As I stared at the closing credits after watching Crazy Rich Asians, I immediately thought that I must own property. Many people gawked at what I took away from the movie. From the groundbreaking Asian representation to the romance to the beautiful way Singapore is depicted, people were confused as to why property ownership stood out to me the most. I mention this because after reading this week’s texts, I realize that one of the best ways to build wealth and to secure safe assets is to invest in property. This response paper will illustrate the interesting ways people viewed land ownership, particularly in New York.
In Manhattan for Rent, Elizabeth Blackmar discusses the ways in which Manhattan real estate changed. She states, “For Manhattans’ large proprietors, land served initially as a different kind of asset, as a means of storing, transferring, and displaying wealth rather than generating it” (24). Initially, people did not view owning property in Manhattan as a way to make more money. The moment free Blacks were forced to forfeit their properties demonstrates the shift in people’s views towards property ownership in Manhattan. I credit this shift to the British crown since they passed legislation that made it illegal for Blacks to own land (20). I posit that this law affected people’s views and induced behaviors that perpetuated anti-Blackness and, as Cheryl Harris states, “witness as property.” The passing of this law reveals that property owners and soon to be property owners, who were in most cases White, saw the value in owning land and thus they created a system that made it easier for them to generate wealth and cement/raise their class status. Blackmar mentions that by examining the colonial system of land tenure, one can understand how city real estate became a profitable commodity. I believe that the growing trend towards renting is bad for communities and society at large. Owning land forces you to have a stake in the neighborhood you are in. When one simply rents, people do not invest in the neighborhood they live in or even interact with their neighbors. People observed the growing concentration of land ownership after the American Revolution and it is still seen today (35). When I interned at Macy’s, I could not help but realize how much property Vornado Realty Trust owned. Was NYC becoming a place only for the rich and a place to make money? Do the NYC landowners even live in the city or on the properties they own? Is it safe to assume that they all live in fancy homes in upstate New York, the Hamptons, or on the Upper East Side, areas that have strict zoning laws and residents who display their wealth with Birkin bags and expensive, personalized cuff links? “In New York City,” Blackmar asserts, “control over land and housing had assumed new social meanings and represented a new kind of social power” (Online). I concur with Blackmar. Landlords have a disturbing amount of power over the lives of those who live or work on their properties. In the mid-nineteenth century, New Yorkers saw how bad landlords affected their own “health, safety, and domestic tranquility, and a threat to the social equilibrium of a free-market society” (Online). This reading made me wonder if I should reject owning land in protest of a system that creates immense inequality and makes the rich richer. Revell’s text deepened this idea. The 1916 Zoning Ordinance, which at face value seems wonderful, was heavily affected by private property owners. Reading “Regulating the Landscape: Real Estate Values, City Planning, and the 1916 Zoning Ordinance” basically told me suspicions I had about NYC real estate, which I believe, among other things, are racist and classist (i.e. 5th avenue). Although the ordinance did not change the existing arrangement of space in the city, it did help the city from address overcrowding and the city’s aesthetic. People arguing against tall buildings/skyscrapers is not new. But is the war against useless? When the first “tall” building was erected in the city, it created a precedent. Overall, these readings highlight how New York City was shaped by the wealthy and it continues to make them richer.
You identify a really important dilemma with which I think many of us grapple, but perhaps this is particularly the case among people whose ancestors are African American or from lands colonized by the United States. The dilemma is: How much do you want to participate in a political economy that, at its core, relied on dispossessing you and your ancestors of land and personal rights? And, if you choose not to participate in some way, what is the likelihood that you will ever achieve equality or power in the United States? In other words, the Black Panthers (as you read another week) rejected capitalism and the system of private property it created as structures built on the murder of Black people. They would not want to participate in property ownership under such a regime. At the same time, most of the people of African descent who have become powerful in the United States were able to build wealth over time, often through property ownership, which, as you note, has been one of the securest ways to build wealth in this country. So what will you decide?