2 Comment

• 

  Walt May 1, 2019 at 6:27 pm

  So when the local politicos want to promote a mixed use housing project the art community is included in the ‘low income’ group, but when said artists place their work in the community they’re tagged as “well-of” gentrifying tools. This bi-polar ‘idea laundering’ divides a community, in the least keeps ’em in a state of flux. “…hear one another”? Maybe if we start communicating with less fine pc filters we’d have more to work with toward understanding one another. Aside, the post ww2 rerouting of traffic flows by the interstate highway system was the result of the deliberate energy/auto/construction industry campaign enabling the industrial migration. 1972’s Shanghai Communiqué exasperated the problem for all American’s with industrial outsourcing to foreign entities . The resultant decaying of inner cities caused further capital flight by the private sector (who happen to be a white majority) which prompted a government response. The fact that these conditions fed off of each other is just coincidental in as much as elected officials socializing the related costs is simply convenient. Fast forward to 2019…new urban renewals, new trade plans and $tril. deficits. Picasso took a lifetime to paint like a child and we’re fencing off the “art” from them. Craziness…

  Reply
• 

  Walt May 11, 2019 at 11:21 am

  Newburgh’s ’19 assessment indicates there is no gentrification in its low income neighborhoods as it relates to rentals. Instead, an increasing number of its single family home owners are falling behind on their property tax payments. It would be a mistake to tag this issue as a deadbeat strawman and a reason for the city’s high property taxes. Why, despite the touted increase in home ownership rate, is this happening? Why, despite this happening, is the city pushing home ownership for those that do not meet the historically risk/reward model? As per “record sales” narrative…the city added just 4 homestead parcels to its rolls and it’s non-homestead remained the same in number. Total homestead ‘city’ taxable tentative assessments increased just over 8%, non-homestead 1.4%. Neighborhood disparity regarding assessments still exist and is not being addressed. A handful of sales on one desirable street should not inflate a whole ‘neighborhood’ assessment value by 27% while a non-profit investing $millions within an entire ‘neighborhood’ results in little to no increase in the respective assessments. Apparently shared diversity does not correlate to shared austerity. Remember, the city council voted to override the tax cap last year, essentially forfeiting the state’s rebate to home owners…a rebate that would have offset the increase in property taxes related to inflated assessments. The city’s assessor declared that single family properties generally have a larger assessment increase due to demand (which, imo, is at odds with the city’s ‘micro-housing’ initiative aka basement units). Perhaps. But if that’s the case, the gentrification issue is a mute subject for the ‘Burgh as it relates to the renter class. Besides, the narrative now is that “increased assessments are good”. Will that mantra be repeated when the gentrification bogeyman cries out again?
  https://newburghny.swagit.com/play/05092019-814 item 4

  Reply