Report a Comment

@Peter, you are assumming no one can both see the creativity in this post and be amused by it while simultaneously having real demonstrable compassion for people who may be negatively impacted by "gentrification" including themselves, family members, friends, neighbors and strangers.

i'm not sure i agree, but i'd say that whatever creativity/humor the post contains, it was lost on me - i didn't get it - couldn't appreciate it - b/c all i could see was a popular urban planning blog, authored by some of the most affluent and highly-educated people in DC, making fun of working class and poor people. it doesn't necessarily mean that the people who enjoyed this post are evil, but it does probably mean they subscribe to one or more of the reasons-for-not-hating that i listed in my previous comment, and that's not good, imo.

contrast this post to something like the song 'Domestic Violence' by RZA (don't want to link -- it's too brutal). it uses creativity and shock value not to make light of a serious problem, but to raise awareness about the seriousness of that problem, to show its devastating effects, and to make crystal clear that the problem _is_ actually a problem -- one that should not be tolerated, ever.

I _can_ link to Living Colour -- Open Letter to a Landlord.

p.s. I am fairly certain many of the commenters/posters on this blog would agree with you that a social structure that has allowed a large widening of the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest over the last several decades is unsustainable and even an unjust system.

for the record, i think it _is_ sustainable (not talking about our collapsing environmental ecosystem). and, wealth inequality seems to be increasing faster in DC than elsewhere, so there is probably a local component at play.

I do think that addressing that national, and even world-wide problem may be beyond the scope of this blog, which is aimed at shaping regional and local land use and transportation policy.

if the scope of this blog includes land use and transportation policy, then it must, by definition, imo, include issues of equity/equality. it's almost impossible to think of a transportation or land use policy that does not directly impact social/economic equity, and vice-versa.

also, i think inequality is a local issue primarily. Of course it interacts with national/federal/international policies, but it's primarily a local issue. if DC decided it wanted to become a more-just enclave within the USA, it could do so, without the help of and/or in spite of the federal government. in fact, i'd argue they are doing just that in some areas, allowing poor and working-class people to walk and bike is hugely important, and DC has been doing great work in this regard, relatively-speaking. the overall signs/indicators/realities of wealth inequality still look bleak, but on some issues, DC is headed in the right direction.

further, the 'About' page states the following:

Greater Greater Washington is devoted to improving the vitality of Washington, DC and the walkable cities and neighborhoods in the Washington metropolitan area, such as Alexandria, Arlington, Bethesda, College Park, Rockville, Silver Spring, Tysons Corner, and others.

'Vitality' has something to do with land use and transportation, and vice-versa, but it ain't the whole story. For instance, can a place exhibit 'vitality' even with lots of violent crime, like NYC back in the day? I'd argue 'yes' -- but 'crime' is not strictly part of a land use/transportation agenda, so should GGW even bother talking about crime? Does it even matter here? Should it be allowed to matter here? Extend that discussion to one of the best indicators of crime -- wealth inequality. Then you have to talk about education, etc.

If there were more walk/bike-transit-available neighborhoods around then "gentrification" in walk/bike-transportation-available neighborhoods would be alleviated.

Don't know if this is true, but I'd argue that making places walk/bike/transit-available/friendly is a good thing, generally speaking. I do think that cars and cars-first/only policy helps create and then sustain inequality -- just not sure it really has anything to do with gentrification.

i think it's important to stand up and be counted -- that's why i objected in my first comment. so, when someone tries to dismiss GGW as a haven for upper-crust, neoliberal elites who like to make fun of poor people, i can honestly say, 'no, try again.'

i could care less about land use and transportation -- but i do care about freedom and fairness and justice -- so i have to care about land use and transportation.

by Peter Smith on Dec 30, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report