Of this week’s readings, the one document that I resonated with was The Tenement House Problem. As a tenant in a Tenement building, I feel a more significant personal connection to the issue. From this reading, I firmly believe that when it comes to land and property one concept that must not be discounted, in any discussion within this subject, is that of the mass majority’s mindset.
In today’s modern world we operate in a society that places capitalism at the root of most actions. Everything is treated as a business, and the most significant influencer towards progression is that of the bottom line. How much does it cost to move forward? From the text assigned this week majority of the topics covered had a negative connotation to it. Things were wrong in the past, was the central idea that constantly repeated through my mind.
Take for example the text, The Tenement House Problem. On page 8 it states, “This hallway is nearly always dark, receiving no light except from the street door and a faint light that comes from the small opening upon the stairs…” Here we see how conditions in the past within tenement houses were terrible. However, we must understand the reasoning for why? This concept of why is by far one of the most interesting I got from the readings, and it is also what connects the past and the present.
From the text, Manhattan For Rent, by Elizabeth Blackmar one can trace the utilization of New York land as originating in production. However, over time the produce of the area soon became less profitable in contrast to the land’s usage. The question of how to take the products of the land and make a profit ultimately was shortened to how can said land make a profit. Thus, bringing to light how money is the driving factor to anything land or property related. The “why” to things being wrong is that the conditions are a product of peoples pursuit of wealth.
In today’s mass majority the mindset of many is that of money, capital, and profit. The one uniting theme that resonates with the past such as the colonial period up to the “modern day” that holds the issues of tenements is that of money. All the negative aspects of property such as the miss treatment of people all lie in cutting moral corners and doing what would make the owner the most money. Knowing this I firmly stand to believe that the future of what our land and concept of property would look like lies in what would create satisfactory levels of wealth. Regardless of what’s morally right or what’s morally wrong, the future of our land and definition of property would never lie in concepts of righteousness. Instead, the defense against moral wrongs and its prevention can only be achieved when a balance can be found between profitability and morality. The way to making the future better is not to satisfy righteousness but rather find room for it in a money-driven world. It holds second priority and profit is the first.
I’m glad this text resonated with you! It’s interesting to consider it next to Nisha’s presentation in class on the “Worst Landlords on the Lower East Side,” all of whom are landlords of buildings that existed at the time The Tenement House Problem was written (or soon after). In what ways have conditions changed and in what ways haven’t they in how these buildings are managed, who makes a profit, and who pays for that profit? I think your suggestion is that profit cannot be eliminated — and SHOULD not be — but that the profit-making impulse must be regulated by a larger moral concern. How do you think that regulation should work? Who should be responsible for it? The state or some other entity? Hardin suggests that taxes might incentivize behavior that is for the good of the majority (i.e. tax people who have too many children). George suggests that the state should tax land for public benefit so that profit can only be made from the maintenance of a building, and not the increase of land value. The Church Fathers may say that profit in excess of necessity is patently immoral. What do you think?