A damn good Canadian DJ (r12) waking my tired self up this morning. If only I could actually turn my stereo way up like I used to before I moved to Philly, then I would really wake up!
Watched another very good Eddie Norton movie last night. I'm really becoming a fan of his from his movie a I saw a few years ago, Fight Club, to the Spike Lee directed 25 Hours and now American History which I saw last night. This movie brings modern racism to the fore and hits you hard with it, and like most Edward Norton movie endings, the ending is bitter sweet. Plus if you were wondering what happened to the kid in Terminator 2, he's back, but still looks like a kid 10 years later.
This is a fine movie to explore common prejudices which each of us may hold in one capicity or another. I find myself getting pissed at the poor black people who got brand new and beautiful section 8 houses one block South of the kick ass South Street area. They got the houses cheap and I don't think it's fair, especially since they are already trashing them and ripping out the trees that were planted along the sidewalk. But then I talk to one of my kick ass friends in Philly, who's black (Sam from the old WB Delaware office) and he's just as pissed as me b/c he too can't get in on those places as he makes too much dough. He's a straight shooter and I know I can ask him race questions and he'll kick me some knowledge and so I did and he really hit it well. He pointed out that the section 8 houses are for really low income people and since they get the houses without having to pay the market rate, they don't take care of them as well b/c they aren't paying the full price and they don't appreciate the homes as much as someone who would have payed triple for the same house in the same location.
His point was that I have to understand that it's not about their race, it's all about their economic status. We both agreed that it wasn't fair that they actually are entitled to "affordable housing" as when you approach it from an economic/ Market view, this would be illegal in an open and fair market because it is price fixation along with market manipulation and actually creates a greater disparity in the overall market as it makes expensive housing more expensive and lowers the amount of usuable land in a city.
I've have to get ready for work, but will try to find more time tonight...Feel free to comment, especially you ALS, as I know you kick good knowledge too.
Danke,
-Bc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
People in poverty are some of the most observed & judged in society because they are in many ways the most visible: they are on the streets, they are using the community resources, they are recieving government support....The alcoholic on the street is much more dramatic and visible than the affluent alcoholic hiding in the bowels of his large house.
In this country, every taxpayer who supports a subsidized program designed to alleviate poverty wants to see their money put to work. That means all aspects of the program -and the people who use it- are scrutinized. Often, as much as we hate to admit it, we judge the people recieving the supportive funding with a moral compass. We look at people and say that they must have Done Something to get where they are at, and if they would only pull up their boot straps....
If, for example, one observes a person using food stamps (more like a food card now) and sees chocolate cake in the cart, the result could be anger or discust. How dare they waste resources on frivolous pieces of cake!?! We don't pay taxes for people to sit around eating cake!
But, really, if I were to look at your cart, I might find something inappropriate in it - how dare you buy that beer when it could be going to your investments, something that could prepare you for a future lay-off that I, as a tax payer, might otherwise have to support?!?
On the "Affordable Housing" angle, it is one piece of a larger approach to attempting to help citizens in poverty. The package of supportive funding & programs from the government, corporations, and nonprofits are designed to help people get out of the hole where there is never enough money to afford things and get into being a funtioning/contributing membert of the fiscal society. Taken alone, these affordable houses are not the answer. But in tandem with subsidized child care, welfare-to-work programs, ect., affordable housing may help some people get on their feet. ...provided there is good policy behind it.
Lets call affordable housing something better. It is really more like subsidized housing, with the intention being that if a person or a family can afford a hosue, they will be a step closer to having consistency in their life which can lead to steady employment, consistent education for the children (and adults), and involvement in the community, and most importantly, regular fiscal input into society. (And for the most part, we're talking about people who would NEVER get any kind of bank loan, even with the high-interest, no-payment down stuff that is going on right now.)
A good approach is to sprinkle subsidized housing in with market-valued housing, so that there is a mix of people living together and the steryo-typical slum isn't fostered. Another good approach is to get the people who are reciving the subsidized housing to participate in the building & maintence of the housing, so that there is a level of pride in the building and surraounding area. ...And of course, as I mentioned, education, job support, and child care support are integral in helping people get "out of" poverty. Anyways, there are lots of innovative policies, I'd be curious to learn just how the houses you've seen built are being managed.
......Lets face it. Humans are self serving in general. Poor people aren't any different. If policy is designed to provide people with a band aid and not a solution, people will use the band aid until it no longer works. Good policy matters. It isn't a matter of removing all supports for those in poverty, but providing supports that create a successful outcome for the most number of people.
So when reviewing policy or considering people in poverty, It is important to remember:
1) Something has to be done. If we ignore poverty, it will not go away. Aside from reducing hunger, minimizing poverty in society can help people live productive lives, lives where people participate in society, giving back to society.
Reduction in poverty is in part about providing people with choices - when people are in poverty, they have very few choices. When people are affluent, there are many more choices. The more choices people have, the more chances there are for healthy choices, the more chances there are for treating bad choices before they become chronic problems.
2) Even though people in poverty may be given large jump-starts through housing or other government supports, you probably have more than most people in poverty.
For example, most of the time, waiting lists for subsidized housing are years long, and while a person is waiting for housing, they've got to somehow survive on the fringes of society without committing any crimes, because that will get the person kicked off the list. So those people moving into the houses you've seen in Philly may have been moving from apartment to apartment, friend to friend for two years while you have been buidling equity on your own house.
3) But relating poverty to any kind of person is wrong, because anyone can be poor. Minorities do tend to be highly represented among people who are poor, but minorities are not people in poverty.
The overrepresentaiton by minorities in poverty is because throughout our country's torrid history different families/groups of people have either been born into privladge or they haven't, and those patterns continue to exist to this day. Simple as that. Thankfully, as you mentioned, our view of race and ethnicity as a society seems to be changing...or at least there is open dialogue about it.
4) Once poor, everything becomes much harder. That means that it is easy to misjudge the efforts of those in poverty is one is not careful. If you set what YOU have been able to accomplish as the bar, people living in poverty will not reach the bar. So when developing policy, it is important to look at the facts and remove your feelings or opinions, because your personal expierences may or may not represent those of people in poverty.
While I don't have time to describe the challenges of living in poverty, just try to ponder what it might be like to be a single mother of three children under 5 years old with about $300.00 a month plus a housing subsidy and food subsidy as her only support. Oh, and she don't have a car. She's single because her husband died in an accident. It was his fault, so most of her meager family assets were lost when she were sued by the other party's insurance. She badly wants to get back on your feet, get a job, and stop accepting government supports.
In order to apply for a job (which will help her afford daycare), she'll have to find someone to watch the children who is sober, a non-pervert, and free to come out as soon as the potential empolyer calls. Then she'll need to have enough money to get to the interview. At the job, she'll have to explain why she don't have any work expierence (she stayed home with the kids!)....and so on...each little step becomes ten times harder.
Anyways, glad to see you're thinking about this. If anyone is really interested in poverty, urban planning, or government subsidies...I can reccomend articles that provide research-based descriptions of what has been done in the past, what it means to be in poverty, and what people are planning for today's cities & neighborhoods.
-Amy Lynne
Post a Comment