I Colonize
by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published at What Tami Said
Taigi Smith, in the brilliant essay “What Happens When Your Hood is the Last Stop on the White Flight Express” in the book “Colonize This: Young Women of Color on Today’s Feminism,” describes gentrification like this:
Gentrification: The displacement of poor women and people of color. The raising of rents and the eradification of single, poor and working-class women from neighborhoods once considered unsavory by people who didn’t live there. The demolition of housing projects. A money-driven process in which landowners and developers push people (in this case, many of them single mothers) out of their homes without thinking about where they will go. Gentrification is a pre-meditated process in which an imaginary bleach is poured on a community and the only remaining color left in that community is white…only the strongest coloreds survived.
and this…
For poor single mothers, gentrification is a tactic “the system” uses to keep them down; it falls into the same category as “workfare” and “minimum wage.” Gentrification is a woman’s issue, an economic issue and, most of all, a race issue. At my roots I am a womanist, as I believe in economic and social equality for all women. When I watch what has happened to my old neighborhood, I get angry because gentrification like this is a personal attack on any woman of color who is poor, working class and trying to find an apartment in a real estate market that doesn’t give a damn about single mothers, grandmommas raising crack babies or women who speak English as a second language.
Urban gentrification is like global colonization. An advantaged people decide they fancy an area and use their advantages to push into it with, at best, disregard, and at worst, disdain, for the people already living there.The invaders use their might to erase the culture of current residents, and eventually, to erase the residents all together.
I know this, and yet, my feelings about gentrification are ambivalent: a blend of concern and guilt. Yes, guilt. Because I have been an urban colonizer.
Smith describes the gentrifiers of San Francisco’s Mission District as “white people–yuppies and new media professionals who would pay exorbitant rents to reside in what the Utne Reader had called “One of the Trendiest Places to Live in America.”
…The streets were now lined with Land Rovers and BMWs, and once seedy neighborhood bars now employed bouncers and served $10 rasberry martinis. Abandoned warehouses had not been converted into affordable housing but instead into fancy lofts going for $300,000 to $1 million.
I understand that description and recognize it. But I also know that the gentrification of urban areas can mean opportunity for many working and middle class black people.
Shortly after my husband and I became engaged, we moved into a small, newly-renovated, high-rise condo on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue. It was just north of the once prosperous, now blighted, Bronzeville neighborhood, just south of booming development: fancy lofts and condos starting at $300,000 a pop, just west of of the beautiful shores of Lake Michigan, and just east of a sprawling public housing project. We were smack at the epicenter of the gentrification of Chicago’s near south side.
Our new home was modest: just a one-bedroom with a tiny kitchen, but it had awesome views of the Windy City skyline. On July 4th, you could watch fireworks all over the city–from the West Side to Chinatown to Grant Park–on our balcony. And if you craned your neck, you could see a sliver of Lake Michigan. We were proud. We owned something, like our parents before us.
My husband, then fiance, had spent years counting pennies and living in a crappy apartment to save up to buy his own place. When we met, I had just graduated from a dusty, old studio apartment, to a larger place. You see, even for folks with good jobs, like my husband and I, property ownership in expensive cities like Chicago is elusive. We worked hard for that little place.
Gentrification brought improvements to the near south side–increased police presence, renovated homes and amenities–that attracted people like my husband and I. We were not, for the most part, six-figure-earning yuppies. We were not, for the most part, white. The residents of my condo association, which included three renovated high rises and two-story town houses, were a mix of up-and-coming professionals, working class retirees and graduate students. The population was mostly black, but also brown, white and Asian. Our enclave was not unique, it seemed to me mostly black folks who were buying the impressive, newly-polished greystones that lined King Drive.
Interestingly, though many of my fellow gentrifiers shared skin color with the long-standing residents of our neighborhood, our cohabitation was sometimes uneasy.
Part of the development of our condo complex included erecting a high wrought iron fence with locked gates that spanned three city blocks.The fence afforded safety and privacy for my fellow homeowners, but barred residents of the housing project to our west from a direct route to some major bus lines, as well as family and friends in a smaller public housing development to our east. The condo of which I was so proud was, I’m sure, to some existing residents, just a new hindrance dropped in the middle of their community.
Rather than walk around my complex, people would break the locked gates, forcing owners to pay for repairs again and again. Or, they would loiter around entrances waiting to slip in behind a resident with a key. Coming home, particularly at night, could be harrowing. Could I enter my home peacefully or would I be greeted by a group of sullen young men demanding to walk in with me?
I was often resentful of my neighbors, who shared my African roots, but not necessarily all of my culture and values. I was resentful of the broken locks and broken glass; resentful of the children with souls seemingly too old for their young bodies, who stood loud talking and cursing outside of the neighborhood dry cleaners; resentful that I didn’t feel safe allowing my stepchildren to play in the park across the street; resentful of the men with nowhere to go who tried to “holler” at my not-yet-teenage stepdaughter; resentful of our need to create a neighborhood watch program with citizen patrols to guard against petty vandalism and worse; resentful of the guns fired from the windows of the projects on New Year’s Eve and Independence Day and sometimes just because.
I know about the very real economic, societal and sociological factors that created the things that I hated. But I confess that I didn’t think about them much. I just wanted my brothers and sisters to do it my way, to want the kind of neighborhood and life that I wanted.
Living in my gentrifying neighborhood was a daily struggle between my intellectual understanding of racism, economics and marginalization, and my visceral desire to protect a way of life that I saw as “right” from one that I viewed as “wrong.”
Mary Pattillo, professor of sociology and African American Studies at Northwestern University, studied the black middle class in “Black on the Block: the Politics of Race and Class in the City” (University of Chicago Press). In the book, she focuses on North Kenwood-Oakland (NKO), a Chicago neighborhood that has been gentrified by black professionals who, she says, operate at the center of complex urban politics. Patillo discussed the relationship between black gentrifiers and their neighbors in a question-and-answer session related to her book:
Your book points out the complicated relationship that the black leadership in NKO has with less well off neighbors.
Yes, class schisms continually challenge attempts at racial solidarity. But those class tensions are greatly mitigated by the residents’ recognition of a shared history of oppression and the lingering effects of racism today. The gentrifying black middle and upper classes tend to be more grounded by upbringings and socialization in more humble black surroundings. They recognize the short shrift that African Americans have been given by the wider society and, for example, continuously insist that black construction workers be included in neighborhood building. A deep sense of racial responsibility is the most important distinguishing feature of black gentrification relative to white gentrification.
Yet, class differences cause fissures that put great stress on racial solidarity.
Yes, for example, black leaders in NKO have called for the demolition of public housing and have been critical of the lifestyles of working-class and poor neighbors — including loud barbecues on a public boulevard and porches and fixing cars on the street.
Those attitudes seem to reflect middle-class values everywhere.
Yes, they do. But partially what I want to do with this book is make people aware of the economic rationales that contribute to differences in class behavior. People don’t barbecue on Drexel Boulevard because they want to be flamboyant. It has a lot more to do with not having their own backyards. Their lifestyles reflect the realities of stratification. Renters and public housing residents are particularly vulnerable to the discriminating tastes of newcomers. And the differences have to do with capital resource status — employed versus unemployed, homeowner versus renter, etc.
What are the larger consequences of those class tensions?
In general blacks in increasing numbers have moved into schools, institutions and occupations from which they were once barred. They have alliances with powerful white elites and can consequently dominate more marginal groups. While the black leadership is more able and definitely more willing to deliver resources to black communities in need, they also are more able to translate distaste for certain class-related behavior into action that hurts poorer blacks.
How do such class biases play out specifically in North Kenwood-Oakland?
North Kenwood-Oakland offers a microcosm of boundary making among African Americans. Black newcomers are moving into the neighborhood and aligning with some old-timer homeowners to resist the building of public housing and reinforcing attempts to control the behaviors of low-income neighbors in and out of public housing. Many established poorer residents have been displaced and those left behind are supervised and disciplined consistent with new residents’ desires. That begs the question: For whom are we developing these neighborhoods?
Even Taigi Smith, once a victim of gentrification, became an urban colonizer:
I don’t want them to take over my San Francisco neighborhood, but five thousand miles away, in another state and another community, I “am on the front lines of gentrification,” as a neighbor so politely put it. when I come home at night and see the crackheads loitering in from of the building next door, I realize I may have switched sides in this fight. When I dodge cracked glass and litter when walking my dog, I realize that this neighborhood really could use a facelift and that the yoga center that just opened up on the corner is a welcome change from the abandoned building it used to be.
Parts of my Brooklyn neighborhood are symbolic of what the media and sociologists say is wrong with “the inner city.” I live on a block where the police don’t arrest drug dealers who peddle crack in broad daylight, where young black men drive around in huge SUVs but barely speak grammatically correct English, where I see the same brothas every day standing on the street corners, doing absolutely nothing. They don’t hustle or harass me, but instead politely say “hello,” as if they’ve accepted me. I feel strained by my situation. While I am intimately aware of what is happening to my new enighbrohood, I feel powerless. I’ve been in Brooklyn long enough to know that although it is not the most savory neighborhood, it is a community where people feel connected, where the old folks know each other, where neighbors still chat. But sometimes I feel like telling the young men on the corner, “Get the hell off the street! Don’t you see that life is passing you by? Don’t you see this is what they expect you to do? Don’t you see they’re moving in and in a few years, you’re going to have to get out?
And so, I am ambivalent about gentrification. I reckon it is both a blessing and curse to urban neighborhoods and the people who live in them.
When my husband and I moved to another city three years ago, we looked at homes in gentrifying areas and then chose to live in the suburbs. My stepson was moving with us and it was important for us to find a safe neighborhood with good schools. He wanted a dog and dogs need spacious fenced yards.
As I read over what I have written here, I realize that maybe I am one of those middle class blacks folks are always talking about. Did I abandon my community in favor of something easier? I say this even though my suburban neighborhood more closely resembles the way I grew up than my old, urban haunts. There is an unspoken belief, I think, among the larger black community, that discomfort with the culture of inner-city poverty is denial of one’s blackness, and that pursuing the advantages of middle classness means selling out. I don’t think that is true.
Nevertheless, I struggle.
I struggle with my feelings for my former inner-city neighbors. I struggle with my decision to live in a mostly-white suburb. I struggle under the weight of my guilt.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Anonymiss wrote:
I’ve never been a proponent for gentrification but this article made me think.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to live wherever you feel safe and comfortable but kicking the working class to the curb lacks scruples.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 7:43 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
This is a well thought out post with thorough articles. I’m a gentrifier, yet I bristle at my white neighbors who don’t speak and the random men who holler.
I do understand the history and need for racial solidarity. However, as some folks who look like us wreak havoc on “us” in ways that Restoration Hardware never will, it’s high time to reassess who should be considered within the ambit of racial solidarity.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 8:44 am ¶
mariamaria3 wrote:
This is a difficult issue. I live in a part of Washington, DC that is undergoing gentrification. My high-rise apartment building with a pool and a gym is just steps from low-income housing. I like to think that I am different from my white counterparts for being willing to live in an area that hasn’t been completely white-washed, for living near people who aren’t rich or even middle class. But that very line of thought…that I am somehow morally superior for living where I do is probably part of the problem. Sigh.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 8:47 am ¶
Thealogian wrote:
Thank you for the post! It was an honest, sometimes difficult account of those struggles we all have trying to identify the “better” thing, if not always the clear-cut “right” thing to do.
Perhaps discussed in the book, I haven’t read it, is the important concept of mixed housing. Gentrification is problematic for many reasons, but one reason it is helpful is that it brings the schools up because the increased prices for housing means higher property taxes and thus more money for schools (the fact that our schools depends upon property taxes to such a degree is why inner-city and rural schools are so underfunded). Schools, police presence, covered bus-stops, actual grocery stores, etc. are important for any community, but when gentrifying areas switch over from up-and-coming to established, the poor, particularly single mothers, are pushed out .
Mixed housing requires strong urban planning and zoning laws as well as advocates within communities and on city councils. High concentrations of the poor, results in loss of community services and school quality. High concentrations of middle-class/upper-class results in environmental degradation (car-driven suburb culture), social isolation (again, we’re always in our cars), and a poverty of cultural diversity (which encourages racism, classism, and homophobia). Mixed housing, where low-income housing, middle-income housing, and even some high-income housing are all within the same neighborhood helps the poor and the better off to form more reasonable communities.
Now, one valid criticism of this is that it would dilute many neighborhoods of color from having a sense of a home base (China Town, Harlem, etc), that have played host of cultural and artistic Renaissances in the past. But today, many POC in the middle-class have already left for the suburbs and back when segregation was policy, not just defacto, the middle-class and those in poverty of POC lived together in mixed enclaves.
I advocate mixed housing–but gentrification is often preferred by city council persons and policy makers; it must be seen as not only viable, but preferable.
peace
Posted 29 May 2008 at 10:15 am ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:
*sigh*
It’s almost like POC are penalized for wanting more out of/from life….that we are somehow to “accept” a particular condition or have “lower expectations”….
I believe in fighting for affordable housing for everyone (and do)….but, like my Nana used to say:
God helps them who help themselves…..
When Taigi Smith said she felt, “….like telling the young men on the corner, “Get the hell off the street! Don’t you see that life is passing you by? Don’t you see this is what they expect you to do? Don’t you see they’re moving in and in a few years, you’re going to have to get out?”
I actually said that to a few young men in my old neighborhood….and the reply? Laughter!
gatamala….. you got it! I’ve lived in a “gentrified” area previously….and had white neighbors look at me in disbelief or complete horror as though I have no right to be there next to them….
And, I’ve had to deal with gunshots (and one incident where a teen was shot in the head right on my front step)…
I feel ya!
Posted 29 May 2008 at 10:15 am ¶
solange wrote:
I live in t gentrified area of Brooklyn, funny thing is I grew up there and my mom moved us out to the suburbs of BK to “get away from the bad influences”. Now as an adult I have returned to much change and I love it. While the community has not been completely gentrified, I welcome better store w/ fresh produce, maybe a a coffe shop instead of a million hair and nail salons or liquor stores. I welcome the change, I know that this sounds terrible but sometimes for the people that live in these communities that take care of it the change is welcomed.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 10:27 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
It’s almost like POC are penalized for wanting more out of/from life….that we are somehow to “accept” a particular condition or have “lower expectations”….
The sad thing is this punishment is self-inflicted out of often-misguided notions of “solidarity”.
No one - poor, working class, single parent - should have to live with: blood on the sidewalk (had it), screamers (have them), fighting drunks (check), non-responsive/brutal cops (mmm hmm), street harrassment (yep) or filth (there are some people who need to understand that littering is not.done.here) . This is not “community” or a vibrant culture.
We have the obligation to wrest control of our neighborhoods from the above and demand accountablity from the municipality. We cannot be complicit in ALLOWING folks to create conditions that enable “outsiders” to swoop in.
Luckily I have a responsible councilman who advoicates for those who need it. But I am not naive enough to believe that business interests (yep) and fresh blood is a complete negative. Want clean streets? Gotta pay for the garbage men and street sweepers (poor/working class folks who need healthcare).
Gotta love DC. If folks don’t handle it, best believe that someone will.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 11:01 am ¶
L-K wrote:
I have lived in Williamsburg, Brooklyn all of my life and have watched it transformed. I loved it before. But now, I simply hate it. It’s so fake, there’s nothing genuine about the “better” changes. The changes only have benefited those who only five years ago who thought the area and Brooklyn in general was “Thugland.” I thought I would be able to tolerate this influx of change and newcomers, but the tension (especially racial) has been overwhelming.
There’s actually an article in the NY Times today about gentrification in Portland and the attempts to generate a dialogue about it. Here’s a quote that stood out for me:
“I’ve been really upset by what I perceive to be Portland’s blind spot in its progressivism,” said Khaela Maricich, a local artist and musician. “They think they live in the best city in the country, but it’s all about saving the environment and things like that. It’s not really about social issues. It’s upper-middle-class progressivism, really.”
Posted 29 May 2008 at 11:09 am ¶
Deb wrote:
quote: Gentrification is problematic for many reasons, but one reason it is helpful is that it brings the schools up because the increased prices for housing means higher property taxes and thus more money for schools
It doesn’t work that way where I live . My street is literally lined w/ million dollar+ homes (and has been for years) but NONE of the children who live in those homes go to the public school. Worse yet is that the school itself isn’t seeing any tax benefit since it’s alway threatened with being closed (as are many other under-performing schools in the area.) Anyone here that can afford any kind of private school sends their kids to one. Other parents tell me that it is because the schools have abysmal test scores, don’t have good programs, can’t retain good teachers and use up a lot of funds on ESL programs (my local elementary is 50% ESL according to their website.) Competition for public schools with special programs is so stiff that everything is done by lottery.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 11:25 am ¶
Taigi Smith wrote:
Hey!
It’s me–Taigi Smith. I am humbled that you’ve included portions of my essay on your blog. It has been a while since I last wrote about Gentrification—started writing about it almost 10 years ago and slowly realized that change was going to happen with or without my blessing. I’m still in Brooklyn, still conflicted, and fully aware of the fact that while I’ve once been the victim of Gentrification, I am still, in the eyes of many, a Gentrifier. I wear both hats, and while I’ve embraced being middle-classs, I shun some of what I’ve become. I am not proud of the fact that while I’ve been able to stay, many people, who look like me, have been forced out.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 11:32 am ¶
Brian Johnson wrote:
“Thealogian wrote: …Perhaps discussed in the book, I haven’t read it, is the important concept of mixed housing.”
Coincidentally, I’m in the middle of reading Jane Jacobs’ “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, and the need for mixed housing (and mixed-use neighborhoods generally) is central to her argument for fostering urban vitality. Looks like that still rings true 40+ years later!
Posted 29 May 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶
BORED KIDZ!!!!!! wrote:
I think Gentrification is naturally a huge part of American culture. Considering that the Whites came from Europe, took the land away from the Natives, and turned it into their own, pushing out natives and everybody else who was there “first.”
Posted 29 May 2008 at 12:36 pm ¶
Thealogian wrote:
Deb, thanks for your call out.
Some urban areas determine school funds based upon property taxes, particularly here in the South, where I live. Many other cities have either means of distribution of school funds and in places like DC & New York, many affluent chose not to send their children to public school at all.
I was raised in the SF Bay Area by upper-middle class parents and most everyone I knew went to the public schools–and when I moved to the South, similarly, most rich kids (with a few more exceptions than in the SFBA) went to public school as well.
So that statement about property taxes came out of my experience and I should have qualified it.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 1:03 pm ¶
Elizabeth wrote:
I think the point here is summed up best by the quote in the article, “For whom are we developing these neighborhoods?” No one is against quality of life being up, but is it actually going up for anybody, or are people just moving around?
This reminds me of a fantastic interview Bill Moyers did with the Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03282008/profile2.html
I can’t find it in the transcript and am unable to watch the video at the moment, but I remember Booker at least implying if not flat out saying he is against gentrification. Moyer at least blatently notes at the end that the Kerner Commission found gentrification to be a *harmful* route to take.
The great thing about the interview and what Booker is doing in general is that he is exploring ways of actually empowering impoverished people to lift themselves up — come to think of it, I think I get why he doesn’t like to call it liberal or conservative, because what he is essentially advocating is that the people lift themselves by their bootstraps. On the other hand, the reality he seems to describe is a partnership with the government, but in a way that fully shares responsibility on both sides.
I would hope that the existance of this kind of success results in middle-class neighborhoods that still uphold the community building value of block parties and keeps up the tradition of sitting on the front porch, chatting with neighbors although you can now afford air-conditioning.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 1:45 pm ¶
Allison wrote:
I presume you’re not alone feeling that way. I’m a Korean-American who values diversity, yet who wants to live a rural life. It seems I either have to choose one or the other, and pioneering integration in the country is starting to seem more appealing as I get older.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 7:18 pm ¶
jsb16 wrote:
One of the big problems with funding schools off of property taxes is that the school budget is often the only budget people get to vote on. So if they’re upset by the amount of money the county takes for police/fire/whatever, they vote against the school budget, because they can. If they send their kids to private schools, they vote against the public school budget because their kids won’t suffer for it. I’d like to think that they wouldn’t do that if they liked neighbors who couldn’t afford to send their kids to private schools, but…
Mixed housing is definitely the way to go, but it can be hard to maintain. The neighborhood I live in now was designed to be mixed housing, from small rental apartments through attached townhouses to huge houses built on double or quadruple lots. After decades of being a living community, while the rental units are still rental units, many of the townhouses have been added to until they’re no longer really affordable for single-income families or seniors.
One thing I’m watching intently in Newark is the construction of a new elementary school along the route I take to work and right across from a park that has also seen major improvements recently. I haven’t figured out yet if it’s going to be a huge big building with plenty of spacious classrooms and space for specials, or if it’s going to be a huge big building crammed full of kids in too-small classrooms with no specials to speak of.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 8:15 pm ¶
Torontonian wrote:
First of all, what does it really mean to “own” a piece of land? Land shouldn’t be private property, and even if it were, this land that you believe you “own” doesn’t really belong to you.
Secondly, “owning” a home is a privilege, not a right. Many people work very hard and still do not “own” a home. Just because you own the condo instead of renting the apartment, it doesn’t give you special rights to security. It is not the case that renters don’t deserve the same security because they are only renting.
If you were still a renter, would you still think that it is your “right” to have a say in how your neighbourhood is transformed? Renters are just “guests”, and you and other homeowners are the “host”?
(Sorry about the language. I’m too lazy to say it in a different way.)
Posted 29 May 2008 at 9:42 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Torontonian -
I am going to warn you right now - that is a very sore spot for African Americans. Owning land may be a bullshit concept (kind of like race) but it has real, lasting affects on wealth and status. And since many of our ancestors were denied the right to purchase and own land we were left out of a major path to wealth building. (not to mention being run out of your home or having your property reclaimed for your white neighbors. See the post on “Banished.”)
So, that argument makes sense from a class standpoint, but not a race one, especially in the context of us history.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 9:53 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
good point LaToya….redlining, restrictive covenants…
It’s not bullshit. It’s very, very real. It’s the world I live in and the world I must work with. The house will-for MOST Americans- be THE principal (if not only) source of equity and collateral and thus the basis for any loan/credit. That property secures loans/credit for educational loans at good rates and business loans…any loan needed period. This access to capital sets you up AND enables you to set your kids up (education, down payment) in the future.
As LP mentioned, black folks (in addition to indigenous folks) were run off their land and in effect had their wealth stolen.
It’s nice to have concepts of what should be, but at some point you have to work with the reality that is.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 11:22 pm ¶
Torontonian wrote:
@Latoya Peterson:
Okay. I’m not American nor black, so I’ll defer to you on that point. From a Canadian and race standpoint, I was thinking of how many indigenous Canadians are — today, not just historically — being denied their right to land. If anyone in Canada has the ‘right’ to land, it would be indigenous Canadians.
For example, there is an “occupation” occurring right now in Caledonia, Ontario. In this dialogue, the “occupiers” are the indigenous people (Mohawks), while the “occupied” are the construction companies. According to this dialogue, the indigenous people are denying the construction companies their “right” to the land.
I’m not talking about some armchair, theoretical communist ideal. I’m talking about the reality of how land ownership has a real, lasting effect on wealth and status.
When I’m criticizing the idea of land ownership, I don’t know why people think I’m talking about something that has nothing to do with reality, as if the idea of land ownership isn’t affecting people’s livelihood today.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 12:39 am ¶
meownette wrote:
I have a huge problem with the argument in favor of gentrification. I’m way too tired at the moment to get into the more extensive rebuttals to the arguments presented thus far in the comments, but my main argument from experience comes from the native middle class of cities (and yes, this storied group does exist in urban America today). In other words, though I have a big prob with excusing the gentrification of poor/”ghetto” neighborhoods in the name of and for the sake of “revitalization,” I can speak more to the very real displacement of the middle class, at least in my hometown. And damn, it makes me unbelievably angry. The issues might not be exactly the same as they are with lower income groups, but I think they are valid and perhaps equally maddening.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 1:50 am ¶
Britta wrote:
Ha! As a Portlander, nice to see someone link to that article. Portland doesn’t just have a “progressive” blind spot, it’s one of the most covertly racist cities in the country! (For example, black people were not actually allowed to LIVE in the city limits until after WW2). One of the reasons Portland’s so popular with progressive white people is its perceived lack of diversity–get all the good things about living in a city without dealing with those pesky POCs.
Of course, that just makes gentrification that much more insidious, because if you don’t recognize a population in the first place, it’s easier to push them out without much of a thought. This is compounded by the fact that many neighborhoods don’t “look” like ghettos in the way neighborhoods in say, North Philly do. Because many blighted neighborhoods outwardly appear to be middle class, it’s easier for newcomers to assume that they are, or that “Portland just doesn’t have poverty” or drug use, or what have you. Actually, Portland’s poverty rate is similar to other cities of its size, and is exacerbated by the lack of affordable housing. White on white gentrification is common too, as working class white neighborhoods get taken over by pottery barns and whole foods. That can set off a chain reaction, as the working class whites flee to relatively cheaper housing in former black neighborhoods, thereby pushing out residents more vulnerable than themselves.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 3:26 am ¶
Britta wrote:
Sorry to post twice in a row, I’m really passionate about this issue. I think one way to help alleviate some issues of affordable housing is to increase representation of disadvantaged groups on neighborhood councils. At least in Portland, neighborhood associations are disproportionately run by white middle class people, and don’t reflect the diversity of residents in the neighborhood. Anyone in a neighborhood, whether a renter, home owner, or even homeless(at least in Portland) can serve on an association, and these groups do wield significant power at a local level, especially when it comes to fighting the large developers. Neighborhood renewal is important, but not at the expense of the original residents.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 3:31 am ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Who cares, you got an edcuation to get away from the poor, loud, and criminal. Poverty Culture is not a racial thing but class, Poor Black people act like poor Whites, Hispanics, Asians and everyone else around the world. The only way to save these neighborhoods is to gentrify the neighborhood and allow working -class black parents with GIRLS. I have sen this work in a housing project here in tampa where when they rased those apartments when was rebuilt they allowed 90 residents mostly older people and working class women or couples with female children or males 3 and under.
You can’t have male teenagers from single- parent homes in urban settings because more than likely they are causing the problems with crime and vandalism. And as much as people don’t want to admit it there is a race, class, and gender problem but it’s the reality of modern urban planning. High -Crime neighborhoods has created a shcism and that can’t be repaired without extreme means even if it’s gender discrimination, Young Black /Hispanic Male teenagers who do not have a father in the home cannot live in a re-gentrified neighborhood because of those concerns in my opinion.
After the young males who used to live there vandalized the new neighborhood for a few months, it has calmed down and it is relativly safe now because the extreme however painful had to be done, that is the price of re-making safer neighborhoods. I don’t think Smith has anything to apologize for wanting to make her family’s life safer.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 5:33 am ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:
In my neck of the woods (Philly)….there’s a very interesting turn of events concerning “gentrification” and the deeming of certain neighborhoods/properties as “blighted”….It seems that a section of the city once seen as “Little Italy” is now being targeted for “gentrification” and the current (and may I mention, Italian-American residents) are up in arms at the prospect of their homes being taken away from them….and are looking for other residents for support in their fight….
Posted 30 May 2008 at 8:35 am ¶
isica wrote:
The other thing that needs to be considered when talking about getnrification is that it’s not just the individual gentrifiers- gentirification is an urban strategy being implemented to reclaim cities as the hubs of global capital. And it’s happening all around the world, to people of all colors and national origins; but consistently resulting in the displacement of not simply poor people, but poor communities.
To anyone that thinks that gentrification is a good strategy to actually solve the problems that poor communities have, ask yourself does this really solve the problems or does it simply move them somewhere else where we don’t have to see them?
In my years of organizing for affordable housing in New York, one of the biggest lies I’ve heard is that the “problem of the urban poor” is going to be solved by urban planners, rezonings, and incentives for real estate developers. The solutions that that system comes up with are consistently ones that don’t understand that solutions cannot be imposed on communities, but rather that the communities must be helped to organize themselves and to implement solutions that work. But that takes too much time, and time costs money; it also takes admitting that poor people are capable of coming up with solutions when given adequate resources, and that is something that our professionalism and consulting driven “community planning” industry would be at a loss to accept.
So instead the solution seems to be to keep cutting the budget for assistance programs. For example, public housing budgets are getting cut year after year, while market rents are shooting sky high; instead housing authorities are being incouraged to cut socal programs in the projects, and turn to market solutions such as selling their property (meaning they are being forced to privatize as the “only” solution to the budget cuts).
All the while, huge private real estate projects are being subsidized as “development”, and are even given extra incentives for throwing in a few “affordable” apartments (in New York this often means a max salary of $80k for one person, based on the Area Median Income) into a luxury building in a poor neighborhood.
Anyways, I hadn’t intended to lecture, but I just wanted to note that the bigger picture is pretty ominous, regardles of how well intentioned individual gentrifiers may be.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 12:36 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
As a New Yorker (and Philly boy from way back, Yo DiosaNegra 1967!) this issue is really important to me but…this is killing me:
Gentrification is not colonialism. It’s just not.
A brand new Yoga studio may represent the collisions of class and race inherent in gentrification but it’s not a smallpox-laden blanket. Colonialism has it’s own bloody history (and present) so using it as a metaphor for changing city neighborhoods makes me nervous.
I’m sure the intent of the original post was not to diminish the tragedies that result from colonialism–but I think this metaphor does more harm than good. The one Latoya offered–comparing gentrification to the situation of freed Blacks–is more to the point because it cuts right to the heart of the race/class stuff inherent in this issue.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 2:22 pm ¶
A. wrote:
Eric - this is crap.
Seriously, make a choice. So many people who gentrify want so much - they want for things to be absolutely safe for them, but they want to have the “culture” and feel like they’re just love diversity that much.
I’m sorry, but I see this is a rather strict view. Either you like diversity, or you don’t.
Ultimately, my feelings on Gentrification is that it’s basically people THINKING that they’re cultured, but ultimately, they really aren’t more cultured-than-thou. They think that they can accept cultural differences, but they ultimately can’t.
If you move into an area that has a problem with low incomes and people who feel as if there is no hope for them, and are commonly treated as if they are invisible, then you open yourself up to dealing with such situations as people talking loudly, or people breaking things on your doorstep, or people trying to break in.
The world does not stop for gentrifiers. Things do not change immediately.
And gentrification doesn’t just present problems to those who are being forced out of these areas because a bunch of yuppies wanted the property. What about people in the towns where some of them are being moved? In the OP’s case - a lot of the people being displaced from Low Income housing in Chicago are being moved to rural towns in Central IL, and are unprepared for them.
Gentrification has effects on everyone. If you want to feel like you’re living in such a wonderful area, with such a beautiful view and all that crap, that’s fine. But you have to take the good with the damn bad. And the problem is that too many gentrifiers refuse to accept that. In some cases, there are gentrifiers that want just enough diversity in their neighborhoods to make them feel “authentic” and “wanted” and “accepted”, but they don’t want too much to where they have to think that “Those people might do THIS to me.” They want to move into low-income neighborhoods with these breathtaking vistas, but they don’t want to deal with the results of moving into such a place.
As some of you see, gentrification is a topic that drives me to the point of insanity.
Posted 30 May 2008 at 10:33 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:
It seems like the most common type of mixed communities (income, ethnicity, etc) are in transition.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 6:54 am ¶
Karl wrote:
“Secondly, “owning” a home is a privilege, not a right. Many people work very hard and still do not “own” a home. Just because you own the condo instead of renting the apartment, it doesn’t give you special rights to security. It is not the case that renters don’t deserve the same security because they are only renting.”
PREACH Torontonian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dont back track on your comment (which is at the root of the housing problem in this country - the lack of rights/security/concern etc for those not wealthy enough to buy) because of a red herring (mentioning “banished” and the sordid “history” of sundown towns etc) as your comment is valid whether you look at it from a racial or class perspective. The same forces and violent uprooting of black and poor communities at the whim of their betters is not somehow absolved or erased because in this go round a few people of color can now get a cut in the spoils of the racist/classist usurpation.
As for the daniels comment, particularly:
“The only way to save these neighborhoods is to gentrify the neighborhood and allow working -class black parents with GIRLS. You can’t have male teenagers from single- parent homes in urban settings because more than likely they are causing the problems with crime and vandalism.”
Thank You THANK YOU THANK YOU…for finally saying out loud what I swore was already policy (take a walk through Williamsburg or anywhere in bklyn that’s been gentrified and all you see is various women of color and their white boyfriends). It’s great to know that I’m not a paranoiac. And its funny how this person decided to start his comment blabbing about how race doesnt matter but then conviently dropping teenage white and asians (who last i checked are poor as well) from the list of those to be euthanized:
“Young Black /Hispanic Male teenagers who do not have a father in the home cannot live in a re-gentrified neighborhood because of those concerns in my opinion.”
After all, you wouldnt want your sons to have any competition when it came to getting some of that ethnic action.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶
Karl wrote:
“….like telling the young men on the corner, “Get the hell off the street! Don’t you see that life is passing you by? Don’t you see this is what they expect you to do? Don’t you see they’re moving in and in a few years, you’re going to have to get out?”
“I actually said that to a few young men in my old neighborhood….and the reply? Laughter!”
Laughter? The nerve of the low class riff raff, thinking they could laugh at such an enlighted person such as yourself when you decide to spit a few cosby blurbs down on their heads from your lofty perch. Did you hand out job applications to establishments that pay something resembling a subsistence wage and don’t discriminate against cats with papers (arrest records)? How about handing out the cards of a lawyer friend who does pro-bono work for people arrested for possession of marijuana (what most of us swarthy male negroes get knocked for)? Didn’t think so. WHat you did do was roll out in front of a bunch of people who you cant tell from Willie Horton, and spouted some Cosby-ite nonsense that does little to nothing to address a single of the issues affecting their conditions or the root causes behind their conditions….and then complain that they laughed at you? If they had any pride they’d a tarred and feathered you.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶
Karl wrote:
“Gentrification is not colonialism. It’s just not.”
Based on what metrics? Yours? It very much is colonialism. When the natives attempt to get biz loans/pot holes fixed/sanitation services working like they do in white neighborhoods/ hospitals/clinics/reliable public transport/ they get laughed at if not rubber bullet/or hit with cs gas, but as soon as the settlers arrive, the money gates open up (for racial reasons, not class ones) and all of a sudden, its like the end of the “Never Ending Story” and the world is made whole and beautiful, and the new settlers/ the brahmins get to look down their noses as if the changes were the result of some innate superiority and civility on their part.
Gentrification/Internal Colonialism is still the same bloody racist mess its always been (whether here or abroad - read PLANET OF SLUMS). The forces deciding the lives of the benighted natives are the same ones that where forced their exodus up north to begin with.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶
Karl wrote:
“where young black men drive around in huge SUVs but barely speak grammatically correct English”
Odd, if I said that about Central Americans (illegals as the mainstream likes to call em) not knowing a scrap of english, and driving around without licenses in their beat up pick up trucks every last one of yall would have been up in arms…but hey, since their young black men alls fair eh? We’re all just a bunch of untermensch anyway right? You post the link where it says that there is a language requirement to rent an apartment. As if white teens (I’ve lived in both carnarsie and brighton beach) dont roll around high as hell, drinking and blasting music out of their high priced automobiles.
Thank God the housing crisis (which is going to get a hell of a lot worse once the Alt-A loans tank) will most likely make you all eat your own words…I can hear the bleats now: “but I speak the King’s English”- “but we’re ‘middle-class’”. Your lack of compassion is astounding.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 12:52 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ Karl -
This is a mod note. You need to address people specifically when you make a comment that debates what they are saying. You have posted 4 comments, taking on seven points of view, but you did not explain who you were speaking to. Don’t conflate arguments. Tami is the author of the piece. She quotes Taigi Smith, the author of the essay quoted in the piece. Make the distinctions clear.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 3:29 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Karl -
1. No, my argument is not a red herring. Look at the whole comment Torontonian made and then look at my comment. The ideas surrounding homeownership (and to an extent, landownership) in the United States are complicated things, and as much as you scoff at the pervasiveness of the idea many leading (black) real estate investors, scholars,and developers have said the same thing - if we owned (truly owned, not I owe the bank $600,000 more) our lands we would not be forced out in the current gentrifying process. I am aware that this not account for imminent domain, but as that is a strategy only applied in some parts of the country I’ll have to leave that out of the discussion.
And, by the way, Eric Daniels is black. His sons would be part of the “ethnic action.” Please do not make assumptions when you’re dealing with people you aren’t familiar with on this forum. Snide comments don’t play well here, especially if you get some of the details wrong.
2. I hate when people try to pull a complicated conversation into either/ors.
The nerve of the low class riff raff, thinking they could laugh at such an enlighted person such as yourself when you decide to spit a few cosby blurbs down on their heads from your lofty perch. Did you hand out job applications to establishments that pay something resembling a subsistence wage and don’t discriminate against cats with papers (arrest records)? How about handing out the cards of a lawyer friend who does pro-bono work for people arrested for possession of marijuana (what most of us swarthy male negroes get knocked for)? Didn’t think so. WHat you did do was roll out in front of a bunch of people who you cant tell from Willie Horton, and spouted some Cosby-ite nonsense that does little to nothing to address a single of the issues affecting their conditions or the root causes behind their conditions….
This is not an either or conversation. The poor are not incapacitated. They make decisions just like everyone else. And while their decisions are often the choice between bad circumstances and worse circumstances there are choices.
Last year, I wrote about the gentrification shuffle, from a completely different perspective than Tami. I grew up poor in a nice suburb, with relatives who were a constant reminder of how good I had it being broke in a nice area versus being broke in a shitty area. (See the Race & Class Series, parts 1, 2, 3, and 3.5) . My credit was fucked up before I even touched it. And my income was low. So I am very familiar with that side of the fence. I make a lot more money now, but still have poor credit. Even with the salary increase, I cannot afford to purchase somewhere to live in my current neighborhood. They could double my salary and I still couldn’t afford it. I’ll write more on that in a follow up post. So I am well versed in the poverty trap.
And yet and still, there are elements of personal responsibility that can be exercised. As much as I fucking hate reading the NY Times blogs and seeing people with no fucking concept of actual hand-to-mouth poverty trying to fix issues of obesity by telling the poor to become vegetarians, as much as I hate people like the guy who wrote Scratch Beginnings who think they can understand poverty through a highly controlled experiment under optimal conditions. However, let’s not act like everyone is just a shining beacon of hope waiting for the right opportunity. There are a whole lot of people who are not interested in making a way for themselves in society, a great number of people who know the right thing to do but will choose the wrong thing anyway, people who are not determined to move forward. And I would tell you right now, I get infuriated with my idiot friends who act like they are allergic to saving money and have problems with working. So I know I would probably be as pissed as Taigi Smith if you see the same people doing the same thing day in and day out going no where.
If they had pride, they would understand that the people who take the time to acknowledge them or address them and ask about what they are doing with their lives do so out of love. Love for their people. Shared personal responsibility. The idea that maybe, this time, I can get through to someone and help them out.
(And, hopefully Taigi understands that all laughter is not dismissive. Sometimes it is nervous, a quick reaction to someone calling you on something you already know about but don’t know how to deal with. Sometimes, it is the reaction that comes when you know something has to change but aren’t quite ready to go there. Sometimes, a laugh can mean “And do what?”)
Posted 31 May 2008 at 4:15 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@Latoya:YES,YES AND YES
Posted 31 May 2008 at 4:32 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
Ah. Okay. No.
Gentrification is NOT colonialism.
And, in case you are confused, your feet are not bananas and blue is not red and the sky is not the ground. And…gentrification is not colonialism. I don’t have “metrics” but I do have a dictionary.
I am not saying gentrification is a good–or even neutral–phenomenon. (When I was apartment hunting I used to read Brownstoner and I had to stop because it made me want to bite my tongue in half. It is full of horrible yuppies openly talking with one another about how to force out their poor tenants…disgusting.) But there is enough about it that is bad and screwed up–some of which came up in the original post and some in the subsequent comments–without making it into colonialism.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 5:16 pm ¶
Karl wrote:
RE JOSEPH comment:
Gentrification: encompasses a number of processes of change in demographics, land uses and building conditions in an area, accompanied by rapid increase in a neighborhood’s property prices and influx of investment and physical remodeling and renovation. In many cases, the lower-income residents who originally lived in the neighborhood move out of the neighborhood because they can no longer afford to live there.
Colonialism: the extension of a nation’s sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies IN WHICH INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS (or inhabitants) ARE DIRECTLY RULED OR DISPLACED (ding ding ding). Colonizing nations GENERALLY DOMINATE THE RESOURCES, LABOR, and MARKETS OF THE COLONIAL TERRITORY, and may also IMPOSE SOCIO-CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS, AND LINGUISTIC STRUCTURES ON INDIGENOUS POPULATION (I.E. no males without fathers in the home/ordinances against black males walking in more than groups of more than three when wearing similar items…like pants lol) . It is essentially a system of direct political, economic and cultural intervention and hegemony by a powerful country in a weaker one.
If you can’t see the link, and the fact that the subject populations tend to look one way and the people doing the “settling” and “controlling” look another way, you need to return said dictionary.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 6:08 pm ¶
Karl wrote:
To: L.Peterson re. Eric Daniels comment:
“And, by the way, Eric Daniels is black. His sons would be part of the “ethnic action.” Please do not make assumptions when you’re dealing with people you aren’t familiar with on this forum. Snide comments don’t play well here, especially if you get some of the details wrong.”
Which makes his prescriptions better or worse? While the “ethnic action” comment can rightly be said to come from a rash and incorrect assumption (incorrect in that it was based on me assuming the writer was not black- but only due to the fact that in my mind, conceiving see a black male typing such a thing is more than, say, difficult), I stand by the vitirol in my earlier post regarding the comment…..so black women with MAMs (military age males- that’s what the US military calls em when they are shooting them in Sadr City/Falluja/Haiti/Somalia etc- i.e. guilty of violence etc because they fall between the ages of 8 and 55) should do what then when attempting to better the lives of their children? And if his son is indeed black, does he have some sort of bell/sign/ or uniform which alerts the police to his good black MAM status lest he be accosted during their many street sweeps?
1. Look at the history of sundown towns and the ethnic cleansing of most of the black areas in this country, historically speaking….owning the land (i.e. not owing the bank but having the deed in hand) did absolutely nothing and does absolutely nothing so far as protecting blacks from being the victims of urban renewal (which my father used to call negro-removal, after all, that’s what it is) or imminent domain (which in NY is in full effect). They didnt raise the rents on black homeowners, they set their homes on fire and killed people…so let’s not make it look like having a deed in hand stops anything when blacks are in the way of “progress” (starbucks and an overpass).
2. No one made it an either or conversation…I responded to the blurb posted discussing her shock at being laughed at when she hit the cats on the corner with the forutne cookie length prescription to all of their ills…
And I must say that the poor are indeed incapacitated….poverty (in toto- i.e. not just what you make, but what you save, opportunities etc) is incapacitating….as is having a prison/arrest record….hell, having an arrest record is incapacitating by design (it is meant to be- and it is common knowledge that it is so). I made no comments regarding personal responsibility or the lack thereof, as I don’t know them (dudes to which she is refering to) personally, and in all honesty, she prolly doesnt either (if she did, she most likely would have approached them with the info I asked her about- job apps for cats with records, training etc).
“take the time to acknowledge them” - wow…i’m not even going to touch that….sounds exactly what I described- exhortations from up on high by the brahmins…there is a difference between yelling at someone, scoffing/condescending and actually helping someone out of love or concern….its the difference between saying “why don’t you shiftless good for nothing hoodlum negro MAMs going to do something with your worthles lives” and “yall looking for training doing this? any of yall got records…well I know this spot that hooks cat up with etc etc etc”….big difference….
“However, let’s not act like everyone is just a shining beacon of hope waiting for the right opportunity.”
Fine, so long as you stop acting like yall that “made it” are some shining beacons of wisdom/solidarity or progress either.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 6:31 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ Karl -
1. If Eric Daniels makes a fucked up comment (as he is wont to do, read a bit more) say it’s a fucked up comment. Don’t make assumptions. We’re on the internet and generally we don’t know anything beyond what people choose to share.
His comment, in my opinion, was completely fucked up, but - if you look at the last gentrification post I linked to - he at least provided some evidence based on a community study.
2. Again, read the original post I linked to. We discussed that. Imminent domain is in full effect in NYC and I don’t know what to tell you on that. In DC, not so much. Many neighborhoods are historic and imminent domain is used less (though, it appears it may have been employed when building the new stadium). However, there are neighborhoods, church groups, citizen organizations and the like that make it a point to help PoCs purchase and keep their homes in the district. Why? Because we are a larger voting block and can make decisions. My father’s neighborhood is in SouthEast DC, and it has gone from being a high crime area to a highly sought after neighborhood. But my Dad’s block has not changed. Why? Because the residents CHOSE TO STAY. They did not sell when the prices began escalating because they liked the familiar dynamic of the neighborhood and the family feel. And they were able to stay because most people purchased their homes and played two roles (1) representing a brown face to the gentrifiers who were interested in convenient and cheap homes and (2) using their clout to fight with city council. This was a very difficult battle for many years - until Kwame Brown moved a few blocks down.
3. No the poor are NOT INCAPACITATED. That shit pisses me off so bad, you don’t even know. Poor people are humans with individual agency. The more you try to make them some kind of fucking charity case, the more it plays into that victim/perpetrator dynamic. Either the poor are victims of circumstances or perpetrators of violence/their own lot in life. The truth is a lot more complicated than that.
4. Yes, acknowledge. Let me ask you something - has anyone ever treated YOU like a waste of space? Acted like there were things YOU and YOUR PEOPLE would never understand and there was no point in even trying to reach out to you because you were lost? Have you ever had someone blow you off after you asked for an explanation because they thought YOU weren’t worth the explanation? Have YOU ever gone up to apply for a job and had them look right through you like you weren’t even there? Have YOU ever had someone look at you with disdain because you’re using food stamps/applying for WIC/using HOC housing? Have YOU ever been in a classroom where the teacher is letting you know that most of you will not pass this test but to try your best anyway? Have YOU ever been in a fourth grade class room where they repeatedly told the class clowns they were headed to jail and were never going to be shit? Have YOU ever been homeless and trying to get into school? Have YOU ever had to swallow your pride and get some food out a food bank? Have YOU ever tried to talk someone out of the drug game knowing DAMN WELL the only real other option was day labor or fast food?
Yes, acknowledgment. Acknowledgment that they are not invisible, that you see them and you care. If you grew up in that environment, you would know that the people who were always on your ass, the people who annoyed you the most, the people who took a fucking switch to you until you were too big to beat when they caught you fucking up THEY LOVE YOU.
The people who say nothing don’t care.
And, every single functional black male that I know has had people who fucking cared enough to make that shit hard on them. Because life is fucking hard.
As for your proposed method, I’d love to see you try that on anyone older than eleven who hasn’t had that tough love but grew up in tough circumstances.
5. Who the fuck said they made it?
Posted 31 May 2008 at 6:58 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Karl:
Please, friend…poor black folks are not the “indigenous people” of the ghetto–the entire idea is offensive…to poor blacks and indigenous populations that have been/are being conquered and wiped out. Gentrification is an economic phenomenon that breaks down along class (and yes, often racial) lines. I am not trying to re-open a class vs. race discussion but…come on, the entire post is about POC crossing class lines and feeling guilty about it!
This is not an argument I can identify with. I was/am working class, have no romance about poverty and no need to keep myself “real” by failing. I also believe I have a right to safety, quiet and cleanliness where I live–at a minimum. I don’t think that makes me the same as a Wall Street asshole who buys a 2 million dollar brownstone in Crown Heights and then actively works to push out her/his poor black neighbors. There is a difference between poverty and criminality. Racists often conflate the two but I have no problem seeing the difference. Don’t you?
I don’t know where you are from but I am from North Philly. So let me break it down for you: if you have ever had a crackhead for a neighbor then you do not want another one. And it doesn’t matter if said crackhead is black, white or covered in candy sprinkles. And no, I don’t feel guilty about that.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 8:08 pm ¶
Karl wrote:
To L. Peterson
1. No comment to be made here
2. “Imminent domain is in full effect in NYC and I don’t know what to tell you on that.” Indeed, which is where I am and what I witness first hand in NYC. Your DC scenario does not have an imminent domain stipulation attached, so apples and oranges there….Let’s see…homes in ATL (by the ACU), the N.O. (wasnt just black renters told to piss off), the aforementioned NYC, BMore proper with Wells Fargo havin a field day etc versus, let’s see, your father’s block….
3. Dictionary Time:
Incapacitate: a) To deprive of strength or ability; disable// to deprive of capacity or natural power….
Hmm…and poverty does not deprive one of strength or ability (ability to freely move to other areas/get quality education for the mass of the poor, not a few chosen girls) you trying to tell me that poverty does not reduce capacity or your bloody choices?
b) To make legally ineligible; disqualify
Hmm…and as I stated in my comment, having an arrest record doesn’t make one legally ineligible (to vote, certain jobs or educational programs) or disqualify you (from damn near every job that’ll put a dollar in your pocket legally). (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)
4)Let’s see now:
” has anyone ever treated YOU like a waste of space?”Acted like there were things YOU and YOUR PEOPLE would never understand and there was no point in even trying to reach out to you because you were lost? Have you ever had someone blow you off after you asked for an explanation because they thought YOU weren’t worth the explanation? Have YOU ever gone up to apply for a job and had them look right through you like you weren’t even there? Have YOU ever had someone look at you with disdain because you’re using food stamps/applying for WIC/using HOC housing? Have YOU ever been in a classroom where the teacher is letting you know that most of you will not pass this test but to try your best anyway? Have YOU ever been in a fourth grade class room where they repeatedly told the class clowns they were headed to jail and were never going to be shit? Have YOU ever been homeless and trying to get into school? Have YOU ever had to swallow your pride and get some food out a food bank? Have YOU ever tried to talk someone out of the drug game knowing DAMN WELL the only real other option was day labor or fast food?”
YES…to every last one of your postulates, YES to every last one of your bloody statements.
“Yes, acknowledgment. Acknowledgment that they are not invisible, that you see them and you care. If you grew up in that environment, you would know that the people who were always on your ass, the people who annoyed you the most, the people who took a fucking switch to you until you were too big to beat when they caught you fucking up THEY LOVE YOU.”
And that’s what the woman in the article was doing? Tuff love? Is that supposed to be a serious comment? What invisible statement of mine is this to be responding to? What comment of mine is this even tangentally related to? We’re not talking about people’s parents or relatives or family friends trying to correct people’s paths, we’re talking about some better than thou brahmin spouting platitudes….read my post, SLOWLY, I called her out on her nonsense thinking that she was doing something by shitting on someone, screaming at fools : MY COMMENT aimed at the writer:
“Did you hand out job applications to establishments that pay something resembling a subsistence wage and don’t discriminate against cats with papers (arrest records)? How about handing out the cards of a lawyer friend who does pro-bono work for people arrested for possession of marijuana (what most of us swarthy male negroes get knocked for)?”
So what exactly are you cursing about? Those “fucks” you plastered your “response” with were supposed to what? Keep it real?
“The people who say nothing don’t care.” and that woman said absolutely nothing when she went up and shotgunned the cats on her corner with the action-devoid hot air comments…….you got it twisted…PEOPLE WHO DONT DO ANYTHING DONT CARE…..scoffing at people and screaming on nuhs is DOING NOTHING……
What proposed method…please post this “proposed method” of which you speak, because, silly negro that I am, I searched every line of my comments and what do you know, it isnt there……
5)And if I started hitting this board up with “who the fucks” and “what the fucks” ya’d a printed my comments or post?!!?
Posted 31 May 2008 at 8:30 pm ¶
Karl wrote:
To Joseph:
“This is not an argument I can identify with. I was/am working class, have no romance about poverty and no need to keep myself “real” by failing. ”
Word because my post told people to “keep it real” by failing right…..
“I also believe I have a right to safety, quiet and cleanliness where I live–at a minimum. ”
But the renters and poorer cats don’t? Why does your little minimum right always come at the expense of other people oops, other people of color.
“There is a difference between poverty and criminality. Racists often conflate the two but I have no problem seeing the difference. Don’t you?”
Which has what to do with the old women etc and various other poor etc who arent criminals who get shafted so you can get your minimums? The cops that do your dirty work? They know the difference?
“I don’t think that makes me the same as a Wall Street asshole who buys a 2 million dollar brownstone in Crown Heights and then actively works to push out her/his poor black neighbors.”
Your conscience speaking not my comments…you square that juxtaposition yourself….although I would like to flippantly reply that you are correct in that you and the wall street broker are not the same……he actively works twds getting rid of his poorer black neighbors….you sit back and reap the benefits of his actions…..
” if you have ever had a crackhead for a neighbor then you do not want another one. And it doesn’t matter if said crackhead is black, white or covered in candy sprinkles. And no, I don’t feel guilty about that.”
Because only crackheads get hurt by gentrification? Because that spanking new home you copped on the cheap (which they allowed you to have to sprinkle a lil color in the neighborhood-you know, keeping it diverse) could only have come from a crackhead right? Don’t try and shift the argument and make gentrification look like some damn guided crime cleaning missle that only affects crackheads, whinos and MAMs who play their stereos too loud, check the stats, the elderly, and single parent working families usually get jacked the most…..losing not only their homes, but the proximity to the shitty jobs that paid for their dilapidated housing.
“Gentrification is an economic phenomenon that breaks down along class (and yes, often racial) lines.”
And colonialism, racism, sundown towns, immigration raids, police crackdowns, and imperialism aren’t?
“Please, friend…poor black folks are not the “indigenous people” of the ghetto–the entire idea is offensive…to poor blacks and indigenous populations that have been/are being conquered and wiped out.”
Nobody said the word ghetto…go “control + f” the word ghetto and see if it pops up in any of my comments or post prior to this one here….right it doesnt…so precisely what is this comment supposed to address other than shed light on your subconscious association of “ghetto” with poor or black. Save the platitudes about poor blacks or native americans….you know damn well that indigenous in this case is being used to refer to people residing in a given area prior to contact/pushing out by a more powerful group, in this case it would be blacks living in, oh say, Harlem, prior to having it jacked from them by force (police presence and harrassment/rent gouging, and the developer favorite, demolition and delayed reconstruction so as to endanger the lives/health of the poor living in the adjacent areas………
And on a side note, blacks are indeed an internal colony, the same way that Native Americans are (been on a reservation lately? Yes, then hop on down to a refugee camp in one of the colonies -cause aint a damn thing neo about em and start comparing the living conditions, lack of control over resources, cultural manifestations of group identity, health conditions, and relation to “mother country” ….get back to me when you find some significant differences other than that colonialism starts with a c and gentrification starting with a g…..
Mod Note: I finished posting my comment and saw this. Fuck this, you’re banned from commenting. Tami, apologies for the post hijack. - LDP
Posted 31 May 2008 at 8:50 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
1. B-more - I’m contesting that one. I am not familiar with government mandates that residents must vacate their fully owned properties. I do not count collusion - i.e. the government making it easier for Wells Fargo) as the same thing as imminent domain.
2. Incapacitate: a) To deprive of strength or ability; disable// to deprive of capacity or natural power…. And I am saying no. This is why we still have the poverty success stories that are often trumpeted as ways for everyone to do it. Because there ARE people that can move up through society despite all odds. And there are people, try as they might, who can’t win for losing. And they are people who if we magically overnight had a social system that provided jobs and housing for every citizen, would still end up broke and homeless. Poverty is limiting and restricting, yes. But a situation in and of itself is not insurmountable. Poverty is a situation, and a fluid one. People slide in, people climb out, and sometimes find themselves back in it again. But poor people are human - your attempts to paint them - or us, rather - as victims against the punishing system without acknowledging that people have and do exercise choices and sovereignty sickens me.
3. I cannot understand how you claim to have been through those things and have no concept of how people are treated in society can have a greater effect on the psyche than circumstances.
4. Yes, I read your response - but I, unlike you, have read THE WHOLE ESSAY Taigi Smith wrote - not just the sections Tami highlighted. And again, I ask you, what purpose is a job/lawyer/housing voucher when someone will not accept your help? Your proposed method, as you stated in your piece is to randomly walk up to people and offer them various bits of aid that they may or may not need.
5. Um, yeah. Read my work - I am fucking profane by choice. I publish profane rants as long as you don’t actually call someone else a motherfucker. Read the fucking comments policy. No where in there does it say profanity. Though I am about to throw one in there for people who continually argue idiotic points.
And I am getting really sick of people who fly in there, thinking their dropping knowledge when it’s really something like bird shit. If you here to dissent, debate, and learn, you are welcome. If you are here to inflict your personal knowledge of the world on other people, you can fucking step. Virtual door to the left.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 8:55 pm ¶
bdsista wrote:
Ease up Karl, I think more of us get what you’re saying, its just you are taking the responses to be towards you. You make good points about addressing the real needs of brothas who are on the street without hope. It’s frightening for Eric to state that young black and hispanic males s hould be removed from their homes and families as teens. As a teacher, I can tell you that teens are reachable in the worst circumstances, and thats why Big Brothers and Big Sisters and mentorship programs work. Even young adults can recognize when someone cares about them and tries to help, but it does have to be substantive and there have to be some social supports from the city to stop the cycle. My Aunt lives in DC and her street was going down hill and she stayed and the next generation, came back, fixed up the houses and recreated the old neighborhood. LaToya is right, its the people who stayed who saved the neighborhood. BTW it was NW on Rock CReek Church RD across from Old Soldiers home.
Posted 31 May 2008 at 9:34 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
I feel the need to come clean:
Karl is right, I am controlling a vast network of corrupt police from my studio apartment in Brooklyn. Soon I will take control of Harlem and walk around with a cane.
There is only one person who can stop me. Her name… is Foxy Brown.
Posted 01 Jun 2008 at 12:02 am ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Well it is happening and many people who are trying new types of mixed housing are exlcuding parents of young teen-aged black males with criminal records. While that is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it was something/is something that needed to be done, If you are going to re-create townhouses like in the suburbs you can’t have the same problems you had for nearly 50 years that made these places look like Beruit.
That means better security, a mixture of middle-class families and working -class blacks and latinos and perferably young girls and less teenaged black and latin males, Bdsista let’s stop with the R.C. (racial correctness) and deal with reality, when you see young black males congrgating on a street in many major cities and a few minor ones practically sexually harassing females I know you and other people who bought those homes and have seen the neighborhood “come up”are scared Shitless for your property and safety. This is not some Brothers singing Do- Wop or classic Soul in the 50’s -70’s but idle teenagers and young adult men who most likely are engaging in criminal activity.
Yes I would have been one of those males that would be thrown out if I was 20 years younger LaToya and that was the case in why those former residents who spray- painted “YBM” (young black males) vandalized the new place when HRS denied their parents vouchers to move back in the neighborhood. I don’t have any great solutions on how you can have both because these same teenagers and their families have caused the problems of crime and violence, I know if you want to create safe, black working-class and middle- class neighborhoods with minimal crime then you have to change the culture and that generally takes 20 years and it means you can’t let those families with teenaged males with a history of trouble back in, that’s a painful reality that does not sqaure up to many of your ideas of utopia.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 7:13 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Eric -
1. No, I don’t think its impossible. It is difficult. The experience I spoke of was an existing neighborhood where the residents took an active role in the quality of life. That being said, I do not know what goes into the formation of a new mixed income community. I only know gentrification and resistance to gentrification. The one place that is middle ground is my apartment building, but I am not sure how long this will last either. Most of the places around it are markedly more expensive now, so I am not sure how management will cope.
Re: Young black males - it is tough to raise teenagers, even tougher to raise teenagers in a negative environment. Maybe that should be a discussion in itself…
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 7:24 am ¶
livininphilly wrote:
this seems to be a very heated discussion but i’m really glad that its happening. i have also often felt like Tami (although w/o owning property). Even when you rent in an area undergoing gentrification you are a part of the gentrifying process. I can pay the rent b/c I have a stable income but the rent is still pretty high and I know that last year I couldn’t afford to live where I am now (w. philly). Last year I was making less than $850 a month and was on food stamps and had a rental subsidy. Fresh out of college I decided to move to a different city (originally from the DC metro area) and join americorps. I have my own feelings about the program and what it stands for but that is an aside I don’t really have the energy to write about right now. Anyway, it was so interesting to live in those circumstances b/c growing up my family was in the military and while we didn’t have a lot the military definitely provides a lot of living benefits which allowed my parents to build wealth and buy a house where they decided to stay (southern MD). Last year buying things with food stamps and the looks I got as a single, young black woman were sometimes devestating and I can guarantee that my white female co-worker didn’t experience the same hostility. One time she was asked if she was in Americorps and I was ignored when we purchased things right after the other. All of that is to say that I have experienced the wierdness around being an unwilling agent in the gentrification process and the changing landscapes of cities.
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶
Dude wrote:
I didn’t make it through three paragraphs of your story without finding a basic and important error.
An advantaged people decide they fancy an area and use their advantages to push into it with, at best, disregard, and at worst, disdain, for the people already living there.
There is a step before the “advantaged people” move into an area to gentrify it, namely the phase when the artists, musicians and other creative-but-not-well-off people move in and, after a time, make the neighborhood “safe” and “hip” for the advantaged ones. The difference is, the artists and the like know how to live within the community, adding to it without changing the general character that made it attractive to them in the first place. It’s only afterwards when the buzz grows, the condos and lofts start popping up and the first chain store moves in that the advantaged ones take notice, move in and send the rents so high that the original artists who initially made the area “cool” can’t even afford to live there (along with the original residents). It’s hard to colonize an area that already has a Starbucks when you move in.
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 11:38 am ¶
Dude wrote:
Also… I shouldn’t critize without complimenting (that whole yin-yang thing). You did do a good job of pointing out how gentrifying for blacks (or other minorities) is different that for whites when the neighborhood in question is a minority (black) neighborhood. Whites can easily seek out “improvements” in an area and see any change as positive. But as you point out with your annecdote about the installation of the fence, it’s not always easy for black gentryfiers. I mean, would a white gentrifyer even consider the fact that erecting that protective fence created a hardship for the existing residents? and not just the gangbangers who want an easy passage but people who work who just want a quick way to get to a bus to get to a job they so desperatly need. I’m going to assume the white response would simply be “Well, why can’t they just go around?” Instead of saying “Why can’t they just stop hanging on the corner?” a black gentrifyer (such as yourself) askes “Don’t they know they’re wasting their lives and doing what THEY want them to do?”
Just wanted to add that. YOu do an excellent job of the dilemna faced by black gentrifyers.
Posted 04 Jun 2008 at 11:51 am ¶
pjwoods wrote:
Regardless the skin color you are, don’t ever, EVER feel guilty for working hard to make a better life for yourself and your family.
That such hard work raises compelling questions about how those with an ostensibly common heritage live their own lives is good; your positive behavior helps set social mores and challenges you to be introspective insofar as what heritage means to you.
It’s almost like…the content of one’s character, not the color of one’s skin, is how one ought to be judged.
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 12:16 am ¶
Jonathan Richardson wrote:
GREAT article!
Posted 05 Jun 2008 at 1:03 pm ¶
Claire wrote:
At this point, I suppose my chiming in is simply unneeded and redundant. Yet, I feel the need to do so anyhow.
The issue of gentrification is complicated.
I relocated from the suburbs of Vancouver, WA to NW Portland, OR in order to transition from a car lifestyle to a public transportation and walking lifestyle, and so I could be part of a community. It was not my intention to move into a gentrified area, but it was safer and more convenient.
Safer in that I do not have to worry about my neighbors making meth or running prostitution rings, I am not harassed by teenagers about being white (as if it is something I chose to be), and that my neighbors are not registered sex offenders.
More convenient in that there are major bus routes and MAX lines that run right by my place, and it is a quick jump to the interstate.
All day I work with disadvantaged and disenfranchised youth. My students come from homes of abuse and/or poverty. The ethnic backgrounds of my students are truly diverse, but many of their economic standings are the same. I worry myself sick over these kids, wondering if they will still be okay tomorrow.
This will sound selfish and I may be attacked for saying it, but when I am done for the day, I do not want to worry about the same things when I go home: violence; racial tension; poverty; drug abuse and meth making.
Undoubtedly, there is an issue in America. The increasing discrepancy between the haves and the have nots cripples our country and something must be done. But this problem will not be solved by individuals and where they choose to live based on affordability or where they and their families will be safe. This problem must be addressed by civic leaders and policy makers. As a person who believes all people should be able to live in safe and affordable communities, it falls on my head to contact my representatives and civic leader to let them know this is not okay, and that i do expect them to do something about this increasing problem.
Whether or not a person bbqs on their front porch, works on their car in the street, or is black, brown or white, does not define a safe neighborhood. But being able to sleep at night without fear of bodily harm, knowing your daughter can walk the streets without fear of harassment by men, being assured your next door neighbor is not poisoning you and your family by producing meth does.
The issue here is the need of safe and affordable communities for all people, regardless all socioeconomic factors.
Maybe it is time we all started reminding of friends and family, policy makers and civic leaders of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/Maslow.html
Posted 06 Jun 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶