Author Archives: courttakats14

Reading Response 4

Posted on by
Reply

It’s unreal to consider how the very beginning of gentrification would mimic so closely the current problems being found. It is, however, interesting to see how it’s progressed from movement into the city to movement within the city. At its genesis, it seems people from outside city limits would move into the city and raise the prices of rent and living tremendously. Now, however, it appears that this move comes from people of one area of the city into a new “up and coming neighborhood;” this is probably so that the movers will save some money, disregarding how much money the people already there will lose. In “The Birth of Gentrification,” a new resident of a gentrifying area is quoted as saying, “I like to smile at them and stop for a talk. But I don’t want to have tea with them” (Lees 19). This is a sentiment from the 1960’s; it’s sickening to think that this mentality hasn’t seemed to change. Perhaps it’s possible with proper planning to enact “brownstoning” without pushing out the current populous, but would that eradicate the tension that so obviously still exists?

Meeting Report – Crown Heights

Posted on by
Reply

The ULURP committee had a meeting on February 4 with the goal of answering questions about the recent proposal to apply upzoning to most of the area. The meeting was intended to resolve some of the residents’ fears and trepidations about the project, but the whole thing felt more like an episode of Jerry Springer. Amid the more relevant questions of the availability of affordable housing and the survival of small business were angry residents who were too emotional to fully convey their points. One lady went so far as to boo a speaker away from the podium and demand that the committee look each resident in the face before “kicking them out of their homes.”

It’s no secret, then, that there is much hostility about the prospect of high-rises and more expensive rent. The question was brought up over and over of what would be lost by not going through with the upzoning project. One Crown Heights resident, a middle-aged man, made a very good point; he averred that the committee needs to prioritize before upzoning, deciding whether it’s more important to make money or help the community. The committee responded by saying that the promised goal was to preserve the community while making it more financially prospective, but failed to delve into details on how this would be ensured.

As the Crown Heights residents went up to speak, the emphasis on community was apparent. Most speakers told their stories and shared how they wouldn’t be able to afford rent if the project went through. These speakers were supported by the audience, and someone went so far as to plead with the committee that: “we’re a community. I love these people. I don’t want to lose that.”

It seems the biggest concerns lied in the fact that with upzoning comes more expensive buildings. The poorest people would be pushed out and replaced because they can’t afford rent; those who were able to keep their domiciles would face issues with the more expensive market that would inevitably arise. Diversity, some residents argued, would be crushed; the neighborhood would become dominated only by “yuppies” who could afford the new expenses. Where would that leave the rest of the residents? Where would they have left to escape to?

The MTOPP, a neighborhood-born coalition, was present and passed out flyers. These detailed the many ways transit-oriented development in America has failed people in the past, citing San Francisco and Seattle as examples. Though their mission is with a good heart, much of the pamphlet was rife with propaganda and contradictions.

It seems to me that upzoning will, indeed, ruin much of the current community of Crown Heights. However, a louder voice needs to emerge to speak for the neighborhood, one that maintains a clear track of logic and who can represent fully the diverse community there. Until then, it appears that upzoning will most likely continue, and the people will end up displaced – or at least with the constant threat of displacement looming.

 

MTOPP’s website: http://mtopp.org

Community Board 9: http://www.communitybrd9bklyn.org/committees/

Reading Reflection 3

Posted on by
Reply

In reading, “De Blasio’s Doomed Housing Plan,” I was first taken aback by the fact that a “minimum wage earner would have to work 139 per week” (Stein) to afford the average apartment in New York. I find myself agreeing more with the article and less with the ideas of inclusionary zoning because with an AMI so high, very few people will be able to afford said housing. This sounds more to me like a tactic for it to appear that the poorer people are being helped while still appeasing the upper class. As one man told me whilst speaking on the sidewalk the other day: “You don’t have a voice unless you have money, because money is power.” Even so, with the main problem being that there are so many homeless individuals, why would it make sense to provide housing of about $61,000? This seems counterintuitive; it won’t help those people who need it most. Is public housing the answer to these dilemmas or are the problems in that just not being discussed?

Crown Heights Neighborhood Observation

Posted on by
Reply

My sister and I had a running joke when I was first moving into Flatbush, because I worked at a Subway restaurant at the time and she worked at a frozen yogurt shop. As we drove into my new home, she gestured at a Subway by the college and said, “Look, you can stop complaining about being first-wave gentrification scum. It’s already here.” “Subway’s are everywhere,” I said, “It’s you froyo kids we’ve got to look out for.” That’s why, when I began walking around Crown Heights and saw that there was a frozen yogurt shop that’s opening soon, I knew I’d see economic tension further in the neighborhood.

I went today (Thursday, February 12) around 10am, and started meandering the area. Granted, it’s a holiday morning and so not many people were out and about, but this is New York and there are always passersby everywhere. Not knowing where to start, I walked down Franklin Avenue and immediately collided headfirst with yuppiedom. There’s a cute little food market on the corner of Franklin and Lincoln, in front of which I hung out for a while – there was much foot traffic there, so I figured it was as good a place to start as any. Inside, there lay assorted artisanal snacks: scandinavian treats, individually wrapped Belgian waffles, packaged crepes. The people who walked on by were of the sort you’d expect: individuals with designer glasses, talking about their new vitamix and looking for quaint cafes. These cafes I discovered as I kept walking, along with Veggies natural juice bar and a gourmet shop that sold vegan marshmallows. The closer I grew to Park Place, the more trendy and expensive the boutiques became.

I retreated, moving back toward Eastern Parkway. Along that thoroughfare, many row houses stood and many people stood on their stoops to greet the day. I hunkered down along that area, to see who I might encounter. In this area, most of the people who walked by were middle-aged and black, leaving their homes to commute to their jobs elsewhere. I said good morning to some men on their stoop, and one called back, “Mornin’ Ms. Park Place.” Looking back, it was probably a derogatory statement, but at the time I was just excited to have an interaction. I asked him what he meant, said I lived in Flatbush and not Park Place. Immediately, the demeanor of the three men changed. One, whose name was Darnell, said he had assumed I was a rich girl. I laughed and told him that, to be fair, I was originally from the suburbs. He said it didn’t matter, because here I was now. I got to talking to the men, the four of us griping about monetary issues and the like. When I mentioned I had gone to a community board meeting in their area that had been about the gentrification and possible upzoning of the neighborhood, they were pessimistic. “It doesn’t matter what we say,” Darnell said, “We don’t have the money to back it.”

My whole experience perusing Crown Heights demonstrates the muted tension in the neighborhood as Park Place presses in and those who have been living there feel financial pressure to leave.

Reading Response 2

Posted on by
Reply

A very interesting point brought up by the New Yorker article, “Hidden City,” was the repeated assertion that it costs more to find temporary housing for the homeless through a flawed system than it would cost to directly pay the homeless individual. As mentioned by one lady in an interview, welfare pays, “three thousand four hundred and forty-four dollars! Every month! Give me nine hundred dollars of that every month and I’ll find me and my kids an apartment, I promise you” (Frazier). While I agree that often the system for housing the homeless is more expensive (in the long run) than offering affordable housing and always more expensive than giving dividends with which to pay for housing, there is an overlooked problem of where that money may go. For instance, if there is somebody who is homeless because of a chemical addiction or alcoholism, the money he or she receives will not necessarily go towards finding affordable housing. However, if there is found a way around this issue – perhaps through a screening and medical examination – the idea of giving money straight to the individual and cutting out the middlemen of PATH and other services is one worth pursuing. What ways, if any, offer a practical possible solution in this vein?

Reading Response 1

Posted on by
Reply

I was particularly taken by the second article, as it detailed the lack of sympathy I often take issue with when reading about the intricacies of black poverty. The de-politicization of struggles inherent in “inner city” communities (mentioned on page 6) is perhaps the biggest obstacle to overcome when attempting to better the areas through official action. Often, this mentality fails to view the state of poverty with any empathy and instead dismisses it. By arguing that the disparate quality of life between “mainstream America” and the “inner city” is due to “a breakdown of family values and structure” (6), rather than any overarching inequalities, allows for those making said accusations to both: vilify the people stuck in this impoverished cycle; and remove themselves from the moral obligation of helping. If black poverty is seen as a fault of the people involved, it becomes infinitely easier to aver that there’s nothing an outsider can do, or should do. Obviously the creation of policy cannot be ruled by emotion, but how much – if any – focus should be placed on empathy?