L.G.B.T.Q. couples, particularly younger ones, are starting families and considering more traditional features — public schools, parks and larger homes — in deciding where they want to live. The draw of “gayborhoods” as a refuge for past generations looking to escape discrimination and harassment is less of an imperative today, reflecting the rising acceptance of gay and lesbian people. And dating apps have, for many, replaced the gay bar as a place that leads to a relationship or a sexual encounter....
“What I see in Houston is we are losing our history,” said Tammi Wallace, the president of the Greater Houston L.G.B.T. Chamber of Commerce, who lives in Montrose, the city’s gay neighborhood. “A lot of individuals and couples are saying, ‘We can move to different parts of the city and know we are going to be accepted.’”...
The men and women who established these neighborhoods “wanted to segregate and be surrounded by gay people,” [said urban planning professor Daniel B. Hess]. “In contrast, when you ask young people today what they want, they would prefer an inclusive coffee shop. They don’t want anyone to feel unwelcome.”
Are some people nostalgic for the time when their group was more oppressed? Or is this really about competition for real estate? As for the "young people today" who will say they want "an inclusive coffee shop" where no one feels "unwelcome," well, of course, that's what they will say. But what do they want?
I can see wanting the "gayborhoods" to remain gayborhoods. There's the diversity of accepting everyone into a neighborhood, but there's also the diversity of neighborhoods being different from other neighborhoods. This issue makes me think of Jimmy Carter's disastrous gaffe about "ethnic purity" back in the 1970s — a time when I was very happy to move into the gayest neighborhood in NYC.
***
Now, there's something weird about this article, which is written by Adam Nagourney. In the beginning, we're told that Jones "left for a small home with a garden and apple and peach trees 75 miles away in Sonoma County after the monthly cost of his one-bedroom apartment soared from $2,400 to $5,200." But much later in the article, we're told that Jones's "landlord asserted that he forfeited his rent control protections by living in Sonoma County, effectively forcing him out by more than doubling his rent."
That makes it sound as though Jones already had the house in the country/suburbs, and the apartment was one of 2 homes, which disqualified him from participating in rent control. The Times ought to be straightforward about whether the landlord had the law right! Either Jones was entitled to rent control or he wasn't. How long did Jones have the house before the landlord figured out that rent control no longer applied? This is a legal dispute that ought to be presented with clarity, and breaking up the information looks like an effort to make the facts fit the story the journalist wants to tell.
Why did the rent "soar"? Was it because of a greedy landlord or market forces or was it because of the forces of rent control and Jones's disqualifying himself by buying the house in Sonoma County?
