This is a must-see documentary as it discusses the tragic consequences of gentrification in urban areas. I was so disgusted by the actions of Nina, the realtor, within 2 minutes of the documentary. This does shed a light on how the poor are uprooted from their homes as developers see fit so they can sell overpriced homes to starbucks-drinking *beep*
shareI think it depends (obviously) on your viewpoint in general. I agree that linda, the realtor was portrayed as somewhat of a capitalist "vulture". However, in it's entirety, the movie was biased and one-sided. truth be told, I believe the filmmaker's own homophobia was glaringly reflected in the way this subject was handled. i am a gay, white, working class man in the same neighborhood in which this was filmed. For the record, I am not rich, will struggle to buy a home (without government assistance) and have not been a patron of Starbucks-EVER! I would like to hear the opinion of (for instance) an African-American gay person or persons. i think the filmmakers basically presented this issue and the two cultures involved in their own perception (complete with their own bigoted beliefs of such) and then left the viewers to "pick a minority" to side with. This is a far from objective approach to a problem which is very real and divisive among two socially repressed segments of our society.
shareI just watched this documentary and the behavior of the white people in this film is appalling. Instead of wanting to live side-by-side with the black people in peace and harmony, they want to dictate to the black people what their houses should look like. They anonymously complain to the city about the black people's houses and then haul the black people into court to force them to make changes to their houses. It reminds me of how the white americans couldn't live side by side with the native american people and instead drove them off their lands.
shareTruth be told as a gay black man the attitudes of the black residents toward the white gay residents was appalling. The real estate agent was simply doing the job she was so shown as apt to do: Sell houses and obviously the black residents weren't buying them so why were they mad when whites owned them? The black residents may as well have said: we want our neighborhoods fixed but not by whites.
Homosexual side: I don't sense anything from them but a sad truth. That they were being seen as rich people who were 'taking over' but urban migration is quite a different story than just that as this is no longer a simple black vs. white. It is about green. Socioeconomic status was really the issue and it was lumped together with race. I can't really say that the homosexual residents were any kind of racists but they did kinda see themselves as somewhat altruistic in cleaning up the neighborhood and making it better for them to live in--safely at that. Yet, I do sense some tension with the whole 'predatory black residents' yet I think that the fact that they were gay residents and seen as vulnerable had something to do with the burglaries in the neighborhood.
Do I side with either side? No! I see that they both have some issues: black vs. white gays and they both sides try to make themselves look as if they don't have any hint of racism in them but the truth is evident. the gay residents are seen as rich, trying to make it better AT THE EXPENSE of those who already live there as if they are trying to drive them out which is not true and the black residents are painted as victims of this....the issue is socioeconomic and revolving around one color: GREEN!