From Katz’s piece, it sees as though the term “underclass” went through a metamorphosis of meanings. From the 1970s to the 21^st century, it found associations with everything from negativity and pity to spirited hope amidst adverse conditions.

To begin, I found that a key part of defining or even mentioning the underclass in academia, newspapers, and other media stemmed from the allocation of funds through public policy.  Where public money is spent, there follows harsh criticism and a need for evaluation. It is almost as though an entire social science category was born out of the need to explain the question of poverty in regards to culture, environment, and the distribution of money (welfare). The result of integrating research and public policy is the polarization of perceptions because even amidst objective research, results are skewed by private agendas (whether conservative or liberal) to advocate a cause. The direct result of such polarization is likely the reason our “underclass” in the 21^st century carries a different meaning than the “underclass” forty years ago.

In the 1970s, the underclass was typically viewed as undeserving poor whose circumstance was a function of their own behavior. Researchers attempted to explain that social isolation, or lack of supervision and role models, bred a culture of poverty. In addition, the most common image of poverty was of an African American woman raising her children through the support of welfare. As much as anthropologist tried to remove the image and supplant it with an objective framework to judge the cause of poverty, private agendas continued to anchor perceptions. A prime example is the work of Oscar Lewis, who discussed the “culture of poverty” in hopes of stirring activists for his cause. He achieved no such feat and the term became a speaking point that advocated punitive public policy. Yet, we now live in a culture where the underclass is labeled as undeserving poor, but rather, as those lacking the right opportunity to escape their circumstance.

To continue, the emergence of new springboard projects that give those in poverty a means of overcoming is the product of a changing perception. Whether the tool is microfinance or government supported initiatives, people in adverse economic situations have proven their capacity to progress. With this in mind, true characterization of the poor can only be attributed after opportunity is granted. Hence, it is imperative that programs be in place because it is then that behavior truly becomes responsible for a person’s economic circumstance.

From this class reading “Building the Frontier Myth” by Neil Smith, I noticed some interesting features that I have never learned before.

First, what is interesting is the way New York looked at the City back then, when it was yet to be developed, as a “frontier” and new settlers, as “urban pioneers.” It was amazing to see the way people, or rather newspaper, with their news-breaking titles and articles, look at “unknown” neighborhood with curiosity and fear: “Ludlow Street. No one we know would think of living here. No one we know has ever heard of Ludlow Street.” Even with neighborhood so familiar to us today, such as W 42nd St, was regarded by the “new settlers” as the untamed “Wild Wild West” that was to be “domesticated” by “trailblazers.” The Western Territory point of view in old cowboy movie made New York a more mythical place to live in, thus drove flocks of curious pionniers to explore the new frontier back then, making New York City the fully-and-over-capacity place that it is today. Throughout the first 2 pages of the articles, references of old cowboy movies like “Crocodile Dundee” proliferated: “optimism,” “hostile landscapes,” “natives,” “wilderness,” and the most outstanding reference of all – “manifest destiny.”

Second was the analogy made by the author about myth, as an event that achieves its long standing in history through the removal of historic and geographical context, altogether making up a cliche. The frontier myth of New York was becoming increasingly prevalent among the new settlers due to the erection of buildings named “The Dakota Apartments,” “Colorado,” “Savannah,” and “New West” with no comment about the consistency between New York and the Wild Wild West.

Third was the integration of businesses into the myth. The fable of the Wild Wild West transformed not only the buildings and facades of the City, but alo its businesses. Introduction of Tex-Mex restaurants, desert decor, and cowboy chic intoxicated the consumption of the day, along with SoHo stores selling Navajo Indian rugs, Santa Fe jewelry, terra-cotta pottery with plain store signs in front as if they were pieces of wood indifferently painted over by white paint (like in the movie). New Yorker did not only look “Western” but ate and dressed that way too.

Fourth was the fact that the frontier myth was also regarded as a “naturalization of urban history” and a place where nature was taken back to its original state.

I thought to myself that if I were to live during such an interesting episode of New York City, I would be wearing full brown leather clothes completed with boots and cowboy hat, with a toothpick half-chewed on my mouth. It would be hilarious. Yet from reading article I realized that the whole facade of the “frontier myth” was only a way for age-old New Yorkers of the day to escape “modernization” and “capitalist development” of the New World, deliberately ignoring contemporary social conflicts for the sake of “urban harmony” back in the days. It was pitiful.

Neil Smith’s “Building the Frontier Myth” addresses how frontier ideology wildly distorts and rationalizes social differentiation. At first glance, the frontier myth appears playful, optimistic, and even idyllic. However, the underlying incongruences that stems from displacing historical and geographical quality is quite dangerous.

The media has a lot of pull in establishing what we know as the “frontier myth” because of their happy-go-lucky portrayal of urban pioneers. Movies became a source of  “fact,” and stories quickly stretched beyond their original context. Soon enough, history and even geography were distorted, reframed, and applied to different situations. The Old West frontier myth began to move east, where cities began its physical and demographic transformation. Whites ventured to new wilds (the City) where they infused middle class culture and ideals in places such as Ludlow and 42 Streets. Hence, the optimistic image of soaring real estate values that is commonly associated with the frontier myth ignores the exclusion that occurs below the surface.

With this in mind, Smith suggests that frontier ideology serves to tame the wild city and rationalize social differentiation. With the new urban frontier focused on nature and fads, there still remains an exaggeration of context (both historical and geographical) that classifies the ideology as “myth.” Smith believes such line of thinking displaces both class and race. People conform to social norms and those who refuse to follow are viewed as uncivil. Hence, in regards to social differentiation, classifying the poor and working class as “uncivil” is justified through the lens of frontier ideology because they cannot afford to conform. As a result, the happy-go-lucky image portrayed in movies, newspapers, and other sources of information is met with an image of exclusion and displacement that attempts to socialize an ideology.

Altogether, I found it interesting that Smith connected the frontier myth with the topic of gentrification (or social differentiation) because the connection is often overlooked. While his ideas are logically consistent and his criticism of the frontier myth seems justified, I question whether the resulting consequence was intended or simply a byproduct of urban pioneering.

Frank Braconi points out that New York’s in rem housing policy holds semblance to no other in the country. Beginning in the 1970s, the program was intended to be a temporary solution in light of disinvestment and abandonment. However, new tax policies and changes in demographics forced the City to continue standing in the gap. When disposition programs finally commenced, there was huge controversy over who should acquire the City’s large portfolio of abandoned buildings.

The origin of in rem housing lies directly in abandonment and disinvestment of buildings by working class whites. When these middle income families moved out of inner city neighborhoods into more appealing housing, they sparked the deterioration of buildings they left behind. With the wealthier families moving out, remaining residents were typically those who struggled to find jobs and pay the rent. Hence, buildings lost their best tenants and in the face of rising cost, could not afford proper maintenance. The city anticipated problems but only made them worse by altering the tax code. As a result, those who were delinquent in their payments for a single year were evicted, causing more abandonment. With the problem spiraling out of control, the City had no choice but to acquire the troubled buildings for the time being.

Although the program was intended to be temporary, problems persisted and the City found itself in the business of managing properties. Personally, I think the Housing Preservation Department was very efficient in their approach. They focused on consolidating housing and managed to increase occupancy from 40% to 85% while getting rid of 1900 buildings. In addition, they enacted rent regulation policies and cut costs by contracting maintenance jobs. Hence, while it was not their intention to manage housing, the City seemed surprisingly effective in handling them.

When the time came to dispose of the City’s huge housing portfolio, there was controversy over whether ownership should belong to tenants, nonprofits, or private parties. Tenant ownership seemed to foster low rent and anti-landlord rhetoric, both of which were bad for maintaining a building. The local nonprofit ownership appealed to many, but it proved to reveal no clear cost efficiencies. Nonprofits were found to set initial rents too low and as a result, struggled to make up their costs. The final and most controversial disposition program supported private ownership. Activists were outspoken against these parties, citing gentrification and the incompatibility of profit making and low-income housing. With such controversy circling disposition programs, it took until the Guiliani administration before the City could substantially deplete its in rem housing.

Hence, the longevity of New York’s in rem housing distinguishes it from any other city across the country. In the face of disinvestment and abandonment, the City managed to effectively consolidate housing and sap up tax revenue. Nonetheless, the program’s continuation (and even its end) stirred controversy and discontent from all groups, making it a burden to the City.