Development
Gentrification east of the river, pt. 2: Economic development
Yesterday's post on gentrification stirred up some great conversations. Between that and other conversations I had yesterday, a few points have become clear.
Photo by _Harry Lime_ on Flickr.
First, no one knows what the heck "gentrification" means. I had six different conversations yesterday, and each conversation led to a different conclusion.
Second, historically in this country, class and race have been heavily correlated. Black Americans have been disenfranchised since we stepped foot in this country. We were brought here as property, beaten, and treated like animals. Even once we had our "freedom" we still endure decades of Jim Crow laws and redlining. Let's add welfare where mothers could only get government support without a man in the household and then the crack epidemic in the 1980s.
The result is generational poverty of black people in urban areas. The correlation of race and class makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation about gentrification without acknowledging how we got to where we are today.
Third, some people use gentrification as a code for "white people moving into a black community." Is the issue really that simple? This relates to the previous point, the correlation between race and class. However, we do ourselves a disservice by not acknowledging that there are areas East of the River that have a strong black middle class community and there has been an influx of young, black, middle class professionals moving into neighborhoods East of the River.
Ultimately, trying to define gentrification is a waste of time and energy and it distracts from developing solutions. Instead, my group at the East of the River Community Forum on Sustainability decided to move the conversation to a discussion about economic development.
Our group discussed the inherent conflict with economic development East of the River. On the one hand, residents want restaurants and retail in an area that is grossly under-served. There is a desire for economic development so people can eat, shop, and work in their community East of the River. However, there is a fear that economic development will make the area unaffordable to some residents. Long-time residents have watched the changes and displacements that occurred in other parts of the city.
One of the members of my group pointed out that "gentrification comes about because communities are not self-sustaining." Essentially what he was alluding to is that a rising tide lifts all boats in a community... as long as everyone has a boat and no one's boat as a hole in it.
The middle class neighborhood of Hillcrest in Ward 7 is an example of a community where everyone has a boat without holes. Hillcrest is a community comprised of homes, townhomes, and condominiums. Many of the long-time residents own their homes outright. Therefore the influx of young middle class professionals into Hillcrest over the last decade has had little to no negative effect on the affordability of the neighborhood for long-time residents.
What happens to the neighborhoods where people who don't have boats or have a hole in their boat? Generally, these are the people that are displaced when the rising tide comes. Our group determined the real important questions are: why don't people have boats, and why do some of the ones with boats have holes in their boats?
We concluded that people are ill-prepared for jobs and at the root of that is a poor education. In order for education reform to work, it is our obligation as a community to address the toxic environments and dysfunctional families where some of our children live.
In the next installment, I will delve into the importance of an "all hands on deck" movement as foundation for building the community.
 | Veronica O. Davis, PE, has over 9 years of experience in planning transportation, urban areas, civil infrastructure, and communities. She co-owns Nspiregreen, LLC, an environmental consulting company in DC. She is also the co-founder of Black Women Bike DC, which strives to increase the number of Black women and girls biking for fun, health, wellness, and transportation.   |
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
There's a reason that in most gentrifying neighborhoods you have a few old folks who own their homes, quite a few renters, and a bunch of middle-class "newcomers". It's because the children of those old folks grew up, got jobs, and moved out of the city. Just like nearly every other middle-class resident who gained the means to do so.
This opened up housing stock for poorer residents who *didn't* get jobs; or for folks from the suburbs who "fell through the cracks" for whatever reason to move back into the city.
That has been the main dynamic of the city for the last 50 years or so: poor people becoming middle-class and moving out of the city once they could afford it; a smaller influs of newly poor moving into the city because of cheap housing and generous social services.
The only thing new here is that the areas that are considered "acceptable" to new middle-class residents has slowly crept larger and larger. And one thing to keep in mind is that this "new DC middle-class" (while less racially diverse than DC's population between the sixties and the 90s) is still significantly more racially diverse than pretty much any other middle-class population in the country.
by oboe on Nov 9, 2010 1:03 pm • link • report
by oboe on Nov 9, 2010 1:05 pm • link • report
If those amenities were to appear in an area, wouldn't that naturally attract more people? With additional demand, prices go up. Anyone who's not a current homeowner (meaning both renters and future buyers) would then be subject to increased prices. This is "gentrification", right?
Is there any way, other than with heavy-handed residential price controls or subsidized housing to keep an area from getting more expensive as amenities develop?
I'm not proposing a solution here, obviously, but I think it's important to appreciate the dynamics of this market situation before figuring out the next step.
by Joey on Nov 9, 2010 1:14 pm • link • report
1. Those that own homes stand to benefit greatly (higher property value), unless they really can't afford the increase in property tax (tiny amount compared to increase in property value). If they can't afford the property tax increase, then I figure the homeowner probably can't afford upkeep of the property either, and likely should sell. I feel mainly for the retired elderly, but it is my understanding that there are laws to protect them from property tax increases (or at least there really should be).
2. Those that rent, however, have an economic interest to keep their rents low, and have every right to (legally) stand against and protest development. What I find interesting, though, are people who believe that they have a right to an apartment in perpetuity at a given rate as if they own a property. This to me is the center of the debate. I can see it is sad and threatening for long-term neighbors when a neighborhood of renters changes and people move away, but renters by definition DO NOT own their property and are always free to rent somewhere else, cheaper. Again, some sympathy for older folks who might be uprooted by higher rents, but much less for younger people who rent and are always free to move somewhere cheaper. I understand it is an emotional issue.
by Boris on Nov 9, 2010 1:31 pm • link • report
by Eric on Nov 9, 2010 1:32 pm • link • report
But I guess it just feels unjust to say that, if your neighborhood is suddenly inhabited by fickle newcomers who bid up house prices and rents, and who will likely move on to another neighborhood with their next home because they don't really intend to lay down roots in your community, the solution is for you to get more educated so you can make as much money as they do in order to stay in your own community.
This line of reasoning seems to endorse the ultimate disappearance of working class and middle class homes in the city, because rising tides can't themselves be the problem.
by Ken Archer on Nov 9, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report
I think once we get into a discussion that the "community" has an obligation to deal with some residents' dysfunctional homes, most people will tune out because of the seemingly never-ending challenge that entails. We've had decades of welfare policies that haven't solved the issue or generational poverty. I have a hard time seeing how community obligations will change matters on the macro level.
by Fritz on Nov 9, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
Is there any way, other than with heavy-handed residential price controls or subsidized housing to keep an area from getting more expensive as amenities develop?
Yes, there is. Density.
When you have dense neighborhoods, the combined market power (even in poor areas) of many potential customers in a relatively small geography means you can sustain a stable base of neighborhood-serving retail.
by Alex B. on Nov 9, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report
I don't believe there's such a definite line between "organic" gentrification and "inorganic" gentrification. You cite a mixed-use development as "inorganic." Why? Did it have government planning and funding? What if it didn't?
Almost every building project has planning (excepts include beaver dams, accidental fires, etc.). Someone, somewhere, has decided to knock down a working-class neighborhood and put up a condo building. Does that mean they wanted to change the neighborhood? Maybe, maybe not.
Plus, there are many, many forces that go into gentrification. Maybe a government wants to "clean" an area up. Maybe a huge-ass developer wants to make a National Harbor-sized development. Maybe a family wants to replace its townhouse with a brand new one.
Then you've got market forces, consumer demand, interest rates ... the list goes on.
I guess my point is that everything we do as humans is deliberate to certain a degree. So what's organic and what's inorganic?
by Tim on Nov 9, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report
@Boris: I'd challenge your distinction between owners and renters. Owners can definitely be pushed out of an area. They could be bought out and have their house destroyed and replaced, bought by richer folks or rented out (in which case you have #2). The house could be taken by eminent domain. They could die, of course. They're not immune to many of the same forces that push renters out, though I agree that it affects them less.
by Tim on Nov 9, 2010 3:00 pm • link • report
How can someone who owns their house be "bought out" without their consent other than through eminent domain? In order to have someone buy your house you have to sell it to them.
by MLD on Nov 9, 2010 3:11 pm • link • report
In my 'hood, at least half of the gentrifiers are African-American. Is that equally a problem? If no, why not?
by Juanita de Talmas on Nov 9, 2010 3:17 pm • link • report
My point was more how development (or gentrification, if you wish to call it that) can cause someone to move. It isn't forcing them to move, no, but it's definitely causing it and encouraging it.
by Tim on Nov 9, 2010 3:24 pm • link • report
Now why won't everyone buy in? Because any adjustments to resolve these issues simply screws people at a different point in the economic food chain. Basically, by transferring wealth around, you impact someone else, especially if it isn't done on a progressive scale, which DC taxes ain't. A classic example of this is FICA, where the upper half of the middle class is relatively screwed to subsidize the lower half and the poor, while the rich skate.
In this case, you are talking about a massive increase in social services budgets...which would require either a massive increase in DC taxes or a cutting of services to other areas where the middle and up are also beneficiaries, which is effectively the same thing. As DC taxes are pretty flat, this really screws the middle to upper middle, lowering their incomes and thus their ability to buy in to housing. Ditto "inclusionary housing" or low income housing set asides of various forms. As we have a heights law and land can't be built, this just raises the cost of market priced real estate and again, screws a segment of people who could otherwise afford to buy at market.
Amusingly, here we see an example of what is called "perverse effects" in economics. The more we do set asides in gentrifying neighborhoods, such as Columbia Heights, the more you drive up remaining market prices. Which screws a segment of people...who are forced to look in cheaper 'hoods, and the cycle simply pushes out a little bit faster. If you want to slow the process east of the river, the most effective method would be to kill all set asides west of the river.
by John on Nov 9, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report
While I'm generally in favor of added density (if built with appropriate walkability and/or transit) for a number of reasons, in practice, it rarely lowers prices.
This is something that comes up whenever someone discusses the height limit in DC as well.
The reason for it, I believe, is that added density is only possible (nowadays) when the regulatory scheme newly permits it. This very change to the zoning tends to immediately increase the perceived value (and thus the sales price) of each parcel. When a new developer wants to buy that parcel to build a 25-unit building where previously there were only 7 homes, he often ends up having to pay 2-3x what the land was previously (pre-zoning change) "worth". Accordingly, the prices of the units goes up.
Moreover, for the cocktail of "amenities and density" to coexist with low-income residents, I feel like the built environment has to be undesirable in some way (because it's 50 years old or it's public housing). This isn't a judgment on my part, just an analysis of anecdotal evidence. This is because, whenever new construction is built, it's sold at a premium over old construction, and so residents with higher ability to pay move in.
In the long run, density certainly makes a lot of things possible for a more economically diverse spectrum of residents, but I don't think new density usually has this impact without some sort of price controls or subsidy.
We're having these problems, in large part, because density was a dirty word for about half a century, and so there's now a limited availability of older, slightly shabby, dense and walkable housing stock. Again, though, building more now in the short term will probably just attract wealthier residents. This isn't a bad thing, as 50 years from now, maybe we'll be better off.
by Joey on Nov 9, 2010 3:51 pm • link • report
My point about density is that dense urban neighborhoods function better. There are simply more people to patronize local retail. The market there is too big to be ignored, even if the quality of those establishments isn't the best.
So, while adding density in these areas (like the aforementioned Barry Farm) is certainly going to be disruptive, it's also going to hopefully put those places back into a more sustainable economic equilibrium.
The bottom line is that gentrification is all about economic pressure on an area. The question is then how to relieve that pressure, or how to deal with it. Clearly, adding more supply to meet demand is part of the equation - but understanding why there's economic pressure is just as important. There might be pressure because social policy (whether that's public housing that permanently suppressed rents well below market rates or something else) has distorted the market for urban housing.
When you have that kind of distortion, change is inevitable. What I'm interested in is change that returns the city to a more sustainable balance point, rather than change that continues to exacerbate the economic distortions.
So, in adding density, I think you can (over the long run) have a diversity of housing stock that corresponds to a diversity of price points. There's probably need for shorter term solutions like IZ or housing vouchers to bridge the gap between that future and the present state.
by Alex B. on Nov 9, 2010 4:13 pm • link • report
@Joey... Economic development is an inherent conflict for those of us that live here. However, I'd like to believe that we could have new amenities that don't drive up prices. For example, a Starbucks or a Whole Foods moving into a neighborhood sends one type of message. However, a Trader Joe's and a locally-owned cafe sends a completely different message. It all comes down to adding amenities at the price points the community can afford. It also comes down to upgrading what is existing.
@Fritz... I can't wait for you to read Part 3 community obligation. I think you'll see its not as overwhelming as it sounds. ;-)
@Juanita... Which is exactly why I made it a point to call out the influx of young middle class black professionals East of the River and why using gentrification as a code term for "white people moving into the community" is problematic. A neighbor tried to argue they were different issues. I shook my head and stated they aren't.
by MIss V on Nov 9, 2010 4:15 pm • link • report
I'm also glad the tone has been civil and the comments insightful.
Re: your response to me, I actually don't think the "message" sent by a the type of retailer locating in an area is the most salient reason for a price increase.
Sure, if a Whole Foods moved into an area, that would do better to attract wealthier clientele. But if even a Giant (or frankly, a 7-Eleven) move in, the area within a quarter -mile radius of the new store is still inherently more desirable, simply because of the new amenity. Just the addition of a simple supermarket or small grocery store will work to bump prices up.
Then . . . it snowballs. As we've seen elsewhere in the city, one restaurant moves in, then another, then several, then somewhere along the way, a small grocery, then another, then a supermarket, then another. "Whole Foods" (and "Trader Joes", which also goes after an affluent market) are rarely, if ever, pioneers. They go where there other amenities already exist.
Once even one small amenity comes to an area, it will attract more people (demand) who will then attract more amenities, and the price escalation will take off.
I'm really not sure of the short-term solution, but the addition of simple amenities is, I think, by itself a catalyst for residential price increases.
by Joey on Nov 9, 2010 4:24 pm • link • report
At present it's a "food desert', ergo the majority of folks don't want to move in. So you get a TJ's as Miss V ,mentions. Suddenly the area in walking distance of TJs tips for a % of people to buy, and price goes up. And the process you describe begins...eventually when the demographics support it, you end up seeing the Whole Foods and Starbucks chase the change.
Just look at what is happening on H st NE for the process in mid cycle.
by John on Nov 9, 2010 4:39 pm • link • report
by MIss V on Nov 9, 2010 4:42 pm • link • report
This isn't the burbs, where development can simply skip over to another area. We're land and heights law constrained...as long as there is unresolved demand for the city (which is driven by bigger things than the city can address, like gas prices and commute times) this process continues.
by John on Nov 9, 2010 4:53 pm • link • report
Which is why I'm hoping for a Walmart. It better matches the area and walmart is more affordable. Put a target in Skyland is watch how fast that area transforms. The only thing that'll stop it from becoming like Columbia Heights is the lack of a metro station, which is good to me IMO. East of the river needs to stay affordable point, blank, PERIOD!
Plus it all depends on the stores.
IF you have an area with:
-Walmart
-Foot Locker
-Up Against the wall
-Rainbow
-Dollar Tree/Big Lots
-Marshalls
That'll bring in a whole different crowd than:
-Target
-Banana Republic
-American Eagle
-Georgetown Valet
-Forever 21
-Trader Joe's
The first roster of stores are better, fits the area needs, and improves the area.
by MikeWard7 on Nov 9, 2010 4:58 pm • link • report
Alex, you are forgetting safety. Neighborhoods with increased foot traffic tend be safer, and will raise property values.
by beatbox on Nov 9, 2010 5:01 pm • link • report
I don't think you can "fool" the dialectic [sorry :)] by encouraging Walmarts and Targets versus Whole Foods'--the reason housing prices stay low is crime and blight. Get rid of the crime and blight, and prices in close-in neighborhoods are going to shoot up. Doesn't matter if the retail environment is like Laurel, MD rather than Georgetown.
It seems to me that there are only two things that work: homeownership for those who can swing it, and programs like IZ. Of course, the limitation there is that you really can't preserve a lot of units with things like IZ. And generally speaking, some non-trivial percentage of lower- and middle-class residents are going to sell their houses to upper-middle class buyers as the market turns and makes them an offer they can't refuse. (Obviously certain "affordability" schemes deal with this in certain ways).
by oboe on Nov 9, 2010 5:02 pm • link • report
1. Target and Wal-mart end up extraordinarily even in comparison shopping competitions (i.e. shopping for the same list of items at both stores).
2. Stores themselves are pretty good at doing their own market research, determining what a) people will buy, b) people can afford, and c) what will sell in an area. The alternative is to go out of business.
by Alex B. on Nov 9, 2010 5:04 pm • link • report
I took a peek at the new condos and apartments in NoMa, Near SE, and the SW Waterfront, thinking that the developers would be offering special deals to entice new residents to these not-quite-developed areas. 2-Bedroom apartments start at around $3k, and my salary was a bit too high to qualify for any of the designated "affordable" units (which also seemed quite expensive next to the salary requirements).
By comparison, there are gorgeous 3/4 bedroom restored rowhouses nearby in any of these neighborhoods available to rent in the $2500 range. (And, given that those houses sell for approx. $500k, a mortgage actually costs a bit less than renting at the current rates.)
by andrew on Nov 9, 2010 5:39 pm • link • report
And Bloomingdale seems like an example of it at the earlier end of the spectrum - witness the misery of Big Bear Cafe's liquor license application and the near euphoria (among some) for the Rustik restaurant opening. It will probably be only a matter of time before more restaurants begin looking at Bloomingdale b/c of its changing demographics. And no doubt the city will be more responsive to neighbors' complaints about nuisance and vacant properties, crime, and general "broken windows." Which will make the neighborhood look nicer and feel safer, which will attract more newer residents, which will feed into the cycle of gentrification.
A fascinating case study would be the downtown Anacostia area. Ray's the Steaks and Big Chair Cafe arrivals were greeted with huge fanfare. A few galleries have also opened and attracted a West of the River crowd that would otherwise never have gone to the area. If we see more such businesses opening that are aimed at attracting a non-local neighborhood crowd, what will the surrounding community reaction be? Acceptance of the newer businesses and faces? Or resistance and hostility and discussion of The Plan?
What if there is no answer to gentrification?
Local residents increasing their education levels is a years-long or decade-long process. With no guarantee of ultimate success - witness the many college/grad school/law school grads that are un- or under-employed. What if neighborhoods change simply because of economics and demographics, without there being anything that can be done about it?
Georgetown and Foggy Bottom used to be heavily black neighborhoods; Anacostia used to be heavily white. Times change. Neighborhoods change. What if we can't do anything to stop it? A rather Calvinistic viewpoint, no doubt. But one that recognizes there are social and economic forces greater than we can control with laws and regulations.
by Fritz on Nov 9, 2010 7:22 pm • link • report
Some people dont have cars for whatever reasons (cant afford, health/disabled so cant not get a license no matter what, or dont want one) that limits the areas that you can move to even if you can move to another area.
If a person lives in DC you are likely (there are places within DC that is not near transit Dupont Park, Penn Branch, the area behind FT Mahan dont know what is it called)near transit whether it be bus or rail.
If you have to move you will look for a place that is near a bus route if are forced to move into Maryland or Virginia that is not always the case or you could end up in a area that only has service Monday-Friday or Monday-Saturday, Rush-hour only or everyday but Sundays; even with the service it is usually not comparable to the hours served and the frequency of routes that operate in DC.
by kk on Nov 9, 2010 9:14 pm • link • report
by another native on Nov 9, 2010 10:11 pm • link • report
Some of ya'll know what it is and what it was and what it will be. Ana used to be all pink and georgetown was the 'hood. Times change yungin. How it be like the Bible.
The pink or black-pink person who wrote this paper couldn't MOB with me & mines. Thinker is too slow. You just now found out bout the problems of my 'hood?
Yungins can't read for shit, they parents can't read for shit, they ain't barely got a dipolma or Good Enough for Dumbass GED paper, don't pay rent becuz the city pay it, hop from one training program to the next from ARCH to JobCorps to STAY to Excel to UPO to YouthBuilds to Sahsa Bruce to AMEN to whoever it be next. It's a big scheme and plot where these behind the scene figers is making big bread stackin 24/7/365 while these hood yungins thinkin and actin like hood yungins -- phucken oblivous to what even happen in they own set. Some sorry stuff regardless huh man?
Even more sorry that this half steppin see threw article.
Economic development in my hood is when yungins get a siced Quarter or Half pounder and break it down in fat dub bags and make that mafughun money hand to hand.
Nobody subsidy me so say all you want pink and black-pink people becuz I know you all want to know how it really is. But you can't and won't. I know ur world but you can't ever know me and mines no matter how hard you try and study.
by Southeast Jerome on Nov 10, 2010 6:53 am • link • report
by Fritz on Nov 10, 2010 7:05 am • link • report
The problem with this solution is that as "Southeast Jerome" (who I assume must be a middle-aged white man from Dumfries) pointed out, job training and education work on a glacial pace--it's the work of a generation at least.
And if DC is successful, that success takes the form of creating new taxpaying residents of MD, VA, and Atlanta.
by oboe on Nov 10, 2010 9:11 am • link • report
You'd be surprised. I'll have you know, I've read every book George Pelecanos ever wrote!
Twice!
by oboe on Nov 10, 2010 9:13 am • link • report
Whether you want to get cute and coin and alternative (almost a COUNTER) term such as "gentri-placement" or just try to steer The Conversation in the direction of the policy implications of "gentrification," the core Debate, I suggest, is about what POLICIES are in place to ensure that those who live in "gentrifying" [sic] neighbourhoods are able to live there after all the Great Works are completed.
People need to stop here and think about this. There are major fiscal and social implications to a major commitment by a municipal entity like the District to preserving neighbourhoods at the same time that it will try to revitalize them.
For one thing, in a housing market cratered by the Great Economic (and Mortgage) Meltdown of 2008-2012, it means the City will have to consciously commit money to enabling workforce and moderate income homeowners AND RENTERS to continue to live in neighbourhoods where TOD or plain old, garden variety redevelopment [sic] is bidding up the cost of continuing to live there.
I am not (necessarily) recommending a return to publicly-owned workforce\moderate income housing. But. We probably are talking about a major front-end public investment in either keeping rents and initial home purchase costs down or developing some kind of mixed (or outright publicly-owned) secondary mortgage issuance entity that can write or UNDERwrite workforce homeowner debt. Or the up-front financing costs of building and maintaining workforce\moderate income (quality) rental housing.
I say all that because one over-riding back channel to this discussion is an ugly reality. Once the current mortgage and foreclosure mess is cleaned up, homeownership will revert to what it was before The National Housing Act of 1937: something (like a Lexus, Benz, or a BMW) that you and I have no automatic right to and will own only if and when we can afford it on the open private market.
The standard post-meltdown mortgage will likely be a standard, fixed-interest rate 20-30 year mortgage that only those with impeccable credit will quality for. Which leaves the other 75-85% of us in the market for either life-long rental housing or co-housing or co-op options that have not been taken seriously (until now)in this country. And in this Debate.
Harold Foster; AAG-ProfGeog, AICP
Acting Exec Office
The Americas Institute
Petworth
DC
by Harold Foster on Nov 10, 2010 10:14 am • link • report
I'm just going to assume that Southeast Jerome's post is dripping with some sort of satire none of us can understand. We aren't supposed to take it seriously.
Yungins and dub bags? And their relevance to this story is????
by HogWash on Nov 10, 2010 10:31 am • link • report
My pockets stays straight becuz I work my fingers to the raw bone. Dont ask for nor take no hand-outs. These yungins hop from one program to the next just to get dat stipend check. Get over to get over. But ya'll pink folks dont know nutsin about this part of our community. It aint in them textbooks n shit. Its out here in these streets. Even if you folks do know what it is youre too busy sucking your liberal thumbs to speak on the problems of my ‘hood.
I ainÂ’t ever see George Pelaconas around my way.
by Southeast Jerome on Nov 10, 2010 10:35 am • link • report
With regards to Anacostia area, the local residents are supporting Big Chair. The art galleries unfortunately are not attracting local residents. There was a specific East of the River Artist Show that attracted some residents, but I know some of my neighbors don't even know they exist. Part of the problem is outreach to other parts of the East of the River. They other part of the problem is some people feel like this new "stuff" wasn't put here for them. They don't feel like they are part of the change.
@Oboe... job training and education does move at a glacial pace. However it is a start. Let's accept that not everyone was meant to go to college. What about the trades that pay living wages? Like mechanics, plumbers, welders, and electricians. Also, as our population increases there is a need for more medical services, so what about nurses, physical assistants, and dental assistants. Maybe I'm being a little Pollyana about it, but I have hope.
@Southeast Jerome... You know I respect your opinion. While you have your SE Jerome persona, I really wish you would write in your other voice, because I think you have a lot to offer, but it may not come across as SE Jerome. If I'm understanding correctly your underlying point is that we have a lot of poverty pimps on our side of town. We have a lot of programs getting money from the government without producing any measurable results. Do we allow dopeboy to sell on the corner across from the schools while he tries to dodge the jump out boys as his economic development? Do we accept things as they are? What is the solution?
by Veronica O. Davia (MIss V) on Nov 10, 2010 10:45 am • link • report
I guess I'm not really sure of what is the susbstantive argument. We have poverty pimps of all races all across in the country. Personally, I think we need to retire the phrase altogether.
I also live in SE and if my neighbors and I see a growing crowd, we call the cops. Open drug transactions = cops. Vandalism = cops. Violence = cops.
No we do not accept this and yes we must take responsibility for not just ourselves but our community as well. That if the "community" is our concern.
Yet, SEJ's interjection of pink folks not knowing nothing about our community, waht's not in textbooks, and people sucking on their liberal thumbs addresses the above in no substantive way.
It really did read like a script from the Wire. But maybe that's the character not the person.
BTW, thanks for the correction on Rays. I forgot to mention it earlier. Although it's located in an area I rarely frequented, I love it!
by HogWash on Nov 10, 2010 11:32 am • link • report
Actually, Al Jazeera (of all media outlets) had a very good long story a month or so ago about gentrification in DC that highlighted the new art galleries in Anacostia, the white folks who were visiting them, and the odd looks from black residents. I definitely got the sense that the local residents didn't like the idea of an art gallery in their midst because of what it represented - the initial beachhead by non-local, non-black people, which usually leads to gentrification.
by Fritz on Nov 10, 2010 11:50 am • link • report
by Thayer-D on Nov 10, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report
by Jay on Nov 10, 2010 3:48 pm • link • report
Anacostia currently has four art galleries (of which three are developed by the ARCH Development Corporation, a non-profit based in Anacostia for the past 19 years):
The Anacostia Art Gallery & Boutique
Honfleur Gallery
The Gallery at Vivid Solutions
The Blank Space SE
Galleries are not a "black" or "white" thing or a “rich” or “poor” thing, art is (or should be) the one thing that unites everyone across the board. I can tell from the black and white (and everything in between) visitors to the openings from both within and outside of Ward 8 that the galleries have been a wonderful part of living and working East of the River, especially because it provides an avenue for many of the talented African American artist that show their work at the Anacostia art galleries. Artists such as Billy Colbert and photographer Melani N. Douglass (showing right now); many of our unknown local talent have gotten their start in the galleries on Good Hope Rd and Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. I myself had the pleasure of participating in an exhibit on East of the River this summer at The Gallery at Vivid Solutions. I saw people from lots of different backgrounds and races enjoying the exhibition. Just because you may not see them (or think they do not exist) does not mean they are not there.
Anacostia has many wonderful things in the community and
not all of them come in the form of new development such as the Anacostia Public Library or the Salvation Army Building. Anacostia has homegrown culture too, such as Cedar Hill (the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site) and the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum just to name two.
There has been an issue with many of these venues not being utilized as much as they should by the community, not because it wasn't "for" the community but because there has been challenges across the board getting them to come out.
Not that these organizations aren't trying, they have been trying, and trying hard but to be honest until recently it has been somewhat difficult finding regular information about community events and attractions in one place and in ways that will attract older and younger residents.
The good news is that things are turning a corner. In Anacostia we just launched our neighborhood empowerment campaign, Eat Shop Live Anacostia (www.eatshopliveanacostia) that is meant to highlight what is already in Anacostia – not to change it, just to make it easier to find information about (you guessed it) all the great places to eat, shop, and live.
There is literally something for everyone and frankly, everyone I know is excited about the opportunities to make the neighborhood a more inviting and enjoyable place to live, black or white, rich or poor.
The discussions I find myself having with the residents, business owners, and organizations in the community are not about the fears of gentrification but about ways to improve the community for everyone to enjoy.
The one thing I hear repeatedly?
“I’m staying.”
ItÂ’s not a question, itÂ’s a statement.
Nikki Peele
reSPIN PR/Eat Shop Live Anacostia
by Nikki Peele on Nov 10, 2010 5:49 pm • link • report
Prince George's County is looking good to me right now, feels just like home over in Capitol Heights and Suitland. But still I'm not leaving my city, thats dead moe. D.C. ain't about to be no damn Boston or Portland.
by MikeWard7 on Nov 10, 2010 6:36 pm • link • report
by another native on Nov 10, 2010 10:04 pm • link • report
by another native on Nov 10, 2010 10:19 pm • link • report
So if job training is just another scam to hop from one program to the next, what is the alternative? Run the streets? Work at CVS? TANF? I know we don't get it, so explain it for us. What do folks need?
by eli on Nov 11, 2010 1:16 pm • link • report
I respectfully disagree. As a Ward 7 resident myself, I would think that the area and its residents missed the boat if a Rainbow, Up Against the Wall, Foot Locker, etc. were the type of stores brought to Skyland or any other potential development type in the ward. I didn't invest in this area to patron low brow retail stores...which would attract complementary low brow eateries that aren't healthy.
by the truth on Nov 12, 2010 5:23 pm • link • report
Add a Comment