All posts by Annalise Armenta

Project Brief- April 1, 2015

The Future of Homelessness and the Shelter-Industrial Complex

Project Brief

The Future of Homelessness and the Shelter-Industrial Complex group has broken down the expectations and specific subjects for each member this week as we finalize our goals and work on the white paper. Anna, who is focusing on the history of homelessness policy, has been exploring how “the political and economic environment of the city” is a key component in how policy is shaped. She points out the different factors and changes that occurred with each new mayor, and how their own personal beliefs affected homeless policy. Corrin also went back in time in her portion in order to define what cluster sites are, how they have been represented in the past, and how they play a role in the present. Then Zumana is working on outlining the current homelessness policies that the city is working with. Since talking to our contact, it has become clear that current policies leave much to be desired.

That is where Riley and I come in. We have decided to outline and focus on the specific problems with homeless policy that have been highlighted in the past five years. Our research, from various sites that have looked over the most recent shelter reports, has concluded that while the city is spending roughly $360 million dollars towards the shelter system, private owners are pocketing a large portion of this. The most disgusting part of this dilemma is the condition these shelters are left in, specifically in terms of building code violations and overall low standards of living. We are specifically focusing on the most recent report, as it exposes the fact that there are hardly any inspections of these privately owned shelters on a consistent basis, thus leaving many homeless people to have to choose between the streets and mold/rat infested housing. Our contact has also shared various documents, which expose one specific family that we have mentioned in class before, who have made $90 million dollars from the city through their control of shelter housing.

Brett is also looking at what’s wrong with the current situation, but from a different perspective. After we have presented all the facts regarding the wasted money and building violations, Brett will be talking about how the homeless feel about this situation. This is vital towards our project because at the end of the day it is the homeless themselves that our contact speaks out for, as they are the people who are victim to the current lack of fair policy and regulation for their housing.

Then comes the most important part of our presentation where we can go from here. Omar and Bethany will be discussing the pros and cons of realistic solutions to the current problem, such as community land trusts and mutual housing authorities. One important key concept that will be focused on is the idea behind the term “affordable housing.” Our concept may be different from the one currently held as the standard for the city. We also want to propose the idea of making these policies more democratic, which is to say that the people should have input into the future of homelessness policies.

Overall the white paper is going well. Each member has a specific area/ assignment that has been committed to. Together our pieces put together an entire picture of the problems that face the homeless in New York City and how we can positively change the current policies that are preventing the homeless from getting assistance of living. Our major goal is to propose ideas that will, in the long-term, allow the homeless time and space to get on their feet and for them to have a high standard of living.

A Balanced Equation

The Right to the/Just City

“The Right to the City” brought up a current view when looking at community and neighborhood planning. In recent years we have begun to think more about the “ideals of human rights” rather than just building to be efficient. This idea is reinforced in the “Planning in Context” reading as well, which talks about the various ways city planners need to take the people into consideration. They distinctly say that all “city users” could be taken into account, including residents, commuters, and visitors.”

These ideas are also discussed in the other readings we have touched upon, especially ones that examine Jacob’s views on city planning. Modernists leaned towards urban renewal through plans such as “superblocks”, but these lead to segregation and alienation. The people who end up residing in these communities often feel separated from the rest of the neighborhood and are looked upon differently, sometimes negatively based on their culture/race. But Jacob’s makes the point that diversity makes cities more appealing, and thus should be welcomed with open arms. In order to allow all different groups and communities to be incorporated as positive parts of New York City, we need to plan with all sorts of people in mind.

Another crucial part of this class’s reading was the dilemmas that surround public housing and assistance. Public policy dictates what city planners can and cannot do when it comes to projects and certain types of housing. That leads the city to allowing private owners to have “greater freedom to discriminate against problem tenants.” This idea is closely linked to my group’s project involving the homeless and shelter problems in New York City. The private ownership, without regulation, allows many people to be abused and neglected. City planning goes beyond new buildings and layouts, it also involves privately owned communities versus government run/ regulated properties.

Community Planning

Community, Part 2: Organizing and Planning

There are a lot more factors that have to be considered when considering different community planning ideas than you would think. The readings stress the idea that you should define what a community/ neighborhood is before trying to go in and change everything. Communities are more than just houses and economic structures. And not all neighborhoods are created equal. Some locations accept their current social/ economic state and do not attempt to change it. Others are filled with members who believe, together, that they can make positive change. When trying to community plan one must keep in mind which type of community that one leans towards.

Progressive planning keeps regional and global ideals in mind when planning out a community. They strive for “local and global equality” while keeping the environment in mind. This is important because communities aren’t mere buildings, they can also include parks and gardens. The land itself is very important, especially in a place as dense as New York City. I was surprised by the fact that different social issues are taken into consideration when planning, issues such as feminism. This, however, makes perfect sense. The things that are changing and happening around the world, especially issues that involve minorities and women, are vitally important when planning a community because we don’t want to isolate groups of people. Instead we should strive to build communities that celebrate all different cultures, background, and income levels.

Communities Versus Businesses

Community, Part 1: Development and Control

James DeFilippis and Alice O’Connor both make compelling arguments about the current state of communities versus urban cities. Capitalist urbanization allows privately owned businesses and owners to control the movement and growth of the population. They focus on having a high density for a larger profit, thus forcing poorer communities and people out of their houses, which are replaced by unaffordable replacements. Forcing these people out destroys the communities themselves, the values they held, and the history behind them. The people who are forced out also lose their livelihood.  Having a community that you belong to gives you a sense of self, it provides shelter, safety, and nurturance.

Communities mean so much to the people living in them, but they don’t to developers and current public policy. Large-scale policies “undermine” the small sections and their ability to survive. So what can be done? Alice proposes a few ideas that can be key to seeing communities not only survive, but grow. If the government is more involved in the policies surrounding housing, building, zoning, etc. then there will be protection for the lower income, minority communities that are often overlooked and neglected. The only problem is that privately owned buildings/ land cannot be easily controlled by the government.

In order to protect these communities the government must balance their budget with “antipoverty” policies that promote smaller living spaces and the people that call their community home.

 

Public Health and City Planning

A Time of Crisis

Housing and city planning have larger affects than most people today notice. Just because people aren’t homeless, doesn’t mean that their living situations are suitable or even reasonable. Around the 1970’s there was a large destruction of the South Bronx minority community. Minority communities and ghettos were looked upon as “obstacles” by policy makers.

The overcrowding of these communities, combined with the fact that there was no one who stood up for their basic needs, lead to many negative health repercussions. One of the most obvious violations of rights for the people living in these communities was the lack of fire stations, despite the fact that the overcrowded areas had a higher chance of incident. The fact that while forty-five fire houses were recommended to be open, yet only four were re-established in predominantly white neighborhoods, highlights the idea that minority communities were discriminated against to the point where they were in danger.

These neighborhoods in general, being in such poor condition, prove to have other negative health affects as well. A “casual association” has been made “between mental illness and the process of social disintegration.” It wasn’t merely the fact that it was overcrowded, it was the fact that minorities were forced into these communities because of their social status. The social environment plays just as big of a part on health as the physical environment does. Stress, among other heavy reactions, can have a serious toll on people throughout their life times.

City planning, as we all know, is a difficult thing. Balancing between creating a city landscape people want to live in with maintaining a level of adequate housing is not easy. But as we see from the past overcrowding individuals into small, hardly kept communities can have massive affects on those people as a whole.

Reading Response #1

Roots of Community Planning

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.