> What exactly is bad about it?

The fact that that the original residents are displaced to a place without those benefits and bear the cost of relocation, while the people that enjoy he benefits are people who could have afforded to get as good, or nearly so, conditions in existing places with them, anyway.

Gentrification is a magnifying downward redistribution of misery, where the new residents get a small gain in exchange for the old residents (particularly renters) getting a big loss.

Why are people entitled to live in a certain community just because they have been there for a long time?

At what point do I get to lay claim to my house and force my city to allow me to live there for a subsidized price if I can't afford it?

> Why are people entitled to live in a certain community just because they have been there for a long time?

I didn't say anything anout entitlement. I said that a certain change redistributes pain downward and magnifies it in the process.

Some pain for sure. Others make a cool 500k now that their house is no longer next to a meth lab.

Yes, property owners—who tend to be more wealthy than renters to start with—may see benefits. That kind of reinforces the point, rather than contradicting it.

And renters can move. Just as people have done for hundreds of years.

They could also band together, arm themselves, and so on, just as people have done for hundreds of years.

Yes, and that has a cost.

Hence, the downward distribution of negative impacts.

wait, are you now defending a "tax break for the rich, so they can show poor home owners that they are too entitled"?