In regards to the United States incarceration system, this first piece by Norbal Morris and David J. Rothman discusses the system in action in the west-coast state of California. This may be personal bias but I do not think that this issue is a new issue that people are going to be surprised to hear about. The prison system, as the article states, has adopted this principle of mass-incarceration of people for misdemeanors like drug possession since before many of us in this class were even born. The reason given is that there is an “excess” of people–too many people with low-income jobs. The remedy proposed was a series of laws that would effectively put these people into a cyclic machine that would be more productive (in terms of revenue generation) than their current low to no income activities would. I think that if we could find a way to give these people a way to integrate into society more successfully, we would have less of a difficult time appeasing people who are supportive of this current system.

Question: With this mass-incarceration system being tied to the war on drugs, how can we separate the two now that they have become so thoroughly interlinked?

In this Huffington Post article regarding the gentrification of Bushwick, the issue of gentrification consequences is discussed. The author interviews a local resident East WillyB and discusses the problems that gentrification has caused this area of Brooklyn. Bushwick is home to Williamsburg, a notorious hipster center (especially with the food festival coming up this summer). With the increasing rent prices, people have been forced to pay more or move out. The displacement of older residents is apparent, as described by East WillyB. Those with a college education, for example, are favored against those who have not had the privilege to attend such institutions. I was happy to see that the intervewee acknowledged his privilege and admitted that he was part of this growing problem. In speaking to others who have lived through these gentrification sweeps, however, I know that the displaced residents will relocate to other areas. At the Macaulay conference, it was discussed that such outlets for residents included places like Flatbush. While they will still find a place to live, it is questionable how this cycle of being pushed from place to place will end.

Question: How can we, instead of just accepting that gentrification will move from place to place, create a space that houses the social benefits of gentrification without displacing old-time residents who cannot afford to pay the new prices that gentrification brings?

article link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sahra-vang-nguyen/the-gentrification-of-bus_b_6018048.html

I think it was interesting that the article started with a description of the militarization urban space using the terms middle class and urban poor as the two warring classes. I feel like in America, this is a strange term to use because everyone generally is considered to be middle class. The gray area is only discussed when we go into the details of what exactly middle class means here. For some people, middle class is defined as being able to own multiple flat-screen televisions and gaming consoles, while struggling to meet ends with rent payments and struggling to afford healthy meals. For others, it means sending their children to the second-best private elementary school in the city and being able to afford a house and organic food. All of these people are middle class, so it is a little ambiguous to use it in such a context. However, the urban poor may also be considered to be part of that lower end of the economic spectrum of middle class citizens. This is, however, debatable, as people will self-identify variably.

Question: how do we address this problem of the increasing militarization of the urban space without making deeper cuts between these described groups and engaging in further class warfare?

I thought it was very interesting that someone who addresses the marginalization of the queer and colored minority populations would use terms like “narrow” to describe the liberal political thought surrounding resource partitioning for civil services like welfare policies. I think it is somewhat novel to see in this line of thought (maybe because of personal bias) expressed because the group of people and the media I am exposed to are increasingly liberal in the new sense (ie: sexual identity is not chosen; gender identity does not have ramifications on what housing you choose; rather, other economic, social and political factors decide what housing you get). However, there is a fine line between radicalism on either end of the spectrum of political alignment and I think it is important to address that because a statement like this that expresses that there are extremist liberals who think that gender has nothing to do with resource partitioning would not be looking at the situation from enough of an intersectionalist perspective. In order to fully assess any circumstance, the intersection of factors liker race, gender identity, financial politics and other social constructs must be taken into account.

Question: The text focused quite a bit on the younger demographic that is affected by police brutality and other consequences of marginalizing policies. A lot of the resistance described (against these youth) is said to come from older folk. How can we go about educating a group of older people whose argument against the youth is to “sit down” or “shut up?”

This week’s readings had a focus on the broken-windows theory of law enforcement. I think this is an important issue to address, because there is the idea that this type of policing is improving the way of life for everyone and also that laws like these that address lower-level crimes are equally enforced for all members of a given population. However, we have seen, especially for anti-vagrancy laws, that this is not the case. Often for laws like no drinking in public, urination in public, loitering or sleeping on public transit, the enforcement is very subjective, with emphasis on criminalizing acts that are done by homeless people, for instance. This allows for gaps in the system to target people based on housing status, gender, sexuality, race, and other classifications that allow for minority marginalization. To address this unequal enforcement of the law, we should first bring attention to the fact that these policies may have been designed to improve the quality of life for all, but are instead causing stark divisions in our society.

Question: How can we modify zero tolerance policing to maintain a society in which personal biases and prejudices are not as easily allowed to affect law enforcement?

This week’s readings, especially the New York times article on the Oxfam study, focus on the widening gap in wealth distribution between the rich and the poor. If one percent of the people will control half of the world’s wealth, the question of why capitalism is still seen as the preferred and dominant economic system is brought to light. When the wealthy control this much of the total money on the planet, there exists the need to write articles like the one on the Billionaires’ Park. Philanthropic acts and charity are acts that are done at the mercy of those who have the financial means to do so. Fixing parks and other public functions are no longer done when they need to be, but rather, when the money for doing so becomes available. This is not to say that ideal systems like communism would work, for we do not exist in an entirely capitalistic society either. The issue then becomes a matter of distributing wealth in the fairest way without causing violent protest (ie: if we just created a mandate to ensure that every person in the USA has only 2,000 dollars to spend every month–something radical like that).

Question: In what way can we best resolve this wealth gap (smoothly and peacefully)? Is such a proposal even possible?

In this article, the issue of displacement is discussed. The article describes displacement as a phenomenon that occurs when the area of residence becomes hazardous or otherwise unsuitable for living. I think it is important to define this upfront, because often, people without the means to move to other housing stay in an area that may not be safe for living. I am very glad the article brought up the issue of improving an area without displacing the current residents. Often, (and in many of the examples our class has seen so far), the renovation of an area calls for the removal of a large portion of the original residents. The beginning of the text discusses the efforts of grassroots movements, but it is also important to remember that change is needed in both top-down and bottom-up formats to maximize the success of any movement. Though it is important to have a bottom-up perspective in any attempt to change current norms, I believe the article brings up a good point that grass-roots movements have support bases in populations that may not be trained to work in the area they are trying to change. For this reason, it is also important to have some professional help, say from professional urban planners, to guide the movement.

Question/ issue: I find it interesting that the article states that it is a common myth that urban planning is neutral and has not part in the political arena. Maybe it is personal bias, (because other classes and this class, have focused on the inherently political nature of urban design) but I do not think this is a common misconception to anyone who would be reading this article.

In the “Law Enforcement Violence & Disaster” article from Incite-National, there was extensive description of the grievances committed against mainly black women, especially LGBT women of color. At the time of the floods, I was too young to fully understand the impact of racial politics in the handling of natural disasters, but I am very glad that we are learning about this in our curriculum now. This is the first time I have encountered the struggle of colored trans women in academic media in my educational experience. Up until now, I had only ever been informed of this group’s struggles in my personal time on alternative media sources.

Although I realize that a website like Incite National may write in a certain tone to gain the sympathy of its readers, I realize that this empathetic writing style may be necessary in elucidating a problem that may be invisible to much of mainstream America.

Question: How can we shape future policy to better amend issues that our readings bring up? How can we better educate our youth to bring to light the issues that marginalized groups like black trans women face?

In Lisa Foderardo’s New York Times article on the Climate March of 2014, the issue of imminent anthropogenic destruction of the earth is discussed. From the lens of the protestors at this movement, climate change is a pressing issue that is closer than a lot of politicians would like to believe. From the way the article was written, the author seems to believe that the protest was well intentioned, but not heavily structured. Forderardo lists groups based on their appearances and rather than painting a portrait of solidarity amongst diversity, I felt that she was trying to portray an image of passion without any real direction. The grandmothers against climate change seem to have little to do with the topless women other than the fact that they all have something against climate change. However, I do believe that this means that the author may support these movements and support educating the public at large on slowing, if not stopping the effects of human damage on the environment.

She points out that we are have, in 2014, broken the record for the highest ambient temperatures; and she suggests that this is how we shall proceed if we do not inform the public on its erroneous ways.

One thing I am curious about is how people address the strange juxtaposition of actions. People at the climate march were ardent in their protests, but ended up creating a large mess. Lots of litter was present when the march ended; how does this paint environmental advocates in the public eye?

In “Brooklyn Tenants Battle Gentrification on Many Fronts,” Ian Marsh discusses tenant protests of gentrification in their neighborhoods. Though gentrification may improve the outer appearance of an area, it often increases the market pressures and people who can no longer keep up with the finances of living in a gentrified area are forced to move elsewhere. As the article puts it, “predatory landlords” capitalize off of the increased value of property in gentrifying areas. This allows them to increase the amount they collect for rent. However, groups like the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, the Crown Heights Tenant Union, and the Pratt Area Community Council are working to unify citizens against the phenomenon of gentrification. I believe that though the issue of gentrification is often brought up, people can be swayed by the fact that gentrification brings more money to an area and can make it look improved. However, underlying issues like housing displacement are a real concern, and need to be addressed when phenomena like this are happening across the world in cities with gentrifying cities.

Question: how can we lessen the negative effects of gentrification while still bringing the improvement of infrastructure and services to an area? How can we keep old tenants while still improving public right of way?