The Revitalist

The NY Times reports on the phenomenon of the middle class being squeezed out of the country's biggest cities and replaced with the wealthy. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence, and a recent Brookings Institution study confirms it. For example, NYC lost over 200,000 homes affordable to essential personnel (firefighters, police officers, etc.) between 2002 and 2005. At the same time, the article says that "fewer than 13,000 of the 2.3 million households that pay income tax are expected to account for nearly 30 percent of the city income tax paid in 2006."

The question is: is this a problem? Harvard's Edward Glaeser says, "As a New Yorker, I understand the view that exile from New York is consignment to hell; but that's not accurate. The majority of middle-class people that have moved out have presumably found themselves better lives out there." The idea is that the middle class can find affordable option in 'burbs or can get a second job to afford a place in the city. Thankfully, the article points out that others are concerned that this will lead to greater polarization in the cities and a lack of opportunities for the poor to move up. In a city like Boston, where there is a residency requirement for police officers, it becomes even more problematic. I'm a firm believer that we all (individually and on a societal level) benefit from mixed (economically, racially, socially) communities. The trouble on the development side is that the economics don't support "attainable" housing, and all the subsidies are for "affordable" housing. Without some sort of prioritization and incentives from the city, middle-income housing will continue to be squeezed out of our cities.