Black And White, Seeing Red All Over
Kelly VirellaMajor retailers' search for green kicks up racial tension in Chicago's gentrifying areas.
Key Issues
Chicago Matters
Child And Family
Criminal Justice
Education
Employment/Labor
Government and Politics
Health
Housing
Immigration
Media/Entertainment
Religion/Faith
Special Projects
 |
 |
|
The Chicago Reporter • 332 S. Michigan Ave. 500 • Chicago, IL 60604 • Tel: (312) 427-4830 • Email: tcr@chicagoreporter.com
Content ©2010
The Chicago Reporter is a publication of the Community Renewal Society, which also publishes Catalyst-Chicago and Catalyst-Ohio.
The Chicago Reporter is a publication of the Community Renewal Society, which also publishes Catalyst-Chicago and Catalyst-Ohio.
First, in equating the actions and impacts of the community activists in the article and the "hecklers" at the meeting to the social phenomena of White Flight, you blythely disregard the power dynamic at play here and show that you have completely missed the point of the article. In answer to your question, the "hecklers" had no impact on the meeting. They made a little noise and the powers that be had them removed, and as I understand it, a brand new Pete's Fresh Market will open in the neighborhood in 2011. Conversely, when the white people moved out of the neighborhood, the bulk of the retail followed, and now that the white folks are returning, it seems that there will be store there to welcome them back.
Second, even law abiding residents sure can be "driven out" of the neighborhood. If you build enough half million dollar houses in an area and you raise the taxes that you neighbors have to pay on their $200,000 homes and you raise the amount that landlords will charge in rent (you should maybe try reading an article about the city's ongoing affordable housing crisis for mor detail).
Finally, I think you are confused on the whole West Haven/Near West Side thing. West Haven is a section of the Near West Side community area.
Sueanne, you sound like you may be one of the folks who recently moved into the neighborhood and you're feeling a little confused and defensive about the hub-bub. If I might make a suggestion, why don't you try talking to some of your neighbors to find out where they are coming from, you might find it enlightening. At the very least, you might want to type the word g-e-n-t-r-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n into the search box at Google or Wikipedia and start reading what pops up. Could be interesting.
You say that “population declined in the Near West Side for decades, not because of displacement by whites, or wealthier families, but because of the chronic problems experienced in the increasingly poorer community.” You go on to suggest that the community residents should essentially embrace gentrification as a community development strategy. The tragedy is I think you’re right. And that’s the problem.
You see if you are right, and Ms. Virella’s analysis suggests you are, what then?
The CHA’s redevelopment of the Henry Horner Homes only allowed some public housing resident’s to stay in the community, the rest have been dispersed into the neighborhoods on the South and West sides. Many of the neighborhoods that these public housing resident have relocated to are still experiencing the same levels of disinvestment that West Haven endured until recently. What of those communities that have not achieved the “Benneton” mix you have helped to secure in West Haven? According to Ms. Virella’s analysis, those communities don’t have much to hope for.
From 1980 through 2008, the three community areas adjacent to the Loop increased their combined white population by 41 percent, the Reporter’s analysis shows. Those three communities— which make up only 3.8 percent of all community areas—gained 13, or 38 percent, of the 34 supermarkets opened in communities that had more stores in 2009 than in 1980.
While it might be easier, as you suggest, to look at this as a story about class and income instead of race, that would not be the truth. If money was the key, residents of Bronzeville would be able to walk to a grocery store instead of driving to Hyde Park or Roosevelt Road or South Holland.
Two of these three gentrifying community areas—the Near West Side and the Near South Side—are still majority black by a slim margin. But most of Chicago’s majority-black community areas didn’t gain supermarkets, the Reporter’s analysis shows, and those that did either gained white population or lost black. Of the six black community areas that gained supermarkets, five have lost black population since 1980 and three have gained white population or held it constant. Over the years, the combined black population in these six community areas has declined by 84,992, or 34 percent.
Throughout the city, community areas that either gained white population or held onto their white majorities won a lion’s share of new supermarkets. Of the 19 community areas that gained stores, 12, or 63 percent, fit into that category.
To expand a bit on one of the points you made in your comment, what also “binds middle class folks together” is opportunity. The West Haven Pete’s Fresh Market will provide jobs and nutritional food options local residents. Residents will have the opportunity to learn the value of hard work will be able to lead healthier lives as a result of this investment. I ain’t mad at you or them. I think it is a blessing to have access to good things by just walking outside of your door. The problem, according to Ms. Virella’s analysis, is that it seems that those blessings have only seemed to follow white folks for at least the past 28 years.
The truth that I carry from this article is that if you are African American, regardless of how much money you have, you’re going to live in a disinvested food desert unless you have some white folks, too. As such, what would it serve to ignore the role that race plays in this?
From 1980 through 2008, the three community areas adjacent to the Loop increased their combined white population by 41 percent, the Reporter’s analysis shows. Those three communities— which make up only 3.8 percent of all community areas—gained 13, or 38 percent, of the 34 supermarkets opened in communities that had more stores in 2009 than in 1980.
Two of these three gentrifying community areas—the Near West Side and the Near South Side—are still majority black by a slim margin. But most of Chicago’s majority-black community areas didn’t gain supermarkets, the Reporter’s analysis shows, and those that did either gained white population or lost black. Of the six black community areas that gained supermarkets, five have lost black population since 1980 and three have gained white population or held it constant. Over the years, the combined black population in these six community areas has declined by 84,992, or 34 percent.
Throughout the city, community areas that either gained white population or held onto their white majorities won a lion’s share of new supermarkets. Of the 19 community areas that gained stores, 12, or 63 percent, fit into that category.
As to what happened, I have a theory. After the riots in 1968, the Brooke Amendment changed the system of the rent structure within public housing. As a bone thrown to the very poor, the rent went from being a set fixed amount to a formula. Initially, it was 25% of income. For many of those working families in public housing, this meant that rent at public housing was more than rent on the private market. Many working families made the rational decision to leave public housing. These were replaced with very poor people, who often had zero income. The balance shifted so that the community became increasingly poor, and with it, social problems increased. This provided a secondary impetus to drive out many of the better off families; families who had options to live elsewhere. Eventually, public housing "transformed" from decent housing meant to provide a home for those needing a hand up, to housing of last resort. Much of the ideology of this current "Transformation" plan is to return public housing to its earlier role.
As the communities in public housing and the surrounding areas became poorer, they became difficult communities for retailers to make a living in. The combination of falling incomes and increasing crime made retailing inhospitable and unprofitable. You can say it is about race, but it really about money. I firmly believe that the only way out of this trick bag is to re-economically integrate poor communities.
An amazing study was done by Paul Jargowsky in a book entitled, "Poverty and Place" studying the census and income data from 1980 and 1990. He discovered that while a vast majority of poor whites (92%) in America live in communities that are not majority poor, a much larger percentage of poor African-Americans live in communties that are majority poor (it was something like 37%). This tell me a couple of important facts. First, poor whites are much more likely than poor African Americans to live in communities that have retail, good schools, safe parks, and other amenities that improve life chances. Second, about two-thirds of African-Americans live in communities with a strong economic base as well. Therefore, there is nothing inherent in the African-American poor that makes it impossible to live in mixed income settings. In fact, two thirds already live in mixed income settings. The trick is how to address the needs of the remaining third. If anyone can think of a better way to get the services enjoyed by our wealthiest Americans to the poor without the poor living in proximity to those who are better off, then I would like to know what it is, and I'll start doing it.
So in answer to your question Maurice: I don't think the residents of West Haven are hopeless, and I don't think they have been quarantined from the greater society. I think the segregation by income happened through a well intentioned public policy that had unintended consequences, and that the folks in West Haven are fortunate to be part of a solution that is addressing the problems of deprivation that they have experienced over the past four decades.
As to what happened, I have a theory. After the riots in 1968, the Brooke Amendment changed the system of the rent structure within public housing. As a bone thrown to the very poor, the rent went from being a set fixed amount to a formula. Initially, it was 25% of income. For many of those working families in public housing, this meant that rent at public housing was more than rent on the private market. Many working families made the rational decision to leave public housing. These were replaced with very poor people, who often had zero income. The balance shifted so that the community became increasingly poor, and with it, social problems increased. This provided a secondary impetus to drive out many of the better off families; families who had options to live elsewhere. Eventually, public housing "transformed" from decent housing meant to provide a home for those needing a hand up, to housing of last resort. Much of the ideology of this current "Transformation" plan is to return public housing to its earlier role.
As the communities in public housing and the surrounding areas became poorer, they became difficult communities for retailers to make a living in. The combination of falling incomes and increasing crime made retailing inhospitable and unprofitable. You can say it is about race, but it really about money. I firmly believe that the only way out of this trick bag is to re-economically integrate poor communities.
An amazing study was done by Paul Jargowsky in a book entitled, "Poverty and Place" studying the census and income data from 1980 and 1990. He discovered that while a vast majority of poor whites (92%) in America live in communities that are not majority poor, a much larger percentage of poor African-Americans live in communties that are majority poor (it was something like 37%). This tell me a couple of important facts. First, poor whites are much more likely than poor African Americans to live in communities that have retail, good schools, safe parks, and other amenities that improve life chances. Second, about two-thirds of African-Americans live in communities with a strong economic base as well. Therefore, there is nothing inherent in the African-American poor that makes it impossible to live in mixed income settings. In fact, two thirds already live in mixed income settings. The trick is how to address the needs of the remaining third. If anyone can think of a better way to get the services enjoyed by our wealthiest Americans to the poor without the poor living in proximity to those who are better off, then I would like to know what it is, and I'll start doing it.
So in answer to your question Maurice: I don't think the residents of West Haven are hopeless, and I don't think they have been quarantined from the greater society. I think the segregation by income happened through a well intentioned public policy that had unintended consequences, and that the folks in West Haven are fortunate to be part of a solution that is addressing the problems of deprivation that they have experienced over the past four decades.