Mike Kueber's Blog

May 6, 2015


Filed under: Politics — Mike Kueber @ 10:26 pm
Tags: ,

The city of San Antonio has a “Mayor’s Task Force on Preserving Dynamic & Diverse Neighborhoods.”  According to Texas Public Radio, the task force recently completed a year-long study and recommended creating a housing commission, creating a displacement assistance fund, and further study on how city programs affect gentrification.  But the question remains, “How does the city encourage mixed-income neighborhoods while continuing to encourage growth?”

My first recollection of the term “gentrification” was its use in Manhattan, where the white-collar jobs have been squeezing out the working class for decades.  But according to Urban Dictionary, the term actually originated by sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964 in the land of the original gentry class:

  • “One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle-classes—upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages—two rooms up and two down—have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive residences …. Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed.”

Based on this insight, I sent the following comment to the TPR reporter:

  • The term “gentrification,” which has a snobbish British origin, has become so demonized, just as “welfare” was, that it should be replaced by something that reflects its true meaning – i.e., the revitalization of deteriorated urban areas. I think we used to call it “urban renewal.”

Yes, urban renewal involves displacement.  As Wikipedia noted, “Gentrification is any facet of urban renewal that inevitably leads to displacement of the occupying demographic.”  But why does that require the involvement of government?  In our dynamic economy, residences and businesses are all subject to movement, and each can individually deal with that concern.  No one should expect to stay in the same place forever and we don’t need a government nanny to manage the move.



  1. Urban Renewal is a good thing. Homes, apartments, buildings in good repair is a very good thing.

    PC and, often, politician and government involvement are simply expensive wastes of time and money. This is a perfect example. Neighborhoods change. Folks move. Why should falling down, decrepit buildings be preserved or saved? AND, if you actually spend the money to renovate that/those building(s) for “Historic” purposes, isn’t that exactly what we are talking about?

    Perfect example of the government and politicos working at cross-purposes with themselves.

    Who could argue with a straight face that the trailer park on the Mission Reach should have been saved/left in place?

    Comment by Bob Bevard — May 6, 2015 @ 10:58 pm | Reply

  2. Agree that the brouhaha over the trailer park was ridiculous.

    Comment by Mike Kueber — May 7, 2015 @ 4:02 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: