Comment 112654

By Morgan (registered) | Posted July 08, 2015 at 08:30:51 in reply to Comment 112626

Displacement absolutely is an inevitable side-effect, Borrelli. As people with higher incomes move into a neighbourhood, they begin to demand services that the previous tenants cannot afford, and stores change to suit those different demands. The nice little mom-and-pop boutiques and restaurants on James North? Those cannot exist without demand for their products. Since their products are often small batch, hand crafted, or otherwise limited in supply (read exclusive), they are more expensive than mass-produced plastic factory goods, and there will soon be no places for the prior locals to shop. Soon enough, faced with no places to purchase what they want, and with steadily increasing rents, they will be moved out by market forces - gentrification resulting in displacement. As the downtown becomes a more desirable place to live, supply and demand arguments will prevail because there is absolutely no ethical or legal argument that can be presented that indicates the current landholders should not be able to seek the maximum possible profits available on their investments. You cannot make "proactive decisions to mitigate prevailing economic forces" without infringing on the economic rights of those self-same property owners. An altruistic person or agency /could purchase or retain/ a block of land for the purposes of renting to low-income persons already in the neighbourhood, but that would be their decision, and it likely wouldn't be a popular one when faced with meaningful alternatives.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds