakish port. Sincerely, John White Geary Mayor of San Francisco PS -- I'm worried that some of these new people might be men who like to fornicate with other men. Now, like I said, all change is bad. But imagine these types of man-loving men in San Francisco! It cannot happen.
I'm generally oversensitive to these sorts of issues. The group might have had the kindest of intents and may be primarily interested in keeping townhouses out of the neighborhood. On the other hand, we live only a couple minutes walk from the Black United Front. I wish it were only a small handful but I suspect it's not. I don't really know what I think of the revitalization/gentrification issue here. I don't expect the 3rd Ward to go the same way as the 4th Ward. For one thing, the 3rd Ward is much larger. Houston is already seeing more development than it needs. I don't expect that people are ready to flood into this neighborhood. For another thing, there is a fairly large number of empty lots and vacant houses. It does keep the property values low but it also keeps the standard of living low. I don't care for town houses but I' don't think all of the new development is going to be townhouses. In our little corner of the Third Ward all of the new construction has been single family homes. Apart from ours, they have been somewhat McMansion-ish but not completely out of step with the neighborhood. Additionally, the areas that have a lot of home owners don't also have a lot of vacant lots. Neighbors have been buying up the lots to make nice big yards for themselves. The areas that are being targeted for new development are primarily blocks consisting almost entirely of abandoned buildings, vacant and abandoned lots and apartment buildings in deplorable condition. No, I don't want renters to be forced out of the neighborhood. But I also don't want renters being taken advantage of by slum lords - even if those slum lords are residents of the Third Ward. If the concern was that poor home owners would be forced to sell and move, than I would have to agree that we should try to avoid that. But from here, it looks like they are worried that residents with property they don't use or care for are going to sell to "outsiders" who want to build on it. When we tried to buy a lot around the corner from where we now live, JV had called and they said they weren't selling. They still haven't done a thing with that lot.
I've actually felt quite the opposite in my experiences in the Mid Town area. It seems some 'representative' is becoming weary of the makeup of his constituency and is trying to keep his votes, or he may be trying to pick up good land at good prices for buddies of his. I am building some townhomes off of Allen Parkway and Waugh and paid top dollar for the land. We are building beautiful curved 3200 sq foot townhomes in an area that is a study in variety. One one side are our half a million dollar townhomes and there are small 50 year old houses with 10 people living in them 4 houses down. Its simply economics. Houston is becoming a larger city and the downtown area is becoming an entertainment area instead of simply a commercial area and people wish to live there. If people wish to live there the land prices will rise and people with more money will be able to build and purchase homes there. Its a money issue. If someone wants to buy one of my townhomes I don't care if he's anglo/latin/black or purple as long as his money's green. Thats what I love about money, it doesn't discriminate.
I don't know how I feel about this issue, but I do know that it will be more an more of an issue. Our Precinct commisioner held a meeting for builders and real estate agents out here on the North side, and he said that all the projections have Houston DOUBLING in size by 2020.
our theatre is in midtown. is been spooky watching those townhomes coming our way over the last three years.
What the 3rd Ward should do is what Woodland Heights did: form a strong neighborhood association that regulates all renovations and building. That way, you can keep out the townhomes (no offense FD, but I have yet to see an attractive townhome in Houston - most of them are cheaply built and make no attempt to blend in with existing architecture) and maintain the 'flavor' of the neighborhood. As for commercial buildings, they should attempt to bring in anyone they can.
Flavor? C'mon. If the house we knocked down was flavor, then obviously i'm out of touch with the 'urban' experience. It was a 30 year old piece of garbage that I didn't even want to walk into before tearing it down. My townhouses are a mediterranean design with three story all hardwood floor and iron and granite accents. My investment probably increased the market value of the houses around me by at least 10-15%. I'm sure they love the flavor of that extra value of their property. I love it when people associate decrepit housing with culture and historical significance. Those houses were built over something too. That is just the cycle of life. Anyone that claims they wish to keep it as it is has some type of financial motive or are just lost in their nostalgia.
I think it really depends on what is being torn down. This neighborhood has some absolutely beautiful, undervalued, mansions in the McGregor area that people don't want to see destroyed and replaced by town homes. JV kinda likes the brick apartments on our street. The two story, delapidated, haven't-been-painted-in-sixty-years apartment complex on the street however might be several steps down from a town house. I think it is possible to do nice townhomes. I've always loved the brownstones in Boston. But you have to admit that in many areas such as the Heights and Montrose, the houses and neighborhoods have a certain character that is being lost as more townhouses go up.
FDK, I'm really sorry, but you sound a lot like the business boss in "The Lorax." The Once-ler "But those trees! Those trees! Those Truffula Trees! All my life I´d been searching for trees such as these. The touch of their tufts was much softer than silk. And they had the sweet smell of fresh butterfly milk. I felt a great leaping of joy in my heart. I knew just what I´d do! I unloaded my cart. In no time at all, I had built a small shop. Then I chopped down a Truffula Tree with one chop. And with great skillful skill and with great speedy speed, I took the soft tuft. And I knitted a Thneed!"
The idea is to maintain the architectual character of the homes, not the decrepit condition. Duh. One of the biggest criticisms of Houston is the total lack of urban planning, which in turn makes the city look schizophrenic and ugly. When you build Mediterranean townhomes in the middle of a neighborhood of small pre-war-style houses, you continue this trend. Furthermore, if the exterior of your townhomes are primarily made of composite materials, they'll soon be just as decrepit. A neighborhood with a cohesive (not necessarily all alike) design is far more attractive (and eventually profitable, as more people will want to move there) than one that lacks a cohesive design. However, this really isn't your problem. You are a developer who bought land and have every right to do as you please. My argument is more directed toward the city. As for insuring that the people of the neighborhood can continue to do so, perhaps they should establish a rent-control-esque approach to property taxes. Original residents would be allowed to pay a lower tax.
Warning: the following post, I realized after writing it, is a poorly structured rambling of thoughts going a million different ways at once. If you are annoyed by people who talk without knowing what to say, skip to the next post. As a Houstonian, I derive some pride in being the largest city in the country to eschew zoning. Though it is very libertarian, it's also a very Texan sort of attitude, so there are elements of nationalism tied up in my loyalty to the approach. However, it seems to be conflicting right now with my own self-interest with this issue. If Houston had zoning, how easy it would be for the City Council to steer the revitalization in a way they found to be consistent with the interests of the community. We could avoid much of the pain we saw Fourth Ward go through. But, Houston has been voting down attempts at zoning for a century now. I don't think that will be changing. At the same time, I'm afraid zoning wouldn't really address the issue either because I suspect and fear that the real motivation here is a desire to keep the area impoverished. As long as it remains impoverished, the taxes won't be so high as force residents out and the crappy schools and weed-filled lots will discourage monied residents from moving in. I can't blame them for that. I don't want to be forced out because the neighborhood becomes too rich for me either. But, perpetuating the current status is more in the interests of the residents than that of the property owners. As an owner, you want the value to increase and you still stand to make money in selling if you don't have the capital to remain (as sad as it may be to leave). But, as a resident, especially a renter, you gain nothing from rising property values (except standard of living) while having to pay higher rents. So, there is no motivation there for improvement. From an emotional standpoint and a community standpoint, I agree with the sentiment. Economically, though it makes no sense. Gentrification is an inevitability, it seems to me. The Third Ward enjoys a significant geographical value in being close to downtown, close to Rice, UH and TSU, close to Hermann Park, the zoo, the museum district, the stadiums, etc. By virtue of the capitalism at work here, that price will be paid one way or another. Historically, they have paid it with drugs and crime and bad schools. Land values were kept low because the area was an otherwise unattractive place for the monied to live. But, the revitalization of downtown and the gentrification of neighboring areas and the intrinsic geographical value of their location means that there will be growing economic pressures pushing my neighborhood in that direction. Does it make sense for residents to pay that premium for good geography? If you took the whole community and stuck it at 288 and the Beltway, they could have decent schools and developed land without having to worry about richer people driving up rents and taxes. The flip-side being that if you took this community and stuck it at 288 and the Beltway, it would completely unravel. The residents wouldn't have the loyalty to it that it does now. There wouldn't be the community organizations we have now. So, you can see, I'm very conflicted on the issue. I fear just what Coleman fears, except I may be a cog in the problem. I think the truth is that, especially in the very capitalistic society we live in, the wealthy will get all the marbles in the end. And, that won't extend just to land and houses, but community and integration as well. So, I'm depressed now, and obviously rambling quite a bit. I feel like there must be steps that can be taken through our government instead of through grassroots stuff like this letter to curb the problem (because grassroots stuff can't counter the social forces in play in their environment); something that counters the natural capitalist forces that will rend the community. Perhaps tax relief for poor property owners in the area. Perhaps providing capital to local residents to make the money these 'outsiders' would otherwise be making (a longshot, imo, considering there is a human-capital issue regarding education and skills that takes a long time to fix).
Maybe it's because I'm an immigrant that moved several times in so far in my short existence but I really don't see the problem with "gentrification". I mean, when people are buying up lands at that speed, the value of the property have to go up right? What's wrong with selling your home if it's economically profitable or viable to do so? I moved 10 times in the past 12 years from China to huntsville to 5 times in houston (apt, to a diffrent apt in another part of town, to a bigger apt, to a town house, to a house) to 3 places in austin (dorm, apt and a diffrent apt). Maybe I just haven't stay in one place long enough to become attached to a specific place but I see nothing wrong with moving. But I guess different people have different priorities.
Bring big government in to fix a local problem? Ahhh, the socialist in him sneaks out! As Paige Benton said, "things are getting better and things are getting worse." Gentrification of the 3rd Ward signifies a number of things including racial reconcilliation and the upward mobility of blacks. That really is good. But people inside and outside the community exploiting poor residents really is bad. I'm as guilty as the next person of immediately considering the balance between the aesthetics of my surroundings and my property taxes. But that really shouldn't be my focus. There are a lot of very poor and hurting people in this neighborhoods. Prince Cuisenart of Inner City Youth was saying that over the fifteen years or so that they've been working with children and teenagers in the 3rd Ward they've worked with over 7,000 children and have only met 7 fathers! How will gentrification effect the truly needy people in this area? Will it encourage people to take an interest? Will it make the neighborhood feel safe enough to let your teenagers volunteer here? Will it force people onto the streets? Or will it move people from the most deplorable of housing first and hopefully move them into better housing? Will people consider measures to prevent rent increases? Will owners be forced to fix up their homes so they can be rented out in order to cover the property taxes? Will schools improve? Will prostitution decrease, or increase?
I drive by almost every day and can say - your townhouses are ugly. OK, seriously, what is the deal with all of the pseudo mediterranean development along Montrose? Are all of those connected to you? Why don't you build two story townhomes? I know, you can pack more on less land and make more money, and most everybody else is doing it...but it sure is annoying. I, by the way, am guilty of buying a townhome in a "transitional" neighborhood...but mine is two stories. Hee hee. The outside is definitely ugly, though, and it is poorly constructed. We got it for an investment and never planned on living in it as long as we have now (almost four years, although we have only lived in it for one). So, we will make some money on it. If I wanted to actually live in something for a while, I wouldn't buy any of those cheap pieces of crap, especially three story.
