Exposing Jacksonville's "Phoenix"

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

not just racial--rising property values often mean that the poor who've lived there for decades (sometimes their whole lives) are made uncomfortable and sometimes no longer able to afford to stay there--'reclaiming' a ghetto often just means pushing people who have very few choices around.

[peestandingup]

not just racial--rising property values often mean that the poor who've lived there for decades (sometimes their whole lives) are made uncomfortable and sometimes no longer able to afford to stay there--'reclaiming' a ghetto often just means pushing people who have very few choices around.

How are they made "uncomfortable" by making the neighborhood better/safer? And wouldn't the increase in property values benefit those who have lived there longest the most?? I know that property taxes would go up too, but not THAT much.

I understand the sentiment some would have about it. The fact that white flight took place & American cities sorta corralled all the poor into the inner cities, these people made the best of it for decades, and now all of a sudden that's reversing. I get that.

But there is often another side to it. I know plenty of people who have moved into cities that were going through transition who experienced so-called "reverse racism" (myself included in my old neighborhood in DC). I can't tell you how many times I was leered at in a local eatery (as to say, "what are YOU doing here?"), had some backhanded compliment said, or was simply called a name on the street. That last one didn't happen often, but it did.

Like I said, I get that & am more forgiving of it considering the past, but its still nasty & uncalled for. It's straight up racism. And no one's guilty of anything besides liking a neighborhood & wanting to live in it. So a lot of the blowback for gentrification (or whatever we're calling neighborhood improvement these days) is simply racially charged IMO, which is unfortunate.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

if it was all people who genuinely like the neighbourhood, that'd be one thing.  for some people it really seems to be some kind attempt to be edgy.  i've seen people who are clearly terrified ov the neighbourhood, but feel like they have to live here just to prove that they can--and ov course i'm hostile to that kind ov ridiculous posturing!  people want to move into my neighbourhood, change it to suit themselves, and they don't even like it!

as far as beïng made uncomfortable, 'safer' is subjective with the rather biased police response we have in this town, and you're damn right i'm not comfortable with people who make it very clear that they think i'm a lesser human beïng just because i'm poor.

there are a lot ov lovely people genuinely tryïng to improve things for everyöne(see:  preservation SOS), and i don't mean to disparage them at all.  but there are also a lot ov entitled-feeling little shits whose sole interest is bending a neighbourhood to their will (see:  SPAR, at least up until the last year or two).

(edited for clarity--i tend to ramble)

[peestandingup]

if it was all people who genuinely like the neighbourhood, that'd be one thing.  for some people it really seems to be some kind attempt to be edgy.  i've seen people who are clearly terrified ov the neighbourhood, but feel like they have to live here just to prove that they can--and ov course i'm hostile to that kind ov ridiculous posturing!  people want to move into my neighbourhood, change it to suit themselves, and they don't even like it!

as far as beïng made uncomfortable, 'safer' is subjective with the rather biased police response we have in this town, and you're damn right i'm not comfortable with people who make it very clear that they think i'm a lesser human beïng just because i'm poor.

there are a lot ov lovely people genuinely tryïng to improve things for everyöne(see:  preservation SOS), and i don't mean to disparage them at all.  but there are also a lot ov entitled-feeling little shits whose sole interest is bending a neighbourhood to their will (see:  SPAR, at least up until the last year or two).

(edited for clarity--i tend to ramble)

You bring up some good points & I agree. There are a lot of jackasses out there who do that for some reason. I think the bigger issue though is the chain reaction that it starts. Meaning there are a lot of people at first who do move into these neighborhoods because they like them. Sure, they would like to see improvements here & there, but who wouldn't?

But before you know it, corporate interests come along & really do a number on the place. I understand that some of that can be beneficial (like transit), but a lot of it isn't & ends up tearing apart what made the neighborhood cool in the first place (the truly local neighborhood vibe in an urban setting, no matter the makeup). That certainly happened with our old hood in DC. I haven't been back in a few years but my wife has. She said its a lot of chain stores, high end nightclubs, restaurants, etc. Ugh. Some of thats fine I guess & to be expected, but again, not if it takes so much away that it loses that local neighborhood vibe & brings the circus to town. That shit can take a hike.

So I think you & I (and most people who initially move in) are on the same page & fighting the same fight. It just sometimes gets skewed

[Tacachale]

There are a couple of things to keep in mind about gentrification. First and foremost, the term implies that a higher social class (the "gentry") takes over a neighborhood. This doesn't always mean immediate displacement of the lower class, however frequently it means that things (real estate, rent, retail, etc) gets more expensive.

This can be good for landowners who see their property values rise. At the same time, however, raised property values can lead to other expenses (such as higher property taxes) that make it untenable for someone with lower income and/or wealth to keep up. Additionally, in many of these neighborhoods a lot of the residents are renting. The property owners may not live in the neighborhood or even the city; higher values can be great for them, because they can just raise the rent to cover it, but the renters may be priced out of their own neighborhood. Displacement is the most glaring downside to gentrification.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, gentrification isn't uniform. The groups interested in the urban environment are as diverse as America itself. There's no one way it's done. And it doesn't happen in a time vacuum. It's not as if the Eastside, or any neighborhood anywhere, has never experienced change in its history.

Third, there are a lot of positives of gentrification that are often overlooked. On top of money, it can also bring diversity and a swath of people who really care about their neighborhood. So there are positives and negatives associated with it. In the case of the Eastside, such a thing could be looked at as less of a "change" and more of a return to the face of the neighborhood 50 years ago.

[thelakelander]

Unfortunately, this house on Pheonix Avenue burned down today:

2-alarm fire destroys home near Eastside

Firefighters were called to the 1900 block of Phoenix Avenue about 10:20 a.m. The roof collapsed at what was described as a hoarder's house, but there were no injuries.

Firefighters said the flames were tough to battle because of all the different materials inside that were burning.2-alarm-fire

The homeowner, Bob Smith, and his caretaker were able to get out safely.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/2alarm-fire-consumes-home-near-eastside/29656866