This week, we're going to continue our discussion of squatting, the making of private property, and ways of understanding poverty and uneven development, this time focusing our attention on our own city. In the chapter we'll be reading from Shadow Cities, Neuwirth takes us through the history of squatting in New York. As you read, pay attention to how squatter settlements in New York were eradicated. What justifications did the city use for evicting squatters from the land? Were those justifications valid or not? If not, what were the real reasons that the city wanted to take land from the squatters and how was the land used and transformed after the squatters were evicted?
In addition to Neuwirth's chapter we're also going to be looking at some more recent examples of tensions over housing and property in the city and we'll be returning to a topic we discussed two weeks ago: "gentrification." In particular, we're going to discuss what happened on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the 1980s and 1990s. It's not required, but if you have time, take a look at Neil Smith's description of the conflict between squatters and the NYPD around Tompkins Square Park in the late '80s and early '90s. The essay is titled, "'Class Struggle on Avenue B': The Lower East Side as Wild Wild West." [[CLICK ON THE TITLE TO ACCESS THE ARTICLE]] So, as you can guess, we'll also be retuning to ideas about the role class struggle in the making of uneven development that we left off discussing this week. In your commentaries, you are encouraged to grapple with and question some of the theories of poverty (and critiques of them) that we covered in class.
In the chapter about squatters in New York Neuwirth describes a town of immigrants trying to make a living. Unlike the other chapters where the squatters were natives the squatters in New York were all immigrants. These squatters set up there homes in Brooklyn and Manhattan. They went through hard time because the city would evict them after living in there homes for decades. many squatters would lie and say that they have the title to the house they are living in just to keep ownership of there homes. If the city found out that these squatters didnt really have a title they would evict them and tear down the homes. Some city official found that taking a squatter to court takes to long to evict them and started to have the hospital condem the squatters home because of health issues. I found it wierd that the city would blame the squatters for the out break of Cholera and used that as an excuse to evict them. In the book Neuwirth said that documents said that the main out breaks came from the higher class tenaments. Another thing that puzzled me is that the city evicted some squatters and didnt even have the intend to build on that property. I think that wasnt right or fair because they could of let the people live there until they were ready to build on that poperty.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Neuwrith, the Boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn - in New York City, have always been the favorite spots for squatting communities. Different sorts of people have settled their shelters in parks, empty factories and buildings. And sometimes, even streets. Because of the nuisance and material loss, that the existence of these people might cause to speculators/ investors/ real-estates agencies/owners - such squats aren't tolerated. They're being evicted. The people that do this often appeal to the Public Health Department in order to make things appear legal and persuasive. The justification that they might use will be that squats aren't sanitary clean places to begin with. Another one would be, that all these people, no matter how they're serious in their decision to squat in the city - never claim even a part of the land they occupy. By, their clandestine erections are subject to complete destruction and for the people themselves - they're forced to leave the area. The land then, would be transformed, and certainly subject to zoning gentrification : the place will be build-up, renewed, restructured to fit the necessities of wealth people looking for residential, commercial (sometimes a mix of both) , clean and secure neighborhood that only they can afford.
ReplyDeleteI actually really loved this reading and how Neuwirth describes the NYC squatters. It kind of made you want to cheer for people like "Rats" Corcoran and Mr. & Mrs. Cooney. They were ingenious and didn't take to getting pushed around by those who had more money and power than them (even though the Cooneys were eventually pushed out).
ReplyDeleteThe City justified their evicting of the squatters by publishing false/incorrect health reports tracing back sickness to sqatters, and their communities. Many times squatters would be kicked out because speculators would come in a demand that they be evicted off their land, Neuwirth points out through this chapter the quagmire of legal conflicts that would eventually push many squatters off the land they had occupied for years (even up to 40-50 years!).
The cities argument that sqatting neighborhoods are unsanitary, and that squatters have no claim to the land that they have occupied was hardly justifiable. As we know now that these were the cities futile attempts to legalize the evictions. They wanted excuses, so they found some. The sad fact is that these sqatters were treated as unpaying moochers when in reality although they were poor, many times they DID pay rent- to the private landlord, or even to the city. Both of which turned against them and knocked down their homes before their eyes. The squatters of NYC were the cruel victims of a class disciminating, wealth-serving, government- apoint that Neuwirth gets across thoroughly. Like the Jim Crow laws requiring former slaves to qualify for their vote through heinous tests, NYC told squatters pay up to tie yourself to the city sewer system or get out.
The former homes of squatters became prime real estate. Others, however, were used for just a sewer and two new streets. At least thats what happened on Brooklyn's Elenth AVe. where a whole squatter community was pushed out.
Through our course readings, looking at The New York Times articles, my research for my research paper, and even the guest speaker Tracie McMillan I feel like the whole "Your vote counts, use it!" bit is rather old and untrue, not to be a pessimist but how can one's vote count when a government is resigned to serving the super rich and appeasing everyone else with special acts, programs, laws, issues, and rhetoric.
In NYC, the squatter city mostly was filled by the immigrants so it was really different to what we had read before. Those immigrants had a hard time in NYC, so they tried to settle shelters in different areas which they could hide there. For instance, some people chose to stay in parks, buildings, grounds, and etc in Manhattan or Brooklyn. However, the government decided to evict them after living there for decades especially people who didn't have a title for their home. That was why many people just made up different excuses at that time. On the other hand, if the government noticed people were lying for making excuses, they would destroy the shelters, and evict those immigrants. Also, the city blamed on those bad living condition shelters which would caused more able to spread diseases in the communities.
ReplyDeleteWe learned that the majority of people that tried to settle in NYC (especially on parks, abandoned factories, etc) were immigrants, and not all of them were poor, as you mentioned in class, some of them were wealthy young looking for a "safe and affordable" place so they could stay whike they were in college.
ReplyDeletePeople living around them (and authorities) tried to "kick them out" because it was unsanitary, and could cause diseases.
i remember a picture you showed us in class, and i noticed that the conditions under those people were living were horrendous... dirty, and miserable...
The topic about Squatters was an interesting topic for me, since it was something new that i learn in the class. It was also interesting in knowing that the U.S. considered a rich country had or still haves people living in squatter zones. Immigrants that arrived in N.Y had a difficult time in finding a place to live, since they were still searching for jobs and they ended up living in abandon places in which they made their homes. This contributed to many immigrants living in squatters which were located in parts of brooklyn and Manhattan. People living in Squatters had a difficult time because the conditions they lived were not pleasant since they live under unsanitary conditions. They also had problems with the city since squatters are legally permited to live. Often times immigrants had to abandon Squatters because they were being obligated by the city which caused a lot of problems because the sqautters were their home.
ReplyDeleteHow ever the city created apartments that were designed for people living in squatters to move in and had a stable place to live in. Perhaps many of this squatter places were being designed for gentrification in order to create apartments, commercial stores for the benifit of the upper class. This conditions only benefited the upper class since it wasn't affordable for the working class.
The book Shadow Cities by Robert Neuwirth, points out some similarities of squatters in New York which were relevant to those in other less developed countries because of the living conditions that pertained to persons with very little means. Although they may be geographically set apart than the squatter cities we have read about in Mumbai and Nairobi the conditions remain the same. Exposure to disease, bed bugs, overcrowded shared spaces (tenements) and homelessness amongst many created a displacement of poor people within the city and when it came time to make a profit off the areas occupied by them, they were driven out with no assistance and subjected to finding alternate means of living; possibly under the same conditions if not worse. Real estate was a big reason that people living in squatters suffered gentrification. They were classified as a lower class (because of their poverty) depreciating the property value. As with the essay by Neil Smith that was discussed in class titled,” ‘Class struggle on avenue b: The lower east side as the wild wild west” talked about the mapping of the Tompkins Square Park and how it was not convenient to have homeless people, activist and what was considered menaces to society residing there because of its location and the developing areas surrounding it like the financial district. The potential real estate profits by more advantage investors clearly set apart the classes. NYPD Law enforcement was used to basically move the people out of the park having no place to go and many where taken out involuntarily by force, creating riots. The interest in this case did not lie with the underprivileged as in the other countries mentioned in the book but more of a financial gain. My take on this was that poverty is not something that everyone is deserving of but many are prone to it because of the struggle of classes and it does not see any boarders. No matter where you are there is less of an advantage if there are less means provided. Even in a rich city like New York from a highly developed country as the United State, people still face the same human injustices based on class.
ReplyDelete