Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Haider 1

Hira Haider

Dr. Martin

PS 1010-517

28 March 2018

Gentrification Policy Paper

Gentrification occurs when poor neighborhoods become an attraction for low income

families. It is an issue that spans the nation today, but was also a problem in the past.

Specifically, looking at Detroit’s history, gentrification was heavily an issue about race. It

involved white middle class families moving into deteriorated neighborhoods that were mostly

occupied by lower class African Americans. As a result, African Americans were forced to leave

the neighborhood because the middle-class whites had more to offer than they did. This hurt the

African American community because their living space was taken over and they had no other

choice but to move out. Also, they were at a disadvantage due to the negative stereotypes

regarding African American neighborhoods in general. Regardless of their wealth, education,

and social status, African Americans were looked down upon (Runyan). This was used as an

advantage for the white middle class moving in because they were able to take over and save

money as the housing was a lot cheaper in these low-income neighborhoods, and served as a

disadvantage to the social, economic, and cultural life for those low income families who were

pushed out (Shaw). This caused property values to increase, therefore, increasing the rent for all

those living in a gentrified neighborhood. Therefore, if any low income families were able to

retain housing, their rent still increased due to this change in property value (Gonzalez).

Currently, gentrification is still an issue that is prevalent. According to a researcher from

Brown University, Eric Seymour, the mortgage crisis in 2007 caused more than a third of city
Haider 2

houses to foreclose (Detroit Journalism Cooperative). This was because middle class families

who moved into these poor neighborhoods were not paying their taxes even though the housing

was sold to them at low prices. Moreover, gentrification is an issue because the market and

capital benefits are prioritized over the personal needs of the people. A government sphere policy

for this is for the government to facilitate Black people to inhabit abandoned homes in Detroit

and other cities around the nation after they have been gentrified. This paper will break down a

specific policy that the government implemented in the past and was successful in moving

towards a solution for gentrification to a great extent.

In addition to plaguing neighborhoods in Detroit, gentrification is a widespread issue in

many other cities in the United States. According to a report on gentrification in America, 58.1%

of the neighborhoods that are eligible for gentrification in Portland, OR, are gentrified. Similarly,

51.9% of them are in Washington, DC, 50.6% in Minneapolis, MN, and 50% in Seattle, WA.

This means that every other neighborhood in these cities are suffering from gentrification

(“Gentrification in America Report”). Furthermore, this problem is an acute issue, meaning that

it is common and severe in only small parts of the city, in New York, San Francisco, and Los

Angeles. It is most severe in these cities because of how large they are. They are common tourist

attractions and home for millions of people of all types (low-income, middle-class, and wealthy).

This, therefore, leaves room for many low-income neighborhoods that are being taken over by

middle-class families. Further, it is important to understand the gentrification is not only a

financial problem for low-income families, but also a social problem due to these major changes

in their living standards that others do not signify (Franz). Thus, it is clear that Detroit and the

rest of the United States is still suffering from the effects of gentrification, and something needs

to be done to aid this issue.


Haider 3

The first notable action that was taken to try to address this problem was during the

Reagan Administration. In 1987, the McKinney-Venton Act was passed (Cohen). The idea was

that gentrification kicks people out of their houses and neighborhoods and ultimately leaves them

homeless. This plan was created with the intention to try to curb the worst part of the problem,

which were the people who were left homeless. This plan not only provided funds to provide

shelter for these homelessness people, but also provided funds to give these people access to

basic necessities, such as healthcare, education, as well as job training (Cohen).

Being provided with shelter expunges homelessness, but these people are still in need of

assistance. There is an old Chinese saying: “You give a poor man a fish and you feed him for a

day. You teach him how to fish and you give an occupation that will feed him for a lifetime”.

This plan took after that idea; if, as a nation, the government could help those who are the most

vulnerable, then it would not only help them but help the rest of the country as well. This will

increase the floor of education and also raise the skill level of the labor force, thus, helping the

country as a whole by stimulating the economy (Cohen). Furthermore, once these people were

back on their feet if they did make it that far, they would then be selectively eligible for

permanent housing with the assistance of the federal government. And therein lies the fatal flaw

of this plan. The federal government was making this decision based on the merit of a candidate,

whether or not they were qualified or not for permanent housing. This turns shelter into a

privilege, not a right that all citizens should have.

This concern was addressed by The Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Being a part of Congress, the department has internal, legitimate power to create a policy that

will take upfront investment, but will have long-term benefits. Congress has the authority in the

government sphere to use legal documentation in order to accomplish their goals and thus, with
Haider 4

this particular problem, improve the lives of those being gentrified. The Housing First policy

promotes housing as a right, not a privilege, and works to move homeless people into permanent

homes. This involves providing basic necessities, like food and water, healthcare, a permanent

home, and eventually education and a stable job in the future (Cohen). The government will

provide the aid in the beginning but set people on a path of self-reliance in the future. In this

way, they will be able to build themselves up, and not constantly need aid. Education and

securing a job will help them do so after housing is secured because they are the main forms of

governing oneself (Garfinkel).

The main structural barrier that this policy faces is the lack of money and resources that

the Department of Housing and Urban Development has to invest towards this problem in order

to provide all of the services that the policy aims for (Cohen). The government can use its power

to pass healthcare and housing acts, however, without the money to make that upfront

investment, there is only so much that can actually be implemented. In this situation, structure is

taking over the lives of the people in a negative manner, making the government officials agents,

or platypuses, to this system, because the people were given hope through this policy that the

government was going to improve their lives, however, without enough money to execute all of

their plans, the government’s power does not mean anything.

There has, however, been success with this policy. The Department of Housing and

Urban Development reported a decline of 22, 937 homeless people since 2010 (Cohen).

Although this only includes 21 percent of the homeless population, this decline depicts that the

aims and methodology behind this policy are effective, and they can overcome structural

barriers. Policymakers did so by working around the problem. They knew that their main issue

was the cost, so they secured permanent supportive housing for people in areas where they were
Haider 5

less likely to need regular hospital access or emergency shelters. In other words, they made sure

those homes were in safe and secure areas, so people would not suffer from chronic illnesses or

battle high crime rates. As a result, the government would have to provide less funding for the

hospitals and prisons nearby because people in a secured home would not need those services in

comparison to when they were homeless and on the street.

After the implementation of the Housing First policy, researchers conducted studies on it

to test its success rate. They found that after securing permanent housing, 75 percent to 91

percent of those people remain housed a year afterwards, portraying that this policy also has an

effective retention rate (Housing First). Additionally, the government found ways to save costs

which was proven by a study as well. The study found that over the course of two years, the

Housing First program saved $31,545 per person on emergency fees and services (Housing

First). Consequently, this policy should continue to be implemented in the future as long as the

budget can be controlled. People are able to receive and retain permanent housing which is the

essential goal for all living in America.

Because the main issue at hand is housing with poor, Black people being pushed out of

their neighborhoods as a result of gentrification, this policy gives them a chance to turn their

lives around if implemented regularly. They would be able to inhabit their own permanent home

that no one can push them out from and work towards a secure lifestyle with a stable job and

supportive services. This shows that the government has the power to solve these serious issues,

as long as it is brought to their attention by people like us who have secure housing and

education. Therefore, it is important for all citizens to be involved in the political system and not

just hope that government officials will see all of the problems that are occuring nationwide on

their own. Forming these relationships with political leaders is important, and according to
Haider 6

Graham, it is more effective to do so with candidates for office or community leaders because

they are still working towards securing their position in office and will therefore give more value

to our opinions and use these concerns to form their future policies (Graham 136). If brought to

the attention of elected officials with a proposed policy like this one, they will have to do

everything in their power to implement it and thus, improve the lives for all people in the United

States of America.
Haider 7

Works Cited

Cohen, Rachel. Housing First' Policy for Addressing Homelessness Hamstrung By Funding

Issues. The American Prospect, 27 January 2015.

Detroit Journalism Cooperative. “What Gentrification? Much of Detroit Is Getting Worse.”

Bridge Magazine, 11 Jan. 2018.

Franz, Yvonne. Gentrification in Neighborhood Development : Case Studies from New York

City, Berlin and Vienna, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wayne/detail.action?docID=2034379.

Garfinkel, et al. Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader? 2010.

“Gentrification in America Report.” Governing Magazine: State and Local Government News

for America's Leaders.

Gonzalez, David. “When Gentrification Knocks on the Wrong Door”. The New York Times, 3

September 2017.

Graham, Bob. America: The Owner’s Manual. SAGE Publications, 2017.

Housing First. National Alliance to End Homelessness, 20 April 2016.

Runyan, Robin. “What Does ‘Gentrification’ Mean in Detroit?” Curbed Detroit, Curbed Detroit,

28 Apr. 2017.

Shaw, Kate S. “Gentrification Without Displacement' and the Consequent Loss of Place: The

Effects of Class Transition on Low-income Residents of Secure Housing in Gentrifying

Areas,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research vol. 39, no. 2 (January

2015): p. 323-341.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen