Warren, Arkansas Recently we discussed the potential evolution of the so-called “poor door” housing programs implemented by developers trying to segregate one-percenters from affordable housing units in their complexes in New York City. I warned that Mumbai offered a potential case study in how such lack of integration could lead to rebuilding substandard housing next door to marble façade high rises in the name of slum renewal. Now that ACORN is organizing in London it didn’t take a New York minute for me to hear from one of our organizers there that London has already doubled the ante in developing poor doors and housing segregation.
The Guardian jumped on the “poor door” issues over the last several months, finding cases as extreme as the entrances to affordable housing units in poorly lit back alleys back by the garbage cans. The segregation is complete down to the bike racks, postal boxes, and of course separate rubbish bins, as they call them there.
Developers, required to have such units, go to slick extremes in making their cases for segregation from these reports. Some lay the blame on the fact that there are separate housing associations that manage the joint tenancy for the affordable units, and claim these housing units “demand” separate entrances so that common space fees are less. One developer made a flat statement, unsubstantiated from what I could tell, that allowing the poorer tenants to enter through the front doors and fancier lobbies would amount to “cross subsidization,” whatever that might be, and “was illegal.” Clearly, that’s a ludicrous statement on its face.
In Mumbai I mentioned how elevators were frequently shoddy and unusable so quickly evolved into giant vertical garbage receptacles. Well, in London, same-same, almost. Tenants in some of the segregated housing talked about regular breakdowns of their “lifts,” leaving them with a nine-story walk-up climb to their units. Hey, let’s be fair, Judy Brown, the tenant who walked up nine stories to her flat was quoted in the Guardian also saying that they had told her,
“When both the lifts weren’t working they did say that if you were pregnant, had a health problem or a baby in a buggy you could use the main entrance,” she said. Otherwise, the tenants said, they were “locked out” of the main lobby.
How big hearted can they be, huh?
On the good side in London any new development is required to provide a portion of affordable units, as opposed to the voluntary program in New York City and the non-existent program in many other cities still at the beck and call of any developer with a line-of-credit and the willingness to make a political contribution.
Though it’s also clear that the developers in London have the whip hand as well, and see the requirement to provide affordable units as the start of negotiations, not as a prerequisite, even to the extent of blaming the victims, the very poorer tenants they are forced to accommodate for their own segregation:
“…developers are obliged to provide a set proportion of affordable homes when they draw up a new project, but they are often able to negotiate this figure down with local planners. Some provide the cheaper homes in separate blocks, but in a single structure development the affordable homes are often on separate floors – with separate entrances, lifts, car parks and even rubbish bins, so that upmarket apartment buyers have no contact with those occupying the social housing in their buildings. In some cases, developers have even used the fact they need to provide separate doors and lifts to argue against putting affordable homes on the same site as their premium apartments. Planning documents for the 56 Curzon Street development in Mayfair show that the developers told the local council “that on-site provision of affordable housing would result in significant design inefficiencies due to the need for separate entrances and building cores”.
Mayor De Blasio of New York City is committed to breaking down the poor doors. Mayor Boris Johnson of London, frequently mentioned as an outside shot to replace David Cameron as Conservative prime minister material says poor doors are hunky-dorky with him.
Sounds like we can keep our eyes on London to see an evolving case study on how this residential segregation of the rich from the poor accelerates the path to Mumbai and economic apartheid.
Lower 9th Ward before and after, credit to Ted Jackson at nola.com
Little Rock Perhaps the best news in the nine years since Katrina has been that we have not faced another devastating hurricane, as the city continues to struggle to rebuild. We had a bit of problem a couple of years ago in 2012, but not so severe that it forced widespread evacuation or extensive damage. Every year that we can get past Katrina is another gift.
Surveying the changes over nine years isn’t easy. Many of the positives come with big, fat “buts.”
Like the fact that population in the metro area is now 93% of what it was before the storm, but in the city itself we are only 78% of where we were before Katrina. The Census Bureau estimates New Orleans’ population at 378,715 compared to the 2000 Census population of 484,674. That’s still 100 grand down, and that’s not good.
We’re growing, yes, but people still can’t find their way home, especially African-Americans.
The Census Bureau estimated 99,650 fewer African Americans in 2013 compared to 2000, but also 11,494 fewer whites and 6,023 more Hispanics. African-Americans still represent the majority of the city’s population at 59 percent, down from 67 percent in 2000.
All of which means we are becoming more diverse, even while we have so many “missing New Orleans.” We gained 44,281 Hispanics and 6,564 additional Asian residents. The Hispanic population in the metro spiked 76 percent between 2000 and 2013, a rate greater than the nation’s 53 percent growth.
So the city fathers that wanted a “whiter” city, didn’t get their wishes, even though their policies barred return for so many. They also didn’t get a richer city because of their continued programs.
According to The Data Center’s figures:
While the poverty rate in the New Orleans metro declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 15 percent in 2007, it then increased to 19 percent in 2012, such that it is now statistically unchanged since 1999. In New Orleans itself, the 2012 poverty rate of 29 percent is also statistically the same as 1999 after falling to 21 percent in 2007. Like the overall poverty rate, child poverty in Orleans Parish and the metro area dropped in 2007 but has since increased to its 1999 levels. In 2012, the child poverty rate was 41 percent in the city and 28 percent in the metropolitan area, both higher than the U.S. rate of 23 percent.
No small reason for the continued poverty and stalled return continues to rest on the problem of inadequate and unaffordable housing, because of the double whammy of first the storm and then the recession which rolled back credit availability and made home reconstruction unaffordable for many low-and-moderate income families. Rents soared after the storm and continue to be sky high. The Data Center finds that “36 percent of renters in the city paying more than 50 percent of their pre-tax income on rent and utilities in 2012, up from 24 percent of renters in 2004.”
The beat goes on like that.
We did better on jobs and jobs on recovery after the storm than many cities in the recession, but the jobs didn’t pay diddling, especially when so much of the income went for housing. Higher education is lagging, especially for African-American men, and the charter school experiment has not moved the needle on failing schools. New businesses are up, but so are sales tax revenues and other taxes servicing a smaller population, so many of these businesses are marginal. We have more bike lanes and bike trails but can’t seem to fix the potholes in the streets.
Here’s the story in New Orleans. We’re going to make it, but every day is still going to mean a struggle over a bumpy road. We’re going to come back somehow and we’ll welcome all the new people, but we can’t escape the heartache for people we miss, who still can’t make it home.
Little Rock There’s something about the dog days of summer that seem to bring the crazy out. Unfortunately we’re seeing this once again in the Congressional cloakroom resurgence of the Tea Party representatives, even as the Tea Party’s electoral and public support plummets, and once again the bone their gnawing is the crippled immigration system.
You know it’s out of hand when someone like Carlos Gutierrez, a former Commerce Department secretary under former President George W. Bush says,
“When you put Raúl Labrador, Steve King and Michele Bachmann together writing an immigration bill, there’s damage done, no question,”
He was referring to the fact that far right, conservative Congressman Steve Scalise, Republican from Louisiana, and the newly elected #3 in the Republican caucus opened the door and let his fellow whacks have a shot at modifying the bills being crafted to deal with the humanitarian crisis of Central American children fleeing to the US border for safety from conditions in their home countries. As reported in the Times,
The changes opponents sought were subtle: clearer language showing that the bill was raising the bar on granting asylum hearings to unaccompanied children at the border, and a more explicit bill phasing out Mr. Obama’s executive order granting legal status to some immigrants brought to the country illegally as children, an order known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
Regardless, Mr. Gutierrez said, political damage was done. Complexities of immigration law that slip by most of the American news media remain front and center on Spanish television, where news figures such as Jorge Ramos advocate immigration overhaul positions, he said. And little-known lawmakers like Mr. King and Mr. Brooks are not so obscure among Latinos.
Just days after helping write the House’s only immigration policy bill of the year, Mr. Brooks made waves again when he spoke of a “war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party” to the conservative radio show host Laura Ingraham. Mr. King was caught on tape grabbing the arm of a young immigrant who grew up in Arizona and was granted legal status by the president’s order. “You’re very good at English, you know what I’m saying?” he told the immigrant, a graduate of Arizona State University.
Mr. Gutierrez said: “We have destroyed tens of thousands of young lives, people who don’t speak Spanish, who have lived their whole lives here, who want to be productive members of society, and now Steve King is rewriting DACA? I just think that is a real shame.”
On the other side of the aisle we now have Senator and Republican presidential aspirant, Mark Rubio, threatening that they may try to stand in the way of any movement by President Obama to address either the border crisis or the broken immigration system, by refusing to approve the budget this fall, if the President takes action, essentially promising another painful government shutdown. The GAO estimates the financial costs of this last Republican charade as $17 billion dollars. There is now a waiting list in immigration courts of over 375,000 cases. There are millions of families caught betwixt and between. Arkansas Democratic Senator Mark Pryor and others in tight races for November are pleading for the President to do nothing until after the mid-term elections for their sakes, even though the President has promised action soon, and could lose the Senate then, even further damaging any opportunity for change.
Once again currying to the right wing radicals and lack of political leadership is creating legislative and political gridlock and putting a chokehold on widespread human rights issues effecting millions as well as the entire character and global position of the United States as a beacon of freedom and justice. It’s hard to embrace good policy options when the choices are either the devil or the deep blue sea, but that’s what the Tea People and their allies are forcing, and this looks like a bluff that simply has to be called.
Dallas So-called voluntary inclusionary zoning in New York City allowing private developers to add more density and receive tax breaks in exchange for constructing a certain number of affordable housing units has led to controversy, as the city tries to make the program mandatory for new developments and as developers exploit loopholes that allow segregation of the affordable units from the luxury spaces. Separate entrances around the block or down the street have led to talk of a “poor door” increasing discrimination and inequality for those with lower income as the city continues to evolve as the playground and precinct of the rich.
To be clear the affordable units are income based at around $50,000, so this is a long way from section 8 or public housing. Advocates of affordable housing are disagreeing about the impact of the income segregation. Some are of the “any port in a storm” school and ready to accept anything the developers want to do, as long as they build some affordable units in a city desperate for such housing. Others, including thankfully the Mayor’s office, are clear that they will close the loopholes in the original ordinances that allowed for such segregation.
For my part I can’t get my mind out of Mumbai as I hear and read about this issue. In Mumbai the Bombay Municipal Corporation for a number of years has had a housing scheme that couples slum clearance with affordable replacement housing and usually luxury condos and apartments constructed by private developers, so it is possible to imagine how unit and income segregation can, and perhaps will, evolve. Real estate in Mumbai, like New York City and many other cities, is at a premium especially closer to the central districts. A private developer can win permission to build in areas where there are slums if they are willing to clear the slums and construct replacement housing at 200 meters of so for the existing residents. The rest of the footprint allows for construction of high rise luxury housing, literally side by side or across the street from each other.
It is amazing though to visit some of these developments even two or three years after they are constructed. Physically the contrast is immediate in Mumbai. One is a soaring tower of marble and glass and the other will be five or ten stories of box-like construction already discoloring and deteriorating. Visiting families inside means a 10-story walk-up. The elevators, once broken are unrepaired and frequently become garbage receptacles. Where in one area the grounds and entryways are immaculate in the other there is no plan for maintenance and upkeep. The materials and construction are shoddy and substandard. The letter of the housing scheme is followed but not the spirit. In Mumbai it is easy to see what the BMC was trying to do in killing two birds with one stone and a private developers’ money, but it also easy to see what happens once the developer washes his hands, collects his money, and is gone as well.
In New York the allowance seems to be that the affordable units can also be in “the same community,” meaning at a distance from the higher rent district. Clearly, building codes have to be met, which is also technically the case in Mumbai, but there’s no evidence that cheaper materials and construction would not be permissible. The whole business model for private development is for the developer to cash out and get out as quickly as financially feasible. It is unclear in New York how long term maintenance might be handled, especially in the segregated, affordable units.
As a matter of not only public policy, but logic, the more integrated the affordable housing is with the rest of the units, the greater the likelihood that the social benefits will inure to all residents and that the collective good of the common housing will be protected and maintained. We may need affordable housing at any price and at any place possible, but without full integration of the units, the future will look like Mumbai with gated highrises permanently attached to sister slums, rebuilt vertically, rather than horizontally.
This is not about pool and gym privileges. This is about the need to build an integrated, equitable community with public dollars and incentives, and the chances of achieving these goals for everyone is through the same door and sharing the same spaces, not separation and segregation.
Houston All of the evidence on income stratification in higher education indicates that elite colleges and universities continue to play a major role in accelerating inequality as cherished ghettos of the rich and guardians of society’s inside track. It should come as no surprise that they are undoubtedly the least able to heal themselves and open their doors to lower income students and play a role in decreasing inequality.
The scores are now in and they have failed on every count, if they were ever even trying to do the right thing, in recruiting lower income students.
In 2006, at the 82 schools rated “most competitive” by Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges, 14 percent of American undergraduates came from the poorer half of the nation’s families, according to researchers at the University of Michigan andGeorgetown University who analyzed data from federal surveys. That was unchanged from 1982. And at a narrower, more elite group of 28 private colleges and universities, including all eight Ivy League members, researchers at Vassar and Williams Colleges found that from 2001 to 2009, a period of major increases in financial aid at those schools, enrollment of students from the bottom 40 percent of family incomes increased from just10 to 11 percent.
Oh, and let’s be perfectly clear, this failure is not because there aren’t more than enough fully qualified potential applicants.In “… fact… there are many high school seniors from low-income homes with top grades and scores: twice the percentage in the general population as at elite colleges.”Reading this piece in the New York Times, was mainly an exercise in allowing many of the experts and college presidents a chance to make excuses and rationalizations for the failure.Basically, they claim the the dog ate their homework.
The biggest dog was the barking dollar which had all of them by the collar. They are elite and high status partially because they have a financial structure that advertises exactly that kind of exclusivity with a price tag to match. They whined that the financial formula was such that to provide the amount of financial subsidy to genuinely recruit more lower income students they would need roughly one million dollars in endowment for every $45 or $50,000 worth of subsidy. This kind of vicious financial circle was going to bite someone’s butt, and it wasn’t going to be theirs was the bottom line of their message, so to heck with the poor.
I’ve jumped on this soapbox before and argued that to make real change requires outreach. I’ve even recommended that these colleges connect with community organizations, like ACORN working in these communities, to act as feeders of talent and support to populate their student bodies. Probably sounds a little bit like allowing class struggle and a mini-revolution to come in the front door past the ivy covered gates, but darned if the President of Vassar didn’t shame her colleagues by calling them out:
“You can make big statements about being accessible, and have need-blind admissions and really low net prices for low-income kids, but still enroll very few of those low-income kids, by doing minimal outreach,” said Catharine Bond Hill, president of Vassar College. “There has to be a commitment to go out and find them.”
Talk is cheaper than actually doing the work, enrolling lower income students, and paying the bills in the fight against inequality, so unless there’s a lot more of action of the type that Hill is calling for, another 30 years will go by without much change except that these same schools will be even more stratified as playgrounds and proving grounds for the rich, high born and insider trackers of America.
Houston Eventually as the evidence mounts, you have to wonder whether the internet is stacked up against women.
You can look at the gatekeepers in the pantheons of tech in Silicon Valley. Recently released employment statistics at Apple are representative and there 80% of the hires are men, and not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s largely white and Asian men.
The class action lawsuit on the conspiracy between Google, Apple, and others to restrict the movement of their engineers to work for other companies was so egregious that the judge rejected the $324 million class action settlement as too cheap for the conspiracy involved that emanated right from the top with Steve Jobs on down as they hoped to impress labor on their own plantations without escape. These mobility restrictive practices couldn’t have helped women, and sexual discrimination charges in the Valley from women who were denied the right to claim the status of co-founders when they stopped dating other co-founders, just underscores the point.
Then let’s talk about “trolling” and the hidey-holes for misogynists and general haters on Twitter and elsewhere that hound women specifically and regularly. Recent attention came as Zelda Williams, Robin Williams’ daughter, jumped off Twitter because of the grossness directed her way around her father’s unfortunate suicide. A headline talked of “incivility growing,” but “incivility” may just be a soft substitute for what is really nothing other than hate, but because it involved attacks on women more than men, a euphemism was used.
I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy, but I can draw a line between various points. When access to the internet is restricted by cost and profiteering so that inequality accelerates the poverty of all, but disproportionately women and children more than others, and when women are routinely blocked from progress in technology and victimized on the web, I start to wonder what’s really going on here, no matter what the “lean-in” rationalizers have to say.
One of the few places where women seem to be kicking butt is actually on Kickstarter. I read recently that projects initiated by women significantly lead those started by men, largely observers speculate because women want to see other women succeed and therefore support them. Although I wouldn’t be shocked to find that is just what men are saying. It could be that the women’s projects are simply better. Period.
It’s a nasty world for women, so it’s sad, but not surprising, to see how much of what we find in the streets is also populating the internet highway. Twitter claims they are manually trying to keep up with the trolls, but you just know that won’t work.
The companies that succeed will be the ones that allow speech, but also protect secure spaces. In the meantime the tech community needs to get a grip on this problem in dealing well with women, since as the Chinese expression goes, they “hold up half the world,” or as we know in the USA, way more than that.