Is Inclusive Growth Possible? Five Questions That Miss the Point (And Better Ones to Ask Instead)

Every time I mention my neighborhood development work at a conference or community meeting, I can predict the first question with the same certainty I can predict the coffee running out at the 2 PM break: "Aren't you just causing gentrification?"

The question arrives wrapped in genuine concern, often from people who've witnessed communities improved right out of existence. I've sat in enough church basements and community centers to know the fear behind those words – the fear of watching your neighborhood get better for everyone except the people who weathered its worst years. That fear is legitimate, born from decades of development that extracted wealth from communities rather than building it.

But here's what troubles me about this question: it assumes the wrong things and leads us away from the conversations we actually need to be having. When we start with "Aren't you causing gentrification?" we're already accepting a framework that limits our imagination about what's possible. We're assuming that neighborhood improvement must come at the expense of existing residents, that growth is inherently exclusive, and that communities are powerless in shaping their own transformation.

After nearly three decades of this work – living in, organizing with, and supporting the transformation of historically disinvested neighborhoods – I've learned that the gentrification question, while well-intentioned, rests on five problematic assumptions that prevent us from designing neighborhood transformation that actually serves existing residents. These assumptions don't just limit our strategies; they can actually harm the communities we claim to care about by perpetuating the false choice between stagnation and displacement.

Instead of asking whether neighborhood development causes gentrification, we should be asking how to create inclusive growth that strengthens the community that's already there. The difference between these two questions isn't semantic – it's the difference between resigned acceptance of extractive development patterns and intentional design of community-controlled transformation.

Assumption #1: "The Only Alternative to Stagnation is Displacement"

I remember sitting in a community meeting where a well-meaning advocate argued passionately against a proposed mixed-income housing development. "We can't let them gentrify our neighborhood," she declared, arms crossed firmly. When I asked what she thought the alternative was, she paused. "Well, we just... we keep things as they are."

This exchange captures the false binary that underlies so much of our neighborhood development discourse: either we do nothing and preserve the status quo, or we pursue improvements that inevitably lead to displacement. This assumption – that stagnation is the only way to protect existing residents – represents one of the most dangerous myths in community development.

The question behind this assumption asks: "Isn't any neighborhood improvement just the first step toward pushing people out?" But this question misses several critical points that fundamentally change how we should approach neighborhood transformation.

First, it ignores the mounting evidence about what concentrated disadvantage does to children and families. When we choose stagnation in the name of protecting residents, we're choosing to maintain conditions that research clearly shows impede healthy child development. We're choosing to preserve neighborhoods where children are exposed to environmental hazards, under-resourced schools, and limited economic opportunities – conditions that no parent would choose for their own children if they had alternatives.

One neighborhood I worked in had residents who drove twenty minutes across town to buy groceries because there wasn't a full-service store within walking distance. Children in that same neighborhood attended schools where only thirty percent of students met grade-level reading standards. The nearest park was a concrete lot with broken equipment that families avoided after dark. When advocates argued against improvement efforts to "prevent gentrification," they were essentially arguing that these conditions should be preserved. That strikes me as far more unethical than the possibility of displacement, especially when displacement isn't inevitable.

Second, this assumption treats displacement as a natural law rather than a design choice. It suggests that communities have no agency in shaping how development happens in their neighborhoods. But I've worked alongside communities that have successfully improved conditions while retaining and strengthening their existing resident base. The key difference wasn't the absence of development – it was who controlled that development and how it was designed.

In one community, residents organized to ensure that when new housing was built, existing renters had the first right of refusal to purchase units at affordable prices. In another, the community quarterback organization negotiated with developers to include commercial space for existing small businesses at below-market rents. These weren't accidents or acts of developer generosity – they were the result of communities building power and using that power to shape development outcomes.

Third, this assumption ignores the difference between development that happens TO communities versus development that happens WITH communities. When residents are relegated to commenting on plans they didn't help create, displacement often follows. But when communities lead their own development process – when they're defining what improvement means and controlling how it happens – the outcomes look entirely different.

The most successful neighborhood transformations I've witnessed haven't been the result of communities resisting all change. They've been the result of communities taking charge of change, defining their own vision of improvement, and building the power necessary to make that vision reality.

What would happen if instead of asking "Aren't you just causing gentrification?" we asked "How do we design neighborhood improvements that strengthen the community that's already there?" That single shift in questioning opens up possibilities that the displacement framework simply cannot access. It assumes community agency rather than community victimization. It assumes that improvement and inclusion can coexist rather than compete. And it points toward the work that actually matters: building community power to lead transformation rather than simply react to it.

Assumption #2: "All Growth is Exclusive Growth"

The second question that emerges in these conversations reveals another limiting assumption: "Isn't any investment just going to price people out?" This question conflates all neighborhood improvement with the exclusive development patterns we've become accustomed to seeing, missing the crucial distinction between inclusive and exclusive growth.

I've come to prefer talking about inclusive versus exclusive growth rather than using the term gentrification at all. Gentrification assumes a specific pattern – one where improvements benefit newcomers while displacing existing residents. But that's just one type of growth, and it's not inevitable.

Exclusive growth is what we see in well-resourced neighborhoods all the time, though we rarely call it gentrification when it happens there. Those neighborhoods use zoning laws to prevent apartment buildings, require large lot sizes that ensure high housing costs, and design public spaces that signal who belongs and who doesn't. They've mastered the art of improvement without inclusion – they just started from a position of advantage.

Inclusive growth looks entirely different. It prioritizes the prosperity of existing residents while creating space for newcomers. It builds community wealth rather than extracting it. It strengthens social connections rather than fracturing them. The community quarterback organization I worked with didn't prevent all change – they shaped change to serve existing residents first.

When that community developed new housing, they ensured that forty percent remained permanently affordable through a neighborhood trust model. When they attracted a new grocery store, they negotiated for local hiring preferences and support for existing small businesses. When property values began to rise, they had already established mechanisms to help existing homeowners benefit from that appreciation while protecting renters from displacement.

The question "What would inclusive growth look like in this specific community context?" opens up entirely different strategies than asking whether growth will cause displacement.

Assumption #3: "Residents Don't Want What We Want for Our Own Kids"

Perhaps the most patronizing assumption embedded in the gentrification question is the idea that residents of disinvested neighborhoods don't want the same things for their families that those asking the question want for theirs. When advocates worry about neighborhoods "changing too much," they're often assuming that residents prefer conditions no parent would choose if they had alternatives.

I think about the mother who approached me after a community meeting, frustrated with advocates who seemed more concerned about preserving the neighborhood's "character" than addressing the fact that her daughter couldn't walk to school safely. "They want to keep things authentic," she said, "but authentic what? Authentic lack of streetlights? Authentic broken sidewalks?"

Residents consistently tell us they want quality schools, safe streets, economic opportunities, and access to fresh food. They want their children to have the same advantages that children in well-resourced neighborhoods take for granted. The question isn't whether residents want improvement – it's whether they get to define what improvement means and control how it happens.

The better question becomes: "How do we create the conditions that residents themselves identify as important for their families' thriving?"

Assumption #4: "Displacement is Inevitable with New Development"

The fourth assumption treats displacement as an unavoidable consequence of any new housing development. But displacement is a policy choice, not a natural law. Communities across the country have successfully implemented anti-displacement strategies that allow neighborhoods to improve while protecting existing residents.

These tools aren't theoretical – they're being used successfully right now. Community land trusts that permanently preserve affordability. Inclusionary zoning requires new developments to include affordable units. First-time homebuyer programs that help existing renters become homeowners. Commercial stabilization funds that help existing businesses weather neighborhood transitions.

The key is building these protections into development from the beginning, not hoping for the best and reacting to displacement after it happens. The better question: "What anti-displacement strategies should be built into this development from the beginning?"

Assumption #5: "Someone Else Should Lead This Conversation"

The final assumption positions communities as victims of change rather than agents of their own transformation. It suggests that neighborhood development is too risky for communities to pursue, that they should wait for someone else to improve their conditions or protect them from change.

But the most successful transformations I've witnessed have been community-led. When residents build power and take charge of their neighborhood's development, they can negotiate from strength rather than reacting from vulnerability. The better question: "How do we build community power so residents can lead their own neighborhood transformation?"

The Questions We Should Be Asking Instead

These five better questions point toward a fundamentally different approach to neighborhood development:

1. How do we design improvements that strengthen existing communities?

2. What would inclusive growth look like here specifically?

3. What do residents actually want for their families' thriving?

4. What anti-displacement strategies belong in this plan?

5. How do we build community power to lead transformation?

When we start with these questions instead of the gentrification question, we open up possibilities for authentic community transformation. We assume community capacity rather than community victimization. We focus on designing inclusion rather than avoiding improvement.

The communities we serve deserve better questions – ones that assume their capacity, honor their aspirations, and open pathways to the thriving they envision for their families. The choice isn't between stagnation and displacement. It's between exclusive growth that extracts wealth and inclusive growth that builds it.

That's the conversation we should be having.