The word “gentrification”, once a favorite loaded word to create fear in past elections was not a factor at all in the last election cycle here in the City of Lake Worth. A loaded word is one,
that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes. Such wording is also known as high-inference language or language persuasive techniques.
Do you know what gentrification is? No one does. There is no accepted definition. Another interesting thing is how this word can show up in the strangest of places, even when there are much better words to choose from, like in this article about The Cottages of Lake Worth.
Emily Badger at The Washington Post wrote an article titled: “It’s time to give up the most loaded, least understood word in urban policy: gentrification”:
These questions get at a fundamental problem with one of the most controversial (and fuzzy) concepts in urban policy: Even researchers don’t agree on what ‘gentrification’ means, let alone how to identify it. (And this is to say nothing of its even more problematic derivative, the “gentrifier.”)
Think about this, since urban gardens are so popular with some, are they actually promoting gentrification? Because developers love urban gardens. Have you read this article, “Urban farmers find that success leads to eviction”? This is called “The Gentrification Paradox” (read more about that below).
One last question: Is it possible there were people or groups here in Lake Worth intentionally using tactics like “Gentrification!” to suppress neighborhood improvements, increase the crime rate, and create fear for political objectives? A shocking thought isn’t it? Or maybe not so much for others.
Everyone knows the naysayers and malcontents here in Lake Worth. The ones that have nothing good to say about the majority on the City Commission, swept into office in 2012. Some of those naysayers, once upon a time, were in control of this City and you may be wondering how such negative people ever got into positions of power. They accomplished that with the politics of fear, also called “The Wolf at the Door”.
Photo taken of prior administration in 2012 at the Lake Worth Casino:
|“Gentrification!” was a word Cara Jennings (on right, facing) was fond of using. Chris McVoy (beaming, blue shirt) managed to hold on for a while but lost his election bid last March. Recognize anyone else?|
But the people in Lake Worth woke up one day 5 years ago and realized there was no “Wolf at the Door”, or “Vulture at the Door” if you will. The real problem was a few commissioners in City Hall and in 2012 they got tossed out. Unsurprisingly, the mood in this City began to change beginning back then. A much more positive outlook about our future.
So. . . why isn’t the cry of “Gentrification!” working any more? Also in this blog post are more of the tactics used to stop neighborhood improvements and ways to discourage people from being more involved in their communities. And. . . why blaming elected officials for ‘gentrification’ is a fallacy, merely a tactic to gain political advantage.
Gentrification is one of the most misunderstood phenomenons in American culture. It’s a term that’s derogatory to some and a very hopeful one for others who live in persistently blighted areas. The logic by some is a certain level of blight is ‘charming’ because it makes the area undesirable to investors or ‘outsiders’.
People who rail and frighten a neighborhood against gentrification (G) are then in the unenviable position of having to balance how much blight is good to deter more people from moving in but still keep the area in a state of limbo: not getting better and not getting worse either. Because if the neighborhood gets too blighted the people who live there will move out. On the other hand, if one person decides to do a home renovation and improve his or her home, another home will have to decay further to maintain that balance. And what if, God forbid, a homeowner decides to replace the roof!
If one property increases in value, the anti-G logic is, then that is a threat to all the other homes on the street. Then to show the neighborhood how enlightened, resilient, and sustainable they are, then they encourage urban farms and urban gardens which leads to what? Less blight. A bland, unkempt home doesn’t look as bad when surrounded by a garden or a farm. Welcome to what’s called the Gentrification Paradox.
Here is one explanation of this phenomenon from the Strong Towns blog. To put it very simply: Some tactics to stop ‘gentrification’ actually do the opposite. They make neighborhoods, towns and cities more attractive rather than less.
However, the ‘anti-G’ folks have other tactics from the grab-bag to try and stop, or at least slow down, the process of a neighborhood improving that do terrible long-term damage and truly affect people’s lives in a negative way:
- Upzoning (destabilize residential neighborhoods)
- Increase the crime rate (or the perception of crime in an area)
- Encourage the homeless to take over a “space”, like the Cultural Plaza downtown
- Promote needle exchange programs to attract more drug addicts (another tactic in Lake Worth from the bag of tricks)
- Try to make it easier for sober homes to operate without supervision and less scrutiny
- Under-fund or obstruct education initiatives for children and recent immigrants
The answer is easy: They simply overplayed their hand and ‘crying Wolf!’ had lost its effectiveness.
In conclusion, if someone tells you that your commissioner, mayor, or state representative is responsible for ‘gentrification’ they are lying to you.
And on the issue of trust:
Why would you ever trust anyone who told you that your neighborhood can’t aspire to be better for your children, friends, and family?