Brooklyn Group Says Gentrification Violates Human Rights
Is gentrification a human rights violation? Yes, according to one Brooklyn-based organization recently profiled in The Atlantic. Right to the City is a national alliance of racial, economic, and environmental justice organizations which believes “the freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is…one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human…
Is gentrification a human rights violation? Yes, according to one Brooklyn-based organization recently profiled in The Atlantic. Right to the City is a national alliance of racial, economic, and environmental justice organizations which believes “the freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is…one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights,” in the words of famous anthropologist and geographer David Harvey, whom it quotes in its literature.
Formed in 2007, Right to the City list just five staff members on its website, but lists over 60 member affiliations, and 23 allied groups. AÂ national alliance, the group’s work has focused on civic engagement, community organization, and various housing campaigns. Its office is on Atlantic Avenue.
Gentrification has often been critiqued for displacing long-time residents and businesses, escalating rents to record breaking highs, and rendering New York’s landscape corporate and soulless. On the other hand, it has also been credited with revitalizing once devastated neighborhoods, restoring New York’s economy from the brink of bankruptcy, and has been correlated with a significantly lowered crime rate.
Above all, though, it is important to acknowledge that, whether good or bad, gentrification is a social phenomenon which, while influenced by individual decisions, is at its core societally caused.
Right to the City goes beyond classic critiques of gentrification to argue that it is a systematic effort to “drive up profit margins for real-estate developers. Through rezonings, tax abatements for developers, and the privatization of public spaces, local governments and federal agencies often work to change low-income neighborhoods at the encouragement of developers,” as the Atlantic puts it. The displacement of renters who can’t afford the higher rents is the human-rights violation.
The Atlantic post highlighting Right to the City first quotes the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and goes on to quote Right to the City’s communications director, who expresses that having a home and community is a right.
It is one thing to hold developers and government responsible for abuse of power and regulations like zoning in order to make selfish decisions, but can gentrification really be considered part of a list that includes such atrocities as genocide?
Is Gentrification a Human-Rights Violation? [Atlantic]
Gentrification Coverage [Brownstoner]
Affordable Housing Coverage [Brownstoner]
Photo by rfullerrd
“Gentrification saving New York’s economy from the brink of a collapse” is a joke. New York had self sustaining, ethnic neighborhoods for as far back as I can remember. Jamaican restaurants, Chinese green grocers and L aundromats reliant on West Indian cinsunerism in Flatbush; then and now. Southern Brooklyn had self reliant Irish, Norwegian and Italian owned businesses. Puerto Ricans and Eastern Europeans had a vibrant economy/community in Williamsburgh.
“Gentrification saving New York’s economy from the brink of a collapse” is a joke. New York had self sustaining, ethnic neighborhoods for as far back as I can remember. Jamaican restaurants, Chinese green grocers and L aundromats reliant on West Indian cinsunerism in Flatbush; then and now. Southern Brooklyn had self reliant Irish, Norwegian and Italian owned businesses. Puerto Ricans and Eastern Europeans had a vibrant economy/community in Williamsburgh.
I expected condescension in the comments. But for Brownstoner to strike a dismissive tone in its post is unnecessary, even mean. I believe the mighty Brownstoner itself started with one guy in his bedroom. Why knock the organization’s small size or slow growth? And B-stoner rode the coattails of a boom market. And the only one equating housing justice with genocide is Brownstoner itself. Human rights are a lot broader than a Holocaust. (thankfully)
I also think that Brownstoner’s right-leaning readers are unnecessarily defensive about the word “gentrification.” The worst excesses of neighborhood change aren’t about owner-selling buyer-buying, one at a time. They’re about planned neighborhood revitalization, which is hardly code. It means replacing poor folks with wealthier folks. No one hides this.
In fact, at a meeting 11 years ago at my office building (80 Arts), the then head of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership (Joe Chan) laid out the plan and how it would work. First, strategic subsidies for arts organization (read, bring the pioneers looking for cheap space.) Two, rezone for maximum development. Three, provide incentives and visibility for upscale businesses like restaurants, bars and cafes. Cut red tape for developers and provide incentives to build luxury high-rise housing. Offer tax breaks to businesses to relocate to the area. Create an “Arts District” that caters to a higher-end clientele. What would we get? Subsidized space. Which, btw, has begun to disappear, right on schedule.
In the case of Ft Greene and downtown, the explicit message was to create a seamless transition from BAM to Brooklyn Heights. Read: the Fulton Mall needs to stop being ghetto. We all knew exactly what Chan meant. Chan knew what Chan meant. No one needed to say “white.” Hell, there were enough middle class people of color in the room to provide some cover.
It wasn’t a secret. It was a plan. I read the plan. I couldn’t believe my eyes. The plan worked better than anyone anticipated. Replacing one group with another. How is that not about human rights?
THAT is the kind of gentrification being discussed by Right to the City.
I expected condescension in the comments. But for Brownstoner to strike a dismissive tone in its post is unnecessary, even mean. I believe the mighty Brownstoner itself started with one guy in his bedroom. Why knock the organization’s small size or slow growth? And B-stoner rode the coattails of a boom market. And the only one equating housing justice with genocide is Brownstoner itself. Human rights are a lot broader than a Holocaust. (thankfully)
I also think that Brownstoner’s right-leaning readers are unnecessarily defensive about the word “gentrification.” The worst excesses of neighborhood change aren’t about owner-selling buyer-buying, one at a time. They’re about planned neighborhood revitalization, which is hardly code. It means replacing poor folks with wealthier folks. No one hides this.
In fact, at a meeting 11 years ago at my office building (80 Arts), the then head of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership (Joe Chan) laid out the plan and how it would work. First, strategic subsidies for arts organization (read, bring the pioneers looking for cheap space.) Two, rezone for maximum development. Three, provide incentives and visibility for upscale businesses like restaurants, bars and cafes. Cut red tape for developers and provide incentives to build luxury high-rise housing. Offer tax breaks to businesses to relocate to the area. Create an “Arts District” that caters to a higher-end clientele. What would we get? Subsidized space. Which, btw, has begun to disappear, right on schedule.
In the case of Ft Greene and downtown, the explicit message was to create a seamless transition from BAM to Brooklyn Heights. Read: the Fulton Mall needs to stop being ghetto. We all knew exactly what Chan meant. Chan knew what Chan meant. No one needed to say “white.” Hell, there were enough middle class people of color in the room to provide some cover.
It wasn’t a secret. It was a plan. I read the plan. I couldn’t believe my eyes. The plan worked better than anyone anticipated. Replacing one group with another. How is that not about human rights?
THAT is the kind of gentrification being discussed by Right to the City.
Right to the City….what a joke. These guys need to get real jobs.
Right to the City….what a joke. These guys need to get real jobs.
These discussions far predate Obama. But to me, the most frustrating thing about them is that nobody defines their terms at the outset – and everyone in the discussion may be using the term “gentrification” differently. When is a buyer a “gentrifier”? If you bought when a community was still redlined, does that excuse you from the dreaded label because the banks haven’t gotten there yet? Or does there have to be a certain minimum influx of amenities before a community is considered “gentrifying”? Are you a “gentrifier” if you’re hispanic and buying in a community in which 65% of the residents are African American? What about non-minority buyers and renters who have been displaced from other communities with even higher rents and prices and are looking for a place they can afford? Haven’t they been economically “gentrified” out of their prior neighborhoods? What about the minority owners who choose to sell to non-minority buyers at a hefty profit – they have a perfect right to do so; would Right to the City argue that they don’t? Is an “ungentrified” community one that has above a certain percentage of minority owners and renters? And then is it considered “gentrifying” when that percentage falls by a certain percentage? These vague discussions in an absence of definition of the terms are like grappling with a fog….pretty much meaningless. There are far too many variables involved to simplify to the extent that Right to the City is attempting.
These discussions far predate Obama. But to me, the most frustrating thing about them is that nobody defines their terms at the outset – and everyone in the discussion may be using the term “gentrification” differently. When is a buyer a “gentrifier”? If you bought when a community was still redlined, does that excuse you from the dreaded label because the banks haven’t gotten there yet? Or does there have to be a certain minimum influx of amenities before a community is considered “gentrifying”? Are you a “gentrifier” if you’re hispanic and buying in a community in which 65% of the residents are African American? What about non-minority buyers and renters who have been displaced from other communities with even higher rents and prices and are looking for a place they can afford? Haven’t they been economically “gentrified” out of their prior neighborhoods? What about the minority owners who choose to sell to non-minority buyers at a hefty profit – they have a perfect right to do so; would Right to the City argue that they don’t? Is an “ungentrified” community one that has above a certain percentage of minority owners and renters? And then is it considered “gentrifying” when that percentage falls by a certain percentage? These vague discussions in an absence of definition of the terms are like grappling with a fog….pretty much meaningless. There are far too many variables involved to simplify to the extent that Right to the City is attempting.
What is displacement if not an opportunity to remake oneself?