HomeMy WebLinkAboutdevelopment-without-displacementWritten by Causa Justa :: Just Cause
with health impact research and data and policy analysis contributed
by the Alameda County Public Health Department, Place Matters Team
Development without Displacement
RESISTING GENTRIFICATION
IN THE BAY AREA
| Development Without Displacement6
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Report
This report contributes to the conversation and
understanding of gentrification and displace-
ment from the perspective of a frontline organi-
zation working in neighborhoods most impacted
by the crisis. We aim to challenge existing
definitions and assumptions about gentrifica-
tion and displacement that portrays it as posi-
tive, needed progress; as well as highlight the
devastating health impacts that gentrification
and displacement have on working-class people
of color. We will offer an alternative vision of
community development that centralizes the in-
terest and needs of working-class communities
of color. We feel this vision will ultimately create
healthier and more sustainable neighborhoods
for all residents in our cities.
Important to this vision is a set of development,
housing, and tenant related policy recommen-
dations and organizing strategies that will help
bring this vision to light. This policy focus stems
from our belief that the state has a central role
to play in ensuring development benefits work-
ing class communities. Our policy recommen-
dations are designed to support organizers and
advocates in identifying appropriate solutions
for their communities that they can turn into
strong campaigns. Ultimately it will be as a re-
sult of sustained, effective organizing that policy
change occurs. It is our goal that this document
contributes to inspiring and sustaining neigh-
bors and organizations coming together to fight
and win their vision of change.
While the report is best positioned to support
organizing for policy changes, we recognize
the numerous other critical tactics that can and
must be used in any effective strategy against
gentrification. A few of these include occupying
vacant homes, doing eviction blockades, turn-
ing unused or under-used land into community
space or gardens, etc. While we strongly believe
in these tactics, our emphasis on policy was
largely an attempt to focus our efforts on one crit-
ical aspect of a broader strategy and do it well.
In this report, we develop and share a compre-
hensive definition of gentrification and recom-
mend effective ways to combat the displace-
ment of low-income communities of color in the
name of development. Our definition is made
comprehensive by our attention to historical,
local and global, economic, and policy trends,
as well as to the public health dimensions of
corporate-led urban development that result in
gentrification.
Our report places gentrification on a historical
timeline of racial, economic, and social dis-
crimination, exacerbated by the progressive
public disinvestment by government at all levels.
However, the present configuration of these
historical trends revolves around the dramatic
increase in private financial investment in Bay
Area real estate markets, the inflow of non-dis-
tributive technology wealth held by a small
labor force, and the continued disinvestment by
government in public services and programs,
whose model of development is often to invite
more private investment.
Data Analysis
Anchoring our analysis and recommendations
is a “neighborhood typology” that uses demo-
graphic, socioeconomic, and property data from
1990 and 2011 to illustrate the changing char-
Causa Justa :: Just Cause |7
Gentrification by the Numbers
All analyses were conducted by Alameda County Public Health Department, using data from Census 1990, Census 2000,
and American Community Survey 2007-2011.
3 Gentrification is happening in histor-
ically disinvested areas where property
values have accelerated, homeownership
and incomes have risen, and neighbor-
hoods have become wealthier and whiter
over the last two decades. Neighborhoods
in late stages of gentrification include
the Mission in San Francisco and North
Oakland in Oakland. Neighborhoods in
middle stages of gentrification include the
Bayview-Hunters Point in San Francisco,
and West Oakland, Downtown, and San
Antonio in Oakland.
3 Rental housing costs have skyrocketed
in gentrifying neighborhoods, and in
some cases, they have surpassed rent-
al housing costs in historically affluent
neighborhoods. In San Francisco, the
median monthly rent in neighborhoods in the
latest stages of gentrification increased by
$460 dollars, or 40 percent, between 1990
and 2011. In Oakland, neighborhoods in the
latest stages of gentrification had higher me-
dian rents in 2011 than historically affluent
neighborhoods such as Rockridge and the
Oakland Hills. Between 1990 and 2011,
the median monthly rent in these neighbor-
hoods increased by $280, or 30 percent.
This means that urban areas that were
formerly affordable to working families are
now out of reach except to the wealthiest
segments of our society.
3 There has been substantial and dis-
proportionate displacement of African
Americans in gentrifying neighbor-
hoods, as well as a loss in African
American homeownership. Between
1990 and 2011, the proportion of African
Americans in all Oakland neighborhoods
decreased by nearly 40 percent. In North
Oakland, the number of African American
households decreased by more than 2,000.
Furthermore, African Americans dropped
from being 50 percent to 25 percent of all
homeowners in North Oakland, and with-
in the Black community, homeownership
decreased while renters grew. We see
a similar loss of black homeownership in
West Oakland and Bayview-Hunters Point
in San Francisco.
3 Latinos are being displaced at a sig-
nificant rate from the Mission district
while white residents and homeown-
ers have increased. Between 1990 and
2011, the number of Latino households
in the Mission decreased by 1,400, while
the number of White households in-
creased by 2,900. White homeownership
more than doubled during this time.
3 Gentrification is changing the popu-
lation of Oakland and San Francisco
as a whole. Between 1990 and 2011,
Oakland’s African American population
decreased from 43 percent to 26 percent of
the population, the largest drop by far of any
population group. During the same period of
time, San Francisco’s Black population was
cut in half from about 10 percent to only 5
percent of the population. While gentrifi-
cation may bring much-needed investment
to urban neighborhoods, displacement
prevents these changes from benefitting
residents who may need them the most.
3 Gentrification affects housing quality
and health and exacerbates inequal-
ities. In Oakland, neighborhoods in the
latest stages of gentrification have the
greatest disparity between Black and
White mortality rates. We also found that
rates of overcrowding increased in San
Francisco neighborhoods between early
and late stages of gentrification.
| Development Without Displacement8
Gentrification as a Historic
Process
Displacement in gentrifying communities is,
more often than not, an involuntary occurrence
in which residents are forced out and develop-
ment is pushed forward by the profit motive of
investors, developers, landlords, and government.
These gentrifying communities are overwhelm-
ingly working-class communities of color that
have faced historical racial discrimination such
as redlining, in which banks refused to lend to
neighborhood residents based on race. These
were the same communities that bore the brunt
of urban renewal policies beginning in the 1950s
that destroyed homes to make way for new high-
ways serving White residents from the growing
suburban areas. Most recently, low-income com-
munities of color were preyed upon as targets
for predatory lending practices during the recent
foreclosure crisis. As a result, many lost their
homes. These communities need to be shielded
from future instability caused by gentrification
and displacement. Although investment in these
communities is crucial, without a comprehensive
approach to development, existing residents will
continue to be at risk for displacement.
Health Impacts
Our health impact analysis highlights the
individual, family, and community-level health
impacts of gentrification and displacement,
based on literature review, resident stories, and
original data analysis. We found that longtime
residents in gentrifying neighborhoods face
financial distress, loss of community services
and institutions, and overcrowded and substan-
dard housing conditions; while displaced resi-
dents experience relocation costs, longer com-
mutes, disruptions to health care, fragmentation
of community support networks, and direct
impacts on mental and psychological wellbeing.
Finally, gentrification and displacement may
harm our cities and society as a whole – by
exacerbating segregation, increasing social and
health inequities, and contributing to increased
rates of chronic and infectious disease. Our fo-
cus on the health impacts of gentrification and
displacement is important because historically,
public health has been involved in decisions
that have led to displacement of low-income
What Is Gentrification?
We define gentrification as a profit-driven ra-
cial and class reconfiguration of urban, work-
ing-class and communities of color that have
suffered from a history of disinvestment and
abandonment. The process is characterized
by declines in the number of low-income,
people of color in neighborhoods that begin
to cater to higher-income workers willing to
pay higher rents. Gentrification is driven by
private developers, landlords, businesses,
and corporations, and supported by the gov-
ernment through policies that facilitate the
process of displacement, often in the form of
public subsidies. Gentrification happens in
areas where commercial and residential land
is cheap, relative to other areas in the city
and region, and where the potential to turn
a profit either through repurposing existing
structures or building new ones is great.
acteristics of neighborhoods in the San Fran-
cisco Bay Area. This typology, adapted from a
2013 Portland study, is based on a theory of
change that recognizes how neighborhoods
progress through different stages of gentrifica-
tion and have distinct needs and characteristics
along the way. The resulting typology catego-
rizes neighborhoods into different types based
on the amount and kind of change that has
occurred. It also allows solutions to be devel-
oped based on the distinct needs of neighbor-
hoods. Together, this neighborhood typology,
our historical analysis of political economy, and
our qualitative interviews with affected popula-
tions present a holistic analysis of gentrification
in the Bay Area. For a more detailed discussion
of this typology analysis, including definitions of
neighborhood types, see page 100.
Causa Justa :: Just Cause |9
communities and communities of color. More
recently, development advanced in the name
of health and sustainability is contributing to
gentrification and displacement yet again.
Therefore, a pro-active strategy to prevent
displacement must be central to our collective
efforts to build healthy communities for all. For
a full discussion of health impacts, including
sources, see page 38.
Policy Recommendations
Gentrification can be stopped! Gentrification
is not the inevitable result of economic devel-
opment. Quite the opposite, it is the result of
fundamentally unjust economic development
policies, widespread public disinvestment in
historically marginalized communities, and
lack of protections for existing residents. By
advancing a vision of human development that
is based on true community development, this
report makes clear that community organiz-
ing, collective power-building, and community
self-determination must be the foundation for
any strategy to prevent or reverse gentrification
and displacement. The recommendations in
this report stand in contrast to popular “equi-
table development strategies,” such as tran-
sit-oriented development (TOD), mixed-income
development, and deconcentration of poverty
approaches. Rather than focus primarily on
physical improvements or require the movement
of existing residents, we suggest policies that
empower local residents and communities with
rights, protections, and a voice in determining
the development of their own neighborhoods.
We also recommend policies that regulate
government, landlord, and developer activity
to promote equitable investment, affordability
and stability, and maximum benefits for existing
residents.
The below policy recommendations are based
on review of key literature, existing policies,
and interviews with experts, allies, and affected
residents.
1. Multiple policies must be advanced in
order to effectively prevent gentrifi-
cation and displacement. In this report,
we discuss six key principles for pre-
venting displacement from a housing
rights perspective. These principles address
distinct but complementary policy goals,
including:
3 Baseline protections for vulnera-
ble residents, including policies that
protect tenants and homeowners in
the face of gentrification pressure and
ensure access to services, just compen-
sation, and the right to return in cases of
displacement;
3 Preservation and production of af-
fordable housing, including efforts to
preserve the overall supply and afford-
ability levels of existing housing;
3 Stabilization of existing com-
munities, through ongoing and eq-
uitable investment in all homes and
neighborhoods;
3 Non-market based approaches to
housing and community develop-
ment, including development of cooper-
ative housing models;
3 Displacement prevention as a re-
gional priority, including the creation
of regional incentives, data, and fund-
ing to support local anti-displacement
efforts; and
3 Planning as a participatory process,
including practices to build greater
participation, accountability, and trans-
parency into local land use and develop-
ment decision-making.
2. Policies should be advanced at the
appropriate stage of gentrification,
based on an analysis of neighborhood and
city-level change, in order to effectively meet
local needs.
| Development Without Displacement10
3. Resident outreach, community orga-
nizing, and leadership development
are essential to any anti-displacement
strategy, in order to secure and strength-
en rights and opportunities for vulnerable
residents, ensure communities are informed
and involved in key development decisions,
and contribute to successful policy design
and enforcement.
4. Affordable housing policies and pro-
grams should serve the needs of
people in the same neighborhood. This
can be achieved by prioritizing longtime,
low-income residents for eligibility within
new affordable housing, earmarking taxes
and fees triggered by development for use
in the same neighborhood, and establishing
affordability requirements in new develop-
ments that are based on local neighborhood
income needs.
5. Equity impacts should be central to
the policy debate about development
and neighborhood change. This can be
achieved by requiring community health
impact analyses for all new development
projects above a certain threshold. These
analyses should address impacts for
longtime residents and trigger mitigations
for potential displacement.
6. All policies would benefit from the below
components:
3 Pro-active enforcement efforts, includ-
ing penalties for non-compliance, so that the
burden of enforcement does not fall onto
vulnerable residents;
3 Protections for vulnerable populations,
including policy design features to minimize
displacement, rights for residents faced
with eviction, just compensation in cases
of displacement, right to return if temporary
relocation is required, and access to infor-
mation about rights and opportunities;
3 Mechanisms to trigger relocation
funding, particularly for policies that aim
to minimize loss of affordable housing and
mitigate displacement impacts; and
3 Dedicated staff and funding for en-
forcement, which can be supported by
local, regional, state, and federal funding
sources.
For a more detailed discussion of our policy
findings and recommendations, see page 55.
WEST OAKLAND OFFICE:
3268 San Pablo Avenue
Oakland, California 94608
EAST OAKLAND OFFICE:
9124 International Blvd.
Oakland, California 94603
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE:
2301 Mission Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, California 94110
Mailing: PO Box 3596, Oakland, CA 94609
Website: www.cjjc.org Twitter: @causajusta1