Amy Starecheski’s chapter “Who Deserves Housing? The Battle for East Thirteenth Street” was an interesting look into the history of squatters in several houses on East Thirteenth Street. The book was written in 2016—about 30 years after the events took place. It uses a variety of sources, including the news, legal documents, and perhaps most importantly, oral histories.
Affordable housing is a constant debate in many cities, and New York City is no exception. However, squatters receive far less attention in the media today. Even as I study urban planning, this was my first look into squatting rights and the role of squatters.
Looking back at the events and speaking with community members who took part in the efforts to save the buildings provides great details, but given how long ago the events took place, I began to read their accounts with a grain of salt. Their details become less important than their feelings and interpretations of the events. Not everything can be remembered accurately, and no narrator can provide a completely objective account.
The chapter also creates many questions about property rights, who deserves housing, and more. The diversity of the buildings was interesting. Although initially represented in the chapter as diverse, there were conflicting accounts of this later. Ultimately, most accounts suggested that the houses were largely white men, usually with some type of construction experience. Nevertheless, as I began to get more cynical about the role of squatters, the author drew me back in by reminding the reader that, “There is one commonality [among all squatters]: practically all squatters, whatever their other motivations, are squatting because they need shelter” (82).
Overall, the author begged the question of who is worthy and who is unworthy–a question that I am still grappling with. Some of the leaders in the group had clear conceptions of who was deserving: “At the same time, Politi, Boyle, and DeDominicis articulated clear criteria for who was deserving: people from the neighborhood, people of color, families, people with AIDS, the elderly, and low-income people” (83). Still, it seemed difficult or impossible to police who moved in, except for through the use of force by bullies.
Finally, the use of language surrounding squatters created additional questions of how squatters identify themselves and how they are viewed by others. For example, the chapter highlights how the media had aligned against the East Thirteenth Street Squatters, largely referring to them as “ragtag.” However, in a later interview, one of the squatters takes on this description, referring to himself and the others as ragtag. This made me pause, wondering if the media had picked up this terminology on their own, or from the people themselves. Was “ragtag” an accurate description, or was it one which was originally meant to be used within the group, but was taken up by the news? Or perhaps having been labeled as ragtag, the squatters decided to accept the term for themselves, almost a badge of distinction.
There are no clear answers to any of the questions posed in the chapter. Affordable housing and who deserves it remains a growing problem, even thirty years later. The best we can do is to learn about such experiences in the past, even if they are subjective, and to see what lessons can be learned for a more equitable future.
This was a tough chapter because I did not make it totally explicit that I wanted you to focus on how oral history was presented and mobilized to tell the story Starecheski wanted to tell. However, you did a great job of picking up on these details nevertheless. I think what you see when you read this chapter vs. research that relies on more traditional social science methods is the nuance of how people tell their stories, even if it’s in retrospect. How does personal history make up accepted history, for example? How does memory determine what we know of the past? You also see the contradictions of lived experience and discontinuities of behavior (like, we want this building to be diverse, but we are particular about what that means) in a way that’s less visible through other research means. And I love that you picked up on “ragtag.” What do you think that re-use of the word tells us about this or any other urban community?