That's capitalism; because I don't know who ought to have a particular property entitlement we have a market. If you're concerned about distributional justice, that's best addressed through redistributive taxation and government spending, not through command and control regulation of the market.
Throwing your hands up in the air and bleating 'that's capitalism!' and acting shocked that anyone should question The Market (hallowed be its name) is not an answer, particularly when (as has now been pointed out in the thread) there is no such thing as a natural market in housing. Indeed, not only is their no such thing, there isn't really anything resembling one. Housing is about power, not ineffable laws of pseudo-nature. Attempts to claim otherwise are really just attempts to justify class war.
How could the open abuse of state power in those cases be considered to be 'completely apart from gentrification' when without that very abuse of state power those particular cases of gentrification could not themselves have happened?
And all of this without remembering that the blueprint for all ultra-aggressive gentrification everywhere (and the subsequent creation of the banlieues) is what Haussmann did to Paris in the 19th century.
How is there not a housing market? There is absolutely a housing market. Obviously, housing is a highly regulated market, but so is the car market, the healthcare market, etc.
At least in America, many things that would be considered gentrification are not state action. A new housing development by a private corporation. A home being sold for a higher price than it would have several years earlier. A landlord renting their apartment for $1200 instead of $1100. A new coffee shop opening up. Those are part of gentrification.
I just want to have a clear discussion. To me, rising prices of homes or apartments by itself should not be decried. Instead we should focus on zoning, building codes and local government land use decisions.
Poll
