How is this any different than private investors purchasing dilapidated, unsafe homes and displacing the tenants (i.e., “gentrification”)?
In reality, ANY investment – private or public – which increases the stock of safe, decent housing should be embraced enthusiastically.
Let’s not settle for homeless encampments or squatters in boarded up housing. Discouraging investment to maintain the status quo does nothing to help these people.
This has always puzzled me. When private investment comes to a blighted neighborhood it’s labelled “gentrification” (which is bad, I am told). But when public investment comes, it’s labelled “redevelopment” (which is good, I am told).
Isn’t ANY investment in blighted neighborhoods good? Sure, the people being displaced need a safe/affordable place to live. But the blighted structures they lived in previously weren’t safe.
Isn’t the question we should be asking “What can we do to produce more affordable housing so people don’t have to live in slums?” Saying “Look at those heartless private investors, displacing poor families from blighted, unsafe housing?” seems to miss the point.
A link to the news story is found here.