A decade ago, a large apartment complex in a first-tier suburb was sold to an investor. (Who else buys such things except investors?)
Though the sale isn’t the news. The hubbub that followed was about the residents. Many were low-income individuals who would eventually relocate. The sheer number of people involved was a stress test for the supply of low-income housing. The discontent escalated, and legal action followed, resulting in settlements.
People often blame the businesspeople involved. They are the individuals taking the action that resulted in the displacement. But consider these perspectives.
- If long-term repairs have been postponed to keep rents low, at what point does the building become overburdened by impending renovations? And how does a dilapidated building affect the quality of the neighborhood?
- Is it a good thing to use housing assistance for low-income residents in geographic proximity? Whether it be due to a tragedy– ex a natural disaster destroys the building– or an impending renovation– the pressure to relocate effects a disproportionate number of folks looking for the same niche of housing.
- Are the residents better off or worse off for the move? Perhaps the old, dilapidated building with low rents was serving as an anchor for someone who would have had more opportunities elsewhere.
Each group, the neighborhood, the property owner, and the residents, each has a unique mix of community concerns and private returns. Often hasty assumptions are made, ie, the tenants are worse off for the move, when that may not necessarily be true. Or the landlord benefited during the period of limited repairs– not so as their equity at the time of sale will be diminished by the condition of the property.
By separating out the players and their motivations, the dynamics at hand become apparent.
Home Economics 