The Root Shock article was a really great explanation of the consequences of the urban renewal projects in the second half of the 20th century. I was especially interested by the connection that was pointed out between being removed from a stable living situation and experiencing homelessness later in life. There’s public resistence to the idea of ‘just giving’ homes to the homeless, but if you look at it from the perspective of all the ways that the government has prevented some groups of people from accessing housing, maybe rehousing programs could almost be seen as reparations.
Beyond historical repercussions following us into the present, this article is also relavent today because things like this still happen, and the insights from the article don’t seem to be commonly understood by people in power. I read an article recently about the Buena Vista Trailer park in Palo Alto, which is the only significant community of low-income housing within the borders of Palo Alto county, one of the richest counties in the country. A Stanford professor named Amado Padilla did research on the community in a way that seems similar to some of the PAR techniques we’ve talked about in class, and found that the mostly Hispanic community was thriving. High school students from the park have almost a 0% dropout rate, whereas the rate for Hispanics elsewhere in Silicon Valley is 29%. The resident of the park have annual Christmas parties and many of them have lived there for most of their lives.
Since there’s so much demand for land in Palo Alto, the company who owns it wants to remove the residents, rezone it for higher density housing, and sell it for a huge profit. The residents have organized to try to fight against this, and want to buy the land from the company, but for a lower value then the company could get for it if it were rezoned. The case is currently in court to decide if the compensation that the company plans to offer the residents is adequate.
The main line of argument from the residents is that the company isn’t planning to pay them a fair value for their homes, and that it’s not fair for them to have to leave Palo Alto county and it’s excellent public services, in particular a very well-funded public school system. These points are very important, and probably are the ones a judge is most likely to take seriously, but the Root Shock article shows all the other harms communities suffer when they are displaced. Things like keeping people with their neighbors and support systems, letting children remain in the place they know as home, and offering people stability and some control in their living situations aren’t being taken seriously by decision makers.
Discussion Question: When trying to financially compensate people for the loss of their homes is there any way to fairly account for intangible variables?
