Posted on 10/23/2017 8:26:01 PM PDT by artichokegrower
The fight to protect San Francisco’s cultural enclaves against gentrification and displacement typically takes the form of opposition. Activists show up at public meetings to decry upscale housing, to bash new office towers, or to disparage chain stores or fancy restaurants catering to well-heeled newcomers.
But the speed with which these neighborhoods are changing suggests that it hasn’t been working very well.
Now Supervisor Hillary Ronen is betting that those fighting to save what’s left of San Francisco’s cultural districts would be better served by saying yes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I read this and now my head hurts.
Gentrification no, ghettoization yes?
There is no such thing, unless they mean the Castro District. There are two "cultural" districts I can think of, Chinatown and Japantown. Japantown was decimated by the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, resulting in an influx of blacks brought in from the south taking over the vacant housing. Some Japanese descendants remain in Japantown, concentrated within a few blocks. Chinatown is also losing Chinese populace, to a lesser extent, from migration out of the district to other areas around the Bay Area.
As for the other districts, they are artificial constructs in the author's head, sprung up only in the last few decades. I remember the Mission District was largely white with lots of Italian, German, English and other European style shops, until Filipinos and later on in the 1960s Mexicans came in and slowly changed the neighborhood (Filipinos good, Mexicans ruined it). As for the Bayview/Hunter's Point which was largely black since WWII, it is being changed by an influx of Asians.
There is no need for legislation to save any district. They change with the decades on their own, some for the better, some for the worse. And certainly no need to "save" the Castro or Mission districts in their current nightmarish shape.
Ah for the olden days of LBJ’s URBAN RENEWAL! Seedy areas changed into nice areas.
what Left of San Fransicko?
answer: all of it
The fight to protect San Francisco’s cultural enclaves against gentrification and displacement...Let us know how that goes, because there's nothing like a longterm upward price spiral in real estate prices to achieve total socialist equality. And there's stuff like this, thanks to gov't and private mismanagement and greed. Thanks artichokegrower.
Segregationists gonna segregate.
San frwnaicko is the prime target for billions of dollars of hot communist China money. As long as this continues, no declaration by the shitty of San Fransicko political whores can stop neighborhoods from “changing”.
You couldn’t pay me to live in SF, but I also reject the concept of “gentrification”, which is inherently racist.
http://www.google.com/search?q=spike+lee+gentrification+site:freerepublic.com
Good then South if Market and Hunter’s Point can remain dumps
It’s right between Feces Alley and The Sanctuary Kill Zone.
A homosexual cultural district. What the heck?
Queer Leather culture???
I had to wonder, exactly what “culture” has homosexuality contributed to the our great American tapestry of cultures????
I’ve never had a hobo, a welfare bum or Spike Lee offer me a job.
A rising tide raises all boats. “Gentrification” means moving out useless eaters and moving in taxpayers.
I don’t care about the displaced because I’m a straight, privileged, taxpaying white ofay.
They probably meant a culture like a petri dish.
And Spike Lee was welcome to buy every block of his old neighborhood, keeping it just the way it was, and also have the “privilege” of being the landlord. Or, he could just apologize for his racist outburst, then STFU.
Bottom line. Let us not call it homosexuality but plain depravity and sin, and these quarters are the new Valley of Gehonim
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.