Editing Gentrification (section)

==Control==
To counter the gentrification of their mixed-populace communities, there are cases where residents formally [[community organizing|organized]] themselves to develop the necessary socio-political strategies required to retain local affordable housing. The gentrification of a mixed-income community raises [[Affordable housing|housing affordability]] to the fore of the community's politics.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111100820.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | title=Living With the Tensions of Gentrification | first=Sara | last=Gebhardt | date=12 November 2005 | access-date=3 May 2010}}</ref> There are cities, municipalities, and counties which have countered gentrification with [[inclusionary zoning]] (inclusionary housing) [[Local ordinance|ordinances]] requiring the apportionment of some new housing for the community's original low- and moderate-income residents. [[Inclusionary zoning]] is a new [[sociology|social]] concept in English speaking countries; there are few reports qualifying its effective or ineffective limitation of gentrification in the English literature. The basis of inclusionary zoning is partial replacement as opposed to displacement of the embedded communities.{{sfn|Clark|2005|pages=256–264}}

German (speaking) municipalities have a strong legal role in zoning and on the real estate market in general and a long tradition of integrating social aspects in planning schemes and building regulations. The German approach uses en (milieu conservation municipal law), e.g. in Munich's Lehel district in use since the 1960s. The concepts of socially aware renovation and zoning of [[Bologna]]'s old city in 1974 was used as role model in the Charta of Bologna, and recognized by the [[Council of Europe]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dnk.de/_uploads/media/147_1974_Europarat_hist_Ortskerne.pdf |title=Schlussresolution: Die sozialen Aspekte der Erhaltung historischer Ortskerne |publisher=Europarat-Symposium Nr. 2 |location=Bologna |date=22–26 October 1974 |language=de |access-date=22 October 2014 |archive-date=14 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314230705/http://www.dnk.de/_uploads/media/147_1974_Europarat_hist_Ortskerne.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Most economists do not think anti-gentrification measures by the government make cities better off.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gentrification |website=Initiative on Global Markets |publisher=University of Chicago Booth School of Business |title=Diversification |date=20 November 2013}}</ref>{{additional citation needed|date=June 2020}}

===Other methods===

====Direct action and sabotage====
[[File:Vandalized coffee shop Montreal.jpg|thumb|Coffee shop attacked with paint in alleged anti-gentrification attack in the [[Saint-Henri, Montreal|St-Henri neighborhood]] of [[Montreal]], January 2012]]
When wealthy people move into low-income working-class neighborhoods, the resulting [[class conflict]] sometimes involves [[vandalism]] and arson targeting the property of the gentrifiers. During the [[dot-com boom]] of the late 1990s, the gentrification of San Francisco's predominantly working class [[Mission District]] led some long-term neighborhood residents to create what they called the "Mission Yuppie Eradication Project".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://artgoodhitlerbad.com/signs-and-wonders/war-is-not-fair-but-it-does-have-class/ |title=War Is Not Fair, But It Does Have Class |website=Art Good, Hitler Bad |date=18 February 2012 |access-date=2 April 2017 |archive-date=28 June 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170628150847/http://artgoodhitlerbad.com/signs-and-wonders/war-is-not-fair-but-it-does-have-class/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> This group allegedly destroyed property and called for property destruction as part of a strategy to oppose gentrification. Their activities drew hostile responses from the [[San Francisco Police Department]], real estate interests, and "work-within-the-system" housing activists.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/06/07/MN91476.DTL | title=Battle Over Gentrification Gets Ugly in S.F.'s Mission / Anarchist arrested, charged with making threats | date=7 June 1999 | work=The San Francisco Chronicle | first=Jaxon | last=Van Derbeken}}</ref>

[[Meibion Glyndŵr]] ({{langx|cy|Sons of [[Owain Glyndŵr|Glyndŵr]]}}), also known as the Valley Commandos, was a [[Welsh nationalist]] movement violently opposed to the loss of [[Welsh culture]] and [[Welsh language|language]]. They were formed in response to the housing crisis precipitated by large numbers of second homes being bought by the English which had increased house prices beyond the means of many locals. The group were responsible for setting fire to [[England|English]]-owned [[holiday home]]s in [[Wales]] from 1979 to the mid-1990s. In the first wave of attacks, eight holiday homes were destroyed in a month, and in 1980, Welsh Police carried out a series of raids in [[Operation Tân]]. Within the next ten years, some 220 properties were damaged by the campaign.<ref name="BBC2004">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4084013.stm MP's theory over cottage burnings], BBC News, 10 December 2004. Accessed 9 February 2007.</ref> Since the mid-1990s the group has been inactive and Welsh nationalist violence has ceased. In 1989 there was a movement that protested an influx of Swabians to Berlin who were deemed as gentrification drivers. Berlin saw the [[Schwabenhass]] and 2013 Spätzlerstreit controversies,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kulish |first1=Nicholas |title=Swabian Separatists Fling Spätzle to Make Their Point |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/world/europe/swabian-separatists-fling-spatzle-to-make-a-point.html |work=The New York Times |date=18 January 2013 }}</ref> which identified gentrification with newcomers from the German south.

[[File:Bologna014.jpg|thumb|Canale delle Moline in Bologna]]

====Zoning ordinances====
Zoning ordinances and other [[urban planning]] tools can be used to recognize and support local business and industries. This can include requiring developers to continue with a current commercial tenant or offering development incentives for keeping existing businesses, as well as creating and maintaining industrial zones. Designing zoning to allow new housing near to a commercial corridor but not on top of it increases foot traffic to local businesses without redeveloping them. Businesses can become more stable by securing long-term commercial leases.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/equitabledevelopment.html#sf|title=Equitable Development|website=San Francisco Bay Area Vision Project|publisher=FOCUS|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703184541/http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/equitabledevelopment.html|archive-date=3 July 2014|url-status=usurped|access-date=3 January 2018}}</ref>

Although developers may recognize value in responding to living patterns, extensive zoning policies often prevent affordable homes from being constructed within urban development. Due to [[urban density]] restrictions, rezoning for residential development within urban living areas is difficult, which forces the builder and the market into urban sprawl and propagates the energy inefficiencies that come with distance from urban centers. In a recent example of restrictive urban zoning requirements, Arcadia Development Co. was prevented from rezoning a parcel for residential development in an urban setting within the city of Morgan Hill, California. With limitations established in the interest of public welfare, a density restriction was applied solely to Arcadia Development Co.'s parcel of development, excluding any planned residential expansion.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://firsttuesdayjournal.com/multi-generational-housing-is-a-temporary-fix-for-economic-woes/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120225031044/http://firsttuesdayjournal.com/multi-generational-housing-is-a-temporary-fix-for-economic-woes/ |url-status= dead |archive-date= 25 February 2012 |publisher= first tuesday |title= Multi-generational housing is a temporary fix for economic woes |date= 10 February 2012 |access-date= 22 May 2012 |first= Mary |last= Balash }}</ref>

====Community land trusts====
Because land [[speculation]] tends to cause volatility in property values, removing real estate (houses, buildings, land) from the open market freezes property values, and thereby prevents the economic eviction of the community's poorer residents. The most common, formal [[law|legal]] mechanism for such stability in English speaking countries is the [[community land trust]]; moreover, many [[inclusionary zoning]] ordinances formally place the "inclusionary" housing units in a [[land trust]]. German municipalities and other cooperative actors have and maintain strong roles on the real estate markets in their realm.

====Rent control====
In jurisdictions where local or national government has these powers, there may be [[rent control]] regulations. Rent control restricts the rent that can be charged, so that incumbent tenants are not forced out by rising rents. If applicable to private landlords, it is a disincentive to speculating with property values, reduces the incidence of dwellings left empty, and limits availability of housing for new residents. If the law does not restrict the rent charged for dwellings that come onto the rental market (formerly owner-occupied or new build), rents in an area can still increase. Neighborhoods in southwestern [[Santa Monica, California|Santa Monica]] and eastern [[West Hollywood, California|West Hollywood]] in [[California]], United States gentrified despite—or perhaps, because of—rent control.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heskin |first1=Allan D. |last2=Levine |first2=Ned |last3=Garrett |first3=Mark |title=The Effects of Vacancy Control: A Spatial Analysis of Four California Cities |journal=Journal of the American Planning Association |date=30 June 2000 |volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=162–176 |doi=10.1080/01944360008976096 |s2cid=153160869 }}</ref>

Occasionally, a housing [[black market]] develops, wherein landlords withdraw houses and apartments from the market, making them available only upon payment of additional [[key money]], fees, or bribes—thus undermining the rent control law. Many such laws allow "vacancy decontrol", releasing a dwelling from rent control upon the tenant's leaving—resulting in steady losses of rent-controlled housing, ultimately rendering rent control laws ineffective in communities with a high rate of resident turnover. In other cases [[social housing]] owned by local authorities may be [[Right to buy scheme|sold to tenants]] and then sold on. Vacancy decontrol encourages landlords to find ways of shortening their residents' tenure, most aggressively through [[landlord harassment]]. To strengthen the rent control laws of [[New York City|New York]], housing advocates active in [[rent control in New York]] are attempting to repeal the vacancy decontrol clauses of rent control laws. The state of [[Massachusetts]] abolished rent control in 1994; afterwards, rents rose, accelerating the pace of [[Boston]]'s gentrification; however, the laws protected few apartments, and confounding factors, such as a strong economy, had already been raising housing and rental prices.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.tenant.net/Alerts/Guide/papers/dreier/dreier2.html#anchor4305940 |title=Rent Deregulation in California and Massachusetts: Politics, Policy, and Impacts&nbsp;— Part II |first=Peter |last=Dreier |year=1997 |website=tenant.net |access-date=4 February 2009}}</ref>