Been evident for years. The Times loves the gentrification that is forcing long-time residents out of Bed-Stuy and other neighborhoods. But it will never call the devil by its name. Only New York Magazine was bold enough to do that and say, "Gentrification is good for you, you loud-mouth ghetto dwellers, so shut up."
Now comes the Times today, offering putative scholarly evidence that the muscle behind gentrification is good. The serious application of zoning/ preservation laws (or, heaven forbid, the strengthening of them) will hurt American cities and cost gazillions of dollars to the economy, the Times piece is saying.
This is the Fourth Estate's stamp of approval to the pro-development drive set in strong motion by Bloomberg and de Blasio.
But here's the surefire proof that The Times is especially serious about this topic: Its expert has a pedigree of disinterest and scholarship that cannot be denied: He's from Harvard!
The Times always reaches out to someone with Harvard in its identity when it wants to be taken really seriously.
Here's what seems to be the gist of the article: Yes, we acknowledge concerns about unfettered growth, which, yes, can make developers and allies very rich.
"But a growing body of economic literature suggests that anti-growth sentiment, when multiplied across countless unheralded local development battles, is a major factor in creating a stagnant and less equal American economy."
As the late Justice Bruce McMarion Wright used to say: "These are The New York Times that try our souls."
Read the Times piece here and let us know what you think.