The story of housing in modern America is one of white economic development built on a foundation of black oppression. From racially restrictive covenants, to segregation in the form redlining sponsored by the Federal Housing Administration, to blockbusting, to “contract selling” and “urban renewal,” these policies did not simply wall off black residents into segregated neighborhoods; they preyed upon the earnings and economic development of black families. Gentrification is simply the latest and most sanitized of these efforts. Any attempt to justify gentrification without this historical context, such as the obnoxiously titled “Don’t ignore the benefits of gentrification,” is doomed to fail from the start.
Opinion columnist Thomas Ferguson claims “decaying urban communities in need of renewal cannot afford to dismiss gentrification when it provides solutions to issues plaguing them.” Similarly, in 1960 Mayor Thomas J. Mitchie declared that “from a financial point of view, as well as from a social and cultural point of view, the substitution of a fine modern business section for the slum area now existing back of Vinegar Hill would be the most forward looking step that has been taken in Charlottesville in many, many years.” Regardless of Ferguson’s intent, he echoes destructive and patronizing argumentation that led Charlottesville to raze African-American communities in the 20th century.
In the last decade, Charlottesville’s African-American population has dropped from 22 percent to 19 percent as gentrification has caused an affordable housing crisis in the city. If Ferguson were more aware about the community around him, he would see Charlottesville as a window into the negative effects of gentrification. On a macro level, the truth is more complicated than displacement of low-income and minority communities by gentrification simply being “rare” or “a myth” as the article he cites claims it is.
Studies do show that, during the first-wave of gentrification, residents are just as likely to leave gentrifying neighborhoods as non-gentrifying ones. However, this leaves out an important distinction. Residents who leave gentrifying neighborhoods often have no freedom of choice and are forced out by higher cost of living.
Furthermore, when those residents do move, they are more likely to end up in comparably worse neighborhoods with higher crime rates and inferior schools. Roughly 21 percent of all residents who moved to a different area ended up in a neighborhood with a lower median income than where they lived previously. This share was particularly high for low-income families displaced from gentrifying neighborhoods.
Although the studies cited by Ferguson paint a different picture on a macro level, we cannot ignore effects in the cities and neighborhoods where gentrification has a clearly documented detrimental impact. Washington D.C., the city formerly known as “The Chocolate City,” ceased to be majority black in 2010. Bed Stuy, a historically black neighborhood in Brooklyn, has seen its white population increase by 633 percent. No time was wasted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to gentrify and displace most of the black neighborhoods in New Orleans. These changes have affected thousands of people and their experiences cannot be ignored.
Moreover, gentrification opens the door to predatory practices such as the sale of tax liens. When a city puts unpaid property taxes on sale, they are bought by predatory investors and saddled with added interest that residents cannot possibly pay. As a result, the residents often end up losing their homes. This practice is how 76 year old former Marine Bennie Coleman ended up losing the home he had owned for decades, over a measly $134 unpaid tax. These policies are often meant to encourage investment in gentrifying development. White supremacists have clearly grasped at the racial nature of these practices. In Atlanta, Ku Klux Klan lawyer Sam Dickinson has utilized tax-lien sales to displace black residents while enriching himself.
The primary assumption of Ferguson’s column is that gentrification is a positive good. The column cites a study which primarily notes a higher quality of life for public housing residents in gentrified neighborhoods, leaving out key parts of the picture. His claim that gentrification improves school systems is patently false. New residents to gentrifying neighborhoods tend to send their children to private schools and charter schools, while the segregated public school systems flounder. This is the resilience of white supremacy. “Lower crime” within gentrifying neighborhoods also means more profiling and surveillance of black residents. For instance, in Charlottesville black residents are nine times more likely to be stopped by the police. High rent prices and new competitors also cuts at what should be the backbone of minority and low-income communities: small businesses. One would assume more conservatives would be outraged about this aspect of gentrification.
Other effects of gentrification are less tangible though. Harlem, an eminent site of cultural and historical significance for African Americans, has been especially hard hit by gentrification. Michael Henry Adams’ column in The New York Times explains how “The Renaissance, where Duke Ellington performed, and the Childs Memorial Temple Church of God in Christ, where Malcolm X’s funeral was held, have been demolished. Nightlife fixtures like Smalls’ Paradise and Lenox Lounge are gone.” The cultural value of these fixtures to a community and to our country cannot be measured in dollars or a quality of life study.
Ferguson’s column draws from studies which challenge and complicate our traditional view of gentrification. Yet, no one benefits from a column which essentially tells minority populations to be silent and grateful for gentrification. Especially when Charlottesville residents are currently suffering its oppressive effects.
Wes Gobar is a fourth-year in the College and President of the Black Student Alliance.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
