A Right to Stay is designed to help Dallas residents and policymakers better understand what gentrification is and where it’s taking place in the city and to offer concrete examples of proven policy and programmatic solutions to mitigate residential displacement in gentrifying Dallas neighborhoods.
Gentrification is a powerful force that is rapidly transforming urban neighborhoods in Dallas and in cities across the country, threatening to displace vulnerable residents and fundamentally altering the cultural character of our communities.
Communities of color in Dallas have been sounding the alarm of gentrification and displacement for years, but their cries have often fallen on deaf ears – with policymakers continuously prioritizing the creation of wealth and the growth of the city’s tax base over the preservation of neighborhoods and the cultivation of community.
This prioritization of economic growth over community preservation has taken many forms in Dallas – from the intentional dismantling and erasure of historic Black and Brown neighborhoods like State Thomas and Little Mexico to more discreet threats like the decision to fund “catalytic” real estate or public infrastructure projects in historically marginalized communities without appropriate consideration given to the vulnerability of existing residents, often resulting in the forced displacement of low-income households and communities of color.
We say no more, and we call upon the City of Dallas to take collective action now to protect our most vulnerable residents and communities.
A Right to Stay aims to create lasting and impactful policy change within the City of Dallas, ensuring that:
Vulnerable residents in historically marginalized communities have the right to stay and the opportunity to return to their neighborhoods in the face of rapid development and rising housing costs;
Over time, opportunities remain for new low-income residents to move into the community; and
All residents, but especially those most vulnerable to displacement, have a meaningful role in shaping the future of their neighborhoods.
Protecting vulnerable residents from direct displacement
Preserving and constructing affordable housing that is appropriately targeted to existing and future vulnerable residents
Building and resourcing community power to promote neighborhood self-determination and community stewardship of land and business development
Background
The word “gentrification” was first coined by British sociologist Ruth Glass in the 1960s to describe the displacement of low-income families in London when more affluent residents began moving into their established, working-class neighborhoods and changing the social fabric of the districts.
This phenomenon has since become prevalent in American cities, often unfolding along racial lines, where higher-income, predominantly white newcomers replace lower-income residents of color in central city neighborhoods, radically shifting the racial and socioeconomic make-up of the area and fundamentally altering the essential character of the community.
While gentrification has often been considered a natural, even inevitable, process of neighborhood change driven by individual choice and preferences and consumer-based supply and demand, those who closely study this process understand that there is much more at play.
Peter Moskowitz describes gentrification as “not just a trend” but “a purposeful act” spurred by a combination of political and economic forces that “favor the creation of wealth over the creation of community.”
With limited federal funding at their disposal, cities must rely heavily on their local tax base to fund basic services – incentivizing them to favor policies that attract and cater to more affluent households and disregard the needs of the most vulnerable.
Local municipal decision-making intended to spur “economic development” or “neighborhood revitalization” often serves as the very catalyst for gentrification and displacement in neighborhoods of historic disinvestment, which are most often neighborhoods of color.
Cities set the stage for gentrification through planning and land use decisions, targeted investments in infrastructure ranging from high-dollar vanity projects to small-scale streetscape improvements, and place-based economic incentives such as tax increment financing districts.
These public decisions impact private actions by signaling to the real estate development community where land values are expected to rise, often triggering a flurry of speculative land acquisitions as developers attempt to capitalize on previously undercapitalized areas.
It is important to note that gentrification cannot happen without the historic context of exclusion, discrimination, and disinvestment that have plagued Black and Brown communities in Dallas and in cities across the country.
Decades of racially discriminatory housing, lending, and land use policies including racial segregation and restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, and redlining practices have left many Black and Brown communities with depressed housing values and limited economic buying power, making them especially vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. These areas are then specifically targeted for redevelopment activity precisely because of this discriminatory history and the neighborhood conditions it has created.
Acknowledging the structural racism and explicitly discriminatory policies that have created and continue to perpetuate racial disparities in Dallas neighborhoods is critical in crafting meaningful and impactful policy solutions to protect and uplift our most vulnerable residents and neighborhoods.
At the same time, it is important to understand that gentrification is more than just an abstract concept; it is a lived experience that impacts us all – but it is most harmful to our most vulnerable neighbors and communities. It is harmful in the way it increases housing costs and threatens to price low-income families out of their homes. It is harmful in the way it reduces the overall supply of affordable housing within a neighborhood, restricting the ability of new low-income families to move in. It is harmful in the way it disrupts social support networks and deprives families and communities of deep-rooted social capital, impacting their quality of life and ability to thrive in their own neighborhoods. And it is harmful in the way it threatens our most treasured cultural enclaves and neighborhoods, chipping away at the very soul of our city and erasing pieces of our shared history.
But there is another way. Development without displacement is possible – when it is equitable, inclusive, and non-disruptive; when it responds to residents’ needs as opposed to investors’ desires; and when it prioritizes the cultivation of community over the creation of profit.
Gentrification is a process of neighborhood change in which:
New investment floods a historically marginalized neighborhood;
Property values rise, increasing housing costs and reducing the supply of affordable units;
The neighborhood is physically transformed through the influx of new, higher-end construction;
Neighborhood demographics shift as new, higher-income residents move into an area previously seen as “undesirable”;
Existing low-income residents, often Black or Latino, are directly or indirectly displaced; and
The cultural character of the neighborhood is fundamentally altered.
Gentrification results in various types of displacement.
Direct displacement is forced or involuntary household movement from one’s place of residence. It is distinct from residential choice/mobility, which involves voluntary household movement. Direct displacement occurs when residents can no longer afford to remain in their homes due to rising housing costs.
For homeowners, this can look like rapidly rising property valuations that increase a household’s tax burden. For renters, this can look like unsustainable rent hikes or evictions and lease non-renewals, or even constructive evictions as landlords refuse to make needed repairs as they await future redevelopment opportunities.
Indirect or exclusionary displacement refers to changes in demographics with regards to who can afford to move into a neighborhood as lower-income residents move out.
As housing costs rise, causing homes and rental units to be vacated by lower-income residents, other low-income residents cannot afford to move in. This can also look like the physical displacement of previously affordable housing units with new, higher-end construction.
Cultural displacement is the practice of making communities feel unwelcome and alienated in their own neighborhoods. This occurs as demographics shift, the scale of neighborhood change advances, and shops and services begin to cater to new residents.
This includes commercial displacement such as the loss of cultural institutions and resident-owned businesses. It also includes the loss of social capital experienced by residents as members of their social support networks are displaced.
