As it concerns “moving back”, pushing others out is indeed what the goal of gentrification is .hence, why there are so many nice homes being made in areas that used to be torn down neighborboods and the broke homes demolished…and why many who move back are not really concerned with whether or not the urban poor living there are pushed away gradually. They have a desire for safety and peace—though if that means that many in a gang-ridden/drug infested apartment complex must be forced out in the process to do it, that’s just the consequences. Just saw it recently where one apartment complex in Atlanta was shut down and all the families were literally relocated. Triped me out, though in talking with some of the workers there it was made known how there’s a mindset involved in the politics where others believe in a “culture of poverty”—that certain things exist in a community because they are allowed to do so in such great pockets..and forcing others to move out of it will destablize much of the decay.

Its happening. And at a rapid pace.

There’s a benefit for the new kids coming, as greater tax rates being raised and more affluent members equates to higher patrol …as well as more attention being paid to details by the state since others have more political control. Thus, more laws are enforced and there’s less lax.

However, that sends a sharp message to the urban poor there who cannot/will not find a home in the new world created except one that either ignores them further…or just kicks them out. How many poor in general, be it in the surburbs or the urban landscape, are not allowed to be in affluent communities? I’ve seen it often and it amazes me. Most stereotype it as the poor being all grown-ups who are into crime already….though the greatest group in poverty today is single mothers and children. The children often suffer the most as simply being collateral damage.

When others move in, its seldom the case that the goal is to get that which was there previously to remain….especially when they’re already all deemed the same. It is so against what the scriptures define as true community.

Sometimes, the way the Church operates even when making “communities” is very much akin to what’s known in human services as Gentrification—-where those with much come/make LARGE churches and bring all of their friends from the surburban side…..but distance themselves from those who were already there. What’s even crazier is that you’ll have 2o differing churches/communities all competing in the inner-city neighborhoods …trying to get the people on the streets to their respective sides while blasting the other/saying how they have “true community”…while others come from the Surburbs/seek to make the hood into the burbs. How damaging it is when upscale/rich individuals move into poor communities…and seek to change it to fit “their image of what’s good”…yet distance themselves from them rather than be apart of them…and the insights may be helpful to consider when wrestling with
the matter of perception vs. reality.

For more info, “Fighting Gentrification With Money In Houston” is the place to go ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112888084).

For in the New Testament, the word ‘fellowship’ is from the Greek word
“koinonia’, meaning communion, communication, distribution,
sharing, associating, partnering….and This is a Kingdom characteristic—especially as it relates to expansion/doing good to all ( Mark 4:29-31 / Galatians 6:10)…..but
it would be awesome if our communities lived in fellowship rather than talking of it

On the issue of addressing if it is possible to “clean up” the streets, I’d say yes and that the only reason why there has been so little success is because of how there has been so little of a united front by others to all jump in. But again, that’s just me…