Gentrification Has Virtually No Effect on Homeowners

The general public knows that residential displacement is the biggest and most negative impact of growing levels of gentrification in major cities. What is unknown, and what is commonly misconceived, is the extent to how great the effect of gentrification is on displacement among the poor. Stabrowski, Newman, Wily, and Vigdor all attempt to answer this question, with the understanding that it is very difficult to measure indirect displacement as a result of gentrification. They have all concluded that statistically, only about 1.3% of family displacement has been directly due to gentrification (according to a study conducted by urban planner Lance Freeman). Their opinions diverge, however, when taking a step further to study how big a part gentrification plays in indirect displacement—that is, how income, community value, and a sense of belonging leads people to leave their homes for a poorer neighborhood. Richard Florida’s article, “Gentrification Has Virtually No Effect on Homeowners,” adds on to this discussion by reviewing a new disparity that many urban theorists don’t consider—the effect of gentrification on displacement of renters vs. displacement of homeowners.

Florida cites a study by Isaac William Martin and Kevin Beck which concludes that renters are twice as likely to be displaced due to gentrification than homeowners (2.6% vs. 1.3%). The biggest factor of a homeowner being indirectly forced to leave their home is a rise in property taxes that are inevitable as a neighborhood’s value increases. Newman and Wyly touch on this factor as well, claiming that gentrification hurts this group as well due to a rise in property taxes taking a larger portion of a household’s fixed income (Newman, 49). Florida, however, contrasts this point by writing that a rise in property taxes has the same effect in gentrifying and non-gentrifying neighborhoods, so a displacement due to this factor cannot be attributed as solely due to the effects of gentrification. He explains the difference between the effect on renters vs. homeowners as due to different reasons why households are grounded to their homes. Renters are highly susceptible to a rise in rent, a probability of evictions, and less of a sense of attachment to their neighborhood as opposed to homeowners. The cost of living for homeowners do not change at the same rate that the neighborhood changes, and they tend to be older and more grounded to their neighborhood. Florida concludes this review of the past studies on the link between gentrification and displacement by calling a shift in attention to the biggest victims of gentrification—lower-income renters.

While homeowners are not as affected by gentrification as renters are, it must be taken into consideration that homeowners are a very small group in the city’s population, especially low-income homeowners. Simple measurements of direct displacement caused by gentrification results in a small portion of the population (1.3%) being actually affected by the process, but these studies don’t take into consideration the part that gentrification plays in other factors that lead to displacement. Stabrowski calls for an approach to the gentrification problem that considers the indirect factors of displacement—rent regulation, ending speculation in real estate, and protecting low-income renters in gentrifying neighborhoods (Stabrowski, 814). Florida suggests that housing policies should focus on actions that help renters rather than homeowners, as current solutions (like land deregulation and more housing) doesn’t do much to help those more in need.