BY ABNER
Gentrification has
drawn the ire of many social scientists and inner city inhabitants as of late. It
has steadily gained the reputation of a four-letter word in today’s society,
and some would argue with good reason. Gentrification is a process of
renovation in poorer often-deteriorating inner-city areas by more affluent
individuals. Although that definition does not necessarily elicit anything
significantly terrible, the gripe that many of its opponents have is that this
renovation usually comes at the cost of displacing long time working-class
residents. The residents that reside in inner-city areas are characterized by
something other than class, they are primarily black or Latino and it is their
neighborhoods that have been affected the most by gentrification. The apparent
destruction of minority enclaves has made the gentrification phenomena
ammunition for the ninety-nine-percenters. It has become a major catalyst in
escalating the nation’s ongoing class warfare. This is evident when you take
into consideration that large projects such as the Barclays center and
aggressive expansion agendas such as Columbia’s Manhattanville have displaced
thousands of lower income Americans. These projects have displaced large groups
of predominantly black and Hispanic residents in Harlem and Brooklyn. The
immediate eviction from construction coupled with the long term forced exodus
of poor residents induced by rising costs of living can and has significantly
altered the demography, culture and identity of entire neighborhoods.
Furthermore opponents of gentrification argue that the value of these
neighborhoods has been given to them by their working class cultures. The
appeal of El Barrio or Washington heights is its rich Latin piece of Americana.
They argue that the people who have traditionally resided in the area have
given those neighborhoods use value
The displacement of low
status individuals is a hotly debated topic. As the displacement has progressed
pundits have denounced it as bulling by those of the upper class. Indeed it is
an unfortunate thing but is it really all that terrible? Sure it can be argued
that the practice of accumulation by dispossession (David Harvey- Marxist
Geographer) is an abusive economic practice. However the fact of the matter is
that land is a very valuable and very finite commodity. Furthermore inner city
real estate has a very steep price tag due to its use value and an even steeper
price tag when you consider its exchange value. The latent value that inner
city areas have are what attract businesses and professional class settlers.
Inner cities provide access to a seemingly never-ending flow of consumers from
all walks of life. In other words for a business they are an economic gold mine
(pun not intended). “The goal was to market
the value added and the competitive advantage gained from doing business in New
York, In other words in selling New York for the sake of it being New York.” (Davila , . Times squaring the barrio. page 103:
Print. )
Economics is the
study of effectively allocating, distributing and consuming finite resources.
From an economic standpoint it makes complete sense that the scarcity of inner
city land would fetch a higher price. Due to the finite nature of the resource,
dispossession in turn becomes an ugly bit of collateral damage in what is
otherwise merely the natural flow of city development. Economics is also
informally known as the study of rational human action. This definition can be
more effectively applied to the process of gentrification. Gentrification is a
micro scale practice, that is to say it is not driven by public policy rather
by the invisible hand of the market manifest in individual actions. To put it in
layman’s terms rational people make rational decisions, this is the first law
of economics. Consequently people tend to gravitate towards what is most
economically beneficial to their endeavors. For many businesses and young
professionals that means moving into inner city areas. Here they find all of
the conveniences as well as all the opportunities modern city life has to
offer. The free flow of human reason is not something that can be detained.
Thus cannot be fought against.
This may sound harsh when it
comes to the cause of fighting the noble battle but the truth is that there are
two sides to every coin. The argument has been based around protecting
low-income residents and demonizing gentrifiers. However many people ignore a
couple of things that residents have working to their advantage. One of which
is that the New York State government keeps rent artificially low to protect
the homes of working class city dwellers. It is a piece of legislature called
the New York Rent Stabilization and Rent Control Laws and it is policy on which
the State Democratic party stakes its reputation. These laws restrict what
landlords can charge tenants in New York City and as of 2011 they have been
extended through 2018. Furthermore many tenants pass down apartments within
their family sometimes keeping rents at 1940’s market value. This practice has
cost Landlords millions of dollars collectively in lost revenue. The economic
struggle for space is a dirty game played by both sides. I’m all for the
preservation of culture and storied neighborhoods but it cannot be denied that
gentrification improves the quality of those neighborhoods. The influx of young
professionals is not only an economic stimulus but also a positive
reinforcement to inner city youths with very few positive role models. Gandhi
said it takes a village to raise a child and having around a few professionals
only helps out the cause. “Gentrifiers’ capacity to attach themselves to
history gives them license to reclaim the downtown for their own uses.” (Zukin, Sharon. Gentrification
as market and place. page 42: Print.)
Perhaps
gentrification is an unjust practice and perhaps It isn’t. Whatever the case
may be in this polarizing issue there has to come a point where we have to stop
fighting and let social Darwinism run its course. Social Darwinism refers to
the survival of the fittest within the parameters of a modern society Ie. The
strong do what they can and the weak suffer as they must. In society power
translates to money. Heck its not as if
it has not happened before. Henry Kissinger used to live around the corner from
my block when he was a kid. He told my 5th grade class one time that
in those days everyone in Washington Heights was poor Eastern European immigrants.
It turns out we displaced them just as we will one day ourselves be displaced
and eventually so will our displacers. Granted many of these whites moved on
upwards in the social ladder. Perhaps the push that we need in order to
progress comes in the form of displacement and discomfort but one thing we do
know is that progress wont come in stagnant neighborhoods that breed poverty.
Henry Kissinger also told our class something else that day that seems so
pertinent now “in the end the only constant is change, it is the natural order
of things.”
No comments:
Post a Comment