In this week’s readings, what really jumped out at me was how the government tends to manage issues when it comes to dealing with prominent problems at the time. Mainly the text, Defending the Cross-Subsidy Plan: The Tortoise Wins Again, by Janet Abu-Lughod, was what really drew my attention to this issue.
Before discussing such a matter, I wanted to bring attention back to the situation of the time. Said case is that of poverty and economic hardship for many, “…The city had lost jobs at an even faster rate than in the 1975 recession.” Unemployment was running rampant currently. Many were struggling with finance, and ultimately this would lead to property problems. “…Sunday real estate section of the New York Times for auctioned residential and commercial units expanded from half a page to several pages…”. Knowing all this about how the housing market and economy was doing, its easy to understand how people would end up on the street and collect together.
Thus, bringing me to the bulk of my posting, what was the government doing. It states in the text, “… keep their refugee status alive and visible, had been unceremoniously evicted… removed from public spaces throughout the city.” here the topic discussed is how Tompkins Square Park evicted the homeless by using rat poison on the park’s property. However, what really interested me about this part was the trend when it comes to problematic issues. That trend is shifting rather than solving.
It was shocking how the government would allow such actions like the ones taken in Tompkins Square Park to occur. Rather than rolling out potential solutions to deal with the matter of increases poverty and homelessness in this area, the alternative was trying to remove the problem from the public eye. This is ultimately detrimental in the long run, and it was just stunning how the course of action taken by the people in power was to disperse an issue in New York to other parts of the city. By dispersing the homeless masses, the problem ended up throughout the city in higher concentrations. “Scattered, those without shelter were reduced to huddling under any available roofing in derelict city spaces or sleeping in doorways and over steam vents.” You have the poverty-stricken people who grouped in one area, who in turn had created a community out of nothing being ripped from their way of living. After an initial blow was dealt onto them by the economy, this was just another one.
All in all, two lines that really seemed to ring in my head when addressing the mindset that seemed to be coming from government at the time was, out of sight, out of mind, and kicking someone when their down. Projecting from the actions of government at this time I wanted to bring such mindsets to the present and view it from a lens of change. Has the government moved on from these types of practices, or rather, have they just gotten better at exercising these practices in a more quiet, less public manner?
Great question to land upon! What does the government do to solve the problem of housing low-income — and now middle-income — people in a city that is increasingly unaffordable to at least half of the population? (I base that “half” on the fact that 50% of the city’s population is rent-burdened, but that doesn’t count peopled who are being foreclosed upon or who are mortgage-burdened too.) The cross-subsidy plan gives a clue for one way in which the city provides low-income housing even today — through tax subsidies that allow housing to be “affordable” for a limited period of time. But how else? And where are those who are poor and unhoused now? Where are those who are displaced from their homes? I’m interested in hearing what you think about these questions. What do you think the solutions should be?