There really isn't a choice. Nobody pays more than they have to, to secure a house purchase. If the price paid is 1M, that's because that's the price the seller wanted. They'd have demanded that price whoever bought it. And if the price is 1M in whatever town we're gentrifying, then a similar house in SF would be considerably more (and thus not affordable).

I get the frustration with gentrification. But what's the alternative? Everyone must live and die in the town/city in which they were born? What's more, if nobody is coming to your town to live/work, it just slowly declines as the population ages out of work. Visit some of the old mining towns in the UK to see what that's like.

At least if you have a steady stream of incoming "rich people", then the entrepreneurial folk in the town have a chance at extracting some of that wealth.

> That makes it sound like you're forced to spend 1M on a home

No they are 'forced' to buy a home.

The home that fulfills their needs is 1M. If they could find a home that fulfilled their needs for $5 and 10c they would spend $5.10 on their home.

The 'poor' person who sold their house to them in the poor area for $1mil ('where back in my day a house cost nothing') now has $1mil. The 'rich' person has a mortgage.

It could also mean that there is an erosion of poverty and more people want to buy property. Only the poverty is visible. The reality is that a larger percentage of the worlds population is more prosperous and richer and consuming/desiring luxury more than any other time of our planet’s existence.

Isn’t the issue equally that people (presumably poor people, since it’s poor neighborhoods) are selling their houses to rich buyers? It’s entirely possible to only sell to a poor person for a lower price.