What I found most striking about the Stein article on Mayor De Blasio’s inclusionary zoning plan was its impact and the deftness at which it achieves that impact. Specifically, Stein leaves his readers with feelings similar to the urgency and disillusion experienced by those actually affected by the plan.
Not knowing the context of the word ‘doomed’ in the title (as I didn’t know the specifics of inclusionary zoning either), I began reading with an open mind. The opening caption, “By embracing inclusionary zoning, Mayor de Blasio gets to put forth a big, bold plan for reducing inequalities without challenging capitalists,” immediately painted a picture of ambitious good intent. The phrases ‘reducing inequalities’ and ‘without challenging capitalists’ seen back-to-back like that set up my expectations for the proceeding explanation; I wanted to know–how could this be done? Stein fulfills these expectations and answers with a hopeful summary of De Blasio’s affordable housing plan before delineating inclusionary zoning, as well as the problem of affordable housing in New York City itself. During this time, Stein first presents inclusionary zoning as a promising prospect. He does not directly point out its deep flaws or hypocritical outcomes, but instead proceeds with an evenhanded account of ‘common and accepted criticisms’, leaving room to disprove these criticisms later on. Through the author’s tone and train of thought, readers unfamiliar with the topic are made to feel as outsiders peering in on an ambivalent matter. We know by this point that on the surface, the prospect is tempting, yet we also know that it is not all that it seems. I imagine that for people naive to the disservices of zoning plans, especially those who newly seek affordable housing, De Blasio’s plan would be difficult to distinguish as threatening.
However, in the following section, Stein pulls the rug out from under us. He dismantles the now ‘fatally flawed program’ ruthlessly and forces the reader to consider the viewpoints of those targeted by inclusionary zoning, through illustrating the toxic ripple effect that it would provoke. We learn that, not only are the promises of affordability and expansion both illusions, the plan proposed by De Blasio to double down on rather than rethink inclusionary zoning would likely result in decreased affordability and fewer affordable housing. Gentrification would spread like wildfire throughout affected neighborhoods, and displacement would follow. Here, I no longer felt like an outsider to a detached issue but a helpless witness to an obvious crime. I thought of the people who were to suffer and struggle to find a home on behalf of the seemingly benign proposal, and then I thought about those who would be unaffected: ignorant of their exemption and complacent in their ignorance. I wished that I, and others like me, would be further educated on the topic and that all those seeking affordable housing would definitely be made aware of De Blasio’s false claims. I couldn’t help but think that the paralyzing disenchantment which the article gradually builds on its readers was purposely strategized by Stein in order to evoke the feeling of being victim to such a proposal. And because of this, I found the Stein article to be singularly effective.
