An activist Response to Style Weekly's 'Northern Exposure' Article

Mo Karn is a community activist and Anarchist involved with the RePHRAME partner organization, Richmond Food Not Bombs.  Richmond Food Not Bombs has been serving free vegan lunch in Monroe Park for over 11 years!

Dear Style Weekly,


I'm a 23 year old white woman who managed to purchase a condemned and foreclosed home in Southern Barton Heights this summer through a combination of class privilege, white privilege, and luck. I've spent the past months renovating the property to make it fit for occupation, and it is now my permanent home. Before I bought this house, you might remember me from being involved in a project that involved squatting in one of Oliver Lawrence's properties on Montrose Avenue. We were doing that in order to try and draw attention to the issue of housing justice in Richmond. Unfortunately, most of the coverage we received emphasized only the issue of blight. That was disappointing to us, because we did not want to be part of a gentrifying force, rather part of a force calling out capitalistic logic as unjust and oppressive.

What brings me to write you today is the article "Northern Exposure" by Scott Bass from your 2/3/10 issue. Upon reading said article, a ball of anxiety and upset grew in my stomach. I'm really nervous about the future of Barton Heights and Battery Park. There is the chance that these areas can develop as integrated areas of the city. But there is also the very real risk that despite the abundance of housing, upper middle class white people will take over the area culturally and politically, creating a situation that perpetuates inequalities and injustice. Some might say that the dominance of white men politically is already happening- look at both the men in charge of the Battery Park Civic Association as well as our City Councilman.

One of the first things that I saw as problematic in the article is the use of words such as "frontier" and "pioneer". Both of these words are reminiscent of colonial times, white supremacy, and ideas like manifest destiny. Both of these words dismiss the value of people who already live in the Battery Park and Barton Heights neighborhoods, and places the importance on the new white people moving in. These words also make the newcomers seem to be brave and courageous, which implies that the people who currently live there are bad and dangerous. The dichotomy that the use of the words frontier and pioneer creates an underlying acceptance of white supremacy. If white people moving in are pioneers, then the people who already live there are the perceived savages.

I would like to see more of the responsibility for the racial tension on Northside placed in the hands of the new white people in the area. It was their choice to move to the area, and thus they ought to be the more accomodating party. If nothing else, it seems like good manners to show some deference to the folks who have lived somewhere longer than you. I would never suggest that this means you are obligated to always do what they say or want, but I think it does mean that newcomers should listen to their neighbors, and definitely be respectful.

The tone used in describing the instances of new white people in the neighborhood calling the cops is normative, and thus reinforces the idea that calling the police is a good thing to do. There does not seem to be any question of how that affects the ability of these people to become part of a community. Neighbors that call the cops instead of having conversations with their neighbors are building obstacles to community. It would seem from the article that the white people who are so sure that there are drugs being dealt in their neighborhood have never had a conversation with their neighbors about that issue or what is going on. While this is certainly a topic for further discussion, I will briefly say, that as an anarchist I see the police as a threat to communities and community building. Statistically speaking, police forces are undeniably racist, and the results of our 'justice' system reveal the huge economic and racial disparities in America today. Calling the cops is not a solution.

Again, the instance of white people who called the cops because of the Men of Barton Heights basketball tournament, reveals how racist, shallow, and uncommunicative these new residents are. Apparently these callers were incapable of simply asking someone what was going on, or of letting people in a public park exercise their right to be in that park. I believe that Lawrence Day is dead on in saying these calls were racially motivated.

Chris Hilbert's comment about Day reveals another discouraging problem with racism in our area. Hilbert states that he can understand Day's point of view because "'He has seen an ugly part of our past in his youth'". Unintentionally, I'm sure, this statement shows again the foundation of white supremacy and white privilege that white people too often approach issues of race with. Hilbert is saying that racism is in our past. Really? I'm sure that comes as a shocker to every person of color in the world. Racism over? Yea right. Racism isn't over, the ugly aspects of racism aren't over, and being color blind is just another way of saying you have the privilege to ignore race issues. Racism is something that all us white people need to work on.

What this article revealed to me is that the issue of race and class in Barton Heights and Battery Park is big and only getting bigger. Until the new white residents step up to learn how to be members of a community (which may mean stepping down from controlling everything), there will be these clashes. And the reflex that these new residents have for calling the police is only going to create more distance between them and existing residents.

We have a lot of work to do. Anyone in the area who has a recommendation or suggestion for what they would like to see from new residents or white residents is definitely encouraged to let me know. It shouldn't be the responsibility of people of color to teach white people how to not be racist. Any white people who want to get involved in some workshops on white privilege are also encouraged to contact me.

Mo Karn
(804) 300-0023

Response to 'Broad Street Revivalists' - Style Weekly

Article in Style Weekly, 1/6/2010 Read the entire article here: [ Broad Street Revivalists - Scott Bass ]

First of all, I'm happy to see the issue of gentrification being discussed in Style Weekly. It's an important topic that requires a lot more serious attention from both entrepreneurs, who need to be more involved and aware of their role in the process of gentrification, and public officials who need to ratify the city ordinance and stop looking to developers and city planners for free market solutions to economic problems. The working class people are not in their best interests. They will be far detached from the situation when their projects begin to fail. Basically, we all need to be more critical in general, and stop patting each other on the back too soon.

Rachel Flynn states:
"If you really want to see a successful area, it's going to be more expensive," she says. "The basics of economics is supply and demand. You have to mindful of that, too."

This is false. 'Supply & Demand' is an economic model catering to the wants and greed of capitalists, not the needs of lower income and working class people. We need to look at new ways to encourage urban renewal while including the interests of those with lower income instead of displacing them.

With the re-development of Gilpin Court and Faye Towers, the plan is to de-concentrate poverty by having a mixed income neighborhood, with some properties being controlled by the RRHA. This is a good thing, a step in the right direction, but it's not doing anything to solve the issue of poverty in Richmond. It only spreads poverty around. In order to see a real positive change we need to offer other socially conscious incentives and opportunities for lower income people living in gentrified areas. Such as the implementation of a living wage so that those living in poverty will have a fighting chance to take care of themselves.

Instead of offering "...incentives to developers for including low- to moderate-income housing", an alternative solution would be to provide lower income residents in neighborhoods targeted for re-development with the chance to qualify for rent protection.

And for those who don't rent, but own houses and have a limited income, such as retired folks, who may find themselves displaced by gentrification when property value and taxes rise, they could qualify for a cap or ceiling on their property tax.

This should still allow for redevelopment to happen, and keep the area diverse, and give lower income residents the opportunity to participate in the same cultural happenings, like the art walk, and have access to public transportation and jobs, and the same school system as the incoming middle and upper class.

The city will have to either lower the property taxes, or provide those who own property where rent protection is enforced with a break on property taxes to make the situation fair for all involved.

An area shouldn't have to be more expensive in order to be successful, if that's true then this is proof that the capitalist system does not work economically for working class people.

Certain sacrifices must be made on behalf of the middle class, or perhaps even better, corporations. Virginia ranks number two in offering corporate welfare, taxing corporations only 6%, while workers are taxed upwards 1/3 of their wages. There is even legislation on the table that would do away with corporate income tax completely.

Raise the tax on corporations, and we can help balance the budget and offer the social programs the government should be able to provide for everyone.

Perhaps it's time we revisit the whole idea of personal property vs. the social welfare of the people. Taxing citizens and property should not be leading to displacement of anyone. Economic segregation should be illegal and avoided at all cost, and that may mean sacrificing the profits of middle and upper class in order to insure the people are taken care of.

Evicting the Poor

We agree that doing something to help improve the lives of Gilpin Court and Fay Tower residents is a moral imperative.

by Thad Williamson and Adria Scharf

File photo by Scott Elmquist

Concentrated poverty and crime — those are the words most Richmonders instinctively think of when they hear the phrase “Gilpin Court.”

It’s not difficult to find data to support the popular image of Richmond’s oldest and largest public housing development as a distressing exhibit of the city’s racial and economic segregation. Census data from 2000 shows the Gilpin Court area has a median household income of just $8,429, and a poverty rate of 73 percent. Ninety-seven percent of neighborhood residents are black. The neighborhood is widely regarded as unsafe.

Consequently, it’s not difficult to find well-meaning Richmonders who say “We really ought to do something about Gilpin Court.”  We agree that doing something to help improve the lives of Gilpin Court and Fay Tower residents is a moral imperative. But the first thing we as a community must do in considering the neighborhood’s future is assure that future redevelopment leaves no public housing residents worse off than they are now. Second, we must recognize public housing residents as fellow citizens who have a right to play an active role in shaping the area’s future.

During the 1990s the idea of breaking up concentrated poverty in urban centers came to dominate federal housing policy. The federal government instituted what became known as the HOPE VI program, which actively supported demolishing older housing projects and replacing them with mixed-income neighborhoods with newer, more attractive public housing options. The catch is that in city after city where HOPE VI redevelopment was implemented, the total number of public housing units declined. In the rush to redevelop, the federal government dropped its longstanding one-for-one replacement rule requiring local public authorities to replace any units demolished with the same number of newly built housing units.

A decade later, evidence suggests that while the HOPE VI developments often did succeed in creating more attractive communities, their impact on poverty reduction was minimal. Some residents were displaced by the program and ended up in other high poverty neighborhoods. Those who were able to move back into the new developments didn’t automatically see improvements in their economic prospects.

Simply put, deconcentrating poverty isn’t the same thing as ending poverty. You cannot end poverty by reshuffling low-income households around like pieces on a chess board. The way to end poverty is to expand the economic opportunities — jobs, training and education — available to poor people.

If a redevelopment plan truly expands the economic opportunities available to public-housing residents then it might make for a morally justifiable policy. But removing people from their homes without their consent and without a clear plan about where they should go does little to end poverty. It’s possible to make Gilpin Court a nicer place without actually helping the people who live there.

That’s why it’s worrisome that the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority has not guaranteed one-for-one unit replacement as part of its ambitious plans to redevelop the area. The authority’s plan, unveiled last winter, calls for transforming the area into a mixed-income neighborhood to be renamed North Jackson Ward. While the plan calls for increasing the number of housing units in the neighborhood, at most 30 percent would be set aside for public-housing residents. That means a maximum of 600 public housing units will be part of the new development, compared with 983 units today — and the housing authority plans to rescreen current residents, which advocates argue will serve to prevent many households from returning.

Where will the other people go? That’s the essential question the housing authority must answer before plans go any further. The relevant moral principle in this case is that no public housing resident should be made worse off by a redevelopment plan; and the only way to guarantee that outcome is to commit to one-for-one replacement.

The housing authority plans to offer housing vouchers to those residents who won’t be able to return to the redeveloped North Jackson Ward. The problem with that idea is that not all landlords accept vouchers; those that do are also usually in high-poverty neighborhoods and vouchers do not provide housing security. Moreover, such vouchers are contingent on funding from the federal government. The housing authority’s recent recall of 163 vouchers it had promised to families underscores that such promises are not a reliable lifeline.

To be sure, Anthony Scott, the housing authority’s director, has pledged that there will not be another Blackwell — the now infamous redevelopment of the Blackwell housing project in Manchester that kicked out hundreds of families. The agency has repeatedly said that all displaced residents will end up with a safe and affordable place to live, although there is no specific plan about how this will be accomplished. The agency’s Web site promises that displaced residents will receive assistance from a relocation specialist.

Based on the history of housing redevelopment in Richmond and across the country, Gilpin Court residents can be excused for being skeptical of such promises.

At a Sept. 15 community housing forum sponsored by Residents of Public Housing in Richmond Against Mass Eviction (RePHRAME), 175 residents from Gilpin and Fay Towers called on the housing authority to adhere to the following principles: one-for-one housing replacement, giving residents the right to return without having to be rescreened, and greater involvement in the planning, including increased resident representation on the housing authority’s board.
 
Mayor Dwight Jones attended the meeting and says he supports the principle of one-to-one replacement. Five members of City Council were also present. Unfortunately, neither Scott nor any other decision-maker from the housing authority attended. Scott did meet with RePHRAME on Sept. 28, as this article was going to press.

Our city has a history of displacing low-income black communities in the name of redevelopment. We continue to live with the legacies, and the trauma, of previous planning decisions that did just that. Given this history, we as a city have an obligation to learn from our past and to make sure that we do things differently this time. S

Thad Williamson is an assistant professor of leadership studies at the University of Richmond. Adria Scharf is executive director of the Richmond Peace Education Center.



Evicting the Poor | Articles/Archives | Style Weekly Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion