On Revitalizing the Urban Core
Op-Ed
Words Jay Ford
Monday, December 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The move of the Union Mission out of downtown, to a location over four miles from the city center got me thinking about how we are growing here in Norfolk, and, in general, across the nation.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
There are many wonderful environmental and social reasons for us to move from the suburbs, back to the urban core, but no big change comes without consequences. Here in Norfolk, we are at a pivotal point in our development at which we have a say in how we will rebuild our downtown. We have the power to mold this city into something that we, as a community, can be proud of. Given our unique opportunity, and the fact that you do not get a “do-over” very often when designing the city being built around you, I think it is important that we consider all the repercussions for our renewed interest in the city center so that we might contribute to something truly wonderful for decades to come. There is no way I can distill all of the complexities of city planning in these few paragraphs, and so I ask only that you consider the questions I am posing about the need to build a truly all-inclusive city…
The Union Mission’s move, in and of itself, is not a horrible decision, but Norfolk’s (and most U.S cities) longstanding desire to make the downtown a place where one will not see poverty should cause some pause for reflection. We, as a people, have this prima facie rule that a city in which poverty is visible is an unhealthy city; but as we rebuild, we need to revisit this misguided assumption. Over 17 percent of our city lives below the poverty line; almost one in five persons. This is a group that cannot and absolutely should not be hidden or ignored, yet cities still try to take this tack rather than invest in the support necessary for those who need it most. Is it healthier for a city to shift poverty through gentrification of the urban core to someplace where it is out of sight? Or is it better to clearly address poverty and work to eliminate it?
Downtown's Union Mission building, which has been sold and set to become luxury apartments. Photo | Google
Many people hold that returning to urban centers will have economic benefits which will “trickle down” to those living in poverty, but this is a short-sighted argument thrown up to justify gentrification. We cannot redevelop our city merely to address economic shortcomings. We must focus on the people that live there… all of the people. So often, we heap expectations on people to pull themselves up by their boot straps, and take hold of their destiny; however, we tend to forget how lofty of a task that is when you know not from one decade to the next where you will be shuffled off to at the whim of your city’s economic development plan.
We can shift poverty, but we cannot force people out of our city. They will still need the services that downtown needs now, they will still have people living below the poverty line, and they will still be supported by Norfolk’s tax base. In essence, all we really will have accomplished is a grand veil. A veil that only promotes, to our children and our neighbors, that socio-economic inequality can be ignored, only to inevitably be dealt with again, by a more ‘sensitive’ or ‘capable’ generation. The only real difference will be that those with money will have cleared out an area they want to live in, and those who work all the service jobs that make downtown such an exciting place will have a harder time getting to a job they cannot afford to live near.
This same line of thinking from the city and others in support of this measure has been used to justify the demolition of subsidized housing around the region as well. These places are only sometimes replaced and always relocated far from possible places of employment. Many residents leave the area, or the state. Is this how we deal with poverty? Pass it off? If we coerce our poverty out of the area does that make it not our problem? Is there a geographic distance at which point we no longer should care? 5 miles? Some kind of geographic boundary? A river?
A typical suburban street in Virginia Beach. Photo | Google
The colloquial thinking about, “good places to live” is that seeing poverty, especially homelessness, is bad. Why? When did we cease to care about the good of our community? Why do we not strive for truly mixed-income neighborhoods, and a city whose design works to address social ills? Isn’t there a chance that since geographically quarantining those without for so long has not worked (in fact the socio-economic divide has only grown over the last two decades), that just maybe it’s time we took a different path?
Gentrification does not only affect the homeless. I am talking about anyone on a fixed salary, any elderly person on Social Security, and anyone who does not get raises fast enough to keep up with the rapid increase in property values. None of these individuals deserve to be coerced economically from their homes, nor have their residences taken because the new “creative class” has decided it’s time to take our salaries back to the urban core. Do we really have a right to say to a person that they must make more money to stay in their neighborhood? Creating growth in one region while another grows fallow is not sound economic policy. We rebuild one rundown place, while another ages, and in another 30 years shift our focus again. Moving the economic center of a city has never been a successful economic tool, and never will be, if it does not include comprehensive policies that work to annihilate our ‘sweep it under the rug’ ideology, and recognize poverty as a shared burden.
One of the great ironies of the move back to downtown is that it is being underpinned with the planning mantra “form over function,” as if in the past we built our downtowns with only economic concerns and not people in mind. The truth is we have always built with people in mind, just not all people. When the wealthy moved to the suburbs, the cities suited their needs as a place for work; a place to easily leave behind for their bedroom community each night. Now as they want to return to the city, we have begun to retrofit these old shells to suit their needs. Sure we are renovating our downtown for “people”–for walkability and livability–but not for those who have been living in our urban cores. We are building for the people we want to live here, not for those that are there.
Photo | dignityadvocate.wordpress.com
As those of us with money can now choose to come back to the urban core because it feels more “responsible” (green/sustainable–both of which are important and popular now), or we like walking to our favorite restaurants, or because we fancy ourselves part of the “creative class” (which somehow entitles us to this lifestyle), we disregard the fact that it was the actions of our counterparts in previous generations that drove those without to the city centers as we fled to the suburbs to be away from them. Now as we have deemed it better to live in the core, we return to the downtowns with our taxes, business, and property assessment increases to drive out undesirables again. Things like the closing of a shelter, or rezoning of a rundown neighborhood, are merely the least subtle of the tools utilized in the gentrification of a city. The more destructive and less conspicuous are the raising property assessments leading to property tax payments people can no longer make, it is the emptying of schools in the district as new residents opt for private schools, choking the public school coffers, and it’s the reforming of local culture to fit the desires of the new despite the needs of the whole. The relocation of a homeless shelter may not seem as if we are driving out permanent residents, but I assure you, these are people looking for work in service jobs that are found downtown. We are moving those most in need to a geographically isolated location, making walking to a job that would hire them even more difficult.
I want to enjoy the city I live in, but I also want to be proud of it. Let’s look to more compassionate city planning. Displacing poverty is not a solution, and as Norfolk continues to rebuild what I hope will one day be a thriving city center, I believe we should keep these questions in mind. I hope we build a city for all its inhabitants and not just those who have expendable income. For in the end if we get the downtown we all dream of, but turn our backs on those of us who have the least, what do we really have to be proud of?
Remember the true measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Let’s show that Norfolk measures up, and make sure social justice concerns are not trumped by economic ones as we continue to cultivate our great city.
""
COMMENTS
Facebook comments:
ABOUT THE WRITER
Believes the world would be a nicer place if we all made some of our own furniture and grew some of our own food. He has worked on various state and national political races around the region, before switching over to issues based campaigns, where he advocated for voting rights, universal health care, and the environment. He has taught grassroots activism, and happens to think it is pretty important. He believes passionately in environmental reverence, social equality, the power of collective action, and his ability to speak with his cat. He fancies himself a part-time philosopher and thinks that people should dance on their cars more often. Jay thinks that abolishing the hand shake and replacing it with mandatory five second hugs would go leaps and bounds in changing the world.
Other posts by Jay Ford.
Other posts by Jay Ford.
RELATED POSTS
- Latest from Richmond: Senate Votes to Repeal Gun Purchase Limit
- Op-ed: This Valentine’s Day Demand Equal Rights for all Life-Long Loves
- At Capitol, Virginia Tech Silent on Campus Safety Issues
- Latest from Richmond: McDonnell, Cuccinelli Call for ‘School Choice’
- Latest from Richmond: Law Would Improve Breast Cancer Detection
More Politics Posts
RSS
so wonderful that youre using your talents to give a voice (a powerful voice, on a influential platform) to those who are finding themselves stiffled by a much noisier group, who are often acting with only themselves and those in their social/economoic bracket in mind. I hope people do take the time to put some thought into the questions posed…and to listen to their own shoulder-top cricket. viva la revolution!
Nice job Jay. Agreed on all points.
I agree with your comment on needing to focus on methods that do not plan on wealth trickling down to surrounding communities. Poverty needs to be addressed with community based programs starting with the neighborhoods themselves rather than expecting it to trickle down. It has been proven in large scale research studies that bottom up methods are more effective than top down ones in terms of poverty.
As far as the gentrification of certain areas, I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing. It is unfortunate that some individuals are financially limited and are subject to gentrification, but one cannot deny the statistics that show lowered crime rates, better housing (of course the potential problem as well due to higher costs), and other positives associated with gentrification.
So, in terms of improving a community, I would say I support gentrification. In regards to those individuals who are unable to afford higher housing prices, and essentially have no choice but to leave their homes, I feel that this is where the government should provide some support so that these people are not left homeless. These “cheaper” communities that the “victims” of gentrification will themselves be subject to gentrification wouldn’t they? In believe this all part of a natural process that is necessary for the overall improvement of society. Rather than view these moves as something negative, I think it is better viewed as a positive thing for the “cheaper” community. It is with these communities that not only state and federal, but maybe one day city policies can address.
So what happens to the end of the line when it comes to this gentrification hierarchy? Again, the government needs to focus on these individuals through their communities. One major thing that I believe would make a huge difference is a more flexible poverty line. There is one poverty line for all states apart from Hawaii and Alaska. Regardless of the different housing prices and other aspects of inflation that greatly differ between communities, cities, and states, there is only one poverty line. Perhaps a poverty line that more accurately and proportionately represents a given community would begin to solve some problems. Studies have shown that a more representative poverty line (one that addresses the incomes and needs of a given area) would in fact put more people in poverty (meaning more individuals who need support from the government would receive that support).
As far as emptying schools, I would like to hear more about this from you, because I am not quite sure what to think about it (would a private school added to an area have that big of an effect on the surrounding public schools?).
One last thing: I understand that my views on gentrification might be due in part to the fact that I do not have to pay for my own rent, and that my peers who are on their own and supporting themselves are subject to a gentrification that I am not. Yes, it would suck to have to move out of my home (which I have actually had to do before when living in williamsburg although again not my financial burden), or would it motivate me to be more successful or make better decisions? This is definitely a broad topic that needs immediate attention. In what direction, I really don’t know without some sort of previous results to base a decision upon. Since I don’t feel like researching into the effects of gentrification any further, I am just going to ask you for them!
As far as addressing the moving of homeless shelters, this would be another area of community improvement needed involving better transportation and free public transportation for those in poverty.
I am pretty ignorant when it comes to these kinds of policies and the feasibility of their implementation, so please educate me on this.
Well I’m not sure I agree with the underlying assumption that the homeless population will follow the Union Mission through its move. I worry that it will just leave the homeless of downtown Norfolk without an easy to access facility.
I see two main good points in Jay’s argument.
1) Relocating poor people doesn’t help deal with poverty.
2) If well-to-do people are to relocate themselves in the name of environmentalism, they need to look not only at their own carbon footprints, but at those of the people they displace, as well.
I know little about Norfolk specifically, but I do know some things about human nature. If the poor are to become less vulnerable, they must be empowered. I don’t live in their neighborhoods; I’m not well-positioned to understand or care what’s best for them. Also, if some boon is granted to a neighborhood, they’re more likely to use it well if they had to make some kind of effort to get it. I don’t want to rain public services on people; I want people to be in a position to gain public services for themselves through political discourse.
Of course, this empowerment can’t rain down on people, either; empowerment is something which poor people must claim and work for. Individuals in poor communities need to step up and organize themselves. Even if a politician wants to help them, it’s not practical unless the poor people are organized enough to offer some boon at election time.
That doesn’t mean empowerment of the poor involves ONLY the poor. It is in the short-term interests of wealthier people to keep the poor interests from claiming additional power over public funds. There is (at least in the short term, and that seems to be the time frame that our economy is designed to care about) an incentive to disenfranchise poor people. This can be as overt as enslaving a minority and, through propaganda, glossing over the fact that slavery depresses wages for the poor members of the racial majority. It can also be more subtle; attack people’s sense of self worth, so they’re less likely to have the self-esteem to show up to discussions of public policy. It’s this undermining of people’s ability to stand up for themselves that I’m inclined to fight against.
In short, I don’t know and I don’t care about the details of what’s best for poor people. What I do care about is that they should have the resources to intelligently decide what is best for themselves, and that they should have the voice in politics to articulate those needs.
I don’t even know where to start.
I am so tired of being forced to feel guilty because I earn a living. I’m tired of the unfortunate being grouped with the lazy and the ones who are happy to live off of others because it’s easier than getting a job.
Our community is full of nonprofits and charitable organizations who support people who truly need it. I myself volunteer, contribute money and have taken people into my home to help them get back on their feet and back to work. That’s what people do.
I am tired of paying for women to stay home and have baby after baby because they make more money that way than they do working. My mother was a waitress and had 2 kids. We managed. Family helped. We did without. We survived.
Where do you think the philanthropists come from? They are the ones who make the most money. I would contribute more if so much of my paycheck didn’t go toward taxes.
What are you doing, Mr. Ford? I guess writing about gentrification allays some of your guilt. When is the last time you took someone into your home?
I do hope to come back to many of these comments, but given the calling me out by name I feel I should say something directly responding to DNP’s comment.
Your sentiments are common, and have helped to sustain what is now a systemic system of poverty.
Non-profits do many wonderful things, but in the end address the symptoms of poverty and lack the resources and political power to lay this travesty to rest.
While I do not know how I made you feel guilty for making a living, I apologize for laying this burden on you However, just to clarify… I have no problem with you making money. I do however believe that as a culture we should have more sympathy for those who do not or cannot.
I am not sure what you mean when you say, “I’m tired of the unfortunate being grouped with the lazy and the ones who are happy to live off of others because it’s easier than getting a job.”. Reading back on what I wrote I am not sure where this comes up since I am addressing poverty as a whole, but if you are somehow implying that the majority of the impoverished are lazy, or happy to live off of other’s, I suggest you check your facts. That is simply not the case, and it is that misguided argument that fuels economic divides.
Lastly, while I believe that ad hominem arguments are beside the point and unnecessarily confrontational, I will answer your personal questioning of me.
What am I doing? In my daily life I never draw a line between myself and those without. I never cringe from or avoid a homeless person. I give them food if they ask, and have allowed individuals in need to stay in my home. Throughout my education and most of my adult life I have always been involved in non-profits, either as a full time employee or as dedicated volunteer.
You say I am trying to alleviate my guilt, as if this is so condemnation of my motives, but it is this selfish interpretation of guilt and the notion that we have some right to live free of it that exacerbates the divide between haves and have-nots. Yes I feel guilty, but not because I do not expend considerable energies on addressing social energies, but because we as a people have let this continue. Guilt is not some burden being put upon you by our society, it is a natural reaction to those things that sadden us. We feel guilty because we know we enjoy the greatest quality of life in the history of human existence and still one in five of us is living in poverty.
Jeff-
I suspect the same, however I feel as if for now we should take the Union Mission and city seriously when they speak of transportation between the downtown and the new site.
OKayyyyy….
Great job Jay, nicely put, and very much to the core of things. Whether we like to hear them or not, these are our realities.
Now, you DNP: did you READ the article or did you just took offense? I am not from Norfolk and have lived here over two years and let me tell you: the first thing one notices here is how Virginians in general and the Hampton Roads very, very much in particular want to live in a time capsule, and as someone say to me when I moved here do not want to change anything….?
The main problem in Norfolk is with the the powers that be (mmmm, “DNP” I wonder what that stands for….?) keep a blind eye to the most critical and real problems that the city faces; let’s see:
1. Architecture preservation (I know, is not the issue here) ingnored and demolished everywhere: check!
2. Historically important architecture replaced with duds from outsiders who do not know anything about Norfolk, but happen to be buddies with the Mayor? Check!
3. Grandiose redevelopment plans for St Pauls Quadrant? Check! Well-thought plans to relocate the current residents? Errr, well….not really; trust me I was at the second comunity workshop, and over seventy (70!) people walked out furious becasue the city has not addressed their problems, furthermore: the Deputy City Manager who “proudly presented the city plans” at the start of the session went completely silent when the community demanded answers…
So, get off your fucking high horse, this might be the time to do something of value for your community, if not shut up nobody is “forcing you to feel guilty” and grow up..
I don’t really get what this article is saying. Here are the arguments I seem to take from it:
Gentrification is bad because…
1) Poor people will not have easy access to work – I can’t comment on this justification, because it is an empirical one, but I would imagine that if poor people really cared about working they would find a way to get downtown. But I may be wrong.
2) Schools become segregated between poor and the rich. I agree with this one.
3) Rich people need to “see” poor people. I don’t know if the article is actually arguing this, but it would be a bad argument to me. Its paternalistic for the government to force us to “see” what it wants us to see, and most people couldn’t care less if they saw poor people starving or not.
4) It’s “morally wrong” to force poor people from their homes – Once again, I can’t tell if the article is actually saying this, but it would be a bad reason to stop gentrification. Nobody has a right to live in a certain area of town.
DNP got served.
Enjoyed this piece. I’m new to this site and I read an article yesterday on something similar, glad to see that urban planning issues are being addressed here. Look forward to more about Norfolk in the future!
I am glad to see people reading this, and debating the pros and cons of this topic. However, I think while there are certainly statements in here that can be pieced together for an argument, I am ultimately trying to ask questions not build a case.
I believe the questions I pose should be on our mind when we decide how we will grow into the future. Citizens have historically sat back as passive passengers as the political and economic forces of their times shaped the world about them.
I think a more engaged, and compassionate citizenry would yield different results, but you may disagree.
Our culture has a nasty habit of allowing acrimony to supersede conversation far too quickly. If you disagree then offer an alternative, or make the case for keeping things as they are.
Let’s keep the discussion going!
Ok, Jay Ford, you keep talking about being “engaged” and “compassionate” and you say that you aren’t making an argument, but you actually are. You are saying that gentrification is somehow bad and that we need to make urban planning decisions that don’t exclude homeless people from certain neighborhoods. But you don’t seem to give any solid reasons. You just talk about compassion as if it will automatically lead to your conclusion. What if somebody said, “we should be compassionate towards the small business owner that doesn’t want crackheads and prostitute loitering around his business” or “we should be compassionate to developers who don’t want to build high-end businesses in crime-infested areas.” I’m not arguing against your point; I’m just saying that your argument isn’t as self-evident as you think it is.
A brief argument against arguments-
You insist I make an argument, but in your attempt to make an arguer of me, you make clear why I do not want to argue. You have constructed an argument to tell me why my argument is not a good argument. The saying can`t see the forest for the trees, comes to mind. I truly did not intend to make an argument. Perhaps I should have only written questions.
At least with questions one can only accuse you of leading the reader, but once you allow in the term argument… well often times you damn yourself to a conversation about semantics. There is no question that I feel gentrification in its current form is socially irresponsible. However, given the proper definitions, and parameters for discussion a sound argument can be levied for either side. Details muddy the waters and we forget where we were heading, and that we are talking about the quality of life for very real, breathing individuals. One debate about the propriety of gentrification could (and many do) hinge upon how I define life, liberty, and happiness under constitutional law. Another could debate upon the timeline on which justice is brought about. Is trickle down justified if a level playing field is two generations away, leaving the next to struggle continuously? All of these are open for debate, and none of them will help to change a hardened mind. I thought about attempting to illustrate this point by using a different name and bringing up what are some glaringly obvious flaws in what I wrote that people have yet to point out, but I opted to make this point less subtly in order to be perfectly clear. Also, I would not want to give out any ammunition to the argument advocates out there. I have no doubt that a fine “paper” could be written on this topic, with a good deal of sources written by people far smarter than I, making a highly philosophical argument for altruism and socio-economic equality that puts our current state to shame. But… Less people would comment because it would be less accessible, overly verbose, and harder to take a crack at. Plus, that would be sooo boring… It would have no soul, and I am all about the soul. What I wanted was for someone to read this and think about making a real change in the city around them. Feelings like that… I would argue… a person does not need to have an argument to support.
Great article. My response is simply drama that popped into my head while reading it.
I really wish there was a way to grandfather in property taxes for residents that are being forced out of ‘up and coming’ neighborhoods.
I know nothing of city planning, and am not any kind of socio-economic wizard but I truly wish that cities would devote themselves to mixed income planning.
The Mission move also makes me wonder if this is another way to try to get rid of the homeless hanging out in Stockley and around the Hague.
Last July 4th I was extremely upset to see police officers telling the homeless guys around the Hague to leave to make room for the better off to watch the fireworks.
I wonder if people who react the most negatively to these types of articles are people who don’t want to be reminded how close they are to being without a roof over their own heads. Living paycheck to paycheck, which many of us do, is being a job loss away from homelessness. You can be very self motivated, clever and still find yourself in the same shoes of the people we fear and want to believe are lazy.
So,have any moves been made to get rid of the neighborhood across from the Rotunda and MacArthur Mall? I remember hearing some grumblings about that before.
Jay Ford, you sound like the Fox News of liberals! We don’t want to muddy up your discussion with “scary” facts or actual details, we should just focus on feeeeelings because our “gut” will always give us the right answer. Isn’t that George W. Bush said? Most people are too stupid to understand facts and arguments anyway, right?
And contrary to what most liberals think, conservatives care about people too — ALL people. And they do have souls too. And while you are strictly anti-argument, you have no problem in taking conservative arguments, mischaracterizing them, and then calling them “short-sighted” or whatever, all the while maintaining anti-argument immunity for your own points that you espouse with a wink and a nod. For example, your use of the words “trickle down” is a rhetorical epithet that is used to insult conservatives – and fails to consider that the actual effects of gentrification are “trickle-up” – the primary beneficiaries are the employees, contractors, and suppliers in the community. Only if there is profit left over does anything “trickle up” to the capitalists. And one could argue (but nobody is forcing you to) that there will be no profit if people are too scared to patronize local businesses.
Also, I hope you are not serious about giving people new rights under the “life, liberty and happiness” phrase in the constitution. That phrase has never ever been used to create rights and I think it would be a horrible destructive thing if it did. But we can argue about that.
Hmmm, I guess nobody here wants to talk about facts, arguments, or reality. Well, moving on.
I think you missed the point I was trying trying to make about arguments. I also think the pointlessly aggressive style of discussion you are utilizing creates a hostile environment for people to share there opinions in.
In some issues there is a “fact of the matter”. The sky appears blue to humans. Easy to prove. An argument can me made that yields a rock solid conclusion.
However, more often than not politicized issues have no fact of the matter. It would be incorrect to say that there is a “right” way to handle poverty. There are a multitude of ways to address it and each can make a strong claim for primacy.
Ultimately though, no one can “win” an argument on how best a society handles poverty. More importantly… no one should want to win this argument, they should want to end poverty. This is why I opt to talk about compassion… because I do believe that compassion is a unquestionable good. Something worth practicing because of its own self-evident correctness. You may disagree.
You keep trying to paint this on traditional political lines. I am not talking about a liberal vs. conservative divide. In fact many liberals, have no problem at all with gentrification.
However, I do feel passionately about this topic, and if you (YerMom)or anyone else would like to read an argument against gentrification in the manner you are requesting I will happily provide it. I truly mean this. Anyone who would like to read it may put there email address up and I will mail you a paper I will write on the topic.
In the end I simply want this issue to be on the mind of people as we shape our future. Whatever it takes to avoid letting this issue slip out of view… again.
their*
First of all, you are the one trying to make this a liberal-conservative thing. Calling your opponent’s policies “trickle down economics” has historically been an insult against people who believe in free-markets and people who are against government transfers of wealth. In other words, conservatives. Its like me saying, I don’t want to get political, but bleeding heart tree huggers are idiots.
Well, if you’re not making any arguments, I guess I am too stupid to understand what your article is about. Is it saying that we should care about poor people? I agree with that. Is it saying that people should be “compassionate”? I agree with that. Is it saying that we should try to lower poverty? I agree with that. Is it saying that people should think about policy issues? I agree with too. The question is, who doesn’t agree with those propositions? Are there people who are anti-compassion and pro-poverty, or is that just a crude caricature of evil conservatives?
You also claim that “It would be incorrect to say that there is a “right” way to handle poverty.” I would disagree with that argument. Some economic and political systems are clearly better at reducing poverty. Communism has been shown, both theoretically and empirically, to increase poverty. Free markets have been shown to reduce poverty. Evidence is of is the 12 million + illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States. They have clearly shown that they prefer to be at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in the United States than to be at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in Mexico. So the United States plainly “handles” poverty better than other countries. Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t.
Yes you are guilty. Me too.
Great questions Jay! There are a lot of other issues tied into the problem of poverty and homelessness in our cities. Trying to lay them all out in a single Op-Ed is impossible but the discussion has been cracked open.
The basic questions I took from this article is:
As we rebuild our cities to become living centers rather than places to commute for work, should we:
1) Redesign cities primarily in the interest of those that have the wealth to move in, purchase and build new properties?
2) Or should we also consider the people who already live in these communities, ranging from modest income workers to the most vulnerable poor and homeless citizens?
I think the implication in Jay’s questions is that what’s been happening is more of #1. I see that as a problem and injustice to our citizens, especially those that suffer most from a dysfunctional social-economic system.
I agree with DNP, that some facts are useful as long as we don’t get tied up in them, but rather draw useful implications on society.
So I’ll state two pertinent facts, a few trees that might suggest something about the forest.
1) Wages in the US economy for the past 40 years have been stagnant or declining for the vast majority of the US population. Average wages haven’t topped 1969 levels.
See real wages table in the Economic Report of the President http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2009/B47.xls
An inevitable outcome of economic decline for most Americans for forty years and a current unemployment rate well over ten percent (when you count discouraged workers who simply have stopped looking for work) is a vulnerable class of people in the cities, struggling to survive and cope with their situation. Yes, it’s true that many of the homeless have made poor decisions. But, we must recognize that the society we create also shares responsibility for this situation.
2) But the economy HAS continued to grow rapidly for the past forty years. So where is all the wealth going? It’s been shifted from working class Americans to the very small proportion at the very top. This is a result of poor economic social planning (allowing corporate personhood, non-enforcement of labor laws, privatization of natural resources, permitting sending jobs over sees to slave labor locations, etc.) And, it is this shift of wealth that allows for greater gentrification.
Jay’s raises good questions about moving the homeless shelter. What’s the purpose? To hide a serious problem without addressing it? To help the most vulnerable?
It raises a more general point of pushing out the poor (through policy and purchasing power) when the land where the poor live becomes coveted. Are we hiding the result of a dysfunctional system, and the historical legacy that contributes to it?
It’s an interesting phrasing: being “forced to feel guilty.” This of course is not possible. You can’t force a feeling on anyone. But, guilt might be a reaction when one recognizes that our (myself included) benefits for earning a good living are in part a result of the injustice of a system that is greater than ourselves. Simply by participating in modern society, we are supporting numerous injustices.
The point, which I think Jay is trying to reveal with his questions, is that there is no one person to blame for extensive poverty and homelessness. But it’s real. We can choose to recognize it and create policies to support the most vulnerable and promote a healthier society. Or we can let injustices within the system continue, which when you do step back, I think you’ll see injustices and poverty negatively affects us all.
PS – I didn’t read “Yer Mom’s” last comment until just now. It’s an amazing statement to make considering how responsibility US economists have contributed Mexican poverty. The reason people are fleeing Mexico is because of US agricultural policies that subsidize growing corn, which was dumped in Mexico forcing Mexican farmers out of business and off the land. Then, add NAFTA, and soon Mexico exports what it can: people.
The US does not have a free market economy (remember that bank, GM bailout recently?). Nearly every innovative technology we have was developed either through the military and then privatized, or through a government protected monopoly. Every economy, including our own (ie-military industrial complex) is a mix of command economy and markets. Check out “Governing the Market” by Robert Wade. You’ll read how Taiwan and the other “Asian Tigers” got wealthy and reduced poverty by taking more government command of the economy.
Interesting discussion. Thanks to all that contributed.