“All my money I get from work goes to the rent”, said Clarita Espadas. Ms.Espadas at 455 Eddy Street, is suffering from gentrification. She works as an inspector in a Hotel, and gets paid well but it’s not enough for her to be able to spend money on other things besides the rent-- “I’m upset about it because i can’t buy anything else because i don’t have any more money.”
“I wish the rents would be more cheaper, because if so, I would have money to spend with the family, like going to vacations with that money, or buying things we need, like clothes, food, decorations for our home”,Clarita said. Gentrification happens when rich people move into poor neighborhoods. Gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community because the landlords only care about the money, they don’t care about the people, they don’t care if they are putting people on streets, they only care about the money. Gentrification is also harmful to the San Francisco community because it makes people depressed, people wouldn’t have homes, and people have to work more to be able to pay the rent.
The first argument, that gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community is that it makes people depressed.In an article by Julie Rae Levak, she explains how some people get hurt by gentrification. For example, levak describes, ¨Older people and people who have bad health are also in trouble. Studies show that older people may have shorter lives because of stress caused by having to move. People may also kill themselves when they become sad about losing their homes¨ (Levak 2). Her article shows how old people and young people get affected by gentrification, and that gentrification can take away someone’s life or make people upset, or sad.This supports the argument that gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community because it shows the harm to people. Is not helping at all, instead is making a big problem.If this fact continues , then a lot of people will be depressed and a lot of people would live on the streets.
The second reason, why gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community is that people won’t have homes. In an article by Stephanie Martin Taylor she explains how people are getting kicked out of their homes, apartments, and even their own stores because the landloards want more money. For example, ¨Owen Wang, a retiree and an immigrant who speaks limited English, says he pays $300 a month to live here. His attorney, Alex Lemieux, explains that the hotel’s new management changed the locks on Wang and at least one other full-time resident and threatened others with notices on their doors, written in English only¨ (Taylor 1) . This supports the argument that gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community because getting kicked out where you live is not a good thing, it makes people upset and that’s the problem.If this situation continues, then everyone that can’t afford to pay the rent will be living in the streets, and that would be a big problem,because everyone wants to live in a home, not on the streets.
The third reason, why gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community is that people have to work more to be able to pay the rent.In an article by Truthout explains that when the rents go up people that can’t afford to pay the new rent haves to work more, spend most of their time working, and resting less so they can pay their rent, if not they would get kicked out. For example, Truthout argues, “This makes San Francisco maybe the least affordable city for middle-class families in the country, with New York City closely behind. It's so expensive that even San Francisco's minimum wage, which is the highest in the country at over $10 an hour, is barely enough to live. One would have to work five, six, or more minimum-wage jobs to make the city's rent. Also, San Francisco’s income gap between rich and poor people is growing the fastest of any city¨ (Truthout 2). This statistic shows that people have to work more hours than before to be able to pay their rent. This supports the argument that gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community because is making harm to people that are not rich by making people work more and that affects people because they get more tired and have less time to rest, and if the parents have to work day and night, they would have to get a nanny to take care of their children, but they can’t afford to pay the nanny because the nanny isn’t cheap, so the families will get affected too.If this situation continues then some day people would get too tired and not go to work and then they wouldn´t have money to pay the rent, and they would get kicked out.
We get better jobs because of gentrification.In an article by Bultin says “Patrick Sharkey, author of Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality, also found that the arrival of other races to neighborhoods bring real benefits. Black residents, particularly black youth, living in more diverse neighborhoods find better jobs than other young people with the same skills who live in less diverse neighborhoods” (Buntin 2). This counter argument is weak because it is a faulty assumption because not just because we have better jobs means we can afford to pay the rent, people would need to have at least three really, really good jobs to be able to pay the rent. For example “This makes San Francisco maybe the least affordable city for middle-class families in the country, with New York City closely behind. It's so expensive that even San ¨Francisco's minimum wage, which is the highest in the country at over $10 an hour, is barely enough to live. One would have to work five, six, or more minimum-wage jobs to make the city's rent. Also, San Francisco’s income gap between rich and poor people is growing the fastest of any city¨ (Truthout 2).
The city looks fancier because of gentrification. In an article by Aaron Wiener he argues, “Also, most people want what gentrification brings to their neighborhood, like new grocery stores, more buses, lower crime, and more care from the city government” (Wiener 1). This counter argument is weak because it is a faulty assumption. just because the city gets more things like new stores doesn’t mean people can afford to pay the rent. or that is gonna help, instead is the other way around things would get more expensive, so that’s making harm to people because not just the rent is expensive but other things too, so a lot of people wouldn’t be able to pay the rent,so people would lose their homes, stores, and more.For example, “Last month, more shops closed. The gay-friendly bar Esta Noche was forced to close after being around for many years. The space’s new owner is a rich building owner. A Latino-owned market called Val 16 that was here for many years also closed. The new rent for the space is $16,000 a month. A new luxury condo building is also going to be built at 16th and Mission” (Levak 2).
Gentrification is harmful to the San Francisco community. Imagine if you lived in the Mission in San Francisco and you get kicked out of your home because you couldn’t afford to pay the rent and you have nowhere to go how would you feel? This is important because nobody wants to get kicked out of their homes, and it really affects people lives, it makes people upset, depressed, sad. In order to stop gentrification we should all go out in the streets and protest that gentrification isn’t helping the city, so the rent goes lower,and the city would look better, there would be no more homeless people, better neighbors, people being happy instead of depressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment