Theory of Change – Displacement and Gentrification

I. INTRODUCTION: Theory of Change – Displacement and Gentrification

​Today, it is important to develop a data-based perspective on displacement as well as a highly effective strategy to combat displacement that will eventually be considered a national best practice.  

On July 24, 2019, the Seattle Times stated that Seattle is the third most gentrifying U.S. city, behind Washington DC and Portland.  Atlanta fell in fourth.  However, the author of the article concluded “The effects of gentrification aren’t as dire as people often think. In fact, on balance, it may do more good than harm.”  

This conclusion, written through the lens of a white male, used data to look at what he considered were modest effects on displacement and rising rents when gentrification occurred.  He also concluded these effects must be “weighed” against the potential benefits such as increased amenities and increased home values.  Basically, the article concluded that gentrification had positive outcomes for original residents, “as long as they’re able to stay put.”  

Let’s start with a common understanding of what gentrification is.  A gradual influx of residents in a neighborhood such as young professionals or more affluent arrivals who elect to live in a core area and embrace the benefits of urban city living.  A common characteristic of this newly developed culture is the embrace of values associated with urban living:  environmental sustainability; use of light rail and alternatives to fossil fuel transportation such as bicycle travel; access to healthy food; walkability; strong public safety; parks and open greenspace; restaurants; and access to social activities.   

It is hard to argue that what the influx of new residents want, is somehow bad; indeed, it is not.  The conclusion in the Times article would suggest that a resident who simply “stays put” can also enjoy the benefits of this healthier ecosystem.

But that conclusion misses a fundamental point regarding gentrification and displacement.  “Staying put” and watching the world around you change is not a strategy.  Such an approach describes a culture of being on the sidelines or being sidelined when activity around you is being driven by others.   The point of being in a neighborhood and owning real estate in a neighborhood is being able to enjoy the benefits of having physical structures, infrastructure, modes of transportation, social activities and the lifestyles of your neighbors reflect a common culture; common values and a common way of living.  One moves to a neighborhood because it reflects exactly that; it reflects you.  When it does not, if you have not been physically displaced, you have been culturally displaced.  

When your neighborhood does not reflect “you” then you are basically staying put in an area that is moving rapidly around you, through you, without you and over you.   Again, that is not a strategy; it is merely passive activity that gradually and almost inevitably results in displacement sooner or later.  

​History and Data     

The term “gentrification” was first coined by a British sociologist Ruth Glass in 1963.  A study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that between 2000 to 2013 for example, found that in Washington DC, 20,000 black residents were displaced.  Similar studies in Seattle and other major cities reveal similar, startling findings.  

Gentrification is also a result of market economics, market dynamics and the results of a free society.   In a capitalistic economic market system, need and demand dictate price.   Demand increases, market value increases.  Since 2012, the median home price in Seattle has increased from $355,000 to $773,508.   That is an appreciation of nearly 118%.  

​The sad reality for policymakers, municipalities, community activists, housing affordability advocates is that train has left the station and will not be stopped.  As discussed below, there are mitigation measures and other winning strategies that can be implemented using an innovative model, but housing prices will not be come down to 2012 prices and rent control under state law is not likely to solve the problem.  A longer discussion on municipal rent control, the pros and cons, is outside the scope of this proposal but a welcomed discussion.   

​I begin this approach by acknowledging in my theory of change that displacement caused by gentrification and the dynamics of a free market will continue to prevail over traditional approaches of “staying put” or simply building more traditional affordable housing.  

While building affordable housing at EVERY OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLE is a CRITICAL STRATEGY THAT MUST CONTINUE, I believe that such a strategy will only mitigate the effects of displacement, but never halt it.  Again, the construction of affordable housing must aggressively continue, similar to the war of “Bright Society” vs “Dark Society” but the eradication of the “Dark Society” has never been achieved to this date.  I believe and concede the effects of organic urban growth, a free market, and rising housing prices will continue to prevail for the most part in the next 20 years.   

So, what should we do?   Is displacement inevitable and unsolvable?  What can cities do to protect their most vulnerable populations if they value them?   What is the strategy?

The next section provides that analysis and provides solutions and strategies to combat displacement in a sustainable strategy.   

II.   Strategy for Against Displacement: Early Brain Development and Economic Empowerment

​My proposed strategy against displacement is based on its theory that displacement is the result of economic insecurity; simply put, poorer people are the ones vulnerable to displacement.  One never hears affluent families and individuals complaining about displacement.  

I believe that economic insecurity is the result of many factors including, but not limited to, institutional racism; the perpetuation of a white male dominated society; institutional and historical privileges embedded in economic ecosystem; the absence of equal opportunity (for the reasons stated above); and the trends of contemporary society that has replaced the traditionalwide and robust middle working class with higher wage earners and lower wage service workers.  

For example, in the 1970s neighborhoods in most U.S. cities were comprised of teachers, military veterans, city managers, Boeing factory workers, taxi drivers, commissioned sales workers, car mechanics, janitors, Executive Directors, and the range of so-called middle-class neighborhoods accommodated this diversity. While there were always difference in wage levels, the difference was not so great as to cause a displacement of those with less resources.  

In the early 2000s, we witnessed the rise of the new higher wage earner, largely caused by the creation of the innovation and technology age.  Many of these wage earners do not start young families as was typically done in the 1950s,60s and 70s and as a result, have more discretionary money and earning capacity.  

In Seattle, we have observed the success of corporate giants as Amazon, Starbucks, Microsoft and other industry leaders and with that success came the creation of the new wage earner who values and desires urban living.  

Contemporaneous with this growth, is the pushing down of wages for those who were not positioned to take advantage of these opportunities and so they become food service workers, Uber drivers, or small business employees.   Simply put, the gap between those who can afford to live in the city versus those who cannot have become exacerbated.  

I believe we have to create a generation of those who will be capable of taking advantage of the opportunities of the innovation age and technology age.  For this to occur, three fundamental pillars for community development must occur: 

1. Early brain development must be optimized.

2. Access to healthy food services and healthy lifestyle options must be established with the development of a vibrant mentoring and self-image structure.

3. Technology literacy is essential.   

It is imminent to build centers or hubs that will encapsulate this philosophy in a centralized, friendly, welcoming environment and while other entities will build affordable housing and other responses to displacement, the aforementioned centers or hubs will focus on a longer, multi-year plan focusing on the trends in 2030 and beyond.  

A. Early Brain Development.

Cities throughout the U.S., from a policy perspective, should invest in the Pre-K space for young children because they recognized the vast benefits of early childhood brain development.  It is widely accepted now that 90% of brain growth occurs before kindergarten.  Neuroscience research has now proven the incredible potential for proper and healthy brain development during those first 5 years and in contrast, the debilitating and limiting effect of unhealthy brain development during that period.

Learning how to negotiate; how to problem solve; how to create; how to deal with stress; how to evaluate circumstances around you – all of the very important growth and success factors are being formed during this critical state in a human beings life.  

Using this science, I recommend employing best practices for early brain development such as language immersion and positive reinforcement.  Instructors and care givers wouldrecognize the importance of developing healthy and productive minds and view themselves differently when they embrace this kind of role for the child. 

B. Healthy Centers.

The patrons of the proposed centers are not just the children.   They are the parents, the grandparents and extended family, the siblings, and friends of the family.  In other words, theybuild community around the child.

That being the case, those centers should feature a technology lab and a kitchen specifically designed for teaching.   The physical structures should also be designed to use a video monitoring system to allow remote mentoring and teaching on a real time basis. 

For example, some of the children’s parents will be Uber rideshare drivers.   Some of the children’s siblings will be in higher grades.   These “extended family” members will be introduced to professionals who look like them and talk like them such that they can “see” themselves in a world outside of what they see every day.

Similarly, healthy food options should be taught and the children and their families should be introduced to a world most of them never knew existed. 

C. Technology.

Nearly very recent study of the changing job market concludes that technology has permanently shaped the US job market; it has even shaped lower skilled jobs.   Seniors on fixed income; patients interacting with health professionals; and many aspects of daily life are becoming increasingly reliant on technology.  One study of 545 occupations concluded that nearly 520 of them now required some level of technological literacy.    

In my vision, as I focus on the early brain development for science, engineering, technology and math, I also recommend reaching out to the parents, siblings and families of underrepresented communities ensuring that they have opportunities to re-tool themselves for the competitive workplace.  Many members of these communities possess the will, intellect, and determination to embrace new skills, but what they lack is the opportunities to have a culturally friendly and welcoming environment filled with ideas, motivation and role models to help them succeed.  

By Issa Ndiaye | Principal and CVO at OVINDI International Group