My column last Monday about the quickening pace of renovations in the North Limestone corridor generated some heated discussions on social media about "gentrification."
In case you aren't familiar with the term, it was coined in the 1960s to describe the displacement of poor residents when people with more money move into a neighborhood, leading to higher property values, rents and taxes.
It is a politically charged word sometimes used to try to shame people interested in historic preservation, or who want to improve property in neighborhoods where they wish to live or invest.
As urban living has regained popularity in Lexington after decades of suburban sprawl, re-investment in old neighborhoods has led to worries about gentrification.
Never miss a local story.
It's a legitimate issue, because business practices and trickle-down economic policies have created a widening gap between rich and poor. Many hard-working people struggle to make ends meet after years of stagnant wages.
But gentrification can be subjective and complicated, because it involves touchy issues of class, race and capitalism. There are no easy solutions.
Two thoughtful essays about gentrification in Lexington were written by Bianca Spriggs last June in Ace Weekly and Joe Anthony in May 2012 in North of Center. Both are worth reading online ( Aceweekly.com and NOClexington.com).
Here's my view:
Neighborhoods are not static. They are constantly changing for many reasons. Some of those changes are good and others are bad, depending on your perspective. I see a lot more good than bad happening in North Lexington these days.
Many of these neighborhoods were created a century or two ago for wealthy and middle-class homeowners. Suburban flight led to disinvestment, deterioration and crime. A lot of owner-occupied homes became low-income rentals owned by people who didn't take care of their property.
There are many good houses and commercial buildings there worth preserving and reusing. There also is a lot of community fabric and culture worth respecting and nurturing.
The return of more owner-occupied housing in these neighborhoods is a good thing. It is a fact of life that homeowners have more political clout than renters. That often results in more investment, better policing and less crime in neighborhoods with a significant share of owner-occupied homes.
That doesn't mean rental property is undesirable. In many neighborhoods, such as mine, renters contribute a lot to community life.
Thanks to investment by new residents, businesses, non-profit groups such as the North Limestone Community Development Corporation and some professional renovators, many North Lexington neighborhoods are becoming safer and more economically diverse places to live.
That doesn't mean I like every house-flipper's craftsmanship or tactics. But some of them are doing good work.
It is inevitable that some renters will be displaced. But I think renovators and re-sellers have a moral obligation to treat people fairly and, when possible, help longtime residents stay in the neighborhood.
Lexington is small enough that business people's reputations precede them. Quality work and ethical behavior will pay off for those who practice it, especially if others in the community speak out about bad actors.
Some absentee landlords will be displaced, too, and that's a good thing. Poor people often pay high rents and utility costs for substandard housing — and then get kicked out if they complain to code enforcement.
There are better solutions to affordable housing than steadily deteriorating homes owned by absentee landlords. The Urban League, Community Ventures, Habitat for Humanity, AU Associates, churches and others have done a lot of good work on affordable housing over the past two decades.
This wave of private investment in North Lexington, and the city's new affordable housing trust fund, provide a good opportunity to address some of these gentrification issues in new and creative ways.
For one thing, people who choose to live in urban neighborhoods rather than more homogenous suburbs are seeking cultural diversity. That's because diverse neighborhoods are more interesting places to live.
How can the city, non-profit groups and developers work together to keep low-income people in these neighborhoods while improving the quality of housing they can afford? How can neighborhood revitalization work for everyone?
Neighborhoods are like any natural environment: The more diverse they are, the more healthy they are and the more sustainable they will be over time.