All PUDs are Not Equal (II)

In the 1970s, American cities were not a wasteland of chaos, but rather American cities were the “epicenter of political activism”(1). Capitol Hill was also an epicenter of political activism, activism that might be an example for today. It is surprising that SE Ward 6 (as opposed to SW and Near SE) lacks venues for democratic discussion. Yes, we have the ANC meetings, but they do not attract a demographically representative sample of citizens and discussions focus on parking, house renovations, and so on, leaving aside concerns of many residents. The PUD process in SE Ward 6 has not been very inclusive. We can find possible models in other parts of the city (discussed in a previous post) and in the actual history of SE Ward 6.

In the 1960s, the SE area had the Capitol Hill Community Council, the Citizen's Advisory Council, and the Southeast Civic Association. In 1977, a new group formed, the Capitol East Coalition for Housing and Neighborhood Improvement. ANC 6A and 6B formed this group "to encourage maximum feasible community participation in public and private programs designed for the Near Southeast Community Development Area. This development area crossed 6A and 6B and promised to bring new resources. The Coalition included in their membership the following representatives, who would discussion how to distribute these resources:

1) community residents from the development area
2) community organizations:

• 2 church representatives
  
• a representative of the DC Federation of Civic Associations
  
• a Friendship House board member
• a representative of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society
• a representative of public housing residents
• 2 business representatives
• a senior citizen representative
• a youth representative
• a welfare or low-income resident representative

3) ANC Commissioners

Remember that the 1960s and 1970s were a time of extensive gentrification. The Coalition did community interviews and found the "most pressing issues to Capitol East residents" were:

displacement of low and moderate income families from the Capitol East community; exorbitant property taxes and speculation, school closings in the Capitol East area, need for adequate and suitable housing for Capitol East senior citizens, need for available food and shelter on an emergency and/or temporary basis; home financing for people who are threatened with displacement and want to remain in Capitol East area; need for adequate and quality housing for public housing tenants. (3)

It is highly possible that the nearly 20% of Ward 6 residents living in poverty might have similar concerns today. What might they want at the Hine site? Who knows? Did anyone ask?

(1) Suleiman, Osman. 2008. The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2) GWU Special Collections, Capitol Hill Restoration Society records, MS 2009, Box 35, Folder 19, "Capitol East Coalition for Housing - By-Laws (1976-77)," Capitol East Coalition for Housing and Neighborhood Improvement Bylaws, August 1977.
(3) GWU Special Collections, Capitol Hill Restoration Society records, MS 2009, Box 35, Folder 20, The Capitol East Communicator, June/July 1978, Official newsletter of the Capitol East Coalition for Housing and Neighborhood Improvements.

All PUDs are Not Equal

Hine Junior High across from the Eastern Market Metro is being torn down and redeveloped by Stanton-EastBanc. ANC 6B is managing the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process. To collect the ideas of the "6B community," ANC 6B set up an online survey, asking respondents to list benefits or amenities, as well as concerns about traffic, management, retail choices, etc., that should be negotiated with the developers. As of a few days ago, they received over 200 responses. Who is really included in the Hine PUD process? Of course, everyone is invited, but is the Hine PUD process really inclusive?

In contrast, we can look at the PUD process in Near SE-SW. Back in March, I attended the Near SE-SW Community Summit organized by the Near SE-SW Community Benefits Coordinating Council (CBCC) with the help of DC-based AmericaSpeaks and LISC. The summit was open to everyone in ANC 6D (others were welcomed too) with the goal of figuring out the community priorities of residents in order to better inform ANC 6D policies, especially given the extensive development going on in the area. It was news to me that such citizen summits happened a lot when Anthony Williams was mayor, but seemed to disappear with Adrian Fenty. The organizers specifically targeted different groups in the neighborhood to get a representative sample: young and old, poor and wealthy, men and women, etc.

It was an extremely interesting process. We were assigned to a table, where we introduced ourselves and got to use our "clickers," devices that allowed us to personally vote. Immediately, we used the clickers to get a sense of the demographics in the room, which showed a good representation of young/old, long-term residents/new residents, and a variety of races (1% Asian/Pacific Islander, 33% Black/African-American, 4% Hispanic/Latino, 1% Native American, 54% White/Caucasian, 6% other) though it wasn't a perfect reflection of the area population. (The summary report has the demographics, goals, findings, and much more).

At our tables, we talked about which topic area we wanted to focus on that day:

• Workforce Development/Jobs/Community Centers
• Housing Diversity and Affordability
• Neighborhood Oriented Retail and Services
• Youth-Education and Services
• Environmental Concerns
  

Then, we moved to a new table representing our chosen topic. At our new table (I chose housing), we introduced ourselves again and began to discuss our topic specifically focusing on the area's assets, challenges, and then concrete projects that could be taken. Each table had two non-area mediators. One mediator helped organize the discussion. The other mediator recorded our ideas on a laptop computer. In a corner of the room, a group of people on computers organized these thoughts coming from various tables into common themes. At the end, we voted for the two concrete projects we wanted most. Some of the chosen concrete priorities were developing pre-K, using the public schools for adult vocational training, increasing locally owned businesses, creating housing desired by the current residents, and developing community gardens.

The rest of Ward 6 could benefit from such community summits because we could get a sense of residents' priorities. The process took four (very interesting) hours, but I felt that we did not completely clarify the priorities. The summit is considered a step towards a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), which would help the ANC to negotiate better and more responsibly with developers, the DC government, and other stakeholders because the ANC would know the actual priorities of constituents. I was concerned that developers could use these CBAs to legitimate all sorts of projects not in the spirit of the CBAs. CBAs are a nationwide movement. The Washington Business Journal shows that CBAs are already a big topic of discussion across DC. In spite of some concerns, I found the summit a very interesting and useful process.

A bit different from the Hine PUD, no? Wouldn't it be great to have a community summit in the Eastern Market area (to talk about Hine, etc)?

P.S. See related posts: All PUDs are Not Equal (II) and Why don't the poor go to our meetings?

Is Restoration Racist? (II)

Thank you to the two Anonymous comments on my previous post! Racism is a complicated concept, easily thrown around, but, in the case of housing and the restoration movement, my research shows a disturbing history of racism. The "race of the steward" of Capitol Hill houses was quite important to the restoration movement, especially when it began around 1947 on the Hill but later as well. In the wonderful Special Collections Research Center at GWU, I have been reading the papers of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society. Within these papers are three files dated from 1944 to 1950 on the Southeast Washington Citizens Association (SEWCA), a very early advocate for restoration and an association for "any member of the Caucasian race."(1) On the one hand, 1944-1950 was a time of intense overt racial discrimination in DC. On the other hand, times were changing and racism took new forms. As the first commenter suggested, we must go beyond seeing racism only as negative beliefs or "malicious intent" one race has towards another. Racism also is the acquisition of resources due to one's race and the protection of these resources at the expense of another race(s). One does not have to be an overt racist to gain these benefits, but, in 1944-1950, they were also overtly racist. The restoration movement is actually rather disturbing, in ways not often recognized by scholars and residents alike. Here are some disturbing aspects of this restoration movement:

• The Southeast Washington Citizens Association was an advocate for whites and not an advocate for blacks. One could say that this is obvious because the world was overtly racist then, but restoration emerged from this world. It sought to restore what they called "Old S.E." or "Old Capitol Hill," which was possibly in contrast to the "new" black residents moving from the South and from other parts of DC. (What was the status of the historic African American neighborhoods?) In 1947 and 1950, respectively, the SEWCA passed motions supporting the continuation of racial housing covenants and school segregation.(2) They encouraged association officers to enforce racial housing:

  "Mr. Absher gave his report on the building of the apartment house on 16th Street, S.E. He was told by one of the owners that his request regarding the occupancy of white in this apartment house would be given serious consideration. He was told that, if the immediate surroundings were predominantly white, then the apartments would be rented to the whites. If the colored are more predominant, then, they would be rented to the colored."(3)

  They supported the funding of Division II, "colored" schools, "but not at the expense of the white pupils..." (4) As sociologist George Lipsitz discusses, "whites used restrictive covenants, racial zoning, redlining, steering, blockbusting, and mob violence between 1866 and 1948 to monopolize advantages for themselves and their descendants."(5)
  

• In the minds of government officials and the real estate industry, private restoration/renewal and public renewal had a common goal -- to increase house or property values -- which meant (possibly unofficially) more white people and fewer black people. Private and public renewal had the same result and were in fact seen as complementary at the time. Unlike other places in the US, Capitol Hill restoration and renewal even occurred at the same time. Both forms of renewal simultaneously fixed up areas of the District AND made them more white.
  

• While restoration is often viewed as a response to urban renewal that sought to destroy historic homes, the SEWCA supported both restoration and urban renewal. According to an officer in the SEWCA, Elizabeth Draper, in August 1950, Capitol Hill leaders met with the National Capitol Planning Commission to make the Hill the second area for redevelopment of slum areas after SW DC. Unlike the thousands of poor African American households in SW, those on the Hill had power based in part on their race to negotiate with urban renewal officials. These officials "took the position that the Agency would assist private capital in redoing the area, rather than come in, condemn everything, and start again."(6) Unlike in pre-renewal SW, Capitol Hill had available private capital, though primarily available to whites who were real estate agents or developers. Individual renovators often had trouble getting funds for individual projects. In its 1948-49 program, the SEWCA promoted both renovation and stated, "We shall urge the condemnation of so-called residential property that is unfit for occupancy." They also supported the destruction of the Wallach School and the rebuilding of Hine Junior High. (7)
  

• White people on Capitol Hill learned from the experiences of Georgetown's restoration movement organized also by white citizens associations. For example, as an officer in the SEWCA, Elizabeth Draper brought her experiences from Georgetown:
  

"Having been president of the Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown for two terms when that section began to improve in 1937 and again for three terms from 1944 until 1947, I knew the many problems in a restoration program."(8)

Georgetown's restoration movement had displaced the historic African American community there, as described in Black Georgetown Remembered. After her move to Capitol Hill, Draper joined the SEWCA, invited speakers to talk about restoration, and organized competitions and campaigns to realize it. According to Draper, very quickly, real estate agents recognized the benefits of the increased housing values. In both Georgetown and Capitol Hill (as discussed by Rechler), real estate agents and developers could use racial panics to their benefit, making both locations less integrated.

• The restoration movement is often, though not always, seen as a white movement. Maybe this is due to its history? Maybe it is just due to observing the actual practice? In a 1976 survey conducted by the Capitol Hill Restoration Society of its members:
  

"many respondents elaborated on the concern over the 'upper-middle class white' make up of the Society's membership. One person seemed to capture the sentiment of many of those who answered this question by saying that ... 'It depends on one's perspective...It depends on how one is affected by restoration and the consequent increase in property values.' Many people were more explicit and pointed to the need to include more black residents into the organization so that the whole community could be represented and work together on making the 'Hill' a better place to live...Another member put it this way...CHRS is 'upper class white property owners concerned about property. It should be changed to a community group speaking on issues that are important to the future of Washington as a beautiful and economically strong multi-racial city.'...A number of people mentioned that, for some, the image of the Society is that of just being a front for the real estate interests on the Hill."(9)

• Many houses were saved from the freeway and renewal projects, but for whom were they saved? In 1966, the Capitol Hill Restoration Society president sent his comments on the comprehensive plan for DC in 1985 to the National Capitol Planning Commission. The president noted that Capitol Hill had two growing populations: the well-to-do, who can afford restoration prices, and the moderate-/low-income black population, "which the suburbs are, and may continue to be, very reluctant to accommodate." Both groups need more housing, so he asked, "Where are the poor families going to go?"(10) He suggested that they be moved to Bolling Field. For whom were these historic homes saved?

As a result of its history, restoration created racialized spaces. Racist intentions are not necessary, when one can access resources in these racialized spaces, though racist intentions remain too. Lipsitz warns that this system that purportedly benefits whites actually damages their long-term interests, "while Black negotiations with the constraints and confinements of racialized space often produce ways of envisioning and enacting more decent, dignified, humane, and egalitarian social relations for everyone."(11)

(1) GWU Special Collections, Capitol Hill Restoration Society records, MS2009, Box 34, mainly Folder 14, Southeast Citizens Association: Constitution, Bylaws, minutes, June 27, 1944- Sept. 14, 1950.

(2) GWU, SECA records, Meeting minutes, December 9, 1947 and Sept. 14, 1950.

(3) GWU, SECA records, Meeting minutes, December 9, 1947.

(4) GWU, SECA records, Meeting minutes, February 27th, 1945.

(5) Lipsitz, George. 2011. How Racism Takes Place. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, p. 3.

(6) Draper, Elizabeth Kohl. "Progress Report on the Restoration of Capitol Hill Southeast," Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, DC, Vol. 1951/1952.

(7) GWU, SECA records, SE Washington Citizens Association Program, 1948-1949.

(8) Draper, p. 134.

(9) GWU Special Collections, Capitol Hill Restoration Society records, MS2009, Box 30, Folder 16, "Communities [sic] reactions to the CHRS’s activities - survey findings (1976)."

(10) GWU Special Collections, Capitol Hill Restoration Society records, MS2009, Box 32, Folder 9, "Planning for Area: 1965/1985, Plan and Revision as comprehension plan - 1967," Historical Files. Letter from Gregory R. New to Sydnor F. Hodges, NCPC, March 5, 1966.

(11) Lipsitz, p. 6.

Get a View of the Past from the Capitol East Gazette

The Capitol East Gazette was published in the 1960s, which later became the DC Gazette and then the Progressive Review. The newspaper had a circulation of 15,000 in 1969. The online version is now searchable, which leads to many interesting discoveries.

Is Restoration Racist?

What are the historical origins of the restoration movement? Was it racist? Is it racist? I have gone back to the beginnings of the restoration movement on Capitol Hill around 1948, which is really very early compared to other areas like Brooklyn. In its 1948-49 plan, the Southeast Citizens' Association set out to promote the remodeling of older buildings to restore the prestige of the area. Working with other organizations, they held remodeling and repainting campaigns. They had early house tours. The Southeast Citizens' Association was an association of homeowners of "the Caucasian race." This Association was quite concerned about African Americans moving into certain areas. In the early 1950s, Elizabeth Kohl Draper wrote about her experiences bringing the restoration movement from Georgetown to Capitol Hill (1). Her very interesting article details who is renovating which blocks. For example:

Mrs. Frank Murray, living at 761 Tenth Street, S.E., has increased her holdings until she owns 25 pieces of property and 32 apartments. Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Wagner at 814 A Street have improved the entire block and are working with Mr. Parker in the 600 block of A Street. Mr. Harry Brogden, a Georgetown realtor, bought 130 Eleventh Street, S.E., in the famous Philadelphia Row and practically all of them are in good hands.

Many examples are very early cases of speculative/investment renovation, which is interesting because it is generally assumed that early restoration was done by individuals for their own use. But what might "good hands" mean? I would guess that all the individuals mentioned in her article were probably white and likely middle- or upper-middle class. The Southeast Citizens' Association actively supported racial housing covenants and worked to maintain white-dominant blocks, those blocks held in "good hands." Restoration was seen as a way to attract more white families to the area.

In SW DC, thousands of African Americans' homes were condemned as slums and demolished. DC was madly building public housing to house these and other households. The Southeast Citizens' Association was well-known for its opposition to public housing, since it was seen as African American housing (2). Elizabeth Kohl Draper talked about how the public housing authority in DC, the National Capital Housing Authority, wanted to buy land for public housing:

At present, the National Capital Housing Authority is trying to buy south of Virginia Avenue to make another project. If this happens, many old places that should be preserved will be torn down. If the housing project can be located elsewhere, the northern side of Virginia Avenue, Southeast will doubtless be restored by private enterprise. The entire length of New Jersey Avenue, S.E., should be restored. Some fine old houses are in the 1000 block of New Jersey Avenue, S.E., and if a group of private owners would secure and restore them, they will form an excellent unit. Many white people live in that section and should be encouraged to stay.

Was the restoration movement racist? Is the restoration movement racist?

(1) "Progress Report on the Restoration of Capitol Hill Southeast," Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, DC, Vol. 1951/1952.
(2) William R. Barnes. 1980. "A Battle for Washington: Ideology, Racism, and Self-Interest in the Controversy over Public Housing, 1943-1946," Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., Vol. 50.

A Poverty of Knowledge

A couple of days ago in the Post, Michael Gerson lamented the "poverty of solutions" in political debates, which revolve around ideology (the Tea Party's free market ideology vs. the Occupy Movement's rejection of capitalism) instead of talking about poverty and what to do about it. The article quickly sets aside the Occupy Movement and focuses on the fact that both political parties basically won't talk about poverty. Gerson argues that below-the-radar government programs have actually helped to reduce poverty -- welfare reform to reduce caseloads, food stamps, earned-income tax credit. Center-right and center-left politicians supporting these programs "take market forces seriously" and take government policy seriously. Gerson throws in: "The main challenge of poverty is not a lack of consumption but a lack of social capital -- measured in skills and values -- and of opportunity" and the poor's "failing community." Yet, welfare programs, in fact, do increase the incomes of and thus consumption by those living and working in poverty, which may be why they are so effective.

Gerson's argument works very well with some of the most cutting edge work in sociology done by Duke University professor David Brady. In his comparison of 18 Western democracies, Brady finds that welfare state generosity reduces poverty and therefore ending poverty is a political choice. The United States proportionately has more people living and working in poverty than the other 17 Western democracies because of political choices.

In contrast to Gerson, one should not only talk about the poor without also talking about the wealthy. As all social scientists know, one has to compare groups to figure out if there are any differences between them. The old studies of the "culture of poverty" and the "underclass" have been discredited because, as historian Alice O'Connor showed so brilliantly in her book Poverty Knowledge, scholars 1) studied only those living in poverty and not in comparison with those in other social classes and 2) focused on individual pathologies and welfare dependency, rather than on the economy and the opportunity structure. The wealthy and the poor are in fact relational to each other.

Different social classes and subclasses not only have different amounts of income and wealth, but they also have different social capital (networks) and cultural capital (education, artistic knowledge, etc) that they desperately seek to protect and expand so as to make themselves distinct from other social classes and to maintain their class status. In the Post, a book reviewer recently wrote:

More affluent parents face a different set of pressures. As it becomes increasingly difficult for middle-class families to transmit their class position to their children, many have come to regard childrearing - like the economy - as a zero-sum game, where they must pit their children against other people's offspring. This has encouraged parents to view their child as a project to be perfected and other children as a problem.

Affluent parents desperately want their children to be in the right school, which might mean taking a seat from a working class or low-income family. This form of opportunity hoarding works along with exploitation (not paying people enough) in a variety of venues, including education, housing, medical care, etc. As the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu showed, these class distinctions are further reinforced by lifestyles shaped by economic, social, and cultural capital. So, when one meets another person of one's subclass, one recognizes that person as one of us and feels physically comfortable. For example, two people of the same sub-class might order Peroni beers, eat high-end burgers, and discuss the White Stripes, while being physically repelled by hamburgers bought in vending machines and easy listening music. Preferences felt in everyone's bodies -- including in boughies' bodies -- help to maintain the social class structure. Therefore, the problem is not that the poor's "lack of social capital" or their "failing community," but rather the more affluent's opportunity hoarding in an attempt to maintain their class status in the face of feelings of insecurity for themselves and their families.

Gerson is correct that there is a poverty of solutions, but there is also a poverty of knowledge, knowledge about mechanisms of social inequality and knowledge about what the Occupy Movement might be offering as solutions.

Consumption Inequality in Ward 6

In an earlier post, I talked about the fact that DC, along with similarly disenfranchised Puerto Rico, has some of the highest levels of income inequality in the world. During the recession, as a Pew Research Center report showed, wealth inequality -- measured as assets (houses, cars, banking accounts, etc) minus debts (mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, etc) -- has continued to increase across the United States. Gentrification is often seen positively because it brings new resources into communities and thus decreases inequalities. But what if more wealthy people are, in fact, taking away resources from the less wealthy? What if consumption inequality seriously affects people's life chances?

Here are four trends in inequality:

1. Most American households make much less than $100,000. According to the Census, in 2008, nearly 80% of American households made under $100,000. Only 8.3% of American households made $150,000 or more (Census).
   
2. Wealthy people spend much more money. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics data below, we can see that those with the lowest incomes spend on average about $21,000 per year, while those with the highest incomes spend on average about $94,000 per year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys consumers about how much they make and how much they spend on various items, like housing, clothing, tobacco, reading material, and so on. They divide the population into five groups of equal size (about 24 million people in each, which each represent 20% of the population), from those making the least income (see Lowest 20%) to those making the most income (see Highest 20%). In this table, I chose only three of these five groups (Lowest, Mid, and Highest). I show how much money they spent in 2009 in each category and the percentage this represents of their overall expenses, such as the lowest 20% spends more of their income (16.2%) on food than the highest 20% (11.4%). The differences in consumption are enormous.
   

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2009

	Lowest 20%	%Low	Mid 20%	%Mid	Highest 20%	%High
Avg Expenditures	$21,611	--	$41,150	--	$94,244	--
Food	$3,501	16.2%	$5,483	13.3%	$10,780	11.4%
Housing	$8,961	41.5%	$14,805	36%	$29,998	31.8%
Utilities	$2,238	10.4%	$3,574	8.7%	$5,167	5.5%
Apparel	$873	4%	$1,402	3.4%	$3,339	3.5%
Transportation	$2,855	13.2%	$6,717	16.3%	$14,105	15%
Healthcare	$1,628	7.5%	$3,069	7.5%	$4,677	5%
Entertainment	$1,015	4.7%	$2,106	5.1%	$5,474	5.8%
Personal Care	$268	1.2%	$496	1.2%	$1,167	1.2%
Education	$573	2.7%	$548	1.3%	$2,966	3.1%
Personal pension/ins.	$534	2.5%	$3,512	8.5%	$14,937	15.8%

As we know, more money spent on healthcare and on education has real consequences for people's lives. More money spent on all these items has real consequences for life chances.

3. Markets are much more responsive to the wealthy, as can be seen in Ward 6 with the expansion of expensive restaurants and expensive housing. Often these restaurants and housing replace older, less expensive establishments, leaving those with lower incomes with fewer or no options. In Ward 6, the Hawk and Dove is being replaced by "a locally-sourced, seasonal bistro menu prepared in an open kitchen," (translation: a more expensive restaurant); the fish place on Barracks Row was replaced by "vintage hot dog joint" DC-3; and the KFC on Pennsylvania Ave will be replaced by a new residential-retail building that won't likely be selling low-cost food or housing low-income families (at best, there might be one or two low-income elderly singles). With increasing demand by more wealthy people, who are generally less price sensitive, inflation results (Forbes magazine wrote about this trend in 2009), so housing, restaurant, and food prices are likely to continue to rise in the area.

4. Wealthy residents can purchase homes that provide them access to better schools and other benefits. Renters may have access to good schools, but, if their homes are sold as expensive condos or as private houses, the wealthy are often able to offer more money to buy these homes than many renters can, so the wealthy can also gain access to schools and other community benefits. Those displaced must move to areas that often do not have these good schools. The wealthy are practicing a form of opportunity hoarding.