Author: Nicky Huang

From this week’s readings, “¡Viva Loisaida Libre!” by Bill Weinberg was the most reactive piece I have read all semester. To me, it was by far the text that exemplified the problematic mindset of many authors throughout this course. I completely disagree with this type of structure in which Weinberg tries to present. Rather my complaints aren’t in the moral aspects of his vision, nor the shock of such goals, but rather the plausibility in his “utopia”.

 

For Weinberg, the ideal societal structure when it comes to land and property is that of a self-sustained “green” community that resists large corporate’s glutinous, detrimental, and abusive behavior onto the said land. His plan of achievement is the, “banning of absentee landlords. All buildings not owned by neighborhood residents will be expropriated without compensation and turned over to the tenants to be run cooperatively.” (Weinberg, 39). Here he wants to strip land from owners who don’t utilize it for the community. However, this is an extreme action, and its probability and plausibility are close to none in the modern day.

 

Not only that, his plan to make the area into a revolutionary green and virtues zone consists of other extreme ideas. Weinberg’s vision for the community is that of: “The bicycle will become the predominant mode of transportation” (Weinberg, 40), “The police will be replaced with neighborhood watch groups and rotating block patrols of local residents.” (Weinberg, 41), and “… a program of total recycling will be instated.” (Weinberg, 41). Here he wants to have an area that operates with man-powered transportation, no policing, and 100% recyclable waste. When handling problems that would arise, he states that, “… neighborhood’s sense of community will evaporate the climate of fear and alienation in which violent crime thrives. The young, strong, and healthy will take responsibility for protecting the backs of the elderly, infirm and disable” (Weinberg, 41). Any violators would be, “… escorted to the neighborhood’s borders – or thrown into the East River.” (Weinberg, 41). Indeed an utterly valid view on how a structure of society can operate, the problem that truly bothers me is the process in which Weinberg attempts to obtain such a community.

 

Weinberg pushes an agenda of secession and breaking away from the status quo in the metaphoric as well as the literal sense. This agenda ultimately entails the vilification of the norm. The current is terrible, Weinberg progressive idea is good, choosing good seems to be the logical idea; thus, to support the standard makes you a supporter of the detrimental. He makes his end goal seem sustainable and logical however his agenda holds reliance upon the foundation of people being righteous. There is no accountability in acknowledgment that society operates the way it does because of people. Instead, he dismisses the innate bad within all by blaming a system, following that his stance stems from a focus of the end goal. Hence my biggest complaint, plausibility. Never would his end goal be achieved due to his end goal being the problem. Its innate vilification of the current doesn’t provide any incentive for the current to move towards Weinberg’s society. For a better community to realistic, there must be an operation of compromise in which Weinberg lacks.

In Karen A. Gray’s text, Community Land Trust in the United States, I was fascinated by the concept of community land trust. This fascination stems from the connotations of what CLTs exemplifies regarding the mentality of people, as well as the role of government in resolving the affordable housing crisis.

In this text, Gray states that “Through that work, they [the community] started a school, daycare center, a hospitality house, and other projects, and over the years they realized that housing was a serious need. The housing need led them to form the CLT.” (Karen Gray, 72). This line reminded me of the trip taken to the Museum of Reclaimed Urban Space where the tour provided and expressed the initiative of the people within the area when faced with housing hardships. This ‘do it ourselves’ attitude demonstrates the ability of people to come together and tackle problems that otherwise would go unsolved. However, what is essential at the root of communities that need to act can be summed up in lacking actions from the government. By failing to expediently tackle problems, the government presents only two options for the community to choose from: either continue with the way things are or take action to alter the status quo. Ultimately when things are as dire as it is, people would finally choose the latter option.

Despite the government not playing the expedient problem-solver role as many would desire, they too cannot be characterized as the villain of this situation. Both the people, as well as the government, want to resolve this issue. As Gray states, “The number of CLTs have grown most rapidly in the last decade in part due to support from government entities.” (Karen Gray, 73). Government is indeed trying to play its part in mediating the problem while generating solutions; however, the root of the affordable housing crisis is the problem that the government must tackle. Community land trusts are a “…innovative form of community development.” (Karen Gray, 73), that act as a band-aid to the problem of some people having an inability to afford to house themselves. The government can support CLTs goals; however they must not place a heavy emphasis on CLTs being a solution, rather its true nature is only just a remedy. Gray states it best when she writes, “…CLTs have been criticized for focusing on small solutions to affordable housing rather than structural changes such as federal housing policies… Private-sector models cannot become the only providers of affordable housing.”  (Karen Gray, 74). Solutions to massive scale problems can be lessened by the involvement of the private sector; however, the government must take part in providing a framework towards the end goal solutions.

CLTs do provide an alternative to the default framework of how the real estate market operates, however in the very end the housing crisis cannot be stopped. “…housing costs are skyrocketing because of economic growth and the influx of high-paid labor.” (Karen Gray, 72) However, this would never change. The economy will always grow, and the demand for high-paid labor would be too. In my opinion to solve the housing crisis would ultimately not require the elevation of those in poverty into not a higher class. Instead, it requires those in the poverty class to be supported by the government in the sense of preventing natural poverty. There must be protections established to brace against falling behind with economic development, in the sense of inflation, as well as other factors that make the poor poorer.

 

 

 

 

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?

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.

               The readings by John Locke and Henry George both do an outstanding job at framing an argument in which they address the concept of land and property. With John Locke there is a greater stance upon the concept of property, while on the other hand Henry George places greater emphasis on land.

               John Locke’s stance is an interesting one that diverges into a multitude of ideas. However, the one idea that stands at the center of his argument is that of past possession in contrast to his “modern day” possession. He brings up contrast to how in the past possessions were perishable goods and one would own what they needed. If one does over consume or horde the laws of nature would regulate this. “…were forced to seek for their sheer survival – are things that will decay and perish if they are not consumed soon.” (Locke, 17). With the introduction of assigning things value, such as the ide of money, does the nature of over consumption come into play. This is due to the nature of which, by applying a monetary system to things does the natural regulator of a good’s expiration gets negated. Locke places this under a loss in which there is negative connotation towards this change, however I disagree with that. I believe that by adding a monetary system is adding order into the system of owning property. Locke discounts a lot of the benefits in trade and specialization we see in todays modern day brought about by the creation of a monetary system. His argument of how the idea of money being a bad influencer for it allows man to “…take more than he needs.” (Locke, 18) doesn’t address the pros money has brought. Money creates a system in which uniforms a system of trade. It places order into the hand of the participants and places a foundation for measuring the value of what could be in one’s possession. So ultimately, I consider Locke to be correct in stating that money has allowed for over consumption, however, it’s a positive creation for it helped revolutionize trade by creating the foundations of mass markets.

               Henry George’s stance focuses more upon the idea of owning land. George dives deeper into the idea, that Locke opened his writing with, of how labor should define ownership. Where as Locke goes into how money has altered the system of labor producing possession, George dives into how ownership of land produces a negative aspect upon this idea. George argues that landowners who don’t labor upon the land, rather profit from workers of the land are unjust. “one is unjustly enriched – the others are robbed” (George). This is George’s perception of rent, a plain robbery from workers. However, I feel that George dismisses a very important concept that comes with land ownership. That being the control over the land’s utilization. I feel that under George’s idea of should happen to land there is a very blatant problem. That being the disagreement of a community on what should be done with the land. Take for example someone wanting to build an amusement park right next to a quiet neighborhood. The only people who would be able to say anything and stop such a matter would be the legal system, thus if this action is done then the government technically owns, to a degree, the land near the neighborhood. They got to say what can and can’t happen on it. In short, I believe that land ownership is a good thing, in the matter of which it helps funnel the direction of land development.