The problem is that the area may not be impoverished anymore, but the impoverished people still need to live somewhere. They can no longer afford to live in the neighborhood they lived in for years, because the rents and taxes go up. So, they all get pushed out, often to an even worse neighborhood.
Here’s the thing - I’ve come to learn that there will always be a segment of our society that absolutely refuses to fend for itself. Why cater to that segment?
I work in land development, and one day I was at a planning commission meeting to pitch a new development. A developer had bought up abandoned industrial property near the RR tracks, and was proposing a gated, maintenance free community. The common theme of the protesting neighbors: “Our taxes will go up”. It was unbelievable - they would rather live in crime and decay, than stay and pay more taxes...or pick door #3 and sell out for a profit, if they couldn’t afford the taxes.
And, they had an expectation that the abandoned property near them be permanently vacant, producing practically zero tax revenue, and serving essentially as a playground for crime and underground activity. IOW, their personal desire to wallow in squalor trumped the needs of the community.
I think its an absurd attitude.
Yes, I know the rents go up. But as the area gets ‘trendy’, aren’t there new restaurants opening up with job potential? And, they don’t just double the rent on a crappy apartment without improving it, do they? There may be some painting, carpet laying, sheet rock hanging, etc. type jobs to be had. IOW, as the rents go up, the local job outlook also changes...for the willing. Sure the unwilling will have to move, but in aggregate, the gentrified neighborhood will have increased the net opportunities in the area, and should by some small percentage reduce the total poverty in the area.