This story follows a trend that has happened to numerous Washington, DC neighborhoods--Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights; Petworth is already in the works. Anacostia is the latest, but not the last, in DC's eastward march of gentrification--enjoyed by hipsters and ladder-climbing suburbanites alike (sadly, that includes me, too). This article touches upon two very important issues, but fails to distinguish them well enough to make clear the problem at hand. The title leads one to believe that the problem is primarily a racial matter--a predominantly black city is gaining more white inhabitants and losing it's long standing black residents. Even though this is true, this covers over the fact that this is primarily a problem about economics and class rather than a racial issue.Economics and race are inseparably intertwined, however they are NOT identical--and this fact makes all the difference. First of all, the problem the article highlights is that poor families who have lived in DC are being displaced by rising property values and the increase in the cost of living because white developers are buying property, refurnishing old homes, and opening new businesses in low-income neighborhoods. That is the problem of gentrification. Secondly, this also has strong racial component because Washington, DC's has had an overwhelming black population. This has been the case for at least three reasons, if not more: 1. a disproportionate percentage of poor people are black (one reason why race and economics are intimately tied), 2. many black people who moved from the South in the early 20th century settled in the city, AND 3. white flight in the late 60's created a city abandoned to the poor black populations. This is an important distinction because the problem is not the presence or lack thereof of black people, but of the poor families who are being pushed out of their neighborhoods. Therefore, whether the developers and new inhabitants are black or white does not make a difference, the injustice is that poor are being uprooted by the rich. However, if anyone has an awareness of systemic racial injustice, it will be clear that the majority of the residents of Anacostia are poor black people and a majority of the developers are white. Economic problems have strong racial implications and discussions about race are never unrelated to economic disparity. However, if one will do justice to this problem, it must be seen primarily as an economic problem, not a racial matter.
I admit that I am puzzled by consequences of gentrification (actually, displacing the poor is not just a "consequence" of gentrification, but is directly at the heart of gentrification's intent). Poor neighborhoods are complex systems filled with various relationships and patterns--good and some harmful. In a poor neighborhood, there are families which care for its members, there are schools with networks of friends, familiar faces in churches and local stores. These are healthy and vibrant relationships which have found their home in places like Anacostia. However, there are also brutal gangs which divide the neighborhood into territories of violence and hostility. There are drugs and prostitution circles--both of which are frequently used to keep people in dehumanizing servitude to others. The truth is that poor families do not want to live in fear of violence any more than rich families do. Poor or rich, no parent wants their child's life to be in danger simply by walking to school. No one wants their sense of security violated by rape, muggings, or burglary. Even though, I want to advocate for those who are poor, I find these ills hard to ignore--ills which have a direct correlation to burden and persistence poverty. Unfortunately, the rich continue to believe that they know what the poor need and then, with clear consciences and deaf ears, impose their good works on those who already suffer the most. Gentrification is the inadequate answer of the rich to the problems of poverty.
Let's not romanticize areas like Anacostia--fear of these areas are not solely a matter of white delusions about predominantly black neighborhoods. There IS violence and high crime rates in this and other neighborhoods. I do not want to displace those who are impoverished, but they live do in neighborhoods that are in need of transformation. But what is needed? Better schools? Community centers? The removal of power plants and waste sites--causes of numerous health problems among the poor? Better police enforcement (I know this would also demand an overall of the justice system and reducing instances of police corruption and brutality. However, we must remember that despite instances of police brutality, some times the problem is that the police do not show up when needed by those who are live in these areas)? Is there are a way to remove the ills of poor neighborhoods without uprooting multi-generational family and its beautiful communities? Some of these communities stand like aged Sequoias in DC's transient population. Until those who are poor--who have been historically poor--are the guidepost for our actions, then we have yet to do justice.
And how about us suburbanites--black, white, or any other race/ethnicity? Where do we live and what do we do? Some with good intentions (some with not-so-good intentions) have moved to these gentrified areas. But the fact of the matter, whether we like it or not, is that simply our presence can send property value soaring and our neighbors shoved into the streets. My friend reminds [and challenges] me that where one chooses to live is an ethical matter and I'm still struggling with what that will mean for me.
