I'd like to reframe the analysis of the supportive housing discussion about Whittier/Stevens Sq.
After 30 years of different changes in the housing market of these neighborhoods there is a residual tension between people who advocate for more homeownership and those that advocate for affordable housing and those who advocate for social services. The two neighborhoods became overconcentrated with group homes after major changes which led to disinvestment. Property values dropped, and the big stately houses become vacant--hard to get homeowners to buy them for numerous reasons. They were perfect for group homes and there was a small boom for this type of housing. In the late 70's through the 90's individuals who were attracted to the stately properties and the low prices started buying and moving into the neighborhood. Without any value judgements--these people were gentrifiers. They become an interest group that wants to attract like people to the neighborhood and enhance the value of their properties. We have to admit that this is a major component to the tension between those who want supportive housing, and those that are against it for these neighborhoods. Zoning discussions are just commentary. They are the scaffolding on which the various interest groups present their arguments. There is merit to both sides of the argument. By not acknowleding the basis for the tension, we generate resentment and the debate degenerates into name-calling and fingerpointing. David Wilson Loring Park On 21 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > While I understand your sentiment, there is a major difference in deconcentration by >active exclusion and deconcentration by inclusion. While we are somewhat off the >issue of this particular supportive housing proposal, I don't know of any community >that wants the exclusion of the relatively wealthy or the exclusion of a white group >of people by using arguments that there are too many of "those people" already. > > Gregory Luce > N.Phillips > > > On Fri, 19 October 2001, "wizardmarks" wrote: > > > > > Gregory Luce wrote: > > > > > > I understand the argument of deconcentration (whether > > > it be poverty or anything else, I guess, except wealth or whiteness), > > > > > Having been in on these discussions off and on over the > > years, I would say that a decrese in wealth and whiteness is > > just what Whittier, Stevens Square, Phillips, Central and > > others ARE looking for. To deconcentrate the supported > > housing would require that some of it be settled in among > > the mostly wealthier (though not necessarily wealthy) and, > > hence, whiter neighborhoods. > > WizardMarks, Central > > > > _______________________________________ > > > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > > > > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > > > > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________ > > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > > > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > > > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
