Relative to SF it's been smooth. MoPac's kinda an enigma and I'm not sure there's a good solution there. Either exercise eminent domain or watch the traffic take control of the city. What I meant is that Austin has become a City rather than a city, all while keeping an amazing cultural scene, a few "ethnic neighborhoods" (sorry but it gets the point across), international influences, etc. In my opinion it's been a smashing success so far. One thing we have in common with SF is people getting priced out of downtown. I don't know why anyone's surprised, honestly. That's kinda what happens everywhere. SF has its Google transports and $8 coffee shops; we have our condominiums all along the lake. But minimum_wage's (and everyone else's according to the votes) refusal to acknowledge that these things are linked to very specific and obvious economic benefits is baffling to me.
I don't think they're refusing to acknowledge that there are economic benefits helping the city. What they're doing is pointing out who those benefits are helping (newcomers from elsewhere), and who they're hurting (people who've grown up here and possibly have to leave). You're right, and they're right, because neither set of points runs at cross purposes. But minimum_wage's (and everyone else's according to the votes) refusal to acknowledge that these things are linked to very specific and obvious economic benefits is baffling to me.
No but I completely disagree with that. First of all, not everyone leaves. A lot of local "anti-gentrifiers" simply adapt. And they sure as shit benefit from the city's growth, whether they're farsighted enough to see it or not. If you're forced to leave -- absolutely forced -- then maybe you don't benefit at all. (Although if this process is inevitable then I'm not at all sure about that.) To be fair many more people have been forced to leave SF from the sound of it than Austin.
I'm with you. I suppose it's because I am (for another short while, anyway) a gentrifier. I moved into an abandoned space a few years ago, and I like to think that my outrageous tax bill that I've been paying to the city of Detroit since then (both income and property) has been marginally good for the city (as well as the taxes paid by all the businesses that I support). The city needs money to survive, and the only people who can pay are the people who have a positive income. I'm not sure where else it comes from. Cities can't print their own script. I always have a good laugh at the people in my city who scorn gentrifiers and then complain that city services are so shitty. I love irony.