Here’s how Gay Matters describes the, um, maturation of Capitol Hill and other gay strongholds that, the blog says, have gone soft: This is what the Stranger said 10 years ago about the maturation of Capitol Hill:

Gay ghettos are slowly turning into gay retirement communities, where the only queers who can afford to live in the East Village, West Hollywood, San Francisco or on Capitol Hill are the ones who bought apartments and houses 20 years ago when they were still relatively cheap. Young, straight singles have moved in, followed by straight retirees, marrieds, and young families. With young queers forced to look elsewhere for housing, first-wave gay ghettos are on the decline, sapped of the energy and sex appeal of queer youngsters. Such is the sad story of Seattle’s Capitol Hill & L.A.’s West Hollywood.

Turns out the Gay Matters post is a direct lift of the old Stranger article with an updated addition: The blog identifies potential new ‘gay ghettos’ including Pacific Northwest candidates Hilltop in Tacoma and Northeast Broadway in Portland. The Stranger original looked at Seattle for possible candidates, examining West Seattle, Columbia City and Ballard in the original article back in 1999.

The strange use of Stranger content is one thing but the re-posting of the idea brings up some points worthy of discussion. The gentrification of Capitol Hill is old news but both the article and the lift have a few assumptions floating around them that might be worth picking apart. Was the Stranger right back in ’99? Capitol Hill, many would say, is ‘less gay’ but is any other part of the city ‘more gay’ now? Can an area stay connected to its gay roots even if young gay people can’t afford to live here? Aren’t some of the young people who can afford to live here gay? Good ‘nuf if they just live nearby? Should we just call First Hill and Central District part of the Hill and move on? Sorry if the whole thing is confusing. We don’t have the answers, either.