Your Tax Dollars Are Paying For Gentrification – Is Brockton Next?

Gentrification is the process of private sector development efforts capitalizing, or often packaged as “revitalizing,” historically low-income, working class, blue-collar communities. As city living regains its novelty of prestige, affordable housing opportunities in urban communities have declined within market rate units and private-public partnerships in subsidized housing. Although we see robust advertisement of new affordable housing developments in luxury lofts, mixed-use developments, and newly erected neighborhoods abutting downtown Boston, what actual benefit of affordability is being felt by low-income communities?

Revitalization is important for a community to promote small business development and healthy middle-class growth, as well as continually advocating for state budget increases within line items for infrastructure development, but lawmakers have created a path for neighborhoods to be gentrified with tax dollars, encouraging a population of upper-middle class abutters to permanently displace working families out of the neighborhoods they grew up in.

Homeowners are seeing an increase in property value, but also these are the people most connected and participating in local government and we haven’t seen much resistance from this population of people due to their ability to profit from gentrification. Rightfully so, home ownership is often the nest egg of middle-class families and with a large population of baby boomers downsizing and selling their homes, this is an opportunity for them to smoothly transition into retirement.

However, according to a market insight report from U.S. News, only 57% of baby boomers had the ability to financially plan for retirement. The average social security retirement check is $1341.00. According to AARP, seniors spend about $1258.80 annually for Medicare Part B premiums, $480.00 annually for prescription drug costs, and are faced with a deductible of $1184.0 for in-patient hospital stays. Gentrification may create a firm nest-egg for small group of elders downsizing, who would have sustainable & permanent housing regardless, but hurts the increasing group of elders that rely on social security retirement income to pay for all of their basic necessities.

The little resistance we see from homeowners in suburban communities has been echoed through local zoning regulations primarily focused on keeping people of color from moving into historically white communities. Large-lot zoning requirements and restrictions on multi-family development are definitively racist, but many state lawmakers believe these decisions are best made by municipalities and it is politically jeopardizing to stand against private-public partnerships in rental developments that afford a minimal number of moderate-income units.

Brockton is a potential development breeding ground and I urge the state legislators and elected officials in local government to collaborate in finding common ground in regards to affordable housing. Responsible zoning laws that allow smart growth, small business incentives, and multi-family development with more appropriate public funding, are all places the legislature should consider when engaging in 40b proposals. More effort is needed in the field study phase of 40b developments to ensure that we are encouraging housing production that justly represents our local resident’s ability to financially remain members of our community.

Kevin Higgins