No, it won't keep it's history & diversity. I have been on Grand Army Plaza since 1980, and have seen it fade into a "white out" as the original residents got priced out and moved. The streets became sterile & barren after the folks walk home from the subway in the evening. The same thing will happen to Crown Heights.

The newer residents DON'T care. They are consumed by their careers & their children, They couldn't care less about the people they displaced. Consider me an observer of the Carnage....

I am getting sick and tired of all of the hating on newer residents in Crown Heights. It is unfair stereotyping to lump us all together. I recently bought a condo in Crown Heights but am not a "yuppie" nor and I interested in white washing the neighborhood. I grew up in the far west village aka meat packing district when it was no mans land and I have been priced out of my neighborhood for many years now. I am actually interested in being a part of this community and resent the constant implications that simply by being relatively new to the area I am part of some evil gentrifying force.

Except that I am what? What does that even mean? You know nothing about me, my background, or my motives for being here. It wouldn't be New York if no one ever left their neighborhoods and all neighborhoods stayed the same always. My husband grew up in Sunset Park and had lived in Prospect Heights for the past 12 years (leading us to happily move to Crown Heights). When I was in High School Washington Avenue was where you went to buy weed and Franklin was where you went to get shot. Miss those times? Stop ignorantly judging people you know nothing about - it is no better than the newcomers who don't care about the history of the neighborhood.

At least you acknowledge that "newcomers" know nothing of the neighborhood.....

Your ignorance and naivete is exhausting and pointless to argue with. Plus, this has already taken too much of my precious time normally reserved for obsessing about my children and career. Get over yourself.

Then carry on....proving my point. :-)

i am not "white-washed" and i am an immigrant! and as an immigrant with diversity and culture who just moved to the neighborhood, i feel that people here DO NOT appreciate other cultures that are not their own. I think Gregg is being a hypocrite. You live here for so long and say you want diversity, but when you get diversity, you kick it out. As an African, who has been displaced many times, I see people here as SNOBS who think that their culture from the 80's in Brooklyn is the best culture.

Gregg, it is a shame that prices have to go up so high but that's the fault of the landlords, not the new people moving in. The new people coming to Crown Heights are moving there because they've just been priced out of somewhere else. That's why I'm here. It was the only place that I could afford to buy something. I think that you just need to accept the fact that NYC is an ever changing/evolving place. No one owns a neighborhood and can lay claim to it. Condemning new people just for moving near you is that same as when whites use to say "there goes the neighborhood" when blacks moved in. All of these neighborhoods used to be something quite different, whether Italian, Jewish, Hispanic, and they will continue to always change. I happen to think that there's a good mix of people here now and that it will hopefully stay that way for a while. But I do understand that it's a drag to have to leave if you can't afford it because I experienced it myself. I loved where I used to live but my rent got so high that it was just not possible anymore. I saved my money for a long time and bought something here. You should do the same.

@Janson: There is no need to personally attack me and call me names, just because you don't agree with me. I simply said that, after living here for so many years, I have found the neighborhood to be much less diverse than it had been earlier. It used to be a place where people of different ethnicity, cultures, economic levels lived. Now, though there are still some people of differing backgrounds, it is far less so than previously, and the economic situation in particular has pushed out many people, young and old.

i'm sorry if you think of it as a personal attack but your "language" of "DONT CARE" and "Carnage" is why i responded like that. You should have posted the response that you did earlier and also have not responded to Nicola in the way you did because that is also an "attack" no matter how you define it.

all i have to say is good luck to all you people living here... as i see it (as an outsider), you don't have to worry about crime like heads being chopped off. that is something i have to go back to since i am here for a short time. at least i voluntarily seeked out ways to get to know better my neighborhood like joining this patch.com site. But seems to me that people will always discriminate against people who THEY DO NOT KNOW. It seems to me that the "newcomers" treat outsiders better than the current people who live in the neighborhood. I've had that first-hand experience here. I wanted to join this conversation as I am leaving soon and wanted to give my opinion. But I know that people will always FEAR change no matter what and that is a shame. I will go back to my country and bring that with me of that fact, which is a bigger shame. Also, as an outsider, how do people know the economic status of other people here? by the way they dress? by looking at their cars? or looking up how they make money somewhere? is that on a website? How do you know how HARD they work to make that money to live here? This is my last comment. Thank you and good luck you all and good luck to NYC.

As a relatively new renter in Prospect Heights, I'd love to know more about the history and culture of Crown Heights. Wikipedia focuses too much on the splashy negatives, namely the two spells of riots. A firsthand account of the positive elements of the neighborhood's history and culture from a longtime resident would be ideal. Someone want to write a blog post about it on Patch? Gregg?

@Janson: On the contrary, if someone is new to the area & doesn't know the history & dynamics, and doesn't research it (which, let's face it, 99% of people won't care to do), "Don't Care" is exactly the apt definition. That, again, is just an observation, not a criticism. And as for "Nicola" she responded to my initial post with vitriol, suggesting I was "hating" on her as a newer resident. Which misrepresented my initial, observational post.

@Janson: Good luck to you! And safe travels back to your home & family.

The diversity is increasing, not decreasing. Check the demographics of the neighborhood.

Gregg just seems like he's a bit racist against white folks.

@ Eastbloc: Gregg is white. So you're wrong.

You can be white and still be racist against white folks, Gregg. You're a case in point.

Ummmm...no. But thanks for assuming. LOL

Gregg, all you said - well said. I think some folks "misunderstood" your comments, but I clearly see and concur with your points. And so true regarding many "newcomers" not researching neighborhoods before moving into them. Have a blessed day.

I think that many people commenting here would also be interested in the comments on Nick Juravich's blog commenting on the same NYT article:

http://ilovefranklinave.blogspot.com/2012/02/times-returns-franklin-back-in-news.html

In MikeF's last comment on the thread he raises a series of interesting questions about what the goals should be for the neighborhood. Most relevant to the conversation occurring here on the Patch is this:

"Is one of goals to stop the change, and/or at least give low income people some local places to live and shop?"

Going off of such comments, I'm curious as to what people think that "researching neighborhoods before moving into them" would actually amount to in terms of action. How would you prefer new residents interact with their new neighborhood and what is it exactly that they are doing that offends you?

I don't think it's fair to say that all newcomers "couldn't care less about the people they displaced." I'm wondering, what could newcomers do to show that they do care, but that they have found somewhere safe, affordable, and geographically accessible to live in and don't understand how best to deal with the perceived negatives effects of doing so.

rsj: Where does the money go, for those "Crown Heights" t-shirts? Have you asked Mike Fagan about that?

Just curious...

I'm sure it goes into the pockets of newcomers who don't give a rat's ass about the neighborhood. Aside of course from the narrow band of self-interest that makes them do things like renovate long-abandoned houses and retail spaces, go to community organization meetings, spend money in local business establishments, and generally elevate a long-blighted community to the level where people live here because they want to rather than because it's the only place they can afford.

How does "self-interest" drive somebody to go to community organization meetings or patronize local businesses? Why is elevating a community to the level where people want to live there bad? Is there a way of making a neighborhood safer and more prosperous that you wouldn't find ill-intentioned?

I didn't think my sarcasm could have been any more explicit. Obviously, I'm of the opinion that the change is for the better.

I wonder what the detractors of the current demographic trends would have said about the previous phenomena of white flight and urban decay that occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s. These were arguably the same process in reverse, which turned a once affluent (and yes, diverse) neighborhood into a crime-ridden, economically-depressed area inhabited predominantly by minorities.

Would Gregg similarly bemoan the sight of middle-class Irish and Italians moving to Nassau County, thus decreasing the economic and ethnic diversity of the neighborhood?

@eastbloc: Yes, Gregg would bemoan that. Recall that most of the Irish & Italians that lived here were working & middle-class people. The homes they lived in were affordable, unlike now, where the brownstones cost in the millions. And also recall that at that time there was likely less diversity, as there were first segregation laws & later "redlining" by realtors that kept certain ethnic groups out of most neighborhoods.

There does not have to be a choice between "clean,safe & liveable" and "affordable". THAT is the issue at hand.

Does Gregg always refer to himself in the third person? That must get awkward.

I don't know that the brownstones were affordable before the neighborhood went to hell. I'm unable to find any pricing data that confirms or disputes your claims, but I expect just as anywhere else, some of the houses were more expensive and desirable as others. Single-family homes were most likely at a premium, and three-family apartment buildings like mine catered to those of more modest means, as they continue to do today.

Although I agree that people should have the option of living someplace clean and safe, I don't see why anyone should feel entitled to live any particular place. The city disagrees with me and implements rent stabilization laws which prevent the rent from being raised more than 3.75% every year for rent-stabilized housing, which accounts for about half of all rental units and is roughly on par with inflation. Another 15% of rentals are either rent-controlled or public housing. Only 35% of housing is unregulated. So odds are good that most people who can afford to live here already will continue to do so.

If not, tough noogie. This is America, not Stalinist Russia. If you can't cut it in New York, you're free to move somewhere else. It's a big country. There are plenty of affordable, clean, safe, and cheap place to live.

@eastbloc: You are wrong. The rent-stabilization rent increases are set by the Rent Stabilization Board every June, for leases that begin each Oct 1. Rent increases have been far higher than 3.75%, depending mostly on what they determine are "costs" like fuel, taxes, etc. But it's a highly political process and, having had a series of Republican Mayors, the Board is stacked with members in the landlord's pockets, and thus vote for hefty rent increases.

Add to this the "Rent Reform Act of 1993", which set the "Luxury Decontrol" rent mark at $2000, (a dubious number even at the time in Manhattan,increasingly so in the outer Boroughs as they never raised it, not even indexing it to inflation), and the DHCR looking away form any enforcement of illegal decontrol of apartments from landlord-claimed "renovations" which the DHCR routinely refuses to investigate, and the number of now-decontrolled "market rate" apartments is greatly increased, with rents doubling or tripling. I'm a tenant activist and have seen this first-hand. I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of apartments!

(continued)

This has also resulted in a tremendous turn-over of apartments, changes to once-stable neighborhoods,an accelerating push of lower and moderate income people out of the neighborhood. Tenants come to stay only briefly, because it's so expensive they might just as well buy something elsewhere, altering the social fabric of the neighborhood negatively. People don't care, they plan to be there only short times and they move out, the cycle continues and the rents spiral upward at an accelerated pace.

Those of us who are simply trying to get landlords to obey the law, and get the housing authorities to apply the laws have had an increasingly uphill battle, against landlord-funded public officials who are nothing but landlord stooges.

THIS kind of "change" is what I am saying is undesirable and destructive to the neighborhood. Are you now on record as supporting this kind of illegal activity, enriching landlords (the 1%..!) who typically don't even live in the neighborhood, at the expense of the people who's neighborhoods are being destroyed?

I don't support any illegal activity. I do support legislative change to repeal rent control and stabilization laws, which are unfairly implemented and often abused.

People should live in proximity to their jobs and based on their wages the market will determine the rent appropriately. Rent control and rent stabilization effectively subsidize certain types of employment (or underemployment) at the expense of property owners, who are not all as rich as you think.

I for one live in this neighborhood precisely because it is affordable. If enough people do that, supply and demand dictates that the prices will rise. It's a valuable mechanism and I can't see any reason to screw with it, platitudes about the intrinsic values of a neighborhood being lost in the process aside.

By the way, according to the Wall Street Journal, when the neighborhood was constructed, it was known as "a swanky commuter area for Manhattan's professional classes".

You could say that it is just returning to its roots.

@eastbloc: Well, at least you have shown your true colors.

Ending rent-regulation would be a complete disaster. Yes, the laws of supply & demand apply, in theory, but only when there is an adequate supply.

NYC has a lack of apartments, I would say a shortfall of some 2 million units. Some say more. Build those, and you would then have no reason for any rent-regulations as there would be adequate supply, for people to shop for better prices. As things stand now, there are not those conditions in place. The only substantial "supply" is a trickle of very-high rent apartments at the top, just enough to keep prices high and not affect the average price for most of us. So it is a false argument. Remember, the rent laws were created because of just such a supply imbalance. The rent laws didn't CAUSE the shortage, but were in response to the shortage.

I'd look askance at anything the Wall street Journal writes, as it is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns FOX (Faux?) News, of course. We know who their constituents are.

And I object to your dismissing my concerns of neighborhood stability and other
"intrinsic" values as "platitudes". It affects the very fabric & experience of your living environment.

I have a hard time imagining why the WSJ would make up historical facts, but maybe I'm not enough of a class warrior to understand the perfidy that must take place there. Perhaps Wikipedia is sufficiently plebeian for you to respect as a source?

"Beginning in the early 1900s, many upper-class residences, including characteristic brownstone buildings, were erected along Eastern Parkway. Away from the parkway were a mixture of lower middle-class residences. This development peaked in the 1920s. Before World War II Crown Heights was among New York City's premier neighborhoods, with tree-lined streets, an array of cultural institutions and parks, and numerous fraternal, social and community organizations."

And yes, there was a housing shortfall at the time the rent laws were enacted, but the market would have addressed it eventually if it was left to its own devices. Instead, for the sake of short-term political gain, we've broken the market mechanism.

If the market was allowed to set prices, and reduced regulation making affordable construction difficult, those apartments would get built. That they don't is an issue of economics. There's certainly no cabal of property owners who are holding back on development to keep prices artificially high. That wouldn't make any sense.

@eastbloc: Re: "There's certainly no cabal of property owners who are holding back on development to keep prices artificially high. That wouldn't make any sense."

You are wrong once again. I have first hand knowledge, and the paperwork, of a landlord who, even though the building was profitable while completely rent-regulated when they purchased it, then proceeded after purchase to illegally decontrol apartments across the board, jacking up the rents illegally, while making political campaign contributions to Republican officeholders who then enacted weakening of the rent laws. This was happening all across the City, and was a calculated effort, orchestrated by the landlord's lobbying group, the ill-named "Rent Stabilization Association" Look it up!

Coincidence? Huh? Makes no sense? Makes PERFECT sense! Why add 2 million apartments to the supply, when you can add a few thousand city-wide, and keep the price high, maximizing profits?? Remember, this is a high barrier-to-entry business. Not everyone is equipped to go out and throw up an apartment building, like they were opening a small business in a storefront.

This has been a calculated campaign, of economic & political warfare against the working & middle class of this City. Don't kid yourself....

Also this statement:

"Yes, the laws of supply & demand apply, in theory, but only when there is an adequate supply."

Is completely idiotic. The whole idea of supply and demand is that given a fair market, supply will reach an equilibrium with demand. It's not _dependent_ on adequate supply, it is the mechanism that _creates_ an adequate supply, and messing with it is what creates supply problems.

It's precisely why the command economies of eastern Europe were lousy at producing consumer goods and perpetually plagued by shortages.

@ eastbloc: What are you talking about? You seek to diss me because you can't follow the simple example I made and how it relates to the larger problem, directly?

It sounds like you came from the "eastern bloc" yourself, as you are so blinded by rage that you can't see simple common sense, even when concrete examples are laid out for you.

Pity...

@eastbloc: Apartments buildings are not "private property" in the sense you are making.

Real "public" people live in them. And they are subject to the laws made by the people, via their self-government.

Just FYI...