Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

This Land Is Their Land: How the Rich Confiscate Natural Beauty from the Public

By Barbara Ehrenreich, The Nation. Posted June 17, 2008.


In the era of the superrich, if a place is truly beautiful, ordinary people can't afford to be there.
Advertisement

I took a little vacation recently -- nine hours in Sun Valley, Idaho, before an evening speaking engagement. The sky was deep blue, the air crystalline, the hills green and not yet on fire. Strolling out of the Sun Valley Lodge, I found a tiny tourist village, complete with Swiss-style bakery, multistar restaurant and "opera house." What luck -- the boutiques were displaying outdoor racks of summer clothing on sale! Nature and commerce were conspiring to make this the perfect micro-vacation.

But as I approached the stores things started to get a little sinister -- maybe I had wandered into a movie set or Paris Hilton's closet? -- because even at a 60 percent discount, I couldn't find a sleeveless cotton shirt for less than $100. These items shouldn't have been outdoors; they should have been in locked glass cases.

Then I remembered the general rule, which has been in effect since sometime in the 1990s: if a place is truly beautiful, you can't afford to be there. All right, I'm sure there are still exceptions -- a few scenic spots not yet eaten up by mansions. But they're going fast.

About ten years ago, for example, a friend and I rented a snug, inexpensive one-bedroom house in Driggs, Idaho, just over the Teton Range from wealthy Jackson Hole, Wyoming. At that time, Driggs was where the workers lived, driving over the Teton Pass every day to wait tables and make beds on the stylish side of the mountains. The point is, we low-rent folks got to wake up to the same scenery the rich people enjoyed and hike along the same pine-shadowed trails.

But the money was already starting to pour into Driggs -- Paul Allen of Microsoft, August Busch III of Anheuser-Busch, Harrison Ford -- transforming family potato farms into vast dynastic estates. I haven't been back, but I understand Driggs has become another unaffordable Jackson Hole. Where the wait staff and bed-makers live today I do not know.

I witnessed this kind of deterioration up close in Key West, Florida, where I first went in 1986, attracted not only by the turquoise waters and frangipani-scented nights but by the fluid, egalitarian social scene. At a typical party you might find literary stars like Alison Lurie, Annie Dillard and Robert Stone, along with commercial fishermen, waitresses and men who risked their lives diving for treasure (once a major blue-collar occupation). Then, at some point in the '90s, the rich started pouring in. You'd see them on the small planes coming down from Miami -- taut-skinned, linen-clad and impatient. They drove house prices into the seven-figure range. They encouraged restaurants to charge upward of $30 for an entree. They tore down working-class tiki bars to make room for their waterfront "condotels."

Of all the crimes of the rich, the aesthetic deprivation of the rest of us may seem to be the merest misdemeanor. Many of them owe their wealth to the usual tricks: squeezing their employees, overcharging their customers and polluting any land they're not going to need for their third or fourth homes. Once they've made (or inherited) their fortunes, the rich can bid up the price of goods that ordinary people also need -- housing, for example. Gentrification is dispersing the urban poor into overcrowded suburban ranch houses, while billionaires' horse farms displace rural Americans into trailer homes. Similarly, the rich can easily fork over annual tuitions of $50,000 and up, which has helped make college education a privilege of the upper classes.

There are other ways, too, that the rich are robbing the rest of us of beauty and pleasure. As the bleachers in stadiums and arenas are cleared to make way for skybox "suites" costing more than $100,000 for a season, going out to a ballgame has become prohibitively expensive for the average family. At the other end of the cultural spectrum, superrich collectors have driven up the price of artworks, leading museums to charge ever rising prices for admission.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the Pew Research Center finds happiness to be unequally distributed, with 50 percent of people earning more than $150,000 a year describing themselves as "very happy," compared with only 23 percent of those earning less than $20,000. When nations are compared, inequality itself seems to reduce well-being, with some of the most equal nations -- Iceland and Norway -- ranking highest, according to the UN's Human Development Index. We are used to thinking that poverty is a "social problem" and wealth is only something to celebrate, but extreme wealth is also a social problem, and the superrich have become a burden on everyone else.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: inqequality, public space

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of thirteen books, including the New York Times bestseller Nickel and Dimed. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harpers, and the Progressive, she is a contributing writer to Time magazine. She lives in Florida.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bruce
Posted by: BJB on Jun 17, 2008 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the article, Barbara.
As a well-paid federal employee, I have lived, on and off over the years, on the spectacular Monterey Peninsula, where I have worked at the Presidio of Monterey. In recent years, housing has become so expensive in Monterey, Carmel, and Pacific Grove (nicknamed "America's last hometown") that it is out of range for professional or middle class people. Friends of mine, who might be very gregarious, living in some neighborhoods in Carmel or Monterey, find it difficult to meet people in their neighborhoods...because no one really lives there! Many houses are 2nd or 3rd homes, used rarely, or only owned as "investments" by wealthy people living in the Bay Area, LA, or anywhere else.
Carmel, which was originally founded as a funky left-wing, Bohemian town, for artists and "misfits," is now a strangely sterile boutique town of unbelieveably expensive cottages. Unfortunately, this is happening also in lovely Pacific Grove (rapidly becoming a town of renters and not home owners). Even though I make a very good salary I probably can't afford to return to the Monterey area again to live. I re-read Steinbeck's "Cannery Row" last year, when I was still in Monterey. Forget about finding locally colorful characters like "Doc" on the Monterey Peninsula these days. They'd have to live in trailer parks somehwhere in the
Salinas valley now, and even that would be a struggle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bruce Posted by: racetoinfinity
Natural beauty is a spirtual need and right too
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Jun 17, 2008 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great post!

I couldn't agree more.

I love this line: "the superrich have become a burden on everyone else." I'm going to use it as a signature with an attibution to you, if you don't mind.

The last two senteces re Woody's great song were wonderful writing, and say it all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Woody Guthrie's forgotten verse Posted by: bornxeyed
» This is happening everywhere. Posted by: wisegalah
Osman
Posted by: khansahib44 on Jun 17, 2008 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article....let me assure you that, unfortunately this is not limited to the US alone. I live in Pakistan, which has some of the most beautiful and pristine natural environment up in the north. From the highest mountain ranges (Himalayas, Karakorum etc) to one of the mightiest rivers i.e. River Indus. However, more and more areas are being bought and cordoned off by the super rich. Locals have been forced to change their lifestyles and let go of their historical lands due to uncalled for commercialization

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Osman Posted by: maxpayne
AMEN!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 17, 2008 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lakefront, riverfront and beachfront property nationwide has been effectively confiscated by the rich, who have restricted access by building on it and fencing it off to the public.

One tactic after another has been employed to keep the general public herded into small parts of our national heritage while the few enjoy it's vast beauty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

View wanted? Try being poor in Hawai`i
Posted by: fosters005 on Jun 17, 2008 3:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After 25 years in Hawai`i, I'm thinking seriously for the first time about moving "back to the mainland" -- a phrase I hear a lot now-a-daze in Hawai`i. Those of us with modest means make a lot of tradeoffs to live here but as you write, every island is now inundated with the rich and their well-placed McMansions in gated comunities, large cars and all the rest. A Trump tower going up in Waikiki may be the cherry on the top. And so the service workers and we poor folks are left sucking wind. The only problem is, we have no place to go on an island only 40 x 60 miles (O`ahu) and the Maui and Kauai folks are in even worse shape. Did I mention the water? Hawaii's running out of that too. The only thing that might save us is a total economic collapse to the point that the rich lose all of their goodies -- and that might just be worth the suffering we would all go through; perhaps even save the planet. - Scott in Honolulu

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welll....
Posted by: kenhymes on Jun 17, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a way I agree with the thrust of the article. Kenneth Burke, the literary critic, had a concept called "HellHaven," in which he foresaw the way that access to natural beauty would be commodified.

However, it doesn't connect with my experience of the US. It seems that some incredibly beautiful places, such as Southeast Ohio, are off the radar for rich people. Most of Montana is another example. If we consider only waterfront property or ski real estate, then the story has more validity. In some places it's a mixed bag. For example, I went to Canada once to drive across from West to East. At Lake Louise there's a victorian resort, packed with people with more money than sense. The lodge is right across from a gorgeous emerald lake with a glacier coming down to it. Tiring of the social atmosphere, I drove further down the road for an hour or so, and found, right by the side of the road, a picnic table, overlooking... a gorgeous emerald lake with a glacier coming down to it.

All I'm saying is, yes, the environment is being degraded, and yes, rich people are coveting and controlling many beautiful places, but, the earth is a big place, and in fact natural beauty is still one thing that is, for the most part, free. Not in the shanty towns, no. But it doesn't take long to find plenty of counter examples. I, for one, can never understand why rich people seem so attracted to Manhattan and LA, two of the most degraded environments in the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're wrong Posted by: janvdb
» No Jan, You're wrong..... Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Welll.... Posted by: fork
» Read the article again. Posted by: wisegalah
» I am glad... Posted by: rafaeltoral
Of course the rich will own it all as long as you let them.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 17, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go ahead. Watch some phoney crap on TV, eat a bag of Doritos, show off your SUV, buy a McMansion at an unaffordable price not that renting apartments are necessarily cheaper, etc ... If money matters so much to you, then of course you're going to joining the forces RAPING Mother Earth. Otherwise, going peaceful and frugal is what you're going to have to do not only pull yourself out of poverty but also restore a great land. The Native Americans looked at land as public property unlike we the sheeple who are too individualistic thereby opening the doors to being pitted against one another. Here's some advice for you. Never fall for a ploy of any kind that a religious/business fundie throws at you or for that matter a military recruiter. To fall for monetary scams is to be as dumb as insects falling for bait.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey Max, remember this song? Posted by: kegbot1
» You're stupid Posted by: janvdb
Agreed
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Jun 17, 2008 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article. It reminds me of when I was a little girl in the early 60's and we moved to Florida for my father's health. It was quiet and naturally beautiful in the pre-Disneyworld days. Busch Gardens was a small, inexpensive place to spend the day, and Disney hadn't arrived yet. Combined with Florida's natural beauty were goofy alligator farms fun and cheapo tourist traps, and my parents loved it because compared to New York, it was so cheap. Ha! Not anymore. It's overrun with big condos, super hotels, resorts, and the average person can't enjoy a quiet place anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Preaching To the Choir
Posted by: billgee on Jun 17, 2008 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldnt agree with you more, Barbara.
But whom are you speaking to?

Maybe youre not going far enough.
It aint just the rich

In your own example of the luxury boxes at the good old american ballgame, its the corporations who buy the boxes and shower good little employees with free tickets and food to unwanted games.

Maybe there is no answer to this particular question

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

130,000,000 Chinese
Posted by: Tigana on Jun 17, 2008 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are now more nouveau-riches in China than there are people in all Japan - almost 130,000,000.
And those Chinese own America.
This is an interesting article, but does not begin to touch the real problems Americans will soon wake up to face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow..... Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Wow...Truth hurts.. Posted by: mindtrvlr
This land is whose land?
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 17, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My favorite verse from Woody's song is never sung at school assemblies and uplifting chorus concerts -- at least I've never heard it, or sung it there either:

As I went walking, I saw a sign there
And on that sign it said "No Trespassing"
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
That side was made for you and me.


Good article. It's happening where I live, not far from Cape Cod, and here the superrich are getting significant help from local officials, who (I hope) mean well but are so short-sighted that they're giving away the farm. If you're lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction that includes beautiful places, take a look at property tax policy. In New England, property taxes often account for a larger share of municipal revenues than they do elsewhere. Property taxes are based on the market value of the property -- what you theoretically could sell it for even if you have no intention of selling, even if the property has been in your family for several generations. Superrich sharks with sky's-the-limit budgets grab a beautiful place or two for three or four or ten times more than anyone ever paid in that neighborhood, and presto! everyone else's assessed value -- and property tax -- goes up and up and up. Fighting the assessments takes time, money, and (usually) lawyers. The pressure to sell to one of those superrich sharks gets more and more intense, even if that's the last thing you ever wanted to do, and you're afraid you won't be able to look yourself in the mirror if you do it.

So slowly but inexorably the neighborhood, the area, the whole region changes. Local officials and many townspeople don't catch on till it's way too late. All along they've been seduced by the apparent short-term benefits: if the beautiful places are taxed out the wazoo, then taxes on the not-so-beautiful places can hold steady while the town spends whatever it wants.

Push does have this way of catching up with shove, however. Where I live, everyone's forever bleating about the environment -- water quality is a particularly important issue. So now we're routinely treated to little absurdities: the conservation commission can cite you for pruning a few bushes close to a wetland, and to build an ordinary house you have to jump through all sorts of hoops that are meant to promote responsible growth, but at the same time the beautiful, environmentally fragile places are passing into the hands of the superrich whose sense of stewardship is minimal to nonexistent, and who have the legal clout to beat any restrictions you put in their way.

The brilliant, brilliant thing about our market economy, which sets a price even on the priceless, is the way it seduces so many of us into working against our long-term interests. If you're fighting to hang on to your own home, how much energy do you have to spare for the beautiful places?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This land is whose land? Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: This land is whose land? Posted by: mystere2
In astrophysics...
Posted by: Farasien on Jun 17, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...A star's life is well known. Its born from primordial dust and gas.
In the beginning, gravity packs this dust and gas into tighter and smaller spaces which causes friction, thus heat. Once the heat gets high enough, fusion sparks off and a star is born. As a star ages, its internal furnaces collapse in on itself, getting denser and hotter until a critial mass is reached. Once it gets to that point, it detonates in a supernova.

In america, and has happened in the past in hisory, we are doing the same thing with money.

As the rich conglomerate more and more in trendy areas, they drive out the locals. At some point, nobody will be able to even travel there for work (what happens when gas gets so expensive only local people -on foot- are able to afford the commute?). At that point, the supernova happens and the rich move out, leaving a place desolate. This has happened before. There are areas in Africa where the nobles of the old english empire had their vacation homes a century or two ago- and now, they are overgrown jungle and have collapsed into 3'd world battlefields.

America is likely going to follow the same pattern.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In astrophysics... Posted by: logos7
This is the most important political issue in the West
Posted by: janvdb on Jun 17, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This post from a native of Western Colorado -- spent last winter in T-ride myself.

Land use = huge huge fights.

The problem is -- there is no good solution.

Land -- you can either save it for the rich or you can let the poor ruin it.

There has to be a middle path. A little of both. Because you can't stop the river of money. Tighter land use law, much touted as a "solution" by the "left," merely effectuates the exclusion of the poor from the land.

The left's solution is actually the hand of the rich, pushing the poor out.

All legal tools -- planning -- are in the hands of county governments. County governments inevitably come under the control of local elites (the poor are busy working), which then pass laws to push out the poor and the middle class.

San Miguel Cty, which contains T-ride, is completely controlled by the local elites, who have utterly failed to force developers to provide affordable housing as a condition of approval for subdivisions and building permits for high-end housing.

The best land for worker housing was sold, instead, to the Nature Conservancy. So, drive!

Ditto Pitkin County, which contains Aspen.

Result: 3 to 4 hours a day on the highways wasting gas, spewing exhaust and ruining homelives for most workers in both towns.

Who cares: No one.

And the process is spreading to less attractive areas of Western Colorado. In my heretofore humble and friendly corner of Western Colorado, increasingly, unless you can afford 40 acres, you are not welcome.

Not welcome by whom? People who just moved here -- but they are seizing control.

Soon, all the natives will be crowded into the towns in trailers, while mansions command a landscape of huge lawns called "hayfields."

It is extremely difficult to prevent the wealthy from taking control of these small governments and they just don't want the workers living in proximity.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wake up, Fencerider Posted by: hagwind
MUst Possess Everything-Neurotic Compulsive Hoarding
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 17, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems 'conpicuous consumption' has progressed into a full blow National Mental illness- the uncontrollable compulsion to possess everything.
To admire someones Possesions only vindicates their behavior. I see it as a neurosis which should be recognized and professional Treated.It is the outward symptoms of a major Personality disorder which seeks validation through objects- but fails to ever truely satisfy the persons desire for Real self Esteem.They continue to purchase whatever and who ever they can, while pushing out/back any thing that would reflect their own short comings. Like those with actual personal fortitude and a sense of responsiblity.How many of US have worked for someone who rides our asses on their way out to the Golf course.Blames Us for our inability to drive a Hummer -even though they are the ones setting our pay?And claims 'sour Grapes' when we inform them we have no desire to drive a gas guzzling phallic symbol?
but then we go home to kids who are glad to see us- not for the cash in our pockets, but because they need to talk about the fight they had with their Boyfriend- who are the Truely rich and blessed?
so Keep the Aspen Cabins- I'll keep the ever maturing relationship with my daughter as she builds her sense of self from her Accomplishments.Priceless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Massive broadstroke.... Posted by: Fencerider
Boohoo -- did you see the lake homes disappear into the water?
Posted by: bdcroan on Jun 17, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you see the recent floods and the disappearance of a lake in Wisconsin take with it expensive "second vacation homes"? It was reported that the city hadn't renewed its flood insurance with the Feds and the homeowners were left holding the bag. Now I read that the city can reapply retroactively and these people will be covered. Huh? I have a meager little fixed income that I struggle to live on. It is the struggling 90% of us that will subsidize the "beautiful" people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This exact article was run on Alternet before
Posted by: blogbooks on Jun 17, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tone, the anecdotes, all of it has been run on Alternet previously by this same author.

Barbara is getting lazy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I say..... Posted by: Fencerider
Nobody Ever Wrote A Song About Rent Receipts
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jun 17, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those on the lower rung of the economic ladder, managing to own a home means something quite different than those transient speculators who engage in real estate speculation, raising property values (and taxes) so as to be able to "flip" their investment for profit. For a person or family not flushed with cash, owning a home means being able to purchase more freedom, freedom from the tyrantical whims of landlords. It also means protection from unwarranted police invasion, a profound small l libertarian meaning of home ownership.
Of course, most of the very rich abuse everything they get their hands on. This new gilded age, is but a sad example of the republic that is suppose to be the United States being systematically destroyed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America the beautiful
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 17, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A great piece - vanishing America - but to some, a windfall!

As one who feels America belongs to Americans I often have problems with restricted land especially here in the northeast. But it’s hard to deny that beautiful areas are kept beautiful by those rich types buying there.

Seems we are bashing the rich for being rich? Somehow I doubt the author would turn down the lifestyle if she could afford it. If one knows anything about those areas before they became the home of the mega rich, jobs, if you could find them, were low paying. Having family in Grand Junction, I know they flock to these areas on season and make quite a good living.

The down side is I know of two people that grew up in Jackson hole but had to move as they couldn’t afford to live there.

“Once they've made (or inherited) their fortunes, the rich can bid up the price of goods that ordinary people also need -- housing, for example.” --- The other way to look at this is the poor farmer in those areas are making a windfall as some dumb Hollywood type decides they can drop a few million for that perfect spot. The local population, after decades of being ignored or suffering through hard times see the gold and understandable take it whether it’s land prices or selling $5 “made in China” goods for $100.

There are still millions of acres of land for sale in beautiful areas.. They are just hundreds of miles from anywhere. It seems what the author finds so endearing about these areas is not only the views but the amenities. Amenities only come if someone will pay for it. Pitch tent in the “boundary waters” area, no amenities, and it doesn’t get any better!

If one spends a lot of time hiking (I do nature photography as a side) you come to realize that Americans are slobs and many don’t belong out side a city where they can throw their garbage anyplace they want!. Maybe the rich are actually preserving the environment for all of us to appreciate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» AMEN! Get off your butts.. Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: America the beautiful Posted by: sanity
» RE: America the beautiful Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: America the beautiful Posted by: sanity
» RE: America the beautiful Posted by: carbon-based
Ah yes the rape of Key West & you can't even go to the dogs anymore
Posted by: justaperson on Jun 17, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who lived there before the migration of the wealth are lucky. I sailed in on my small sailboat in the middle of the transition. You could still anchor down at Houseboat Row in "the last free anchorage in the USA" and there were still enough local places to eat without having to carry a knapsack of money. Jobs for musicians used to be plentiful, but now new sound ordinances have closed many a Mom & Pop bar because the newcomers who bought property close to Duval moved in and then complained there was too much noise. That's like being furious that San Francisco Bay actually contains water. Duval Street has always been loud.

A few people I know down there couldn't afford to eat anymore or pay the rising taxes, so they planned to move to Wilton Manors near Lauderdale which wasn't any place very thrilling before. Now it's obvious Wilton Manors will be gentrified and those older residents will have to move on, and the old housing pecking order grinds on.

Because I like nice views and pleasant environments I've been doomed to be a rent-nomad most of my life, always priced out of my habitat and searching for another. There are places left that people can afford, but as soon as they become known the rich hear about them--and here they come!

I think you should have included pets in your rant toward the rich. It now costs almost $300 to adopt a mongrel from a shelter because they have built fancy new buildings to accomodate their unfortunate tenants. The average person has to struggle to pay that, yet there are millions of dogs and cats euthanized every year because they couldn't fnd "suitable homes" for them. That means a fenced yard which usually is expensive and an interview on a par now with adopting a child.

In some circles you simply have to have a vet dentist, a vet shrink, and even a vet chiropractor, and pet insurance is becoming popular even though the cost is high and the service often unreliable.

If anyone complains, the usual response is," Well if you can't afford a dog don't get one."

No one seems to care that poor people, who once loved and cared for their pets as well as anyone else, are now deprived from owning one or have to consider pet ownership a real luxury because pet costs have gotten out of hand.

The good things in life aren't always puchased with money, but in order to live a champagne life on a hamburger budget these days you have to be an absolute wizard!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gassing the poor yet? Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Gassing the poor yet? Posted by: suprmark
They destroy everything they touch
Posted by: TheDreamer on Jun 17, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been having a lot of conversations with other common folks about the way things used to be. I was born and have always lived in Massachusetts, except for my 4 years in the military.

New England has a lot of natural beauty, from it's sea shores, mountains and forrests, to the multitudes of quaint New England towns steeped in history.

Boston/Cambridge used to be a funky/gritty area, rich in culture and the arts, but since the 80's in it's race to become "world class" it's become just another "desireable" zip code for the filthy rich to claim as their own. Harvard Square is now just another corporate strip mall...hell Harvard the spawning ground for thousands of MBA's with one thing on their mind...money!

I vacationed on the lower Cape since 1970, when Provincetown was a struggling artist colony and fishing village. Where protected dunes stood McMansions have popped up like mushrooms, carrying price tags well into the millions. The rest of the Cape is no exception.

I spent close to 2 years in P-Town until 2 years ago when hundreds of long time residnets were getting evicted due to condo conversions and the wealthy class wanting a more upscale clientel. The lower Cape has become nothing but another Hamptons where the rich can park their luxury water and land yachts.

Other favorite getaways like Western Mass, the lakes and White Mountain region of NH are no different. All of the local color and culture has been driven out my the rich as soon as they find an area "desireable"

I visited a friend some time back who was part of a homesteading group in Western mass, struggling people who got into land collectives, helping each other build cabins and gardens, a self sustaining community. Again monstrous homes with 4-8 car garages began croppings up, raising property values to where many who had staked a claim were driven out due to rising prices.

Not to far from my apartment entire tracts of post WWII small Cape and Ranch style homes have been clear cur and replaced by huge "estate" homes (gated communities for the rich).

I have dealt with too many of teh rich and they honestly feel it is their birth right to own everything and have the best, screw everyone else.

I don't know where all this money is coming from and neither do the growing number of edged out diappearing middle class people I talk to.

God help the rest of us, because these maruaders destroy everything they lay their hands on at the expense of the rest of us.

I'm sure their dream is to have the majority of breathing space for tehmselves while the rest of us languish in planned compact mega gulags.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How The Rich Confiscate The Best
Posted by: sunlakedude on Jun 17, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in the New Orleans area and I can attest to the fact that the French Quarter was actually a neighborhood not that long ago. It's full time residents ran the gamut from elderly pensioners to college students doubling up in small apartments to an occasional celebrity. It was an area where people knew who lived up and own their block and often sat on their front steps and greeted passersby. But starting 15 years ago corporations have split many buildings into condos that are often used as perks for their executives and are occupied only a few weeks out of an entire year. Now the rich and an occasional celebrity are buying up the remaining houses and, in doing so, have driven up rents such that only the wealthy can afford them. Many of the waiters and bartenders in the Quarter's many restaurants and bars used to live in the Quarter themselves, just a few blocks from their place of employment. Those days are gone and when one walks down the French Quarter's streets away from the businesses, one often walks alone as there are few residents about these days. I feel that New Orleans is losing something that is very special.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gentrification Is Merely Capitalism in Action
Posted by: lorenbliss on Jun 17, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara Ehrenreich speaks the truth with eloquence but does not carry her analysis through to its logical conclusion: that one of the clandestine purposes of capitalism is the gentrification of the entire continent.

This is the common denominator that unites a breathtakingly broad spectrum of U.S. domestic policies -- outsourcing; downsizing; the methodical denial of adequate education, housing, health care and public transport; the socioeconomic cleansing euphemistically called “urban renewal”; even allegedly environmentalist policies such as those imposed by Washington state that turn the wilderness into a private playground for the very rich by limiting back-country access to equestrians only. Every one of these measures help convert North America into a country-club community for the ruling class. The rest of us are either ghettoized or exterminated outright by the deliberate euthanasia of neglect and deprivation.

Our public-transport crisis -- the fact we are the only industrial nation without adequate mass transit -- provides a textbook example of how clandestine gentrification operates. Since the 1930s, the politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties have conspired with the upper-level executives of Big Oil and Big Automotive to force the U.S. into total dependence on the automobile and the internal combustion engine in general. The conspiracy was exposed by a major Congressional investigation during the late 1940s -- something about which the late Jack Anderson wrote extensively during the fuel-crisis years of the 1970s -- but all records of the investigation have apparently since been erased.

No matter; nothing could stop the methodical dismantling of the electrically powered trolley lines and local railroads that, through World War II and immediately afterward, gave the U.S. the finest public transport network on the planet. Even towns as small as Roanoke, Virginia had trolley networks. The Puget Sound area -- a locale ironically now infamous for its bigoted and xenophobic hostility to light rail -- had an electric railroad that linked Tacoma, Seattle, Everett and Bellingham and was to have been extended south to Olympia when the politicians began destroying the system.

Since then, despite the fact the federal Bonneville project provides Washington state with the second cheapest electricity in the nation, Puget Sounders have been taught to despise light rail as “Manhattanization” -- the ultimate threat to their “Pacific Northwest lifestyle“ -- with all the unspoken ethnic and racial bigotry such characterizations imply. Thus the region’s 40-year history of fanatical opposition to adequate transit: of six light-rail proposals, five were overwhelmingly defeated, and the one that passed did so by the narrowest of margins. The resultant system is about 99 percent buses -- so herky-jerky slow, normal household chores that require four or five hours by automobile may take as long as four or five days by bus -- the horrendous time requirements due to shopping facilities hopelessly scattered by decades of Mad Mall Disease. Meanwhile the influence of Big Oil and Big Automotive is so toxic that, in 1980, a transit official was summarily fired for merely suggesting the electrification of certain bus routes: buses, with their internal engines, are another Big Oil/Big Automotive product.

Now -- with gasoline already nearing $5 per gallon and sure to hit $7 sometime next year -- the gentrification function of runaway fuel prices comes into sharp focus: many people -- I am one -- can no longer afford to operate an automobile but cannot replace car with bus simply because the bus service is too slow and limited. Thus we have no choice but to move somewhere that offers real public transport. The ruling class is already applauding: in a few years they’ll have the Pacific Northwest all to themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I don't understand...
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Jun 17, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, having lived in the western US for some time now, I see everyday how the local people in small picturesque towns are being forced to downsize or relocate due to increasing property tax rates as the wealthy move into their neighborhoods. It is sad to see the folks who have lived in an area all of their lives, worked in those towns and retired there, being forced to move away because of the ever increasing property tax rates forced down their throats as some rich guy buys the farm next door for 3 or 4 times its actual value and then puts a summer home there that is 3 or 4 times bigger than it should be. The local gov. officials start seeing green and the next thing you know, all the locals are gone and your town starts to dry up. I think this is more commonplace than we realize.

What I don't understand when it comes to the rich, is when is enough, enough. How much of a home does anyone really need. 1000 sq feet, 5,000 sq ft, 20,000 sq ft? How much property does one need to live comfortably? How many homes does a person need?
(I'm thinking one, you?) Why is it that the rich seem to waste more in terms of resources and energy than anyone else? Why, if you are rich, aren't your mansions incredibly energy efficient or solar/wind powered? And why do you need a mansion in the first place? Why do you need a second, third, or fourth home and hundreds of acres or the most prime land to set them on? Do you actually believe that you can derive more happiness from owning those things, as opposed to taking the wealth that you have earned, inherited, or fallen into, and helping someone else less fortunate than yourselves whether that person live in the US or in some 3rd world country? Do you not see or feel the good that you have the potential to offer their local community through donating their money to worthy civic causes and understand how good that would make you feel to accomplish those things?

Although this is in no way a blanket statement as there are some truly generous and kind rich people in this world, but most of the "Rich" people I have encountered are some of the most cold, insensitive, self centered, self serving, isolated, fearful, and insecure folks I have known. They have so much to offer others due to their good fortune in this life without having to sacrifice a good life for themselves or their families, yet they would no sooner do that than jump off the Golden State Bridge. It is just a strange and sad situation, but that is the way it seems to be....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About those stadiums
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 17, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the bleachers in stadiums and arenas are cleared to make way for skybox "suites" costing more than $100,000 for a season, going out to a ballgame has become prohibitively expensive for the average family.

As owners (all multi-millionaires), aka extortionists, feel the need to "capture" the skybox revenue, they come looking to the public for handouts to finance the new stadiums.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unable to afford NY and other cities
Posted by: wireup on Jun 17, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years ago I was getting divorced. At the time I was living in a house in the suburbs of NY City, an expensive place to live with absolutely NO public transportation.

As I was deciding where to move, I looked online at various cities.

In NYC I spoke to a few real estate agents on the 'phone. When I told the what I could afford to pay in monthly rent (not a small amount, to me), each one laughed at me and told me that if I couldn't afford at LEAST $1800 a MONTH, to forget it! And what do you get for $1800 a MONTH? An apartment the size of a closet.

I looked at rents and purchase prices of apartments in each city that interested me. And in each case, it was the same. Rents were high. Prices were high. And both continued to escalate.

I wound up moving to the best kept secret in America: Philadelphia, PA.

Bought a 1-bedroom apartment in a wonderful, vibrant, alive, rather progressive city with a great public transportation system so that I could get rid of my car. Haven't driven since. If I WANTED to drive (which I don't), we have a car-rental service which allows one to rent a car by the hour.

Since I moved here I've been keeping my eyes on the local real estate market and what I have seen is an escalation in the prices of both rentals and purchases. In other words, Philadelphia is going the way of all the other cities I looked at. I've seen ads for apartments well over $1 million - just like New York.

There's still affordable housing here, but for how long?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

explanation: cultural differences
Posted by: Forrest on Jun 17, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anthropologically speaking, American Culture values individualism and competition over collectivism and cooperation. Since WWII and the days of FDR, this country has increasingly moved towards individual ownership.

Even as recently as the 1970's in Florida, I remember being able to walk over primary dunes to reach the beach from A1A. not today. In fact, the state had actually moved A1A inland around the private beach resort at Ponte Vedra.

Numerous Florida springs and sinks which anyone could enjoy on a hot summer afternoon in the 1960's and 1970's are now private property restricted to those who can afford to pay the price.

Here in Lafayette Louisiana where we now live, the president of the local university is still engaged in a very shady deal to convert public land into privately owned land- land that would make a great public park in a place where there are so few public spaces. This is just one example of what is happening around the country.

"privatization" is so deeply ingrained in today's America that it is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich also destroy public land for their profit
Posted by: alturn on Jun 17, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In San Diego, we lost 350 acres of waterside publicly owned land to a developer who paid $300 for it. Razed was 2.5 million square feet plus of public buildings which easily could have been converted to a low cost convention and meeting facility for non-profits and community groups. Such reuse would have been able to generate funds to pay its own way while providing access to all portions of the societal spectrum. It also would have honored the site's heritage of being a boot camp for the regular Navy stiffs - the sailors. But that did not generate money in the pocket for either the well-connected local elite or politicians.

We have another parcel - the last remaining open bayfront property in downtown San Diego. To get around public reuse, the Navy Broadway complex is a "public-private partnership" between the Navy and a well-connected local developer to put up hotels and office towers on this public land.

The only people who will be able to afford the hotel rates and office rents will of course be those on government contracts / expense accounts and the wealthy.

It is happening everywhere. We have to re-exert the imperative for the common good to have priority over self-interest now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So why didn't you do it? Posted by: suprmark
Possible solution ?
Posted by: Alex Hidell on Jun 17, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the so-called 'free market' created these housing and beauty problems, then some market restraints are required. How about capping the property taxes somehow ? This could be done by letting the 'free market' value apply to those whose incomes are above the median family incomes of a county; let everybody else be taxed at a capped rate applicable to 4Xs that median family income as an 'assumed' valuation for their home's market cost. This lets the lower income folks not be forced out of their homes while the 'free market' the wealthiest sooooo love continues to do a real number on them. Turnabout IS fair play.

Also, no mention of the famous Kondratieff Wave, which will eventually hit us like a tsunami in Thailand.

That'll be the equivalent of Leviticus 25's Year of Jubilee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yup... just try to find a public beach in some areas.
Posted by: sean000 on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's always amazed me that so much of our coastline, and many entire islands, lack any publicly accessible beach front. Nothing is more frustrating than driving along a highway and suddenly encountering a beautiful stretch of coast with a view of the mountains, and not being able to find any place where you can stop and get out for a walk. Everywhere you look there are private property signs, even when there are no homes in sight.

I live in the Pacific Northwest where we are fortunate to have quite a lot of park space set aside. There are also public land trusts that use private donations to purchase land that would otherwise be sold to developers, and there are a lot more restrictions placed on sprawl than in some parts of the country. I live in a small city that has in recent years become a highly desirable place to move...especially for retirees. Even though sprawl is curtailed, the new infill is mostly in the form of luxury condos. It's a city with a lot of working class people in a very scenic spot on Puget Sound. There are many places where the public can enjoy the scenery, but they seem small compared to the vast stretches of private land. The areas where low to middle income people can afford to live are shrinking dramatically. Still, there at least seems to be more awareness regarding these issues than I've encountered in other places I've lived.

Nearby British Columbia is very similar, but something struck me about Vancouver. We once went for a walk in a very ritzy Vancouver neighborhood with multi-million dollar homes overlooking the water. Every block there was a small public park with benches and access to a stretch of public beach. Even though much of the beach front belonged to residents, we did not see any private property signs. Nor did the residents look down on us as we walked through their exclusive neighborhood. In fact they were very courteous, and one couple even gave us some suggestions for finding nice views along our "urban hike." It was obvious that we did not live there, but we felt welcomed. All we kept thinking was that this would never happen in an exclusive American neighborhood. Wealthy Americans are far more suspicious and don't like mingling with the riff-raff. They'd rather cut down trees and build gated communities around golf courses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

802701 A.D.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or is it 801702?

H.G. Wells wrote about the ultimate result of gentrification in "The Time Machine." Looks like the Eloi and the Morlocks might not be so far off the mark. But who wants to wait nearly a million years to eat the rich?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4