Author: ng1860

While reading “Avant Gardening,” by Bill Weinberg, many truths were revealed about the injustice of the government and state control on middle/lower class people, who make up a majority of the population. Weinberg does a great job of highlighting the reasons Loisaida Libre seems to be the best solution to separating oneself from the further privatization and gentrification of New York City, specifically the Lower East Side. With the rapid increase of police interference, unbalanced power, and lack of authority for the lay person, Weinberg believes, “this issue cuts to the heart of whether we contemporary urbanites live in a democratic culture…private administration and heavy policing is antithetical to this vision” (46). While New York claims to be there for its people, past mayors such as David Dinkins and Rudolph Giuliani prove this claim to be false with the repeated support of private companies, laws, and institutions that further the divide between the classes. For example, “in the New Municipal Order, the city only owes police protection to the affluent-not services to the poor…Giuliani’s agenda is to follow the national trend towards privatization of city services-further squeezing out access for citizens no among the yuppie elite” (49). Police forces are slowly being bought by the elite and display their obvious disregard for the entire population with the mistreatment and discrimination they pose on the lower class. The cost of living and the ability to raise prices drastically each year is a threat on the well-being of most of New York City’s population. Elderly people and minorities are especially subject to the downsides of privatization due to the greedy and immoral mindset of landlords and elite institutions. These injustices are especially upsetting because many middle/lower classes families have turned to the wealthy in the past to advocate and support positive reform and restoration that benefits the masses. Weinberg writes, “…whatever pathetic façade of neighborhood democracy existed under the Democrat machine is being rapidly dismantled. The era of looking to bureaucrats for solutions is definitively over. Citizens will only be able to make their power felt from below” (51). In short, we need to fight for ourselves on our own and not rely on anyone else.

This display of power from below can be seen through the proposed community of the Lower East Side Autonomous Zone. With the implementation of strict laws in regard to money, fines, fees, and price, LESAZ will provide a community and environment beneficial to lower income households and minorities. By planning to be a completely green society that produces no waste, LESAZ and its possible success has the potential to introduce other cities to a newer, greener way of living. Furthermore, by only allowing natural and organic food and supplies, the overall health and well-being of its community will hopefully rise, resulting in better quality of life. While this proposed community is extremely ambitious and well thought out, there is a major potential for the community to fail tremendously. Loisaida Libre plans to eventually earn income off of its recycling skills and implement its authority with the backing of organizations that are crucial to running the city. These intentions can easily fall apart because of the major authority New York City has. The city has the power to completely shut down this proposed community, regardless of its benefits. Furthermore, this community will be the result of a drastic change for multiple people. Not everyone will be willing to follow the rules 100% and may hinder the growth and prosperity of Loisaida. When a person’s lifestyle changes in almost all aspects, the chance of rebellion, abandonment, and disagreement by that person greatly increases. My concern is that not enough people will be on board for this idea. While I truly believe there is potential to change the way we run our cities and lives, I worry that fear, stubbornness, and ignorance will hinder LESAZ’s potential.

            In Karen A. Gray’s article about Community Land Trusts in America, many opinions and facts about the pros and cons of Community Land Trusts are presented. The further I got into this article, the more I was pro-CLT’s. With the massive increase in homelessness and overpriced housing, “one-third of our nation is ‘shelter poor,’ meaning individuals and families are unable to pay for non-shelter needs because their cost of housing uses too much of their incomes” (Gray 66). This large number of shelter poor people is not shocking due to the nonstop increase in pricing for everything. Housing and rent prices have skyrocketed due to gentrification, and basic human needs, such as food and clothes, cost the equivalent of multiple hours of work at a minimum wage job. What is most frustrating about this situation is that this issue is “still described as an ‘affordability crisis,’” instead of a problem caused by high taxes, gentrification, inflation (Gray 66). While there are some cons to CLT’s, the benefits are far better and make it worth the minor downfalls. With the stability and better future CLT’s offer their residents, people have a better chance of increasing their financial stability and overall well-being. Being able to afford a home is a basic human right, and with the massive influx of housing prices, it is only a matter of time before more than half of the American population cannot afford descent living conditions. While CLT’s are increasing in areas such as “California, the Northwest, and Florida,” there needs to be at least a dozen CLT’s in every major city/county (72). By helping low income families acquire stable housing, they are more likely to increase financial stability and be able to afford housing on their own in the future. This leads to taking more people off of the “shelter poor” list and makes room to move on to helping others in similar situations. While CLT’s are mainly controlled by state officials and nonprofit organizations, there is a need for the government to get further involved in this situation. Instead of budgeting money towards unnecessary causes that benefit a small percent of the population, the government should dedicate its time to helping the poor and underrepresented. Community Land Trusts seem like a successful and logical way of helping citizens have better living conditions and quality of life. This article has made me extremely supportive of this cause and has led me to seek solutions to spreading awareness, funding, and support of CLT’s.

            While I may not know all of the details that go into CLT’s, it is fairly obvious that money is a key player in the success or failure of CLT’s and their homeowners. I am sure that CLT’s are trying their best to advocate for donations in any form, but some further advocacy ideas include government support and influencer support. I believe one of the main issues as to why CLT’s are not as popular is because of a lack of awareness of these causes and what their true goal is. It was only until I read this article that I truly started to understand this topic, and if it were not for this class, I may have never known. If more people were educated on the topic of affordable housing, community land trusts, and gentrification, I truly believe a difference can be made. While CLT’s are mainly handled by states, this cause should be funded by the government. The amount of unnecessary spending and unjust budgeting by the government could easily create or fund numerous land trusts and help further the quality of life for homeowners. I am not sure of all of the specific actions required to present a cause to higher government officials, but with the support of just one influential person of power, the impact could be huge. Furthermore, there has been a tremendous increase in awareness of social justice issue over multiple social media platforms due to promotion by people with mass followings. One influencer with even a million followers could raise a substantial amount of donations to multiple CLT’s. While there are more details and nitty gritty specifics to be tackled, the ultimate goal of promoting CLT’s could be life changing for citizens and for the country as a whole. The main issue is raising awareness and we as a society need to figure  out how to do  just that. 

 While reading New City, New Frontier: The Lower East Side as Wild, Wild West by Neil Smith, I noticed many of the past problems in the lower east side seem to still affect us today on a bigger scale. While describing the conflicts regarding Tompkins Square Park, I could not help but find major similarities to present day issues, such as the Black Lives Matter Movement in response to police brutality and the impact current government officials have on the lives of the homeless and underprivilege. During the 1980s riots surrounding Tompkins Square Park, Smith acknowledges the government’s abuse of power through its attempts of implementing a curfew and ridding the park of the homeless population. While these may seem like minor changes, many people viewed these rules as the governments way of promoting gentrification and showing its disregard for the poor. These beliefs were further vilified when the Mayor of New York City, Edward Koch, “described Tompkins Square Park as a ‘cesspool’ and blamed the riot on ‘anarchists’” (Smith). Furthermore, when “the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association enthusiastically agreed [that] ‘social parasites, druggies, skinheads, and communist’ -an ‘insipid conglomeration of human misfits’-were the cause of the riot,’” many were rightfully outraged. (Smith). These mere two quotes show just how one sided the government can be and further proved to New Yorkers that their problems were insignificant to the government. The real reason the park was under attack was because the people who occupied the park opposed the government’s goal of further gentrifying the city. The park was made up of the underprivileged and underrepresented, which further explained why people in power showed no remorse or understanding for park activists. The government blatantly ignored the opinions of park users on what to do with Tompkins Square Park; the government put their greed before the well-being of its citizens. This disregard for the general opinion of the public reminds me of current affairs in regard to electing government officials, passing controversial laws, and deciding budgets for different government organizations. These affairs include debates about the current president, abortion laws, marijuana laws, and funding for organization targeted for helping the people (i.e. Planned Parenthood, Medicare, Medicaid, and national conservation services).

Furthermore, the brutality used to block off people from entering the park and enforcing new rules was absolutely horrid. Multiple videos from riots depict law enforcement officers beating rioters to an unnecessary extreme. The only way to properly describe these beatings is to call them abuse; an abuse of people, an abuse of resources, and an abuse of power. Smith writes, “seventeen police officers were cited for ‘misconduct’…but none were ever convicted” and that, “the police commissioner conceded that a few officers may have been a little ‘overenthusiastic’ due to ‘inexperience,’ but he clung to the official policy of blaming the victims” (Smith). It is obvious that the government and police force defended their own and covered up their mistakes instead of caring for the people injured. The excessive force used to remove and prevent people from the park was unnecessary and a perfect example of abuse of power by a government official. This correlates with the current issue of police brutality specifically towards people of color and people in the lower classes. With multiple instances of abuse and death by police officers dating back all the way to the 80s, one would think there would be a solution by now. While body cameras have been implemented to discourage police misconduct, there are multiple instances of officers turning off their body cameras or withholding the footage. When looking at the Tompkins Square riots, one would think the days of ignoring the needs of the underprivileged and covering up abuse of power are over. Sadly, this is not the case.  

In The Tragedy of the Commons, by Garret Hardin, Hardin writes that the solution to over population is not technological and that the only way to control over population is to relinquish the idea of a commons in order to be more free. Hardin starts his argument by pointing out our population is growing, and our resources are depleting. He hypothesizes we must acknowledge the optimum growth rate should be zero, and we must understand that “maximizing population does not maximize goods” (Hardin). This particular idea was interesting to me because of Hardin’s debate on what is considered good. While Hardin explains some value wilderness while others value ski lodges, he also points out that there is not common agreement upon what is valuable. While some want to dedicate their time to make a family or have a stable job, others might dedicate it to saving the world or traveling for experience. I think this point is very convincing as to why there is chaos among the world. We cannot agree on what to dedicate our time and resources to, and this poses a problem of individual beliefs and how they affect society as a whole.

Furthermore, Hardin touches on different types of people who have children and observes their conditions. When stating “the most rapidly growing populations on earth today are the most miserable,” Hardin makes the point that the populations with the most people are considered “commons” due to their wide range of beliefs and consciousness. Furthermore, populations that over breed experience a harder time keeping up with the demands of more people. This leads Hardin to make his biggest argument that “freedom in a commons brings ruin to all” (Hardin). It is my understanding that Hardin’s version of a commons is a group of people who think freely and individually. The idea of freedom in a commons poses the debate again on where our resources should go. While some would rather dedicate their time to important matters that affect us a whole, others are more focused on matters that only benefit a small portion of the world. Furthermore, these improvements cost tax payers millions of dollars which they have no authority over. Tax payers can’t control where their money goes and cannot decided what matter is more important to focus on. Freedom in a commons create people who do not think of the entire population when depleting resources and are more self focuses rather than bigger picture focused. Hardin takes an obvious opposition to a commons and believes they are the reason over population and tragedy have stuck earth.

With the multiple arguments and opinions Hardin voices, I finished this reading slightly confused as to why Hardin did not propose a plan to end over breeding. While he has multiple thoughts and opinions of over breeding and believes there is no technological solutions, why did he not create a different solution? I find Hardin’s arguments convincing, but also problematic. While I agree that the world is overpopulated and that we are going through more resources than we actually have, I feel that the solution is not just to recognizes that freedom in a commons is bad, but to propose how we fix this issue. Hardin is merely pointing out the problem and why he thinks it is a problem, but he does not offer any advice on how to rid the idea of a freedom commons or how to make everyone understand we need to work to benefit society as a whole and not just ourselves.   

The Injustice of Private Property in Land

In Henry George’s Progress and Property, George touches on the definition of property and what is considered property. George views the right to own land as one that humans are not justified to have due to its lack of being created by someone. Land is a natural occurrence, while everything else in the world is not. In “The Injustice of Private Property in Land”, George poses multiple opinions as to why owning land is an injustice to society, but he provokes readers to question the validity of his writings. For example, George writes, “As each person belongs to himself or herself, so labor belongs to the individual when put in concrete form. For this reason, what someone makes or produces belongs to that person — even against the claim of the whole world. It is that person’s property, to use or enjoy, give or exchange, or even destroy. No one else can rightfully claim it” (George). While George does make a great point that property is what is manmade or paid for, this idea of owning what one creates makes me question any exception to this view. One that immediately comes to mind is humans. Humans are literally man made and created by another person, but they are not viewed as property when they are old enough to survive on their own. Yes, children are considered property of their parents, but they are not treated like such.

Furthermore, I question the difference between natural and manmade. One could argue that humans are natural beings and cannot be property, therefor they cannot create it. While George’s personal beliefs are unknown to me, I am sure religion played some role in George’s opinion. If this is the case, why does the idea that humans are God’s creatures and cannot be owned not show in George’s beliefs? This creates the question of whether or not anything can be owned. Is everything on Earth “natural” because the means to create everything are on Earth? While these questions are extreme, they are an equal response to the radical opinions Henry George has.

George’s main argument, although there are many, focuses on the fact that we have no right to own land and that owning land is wrong. His main proof is that property is anything manmade and that only property can be sold or traded. George writes, “It is production that gives the producer the right to exclusive possession and enjoyment. If so, there can be no right to exclusive possession of anything that is not the product of labor. Therefore, private property in land is wrong” (George). George’s argument that land cannot be private because it was not produced by another person is convincing, but the validity of his statement depends on what people define property as. While George view’s it as something one has created and has the rights to, other may argue that property is anything one legally or financially owns. George’s whole argument can be thrown away if a majority of society does not define property is the same way George does.

Another question I had in response to this reading was “what is the solution?”. If George is so adamant that owning land is wrong, how does he propose we fix this? Does everyone get their money back and live on a piece of land for as long as they can? If humans are no longer able to own land, how are people guaranteed to live a peaceful life? George says it himself when he writes, “in a word, ownership of land rests upon conquest” (George). Kings fought wars over land, and who is to say that will not happen again. The dissolution of real estate will result in major turmoil and chaos. This possibility makes it harder to fully support George’s arguments even though they are reasonable.