|
|
"Taxation Without Representation," sounds familiar doesn't it? Is this not the slogan that members of the thirteen colonies used to illustrate the repressive acts of the tyrannical leadership and the unrepresentative nature of the taxes imposed upon them? Unfortunately, this phrase rings true again in the politics of the U.S. capitol.
Washington, D.C., a metropolitan conglomerate of almost 600,000 U.S. citizens, still emphasizes the slogan's historical parallel through the use of ostentatious license plate inscribing. The only American city without a voting member in the house or senate, this city finds itself in a unique political conundrum. City funds are appropriated by Congress, and the only native input is found by way of Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting representative of our nation's capitol. Recently elected Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has promised to propel the district towards "world-class" prestige (of that other than political significance) and fulfill the district's motto, Justitia omnibus, "Justice for All."
To this I attribute the rapidly gentrifying areas of Columbia Heights, Anacostia and parts of S.E., north of the Anacostia (for those of you familiar with the layout of D.C.). However, this is not only occurring in Washington, it has been or is currently problematic in Los Angeles, New York City boroughs and other predominantly minority-populated, urban neighborhoods. But more importantly, local policies are not protecting the low-income and section 8 housing neighborhoods in many of these metropolitan cities. The housing developments are being flattened to make way for condominiums and upper-class housing complexes by those attempting to capitalize on the breathtaking views of metropolitan society. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/forcedout/)
These residents are being marginalized into the suburbs, where they struggle to find jobs, and loose out on the readily accessible public transportation and public services offered within city limits. You can argue for the safety and charm these new urban middle-and-upper-class developments bring, but at what expense? Anacostia recently opened its second Supermarket, and for those of you that know Anacostia, it is far too expansive for only two Supermarkets. The problem is that it was strategically placed against the backdrop of newly-built, suburban-looking middle-class housing, attempting to push out the native residents of historic Anacostia.
What gentrification is doing is pushing out the residents of urban cities, pushing out the residents who rely on public transit, who rely on the multiplicity of human services found within city limits. These newly gentrified areas simply allow the wealthy a new home, of which they most assuredly do not need. They move from areas of accessibility into areas of accessibility, forcing the poor and repressed further into the clogged gutters of urban society. We can be ashamed of the American poverty found constant across metropolitan society, it is our creation. But we cannot attempt to hide the downtrodden by subjugating them into the materialistic over-consumption of suburban society, of which they cannot, and will never survive.
I don't see these issues as under-the-rug, so to speak, in regards to the local residents. This is a widening divide, and is sparking angry neighborhood banter. I'm developing a paper on this problem, and how local politicians are "tip-toeing" a racial, religious and class fault-line. (The religious stemming from the exclusiveness of both religious and non-religious urban social outreach)
I just cannot unravel the politics of these fast gentrifying areas. It is obvious to so many that local politics, especially those of our nation's capitol(!), spurn the unsightliness of hard working minorities. They are continually patronized by the seductive vote-monger-ers, but I do not know why this is allowed to continue.
The hollowing out of big cities is no accident -- it's something that's been planned and executed for decades. If you look at some of the biggest insurrections, revolutions, etc., they grew out of a concentrated population of poor and downtrodden, usually in the core of the city.
Now what planners and land developers are doing is gentrifying to kick the poor (and as a result, overwhelmingly minority) denizens of the inner city to the outskirts, where they are further separated from each other, and end up struggling even more just to get by.
The people who run things aren't huge fans of the exploited and oppressed getting all uppity and demanding that the system actually work for *everyone*.
If you make a place more desirable to live -- whether by lowering crime, adding more interesting stores, or beautifying the area -- it's a simple fact that *more people will want to live there*, and so rents will rise.
There's an interesting hypocrisy in the gentrification debate. Either people have the 'right' to keep their neighborhoods of a certain ethnic composition, or they do not (the latter is, I'd wager, the position of all thinking people). You'd hopefully feel awful about advocating against too many minorities moving into an area, so why do you not feel any shame about advocating against too many white people moving into an area?
On a separate note, regarding class rather than race, economic studies show that having more well-off people -- specifically, people with bourgeois habits and mores --living in the midst of the poor influences the poor themselves to make better choices, steering a greater percentage of their income toward health care and education rather than unnecessary luxury consumption.
This does not happen because the middle-class are paragons of virtue, but rather because the things they waste money on to show status (golf, home renovation) cost significantly more than the things that the poor waste money on to show status (designer clothes), and so the poor tend to give up on playing the 'status game' and invest in more rational activities that will help improve their economic circumstances in the long-run.
Those in Columbia Heights who stick around and pay more for rent will be getting more for their money -- a lower crime neighborhood and better habits. Those who can't will move elsewhere -- but the issue isn't the gentrification of their specific area, the issue is that they don't have the funds to afford to live in a community as nice as what their community is becoming.
The solution towards "desirability" is not through prejudiced, unmerited diasporas. And I am not arguing to diaspora, or even to retain these ethnic compositions, more so because no majority population wishes to live in these areas which are predominantly populated by minorities. Yes, the aesthetics are unsightly, but if one house, one space were to be renovated, the majority would not see this locale as "desirable". The complete renovation, upheaval and diaspora of these populations in unjust and plain idiotic. There are plenty of condominiums and upper-class housing. Let those who depend on the services of metropolitan society retain there ORIGINAL HABITATS. Find somewhere else to live.
There are also economic and social studies that disprove that study. Are you saying the only solution is to inject the bourgeois habits of the golfing suburbanite into metropolitan poverty?
The golfing, skiing, direct-tv-ing suburban materialistic populous is no the solution to poverty. It is the problem.