February 23, 2006
Morning Roundup: Service Changes Edition
Don't get too comfortable on that bus -- it might not be around for too long. WMATA is set to announce a series of service changes today, including cutting 28 of 57 bus routes that run after midnight. Those cuts -- 12 in the District, seven in Maryland, and nine in Virginia -- would allow WMATA to save $2.4 million, notes the Examiner. The transit agency is also looking to free up $4.3 million to put towards 17 underserved corridors, part of a series of changes that have made 2006 the "Year of the Bus," according to WMATA officials. Hopefully WMATA will take into consideration some of our suggestions...
Shaw Experiences Rapid Development: The story is the same, it is only the neighborhood that has changed. Today the Post writes of the plight of some of Shaw's longstanding residents, many of whom are struggling with the decision over whether or not to sell their homes in what is becoming the next urban frontier for gentrification. And as with any District neighborhood that has faced similar daunting choices, Shaw's residents struggle with the prospect of abandoning the generations of black culture and history that are fast becoming a scarce commodity in a changing city.
Off-Duty Police Officer Involved in Shooting: An off-duty police officer who was a central figure in an excessive force investigation more than a decade ago shot and killed a man in Northeast yesterday, writes WJLA. Edward Ford, a 48-year-old officer with the Metropolitan Police Department, confronted and killed a man who had stolen tools from a house Ford was renovating, claiming the man made a threatening move. In 1993 Ford handcuffed a suspected drunk driver to a mailbox and forcibly took a camera away from a Post photographer.
Metro Funding Measure in Virginia Shot Down: So much for a dedicated source of funding for Metro. A Virginia House Finance subcommittee voted down a proposal to allow Northern Virginia counties and cities to boost the sales tax by one-fourth of a cent to allow for a $50 million annual source of revenue for Metro. The measure would have pushed the District, Maryland, and Virginia one step closer to $1.5 billion in federal funding over the next decade proposed by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) for capital improvements.
Briefly Noted: Council-member pushes for review for new hospital ... D.C. contracting officer indicted for bribery ... Maryland looking to limit protests at funerals ... President Bush was unaware of ports deal.
Picture snapped by Olivia Leigh.
|
Is black culture really becoming a "scarce commodity"? Putting aside the question of whether black culture should be considered a commodity in the first place, is black culture really becoming scarce? I recognize that gentrification has change some neighborhoods significantly, but really, in the whole scope of things, it's not that many neighborhoods. I am confident that this city (especially if you include the surrounding counties) still has plenty of black culture, even if it is less prevalant in some of the central sections of the District.
Did I read that right? Was the significance of African-American culture in Washington DC just brought into question? I sense a long thread building here. Anyone ever heard of Jackson Ward, "The Harlem of the South"? Probably not. Because someone decided it'd be a good idea to build a trench and run I-95 thorugh it. An urban renewal project lost momentum mid-demolition, and much of the neighborhood is still trashed. This is what happens when someone decides that historic African-American culture is not enough of a 'commodity' to preserve, and it should not repeat itself here in the nation's capital.
When a segment of anything comprises over 60% of the total is it a "scarce commodity"? I would posit no. Therefore, black culture is in no dire danger in DC. It pains me to say, but if the shoe were on the other foot, the Post's headline would likely read "Shaw rapidly becoming multicultural haven". Despite the doomsday prophesies, what is happening in Shaw is slow racial balancing. According to census data -(http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org), black population did decline from 78% to 67% from '90 to '00 in Shaw, the white population rose from 13% to 18%. I'm sure in the last 5 years that same process has continued. Perhaps today, whites comprise 25% of the total. The same people who harp on upper NW being "lilly white" and a homogeneous wasteland are now griping about 25% white people in Shaw? The hypocrisy is laughable.
In that Black culture is valuable, yes it can be considered a commodity. When a person sees no value of a culture it's easy to not notice it becoming a scarcity. The art, scholars, restaurants, families, festivals, worship services, schools, concerts, forums, lectures, and all the other things so closely tied to DC's historic Black neighborhoods and their culture are leaving. Being replaced by placards/posters announcing more condos, dog parks, and if not Starbucks than it's another Starbucks.
Uh oh, someone brought up the evil 'G' word again. Why is gentrification always portrayed as having only negative consequences? I'm sure the residents that remain in the area gain some benefit from the changes. Tell me how the changes to Barracks Row hasn't improved the overall character of Capitol Hill, for example? Also, gentrification adds millions in tax revenue to the city coffers, which benefits the city as a whole.
Certainly, the affordable housing shortage is an issue worth examining. Policy solutions such as rent control and tax increase caps exist to address such situations. But just because you have lived in an affordable slum doesn't mean the city should keep the area as a permanent slum to subsidize your housing expenses. When an area becomes a desirable place to live, more people want to live there, and the price goes up. It's simple economics. Slapping the 'G' tag on any development is just an attempt to scapegoat the foreign interlopers who dare to introduce change in a neighborhood.
What's funny is how things have changed-- or how they have not. It's ok about talking about resistance and efforts to keep whites out. Am I the only one that sees the irony in the race that fought white people who tried to keeps black out of neighborhoods 40 odd years ago?
Switch the race of people in the article, run it 40 years ago. It's just as wrong today as it was then.
Come on, we can do better than this ridiculous double standard for discrimination.
I suppose you could choose to call it a commodity because its valuable, I just thought that to call it a commodity (i.e. something to be bought and sold) is somewhat debasing of the culture. But really I guess I was questioning whether condos in Shaw are really making black culture in Washington "scarce". Certainly it may be making the culture scarce in some neighborhoods, but certainly not in the DC area as a whole. Culture and places change over time, but I have no doubt that the black culture in Washington is strong and will continue to be a central part of the city's future.
Am I the only one that sees the irony in the race that fought white people who tried to keeps black out of neighborhoods 40 odd years ago?
Replace "blacks" with "illegal immigrants" (i.e. Latinos) and it's happening right now in northern Virginia (Culpepper(?), can't remember off the top of my head). Introduce legislation limiting non-related roommates and enforce it based on resident complaints. Hmmmm... who might be targeted?
Replace "blacks" with "poor and middle class" and it's happening where ever you see "rural preservation" in non-rural suburbs (Montgomery County, Davidsonville, etc.). Increase lot size requirement so that only the rich can afford and McMansions ensue. Who in their right mind still thinks of Montgomery county as rural?
Hey people,
Can we all stop the bitching about gentrification and get to more important issues, such as ripping on the Commonwealth of Shit-Ass Virginia, whose legislature is blocking permanent funding for the Metro system?
Can we all stop the bitching about gentrification and get to more important issues, such as ripping on the Commonwealth of Shit-Ass Virginia, whose legislature is blocking permanent funding for the Metro system?
Agreed. The gentrification debate is stale. We've heard all of the arguments on this very blog over and over again. Virginia's shooting down funding for the Metro that is used by tons of Virginians saddens me.
GhettoBurbs: Agree with your point on the displacement of Latinos in VA (and I would say it's not just the undocumented ones -- I'm sure many completely legal immigrants are living in crowded housing). However, I disagree on your point about rural preservation, especially in MoCo. Do you really think that, if it weren't for the Ag Preserve, that tons of affordable housing would be built now up there? Don't kid yourself; it would be "luxury townhouses" just like Clarksburg and Germantown and any other exurb in the upper part of the county. And parts of Montgomery are still rural, such as the area around Butlers Orchard, and that's actually a great thing about MoCo (the wide open spaces) that Fairfax missed the boat on.
i'm not so much worried about the black people as i am about rich, corporatecultured (by this i mean, starbucks, borders, chipotle, tower using people [none of which are bad businesses in and of themselves, and are fine in many senses to patronize, but which act as havens for folks hoping to stay risk averse and who live as tourists in Boorstein's tourist/traveler dichotomy]) 'soulless' white folks contributing to a springfieldization, or clarendonization or cities, which results in using an area not as a place of rootedness (which means more than just an investment) but rather as a city bunker.
It isn't as much an idea of who belongs where, it is whether you are making a place your home, or you are part of some larger piece of a globalism culture scouring areas for cheap investments, breaking apart longstanding traditions, using it up and moving on out.
There's nothing "wrong" white folks living it up in dc. it is wrong, one could argue, when the monied classes move in, uses existing areas as investment opportunities and then head on out. especially when the end result is it eliminates the possibility that less well off people of all races can live there.
moving in to these communities and making them communities will make much of this moot, i think. cause you've got to wonder who is going to be moving in next. if you're buying a house last sold for $60,000 for $775,000, you've got to be staying there right? i mean no one is going to be buying houses in shaw for 1.2 in a few years are they?
"The art, scholars, restaurants, families, festivals, worship services, schools, concerts, forums, lectures, and all the other things so closely tied to DC's historic Black neighborhoods and their culture are leaving."
Iknowtheplans--some of those things certainly are leaving, but I'm pretty sure they are not leaving entirely. If the worship services had left with residents, the parking controversy would not exist. If the schools had left, well um, I think the schools are still here, I live next to one and it was there this morning, complete with children.
Residential segregation is one of the biggest challenges to race relations in the US. It is disturbing when a neighborhood shifts from 100% (or virtually) one race to nearly 100% of another. However it is equally disturbing when people of any race decry the defacto racial desegration of their communities as 'diluting their culture.' Culture is fluid and constantly changes due to internal and external forces. We can be bitter about it, or we can embrace the differences in our communities and the effects they have on our constantly shifting culture, without losing any respect for our history and traditions.
lb, the main difference between efforts to resist gentrification now and efforts to block blacks from moving into neighborhoods in the 1940s and 1950s is that back then, it was legally impossible for black people to live in certain parts of the city, due to restrictive housing covenants and a lack of any fair housing laws.
al: What are you basing your fears on? I'd imagine that the people who subsist on just Starbucks, Chipotle, etc., are probably also the type to still consider Shaw "too risky". They're probably buying the new condos in Friendship Heights, etc. Also, I find your comment "Clarendonization" a poor metaphor -- Clarendon used to have lots of local flavor prior to gentrification, and still has some when you're not standing in the middle of Market Commons. So how is it an example of failure? (No I don't live in Clarendon... I just happen to like many parts of it).
Besides, when it comes down to it, aren't many parts of DC very Starbucks and Chipotle oriented? How is this really any new trend then?
As for your final comment about "no one will be buying houses in shaw for 1.2", I think that has a lot more to do with the overall market here than anything specific to Shaw. I imagine the answer will be no, but I don't think it'll have anything to do with Shaw, but just a regional slowdown.
Buying in Shaw is now about Globalism? Geez, I thought it was just about subverting the dominant paradigm.
But seriously, I'll admit that I don't love all the new stores in Clarendon or think all the condos are wholly beneficial, but to say there's not a community with roots there is to say you've not actually spent much time there. I think this misperception comes from focusing on two misleading things: 20's to early 30's somethings and chain stores.
20's to early 30s something people in and around cities are inherently transient. Add to the fact that they are more likely to rent and do not normally have kids and it results in them not typically expending the effort to integrate into the community. What that obscures is that the families in these areas do get involved with the community. The majority of homes in north Arlington contain these families, not the transient youth.
Also, I love local stores a lot, but it's superficial to say that chain stores ruin communities. Communities are not dependent on how unique they appear to outsiders but rather on what the people who live there do with themselves.
Anyway, I'm sick of Clarendon being a whipping boy for every pet cause. Most of these protests come from people who have spent little to no time there.
?,
Good point, but whether segregation or flight from integration is driven by laws or community prejudices, it's still wrong.
my point is just that you can't fight for rights to not be discriminated against in housing, then turn around and lament the diversification of a neighborhood. it's kinda perverse.
and, yes, i do understand that it's predominantly a "cultural" argument about a lost history in the article. but history in shaw extends much further than the previous 50 years that most activist refer to as the entire history of the area. i think the "culture" that is being lost is a thinly veiled attempt to mask that it's really about the demographics that are changing.
What confuses me about the article is that the people the reporter interviewed all OWNED their property in Shaw. How is it that they are being forced out? I understand that an increasing property tax burden may make it difficult for people on fixed incomes to pay the tax bill, but those problems aren't exclusive to Shaw, nor are they a direct result of the evil gentrifiers.
Plus, these people who are so quick to denounce all things gentrification are the same people who complain that they don't have a nice grocery store "like the white folks in Georgetown have."
They really can't have it both ways. They can't complain that their neighborhood doesn't have the same amenities as more affluent neighborhoods and then try to keep out the people who are coming in, cleaning the neighborhood up and making it desirable to retailers AND fight tooth-and nail a sit-down restaurant that wants to open up in their area.
Gentrification affects all demographics. Just look at Dupont Circle. Like most Gay ghettos, it originally became a gay enclave because no one else wanted to live there. Thus, it was a place where otherwise ostracized Gay and Lesbian people could live and be left alone. It was for many years the epicenter of Gay culture in D.C. With its increased desirability and influx of straight singles and families, that culture has most certainly been diluted. Just look at the crowds at the high-heel races. Overwhelmingly gay? Hardly. Then again, who am I to complain. I'll take a dilution in Gay culture as an acceptable loss in light of the fact that my property values have quadrupled in the last six years.
What confuses me about the article is that the people the reporter interviewed all OWNED their property in Shaw. How is it that they are being forced out? I understand that an increasing property tax burden may make it difficult for people on fixed incomes to pay the tax bill, but those problems aren't exclusive to Shaw, nor are they a direct result of the evil gentrifiers.
Plus, these people who are so quick to denounce all things gentrification are the same people who complain that they don't have a nice grocery store "like the white folks in Georgetown have."
They really can't have it both ways. They can't complain that their neighborhood doesn't have the same amenities as more affluent neighborhoods and then try to keep out the people who are coming in, cleaning the neighborhood up and making it desirable to retailers AND fight tooth-and nail a sit-down restaurant that wants to open up in their area.
Gentrification affects all demographics. Just look at Dupont Circle. Like most Gay ghettos, it originally became a gay enclave because no one else wanted to live there. Thus, it was a place where otherwise ostracized Gay and Lesbian people could live and be left alone. It was for many years the epicenter of Gay culture in D.C. With its increased desirability and influx of straight singles and families, that culture has most certainly been diluted. Just look at the crowds at the high-heel races. Overwhelmingly gay? Hardly. Then again, who am I to complain. I'll take a dilution in Gay culture as an acceptable loss in light of the fact that my property values have quadrupled in the last six years.
The DC gentrification debate is getting old.
Nobody is being forced out. Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying "move or die". The people moving out of neighborhoods like Shaw are forcing themselves out as an excuse because they live unhappy lives.
What was stopping the black residents in Shaw, Logan Circle, Dupont Circle, U Street, etc from picking up a broom, rake, trash can and cleaning up the garbage from the front of their properties in the first place? Why?
The blacks could have made their own neighborhoods more desirable instead of waiting for someone else to do it. Now they are being forced out? I am laughing to that idea right now. After the 1968 riots, they could have stayed in their communities to make them stronger, but most opted for the suburbs. Now look where the crime rate is growing. Ward 9 PG County. LOL.
Nobody is being forced anywhere. It is all in the mind. Perception is a powerful, but perception is not always reality.
I say that if you have lived in your neighborhood for years and accepted garbage in your front yard and on your street, then you have not contributed much to the prosperity of your community.
DC is becoming safer and more desirable with each passing day because people are moving into these communities who actually give a flock about what is going in their neighborhood.
Let us toast to the DC newcomers. We need more of them to make our great city even greater!
Agreed, otavio. Now that the interlopers are moving in, there's all of a sudden an increased pride in that neighborhood? Where was the pride when it was a garbage-strewn, open-air drug market?