Author: Matthew Martinez

In “Defending the Cross-Subsidy Plan: The Tortoise Wins Again,” Janet Abu-Lughod writes, “In the East Village, although properties were too downscale to warrant private auctions and many residents were already so marginal to the economy that it collapse left them relatively unaffected, the wind was definitely out of gentrifiers’ sails” (314). I find the use of “sails” interesting and worthy of unpacking. When I read “sails,” I immediately thought that Abu-Lughod attempted to convey that gentrifiers go with the waves. But that idea was quickly dispelled once I discerned that gentrifiers are not solely new residents; they can also by city planners and real estate companies. I then concluded that gentrifiers flow from place to place. The person steering the boat is the gentrifier, the wind is the market and the boat/wind/waves/water is gentrification—they system that the gentrifier works/participates within.

The East Village underwent a massive transformation, which produced mixed results. Although the area was “improved,” there was displacement. The question I ask then is who is the city for and who can claim certain places? In “New City, New Frontier: the Lower East Side as wild, wild West,” Neil Smith describes the way West of 42nd street was “tamed,” “domesticated,” and “polished.” The real-estate industry is pinned as the impetus of such development. Abu-Lughod would argue that the best way to combat such development would be to mobilize people by getting them mad. If people do not recognize “urban scouts” (who are hired by the real-estate industry) searching for their next targets before they attack, then the attack, which is the buying up of land, displacement, and flipping homes, would be difficult to fight off. This reminds me of when I attended the “A Livable New York: The Future of Community Green Space and Affordable Housing.” In the talk, Alicia Boyd encouraged the audience members to get mad, which, at the time, I thought was not the best way to approach the situation surrounding the Elizabeth Street Garden. Now, though, I believe getting mad is a prerequisite for organizing and resisting gentrification. For example, after JPC activists were able to organize people by getting them mad, they dedicated themselves to creating alternative plans for city-owned properties and politicking at City Hall (321). I wonder if there were substantially more people at Tompkins Square Park if the city would have failed in “improving” the park. The park was the site of the first major anti-gentrification struggle and served as a “liberated space.” How far are people willing to go to fight for space? The Tompkins Square Park activists were pushed out through blunt police force and warded off when rat poison was sprayed. Are people willing to put their bodies on the line? Become a martyr? As a New Yorker, I don’t know if I can participate in such activism, which is vital to fighting gentrification. Everyone has mixed reactions to gentrification and once brought up, would lead to intense debates. The East Village has been fighting gentrification for years and although they have made great strides, are they just fighting against the inevitable?

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.  

In Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons, David Bollier challenges prominent negative views of the commons, which are considered to be chaotic and a failure. He asserts that such ideas have arisen because many, specifically economists, think of it as a free-for-all. Instead, he states that the commons “has boundaries, rules, social norms, and sanctions against free riders” (24). He recognizes that the tragedy of the commons myth must be addressed because it mischaracterizes a social system that formerly existed inaccurately. I noticed that he does not say whether capitalism must be dismantled but he does describe those who work on Wall Street, which is the epitome of capitalism, like wizards. By doing so, he indicates that they have powers and through their supernatural abilities they “maximize private gains without the regard for the systemic risks or local impacts” (26). I aver that money provides the Wall Street “wizards” their abilities. Bollier modifies the popular phrase tragedy of the commons to tragedy of the market to illustrate that the faults people pinpoint to the commons, in fact, derive from the flaws of a laissez-faire market economy. To support his argument, Bollier analyzes political scientist Elinor Ostrom’s work.

Bollier clearly defines the commons as a system that is about the practice and ethic of sufficiency. Given Earth’s finite resources, one may believe that such a system of governance will permit everyone to enjoy the fruits of the land. If everyone works together, then everyone would have enough to survive, right? If boundaries are drawn and people are allowed to capture/claim any and all resources, what would occur? From the readings, many of the authors argue that is natural resources deplete at such a rate where they cannot replenish themselves fast enough and it creates the haves and have nots. Currently, in NYC, Elizabeth Street Garden has been marked as a potential site to build low-cost apartment complexes for senior citizens. Although low-income affordable housing is desperately needed, so is green space. In an economy that pushes people to maximize profits and may seem to be filled with vultures, how can society for all even exist? People who would want to do good may be reluctant to do anything because they fear they will be taken advantage of. Bollier does an excellent job describing why people are reluctant to contribute to the commons. He does so by stating that because people fear that their idea may be used and privatized to be sold for money, people don’t contribute. This reminded me of a specific moment I taught at a high school. When discussing a project that all students had to complete, I asked if anyone would want to share with the class what they were thinking of doing. When no one raised their hand, I simply called on a student and they quickly snapped back stating that they did not want to say because they didn’t want anyone to take their idea. This encounter affirms Bollier’s assumption. In order to have people contribute to the commons, there must be substantial reform to how society and the economy operates.