No fundamental change in their utility? Gentrification goes hand in hand with reduced crime rates, better education, increase in available public spaces/restaurants/bars. It's a feedback loop based off of people's tolerances. In one common model, for example, it begins with more desperate braver artists starting to congregate in an area because it's what they can afford. Their presence alone will typically change the dynamics of an area to a certain degree that is enough to create a tolerable pocket for the more adventurous that are better off (think software engineers opting to live in Mission/Oakland 5-10 years ago for the cultural element of the neighborhood). More tax money starts coming in, policing goes up and is partly responsible for crime going down, which also goes down due to demographic shift to wealthier people who are less likely to feel as though they must engage in crime. The children of these people can create a large enough community of kids that are culturally primed to take education seriously that the critical mass of a classroom can shift from boisterous and unruly to more manageable, further stabilizing the education situation for those that come after.

The point is, very little of this is just some arbitrary decision with no impact on the function of neighborhoods. Over the course of gentrification, neighborhoods change dramatically in ways other than demographic shift.

You do nothing, rich people move in around you, value increases.

You do nothing, rich people move out around you, value decreases.

The direct utility of the property is unchanged. The owner has made, net, an insignificant contribution to the surrounding community. And yet value accrues (or diminishes) all the same.

Housing and real estate internalise the net community utility changes. The pathological cases are where the owners or investors are outside the community and strip-mine the resulting wealth.

Land value taxes both dampen wild valuation swings and internalise value gains to the community to provide infrastructure, institutions, and services.

Land value tax would take money from people who don't need those community services and give it to different people who happen to live nearby. That's not really fair. It's still a kind of rent seeking that also happens to give the rent to charity but not back to the original payers in proportion to what they paid. But it does sound more reasonable than the luck of the draw that property owners get.

It's the assetification of an essential economic input that seems to be the root of the problem. Bernhard J. Stern commented on this in the 1930s in several works I've submitted (to no traction) in recent weeks.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000271623820000104

https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag...

Without fundamentals like that, then it is arbitrary decision which neighborhoods have high prices and which have low. It becomes an accident of recent history that could flip the other way over a period of decades and ruin people's investments.

Yes. A given neighborhood might change, but a common, if not fundamental, characteristic of gentrification is that the associated demographic shifts constitute a commensurate shift in the location of community-related amenities, e.g., good schools, lower crime, public and private investment in public spaces. In other words, gentrification doesn't create more affluent communities, it simply shifts them, to places ready for new development as older communities become less desirable ultimately as a simple function of their age.

There is also the necessity of addressing the role of race and class anxiety in how, why, and when we invest in communities.

Colonization is a fine word for it.

CA voters thought they could prevent people from coming here by reducing housing and boy were they ever wrong. It's too bad this lesson took 50 years to play out and awareness is only now slowly starting to arise.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/08/30/palo-alto-mayor...