If I had to define a specific field for Right to the City, it would be one that focuses on the housing crisis, which includes discrimination against people of color, precarious renters and homeowners, evictions, and displacement. There are few organizations that are on the same page as Right to the City, which focuses on housing issues in the United States. However, because Right to the City is an alliance, it essentially serves as a hub for numerous smaller organizations working on housing at the state and local levels. It then becomes the responsibility of Right to the City to empower organizations that decide to work under the alliance, as few organizations within the housing movement are actually competitors.
In this field, however, there are also government and political actors, such as the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the City Council, the Mayor, and progressive politicians like the Squad (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and co). Some may contest RTTC’s idea, while others may advocate for the same cause. Regarding politicians, the boundaries seem to be clear. RTTC engages in the mobilization of grassroots movements, the presentation of policy recommendations, and the creation of any type of organizing work that would exert pressure on politicians, w hile politicians themselves develop the policies to be implemented. In the past, there was an adage that social movements should do what they can, such as raise funds to help the displaced and build them better homes outside of the state’s regulatory authority. Right now With its, however, this distinction has become less clear. Right to the City advocates for the state to provide for its citizens. Thus, by presenting policy recommendations and mobilizing movements, it essentially created an alliance with progressive politicians, giving them more leverage, while simultaneously pressuring those who cannot protect renters and homeowners to at least promote a good decision. There are boundaries, but they are interconnected. Political actors may not be able to do the organizing work of various organizations like Right to the City, and Right to the City may not be able to implement policies as effectively as policymakers, so their respective expertise complements each other well.
In the field of organizations, there are a number of organizations that are aligned with Right to the City, such as YIMBY (Yes, In My Back Yard), that is a group of people with chapters in various states and focuses on those who do not have access to affordable housing, or National Low Income Housing Coallition (NLICH), which seek to ensure that renters have a safe place to live and do not fear being displaced. In addition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness collects data on homelessness and provides policy recommendations. Right to the City is also advancing the same agenda as these movements. Such agreements between organizations are more ambiguous than those between politicians, because, for example, what NLICH is doing is also what Right to the City is doing with its Homes for All campaign, and policy recommendations like those of the National Alliance to End Homelessness are also those of Right to the City. Technically, there may be different approaches and areas of research, but I do not believe there is a strict agreement that requires further investigation in order for us to find breathing room as an organization, given that the housing crisis is a major issue in the United States and as such must overlap with other organizations. The key is to have a broader mission than one that focuses on specific issues, but with such a broad mission as ending homelessness and displacement, the boundaries are meant to be broken because overlap between organizations’ efforts is inevitable.
Leave a Reply