(I hadn’t relied that the reading was only from p81 so my response is informed by chapters 1 and 2 as well. Also don’t necessarily take it as my opinion,  its more of a devils advocate look at the motivations of some community planning.)

The main theme in the reading/from community planners is that displacement and gentrification are bad and that they should be prevented. For those who are currently living in areas that may be at risk of gentrifying are justified in their concern but begin to lose credit when they deny that this is out of self interest. It is generally accepted that NYC is in need of more affordable housing but projects are often opposed by those who live in the area where they will be place. Classic NIMBYism. I can see that peoples voices are often ignored when plans are being made for an area because they are likely to advocate for little to no change.

It would seem that the flip-side of gentrification is repeatedly ignored.  The rise in property taxes in an area are directly related to the rise in property values of the properties from which homeowners are being displaced, so yes they may have to move but they will get at least some compensation for the inconvenience. Next we have to look at the much larger portion of people who are renters. They don’t see the benefit of rising property values but they may (if the city is managed properly) see the benefits of increased city services that result from increased tax revenues. Maybe these services would include better public transportation connecting more parts of the city thus expanding the viable housing options for those who are being displaced.

It is common to hear the argument, “well, who will be there for all the low-paying poor-people jobs, in a city with no cheap housing?” I wonder if is possible that, since these jobs must be done, a scarcity of workers may force establishments to offer more pay? It is also a common concern that the city is segregated and yet if no one is displace how will this be remedied? The idea that communities should prevent displacement is perhaps based only in the short sighted discomfort of having to move while sacrificing opportunity for growth.

This is where community planning can come to work in conjunction with improving areas and help facilitate gentrification is a beneficial way rather than resist it till they get bulldozed by it. The process could be harnessed to improve areas while ensuring that the discomfort felt can be minimized while the benefits can be extended to all parties.

Discussion: What should the role of the city government take in encouraging/discouraging projects that have the potential to transform neighborhoods?