> Unless there is something I am missing, I got the
> feeling the Williambsurg residents were being evicted
> because property developers saw a big chance to cash
> in on the neighborhood in light of the ambiance
> artistes had imparted to the area.
Oh, you're both right about that, and I'm certainly not in favor of anyone being evicted from their homes. What strikes me is that both the tenants association and B seem to feel that the artists' role in gentrifying the neighborhood is somehow a strike in their favor:
> So now that they'd
> done that, thanks, but you're evicted, and now we can
> set up some posh housing for the really-deserving
> boozhie types to take your place.
And this puts them in a better light...how?
I'm sure there were decent people in 475 Kent, as I know there were in 1717 Troutman, a similarly evicted loft in Ridgewood (one of whom has a brother on this list, I believe).
Unfortunately, decent people in these situations have allowed bigoted ignoramuses to seize the spotlight. At 1717 Troutman, for example, tenant association leaders first demonstrated ignorance of which borough their building actually occupied (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10/hipsters_sometime_live_in_quee.html), a mark of a hard-core hipster if there ever was one.
Then tenant association leader Claribel Pichardo sniffled to the media:
"It's not fair...We're young professionals. We all have jobs. There's no reason we should be living in the streets. It's unacceptable."
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18978598&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574901&rfi=6
As opposed to the longtime neighborhood residents displaced by them years ago, I'm sure.