I think it's not quite like that. More like what happened at Howard U. When no one as moving in and gentrifying people accused them of not doing enough for the community. It begins gentrifying and they get accused of contributing to the gentrification by upkeeping their environs too much and attracting gentrifiers.

As a former Howard student, I think the school's just hella cheap, but also doesn't like getting negative attention from the outside. Students (myself included) have been complaining for years about the quality of the buildings, and asking for renovations. But it wasn't until the neighborhood started gentrifying, and the new neighbors started to complain, that Howard did anything about it.

Which is why people get upset. Its not that the changes aren't good, its the fact that the change doesn't happen until someone else asks for them.

I don't know about Howard but seems like lots of colleges are spending on fancy new buildings (etc) to attract students and that's driving up the cost of education? Do you think that has anything to do with it?

Howard specifically tries to brand itself as a school that has a large amount of economic diversity, and a high percentage of students who are first generation college grads (around 38% for the class of 2014 [1]). Its a pretty well-known/prestigious HBCU, and doesn't have a problem attracting applicants.

But, unlike a lot of other schools in its position, its alumni network generally doesn't give back all that often (probably in part because first-gen college students are more-likely to have financial responsibilities to their families, and less-likely to be able to afford to give/prioritize giving back to their universities).

But I do specifically remember having to move off campus because my dorm had a mouse/mold problem (woke up multiple nights in a row to mice in my bed, and started having breathing problems because of the mold. Some students even had mushrooms growing out of their carpet). And when I brought it up to the director of residence life, he responded by saying that it wasn't a big enough deal to address, and that students always complain about these things and eventually stop pushing....So....

[1] https://www.howard.edu/assessment/documents/reports/Graduati...

Is that an indictment of the old residents (who didn't / couldn't push through the legislation) or the new residents (who use their power and influence to get it done)?

Its probably more complicated than that. In areas that don't have bike lanes, people tend to just bike on the sidewalks, and pedestrians just put up with having to move out of the way. The reason is likely a mix between being historically ignored by the city, not bothering to really try, and also just knowing that sidewalks are safer to bike on (even if inconvenient).

When wealthier people move into a neighborhood, expecting bike lanes, they push for them. They probably have more power/influence, but they also have a higher since of entitlement that causes them to not give up, even if the city pushes back.

People who agitate for change are more likely to get change. Wealthy residents advocated for bike lanes. The previous residents didn't. How else could the world possibly work?

Are you sure the previous residents didn't advocate for change?

You don't think there's a small chance the previous residents _did_ advocate for change, but their advocacy wasn't effective because it wasn't backed by wealth?

It's not that simple.

For many poor and middle class people bikes were a sign you were poor and could not afford a car. So some people in the middle would avoid biking so as not to look poor.

Upper middle class, having some security and wealth didn't care about "looking poor". They could ride $5000 bikes to display wealth or could ride $50 used bikes, interchangeably. They already had status so bikes were neutral or even positive (I'm active, I'm pro environment, etc.)

Anecdote: I come from a working-class neighborhood. Adults on bikes were roundly ridiculed when I was growing up. There is absolutely no chance (or evidence) that the adults of my childhood had any interest in bike lanes (for exactly the reasons you describe).

Yes. I am extremely confident that newcomer wealthy residents were asking for bike lanes in a way that previous less wealthy residents weren't. You might ask yourself why so many people have an interest in avoiding this explanation. It's just politics.