Gentrification with Justice?

Joey deVilla picked up on my mention on my personal blog of an article by Bob Lupton on "Gentrification with Justice," which provoked Chris Taylor to raise a number of good questions.

Bob Lupton writes:

I have now seen first hand (yes, inadvertently participated in) the devastating impact that gentrification can have on the poor of an urban community. I have faced panicking families at my front door who had just been evicted from their homes, their meager belongings set out on the curb. I have helped them in their frantic search to find scarce affordable apartments and have collected donations to assist with rent and utility deposits.

But I have also seen what happens to the poor when the "gentry" do not return to the city. The effects of isolation are equally severe. A pathology creeps into a community when achieving neighbors depart - a disease born of isolation that depletes a work ethic, lowers aspirations and saps human initiative. I have seen courageous welfare mothers struggle in vain to save their children from the powerful undertow of the streets. I have witnessed the sinister forces of a drug culture as it ravages unchecked the lives of those who have few options for escape. Without the presence of strong, connected neighbor-leaders who have the best interests of the community at heart, a neglected neighborhood becomes a desperate dead-end place.

Chris Taylor asks:

What exactly does "gentrification with justice" (or one of its more intelligent sub-headings -- "Including the Poor in the Reclamation Process") mean at the nuts-and-bolts level? Don't buy that $450K condo near High Park, nor that $350K house in the Junction? Buy the property but rent it below-cost to a poorer family? Sell all your junk, move to the Holy Land, and give the proceeds to a poor family who aspires to one day live in the Junction?

How, following the "gentrification with justice" model, how can a future Junction, Liberty Village or Cabbagetown end up with nice neighbours, safe streets and so on, without displacing some people? And what level of displacement is okay vs. not okay? Not every struggling family is going to be able to afford to live in a gentrfying area, so what's the cutoff point... no hookers and dealers and 5% loss of low-income families? 10%? I agree with the concept in principle, but how does it translate into the whole scheme of neighborhood development?

These are good - necessary - questions to ask ... but they are difficult to answer. Locke Street is not by any means part of an impoverished neighbourhood - but it is a mixed-income neighbourhood, in which I guess we are close to the middle of the range. That means we are not part of gentrification in terms of our micro-neighbourhood. But in a city like Hamilton, there is much need for economic upliftment, and as citizens we share the responsibility for enabling that upliftment. But ... how?