Rest in Peace Nasir Jones 1973-2017
Before You Ask, Yes, I Hate Myself A Mistake by Sulaiman Behsudi and Caroline Espinosa
Subclaim 1: Public parks are directly correlated with rates of gentrification. Property owners quickly seized on the city’s rezoning offer. As Patrick points out, the High Line is estimated to have spurred nearly two billion dollars in real estate development and increased the property values within a 5-minute walk by 103% (qtd. in Patrick 9)” (Millington 2328). “In examining a sample mean within the 100–1000 m range with a 99% confidence interval, the area within 500 m in phase 1, and within 700 m in phases 2 and 3 were positively related with the Gyeongui Line Forest Park. This indicates that the influence of the Gyeongui Line Forest Park over real housing sale prices extends out to about 500–700 m” (Kwon et. al 12). “By simultaneously making older and typically low-income and/or industrial areas of existing cities more livable and attractive, urban greening projects can set off rounds of gentrification, dramatically altering housing opportunities and the commercial/retail infrastructure that supports lower income communities” (Wolch et al. 239).
Subclaim 2: Governments and private investors use public parks as a holistically beneficial facade for gentrification. “Prior to the economic recession that settled through the global economy in late 1973, gentrification was sporadic if wide-spread… While highly localised, these instances of gentrification were often significantly funded by the public sector (Hamnett 1973; Williams 1976; Smith 1979), as local and national governments sought to counteract the private-market economic decline of central city neighbourhoods” (Hackworth & Smith 466). “The New York City government created the Bryant Park Corporation, inviting the big companies based around Bryant Park to be members and raising funds from them to carry out improvement projects. It emplaced private guards to establish order and security, and installed amenities such as a cafeteria. The small square inside the park also serves as a cultural space for small performances. Following these upgrades, the people who used to stay in the park at night were expelled, and the property values of the buildings surrounding the park dramatically increased” (Kwon et. al. 4). “As sociologist Stephen Steinberg argues, throughout the latter half of the 20th century, these discourses provided ‘an ideological façade for the neoliberal war against the poor’ (Steinberg 2010:223). Once again, neighborhood reinvestment certainly included, and in many cases relied on, the provision and/or restoration of environmental amenities (such as parks, playgrounds,waterfront promenades) to attract affluent residents” (Checker 216).
Subclaim 3: Wealthy eco-gentrifiers benefit disproportionately due to gentrification. “In 1968, the CPC became prominent with its opposition of the newly written New York City Master Plan, which identified Clinton as the ideal location for several large renewal projects. The Plan called for the construction of 3,000 hotel rooms,7.5 million square metres of office space, and 25,000 new apartments in the neighbourhood (Sclar 1993). Clinton residents felt that the plan would eventually lead to their displacement and began to organise through the CPC” (Hackworth & Smith 470). “Indeed, during Bloomberg's mayoral tenure an unprecedented number of rezoning measures resulted in a massive increase in residential units, most of them targeted towards high-end renters and buyers (Furman Center 2009). Meanwhile, the number of homeless families in New York City shelters hit all-time record levels in 2010, reaching the highest levels since the Great Depression(” (Checker 213). “The High Line is currently the most expensive park per acre in New York City, and only covers 6.7 acres. It is funded through public and private funds, both of which are considerable. As Patrick notes, the park’s construction costs upon completion will exceed nearly 250 million dollars, and the park has the highest percentage of staff per acre in the city (qtd. in Patrick 9)” (Millington 2328).
Subclaim 4: The poor and homeless suffer disproportionately due to the effects of eco-gentrification. “In one of several examples from New York City, in the 1980s, residents in downtown Manhattan successfully opposed a city proposal to build a medical waste incinerator, which was instead built in the South Bronx (Sze 2007; see also Angotti 2008). Thus, just as a disposable consumer culture was taking hold and generating ever more waste,“Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) activism shifted growing environmental burdens even further onto the shoulders of cities rather than suburbs.Within those cities, it fell onto the shoulders of low income and powerless neighborhoods” (Checker 217-218). “ In 1993, the city attorney proposed and citizens passed a series of ordinances that regulate behavior in public spaces, making it illegal to sit and lie down on sidewalks during certain hours, to urinate and drink in public and to camp in public parks (Gibson, 2004). Other scholars have argued that these ordinances reflect political economic agendas developed by political and business elites, which are enforced to produce sanitized and safe spaces of consumption that ultimately criminalizes homeless people” (Dooling 329). “In 2000, the organization again sued the MTA, this time filing a complaint with the Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) that charged the authority with “sitting diesel bus depots and parking lots disproportionately in minority neighborhoods in Northern Manhattan” (http://www.weact.org/Programs/). Four years later, the FTA ruled that the authority had failed to comply with the required federal environmental impact analysis regulations in constructing,rehabilitating and reconstructing its Northern Manhattan facilities and had failed to ensure the non-discriminatory distribution of service its facilities” (Checker 219).
Subclaim 5: Eco-gentrification have marginal benefits for original inhabitants. “A group of studies reviewed in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine showed that ‘creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational outreach’ produced a 48.4 percent increase in frequency of physical activity” (Sherer 14). “Gentrified neighborhoods also are likely to experience reductions in crime, especially violent crime. While one may surmise that such neighborhoods may experience an increase in property crime, at least in the short run, because the newcomers make more tempting targets, there may be a decrease in the property crime directed at the existing poorer residents. Moreover, new residents may be more successful in securing increased policing from the city and will pay taxes making such increases possible” (Byrne 423). “Gentrification may also contribute to citywide enhancement of employment for low-income residents. Increases in urban populations will enhance demand for municipal services and thus the need for municipal employment. They also will increase municipal tax receipts, making possible increases in public employment. Also, to the extent that gentrification reflects increases in employment for higher educated persons within the city, such firms should also need to employ lower educated persons for support functions” (Byrne 419-420).
Recommend
More recommend
