From political science is the idea of the sole paradigm. It is the framework within which everything is interpreted. Not questioned. The market economy solving all is an example. Libertarianism is a representation of that ideal. But there are many other ways to interpret the world.
In a capitalist analysis people (= labor) spread positive externalities to the neighborhood in creating and improving community. (Also possible for neighbors to export negative externalities) The block developers import that positive externality for free with no compensation and destroy the value created by displaced individuals and businesses on the land.
The imported positive externalities benefit the developer and future residents, neither of which need or should be entitled that benefit.
Developers should compensate the community with ownership capital shares or controlled rent in perpetuity in the developer's project.
The weakness in capitalism as practiced is that it does not value risk in a human values context. It values the fluctuation in the commodity value of steel for rebar in the context of construction in China over the loss of a neighborhood restaurant, a renter, that created the value in the first place.
The people in the neighborhood created the value, not the developer.
Where do you draw the line between "the people" and "the developer"? Portland wouldn't be on the rise if it wasn't for development. Does someone who renovates a space and starts a fancy new restaurant that adds to the neighborhood value count as a "people" or a "developer". It always seems like both sides want to reduce things to an unrealistic model.
Sawant won citywide against a boomer Progressive Green incumbent who bore an uncanny resemblance, at least in rhetorical style, to Ned Flanders. He was cozy with the business/real estate community and stylish, low-carbon-footprint-y New Urbanists. Sawant's signs and t-shirts had three bullet points emblazoned on them, none of which seemed remotely possible when she first embraced them: $15/hr Minimum Wage - Rent Control - Millionaire Tax for Transit & Schools.
She ran her first campaign against the Democratic Speaker of our state legislature. She lost but got over 30% of the vote, a significant achievement running outside of the locally dominant Democratic Party. At every public event she would speak about her three bullet points not as ends in themselves but as opportunities to advance a critique of global capitalism. Her positions were also devices to identify members of the political class (allegedly Liberal/Democrat) that were squeamish about taking strong positions for real social and economic gains for people with incomes below more or less the 70th percentile. Her public events were also calls to ordinary folks to get involved in changing the nature of the political process and demanding new ideas about what is possible and what democracy might be like.
There are many issues around gentrification. People often get confused about what the problem is or whether there is a problem or whether it's just a matter of personal taste, aesthetic, 'typical' social behavior, or whatever.
The solution to gentrification would be figuring out how to bring prosperity to an area without dislocating its residents. (Or maybe just bringing prosperity to them directly?!) Hayward has the right idea above. Why aren't public institutions serving everybody's interests more or less equally without regard to individuals' wealth and property? I'd like to see public institutions provide decent permanent housing, health, education, transportation, media and whatever the hell else human beings need for good lives. Fancy, lucky, and talented people of means should be able to opt out and do their own thing if they don't want to go with the public brand. I bet there's enough wealth to go around. And I don't believe people currently holding most of the wealth have a valid claim, based in their personal industriousness, to all that they are holding.
Instead, we have a situation where public institutions defend anti-socially distributed property rights against human rights. We have a situation where city governments exist mainly to help people with $2M+ double their money as quickly as possible, while imposing irrational punishments and indignities on people who spend most of their waking hours in anxious desperation to keep their loved ones fed, housed, and clothed. It's cruel and stupid and toxic and it doesn't have to be this way.
Here's a piece I ran across a few weeks ago that offers a readable history of gentrification with an analysis of the unprecedented scale of how it happens now as our current brand of public institutions interpret their mandate as an obligation to provide space for global capital to become a concrete manifestation of total dominance... http://vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-spike-lee-hyper-gentrification.html
Deeper truth, @Leland. "We have a situation where city governments exist mainly to help people with $2M+ double their money as quickly as possible, while imposing irrational punishments and indignities on people who spend most of their waking hours in anxious desperation to keep their loved ones fed, housed, and clothed."
The Essence.
Since this thread was started, Michael Brown was murdered by Ferguson police for refusing to obey arbitrary orders. And et al. police shootings.
Comments
In a capitalist analysis people (= labor) spread positive externalities to the neighborhood in creating and improving community. (Also possible for neighbors to export negative externalities) The block developers import that positive externality for free with no compensation and destroy the value created by displaced individuals and businesses on the land.
The imported positive externalities benefit the developer and future residents, neither of which need or should be entitled that benefit.
Developers should compensate the community with ownership capital shares or controlled rent in perpetuity in the developer's project.
The weakness in capitalism as practiced is that it does not value risk in a human values context. It values the fluctuation in the commodity value of steel for rebar in the context of construction in China over the loss of a neighborhood restaurant, a renter, that created the value in the first place.
The people in the neighborhood created the value, not the developer.
She ran her first campaign against the Democratic Speaker of our state legislature. She lost but got over 30% of the vote, a significant achievement running outside of the locally dominant Democratic Party. At every public event she would speak about her three bullet points not as ends in themselves but as opportunities to advance a critique of global capitalism. Her positions were also devices to identify members of the political class (allegedly Liberal/Democrat) that were squeamish about taking strong positions for real social and economic gains for people with incomes below more or less the 70th percentile. Her public events were also calls to ordinary folks to get involved in changing the nature of the political process and demanding new ideas about what is possible and what democracy might be like.
There are many issues around gentrification. People often get confused about what the problem is or whether there is a problem or whether it's just a matter of personal taste, aesthetic, 'typical' social behavior, or whatever.
The solution to gentrification would be figuring out how to bring prosperity to an area without dislocating its residents. (Or maybe just bringing prosperity to them directly?!) Hayward has the right idea above. Why aren't public institutions serving everybody's interests more or less equally without regard to individuals' wealth and property? I'd like to see public institutions provide decent permanent housing, health, education, transportation, media and whatever the hell else human beings need for good lives. Fancy, lucky, and talented people of means should be able to opt out and do their own thing if they don't want to go with the public brand. I bet there's enough wealth to go around. And I don't believe people currently holding most of the wealth have a valid claim, based in their personal industriousness, to all that they are holding.
Instead, we have a situation where public institutions defend anti-socially distributed property rights against human rights. We have a situation where city governments exist mainly to help people with $2M+ double their money as quickly as possible, while imposing irrational punishments and indignities on people who spend most of their waking hours in anxious desperation to keep their loved ones fed, housed, and clothed. It's cruel and stupid and toxic and it doesn't have to be this way.
Here's a piece I ran across a few weeks ago that offers a readable history of gentrification with an analysis of the unprecedented scale of how it happens now as our current brand of public institutions interpret their mandate as an obligation to provide space for global capital to become a concrete manifestation of total dominance... http://vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-spike-lee-hyper-gentrification.html
The Essence.
Since this thread was started, Michael Brown was murdered by Ferguson police for refusing to obey arbitrary orders. And et al. police shootings.
Did any of you in Portland vote?