The Sylvan gentrification debate considered the following motion:
This house deplores gentrification.
The debate took place on Monday, 6th March. Shemi Leira proposed the motion and George Elliston opposed it.
The proposition arguing that we should deplore gentrification
The proposer focused on the human elements of gentrification, and the impacts it has on individuals and communities. There was a large regeneration scheme proposed in 2015 in Clapham Commons. A lady hired by the developer ‘surveyed’ residents about the project – essentially about building new homes right where they live. I saw Kate Hoey MP holding a human chain on the Commons protesting against this. They mentally sectioned a man and took his home. Kate told me to join the labour party who run Lambeth Council, so I could see the planning process. Planning did not consult local residents before evicting them, appalling.
Decades-long residents with secured tenancies, as well as leaseholders and free holders lost their homes. They represented the community, not transients. The impact was deadly, several older residents I knew passed away due to the insecurity. It removed children, distressed the elderly and affected a high proportion of BAME residents. The European Convention on Human Rights should block this. What can we do from a legal perspective? In human rights terms? Regeneration can work if done with, for and by communities.
The opposition against the gentrification debate motion
The opposer began by noting the sensitive nature of this subject, and sympathised with the impact. I feel guilt for those experiences – Shemi outlined what amounts to abuse by gentrification. Gentrification typically takes the form of university students moving into poorer areas, often populated by minorities. From a macroeconomic perspective, this has upsides. It improves communities, tax revenues, revitalises derelict neighbourhoods and reduces crime. Hackney was the most deprived before 2012, and the Olympics investments led to increased population, jobs, health – regeneration. Those living in gentrified areas benefit, and it reflects the modern market economy. Can the government control the market, can it segregate people? Can we ever stop change?
The opposition continued
Gentrification changes communities, and people end up moving. For instance, the Windrush migration from the Caribbean to Brixton – they had been wealthy. Where we live always changes. My neighbourhood Tooting went through waves – Irish, Indian, West Indian. We have to adapt to change. US research shows that gentrification does not displace low-income families wholesale. We need good policy, including rent support and maintaining a good level of affordable housing. The government has failed to build enough housing. Gentrification can be managed, I agree with the proposer, we can do it in a fair way.
Floor speakers shared a wide range of perspectives. Brixton hasn’t been gentrified, it’s just become trendy, which hasn’t helped the community. Regeneration pushes people out – believe in it if it can be done differently. Hackney changed completely, the existing community got forced out. Developers promise social houses, then don’t deliver, due to indifferent government. Lewisham has turned into yuppies living above big-box shops, not part of the community. The Duke of Westminster owns all of it, who has the power? Capitalism means a lack of incentive for social housing. However, we’ve chosen capitalism. Brixton, Clapham, etc – they are better off now, with less crime and improved housing.
Economic arguments do not capture the impact of community changes, where decisions happen through democratic and diffuse ways. We don’t live in a fully market economy – with a free NHS, few private universities, etc. Our society provides the fundamental means of living, yet not for housing. Child poverty often remains in gentrified areas in London. We could improve gentrification to retain neighbourhood character. Even gentrifiers get priced out and have to move, including ‘white-collar working class’ people.
Floor speeches continued
The government lacks a clear strategy to deliver positive regeneration. Local governments don’t have the will to fix areas in disrepair, and don’t have the funds to maintain them. Appalling degeneration results, and the lack of a central way to stop this is the problem rather than regeneration itself.
On the other hand, areas such as Harlesden / Stonebridge have had new developments with amazing amenities, Canary Wharf is now a tourist area. Existing homeowners gain, and can move to buy better houses. However, Canary Wharf is an awful bastion of soullessness. Gentrification extends division, with poor peoples lives ‘more disposable’. We’re all part of the problem with globalisation, and it’s already too widespread.
The opposer’s rebuttal
In rebuttal, the opposer agreed with a number of the impacts of gentrification, with minorities pushed out and decision-making changing from locals to money. We need a system to improve society. Are we against improvement, or against bad policy? Too few people make the decisions, which is separate from gentrification. I want develop in a fair way.
The proposer’s closing speech
In closing, the proposer pointed out that the supposed benefits of gentrification rarely pan out. Not against change – it happens – or capitalism. Regeneration happens on public land, with public money, yet displaces people for the ‘public’ benefit. They use this to remove people. Global corporations are adversarial, and social housing is a game where residents are the pawns.
Result: the gentrification debate motion carried
The Sylvans concluded through the gentrification debate that we deplore gentrification.
See information on other Sylvan debates here.