By now even the most uninformed of individuals has heard of the story of Trayvon Martin and his death in Sanford, FL. This story has transformed, thanks largely in part to the persistent pressure of folks on varied social media platforms, especially twitter, demanding greater information, accountability for the Sanford police department and justice for Trayvon. In many ways, it is a testament to the power of social media to sway greater traditional media by grabbing the attention of mainstream journalists and getting them to wonder what all the fuss is about. There has been a barrage of columns and commentaries on Trayvon's killing. Some have been incredibly heartfelt expressing what Trayvon's death represents in terms of living as a black man and the existential angst and terror that accompanies it, the experiences of black women in relation to living with the memory of dead black boys and men. Other posts have attacked Trayvon or defended his killer, George Zimmerman, by excusing Zimmerman's belief that Trayvon was suspicious because he wore a hoodie, and other individuals (who I refuse to link here, y'all can use your search engine of choice to corroborate) defend Zimmerman by casting aspersions upon Trayvon's character or saying that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon because Trayvon may have bested him in a physical altercation.
There has been a lot written, and even more said, about this horrific event. Recently, over the past few days, urban thinkers and planners have started to wade into the case with a more critical eye, looking at Trayvon's neighborhood and seeing how the built environment may have inadvertently contributed to Trayvon's death or, vice versa, how different design could have saved Trayvon's life. One article, in particular jumps out to me, bettercities.net. This article looks at the gated community that Trayvon was visting and, astutely, points out how such communities are designed for those who own cars and that walkers are often marginalized in such places. The article goes on to describe how the economic downturn has helped to concentrate some poverty and that the residents were "majority-minority" with a large Hispanic and Black population and how George Zimmerman had a long history of viewing black males as suspicious and calling 911 in order to make this complex as inhospitable as possible for those he viewed as interlopers. All of this is pretty boilerplate stuff, but then the article takes a weird turn where the author talks about how if the development had been more friendly to walkers that this tragedy could have been avoided. I stopped. I re-read the line.
Okay...for the record, I am not anti-pedestrian or walkability, but we, as planners and urban thinkers, need to think MUCH more critically about these kinds of subjects before going directly to environmentally deterministic modes of thought. A walkable neighborhood would not have saved Trayvon Martin, just like being in a pleasant, walkable downtown did not save Emmit Till's life. It is incredibly frustrating to read an article that points to how greater socioeconomic and political forces have shaped the character of this development and explicitly mentions how George Zimmerman has frequently engaged in racially charged attacks on black males, and then crow about the need for walkability. How does walkability change ANY of the reasons that article JUST listed that contributed to Trayvon's death? You have a housing development that has been buffeted by the economic downturn, that suffers from entrenched racial and social tension that is omnipresent in American life, a man, with delusions of grandeur, carrying
a concealed firearm, and a local police department that has shown relative indifference in the case of a killed young black man. Somehow building more sidewalks and mixed-use developments are supposed to have saved Trayvon. Let's forget that racial profiling is rampant, like New York's "stop and frisk" policy that explicitly target Black and Hispanic men, or that Black men have gotten shot literally any where people end up, including transit stations, or in a car. These cases are not about neighborhood design, they are about racial profiling, the perception of Black criminality, the devaluing of the Black body in the eyes of the state. These cases also call into question issues of class, gender, and a myriad of other important topics. And yes, the physical environment can be an incredibly vital part of these equations, but focusing only on the physical environment without interrogating the socioeconomic structures that placed them there is, at best, myopic, or, at worst, dishonest.
Yes, encouraging walkability can get at some of the forces that placed Trayvon Martin the situation he was in, but it ENTIRELY ignores issues of racism, inequality, racial, ethnic and income segregation, and poverty; issues that many planners and urbanists are absolutely COMPLICIT in extending. Professors June Manning Thomas and Marsha Ritzdorf have a great book called Urban Planning and the African American Community, an edited volume of the role that planning and planners have had in the shaping of the African American community in the 20th century. Planners, from the North and South, have long worked with established political powers to encourage segregation, through zoning, have actively inhibited the ability of African Americans to gain access to affordable housing, have allowed for systemic disinvestment of communities and the rise of slums, and supervised the destruction of countless neighborhoods through urban renewal. As planners, we are taught to take responsibility for urban renewal and the resulting sprawl and we constantly flog ourselves to remind us to never repeat the mistakes of the 50s and 60s, and yet, within these discussions we are not forced to see how we are also complicit in designing, maintaining, and defending a built environment that reinforces social inequality. If we cannot own the fact that many policies we have encouraged or continue to encourage are indifferent to the poor and communities of color, then WE ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
We should look at planners, architects, and designers and ask them why they would build gated communities in the first place? Look at architects and designers and ask them why it is so uncommon to see uplifting positive, innovative designs for affordable housing. Ask city and regional planners why their own cities don't have inclusionary zoning or other regulations that at least attempt to mitigate the concentration of poverty and can expand good housing stock for low-income individuals. Look at architecture firms and ask them why their field is overwhelmingly white and male. Until we look at how we contribute to a society that criminalizes black people, that segregates our populations based on race and class, and implicitly accepts the notion that redevelopment and gentrification and displacement must go in hand in hand, then we are part of the problem.
Yes, I understand that the role of the planner in most places is that of a public servant. We do not make policy on our own and it may not be appropriate to lobby for particular policies etc...I recognize those limits. But I also say that if you use that as your reasoning as to why you do not speak up or advocate for vulnerable or oppressed populations, then you are STILL part of the problem. We, as a field, need to embrace our roles as guardians of the public interest and return back our roles as ensuring the equitable distribution of public goods. We should push for affordable housing, as a field and as academicians and practitioners, we should push fair and equal access to transportation, we should push for adequate and equal infrastructure provisions for all of our citizens. Anything less and then you get gated communities where black men are seen as intruders, not residents, and therefore open not only to execution, but also not worth the time and resources to prosecute his killer.
And if all you see when you look at this case is that the neighborhood had a low walkability score, then you're not looking hard enough. I'm out.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Race, Class, and Privilege: A Brief Reflection
I'm writing for many, many reasons. The first is that I've gotten A LOT of responses from people on my post on biking and privilege. Some of it has been quite positive, some quite negative, others have respectfully challenged my positions, and I try to respond to them all. I've actually really enjoyed the back and forth with some thoughtful commenters (I see you, Fern) and I realize that in the interest of brevity and being provocative, some of my larger critiques were not entirely clear.
The second is because earlier this week I went to a critique at my university's architecture school and I got to witness third-year architecture students try to describe their designs for a "hip-hop" community center in East Portland. The result was seeing a bunch of kids, and professors and professional architect reviewers. with no familiarity with hip-hop, no connection to the neighborhood or communities that this building will serve (it was noted at the beginning that the Rosewood neighborhood was "unique" because it had population characteristics similar to the rest of the country [read: it had people of color] all while the students and professors in charge we uniformly white and middle class). The results, after viewing three critiques, were a series of strained metaphors of what hip-hop is and how these buildings would save Rosewood's kids from lives of crime and gangbanging. It perfectly illustrated how having such a homogeneous student body can deaden creativity but it also illustrated the problematic nature of a field like architecture that purports to represent varied cultures, communities, or arts when many architects have no familiarity or intimacy with the concepts or communities they purport to represent.
My last reason why I feel this post is necessary is because of Trayvon Martin. The inadequate summary of events thus far is this: two weeks ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch member shot and killed Trayvon as he was walking back to his stepmother's house from a local convenience store to pick up food for his little cousins. Zimmerman, while sitting in his car, saw Martin walking back home at night in the rain and decided he looked "suspicious". He then called 911 to report the suspicious character to police and he was told by 911 dispatchers that a cruiser was being sent and to stay put. Zimmerman decided he would pursue Martin, so he got out of his car, chased Martin down the street, they got into a fist fight and then Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Where is Zimmerman? He's walking the streets of Sanford, FL and the local police have not charged him because they claim there is a lack of evidence to charge him and they have kicked the case to the local prosecutor.
What do these disparate topics have to do with issues of privilege, race, or class? In short, everything. First let's try to unpack this concept of "privilege". All three of these examples are textbook cases of "white privilege". Succinctly, white privilege are the benefits that white people accrue simply from being white. While this idea is not particularly new, Peggy Mcintosh's classic essay on "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is a great exposition from a white woman on exploring the implications of privilege (starting from the subject of male privilege in feminist theory) and extending that to issues regarding race. She gives a series of statements illustrating many of the unstated benefits of white privilege, here are some examples:
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area, which I can
afford and in which I would want to live.
3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely
represented.
6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my
color made it what it is.
7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their
race.
8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket
and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone
who can cut my hair.
And the list goes on from there. As you can see, white privilege is a nuanced, complex, subtle phenomenon and the greatest example of white privilege is the ability for white people to ignore that it exists. This is not the case for people of color in this country. The reason why I bring up this idea of white privilege is to point out that there are many forms of privilege and they shift and change depending where you are. As a male, I have male privilege. I recognize that the ways I learn and communicate are often rewarded compared to other forms. I know that people will assume that I am more rational based on my gender than a woman and a myriad other small advantages I receive every day based on my gender. I can't necessarily eliminate sexism or the structural and cultural institutions that exacerbate it, but I can recognize my privilege and attempt to act in a way that is self-reflective and that respects the views and experiences of other people. I cannot impose my own particular worldview, and by extension the advantages that I unfairly receive that they may not benefit from, onto other people. It's counterproductive and if you are actually interested in addressing a problem, then it distracts from looking at deep, structural causes of many issues.
In my biking post, I wanted to illustrate that the normative rhetoric regarding voluntary bike commuting and sustainable living often comes from a privileged position that does not recognize the lived differences and experiences of people that would lead to choose not to bike. I tried to describe how simply lambasting non-bikers for not living sustainably, for not living close to their place of work, for not being willing to take a shower at their job after biking, is counterproductive and misses the multitude of reasons, structural, cultural, institutional, economic, and behavioral that go into someone's choice of their dominant mode of transit. Frankly, we cannot talk about getting more people to bike without talking about housing-jobs geographical mismatch, we cannot talk about getting more women to bike if we don't talk about the beauty standards that women have to meet in the professional workplace that make bike commuting a less viable option for them, we cannot talk about getting more people to bike if we don't seriously examine the multitude of factors that go into transportation choices. The situation is much more complex than simply building more bike lanes (although we should have better infrastructure for cyclists). I am not anti-cyclist. I wish that people could live where they could choose a multitude of affordable and sustainable transportation choices, but until we get to a point where everyone has that opportunity and we live in a culture that does not unfairly penalize individuals for choosing to bike, then we are NOT helping the situation by criticizing people who choose to not bike for legitimate reasons. We should be examining much more deeply how people feel about certain modes of transit and how can we best offer them services that they want/need, and not simply champion one mode over another and pathologize those populations that choose not to participate.
This position of privilege is also reflected in my other two examples. It is mindboggling to me that you have a profession that purports to represent and serve communities, yet it was obvious that not only did this particularly university group have a decidedly monochromatic make up, but they spent very little to zero time actually talking with the people in the neighborhood that they are designing a building for, AND they had very little actual connection with the art/culture, hip-hop, that this community center was to be based around. When your entre into hip-hop culture is a hip-hop dance course (really) and you live in a city that doesn't have a hip-hop station other than your top-40 pop station, it is absurd to think that you could reflect the feelings/desires/needs of a community. It's beyond arrogant. Combine that with an especially offensive presentation that made the Rosewood neighborhood sound like Beirut (seriously, this one student designed her building with bulletproof glass and put the kids common area of the third floor because she said people often shoot at eye level, not up) and not a SINGLE reviewer called her out on her assumptions regarding the neighborhood and you see how institutional racism is reproduced in the academy and in other professional fields. And what makes this worse is that such attitudes are precisely the kinds of attitudes that lead people like George Zimmerman to look at a kid like Trayvon Martin and not see just a kid walking home but to see a criminal and someone deserving of being killed.
Until we ALL step back and examine our own privilege that comes from our gender, race, income levels, religious affiliation etc we won't be able to move forward and we'll certainly have a hell of a hard time communicating with people that are different from us. Being "colorblind" or saying you "don't see race" doesn't eliminate the privileges you receive, all it does is ignore the real differences that other people live every day. And that's a crying shame.
The second is because earlier this week I went to a critique at my university's architecture school and I got to witness third-year architecture students try to describe their designs for a "hip-hop" community center in East Portland. The result was seeing a bunch of kids, and professors and professional architect reviewers. with no familiarity with hip-hop, no connection to the neighborhood or communities that this building will serve (it was noted at the beginning that the Rosewood neighborhood was "unique" because it had population characteristics similar to the rest of the country [read: it had people of color] all while the students and professors in charge we uniformly white and middle class). The results, after viewing three critiques, were a series of strained metaphors of what hip-hop is and how these buildings would save Rosewood's kids from lives of crime and gangbanging. It perfectly illustrated how having such a homogeneous student body can deaden creativity but it also illustrated the problematic nature of a field like architecture that purports to represent varied cultures, communities, or arts when many architects have no familiarity or intimacy with the concepts or communities they purport to represent.
My last reason why I feel this post is necessary is because of Trayvon Martin. The inadequate summary of events thus far is this: two weeks ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch member shot and killed Trayvon as he was walking back to his stepmother's house from a local convenience store to pick up food for his little cousins. Zimmerman, while sitting in his car, saw Martin walking back home at night in the rain and decided he looked "suspicious". He then called 911 to report the suspicious character to police and he was told by 911 dispatchers that a cruiser was being sent and to stay put. Zimmerman decided he would pursue Martin, so he got out of his car, chased Martin down the street, they got into a fist fight and then Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Where is Zimmerman? He's walking the streets of Sanford, FL and the local police have not charged him because they claim there is a lack of evidence to charge him and they have kicked the case to the local prosecutor.
What do these disparate topics have to do with issues of privilege, race, or class? In short, everything. First let's try to unpack this concept of "privilege". All three of these examples are textbook cases of "white privilege". Succinctly, white privilege are the benefits that white people accrue simply from being white. While this idea is not particularly new, Peggy Mcintosh's classic essay on "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is a great exposition from a white woman on exploring the implications of privilege (starting from the subject of male privilege in feminist theory) and extending that to issues regarding race. She gives a series of statements illustrating many of the unstated benefits of white privilege, here are some examples:
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area, which I can
afford and in which I would want to live.
3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely
represented.
6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my
color made it what it is.
7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their
race.
8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket
and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone
who can cut my hair.
And the list goes on from there. As you can see, white privilege is a nuanced, complex, subtle phenomenon and the greatest example of white privilege is the ability for white people to ignore that it exists. This is not the case for people of color in this country. The reason why I bring up this idea of white privilege is to point out that there are many forms of privilege and they shift and change depending where you are. As a male, I have male privilege. I recognize that the ways I learn and communicate are often rewarded compared to other forms. I know that people will assume that I am more rational based on my gender than a woman and a myriad other small advantages I receive every day based on my gender. I can't necessarily eliminate sexism or the structural and cultural institutions that exacerbate it, but I can recognize my privilege and attempt to act in a way that is self-reflective and that respects the views and experiences of other people. I cannot impose my own particular worldview, and by extension the advantages that I unfairly receive that they may not benefit from, onto other people. It's counterproductive and if you are actually interested in addressing a problem, then it distracts from looking at deep, structural causes of many issues.
In my biking post, I wanted to illustrate that the normative rhetoric regarding voluntary bike commuting and sustainable living often comes from a privileged position that does not recognize the lived differences and experiences of people that would lead to choose not to bike. I tried to describe how simply lambasting non-bikers for not living sustainably, for not living close to their place of work, for not being willing to take a shower at their job after biking, is counterproductive and misses the multitude of reasons, structural, cultural, institutional, economic, and behavioral that go into someone's choice of their dominant mode of transit. Frankly, we cannot talk about getting more people to bike without talking about housing-jobs geographical mismatch, we cannot talk about getting more women to bike if we don't talk about the beauty standards that women have to meet in the professional workplace that make bike commuting a less viable option for them, we cannot talk about getting more people to bike if we don't seriously examine the multitude of factors that go into transportation choices. The situation is much more complex than simply building more bike lanes (although we should have better infrastructure for cyclists). I am not anti-cyclist. I wish that people could live where they could choose a multitude of affordable and sustainable transportation choices, but until we get to a point where everyone has that opportunity and we live in a culture that does not unfairly penalize individuals for choosing to bike, then we are NOT helping the situation by criticizing people who choose to not bike for legitimate reasons. We should be examining much more deeply how people feel about certain modes of transit and how can we best offer them services that they want/need, and not simply champion one mode over another and pathologize those populations that choose not to participate.
This position of privilege is also reflected in my other two examples. It is mindboggling to me that you have a profession that purports to represent and serve communities, yet it was obvious that not only did this particularly university group have a decidedly monochromatic make up, but they spent very little to zero time actually talking with the people in the neighborhood that they are designing a building for, AND they had very little actual connection with the art/culture, hip-hop, that this community center was to be based around. When your entre into hip-hop culture is a hip-hop dance course (really) and you live in a city that doesn't have a hip-hop station other than your top-40 pop station, it is absurd to think that you could reflect the feelings/desires/needs of a community. It's beyond arrogant. Combine that with an especially offensive presentation that made the Rosewood neighborhood sound like Beirut (seriously, this one student designed her building with bulletproof glass and put the kids common area of the third floor because she said people often shoot at eye level, not up) and not a SINGLE reviewer called her out on her assumptions regarding the neighborhood and you see how institutional racism is reproduced in the academy and in other professional fields. And what makes this worse is that such attitudes are precisely the kinds of attitudes that lead people like George Zimmerman to look at a kid like Trayvon Martin and not see just a kid walking home but to see a criminal and someone deserving of being killed.
Until we ALL step back and examine our own privilege that comes from our gender, race, income levels, religious affiliation etc we won't be able to move forward and we'll certainly have a hell of a hard time communicating with people that are different from us. Being "colorblind" or saying you "don't see race" doesn't eliminate the privileges you receive, all it does is ignore the real differences that other people live every day. And that's a crying shame.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Knotted Cities, Planning, and Embracing Messiness
I had a fascinating exchange on twitter this morning with my classmate, RJ (@rjkoscielniak, follow him). He posted an article from the New York Times looking at Rio's central command center designed by IBM. It's an integrated command center that takes data from around the entire city through a series of sensors, GPS trackers etc and brings it all into one area where the city can, ideally, react to disasters in a coordinated fashion, better manage large events (like Carnival) and get a better hold on the city as a whole.
The planner and geek in me absolutely LOVES reading stuff like this. I'm a sucker for the rationalist/managerial approach and I think it has its place and necessity, especially in a world where we have cities of 10, 15, and 20 million people. When you have that many people, combined with cities that are often more informal than formal, trying to exert control over it is a natural (and I would argue, good) instinct.
What RJ pointed out to me, well of the many things he pointed out, was that systems like this give a false sense of security because it does not recognize the inherent complexity and messiness of lived urban life, at all scales. To quote him,"...complexity is hidden in a sea of panoramic data". What systems like IBM's ignore is the constitutive and adaptive nature of cities. This system works in one direction and imposes rules and linearity to a system that flows in multiple directions up and down scale and is "knotted". To put it as RJ did,"...systems like this ignore the natural dialogue between cities and its residents". People adapt and use the city as they need to every day. We walk across empty lots or through buildings to get to work, we have rooftop or windowsill gardens, we open up fire hydrants in the summer, we have rent parties or block parties. We also steal, salvage, scrap, tag, and burn the our cities. We have deep networks of residents, neighborhood leaders, elders, cops, politicians, teachers etc that all play into how we interact with our cities and our governments. Top-down approaches (and as a planner I am often engaged in designing and thinking about top-down approaches) often ignore this incredibly complex urban milieux in an attempt to tame it, to control it, and, ultimately, to predict and guide it.
As I said, I'm sympathetic to the planner here, it's what I am. But RJ made a great point about residents and the city being constitutive (one affects the other and vice versa) and adaptable and how planning does not adequately speak to that, and in an attempt to exert control over the city and its operations it has to obscure or ignore these forces. We cannot grasp the city as such, the more tightly we attempt to grasp it, the faster it flits away. Even in a world where London is under constant scrutiny and surveillance by an intrusive state, you can still have catastrophic subway bombings or riots. The only way to "tame" the city is to become totalitarian, to monitor everyone and to remove all choice and freedom. There are some who insist that planners are seeking to do this or that the past decade has seen us take bigger steps towards that ultimate outcome. I do not believe this is so, but the critique and implications are strong.
We cannot "solve" the city. It is ultimately unknowable, and I'm ok with that. But given this insolubility, we have to better respect the lived experience of city residents at all levels. A building that collapses due to neglect and people stealing its bricks and piping is a natural part of urban decay. The city consumes and recycles its own wastes. Just as "informal" housing (also known as "slums") is a sign of city's natural, informal, chaotic growth. What I think planners should do is to find a way to include these areas and actions into their understanding of the city and into their "interventions". Are slums and favelas huge issues in many cities? Most certainly. But the answer is not blight clearance and displacement but to find ways to include and absorb such areas and respect the fact that people live and flourish there. Mapping schemes, infrastructure advancement, the opening of clinics to assist with health...these are positive steps that recognize and cooperate with the informal and the messy.
RJ says that one of his many goals is to tear down the separation between the "informal and formal". While we often butt heads on how far we should go, I do believe that planners, as well as "urbanists" (whatever they happen to be), need to respect the lived experience of those who are already here. We need to embrace the complex messiness of the city. Otherwise we are simply hoping to grasp shadows, reflections of reality that comfortably conform to our assumptions and rules.
The planner and geek in me absolutely LOVES reading stuff like this. I'm a sucker for the rationalist/managerial approach and I think it has its place and necessity, especially in a world where we have cities of 10, 15, and 20 million people. When you have that many people, combined with cities that are often more informal than formal, trying to exert control over it is a natural (and I would argue, good) instinct.
What RJ pointed out to me, well of the many things he pointed out, was that systems like this give a false sense of security because it does not recognize the inherent complexity and messiness of lived urban life, at all scales. To quote him,"...complexity is hidden in a sea of panoramic data". What systems like IBM's ignore is the constitutive and adaptive nature of cities. This system works in one direction and imposes rules and linearity to a system that flows in multiple directions up and down scale and is "knotted". To put it as RJ did,"...systems like this ignore the natural dialogue between cities and its residents". People adapt and use the city as they need to every day. We walk across empty lots or through buildings to get to work, we have rooftop or windowsill gardens, we open up fire hydrants in the summer, we have rent parties or block parties. We also steal, salvage, scrap, tag, and burn the our cities. We have deep networks of residents, neighborhood leaders, elders, cops, politicians, teachers etc that all play into how we interact with our cities and our governments. Top-down approaches (and as a planner I am often engaged in designing and thinking about top-down approaches) often ignore this incredibly complex urban milieux in an attempt to tame it, to control it, and, ultimately, to predict and guide it.
As I said, I'm sympathetic to the planner here, it's what I am. But RJ made a great point about residents and the city being constitutive (one affects the other and vice versa) and adaptable and how planning does not adequately speak to that, and in an attempt to exert control over the city and its operations it has to obscure or ignore these forces. We cannot grasp the city as such, the more tightly we attempt to grasp it, the faster it flits away. Even in a world where London is under constant scrutiny and surveillance by an intrusive state, you can still have catastrophic subway bombings or riots. The only way to "tame" the city is to become totalitarian, to monitor everyone and to remove all choice and freedom. There are some who insist that planners are seeking to do this or that the past decade has seen us take bigger steps towards that ultimate outcome. I do not believe this is so, but the critique and implications are strong.
We cannot "solve" the city. It is ultimately unknowable, and I'm ok with that. But given this insolubility, we have to better respect the lived experience of city residents at all levels. A building that collapses due to neglect and people stealing its bricks and piping is a natural part of urban decay. The city consumes and recycles its own wastes. Just as "informal" housing (also known as "slums") is a sign of city's natural, informal, chaotic growth. What I think planners should do is to find a way to include these areas and actions into their understanding of the city and into their "interventions". Are slums and favelas huge issues in many cities? Most certainly. But the answer is not blight clearance and displacement but to find ways to include and absorb such areas and respect the fact that people live and flourish there. Mapping schemes, infrastructure advancement, the opening of clinics to assist with health...these are positive steps that recognize and cooperate with the informal and the messy.
RJ says that one of his many goals is to tear down the separation between the "informal and formal". While we often butt heads on how far we should go, I do believe that planners, as well as "urbanists" (whatever they happen to be), need to respect the lived experience of those who are already here. We need to embrace the complex messiness of the city. Otherwise we are simply hoping to grasp shadows, reflections of reality that comfortably conform to our assumptions and rules.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Biking may not be "elitist" but it is Privileged
A classmate of mine posted this article on facebook responding to charges biking, vegetarianism, and other "progressive" causes in living a more sustainable life as elitist. While I'm sympathetic to the goal there are some problematic aspects to this post.
Choosing to bike in our auto-centric world is certainly a sacrifice. It dictates where you decide you'll live, work, shop, and play. Making and committing to that choice, especially going so far as to not own a motor vehicle at all is admirable. But it is still a choice. And it is the recognition that is a choice that places the choice in a position of privilege. In a country where the built environment worships at the altar of the car, committing to bicycling as your primary mode of transit is largely the province of those who choose to bike for cultural/political reasons and those who bike by necessity.
As mentioned earlier, we live in a society where our built environment is designed for automobile travel. We still have metropolitan areas defined by commercial and industrial districts that are commuted to, primarily by automobile, over relatively long distances from residential areas. Being able to live close enough to your work that you can comfortably bike there is not something that all people have access to. It's awesome that you can bike to work, but what do you say to a worker who lives across town in a cheaper neighborhood because that's the section of the city where he or she can afford to stay? Not everyone can live close enough to their place of employment to make biking a primary mode of commuting transit. The same critique holds for access to grocery stores, community centers, or houses of worship. All of these things exist within space and access to these areas is limited by income. It may not be feasible or desirable to bike to these spaces. Simply because you choose to do so doesn't make you a martyr. It means you have the power to decide. Many people do not. Not recognizing that is indeed an issue of privilege, and yes, in certain respects, elitism.
We should also recognize that there are different cultural and professional expectations that people have to meet and biking may not be amenable to these. For example, many black women in professional or service occupations would go out of their way to NOT bike for hair-care reasons. In many professional and service areas black women are expected to wear their hair straightened or in some cases in braids or other labor-intensive ways. Sweating out your new do by biking in the heat or in the rain is a no-go AND incredibly expensive. The fact that you can go to work in an environment where you aren't particularly judged on your appearance is, again, a position of privilege. We can attack a system that judges women on their appearance and reinforces white beauty standards, but to not recognize them as mitigating factors in travel mode choice is, again, a privileged position.
Succinctly, biking may not be elitist, but to not explicitly recognize it as a choice that incurs social and economic cost just as you lambast driving as a choice, places you in a position of privilege. People may counter that the saved income people have from not owning a car will mitigate those costs. To a certain extent this is true, but that still does not address cultural issues and expectations, like the hair issue, or presenting a certain kind of appearance at a house of worship or place of work. We should absolutely work on normalizing bicycling as a primary means of transport, but articles like this that do not recognize that there are legitimate reasons why people choose not to are not only privileged, but they do make certain bicycling advocates elitist.
Choosing to bike in our auto-centric world is certainly a sacrifice. It dictates where you decide you'll live, work, shop, and play. Making and committing to that choice, especially going so far as to not own a motor vehicle at all is admirable. But it is still a choice. And it is the recognition that is a choice that places the choice in a position of privilege. In a country where the built environment worships at the altar of the car, committing to bicycling as your primary mode of transit is largely the province of those who choose to bike for cultural/political reasons and those who bike by necessity.
As mentioned earlier, we live in a society where our built environment is designed for automobile travel. We still have metropolitan areas defined by commercial and industrial districts that are commuted to, primarily by automobile, over relatively long distances from residential areas. Being able to live close enough to your work that you can comfortably bike there is not something that all people have access to. It's awesome that you can bike to work, but what do you say to a worker who lives across town in a cheaper neighborhood because that's the section of the city where he or she can afford to stay? Not everyone can live close enough to their place of employment to make biking a primary mode of commuting transit. The same critique holds for access to grocery stores, community centers, or houses of worship. All of these things exist within space and access to these areas is limited by income. It may not be feasible or desirable to bike to these spaces. Simply because you choose to do so doesn't make you a martyr. It means you have the power to decide. Many people do not. Not recognizing that is indeed an issue of privilege, and yes, in certain respects, elitism.
We should also recognize that there are different cultural and professional expectations that people have to meet and biking may not be amenable to these. For example, many black women in professional or service occupations would go out of their way to NOT bike for hair-care reasons. In many professional and service areas black women are expected to wear their hair straightened or in some cases in braids or other labor-intensive ways. Sweating out your new do by biking in the heat or in the rain is a no-go AND incredibly expensive. The fact that you can go to work in an environment where you aren't particularly judged on your appearance is, again, a position of privilege. We can attack a system that judges women on their appearance and reinforces white beauty standards, but to not recognize them as mitigating factors in travel mode choice is, again, a privileged position.
Succinctly, biking may not be elitist, but to not explicitly recognize it as a choice that incurs social and economic cost just as you lambast driving as a choice, places you in a position of privilege. People may counter that the saved income people have from not owning a car will mitigate those costs. To a certain extent this is true, but that still does not address cultural issues and expectations, like the hair issue, or presenting a certain kind of appearance at a house of worship or place of work. We should absolutely work on normalizing bicycling as a primary means of transport, but articles like this that do not recognize that there are legitimate reasons why people choose not to are not only privileged, but they do make certain bicycling advocates elitist.
Some Reflections on the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Environmental Justice Movement
Most of these observations are taken from a short reflection paper I wrote for class on a piece by Pellow and Brulle called Power, Justice, and the Environment: Toward Critical Environmental Justice Studies. It was the first chapter to an edited volume they collected on critiquing certain aspects of the environmental justice movement. I did not read the rest of the volume, so if some of these observations or questions are answered later in the book, I apologize. Regardless, I think some of these questions are interesting and those who ally themselves with environmentalism, sustainability, environmental justice or any similar movement should consider them.
The piece goes over a brief history of the EJ movement and describes how it came up due to weaknesses and prejudices in the traditional environmental movement. I have written before on the explicit connection between our form of American capitalism and environmental degradation. Pellow and Brulle extend this by pointing out how the traditional environmental movement has not been successful in bringing about systemic political-economic change, resulting in continued social and economic inequality that is also reflected in unequal distribution of environmental costs and pollution. The environmental justice sprang from this gap, representing the interests of groups of poor folks and people of color that were the losers not only in the general political-economic system but also had to deal with the negative environmental consequences that those who often headed and participated in traditional environmental organizations (primarily middle class and white). So, we find EJ coming in to explicitly connect environmental concerns with an explicit critique of capitalism processes. That being said, if you haven't notice we're still in the same mixed capitalist economy that's dominated for the past century, so EJ suffers from the same weakness as the traditional environmentalist movement. But I think that EJ is better situated to actually challenge this capitalist model because of its focus on inequality and in organizing to address such inequality.
Unfortunately, the EJ movement suffers from two huge weaknesses that limit its potential to be a widely-adopted form of capitalist challenge. The first is the local nature of many EJ groups and causes. Even though organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council are now allying with EJ organizations and act as forceful advocates on general issues of EJ, the EJ movement is still largely hampered by its parochial/local nature. This is great for the isolated cases that the EJ movement has been famous for fighting, but its inability to better leverage resources to insert its critiques and viewpoints nationally into a variety of organizations is a MAJOR flaw. This is especially problematic in the wake of incidences like the Gulf oil spill and the continued rise of fracking around the country. Now there are some very intense battles involving compensation over loss of livelihoods in the Gulf and there are many challenges to the natural gas industry's dominance over local areas, but a concerted national message that encompasses environmental stewardship and social and economic equality has not crystallized. I fear that it may take an even greater ecological crisis before people really wake up or are receptive to such messages, but I feel that EJ and traditional environmental organizations can do more by more explicit partnering and organizing and beating on this message regarding irresponsible system consumption and unequal distribution of its benefits AND costs.
The second critique lies in the continued racial and social segregation that still defines, to a great extent, the traditional environmental movement and the EJ movement. This segregation developed in the 1970s based on conflicts between traditional environmentalists and EJ activists over prospective national land-use legislation. Margaret Weir gives a great history of the initial splits between these two groups in Robert Fishmans "The American Planning Tradition". I won't delve into the historical splits deeply here but suffice it to say that traditional environmental groups and urban EJ groups were at odds over the legislation and that break cemented the current segregation and differences that still largely exist today. Yes, groups like NRDC have EJ sections and explicitly mention them but we still find parallel tracks for EJ groups and activists and more traditional environmental groups. This racial and social segregation is mirrored even within the EJ movement where Latino, Black, and Native groups have their own separate organizations. Frankly, those of us who are concerned about issues of equity and environmental quality MUST make explicit attempts to integrate organizations and to expand their influence to larger scales. In addition, these groups must reach out to poor and middle class white America. This means partnering with traditional environmental organizations and going into areas where poor whites are traditionally enemies of the american left and yet still suffer from social and environmental inequity, like the industrial midwest and south. We've seen groups in appalachia battle mountaintop mining and fighting coal companies influence, so it's not like poor white are unwilling to battle for their own rights and their environments. But other EJ groups must reach out to these groups. We have to go about forming a grand coalition that is multihued and made up of people of different educational backgrounds and classes.
Simply, we cannot hope to institute systemic change if we cannot convince ALL affected people that they share a common background and state. So, as you go out and prepare to do what you do to organize or advocate for varied interests, look for opportunities to reach to those "other" folk. And if you're uncomfortable with that or haven't even consider it, then look at your own privilege and prejudice and get over yourself. We all in this.
The piece goes over a brief history of the EJ movement and describes how it came up due to weaknesses and prejudices in the traditional environmental movement. I have written before on the explicit connection between our form of American capitalism and environmental degradation. Pellow and Brulle extend this by pointing out how the traditional environmental movement has not been successful in bringing about systemic political-economic change, resulting in continued social and economic inequality that is also reflected in unequal distribution of environmental costs and pollution. The environmental justice sprang from this gap, representing the interests of groups of poor folks and people of color that were the losers not only in the general political-economic system but also had to deal with the negative environmental consequences that those who often headed and participated in traditional environmental organizations (primarily middle class and white). So, we find EJ coming in to explicitly connect environmental concerns with an explicit critique of capitalism processes. That being said, if you haven't notice we're still in the same mixed capitalist economy that's dominated for the past century, so EJ suffers from the same weakness as the traditional environmentalist movement. But I think that EJ is better situated to actually challenge this capitalist model because of its focus on inequality and in organizing to address such inequality.
Unfortunately, the EJ movement suffers from two huge weaknesses that limit its potential to be a widely-adopted form of capitalist challenge. The first is the local nature of many EJ groups and causes. Even though organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council are now allying with EJ organizations and act as forceful advocates on general issues of EJ, the EJ movement is still largely hampered by its parochial/local nature. This is great for the isolated cases that the EJ movement has been famous for fighting, but its inability to better leverage resources to insert its critiques and viewpoints nationally into a variety of organizations is a MAJOR flaw. This is especially problematic in the wake of incidences like the Gulf oil spill and the continued rise of fracking around the country. Now there are some very intense battles involving compensation over loss of livelihoods in the Gulf and there are many challenges to the natural gas industry's dominance over local areas, but a concerted national message that encompasses environmental stewardship and social and economic equality has not crystallized. I fear that it may take an even greater ecological crisis before people really wake up or are receptive to such messages, but I feel that EJ and traditional environmental organizations can do more by more explicit partnering and organizing and beating on this message regarding irresponsible system consumption and unequal distribution of its benefits AND costs.
The second critique lies in the continued racial and social segregation that still defines, to a great extent, the traditional environmental movement and the EJ movement. This segregation developed in the 1970s based on conflicts between traditional environmentalists and EJ activists over prospective national land-use legislation. Margaret Weir gives a great history of the initial splits between these two groups in Robert Fishmans "The American Planning Tradition". I won't delve into the historical splits deeply here but suffice it to say that traditional environmental groups and urban EJ groups were at odds over the legislation and that break cemented the current segregation and differences that still largely exist today. Yes, groups like NRDC have EJ sections and explicitly mention them but we still find parallel tracks for EJ groups and activists and more traditional environmental groups. This racial and social segregation is mirrored even within the EJ movement where Latino, Black, and Native groups have their own separate organizations. Frankly, those of us who are concerned about issues of equity and environmental quality MUST make explicit attempts to integrate organizations and to expand their influence to larger scales. In addition, these groups must reach out to poor and middle class white America. This means partnering with traditional environmental organizations and going into areas where poor whites are traditionally enemies of the american left and yet still suffer from social and environmental inequity, like the industrial midwest and south. We've seen groups in appalachia battle mountaintop mining and fighting coal companies influence, so it's not like poor white are unwilling to battle for their own rights and their environments. But other EJ groups must reach out to these groups. We have to go about forming a grand coalition that is multihued and made up of people of different educational backgrounds and classes.
Simply, we cannot hope to institute systemic change if we cannot convince ALL affected people that they share a common background and state. So, as you go out and prepare to do what you do to organize or advocate for varied interests, look for opportunities to reach to those "other" folk. And if you're uncomfortable with that or haven't even consider it, then look at your own privilege and prejudice and get over yourself. We all in this.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Pernicious Argument of "Energy Independence"
Bloomberg News has an interesting article touting America's recovered "energy independence". The reason that America is approaching independence from foreign controlled fossil fuel? It's not greater energy efficiency in our vehicles or homes. It's not more responsible land uses that better balance housing and job locations and limit the necessity of driving. It's not the implementation of a carbon tax, or even the inferior cap and trade, that has pushed towards not being dependent on fossil fuels. No, the thing that will save us is cheap natural gas released from shale formations!! In other words, we're producing our own fossil fuels now. So, we have no reason to attack Iran or worry about Russia. In addition, domestic production of natural gas has the potential to help fuel (see what I did there?) an economic boom. Job growth estimations and overall potential economic impacts vary depending on who you cite, but it is undeniable that the price of natural gas has dropped precipitously thanks to the introduction of natural gas produced from shale. This has resulted in exports of natural gas increasing and limiting our own imports of the stuff, thus the touted "independence" that Bloomberg celebrates.
So, what's the problem? Climate change. The connection between greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane, and climate change is well documented and accepted science. As an urban planner this worries me immensely. You don't have to be studying sustainability science to be worried about issues of sea level rise in coastal areas. This is especially true on the east coast from where I hail where you have many major cities that are on the coasts or lie in low-lying areas and floodplains. There are other grave issues that accompany climate change from increased risk of major storms like hurricanes, exacerbated drought conditions (look at Texas), or worse heat waves that sweep cities and could potentially harm vulnerable populations like senior citizens and children. These are issues that planners are intimately aware of and we are put in the unique position of trying to mitigate these issues, even in the face of popular opposition. Without getting into the deep well of the relationship of planners to the public and existing political institutions, I just wanted to point out that these issues are deep and planners are trying to address some systemic factors that contribute to our use of fossil fuels.
Before my more environmentally active colleagues attack me, I am aware that there ARE many problematic issues of shale gas exploitation, ranging from issues of water pollution (mentioned the Bloomberg article but never explored in depth), to questions of mineral rights, and land development. The process challenges a lot of conventions in the social, environmental, economic, and political spheres. None of which are adequately explored in this piece by Bloomberg.
And this is what makes this energy independence framing pernicious. It's put in a positive framing because we don't have to worry about being dependent upon foreign oil, it has the potential to fund thousands and jobs, and take us to a newer energy future. This is an INCREDIBLY powerful narrative. It's also largely indifferent to the issues I've brought up, and I've barely scratched the surface about what's problematic about the lionizing of natural gas exploitation. That being said, environmentally and socially conscious folk and policymakers (and this is not isolated on the traditional left, in many states there are legitimate issues regarding land ownership rights where opponents to fracking fall largely on a more conservative property rights spectrum) need to prepare strategies that attack this framing and recognize its strengths and adjust accordingly.
Attacking fracking as a dirty industry that pollutes water and befouls the land has been successful in some municipalities but we see in states like Pennsylvania that are pre-empting local municipalities from deciding whether or not they want fracking in their areas. So anti-fracking strategists need to be able to work and organize not only the county level but go to the state level and they need to be able to provide legitimate alternative visions. It's incredibly difficult for a state that suffers from a lack of tax revenue and high unemployment to not take advantage of a multi-billion dollar growth industry. We have to formulate arguments that say that there is a better way to develop without resorting to an environmentally destructive practice that encourages us to continue our dependence on fossil fuels.
Some approaches: attack the positive economic impact argument by fully integrating social and environmental costs into analysis and we need to talk more about the benefits of alternative strategies, like energy efficiency. Energy efficiency and weatherization can act not only as a series of strategies for saving energy but as drivers of economic development. We have millions of units of housing in this country that are relatively energy inefficient and the potential economic impact of ramping up weatherization and energy efficiency programs is great. Many cities are doing this on a small scale but partnering with banks, credit unions, workforce development groups, and government could allow us to leverage potentially billions of dollars into this growth field. In addition, we need to ramp up efforts to push for alternative and renewable energy sources (including nuclear, in my opinion) and tie investment in those industries to other forms of innovations and jobs. We lost our monopoly on the production of solar panels and wind turbines to China. Investing heavily in solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear energy offers potential positive impacts not only environmentally, but you can see positive results in the manufacturing and construction sectors, two HUGE drivers of economic strength in this country. This takes the energy independence message and flips it on its head. It says that we can be energy independent AND we can benefit economically without having to depend on this fracking and the continued exploitation of fossil fuels.
None of what I'm writing about here is new but as this electoral season continues to heat up interest groups need to be formulating their strategies NOW in order to head off potential messages. And believe you me, this is going to be a DOMINANT message in the upcoming elections. If we cannot cogently address the multiple arguments presented, then we can continue to watch out country go down a path of increased fossil fuel dependence. But at least it will be our own fuel.
So, what's the problem? Climate change. The connection between greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane, and climate change is well documented and accepted science. As an urban planner this worries me immensely. You don't have to be studying sustainability science to be worried about issues of sea level rise in coastal areas. This is especially true on the east coast from where I hail where you have many major cities that are on the coasts or lie in low-lying areas and floodplains. There are other grave issues that accompany climate change from increased risk of major storms like hurricanes, exacerbated drought conditions (look at Texas), or worse heat waves that sweep cities and could potentially harm vulnerable populations like senior citizens and children. These are issues that planners are intimately aware of and we are put in the unique position of trying to mitigate these issues, even in the face of popular opposition. Without getting into the deep well of the relationship of planners to the public and existing political institutions, I just wanted to point out that these issues are deep and planners are trying to address some systemic factors that contribute to our use of fossil fuels.
Before my more environmentally active colleagues attack me, I am aware that there ARE many problematic issues of shale gas exploitation, ranging from issues of water pollution (mentioned the Bloomberg article but never explored in depth), to questions of mineral rights, and land development. The process challenges a lot of conventions in the social, environmental, economic, and political spheres. None of which are adequately explored in this piece by Bloomberg.
And this is what makes this energy independence framing pernicious. It's put in a positive framing because we don't have to worry about being dependent upon foreign oil, it has the potential to fund thousands and jobs, and take us to a newer energy future. This is an INCREDIBLY powerful narrative. It's also largely indifferent to the issues I've brought up, and I've barely scratched the surface about what's problematic about the lionizing of natural gas exploitation. That being said, environmentally and socially conscious folk and policymakers (and this is not isolated on the traditional left, in many states there are legitimate issues regarding land ownership rights where opponents to fracking fall largely on a more conservative property rights spectrum) need to prepare strategies that attack this framing and recognize its strengths and adjust accordingly.
Attacking fracking as a dirty industry that pollutes water and befouls the land has been successful in some municipalities but we see in states like Pennsylvania that are pre-empting local municipalities from deciding whether or not they want fracking in their areas. So anti-fracking strategists need to be able to work and organize not only the county level but go to the state level and they need to be able to provide legitimate alternative visions. It's incredibly difficult for a state that suffers from a lack of tax revenue and high unemployment to not take advantage of a multi-billion dollar growth industry. We have to formulate arguments that say that there is a better way to develop without resorting to an environmentally destructive practice that encourages us to continue our dependence on fossil fuels.
Some approaches: attack the positive economic impact argument by fully integrating social and environmental costs into analysis and we need to talk more about the benefits of alternative strategies, like energy efficiency. Energy efficiency and weatherization can act not only as a series of strategies for saving energy but as drivers of economic development. We have millions of units of housing in this country that are relatively energy inefficient and the potential economic impact of ramping up weatherization and energy efficiency programs is great. Many cities are doing this on a small scale but partnering with banks, credit unions, workforce development groups, and government could allow us to leverage potentially billions of dollars into this growth field. In addition, we need to ramp up efforts to push for alternative and renewable energy sources (including nuclear, in my opinion) and tie investment in those industries to other forms of innovations and jobs. We lost our monopoly on the production of solar panels and wind turbines to China. Investing heavily in solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear energy offers potential positive impacts not only environmentally, but you can see positive results in the manufacturing and construction sectors, two HUGE drivers of economic strength in this country. This takes the energy independence message and flips it on its head. It says that we can be energy independent AND we can benefit economically without having to depend on this fracking and the continued exploitation of fossil fuels.
None of what I'm writing about here is new but as this electoral season continues to heat up interest groups need to be formulating their strategies NOW in order to head off potential messages. And believe you me, this is going to be a DOMINANT message in the upcoming elections. If we cannot cogently address the multiple arguments presented, then we can continue to watch out country go down a path of increased fossil fuel dependence. But at least it will be our own fuel.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Baratunde on "How To Be Black" and making it in America
I just had to share this link to Fresh Air's podcast with Baratunde Thurston. He's a director for the Onion, a co-creator of Jack and Jill Politics, and he just released a sometimes satirical memoir/advice book on how to be black.
I'm not gonna say much on it, you should listen to it. But what did touch me was hearing about his growing up in DC and the work his mom put in to educate him and keep him out of trouble. His mom started out as a domestic worker, educated herself, and, ultimately, became an early computer programer for the office of the comptroller. I was born in DC and raised in PG county and went to high school in DC. I have close friends and family in DC, it's home for me. But hearing how his mom could work her way up into a federal position and advance from there struck me. I know so many people with stories like that. In this country of increasing deindustrialization and decline where opportunities for the working class and poor are constantly shrinking, the public sector is one of the few places where a person can not only have fairly secure, decent paying work, but also have the ability to advance, to earn benefits, and to get a pension. In other words, government work is an entry way into the middle class.
I think this is something that is either ignored or is simply not known by a lot of "conservatives" that crow about public employees. The federal government literally saved Baratunde's life. Not through food stamps, but through employment. This wasn't charity, but an opportunity his mom took advantage of and she ran with it. Isn't that what America should be about?
I'm not gonna say much on it, you should listen to it. But what did touch me was hearing about his growing up in DC and the work his mom put in to educate him and keep him out of trouble. His mom started out as a domestic worker, educated herself, and, ultimately, became an early computer programer for the office of the comptroller. I was born in DC and raised in PG county and went to high school in DC. I have close friends and family in DC, it's home for me. But hearing how his mom could work her way up into a federal position and advance from there struck me. I know so many people with stories like that. In this country of increasing deindustrialization and decline where opportunities for the working class and poor are constantly shrinking, the public sector is one of the few places where a person can not only have fairly secure, decent paying work, but also have the ability to advance, to earn benefits, and to get a pension. In other words, government work is an entry way into the middle class.
I think this is something that is either ignored or is simply not known by a lot of "conservatives" that crow about public employees. The federal government literally saved Baratunde's life. Not through food stamps, but through employment. This wasn't charity, but an opportunity his mom took advantage of and she ran with it. Isn't that what America should be about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)