(Part 5) What is Gentrification Series (5-10) Policies Behind Gentrification: What Cities Allow (and Don’t)
This presentation explores how city policies—often unnoticed by the public—are actually the driving force behind gentrification. We will dissect the tools and levers governments use to shape neighborhood trajectories, and examine the consequences for longtime residents. From zoning to subsidies, it's a policy blueprint—not just market trends—that reshapes urban life.
We often hear that gentrification is just a consequence of supply and demand—but that’s not the full picture. In reality, city governments actively shape neighborhoods through policy. Whether it’s zoning restrictions, planning initiatives, or tax structures, these decisions guide who can live where and under what conditions. The most affected communities, however, are often left out of these conversations—blocked by dense legal jargon, inconvenient meeting times, and inaccessible processes. Understanding this disconnect is crucial to creating equitable urban futures.
Let’s take a closer look at how cities structurally fuel gentrification. Zoning laws often prohibit multi-family or affordable housing, and even when cities allow more density, they rarely require affordability—leading to luxury development. Tax incentives, too, often benefit developers without requiring them to give back to communities. The absence of strong tenant protections makes it easy for landlords to evict or price out residents. Without mandatory affordable housing rules, development becomes exclusive by default. And in many cases, city enforcement becomes a tool of displacement—pushing out vulnerable homeowners with fines and citations.
Zoning laws are the most invisible yet powerful tools in urban planning. They determine the types of buildings allowed in different neighborhoods—often locking out affordability by restricting multi-unit housing. Single-family zoning, in particular, has historically excluded low-income families and reinforced racial and economic segregation. In Dallas, rezoning areas like West Dallas and Deep Ellum opened the door for luxury developments, but lacked any requirement to protect existing residents. This is how gentrification is coded into the law.
Tax incentives are commonly used to attract developers, but without strings attached, they can fast-track gentrification. These incentives often lack requirements for affordability or local hiring. Public funds are meant to revitalize communities but often end up accelerating displacement by subsidizing luxury developments. Accountability is another issue—cities seldom monitor whether developers meet promised community benefits. In the end, public money serves private interests while residents are left behind.
In many cities, tenant protections are either weak or nonexistent—creating a legal pathway for displacement. Without rent control, landlords are free to hike rents when property values rise. Many tenants face non-renewal notices or evictions without cause, especially when an area becomes attractive to developers. And perhaps most critically, tenants typically lack legal representation, which severely limits their ability to fight back. These legal voids make gentrification not only possible but predictable.
Affordable housing requirements—like inclusionary zoning—are critical to preventing displacement, yet many cities fail to enforce them. Some cities don’t require affordability at all, while others allow developers to opt out by paying fees. And even when units are created, they’re often only temporarily affordable. This lack of long-term commitment to affordability means that, over time, cities become more exclusive, pricing out low-income and working-class residents. Policies that seem progressive on paper often have loopholes that gut their impact.
One of the more covert tools of gentrification is code enforcement. When an area becomes attractive to investors, cities often intensify inspections under the guise of 'safety' or 'beautification.' But these inspections frequently target older homes and low-income residents, resulting in fines or repair mandates that they can’t afford. With no support system in place, homeowners are often left with little choice but to sell. What seems like neutral regulation becomes a driver of involuntary displacement.
Neglect isn’t accidental—it’s a strategic precursor to gentrification. For decades, many urban neighborhoods are systematically underfunded: schools crumble, sidewalks go unrepaired, and city services are minimal. Then, almost overnight, once developers show interest, investment floods in—but not for the original residents. Parks get landscaped, bike lanes installed, and buildings renovated, yet those who endured years of disinvestment are priced out of enjoying the benefits. This cycle of neglect and selective revitalization creates a displacement pipeline under the banner of progress.
What would it look like if policies were designed to protect communities instead of displacing them? A range of proven strategies already exist. Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) require developers to give back. Property tax caps prevent legacy homeowners from being priced out. The Right to Counsel ensures tenants can defend against evictions. Strong inclusionary zoning laws require permanent affordable housing. And community land trusts take land off the market and into the hands of the people. The tools are available—the question is whether cities choose to use them.
The process of urban planning and policymaking is often exclusionary by design. Zoning and development meetings are typically scheduled during working hours, use inaccessible legal language, and lack adequate community outreach. This keeps many residents—especially those most impacted—out of the room. Meanwhile, developers come equipped with full teams of legal and planning professionals. Reclaiming space at the decision-making table requires organizing, education, and structural reforms to democratize the process. Communities must not only be present—they must be heard.
