a reflection on testiness, activism, and involvement

muteflute

So I've been thinking.

There have been several very heated arguments lately here and, following those, locked topics. This isn't so good, but it doesn't seem useful to just start looking for someone to lay blame on. Rather, it may be worth taking a good look at what the central causes of this are. Let this serve as a first foray into this.

It seems to me the central problem, beyond testiness, is a sort of communal lack of patience. The deja-vu posts and the vociferous, ad hominem assaults share a kind of quick-read-miss-the-point mentality. Why do some searching, read carefully, answer articulately and carefully when a rapid and misinformed post is easier? I would have liked to post in "sloppy seconds," myself, but the post wasn't really about that article anymore. Which is a pity, because, while the article makes a good deal of sense in places, it doesn't hold together at all. What is his point? Unclear.

Devincf has noticed a "hive-mind": this isn't altogether inaccurate, although it is an extreme name for the process. The truth of it is, we all seem to have a conflicted feeling about the changes that are happening in the neighborhood. We want amenities, high-quality bars and supermarkets, coffee-houses, safe streets at night, and so on, and yet we don't want it to become Park Slope or "BoCoCa." We want our neighborhood to retain its character, while improving. We want it to remain diverse amidst rising living costs and racial socio-economic disparities. Our gripes are really with the NYC housing economy--the all-or-nothing rent-raising, the racial, economic, and commercial homogenizing of "up and coming" neighborhoods--and its lack of sensitivity for the values we hold.

But getting into arguments about it when we're all in agreement--we don't want Prospect Heights to turn into a (yuppified/hipsterized/white-washed) neighborhood, in the end--seems pointless and devolves into generalities and insults. I'm a hipster, technically. I ride a fixed-gear bike; I'm here for school; I got here only in August; I may not stay in the neighborhood (driven out by rent, maybe?); I listen to indie music. But I am invested in the community, and it does no good pissing me off by calling me "transcient" or "transplant" or "hipster" or "uninvested" or whatever. And vice versa--it's stupid to lambast others for their desire to see the neighborhood improve and welcome new people, because they are the new, invested fabric of the community whose passing you are bemoaning. Pissing them off does no good. Why should (us) transplants respect New Yorkers when New Yorkers disrespect us?

What we should be talking about is perhaps what devincf failed to mention--what WE can do to help make sure Prospect Heights remains the "same type" of community it is now. What can we do (and I am thinking about activism of some sort here, be it political or indirect, through opening independent businesses and so on, buying properties and renting at reasonable rates, etc.) to help preserve what we like about the community, instead of just wailing and waving our arms around, bemoaning its inevitable, imminent destruction and blaming it on other people.

escap

Well said, Muteflute.

All neighborhoods fluctuate and change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, and usually for a mixture of both. All New Yorkers were either born elsewhere or their ancestors were born elsewhere, and even those of us born in the city usually at least change neighborhoods. None of us can claim any kind of inherent ownership of a neighborhood, and what's so great about stasis anyway? We should welcome a healthy ebb and flow of different people.

escap

Oh, and btw, I missed the excitement from that last thread about this, but my own background has enough in it to make all of you probably hate me for one reason or another. I was born in downtown Bklyn and still live here, so that gives me the "native" card. But I lived in Japan for three years, so I can be accused of transcience and exploitation I guess, although I like to think that it was a mutual exchange of value, not just me extracting something. And, horror of all horros, though I grew up with solid liberal, artistic, hipster in the making roots, I ended up becoming a yuppie in the making who is pro-development and welcomes a lot of the changes in the area that are labeled as gentrification, even if they do price me out of the neighborhood. I would even go so far as to say that, along with the well documented bad, there will be some positive changes to the neighborhood if the whole Ratner thing goes through.

So what label am I? Yuppie scum? Maybe, but one who's as invested as anyone else is in the community and has all the "right" in the world to live here.

moufaisbad

i have a very good friend who did her masters at columbia in Social work and urban development.
One of the things that she immediately found surprising was that studies that have been done in the past 10 years have shown that 'gentrification' has been shown to improve the lives of the people originally from the communities. The results of the studies were a complete surprise to the researchers because they DID the study to prove that gentrification was bad. So you can imagine their shock when they found that it actually brought more services (ie. sanitation pick ups, improved public schools, lower crime etc) to neighborhoods that were previously ignored by police and government offices.
It also showed that while real estate prices for buying property went up signifigantly, fair market rents went up only marginally compared with the rest of the city and because most of the populations they were following lived in subsidized, rent controlled or rent stabilized housing the price of buying wasn't affecting them.

this all sounds like thesis-speak but, having moved from one marginal neighborhood to another for my entire 16 years in Brooklyn, i know that it HAS improved quite a few lives of people who were 'native' to those neighborhoods.
that is not to say that a starbucks on the corner of Washington and St. Johns would be a good thing. (thankfully, I have yet to still be living in a neighborhood by the time it gets a starbucks )
but as flute said gentrification doesn't HAVE to be a completely negative thing.

jack krohn

The point about rent-stabilized apartments is very true. On my block, there are plenty of "old-timers" living in rent-stabilized apartments who talk of how much the neighborhood has improved in the past twenty years. And at the end of each month, I see moving vans driven by hipsters priced out of their apartments.

I love the gentrification of Prospect Heights and look forward to seeing it continue. And, yes, that includes hoping for a Starbucks!

moufaisbad

but Gorilla coffee is SO much better!!
i would much prefer a Gorilla on the corner at least its owned by someone who lives in Brooklyn.

jack krohn

OK, I'll compromise and wish for a Gorilla Coffee instead!

BTW, do you have any citations to those studies that your friend mentioned? I'd love to read them.

Many thanks,
Jack

moufaisbad

i was looking all over for them last night and it was far to late to call her.
I sent her an email and I am waiting for a reply.
I am a big fan of quoting my sources too!

qtrain

moufaisbad wrote: The results of the studies were a complete surprise to the researchers because they DID the study to prove that gentrification was bad. So you can imagine their shock when they found that it actually brought more services (ie. sanitation pick ups, improved public schools, lower crime etc) to neighborhoods that were previously ignored by police and government offices.

I find it hard to believe that they found that conclusion shocking.

moufaisbad wrote: It also showed that while real estate prices for buying property went up signifigantly, fair market rents went up only marginally compared with the rest of the city and because most of the populations they were following lived in subsidized, rent controlled or rent stabilized housing the price of buying wasn't affecting them.

Makes sense. I wonder if the studied sample is representative of PH residents, though. How many rent-stabilized apartments survived the 80s here?

stacey

qtrain wrote: Makes sense. I wonder if the studied sample is representative of PH residents, though. How many rent-stabilized apartments survived the 80s here?

There are still quite a few rent stablized/Section 8/Mitchell Lama apartments here in PH

qtrain

stacey wrote: There are still quite a few rent stablized/Section 8/Mitchell Lama apartments here in PH

My last apartment was stabilized, so I'm sure there are quite a few around. My concern with the conclusion of the study is that there may be quite a few long term residents without rent protections.

And although my place was stabilized, the lease included an increase in the legal rent for the place (a separate rent value that was quite a bit more than what I was paying), which seems like an indication that if the place can be decontrolled, the rent will skyrocket.