Angotti (Part 1)

Tom Angotti’s book New York for Sale provides some interesting readings. Chronicling the history of city planning in New York, Angotti focuses on key moments that served to “signal” community planning.

The first reaches back to the colonial and pre-Civil War eras. It challenges the popular conception of the North, and New York in particular, as a longtime bastion of progressivism. It is often forgotten that slaves were owned even in traditionally “liberal” cities. The Dutch, who founded New York as New Amsterdam, were also responsible for introducing the slave trade to the New World. New York had cited major slave rebellions starting from 1712. More interestingly, however, Angotti talks about what happened next. As renters rather than owners, blacks were especially vulnerable to displacement. Angotti quickly charts the forced path of New York’s black population northward, starting below Wall Street, moving past contemporary LES and Little Italy, eventually reaching Harlem. He also mentions the push into outer boroughs, particularly Brooklyn and the Bronx. He takes care to mention, however, that this geographic ascension stopped cold at the suburbs, primarily due to discriminatory mortgage laws. He also notes that the first instance of “urban renewal” involved moving blacks and other minority groups out of part of the Five Points neighborhood.

The second is Henry George’s campaign for mayor. George singled out real estate speculation as the major cause of poverty. Speculative investment and purchase of New York’s land led to disruption and displacement of communities, while concentrating wealth in the hands of land owners and monopolists. George noted that private entities unjustly earned profit by restricting access to natural resources. At the same time, actual productive activity was taxed heavily, leading to a system that George likened to wage slavery. George’s most known and enduring proposition was the land-value tax, in which the government would tax the value of the land itself. In this way, private entities would be unable to profit simply by owning the land – they would have to do something with it. Garnering support from Irish nationalist groups (an impressive feat for a politician of British stock), populist groups, and labor, George made a close but ultimately unsuccessful bid for Mayor in 1886. Despite finishing ahead of future president Theodore Roosevelt, George was defeated (possibly fraudulently) by the Tammany Hall Democratic candidate.

Immigrants poured in from Europe, many bringing left-wing political ideals and joining parties and organizations that furthered those notions. Tenants began to organize on increasing scales, with rents strikes becoming a somewhat effective tool against predatory landlords. Rent control represented a major victory for working class communities, serving to stabilize individual housing costs and thereby consolidating and protecting the community. However, as has been noted in more recent readings, rent regulation is falling out of favor. As the city puts its new affordable housing plan into action, landlords of rent-regulated properties tend to find it in their interest to sell to private developers, who evict, demolish, and rebuild on the lot. Sure, these new buildings have affordable units, but they are never as affordable, or as numerous, as old rent-regulated housing.

Angotti talks about LaGuardia’s role in the city during the Depression, and briefly discusses his association with Robert Moses. Moses used eminent domain to claim public land for highways and other projects. The resulting displacement was neither the beginning nor the end of “urban renewal’s” status as Negro removal.

Today we continued our historical investigation into the policies and practices that have shaped NYC, physically and socially. We focused specifically on the period between 1968 and the 1980s, which is widely known as one of urban decline and decay, as federal support for cities and the civil rights movement waned. The Wallace article gave us insight into the one of the city’s and country’s poorest neighborhoods (then and now), the South Bronx, from 1974-1978. . Unlike many stereotypes and dominant narratives about poor neighborhoods and communities that view poverty through a culture/cycle of poverty framework, this paper shows the hugely significant shaping role of political economy.   In particular, Wallace and Wallace provide a quantitative analysis of the city’s “planned shrinkage” policy during the NYC fiscal crisis, showing the cyclical dynamics of abandonment, its demographic implications (i.e. forced migration, social disintegration) and public health effects.

We also discussed Tom Angotti’s chapter in which he traces the roots of contemporary community planning to various modes of community struggles over urban land and development throughout NYC’s history.  Angotti’s analysis is helpful in highlighting the community resistance that has always been present, and in showing us how the nature/character of that resistance has changed over time, and been shaped by its historical context. We built this into our timeline, and discussed the different waves of struggle from slave rebellions in the 1700s to self-help housing by Community Development Corporations in the 1980s.

Please draw on these articles to make sure you are familiar with how and why community organizing around land and housing in NYC have changed over time, and start working in your groups to connect your project’s issue and community to past struggles!

Last night, I attended the CB11 [community board 11] meeting in East Harlem where we sat in on lectures the public officials and citizens as they presented on various concerns and innovations in the community.  CB11 is a central platform for residents to come together and initiate/review planning, discuss the budget, and other advocacy matters relating directly to the welfare of the residents of the area.  CB11 is the area from 96th to 140th on the east side, from 5th ave to the east river.

This was my first time at a community meeting, and I’m glad I went. Seeing the people of the area we will be focusing on brought a new sense of depth to the issues at hand, making them more palpable and relatable.  In the beginning of the meeting when local groups would come up and give three minute speeches on programs or missions they’ve started, such as a clubhouse for the mentally disabled, or a group that is advocating for the renovation of the decrepit east river esplanade.  The most informative review was that of councilman assigned to CB11, who went over the  many topics of debate and government involvement in the community zone, such as his dedication to making sure officials know that the city does not end at 96th street and any renovations and improvements tested on the city and administered should be extended up to 140th, because that is where the borough ends and El Barrio can’t be left out of the equation.  He also talked for awhile about the homeless situation, offering methods of reporting and helping them by calling 311, and with the support of a crowd member, ensuring that we all knew to call our local authorities and demand either a shelter, or affordable housing on our blocks.

It was interesting to parallel this meeting with the readings about displacement of the African American community, of which described, in essence, the economic, social, and political detriment to a group due to targeted displacement from urban renewal campaigns claiming betterment for all.  In reality, these movements and renovations don’t improve the slums, but rather eradicate them for buildings that erase vibrant communities for commercial purposes.  El Barrio struggles to maintain a sense of identity and resist urban renewal attempts that aim at erecting high rises and big development.  Even when the esplanade group presented that they got an urban artist to design an installation for the fence, members of the CB asked if it was a local, east harlem artist.  They have a strong sense of community derived from the origin of it’s citizens arrival into the area, forming close bonds in shared struggles and discrimination, experiencing local strife and poverty as well as artistic renaissance.  The east harlem community has many concerns about its safety and well-being, growth and improvement, but want to do it with their voices as a dominating influences of change.

DQ: How can communities successfully combat urban renewal, or otherwise, what can they do to ensure their survival and well-being?

The Root Shock article brought to light a lot of issues I never realized about Urban Renewal. While the idea of creating more “modern developments” isn’t a negative concept, the way it was approached in the United States was discriminatory.

Shortly after World War I, the African American population began to urbanize, and by the 1950’s African American residents across the United States “although not blind to problems, thought of their communities as vital, exciting places.” But then the Urban Renewal Act of 1949 was passed and soon after began affecting the African American communities all across the United States. Their communities were considered “slums” and were slated to be bulldozed down and used to build newer, more expensive housing.

This ” oppression grew” until over 800 African American communities were displaced, forcing a majority of residents to more into ghettos or face homelessness. This not only promoted segregation, but it also had a negative emotion toll on generations to come for those who were forced out of their homes. Targeting the African American residents was a clear sign of segregation, yet this went on for years and still continues to affect many people today.

The article itself references back to the Native Americans who were also a victim of unfair displacement and have “still not recovered.” Looking at Native American communities today they will probably never be able to fully recover and carry on the culture that was ripped away from them before they had rights.

Community Planning without Displacement highlights the idea that we should strive to improve areas without taking away people’s homes and livelihood. It also talks about the fact that any changes made, especially in a densely populated location such as New York City, must be strategic and well thought out. Moving forward the policy revolving around the idea of creating more modern structures and communities must be mindful of those already occupying the area.

It was interesting to see the similarities in the views America had of African Americans throughout the years. The Tom Angotti text starts off with a quote by Frederick Douglas that explains how during the 1800’s Black slaves represented the lowliest of conditions among modern laborers. In the Root Shock article, Fullilove explains that in the late 20^th century slum areas were viewed as stains that had to be removed. To a lesser extent, but still true today, she also states that the white community’s knowledge of the ghetto community was based on stereotypes. They judged what they did not know.

Intriguingly, during the first part of the 20^th century, although African Americans were generally not upper class, they had formed communities and accomplished something. There was a sense of culture as arts and institutions began to flourish. More importantly, there was a sense of community – people could depend on each other, laugh with each other, have a sense of pride over who they were as a people. This made me question what constitutes a good neighborhood. Although money will always be an issue, the sense of community that was seen in Roanoke, Virginia is quite different from the individualistic approaches that many urban cities have today.

Instead of helping these blossoming communities flourish, urban renewal kicked its people out of their homes, scattered them, and left them struggling alone. I see history repeating itself with the very controversial gentrification that has been going on in Harlem and the displacement of longtime residents. Once again, people feel that they are losing their culture and their sense of belonging. The Root Shock article also offers a more human look at what the displacement that comes with urban renewal does to communities and individuals.

Although America has made progress in the fight against racial stigma, stereotypes about African Americans living in squalor because they are lazy are still prevalent. When we look at the story of David Jenkins and the people of Roanoke, Virginia, we see that this is not the case. What can we do to tackle the stigma that the poor or homeless are the way they are because of individual shortcomings?

Angotti discusses black rage that occurred during the 1700s because of their “continuing exclusion from parts of the city and constant displacement to the periphery.”
Discussion Question: Is the displacement of African Americans due to urban renewal a type of modern-day exclusion from parts of the city?

The article,“Root Shock: The Consequences of African American Dispossession” by Mindy Thompson Fullilove, discusses the short and long term consequences, especially the displacement of many African-American communities, lead by urban renewal projects during the 1950s. It is interesting how Fullilove highlights the growth of urban ghettos and describes the vital communities. Although African Americans were confined to ghetto areas due to segregation, most of these communities began to flourish in culture, recreation, and education (Harlem Renaissance). Residents considered their communities filled with vitality. However, the Urban Renewal Act of 1949 was a program that set the stage for deconstruction of ghetto communities. Its interesting how the progress/expansion for the country and its people, specifically rich, was at the expense of a specific group or poor community. Jacob’s “sparrow principle” describes this aptly in opposition to urban renewal approach. “We would not turn into predatory animals for purpose of some grand planning or somebody’s favor.” This inequality of class continues to reflect that we still have today. I found the statistics quite startling, the article states that in 1961, African Americans consisted of 10% of the US population, however, more than half of the residents lived in areas that were part of the urban renewal project. This process of urban renewal strengthened segregation and led to hardship for the families that were displaced due to no vacant housing. The ideals and foundation of the nation represent democracy, however, targeting a specific group or low class for displacement for the sheer purpose of progress is not upholding to these ideals of a democratic nation.

Urban renewal not only lead to to relocation of people, but also gave a disadvantage to them in terms of access to resources such as education. The opportunity of attending a college. This is illustrated in the example of the urban renewal process in Roanoke, Virginia in the article. Prior to urban renewal in that city, the community was a close, knit community and the residents were quite satisfied both financially and socially. However, false hopes and ideas about improved, renewed communities about the program led to a scattered community that was once a tight-knit community. There was strong community opposition to slow this urban renewal process, however, this could lead to stop the program. Mary Bishop, who documented the story of urban renewal in this city, reported that the people displaced incurred financial loss and some were in heavy debt due to additional payments they had to make after being displaced. Asides from financial costs, the tight-knit community was scattered; social and moral support was removed along with the urban renewal process. Social networks are key for the growth of communities and with urban renewal in this city those networks disrupted.

I really found interesting how throughout these urban renewal projects people are opposing and fighting for their rights. The story of David Jenkins visit to Elmwood illustrates this in the article. Delores Rubillo, his neighbor, refused to move from Elmwood during the urban renewal process, which griefs David for the fact that if he had showed that tenacity perhaps he would still be living in his neighborhood. This opposition could provide hope for the betterment of such communities and for many not to be displaced. Fullilove further discusses the long-term consequences and ethical issues that arise from the urban renewal process. After urban renewal,  African American communities became weaker and more affected by negative forces such as crime.

Discussion Questions: Is there a solution in which urban renewal is not done at the expense of a minority group or low class? Is it possible to manage the process of urban renewal/ progress under the ideals of a democratic nation?

The phrase “urban renewal” itself has a very positive connotation – so Fullilove’s “Root Shock” article immediately provided me with an interesting perspective of how it actually affects people.  Additionally, I also have a better understanding of how and why ghetto neighborhoods have formed and why there are elements worth preserving in the face of urban renewal – or “Negro removal,” as the article mentions.

According to the article, segregation limited African Americans’ choices of living areas so greatly that they were confined to entry-level neighborhoods fit for immigrants beginning their lives in America.  These areas were generally very crowded and poor.  However, cultural flowering ensued and the ghettoes became places that although problematic, were bustling and artistic.  Individuals here gained a strong sense of community.  That is, until the Urban Renewal Act of 1949.

The Urban Renewal Act took the ghetto areas and made them even more segregated by removing living space and forcing closer quarters.  Indeed, African American communities were disproportionately targeted with this action.  Fullilove then goes on to provide an interesting argument for the value of the long term consequences of urban renewal on African Americans and specifically the health risks of the practice.  She closes with discussing political effects and ethical issues.

The chapter on The Roots of Community Planning harks back even further in our history to the time of the slave to describe the gravity of slavery in the first couple pages.  Upon seeing this, I immediately understood that the plight of African American living areas is deeply rooted in our history and stems from several causes.

However, as expected, the main focus of the chapter is community planning.  Angotti cites four important events in New York City history that shaped the practice of community planning today.  They are the following:  Slave Rebellions, Henry George’s running for mayor accompanied by populism at the time, tenant movements and the rise of labor, and the organizing of jobs and housing during the Great Depression.

Slave rebellions often occurred because African Americans were frustrated that they were banned form certain parts of the city and constantly being displaced because of their lack of control over where they could live.  Henry George, a mayoral candidate in the second half of the nineteenth century, voiced the popular opinion of discontentment with the “rule of real estate.”  He wanted to bring down the fruitful market of real estate so that it would no longer contribute to poverty and exclusion.  Laborers and tenants fought eviction and eventually were able to inspire the creation of rent laws which limited it.  Finally, the New Deal was able to indirectly create jobs and public places in the city where there were none prior to the Depression.

One of the most interesting things I found about both readings is the effect of displacement on community planning.  It seems that in many instances, it has been a fight over living space between the working class and the government – and to see that people have made a difference with their endeavors in pushing for equality and fair chances of survival in neighborhoods could inspire hope.

Discussion:  What is one way that slavery has shaped community planning?

Historically, urban renewal projects have disproportionately affected underrepresented groups, especially African Americans and immigrants. The purpose of these projects was to clear “slums” and replace them with “improvements” such as civic centers, new businesses, and higher class housing. The greatest controversy in urban renewal is whether or not “white is right.” The issue is if these new projects can be considered of more value than than existing or already demolished settlements, as well as who is benefitting from them.

What outsiders considered slums – tenements and ghettos – were actually rich cultural and social centers that developed over time with the influx of different groups. They only saw inferior living conditions and made plans to demolish and rebuild areas whose purpose was to better suit the community as a collective. However, most of these construction plans were designed for upper class white citizens who wanted a quick disposal of what they considered an eyesore and replace it with something “nicer.” Urban planners did not take the time to recognize that these communities were thriving subcultures. From an insider’s perspective, one would not be able to recognize inferior conditions without anything to compare to. They had religious organizations, local businesses, and a strong bond in between neighbors. Ethnocentric attitudes partitioned along economic class created tensions and resent which lead to a new “white man’s burden.” As cities grew, they had to be cleansed of the worthless slums to make room for growing upper class desires.

Relocation lead to the demise of these communities as they were forced to disperse and start over. After being comparably economically disadvantaged, they were even more so after they had to sell their homes for unfairly low rates and were forced into buying more expensive housing. These communities were broken and to some, starting over was something they could not handle as all they knew was their neighborhood. Some fell into deeper poverty, homelessness, and a general sense of being lost. They grew deep in their resentment because they were powerless in the face of destruction. This caused distrust between the government and its people. A possible remedy proposed in “New York for Sale” was community organizing and activism. However, such efforts are often initiated in the face of relocation and demolition, and by then it may be too late. In order for political action to be effective, it must be a product of an ongoing effort by grassroots movements and the like. Though small victories may be achieved at certain points in time, the looming, more powerful group will continue to attempt to cut and reduce these achievements until they have eroded in the progression of time.

Discusion Question:

How can politically and economically disadvantaged groups compete with upper class interest in urban planning? Is urban planning exclusively an upper class privilege?