This was a talk that I gave during a panel discussion as part of the Emancipated Century readings of August Wilson's Plays. The panel was titled: Gentrification and the Urban Plight Chinatown, the
South End, Roxbury, and East Boston.
--
I want to start off by stating that not all revitalization or redevelopment results in displacement. For years, there was a lot of debate in the scholarly community about whether the negative impacts of gentrification do in fact happen. And there was conflicting evidence because displacement seemed to be found in one place but not another. However, recent research suggests not all gentrification is alike. Most importantly, the kind of gentrification that I am most concerned about – the kind that involves displacement – happens most often where there is the kind of large scale developments that we see in Chinatown, Dudley, and also in East Boston. By the way, that’s not to say that the displacement that has happened in South End isn’t real but that there are clearly different mechanisms at work there. Just like you can break your leg by falling off a ladder or by getting into a car accident, there are different ways that displacement can occur.
Now, it just so happens that the same people who are at risk of displacement through “revitalization” or “redevelopment” are also the people who live with and fight against environmental injustice.
Historically, the focus on environmental injustice involved the siting of noxious or polluting facilities – hazardous waste sites, trash transfer stations, power plants, large scale hog farms in rural areas. In this conception of environmental injustice, the injustice occurs through disproportionate environmental exposures of some kind. This way of thinking about environmental injustice allows us to easily see how activities that create pollution and other safety hazards become environmental justice issues.
It is why, for example, residents and business owners in Dudley Square are legitimately concerned about the redevelopment of Ferdinand Building and nearby abandoned properties. Not only does "successful" redevelopment raise the specter of increased car traffic and its attendant pollution and safety risks, but it also raises the risk of gentrification and displacement. Dudley Square residents and small businesses have every reason to be skeptical. These large scale redevelopments, all of which are subsidized by our tax dollars, have rarely resulted in an improvement in the quality of life or opportunity for low income communities or communities of color where these developments are targeted.
However, in the face of climate change, the disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards operate a little differently. When we talk about who is vulnerable to the negative impacts to climate change, some people would like to argue that it is everyone. OK, that is technically correct, in the same way that it is technically correct that I am also vulnerable to dying from the flu. Except that the real risk of my dying from the flu is pretty small. And that is because I have really good health insurance, I am wealthy enough to be able to eat a healthy diet, and I am privileged enough to have the time to exercise – which full disclosure since my husband may be in the audience, I really don’t do to the extent I probably should. But I still have great health insurance, which is one form of resilience.
So, when we talk about who is really vulnerable to the storm surge, flooding, and heat waves that we can expect here in Boston as our climate continues to change over the next few decades – it is the people who are least resilient who are really the most vulnerable. It is those who are politically, socially, and economically marginalized and insecure. The people who do not have good health insurance. The people who have to work several jobs to feed and clothe their families. The people who do not have access to fresh food, and even if they did, do not have adequate time to prepare a healthy meal.
How are these things – climate change, environmental justice, and gentrification – connected?
In East Boston, we have a weird thing going. We have a lot of abandoned waterfront land. And our entrepreneurial city government is eyeing that land as the next big redevelopment. Now, to be clear, I have yet to meet anyone in East Boston who doesn’t want something to happen on all of that abandoned land. It is ugly. It is dangerous. And it prevents us from having access to the water. So, of course we want that land developed. But we also want it developed responsibly, we want it developed in a way that does not increase the hazards that residents are already exposed to, and we want it developed in a way that does not displace current residents or make it difficult for the kind of diversity we have now to be maintained in the future.
But, what we see happening is that, the large scale developments, over 900 units of new housing, that are expected to fetch $3000 per month for 2 bedrooms are already impacting the rents. And not a single one of these developments has even been built yet. But, between February 2012 through February 2013, rents have increased 31% in East Boston, faster than any other neighborhood (although North Dorchester comes in close at 29%). And I can tell you stories of people that I know personally – young, college educated people – who have had to move out of the neighborhood to find an affordable place to live.
Now, the fact that the rents increased in this way even before these large scale developments have even rented their first apartment is not the weird part. The weird part is that all of these proposed developments that are pushing up rents are all located in the riskiest location: right on the waterfront. These developments are premised on the economic value of the waterfront; on the waterfront as an environmental amenity. And at the same, we are putting market and luxury rate housing right where sea level rise is happening. Or to put it another way, we are building housing, that is marketed for people who have the greatest ability to leave, in the place of highest risk to storm surge and flooding.
What makes this weird is that we can predict what is likely to occur. Wealthier folks, most probably young people – because this is not family housing being built – will move in. A superstorm Sandy type event or bigger happens. Their car, conveniently located in the basement level parking garage, is flooded out. They will have to survive on the island that East Boston will turn back into in the next big storm event for who knows how long.
Will you be surprised when these folks, who have the resources to leave their rented apartment, actually do? I won’t. And what will then happen? Will rents go down? Will maintenance fall off? Will it become abandoned? And what happens to the rest of my community? This is what we don’t know. We could know if we put the time and effort to find out, but we don’t.
My concern is that if these large scale developments are not built so that they are both resilient to climate change AND so that they build on the strong sense of community that exists in East Boston, we will have ironically created the potential for the kind of gentrification that may result in displacement in the short term, but in the long term leads to abandonment.
However, in the face of climate change, the disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards operate a little differently. When we talk about who is vulnerable to the negative impacts to climate change, some people would like to argue that it is everyone. OK, that is technically correct, in the same way that it is technically correct that I am also vulnerable to dying from the flu. Except that the real risk of my dying from the flu is pretty small. And that is because I have really good health insurance, I am wealthy enough to be able to eat a healthy diet, and I am privileged enough to have the time to exercise – which full disclosure since my husband may be in the audience, I really don’t do to the extent I probably should. But I still have great health insurance, which is one form of resilience.
So, when we talk about who is really vulnerable to the storm surge, flooding, and heat waves that we can expect here in Boston as our climate continues to change over the next few decades – it is the people who are least resilient who are really the most vulnerable. It is those who are politically, socially, and economically marginalized and insecure. The people who do not have good health insurance. The people who have to work several jobs to feed and clothe their families. The people who do not have access to fresh food, and even if they did, do not have adequate time to prepare a healthy meal.
How are these things – climate change, environmental justice, and gentrification – connected?
In East Boston, we have a weird thing going. We have a lot of abandoned waterfront land. And our entrepreneurial city government is eyeing that land as the next big redevelopment. Now, to be clear, I have yet to meet anyone in East Boston who doesn’t want something to happen on all of that abandoned land. It is ugly. It is dangerous. And it prevents us from having access to the water. So, of course we want that land developed. But we also want it developed responsibly, we want it developed in a way that does not increase the hazards that residents are already exposed to, and we want it developed in a way that does not displace current residents or make it difficult for the kind of diversity we have now to be maintained in the future.
But, what we see happening is that, the large scale developments, over 900 units of new housing, that are expected to fetch $3000 per month for 2 bedrooms are already impacting the rents. And not a single one of these developments has even been built yet. But, between February 2012 through February 2013, rents have increased 31% in East Boston, faster than any other neighborhood (although North Dorchester comes in close at 29%). And I can tell you stories of people that I know personally – young, college educated people – who have had to move out of the neighborhood to find an affordable place to live.
Now, the fact that the rents increased in this way even before these large scale developments have even rented their first apartment is not the weird part. The weird part is that all of these proposed developments that are pushing up rents are all located in the riskiest location: right on the waterfront. These developments are premised on the economic value of the waterfront; on the waterfront as an environmental amenity. And at the same, we are putting market and luxury rate housing right where sea level rise is happening. Or to put it another way, we are building housing, that is marketed for people who have the greatest ability to leave, in the place of highest risk to storm surge and flooding.
What makes this weird is that we can predict what is likely to occur. Wealthier folks, most probably young people – because this is not family housing being built – will move in. A superstorm Sandy type event or bigger happens. Their car, conveniently located in the basement level parking garage, is flooded out. They will have to survive on the island that East Boston will turn back into in the next big storm event for who knows how long.
Will you be surprised when these folks, who have the resources to leave their rented apartment, actually do? I won’t. And what will then happen? Will rents go down? Will maintenance fall off? Will it become abandoned? And what happens to the rest of my community? This is what we don’t know. We could know if we put the time and effort to find out, but we don’t.
My concern is that if these large scale developments are not built so that they are both resilient to climate change AND so that they build on the strong sense of community that exists in East Boston, we will have ironically created the potential for the kind of gentrification that may result in displacement in the short term, but in the long term leads to abandonment.
No comments:
Post a Comment