Poverty Shifting to Atlanta Suburbs
Decatur Metro | January 20, 2010Sobering figures from the Atlanta Business Chronicle…
The number of poor grew by 25 percent in suburbs from 2000 to 2008 — almost five times the growth rate in primary cities, the report found.
In 2008, Atlanta’s suburbs had a poverty rate of 10.7 percent, compared with 22.4 percent in the city of Atlanta. Some 95,484 people in Atlanta lived below poverty level ($21,834 for a family of four), compared with 519,521 in Atlanta’s suburbs. And 15.5 percent of poor people in the metro area lived in the city of Atlanta, compared with 84.5 percent in the suburbs.
What’s worse than living below the poverty line? Living below the poverty line and having no choice but to gas-up and maintain a vehicle.
Latest from Decaturish
Agreed. When we moved here when I was 8, we lived in Norcross and it was really nice. Now, if I ever have to get out there, I am shocked at the decay that has taken place in the last 10-15 years. Simply amazing.
Here is a Wall Street Journal article regarding how this is a national trend (according to the Brookings Institute). One passage from the article:
“Part of this is simple math. The nation’s suburban population grew 12.5% between 2000 and 2008, compared with 3.9% in primary cities and 2.4% in rural America. Meantime, over the past decade cities have attracted young professionals and empty nesters that tend to be wealthier and whiter.
Suburbs and so-called “exurbs” — outer lying areas that sit beyond the suburbs but have lots of urban-bound commuters — also have a large manufacturing presence and were ground zero for the housing boom and subsequent bust.”
In the past decade, construction replaced manufacturing as the primary means for those with high school educations to earn a decent living. Now that new construction has collapsed for the foreseeable future in most of the country, something else is going to have to replace construction.
Left off the link:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/01/20/suburbs-see-poverty-grow-with-recession/
As basically a “city type of person,” please explain to me why people move to the suburbs in the first place. I have lived in two suburbs during my career (not my choice, but caving in to spouse’s preferences), and both times the logistics of commuting were horrendous. I will never do that again.
I would maintain that even “small town types” might prefer city to suburban living. A neighborhood within a city often bears more ressemblance to a small town community than does a sprawling unconnected suburb. Decatur in particular does this well but a sense of community occurs in neighborhoods in cities as big as Los Angeles and New York. In suburbs, school communities often become a substitute for neighborhood communities because they are the main or only connectors of families. Now sometimes there are housing developments with well-organized community centers with pools and tennis courts, etc., that connect folks but most in suburbia cannot afford those kind of communities and get the cookie-cutter development without the amenities.
Why do so many choose the suburbs? Some truly prefer the more individualistic lifestyle and amount of land. But I think many get too caught up in the idea of “what can one buy for one’s money”. Real estate agents often encourage clients to buy as much as they can afford and the extra land, bedrooms, garage, high ceilings, and land that can look real good compared to what one can buy intown. Plus brand new construction always looks gorgeous until 5 years later when all the construction defects show up, the kids fingermarks everywhere have dimmed the new paint and everything starts to look dingy. The collapse of the real estate market in the suburbs is demonstrating how false a promise some of suburbia was.
If you are a family that only earns $50K or less a year, it’s not a question of “getting caught up” in “what can one buy for one’s money”. It’s “do we want to own a home or not”. If you can buy a 4 bedroom, 2 bath house with a yard for $120K, you’re ONLY going to consider the suburbs. The entry point for owning (or even renting) a home intown with a safe neighborhood and a good school district is out of reach for that family. It’s hard enough if your household income is $100K a year.
Very true and good point. I think home ownership has been oversold to Americans. There’s been some pieces on NPR about that. One is sometimes better off renting or buying a condo and saving money rather than extending oneself just to have a single family detached home. In Europe, it is common to rent one’s whole life. On the other hand, they have a completely different way of addressing security in one’s old age and aren’t relying on home ownership for financial security.
“One is sometimes better off renting or buying a condo and saving money rather than extending oneself just to have a single family detached home.”
This seems to confuse the amount of money spent on housing with the issue of what type of housing the buyer chooses. You can over-extend on a lease or a mortgage. The issue is simply: buy what you can afford, whether you are renting or buying.
Just because one decides to “buy a condo” doesn’t mean one will save money as opposed to buying a detached home. You can overpay for either of them. Many condos are even more expensive than larger detached homes, even in Decatur.
Of course, a large part of the financial incentive in favor of home ownership — condo or detached house, it’s the same thing — stems directly from government policy. See Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the tax break for home mortgage interest, as only a few examples.
“As basically a “city type of person,” please explain to me why people move to the suburbs in the first place.”
This is like saying “as a steak kind of person, explain to me why people like chicken.” Not everyone prefers living in a city. Simple as that for many people.
Will those people still prefer it if poverty rates rise to a point where they’re comparable to the inner-city?
No idea. I don’t identify with the suburbanites, either. I wouldn’t choose to live in Roswell, etc. What kinds of changes might make those folks want to move is hard to say. But a lot of them live in sheltered communities with fences and gaurded front gates. The fact that poverty is rising outside their subdivisions might not mean much of anything to those folks. Again, who knows?
A little perspective here:
A family earning $50k is not in poverty. Median household income is about $45,000. When you hear poverty numbers, you are hearing about families of three people earning LESS than $18,000 a year. They aren’t buying houses. They are renting trailers and cheap apartments. A family in poverty does not have a choice about buying a house or choosing neighbors and schools. “Only earning $50,000″ is a dream for a family in poverty, “getting caught up” and deciding what one can get for one’s money isn’t an option for people in poverty. Buying soap and groceries and shoes are usually higher on the priority list. About 40,000,000 people live on incomes poverty level.
AHA’s destruction of intown public housing and the gentrification of intown neighborhoods has been steadily pushing poverty to the burbs- about 10,000 people have been uprooted by AHA alone since 1993. That doesn’t account for other intown residents who have been gentrified out of their neighborhoods. Housing authorities and social services in Cobb, Clayton, Gwinnett and Douglas have noticed the steady influx into their systems for over a decade. In addition, refugees and recent immigrants who are more likely to be at poverty line also can’t afford Atlanta proper.
I am off my soapbox now.
I’m totally with you on that perspective. I just threw out the $50K a year example in response to Chira’s question about why would anyone move to the suburbs. I was assuming that she was talking about people with choices, not a family at poverty level income.
Agree that gentrification and abolishment of intown public housing has moved poverty to the suburbs. It hasn’t just affected impoverished neighborhoods; it’s affected stable and historic working class neighborhoods as well. Not sure there’s easy ways to prevent the downsides of gentrification or restore public housing intown.
Heavily subsidized autocentric transport, unfettered development and unreasonable expectations spurred the “drive till you qualify” decision making of the 90’s.
Turns out not everyone needs to own a brand new 4000sq. ft. detached house with granite counters, Our 1200ft urban paradise sure wasn’t that nice when we bought it. But it was close to MARTA and bicycling distance to work. Sorry if our fixing it up and getting involved in the PTA is “gentrification”.
IMO the term “gentrification” describes the efforts of people who choose to live in urban areas that are less than ideal precisely because they can’t afford the premium urban areas.
They then invest their time and efforts into improving their homes, neighborhoods, security and schools. If longtime residents are being priced out that should be taken up in tax assesment rules, breaks and rent structuring. Don’t blame people for trying to improve their living conditions or home investment.
I’m really glad someone brought this up. I too get tired of the reductionist view that gentrification is automatically something bad.
Gentrification is nothing more than market forces doing what they’re supposed to do — recognizing value and investing in it. When matched appropriately with social policy — such as Ridge describes — designed to protect economic diversity, it’s a win for everyone. The affluent get reminded from time to time of the need for a little humility; the disadvantaged can live in environments of greater opportunity. And everyone can enjoy a safe place to live.
If someone plants a bunch of flowers to beautify a downtrodden neighborhood and suddenly some of the neighbors start sneezing, does that mean flowers are no longer beautiful? Of course not. Pass around some Claritin and get over it.
If people are being displaced because a community is not enacting policies to counterbalance the side effects of gentrification, that’s where the blame belongs.
Slamming gentrification wasn’t MY point- and I also wasn’t slamming on WPM or Karass (I just decided to use you to rant
).
I used to work at AHA and I WILL take any opportunity to slam the big business-and-developer centric policies of AHA that ignore the plight of the population it is supposed to serve. I was bringing gentrification into the conversation because it was a confluence of events including gentrification and AHA policies that help pushed poverty populations out to the burbs. Memphis had the same thing happen, btw.
A side effect of gentrification is that people’s house increase in value. So many of them decide to monetize that windfall, sell the house, and move. That’s hardly a bad thing. And in many cases, no community-based incentive will convince them to do anything else. Many of them need the extra money and want to sell. Heck, if my house increased in value over a short time through none of my own efforts, I’d be pretty happy about it, too.
I understand that increased value means increased taxes, so some sell to avoid those. But I don’t think that means we should hand them yet another income-based tax break so they can continue to sit on an appreciated asset at no cost to anyone but the local government treasury. At some point, paying one’s fair share should meeeeeanmething.
Just a funny note: I paid $110,000 for my house in 1998; it was on the market for $45,000 in 1997. How’s that for windfall profits! (oh, and I do know we re/displaced a Section 8 family. Who was cooking crack in the back of the house. And breeding pit bulls for fighting. And putting children in an unfinished attic to sleep in a wooden enclosure. For real.).
And I kind have to agree with DEM on the tax thing.Mine have gone from $700/year to $7,000. I’d like a break or a freeze myself!
I wasn’t slamming gentrification either. Or getting rid of dangerous public housing. Both have certainly made intown a more fun place to live. But the downside is that historic blue-collar communities also have historic and social value and we don’t seem to know how to preserve them. If Decatur can’t, I’m not sure any intown neighborhood can.
I have multiple issues with your post, Karass.
First, do you really find intown a “fun place to live” when it has “dangerous public housing?” I sure don’t. I find it…dangerous. I’m hoping that was sarcasm.
Second, why do you believe blue-collar communities have historic and social value? I grew up in one of those communities, and the last words I would ever ascribe to it are “historic” and “value.” Pretty much everyone I grew up with there would agree. It was often a grim, paycheck-to-paycheck existence that encouraged us to work hard and go to college to escape it. Why would we want to preserve THAT?
Third, your statement “if Decatur can’t, I’m not sure any intown neighborhood can” smacks of arrogance and elitism (something I’ve read a lot of in this particular thread). Is this your way of saying Decatur is the only community with people “smart” and “progressive” and “open” and “understanding” and “compassionate” enough to even possibly preserve old neighborhoods?
Obviously, I’m getting too irritated, so I’m going to stop now before I go any further.
Gentrification doesn’t destroy a neighborhood — it makes the neighbrohood better, hence the rising property values. Again, “preserving” a blue collar neighborhood that is being gentrified would involve somehow convincing the blue-collar residents not to sell when their homes have increased in value, often quite a bit. Who is going to tell a worker he can’t sell his home and pocket what may be a once in a lifetime gain in property value? I’m sure Michigan is currently filled with decaying communities that were once home to well-paid auto workers. It would be cruel to take action to prevent such communities from being improved solely because some see a social value in having a certain economic class remain together in a given neighborhood.
DEM, you’re quite right.
Those who wish to preserve “affordable” housing near gentrified areas under the ruse of preserving “social value” are not being forthwright.
This is about providing a low cost labor pool near a relatively affluent community.
I’m not saying it’s wrong. It benefits both ends of the economic stratum, but pretending that it’s out of altruism or nostalgia is just …well pretentious..
Are you kidding? You think caring about losing the residents of historic neighborhoods in Decatur is about being able to hire cheap labor nearby? As someone who hires no labor, never mind cheap labor, not so. Some of us grew up in towns of diverse income levels and enjoy it. And anyone who wants cheap labor doesn’t have to have it live nearby–that’s what one can find in the suburbs according to the referenced article.
That’s why wrote that it is not a bad thing. And as the auto only infrastructure provided to suburbia starts to show it’s true high costs, a mixture of income levels “in town” becomes even more important.
P.S.: I think you meant “forthright” (going straight to the point; frank; direct; outspoken) or “forthcoming” (frank and cooperative; candid)
I’m pretty sure he said getting rid of dangerous public housing makes intown a more fun place to live.
Reading that line again, I think you’re right, Jeff. So we can ignore my first issue.
A topical article some may find interesting…
“In 2005, we found that the suburban poor population is greater than the urban poor population.”
http://fullyarticulated.typepad.com/sprawledout/2010/01/in-2005-we-found-that-the-suburban-poor-population-is-greater-than-the-urban-poor-population.html