In this world of inequity and inequality, one thing that you would think everyone is affected by equally is nature, right?

Wrong. The more vulnerable and underprivileged you are, the more damage you endure. And to top it all off, those sites that get hit the hardest (and thus, need the most aid) aren’t the ones who receive the money or resources.

Miriam Greenberg in “The Disaster Inside the Disaster” makes it very clear that recovery efforts following natural disasters, especially in urban areas, have not been very successful. This is largely due to the fact that aid and resource distribution after the disaster hits is not done in an effective and proportionate manner. Time and time again, we see that “low-income, disproportionately non-white communities, workers, and small businesses, the primary victims of disaster, were further disadvantaged in receiving aid, while wealthy, disproportionately white neighborhoods and high-end industries were privileged” (Greenberg 46). As Greenberg mentions, the recovery efforts following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and 9/11 in New York City share many similar qualities including the very important fact that, in both cases, billions of dollars were used to fund real estate developments, corporations, and wealthy neighborhoods. These areas were increasing in wealth and population while gentrifying low-income neighborhoods and displacing residents who had already lost everything.

William Donner and Havidán Rodríguez in “Disaster Risk and Vulnerability: The Role and Impact of Population and Society” state that vulnerability in this specific context refers to “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard.” Here, Donner and Rodríguez make a similar claim to that of Greenberg. Essentially, different types of people with different resources and socioeconomic statuses go through different levels of suffering before, during, and after a natural disaster occurs. Instead of providing aid to the people who need it most, it is given to the people and neighborhoods that will bring (and have brought in) the most money.

Which brings in the idea of “environmental gentrification” proposed by Melissa Checker in “Green is the New Brown.” The idea is that green initiatives–like closing down power plants and creating more parks and farmer’s markets–are put in place to make the low-income neighborhood more appealing to the wealthy and make it appear more livable (Checker 159). I don’t know about you but if that doesn’t raise some red flags then frankly I’m not sure what will.

The problem isn’t just with not receiving aid after the disaster but begins even from prevention. One issue that Donner and Rodríguez raise is the language barrier of a large portion of the underprivileged. Because weather warnings and other cautionary instructions are provided in English (if provided at all), those who are unfamiliar with the language can easily misinterpret the warning and not be able to help themselves. Whether it’s on prevention or recovery, there needs to be a serious conversation and a more meaningful effort on discussing this issue. Why is it that the same people are constantly beaten down and the same people are always winning?

 

Sources:

Donner W, Rodríguez H (2011) “disaster risk and vulnerability: the role and impact of population and society. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2011/disaster-risk.aspx (last accessed 7 May 2017)

“The Disaster Inside the Disaster,” Greenberg, Miriam. 2014. New Labor Forum, 23 (1): 44-52

“Green is the New Brown: ‘Old School Toxics’ and Environmental Gentrification on a New York City Waterfront,” Checker, Melissa. 2014. In Sustainability in the Global City: Myth and Practice, pp. 157-179

The recession of 1989-1992 caused planners to redefine what makes a good plan for the future of the city. In A Region at Risk, Yaro says that “narrowly focused, one-issue-at-a-time strategic planning” was very common at the time but that practice was dangerous and would lead to the government disregarding the needs of the poor and elderly. The drafters of the Third Regional Plan suggest an alternative approach, one that Yaro called the “three E’s”–economy, equity, and environment–as a way to act in the interests of what they consider an “undefinable ‘public interest’” (Yaro and Hiss, 1996). I, however, would like to question the true consequences of such an ideology, namely, gentrification.

The three E’s essentially stand as the basic foundations of what Yaro considers the “components of our quality of life.” In order to have a high quality of life, we must remember three things: the economies of our cities and suburbs are interconnected and if one fails, the other will fail with it; we do not live on this earth alone so our lives are inarguably connected with those of our family, neighbors, and peers; we all live in the same area and breathe the same air. As a result, it is important for us to understand why the three E’s must be equally considered and strengthened.

In theory, it all seems great and well-intended to not focus solely on money or power (although those are important in terms of the growth of a city). However, this idea of our “quality of life” that Yaro and the RPA mention is what causes me to question the validity of this approach in growth while maintaining equality among residents. In many instances in Chapter 5 of Larson’s Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind, he reiterates what makes a certain region’s quality of life appealing to “highly skilled workers,” “high-value industries,” and “white-collar potential workforces.” The RPA was intentionally trying to appeal to a certain crowd in order to make the city globally competitive (Larson 2013). As a result, with the RPA’s attempts to improve the quality of life and thus, with its attempts to attract more highly skilled white-collar workers, the proposed plan to implement the three E’s inadvertently contributed to the gentrification of the city. As more of these highly skilled workers came to these now “aesthetic” neighborhoods, the property value increased and the lower income, less skilled previous residents were displaced elsewhere.

An example of this concept can be seen in a review of a case study done in Chicago and Seattle for the gentrifying effects of a “green economy.” In “A tale of two cities: Equity, environment, and economic growth in urban areas,” Wu states that “while lower-income residents are appreciative of the green services, they are increasingly worried about the gentrifying effects of green growth that has occurred throughout the rest of the city.” Although planners claim that the efforts to improve the quality of life is inclusive for everyone, it is clear that the consequences of the green economy will disproportionately benefit one group over another. While assuring the people that environmentally friendly jobs will be created, in this case study it was shown that the city government approved plans for a cement plant and the expansion of an oil refinery, both of which would require skilled workers as well as not help the environment (Wu 2016).

While I understand the intentions of the RPA in its plans of reconnecting the three E’s in order to create what it considers a globally competitive region, I think it is important for us to consider the effects of such plans. If the goal is the achieve global competitiveness but the means involve displacing the people who make up the diversity that propels the success of the region, is it worth it?

Larson S. (2013) Planning and the Narrative of Threat. Larson S. “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City (pp 61-76). Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Wu A. (2016) a tale of two cities: equity, environment, and economic growth in urban areas. http://environment.yale.edu/yer/article/a-tale-of-two-cities-equity-environment-and-economic-growth-in-urban-areas#gsc.tab=0 (last accessed 24 March 2017)

Yaro R. D. and Hiss T. (1996) A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for The New York- New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. Washington D.C.: Island Press