California’s “justice system” is so ingrained with institutional racism that it astounds me.  How is it that a group of policy makers decided that putting people in cages would help the state out of its economic slump? Other countries have done well without further instituting racism and raising spending on incarceration. It is so ingrained in American culture to hold on to our very racist past that these are the solutions that the government comes up with. The United States lags behind the world in areas such as education, healthcare, and maternity leave, but leads the world in defense and incarceration spending.

Recently, I went to a conference where I learned that many Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare despite the main population’s extreme racism. This surprised me because America is the same, if not less racist, but does not have this health equity. I asked the speaker about this and learned the key difference: Scandinavian countries, like Sweden, realize their need for minority and immigrant workers and respect this need, whereas, America does not. Whether or not this is entirely beneficial, is hard to say. However, it does get rid of institutional racism and, perhaps, prevents things like the prison industrial complex.

Question: What attempts have been made to combat the prison industrial complex?

In all honesty, I thought this article was, to say the least, a bit over the top. I understand that Davis was trying to portray this new level of policing and the complete lack of truly public space in a shocking light in order to make people realize what is going on. However, he speaks of a city that is completely bereft of goodness and social activism. When, in truth, there are many organizations and individuals who are completely opposed to the disenfranchisement of poor and minority groups.

On the other hand, I do agree that because the upper classes own most of the wealth, and have all the power, our society is geared toward discrimination and unfairness. More belongs to the rich because they have the power to take it.  I do enjoy the inherit parallels of the “American Dream” that Davis draws and the negation of this dream. He does so by saying that many streets are not free for certain people to walk down and that the opportunities in business districts are not for everyone.

Question: How can we even begin to take the power away from the rich and put it back into the hands of the general populace?

“Quality of life policing” is probably one of the most hypocritical and unjust phrases I have ever heard. It is supposedly aimed at making neighborhoods and cities safer and more enjoyable places to live. However, this better quality of living is not for everyone. It is reserved only for those who fit or conform to society’s standards of what is considered “normal.”  For those who do not fit into this very narrow category, quality of life is significantly decreased.

Broken windows theory is an idea used to support zero tolerance and quality of life policing. Interestingly enough, this theory can be used to describe this type of policing. If we allow police officers to do whatever they please when it comes to “enforcing the law,” they will take advantage of vulnerable populations. Many police officers have gone unpunished for serious CRIMES they have committed under the guise of zero tolerance policing.

Also, quality of life policing is meant to improve PUBLIC spaces, when it is really taking these spaces away from the public, especially those who need it most. Our country spends the most on incarceration instead of things like healthcare.

Question: Should there be a zero tolerance policy placed on police officers?

Luckily for us, we are starting the topic of income inequality in the very same week that Hillary Clinton announced her 2016 presidential campaign!  Much of her economic policies address the issues discussed in this week’s readings. Their main focus was that much of the power resides with the wealthy 1%. This minority controls society, politics, infrastructure, and public space because of the amount of money they acquire each year. Unfortunately, government policy is either helping to widen the gap or doing nothing to decrease the gap. The article “Oxfam Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016,” says that since 2010 the wealth of the poorest half of the world is decreasing while the wealth of the rich 1% is increasing.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems to address all of these issues. She mentions that the odds are stacked in favor of the rich and that middle class families need help. She wants to stop the tax cuts for those making over $250,000 so that more money can go into health care and infrastructure. Improving infrastructure for the poorer classes, puts public space back  into the hands of the public. I certainly am ready for Hillary.

Question: If the richest classes control politics, will this be a difficult race for Hillary to win?Source for Hillary Clinton’s policies: http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm

After Hurricane Katrina hit, most of the news coverage showed the destruction that this deadly storm had created and what was being done to help those who had been affected. However, the news told nothing of the great inequality and complete loss of humanity that those of lower income witnessed. Reading about how minorities in New Orleans were dealt with in the aftermath of Katrina felt like reading a dystopian novel. I don’t understand why hard-hit communities were basically put under military dictatorship and why community members were treated like animals. These people needed HELP not abuse. Who were these police officers and soldiers protecting? It was certainly not the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The only possible explanation I could come up with besides these officers being the embodiment of pure evil, is what was talked about in the documentary Land of Opportunity. The article, “Police Brutality and Hurricane Katrina,” talked about a protest to prevent the demolition of 4,500 units of public housing that resulted in extreme violence of the police toward protestors. This exemplifies one of the main themes of the documentary: the government utilized a natural disaster to further its own agenda at the expense of the poor.

Question: How do we get local governments to actually care about the cities they are supposed to serve instead of caring about budget cuts?

The “Cities Under Siege” article talks a lot about the fact that most urban areas are inhabited by minority groups who are usually of the lower-income classes and that suburbs are inhabited by mostly white people of the upper classes. However, I feel that this paradigm does not really fit New York City.  Anyone who lives in NYC knows that everything here is more expensive and that each borough, with the exception of Staten Island, is extremely diverse in terms of race and socioeconomic status. Nonetheless, Manhattan is the most expensive area to live in and can be considered the “inner city” when compared to the other boroughs. Most people have to move to the surrounding boroughs because of this rise in cost of living. Yet, Manhattan as a whole is still quite diverse. This fits in with how things were dealt with during Hurricane Sandy. Manhattan was helped first while some parts of other boroughs were left by the way side. This is especially true of southern Staten Island, a practically all-white neighborhood that was hardest hit by the storm. Although the rest of the country might fit the “inner city” and suburb paradigm, New York does not.

How then, can we explain the lack of aid that outer city areas of New York received?

Walking along the streets of Brooklyn today, one can easily tell when they are entering an area that is being gentrified. All of a sudden, the stores, condition of the houses, and population begin to change. Houses no longer look dilapidated and old, local mom and pop stores are replaced by new expensive stores, and the average working class person becomes a hipster or yuppie. Many of the stores in a gentrified neighborhood really reflect the new population and a sort of “culture of gentrification.” Surprisingly enough, this was also happening when gentrification took place in the ’80s and ’90s. The Smith article talks about the urban frontier myth of gentrification and the culture created around it.

In the ’80s and ’90s a lot of fashion and home decor were centered around the wild west. Men and women began to wear bandanas and boots brandishing a style called “cowboy chic.” A lot of Tex-mex restaurants began popping up and people began to decorate their apartments with furniture made from animal hide. A lot of the products however were made with conservation in mind. This is similar to the products in gentrified neighborhoods where many of the products say “free range” or “organic.”

Question: Is it gentrification culture or simply rich culture?

All around New York, signs of gentrification are obvious. Areas like Cortelyou Road and Park Slope in Brooklyn and the St. George area in Staten Island are a few places that I know the most about in terms of gentrification. Park Slope is one of the areas spoken about in the first reading, “The Birth of Gentrification.” In this reading, two case studies of gentrification were compared. One in Park Slope, Brooklyn and one in Barnsbury, London. It was interesting to see that both areas started off as wealthy, became low income, and then experienced gentrification, becoming wealthy once again. Both also experienced gentrification around the same time, about a decade after the second world war. However, Barnsbury is an example of value gap and Park Slope is an example of rent gap.

In Barnsbury, companies were able to remove tenants for a fee and buy real estate for a very low price. Then they renovated the apartment or house and were able to sell it or rent it at a much higher price. In Park Slope, homesteading and the Brownstone movement, in which pioneers renovated brownstones in order to rent them at exorbitant prices, took hold.

Question: How can we focus on rehabilitation at a reasonable price rather than renovation at an exorbitant price?