Indeed, the now- stalled gentriﬁcation of Brooklyn had a good deal
in common with colonial exploitation. Of course, the whole thing was
done with more circumspection, with more tact. The borough’s gen-
triﬁers steered away from explicitly racist justiﬁcations for their ac-
tions, but nevertheless demonstrated the colonizer’s underlying
agenda: instead of “chartered corporations” pioneering and subjugat-
ing an uncharted region of the world, it was hipsters, entrepreneurs,
and real- estate speculators subjugating an undesirable neighborhood.
The local economy—at least as measured in gross product—boomed,
but the indigenous population simply became servants (grocery
cashiers and nannies) to the new residents.
What may have supported the company's high multiples (its P/E ratio) was a fund of credit (known to the market) of £70 million available for commercial expansion which had been made available through substantial support, apparently, by Parliament and the King.
Shares in the company were "sold" to politicians at the current market price; however, rather than paying for the shares, these lucky recipients simply held on to what shares they had been offered, "sold" them back to the company when and as they chose, and received as ‘profit’ the increase in market price. This method, while winning over the heads of government, the King's mistress, etc., also had the advantage of binding their interests to the interests of the Company: in order to secure their own profits, they had to help drive up the stock. Meanwhile, by publicizing the names of their elite stockholders, the Company managed to clothe itself in an aura of legitimacy, which attracted and kept other buyers.
Not driving other people out of their own neighborhoods and then selling what were their homes for a profit is a good place to start.
"gentrification, revitalization and urban development and planning is really complex and best modeled at population levels, where a bunch of individual choices have systemic consequences. There are plenty of neighborhoods that could use some of the good effects of gentrification, and that's a big part of why New Urbanism should ideally encourage mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods, in order to gain some of the advantages without both undermining the character of a neighborhood and forcing the poor into another ghetto, destroying social ties and social capital."
I don't have an objection to newcomers on principle. I have an objection to people who act like selfish, oblivious assholes on principle.
« Older Economists Matthew Weinzierl (HBS) and Gregory Man... | ladies: is your house making y... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt