In one of this week’s readings, “The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City,” Newman and Wyly write about the recent literature and research on gentrification and the validity of it. In the past, research has affirmed that gentrification leads to displacement of low-income families. Recently, however, studies have been published (most popularly by Freeman and Braconi) that state the contrary – that gentrification can actually lead to positive change for low-income families and that gentrification does not act as a cause for displacement but rather occurs indirectly. In the paper, the authors point out the ways in which Freeman and Braconi’s research and their statistics may be distorted and inflated to yield to a specific agenda.
Newman and Wyly give many examples of distorted numbers. For one, the number of displaced people in Freeman and Braconi’s study does not include people that have left NYC, have become homeless, or have moved in with family or friends. These numbers are harder to quantify but also indicate that the numbers of displaced people in gentrifying neighborhoods are in fact way higher. In addition to this, Freeman and Braconi compare the number of people displaced in gentrifying neighborhoods to extremely poor non-gentrified neighborhoods, where people move around frequently. This comparison is not a fair one as it does not signify the norm.
As an approach to better model displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods, Newman and Wyly considered the characteristics of the renters that have been displaced. This helped them gain a better model for the types of people being displaced, and the factors that contribute to it such as income, ethnicity, and location. By doing this, and getting on-site interviews of people that have been displaced, they have drawn up a more accurate model than previously.
Throughout this reading, I kept thinking about the ways that people can distort facts to support their own agenda. Whether it is intentional or not, Freeman and Braconi present their data in a way that makes it seem objective but in reality, it’s not entirely honest. This could be to support the legislation against public housing or for private interference, but it can also be unintentional. There can be a large misinterpretation when it comes to the people writing the studies and the people reading them. At one point in the article, the authors mention that Freeman and Braconi write, “Even though gentrification may provide benefits to disadvantaged populations, it may also create adverse effects that public policies should seek to mitigate.” Their research was most likely not intended to spark headlines that gentrification is positive for everyone or to cease legislation that helps low-income families, but rather to share new data on the issue and discuss cause and effect. This intention (if it is true) was totally lost in the way that people have understood their work. That and the distorted facts reminded me of this cartoon from the New Yorker. People may think they’re representing the truth and rush to support it, but there can be many miscommunications along the way and adverse effects when people start to make changes without knowing the absolute truth of the matter.
Questions to think about:
- How can we be sure we are reading a true and honest study?
- Can research and studies ever truly be agenda-less?
- At what point is the discrepancy between truth and what people tag as the truth most harmful?
