Slashdot Mirror
Berlin Anti-Gentrification Activists Say They Have Occupied Google's Office in Kreuzberg To Fight Against the Skyrocketing Rents (noblogs.org)
Multiple Slashdot readers have submitted a blog post by a group of Berlin-based "anti-gentrification activists": Today we occupied the Umspannwerk in Kreuzberg to prevent the planned Google Campus there, to fight against the skyrocketing rents and to open up the space for something better. The Google Campus is intended to be a magnet for annoying young entrepreneurs whose IT-sweatshops ("start-ups") promise to deliver new ideas to Google's company business. New tech companies are driving the rents up in the area higher and higher. The endpoint of this process can be seen in San Francisco, which once must have been a halfway livable city.
While it is especially aggravating that Google, despite its aggressive collection of data, is morphing into Big Brother with a user-friendly face, this is not the decisive factor for us. We would also put a spoke in the wheel of any other company. What happens now in the Umspannwerk instead depends on everyone who fills the house with life. It could become a base for the many initiatives that are currently struggling against rising rents and displacement -- a campus of subversion. But it can also be used as a covered grill area for the cold months, or something more. We call on all rebellious tenants, subversive and precarious cultural workers, work-shy benefit scroungers, strike-hungry air traffic controllers, long-living pensioners, unruly refugees, and all other local pests from the neighborhood (and beyond) to join us in the occupation as quickly as possible. A neighborhood assembly will take place at 6 p.m. to discuss the occupation and how to proceed. Local media has covered the development. [Editor's note: the stories are not in English.] Some context on the local tussle: 'Google go home': the Berlin neighbourhood fighting off a tech giant [May 2018, The Guardian].
While it is especially aggravating that Google, despite its aggressive collection of data, is morphing into Big Brother with a user-friendly face, this is not the decisive factor for us. We would also put a spoke in the wheel of any other company. What happens now in the Umspannwerk instead depends on everyone who fills the house with life. It could become a base for the many initiatives that are currently struggling against rising rents and displacement -- a campus of subversion. But it can also be used as a covered grill area for the cold months, or something more. We call on all rebellious tenants, subversive and precarious cultural workers, work-shy benefit scroungers, strike-hungry air traffic controllers, long-living pensioners, unruly refugees, and all other local pests from the neighborhood (and beyond) to join us in the occupation as quickly as possible. A neighborhood assembly will take place at 6 p.m. to discuss the occupation and how to proceed. Local media has covered the development. [Editor's note: the stories are not in English.] Some context on the local tussle: 'Google go home': the Berlin neighbourhood fighting off a tech giant [May 2018, The Guardian].
Welcome to 1968 . . .
*rolls eyese*
Sure the prices are going up, but much slower than they used to, and Berlin is still by far the cheapest capital in Western Europe
The reason SF has become a literal shithole has nothing to do with Google, and everything to do with the policies of the local government. If more housing were allowed to be built the city might well still be livable by anyone earning less than 200k/year (or is that even livable there these days? Maybe with roommates).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One man's gentrification is another man's urban renewal.
To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages so that as gentrification occurs they're not pushed into ghettos but move laterally, maintaining their standard of living.
Well, instead of wasting time bitching about it...perhaps one could spend extra time trying to educate themselves, get a better job, a different job, etc.....?
Its never too late, until it is too late.
But progress happens, and in the case of economic development, if you want to stay in the area, you need to make sure you can keep up, and try to be a part of the economic upswing.....or, well, there are other places to live.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm not talking about more single/multi family homes. We need more 15 story urban apartment bricks around each transit stop. The population density should approach 10k people per transit stop at that density you can also support multiple food marts and other retailers to fight the tyranny of the local merchant while preserving a car free/walkable environment.
"Community Activists": Businesses and white people are leaving downtown areas for the suburbs, and it is not fair to the poor who have no where else to go. They need to come back, help rebuild the neighborhoods, and open new businesses.
White people and business owners: OK. (start returning, improving the neighborhoods, and opening businesses)
"Community Activists": It's not fair. Businesses and white people are flooding the neighborhoods, improving them (the cause of higher rents, prices, and tax valuations), and opening businesses, and it is not fair to the poor who have nowhere else to go.
Somebody needs to get their head on straight and decide what they really want.
That isn't going to work to the extent that it would be necessary. When companies like Google, Apple, etc. move to an area, the workers they bring are highly skilled, highly paid individuals. Unless additional housing is built, those new workers will lead to an increase in price of a limited resource. They can easily afford to pay more for housing than existing residents whose labor may not command as high of a wage as a software engineer. The additional influx of new highly paid employees means that the local economy in general will see a boost, but it's not going to be evenly distributed (the owner of an eatery might make a good deal more money, but the fry cook isn't going to see as much of a bump) and it won't offset the increased prices that these newcomers are willing to pay for good housing.
The only way to solve this problem is to build additional housing, but cities are often loathe to grant building permits at all (it will require destroying old buildings that "represent the history of the area") or have implemented rent controls that mean developers have no interest in building new housing since they can't charge what they feel is a fair rate. If everyone owned their own housing, you could get the government to implement laws to prevent property taxes increasing for existing owners just because someone wealthy moved next door, but governments are often too greedy to agree to that and it does nothing to help the people who are renting.
So we repeat this useless set of actions and whine about gentrification instead of learning from mistakes or doing something that will actually solve the problem in a way that makes most people the happiest. People eventually get pushed out due to rising prices and while they are upset, no one else really cares about them as everyone else has their own set of problems to deal with and aren't personally affected by this issue. Eventually everything settles down as a new equilibrium is reached where the people living in an area can all afford to do so. Meanwhile, somewhere in another state or a neighboring city, a new business has moved into the area and has brought with them employees who earn significantly more than existing folks in the area.
One man's gentrification is another man's urban renewal.
To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages so that as gentrification occurs they're not pushed into ghettos but move laterally, maintaining their standard of living.
That is absolutely the wrong direction to push.
If you want to keep rents (and housing prices) affordable, you have to remove barriers to affordable (and not affordable) housing.
Where are housing prices the highest? Cities like San Francisco, New York City, etc. that have strong controls in place that make developing new housing very difficult.
If you removed these restrictions and let developers build loads of new, expensive, luxury housing, you'll find that the value of the old housing stock won't appreciate like it does if you restrict these developers. In fact, you will likely find that the older, less luxuriously appointed housing drops in price.
There are some pretty strong forces that oppose looser zoning restrictions - including existing homeowners who would be very happy to have their buildings double and triple in value. But the ones that make absolutely no sense are folks who think they are advocating for more affordable housing by advocating rent controls and set-asides for affordable housing in any new project. You don't get lower prices by limiting supply and capping prices. You get shortages.
1923 called, they want their Beer Hall Putsch back.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Why don't tech companies choose a location in the middle of nowhere and build their offices there? With such a high concentration of highly paid workers, the free market will build a city around it.
Microsoft did. Walmart did for their tech bunker (want a freaking mansion as a software dev? Work for Walmart.)
Google and Facebook and Amazon want to have offices in prestigious cities, as it helps attract young stupid talent. People who would rather live in a 400 sq foot highrise apartment "in the city!" than a large house somewhere nice. It makes sense if you're mostly hiring guys in their 20s: they don't want a house, they want someplace they can stagger to drunk after a night at the club, hopefully with company.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
My problem is that buying a house in any major western city has become a giant leveraged speculative investment
I agree. That's why I rented until I had saved enough to pay cash for a house. Not a leveraged speculative investment now. If house prices double because of some BS, I'll sell and move somewhere cheap. If they fall, I still have the same house to live in, can't be underwater (even literally: FFS people, check flood maps before you buy a house).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
People pit out the word Gentrification like it's some kind of KKK scheme.
But:
gentrification
jentrfkSH()n
noun
the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste.
The Problem is that with improved housing and other infrastructure comes higher property taxes. The curious thing is that Gentrification is pretty funded solely by the citizens moving into an area and spending money to do the renovating and improving. Then, the government of course looks as what you did and says, "hmmm nice place you got there. We think you should pay more money in property taxes". Then they go one worse and say to the poor residents, "people would pay for your place, so you need to pay us more".
Property Taxes are a tax on unrealized gains. They are probably the most oppressive taxes in the US. They can drive someone out of a home they own outright, merely because the State says your home is worth $X and you need to pay $x * y%, regardless of your income situation.
The solution is to decouple taxes on land and homes from current market values and only use market value when acquiring assets such as land and homes. Allow for some inflation of costs of infrastructure and the like, but just because they out a Mall in a mile down the road doesn't mean you should have to pay more.
CA did pretty much this with Proposition 13. It stabilized growth and benefited millions of home owners. Sure, the SJW crowd whined about not having money for they pet programs, but that is arguably a good thing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Minimum wage increases, unions, etc.
In a global economy there are limits to transferable professions. A janitor and teacher are needed locally to perform their duties.
The other thing to consider is that as Google grows it's workforce that is adding money into the community. Typically in these situations the trades become high demand professions as everyone is spending their wealth on things like home improvements. Those contractors can then raise their rates, etc.
There is short term upheaval to gentrification - no question. The alternative though is that instead of renewal you get decay. If everyone is just getting by no one will put in the money into home improvements, contractors don't get enough work, they don't buy building materials, and the economy stagnates as less and less money flows through it. It's not an easy process but it's one that gets repeated constantly with very predictable results. Each neighbourhood is on roughly a 60 cycle. The renewal that is happening now will decay and become the low income areas of 40 years from now - by 50-60 years some other renewal will come through and repeat the process (hopefully).
Fuck you, Boomer. Your generation inherited prosperity and freedom. You stumbled into wealth despite your personal uselessness. And what did you leave for future generations? A bankrupt financialist police state.
Now you have the gall to lecture us on how we need to just try harder? Go play in traffic! Better hope your "free market" retirement plan doesn't implode. Or you can enjoy eating dogfood in your golden years.
Cool story bro. Better check out your history. Keep on spouting the rhetoric of failure. Many people had the same sad story while we were growing up. Many people always will. And just like those people you've bought into it. If you think you can't succeed, you are correct.
But it isn't all gloom and doom. You have people to blame for your failure before you even fail.
Let us know how that works out for ya
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Problem is that with improved housing and other infrastructure comes higher property value.
The poor residents mostly don't own their own homes. The trouble is that as a location becomes more desirable to live in by people who have money, and are willing to pay to live there, the location becomes less feasible for people who don't have money. The difference in rent can't be explained by property taxes, that's a relatively small factor.
Yeah those damn stupid kids, wanting a social life and places to go in a nice walkable neighbourhood, instead of living in the middle of nowhere and having to drive 10 miles to get a pint of milk.