It's entitlement all the way down. People who live somewhere feel entitled to stay there indefinitely because they were there "first". People who don't live there feel entitled to buy their way in because that's how supply and demand work.
I don't think people who live in bad neighborhoods feel entitled.
The choice is often moving from one bad neighborhood to another. Moving is expensive and a hassle for everyone, it's no wonder people don't want to move without a strong incentive.
Define bad? Do you mean bad as in poor or bad as in dangerous and unsafe. I mostly hear gentrification in the context of poor neighborhoods rather than unsafe.
I don't think gentrification is happening in dangerous and unsafe neighborhoods. It's my opinion that is where many displaced residents move. Note: opinion, not fact.
I actually agree with your overall point - unless you own, you shouldn't feel entitled to stay. You should, however, be entitled to a safe neighborhood and legitimate opportunity.
"entitled to a safe neighborhood and legitimate opportunity"
That's kind of a meaningless statement. What does it even mean? Let's say you're correct and people are entitled to living in a safe neighborhood. Now let's say they live in an unsafe one. Now what? They're entitled to a safe neighborhood! It's their right! Who is required to give it to them exactly? Me? You? The states? The feds?
You can call something an entitlement or a right all you want. Go ahead. But in cases like this it's an incredible hollow gesture.
Of course it’s a meaningless statement. If they were entitled to or had the right to safety and opportunity, it wouldn’t be a bad neighborhood, they wouldn’t have to move, and there wouldn’t be gentrification.
