This weeks readings seemed a bit contradictory. The author mentioned many types of community planning but then proceeded to argue why they haven’t worked out. Initially, I believed this reading would provide a solution to the displacement and gentrification problem but it didn’t. Additionally, at certain times I felt as if the author hadn’t explained each approach, such as grass root planning and rational comprehensive planning, properly. However, this was a well written introduction to the book. The author thoroughly provided a background history of each planning approach. Furthermore, this was a useful insight. I learned that displacement and gentrification is a major issue not only in New York City but all around the world. I was surprised that the housing act in the United States doesn’t specify about housing and security of tenure in comparison to housing laws in other countries. This explained why these issues have risen, Also, learning all of the various approaches will be useful in our community planning solution proposal. The author was successful in comparing and contrasting the various approaches. I think the book will achieve the author’s goal of providing a better understanding of how community land can prevent those issues while concentrating on noxious land use.

The author mentioned many approaches to community planning, which one is most efficient?

While discussing the idea of Progressive Community Planning, I was surprised to see Angotti take such a realistic approach to describing the forces involved in the housing crisis, especially in his reference to the work of Paul Davidoff. His summary of Davidoff’s work describes community planning as an inherently value-oriented affair. This was a refreshing change of pace from many previous readings which took a noble, if not fairly naive stance. While other passages seem to encourage property owners and policymakers to support housing movements out of the good of their heart, Angotti and Davidoff acknowledge the harsh truth that money *is* still extremely important to consider when engaging in community planning. While it’s often tempting to write money off as being something that only greedy and corrupt people seek, it’s good to maintain a more realistic view of how important a role money plays in community planning.

The article this week touched upon a very important concept involved in community planning: the prospect of community land. Not only does proper utilization of community land jump start the economic worth of the area in question (for example, placing a park in the neighborhood), it also promotes a sense of unity between the residents. As put in the reading, “Community planning can strengthen community land as a basic element in building a sense of place and showing that place matters” (21); when used for communal use, public land becomes an area in the neighborhood for interaction between people who wouldn’t have otherwise interacted. It’s also interesting that the article pointed out the very “modern North American tradition” (21) of using land only as a place to walk on rather than as a place of inherent importance. While I don’t think every plot of land in an urban environment should be viewed as an area with a soul, I do think it’s important to recognize that a good community park or something of the sort can easily become a “living room” of sorts for the residents in the area. If people can go to a place to feel comfortable and united with others, they will project these feelings onto those others. I suppose the major question left by this mention is that of safety. While parks and other public areas promote community and a sense of belonging, they also can sometimes give rise to delinquent behavior; how, if in any way, can this be prevented?

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.

The article about environmental racism and environmental justice proved the point from last week’s reading that the lower class were neglected before and after the storm. This point was further analyzed in the movie we watched in class, where we were able to see documentaries on those specific people who were greatly effected by this tragedy. This week’s article showed that not only were they neglected during the storm but before that as well, since they were living near toxic pollution, which creates hazardous conditions. What stuck out to me in this reading was that the author compared this natural disaster to the heat wave in Chicago. I was personally unaware of this event and by comparing the two, the author proved that the government is partially responsible for these causes and it’s more than “just a natural disaster” which is how politicians explain the situations. Furthermore, I was surprised that after so many instances the government still fails to efficiently help everyone after hurricane Sandy.

There seem to be more than one issue involved when discussing these situations so what is the real problem.. housing? poverty? rescue and relief system? capitalist society? The entire system just seems corrupt when evaluating the causes and effects of natural disasters.

The article “Toxic Soup Redux: Why Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Matter after Katrina”, is what first introduced me to the ideas of environmental racism and environmental justice. Even though I always see that racism is a concept embedded into our society, it was strange to see how it even seeps into environmental concerns. I can only say the idea makes me both shocked and concerned.

The most heartbreaking stories came from the articles “Law Enforcement Violence and Disaster” and “For Public Housing Residents After Sandy, ‘A Slow Motion Katrina’”. Both of these articles show the environmental racism that emerges from environmental disasters, specifically Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. The complete police brutality for the victims of Hurricane Katrina who could not escape from New Orleans in time is tragic, especially the emphasis on the abuse towards women and transgender individuals of color. The events in response to Hurricane Sandy also mimic this idea of environmental racism when houses in places like Cobble Hill and Park Slope, generally wealthy areas, quickly got back their utilities while houses in Gowanus and Red Hook were left without power for eleven days which causes problems for disabled individuals that lived in these establishments.

The question is, how do we bring about awareness to the idea of environmental racism and further educate individuals on this topic so there could be a larger rally to fix the environmental injustice in certain areas over others?

Kavner’s “For Public Housing Residents After Sandy, ‘A Slow Motion Katrina,’ details how people living in public housing suffered the most during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. The NYCHA failed to restore the heat and electricity lost after the hurricane hit while the wealthier neighborhoods in Brooklyn had all of their amenities. It is upsetting to read about how people with medical problems could not use their oxygen machines or nebulizers because of the electricity being down for over a week. Elderly residents were sitting at home freezing and relying on volunteers to give them food and flashlights. It is unacceptable that it would take so long to help the people living in public housing complexes. I also found it confusing that NYCHA workers had differing explanations as to why it was taking so long to help the residents. Some workers said that communication was lacking, others said that the infrastructure of the public housing complexes was outdated making it difficult to repair the damages, and even some workers had no explanation at all. I think that NYCHA should be reevaluated and improved because there can be other natural disasters in the future, and the poor service that was provided cannot be repeated again. There were many people going nights without knowing when they would have heating and power, and worst of all, they were not getting any real answers as to why it was taking so long to fix the situation.

Question- Why do you think it took so long for the NYCHA to help those living in public housing after Hurricane Sandy?

Natural disasters, like Hurricane Sandy, although cause the destruction of homes, material possessions and lives of countless people, often expose underlying problems in a community and help bring together the community on a common goal. In the case of Hurricane Sandy, that goal was to help those who lost everything rebuild their homes and their lives. In “Occupy Sandy: A movement moves to Relief”, Occupy Sandy has been able to do what many government agencies and larger charities haven’t, provide aid to those in need. As Ms. Gallista, field coordinator, put it, “For a long time, we were the only people out here doing relief work.” By providing flashlights, hot meals, warm blankets…etc, this organization has been able to bring together the community. Despite place a large shadow on the lives of many, Hurricane Sandy has illuminated a movement, the Occupy movement. It has encouraged many residents to join the movement and help aid others

Question: What other movements have been fueled by the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in NYC?

The Gowanus and Red Hook has been noted for its low-income public housing complex for around three thousand residents; when hurricane Sandy struck a lot of buildings were damaged from the inside and out. It took a while before the water was drained, damaged was assessed, and power was restored. This delay had a severe consequence on the residents in the Gowanus. Some of the residents were unable to use their medical equipments without the electricity. The elder residents were trapped on the tops floors surviving off of what remained in their homes. There were some volunteers who helped pass medical supplies, food, and flashlights. However, some buildings still remained powerless even weeks after Sandy hit. Most of the residents did not know when power would come on. Inquires on when the power would return proved fruitless. Most officials of NYCHA didn’t know anything.

Question: Has the city made any improvement in contingency plans for power outages in public housing areas?

Not to sound bitter or pessimistic or anything, but institutionalized racism has been a part of the American government since its founding. It’s terrible and inhumane, but it is no longer surprising. The egregious mistreatment of low income and black residents after Hurricane Katrina is therefore also not surprising, especially after watching Land of Opportunity, which touched upon the topic of public housing destruction justified by a natural disaster. Natural disasters are often thought of as levelers and unifiers. They do not discriminate what they destroy, and they bring communities together in the aftermath. Unfortunately, the wealth that is destroyed by a natural disaster can quickly be rebuilt,the housing and necessities of the poor cannot. Communities band together to rebuild those communities that are beloved, and low income housing is often not, save for those who live there.

Government always favors those who can pay. So given the chance to rebuild low-income, predominately black areas as middle-high income, whiter neighborhoods, they absolutely will.

I expect government to act in accordance to money, but I question why the public was never made away of these conditions in the post-Katrina headlines. Clearly people are upset by these actions, perhaps if more of these occurrences were widely known, racial and class discrimination would be less widely spread.