All posts by Anna Kornak

Project Update

The Future of Homelessness and the Shelter-Industrial Complex

After reviewing the white paper once more and going over unanswered questions from Professor Krinsky’s class, it was determined by the group that a more concrete proposal was needed to address homelessness. Formulating such a proposal at first seemed like a daunting task because of numerous possibilities that the policy could take. It was critical to reorganize and develop a strategy for creating new policy. However, due to the members’ general unfamiliarity with policy beyond the scope of the class, drafting policy from scratch would not be a practical method for creating a solution. The group elected to review more historical approaches to the issue, this time including successful, partially successful and unsuccessful models to analyze and understand. While policy that works out is wonderful and could possibly create a lasting precedent, the environment of New York City is so unique that it is difficult to isolate an application from elsewhere and visualize it’s implementation. Just as it is important to highlight what makes policy work, it is just as critical to understand what causes policy failure and how people and institutions react to the problem.

The framework for revising policy was based on the goals of Picture the Homeless’s initiatives. During the first meeting with them, they explained how eminent domain, community land trusts, and rent stabilization could be used to solve the problem of CLT’s and create a more rehabilitative system where chronic homelessness can be cured. While these are good ideas and seem to be able to work in New York City, the class discussion on Monday and mapping out the issue exercise convinced the group that the policy needed to address more than just the goal. While it would be convenient to cure homelessness by putting everyone in buildings on community land trusts, there are more factors affected by these decisions. Creating effective policy requires a selling point. Through the lens of the class discussion, the idea of removing land from a prospective market and making it non-for-profit was a retrograde approach to increasing funding. Because raising taxes and drawing more from the city’s budget are unpopular options, saving money on current wasteful policy will have to be the bottom line.

The following are a few highlights of policy that the group collectively explored and attempted to follow in its development, implementation, implications, and success.

Mayor Ed Koch’s administration saw the first rise of family homelessness. While his administration first put these people in hotels, the numbers continued to rise until he was forced to take on the issue more directly. Koch’s policy avoided a more permanent solution in fear that families would become dependent on “welfare hotels” and as a result become chronically homeless. Barrack style shelters were created to emphasize the temporary aspect, and expansion of affordable housing and transitional programs produced record lows of homelessness after Koch concluded his last term.

Under Mayor Bloomberg, the number of homeless individuals and families soared to all time highs. Bloomberg’s general business approach to running the city not only contributed to this problem but also created extreme rent rise further widened the economic gap. He replaced federal housing programs with wasteful short-term subsidies that avoided a permanent solution and instead emphasized the private market. His failures have shown how turning over the solution to private companies
(CLT’s) creates big business and lack of permanency and increases homelessness. What can be concluded is that the policy proposal must include government owned and operated shelters because no profit margin means money is not flowing into someone’s pocket.

Oftentimes understanding the root of a problem is the best way to solve it, by working backwards and developing a more all-encompassing approach to address it. From the class on Monday the group developed a tree model where the economic causes branched out into social and political points of the issue. Since the 1980’s, homelessness experienced a new demographic shift known as economic homelessness, where individuals and families are on the streets because they are unable to afford housing. The main reason behind the lack of affordability is a stagnant minimum wage in comparison to the rising costs of living. In this unbalanced race one cannot keep up with the other, and as a result the income gap widens. The ultra-rich are profiting from not only homeless services and cluster site housing, but in general labor from the lower class that has been devalued from a lack in raise of the minimum wage. When one value is being depreciated and the other increased, the gap pulls in both directions and further widens.

While turning over control of shelters to government or non-for-profit organizations could cut out the notorious Podolsky family and save the city money, it will not address the underlying cause of economic homelessness. Creating affordable housing means either lowering rents to affordable rates or increasing wages to compete with rising rents. Such a solution would not only solve the solve the shelter issue but reduce it and put people in homes rather than cluster sites.

The group is going to meet today with Picture the Homeless to clarify policy goals and ask for their input on more permanent solutions and sell-ability of the policy to city council.

Reading response

The Right to the/Just City

Urban planning is a difficult undertaking, in the sense that it is not a concrete science. It is not subject to specific laws and principles, and no standard models exist.Throughout history the goals and methods of urban planning have shifted away from general design toward the ideal of an all-encompassing project for the betterment of society. This project often calls for more equality. However, this goal cannot be achieved because of the large gap between the lower and higher economic classes. To achieve equality would mean to introduce socialism.

In its early history, urban planners of Europe tried keeping planning separate from politics. It was believed that planners would act in good faith and design according to the public good. However, those with a stronger political foothold were able to push their goals forth and influence planners. Today this pattern exists to a much higher extent. In “New York for Sale” Angotti mentions that powerful real estate clans that own much of the land in Manhattan are the largest funders of political campaigns in the city. The extent of the influence of money in urban planning has made it an inevitable factor in decision making. It is impossible to divorce politics, much less financing of the upper class from urban planning today because of they way campaigning is based on money. Profitability drives investment and reinvestment, so because the wealthy classes control capital they can choose to shape the city so it best fits their needs.

Diversity is a new goal of urban planning. When integrating people across demographics, there is an idea that it will produce some kind of equality. Integration cannot occur by force, and some forces such as gentrification and urban renewal hurt diversity along class lines, which then contribute to race and cultural divides. Robert Moses’s mega-projects hurt diversity further by separating minorities and low income households into large housing blocks that became the projects. Requiring private developers to designate affordable units is not a solution to creating diversity. As more affluent people move in, goods will increase in price as rents increase, so the poor will have to move as they will not be able to afford the neighborhood. There is an internal competition among residents of a local area and as the playing field is uneven, those on top will prosper, those in the middle will fair well, and those on the bottom will suffer the most. I think that Moses’s mega-projects created a “safe haven” for the poor that shields them from gentrification. These buildings are not desirable areas to live in and local businesses have lower rents and must provide their goods at lower prices to serve these communities.

I don’t believe that there is a solution to urban planning. There are only improvements that can temporarily better the current situation. Capitalism exists because of inequality and will continue to as long as people profit off of each other. Redistribution of wealth evenly would call for socialism, and then a central planning committee could design based on a true public good. I think that in order to preserve capitalism but level the playing field, there need to be more regulations and caps on profits as well as market forces. The true solution in my opinion is to achieve a socialist state, but it is not a practical answer because of potential unpopularity.

Discussion Questions: How can diversity in the urban landscape create more problems than solutions? What should the goals be for urban planners who are trying to keep the poor inside the city while maintaining the free society?

Reading Response

The Politics of Place, Oppression, and Privilege

In our studies thus far regarding the New York City urban landscape, we were able to attribute the widening inequality gap to a multitude of issues. These issues included urban renewal, gentrification, and community control. Further investigation of these problems leads to one root cause, unequal division of political power. Though equal rights have been extended to all on paper and representation comes in many forms (the vote, the right to organize and protest, interest groups) historically oppressed minorities continue to exist as a disadvantaged group.

In the readings, disadvantaged groups were limited by their oppressors politically, economically, and socially. For example, women were made subservient to their husbands through domestic roles and as a result became dependents. They served as emotional support, child care, and physical pleasure, but often did not receive reciprocated service from their spouses. People involuntarily excluded from the work place were made dependents on the welfare system, where their basic rights were infringed upon because of their dependence. Racism barred equally and sometimes more qualified minority candidates from employment. In these roles, it is difficult to gain a footing in politics because as a disadvantaged group your voice is made less significant.

In a previous reading, the ghetto firehouse closures targeted poorer neighborhoods as a grander scheme to force them out. Wealthier neighborhoods, with a stronger political force were able to have that firehouses reopened even though fires more often affected ghettos. Their basic rights to services were purposefully withheld and some residents had no choice but to flee. Neighborhoods fighting gentrification tried pushing for affordable units in new developments. However, these units don’t reflect the true need of the group and costs of goods rise as businesses begin catering to the newcomers. The original residents were forced out as they moved to more affordable neighborhoods. Even though this seemed like a policy victory the force of gentrification undermined the original goal.

Though these problems appear hopeless in the sense that one group wins and another continues to suffer with a limited ability of backlash, I don’t believe the poor can be forced out of the city. In the readings, it said the wealthy classes owned the means of production and profitted off of the labor of the working class. The wealthy are therefore dependent on the poor and middle class. If the lower classes organized and refused to sell their service then their concerns would be more respected since they would gain the upper hand of the dependent- dependee relationship. If the poor were forced out, no one would be left to fill the roles of menial and low skilled jobs. Their income levels would not allow them to move to middle class suburban outskirts, much less afford to travel to work every day. I think that the rich cannot exist if there is no lower group to exploit, but there is a limit to how much you can take advantage of them before they revolt.

Discussion Question: What is the limit of gentrification, urban renewal, and displacement that the city can experience before it is no longer functional?

Can disadvantaged groups and the wealthy ever exist on a level playing field in a capitalistic, neoliberal society?

Reading Response

Community, Part 1: Development and Control

Redeveloping and revitalizing communities is primarily a responsibility of the government for its people. Ironically, blighted communities that seem to need the most assistance to combat poverty and the negativities it entails receive it the least. Community development through public assistance, public housing, and public projects has not been sufficient and brought about social stigma. These projects planned out by committees mainly consisting of the elite overshadowed neighborhood interest and forced a Robert Moses style planning approach. The creation of CDC’s was meant to return control to communities but as funding was cut more severely it became a business interest. The pattern with poorer neighborhoods seems to be that the lack of a strong political foothold causes them to lose out on their own planning.
More affluent neighborhoods can follow a Jane Jacobs approach to community planning because of privately sourced funding. Private capital has become of utmost importance in the age of neoliberalism for getting ahead. The New Deal reforms that promoted home ownership and low interest loans served as a boost for the middle class after the Depression but those in deeper poverty were not helped. This again shows the disparity between political influence. The government chose to invest in the communities that appeared to be more promising but left the poorer areas on their own. Post war surplus introduced urban renewal which catered again to an upper class interest.
In the second chapter one of the conclusions was that in order for members of poorer communities to break the poverty cycle their best option is to move out. In the film “El Barrio” there was one member of the Latino community who was more successful and thus able to move into a more expensive development. This changed his perspective on impoverished communities when he spoke about the public housing that was right outside of him. This serves to show how the solution is not clear and despite historical and ongoing efforts of various organizations these demographic differences still exist.

Reading Response 2

A Time of Crisis

Last week’s readings focused on how ethnocentric ideals and a biased lens forced out thriving communities under the name of “urban renewal.” Though there were social consequences of lost connections and economic challenges in starting over,  studies have also shown correlations with urban decay and health problems.

Slum neighborhoods experienced reduced fire protection services. Overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, and aging structures left these already blighted neighborhoods at higher risk for fires. When inadequate funding forced firehouses to shut down, these services were typically cut in a poorer area. Because these areas were already prone to fire danger, the incidence of fires increased greatly. One suspected cause is that these areas, already subjected to decay, were not seen worthy of protecting. The natural destruction of fire would bring about clearance and make these areas available for redevelopment. Instead of forced clearance, intentional neglect and the decay process would cause these neighborhoods to fall apart and residents to eventually move out. The increase in fires prompted for reopening of fire houses, but all 4 of them were in low-risk areas. This shows political motivation behind denial of these important services as a tool for urban renewal.

People began to flee these neighborhoods and there were many abandoned properties left behind. As the city seized them, poor planning caused them to fall apart and some squatters moved in to repair and recover. The city wanted to put these properties for sale, but because of the location and poor conditions buyers did not want to take risks in purchasing them. Some were sold off in risk free auctions and other became dumps. Political organization against this treatment lead to backlash, but little policy change. The reason for this is perhaps the minimal influence that such groups had in politics. Even though they rallied and tried to make a change, their interests were not represented in city actions. This was similar to how neighborhoods were relocated in urban renewal projects – they had little to say because they did not have effective political power. It seems that the desirability factor was based on how “white” the neighborhood was. The white neighborhood’s organizing and protesting efforts were always taken more seriously and as a result more successful.

Health consequences of overcrowded, poor living conditions included psychological stress and infectious disease. Those who had the strongest social ties were most impacted by this stress, which resulted in increased vulnerability to sicknesses and alcoholism. Living conditions created breeding grounds for diseases such as tuberculosis and increased transmissions. Separating the poor and confining them to slums had severe health consequences. The solution, which would have been to increase services to these areas and enact new laws to improve minimum living standards was not implemented because these communities were not seen as worth saving. There was not enough real estate value and developers did not want to take risks.

When I was reading the Public Health article, the impoverished neighborhoods (Brownsville, East New York, South Bronx, etc.) immediately rang in my mind as “the ghetto.” They tend to have a greater minority population and cheaper rent because they are not desirable places to live. Even though so many years have passed and the country as a whole has been moving in a progressive direction, these neighborhoods continue to be disadvantaged and receive less resources. These shortcomings have negative health consequences and especially impact the poor.

Discussion Question: How can impoverished neighborhoods increase their value in politicians’ eyes and gain influence? How can negative health consequences be avoided?

 

Reading Response

Roots of 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?