Mar
10
Blog Post #6: De Facto Segregation
March 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Reading the article from CNN, I found it shocking to learn that zoning has caused some buildings to have separate entrances and rental residents are not allowed to use amenities offered by the condo simply because they are not apartment owners. David von Spreckelsen commented about the building, saying that the buildings operate on different systems to separate owners and renters, not the poor and the rich. Yet, it is a fact that the owners are owners because they can afford the buy the apartment while renters are renters because they cannot afford to buy the apartment. As such, renters and owners are divided because their incomes are different. These types of buildings make it this income segregation extremely apparent.
Reading through the DailyNews article was definitely irritating as it only praises the effects of zoning. It does not look at zoning from both sides – the rich and the poor. Instead, it is offering an argument that has been rehashed over and over again. The writer claims that we should not be ashamed of the high inequality experienced in New York. Yet, this inequality is what causes the poor to grow poorer year after year and the top 1% to grow exponentially richer. This is definitely not a positive aspect of inequality and zoning.
With the addition of zoning, we are seeing the stark differences between the living conditions of the poor, the middle class, and the rich. We are seeing the rich raising housing prices in areas to the point where the poor and even the middle class cannot afford. We are seeing the poor segregated into areas with poorer education, higher crime rate, and decreasing quality of infrastructure. We are see low- and middle-class tenants treated as “second-class citizens. It’s de facto segregation.”
We say that racial segregation is unconstitutional. People of color should be treated the same as everyone else. They are not sub-citizens. Yet, that is what we are doing based on income. Poor and middle-income citizens are not being treated equally. Following this line of thinking, I also found it shocking that the Supreme Court upheld zoning’s constitutionality because segregation is a good thing. In its explanation, the poor were called “parasites,” taking “advantage of the attractive surroundings” the rich enjoyed. A court whose sole purpose to uphold equality and fairness in the country taking on such an argument is absurd. Of course, those paying more should have more benefits. However, completely barring the poor from amenities is completely unfair. The poor can also pay a premium for certain amenities. That way, they are still able to have a choice. Currently, they do not. They are stripped of the option to do so.
I would not live in a building segregated based on income. Walking through a separate entrance would constantly remind me of the line dividing income classes. I would be uncomfortable walking through the door, no matter which one. I do not understand how people can state the pros of income inequality and income segregation through zoning when it is the same as racial segregation but with a different criteria. Zoning laws should be loosened and those in the lower income brackets should have more support through subsidized housing if we ever hope to decrease the income inequality prevalent in this city.
-Amy (SiJia) You
