A Tale of Two Cities

On Tuesday, a New York Times Article was published titled “A Private Boom Amid Detroit’s Public Blight,” in light of the Michigan governor’s impending decision to appoint an emergency financial manager to the city. This appointment is controversial for many reasons; some feel it is an effort to take away democracy because a city that votes overwhelmingly democratic may be run by a Republican. Even more alarming is the fact that if Detroit comes under an EM, half of the African Americans in the state of Michigan will live in areas where use of funding is controlled by the state (others include Flint and Pontiac). Though emergency financial management has been fairly common in Michigan cities in the past ten years, it has never proven very successful, with many cities still considering declaring bankruptcy when the management is lifted. These controversies are certainly alarming, but I also believe that the state’s record of public-private partnerships, particularly within Detroit, does not bode well for emergency management to help all residents in Detroit but rather continue catering to business, entrepreneurs, and the upper classes of Detroit.

As the New York Times article points out, the public and private sectors are “diverging.” A picture at the beginning of the article represents the dual cities that have emerged showing a boarded up with the GM building in the background. “As private investors contemplated opening coffee bean roasters, urban gardening suppliers and fish farms, Detroit firefighters complained about shortages of equipment, suitable boots and even a dearth of toilet paper.” Mayoral candidate Krystal Crittendon laments government incentives that have helped encourage business, but ignored “the common folks.”

Much investment in Detroit by corporations, such as the auto industry, has been poured into downtown and midtown and locked out other areas. For example the new M1 rail, slated for completion in 2015 with the use of federal, state, and private funds and input, runs in a straight line from Downtown (connecting to two stops on the circular People Mover) through Midtown to New Center where the existing Amtrak station is located. Thus, public transportation will only really be more available in the most affluent parts of the city. The state also funded ten million dollars of blight removal, which uproots homeless and lower income people.

The eminent emergency management of Detroit will significantly reduce the ability of local governments. In regards to privatization, Squires says, “One of the costs is the reduced ability of local municipalities to provide the public services that are far more critical in assuring a favorable climate for the operation of successful business” (Squires 212). In Detroit, the local governance is becoming increasingly locked out of governance. First it was private interests that set the agenda, and now a state appointed EM, which will probably also have private interests, will decide the power that local elected officials can hold. “The economic stability of entire communities and essential public services have been crippled,” and fixing this problem in cities will require a drastic shift in where the power lies (Squires 212).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/us/a-private-boom-amid-detroits-public-blight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Tourism in Memphis

Judd's article on tourism pointed out things that most of already knew.  Nowadays, cities and states compete to bring tourists to their area in order to create tourism jobs in the service industry and also to build a bigger tax base for the city/ state through sales tax and hotel tax etc.  Anyway, I went and did a little research on the tourist industry in Memphis and found these statistics from the Greater Memphis chamber website.  According to the chamber, tourism contributes $3.1 billion to the Memphis economy and generates $131 million in state and local taxes.  Additionally, about 52,000 jobs are created by the tourist industry.  These numbers are pretty big, but I wonder how much money the city is putting into building the tourist economy.  What kind of tax breaks are being given to private industries to help redevelop downtown?  How much is spent on marketing Memphis?  Would it be more beneficial for the city to give tax breaks to manufacturing companies that could provide more jobs?

Relating to Squire's article- another thing we must consider is how investing in private industry effects the public sphere and specifically the urban poor.  I think this issue is really apparent in the redevelopment of downtown and the "beautifying" of the neighborhoods surrounding downtown.  Getting rid of the projects that surrounded the downtown area might have created more aesthetically pleasing buildings, but the displacement of people from these communities has a lot of effects that the city probably did not envision when it gave the go ahead to private developers to redevelop these areas.

Safety First

Throughout this reading, especially in Chapters 4 and 5, it became clear to me that safety is an overarching theme and community focus.  The support system that provides this safety employs police and religious leaders as well as hustlers and gang leaders.  The role that hustlers and gang members play in the efforts for safety are complex, because often they themselves cause issues related to safety.  One idea introduced in this text is the fluidity of private and public in the ghetto.  Venkatesh names a few activities we as middle class members of society have the privilege of doing privately but which many hustlers must do in public such as urination, defecation, and encampment.  He also mentions some more problematic and illegal activities also done in public: harassment, drug use and sale, and prostitution (201).  Communities do not approve generally of hustlers' presence in the area, but hustlers are a valuable asset to the community.  They serve as what Jane Jacobs called the "eyes on the street" when she described a peaceful, safe, self-policing community.  Police that Venkatesh interviewed would agree with Jacobs; hustlers serve as valuable informants: "they see everything" (203).  We can see an example of this in Bubbles from "The Wire."  Store owners as well utilize the availability and expertise on public spaces of hustlers to ensure safety and attractiveness of their business areas.  Making allies with various businesses and police officers, hustlers create for themselves a supportive system willing to mediate between them and community members frustrated by the constant public presence and disruption of hustlers.

I was really surprised by Venkatesh's police positivity.  The police of the areas he studies allow their duties to be supplemented by other sources--such as hustlers.

My question is: to what upper limit can a hustler's social capital or value grow without constant occupation and yet with constant value to police?  And to what lower limit can police competency of these areas continue to depreciate as they rely on other groups to mediate interactions?  The roles of police and community members appear to overlap, but at what cost and what benefit to the community itself?

A Quick Video on Wealth Inequalities in the US

Check out this really telling video of the wealth inequalities in the United States. It's pretty shocking.

http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

The role of "storefront clergy"

             I was really fascinated by Venkatesh’s analysis of “big preachers” versus “storefront clergy”. Today in my History of the Civil Rights Movement class we discussed the idea of “big preachers” in relation to the civil rights movement and James Baldwin’s piece, The Fire Next Time. James Baldwin, an author and civil rights activist, was turned from his devout Christianity because of this same narrative of “big preachers” who saw the church as a means of income and used it to advance their personal and financial needs above those of the greater community. Baldwin renounces these “big preachers” for obscuring the Christian doctrine for political advancement, but what he does not addressed is what Venkatesh would refer to as “storefront clergy”.

While big preachers are preoccupied with political priorities, storefront clergy have much smaller and much poorer congregations and they devote much of their lives to actively addressing the pressing issues of their community. Venkatesh refers to the storefront preachers as mediators who take preventative measures against violence and crime. Additionally, these preachers work with all members of the community, including gang members, to resolve issues between individuals and groups. In this way, it seems to me as if clergy would have an incredibly influential role in mediating conflicts in their immediate communities. Very similar to the basis for the CeaseFire Initiative we discussed previously, preachers have an interesting opportunity for conflict alleviation because they have a first-hand understanding of the problems and are presumably fairly well respected in the community.  They also have a moral responsibility to fulfill the will of God which binds them to these problems.

Though it would be hard to measure, I wonder how significant a role the church plays in alleviating urban social problems across impoverished communities in the US. Venkatesh asserts that in the “storefront clergy” act as social workers and mediators in Maquis Park though I wonder how impactful the church can be in communities for easing problems such as gangs, violence, unemployment, homelessness etc. as an alternative to the justice system or police involvement.  

Community Policing of the Underground Economy

In chapter five of "Off the Books", the author describes how Pastor Wilkins set up a weekly meeting with Big Cat and a select few community members in order to facilitate disputes between the citizens of Maquis Park and the gang. Despite the fact that the non-gang members of the community disliked and were fearful of gang activity, the police and legislation of the area did little to remove the problem. Additionally, as we know, the "legit" economy of Maquis Park is not sufficient to provide the citizens' their livlihoods and survival more often than not depended on the "shady economy". As these two things--the gang and the shady economy--were seemingly permanent and definitely interconnected features of the town which the authorities had little power to change or control, there had to be some form of order. We often think of these underground dealings as this lawless place, but even Big Cat was willing (though grudgingly) to attend weekly meetings and confront the citizens that he simultaneously supported and threatened. To our largely middle- and upper-class sensibilities, that some form of law and order could exist among an illegal culture is hard to fathom, but it is that arena that most concretely benefits from such a community task force! As the author explains so well, the underground economy isn't all that we on the outside think it to be.

Although this community discussion board had its problems and became increasingly stressful for those involved, it seems an admirable solution (at least in part) to the structurally ingrained issues that arose out of the community's poverty and gang affiliation. Pastor Wilkins, Marlene, and the other community members (and even Big Cat, though he was the cause of many of the problems discussed) put themselves on the line, trying to do what was right for the community given the circumstances. What really made me mad was the fact that many of these community leaders were already under police scrutiny for similar endeavors, potentially being charged with "colluding with gangs and facilitating drug trafficking" (343). Of course the meetings made the problems surrounding such transactions go smoother, but that would exist with or without community intervention. These leaders are stuck in double jeopardy; if they don't try to facilitate disputes then the problems will persist, and if they do they could possibly be in trouble with law enforcement. Once again we see how decisions made at the "top" often ignore the realities of the issues at the "bottom", and how the problems of the community are often more structural than they are personal.

The One Constant in the Community

While reading chapter 6 and 7 I kept thinking about how constant the gang life is in the midst of so much change and uncertainty in the streets. When Big Cat dies, it is understood that the gang will go on no matter who the leader is. The police recognize this throughout the book and know that locking up a gang member, whether it be the leader or a low rank member, will not get rid of a gang. This fact that the gang is always "dependable" in the sense that they will not somehow dissolve into thin air or pick up and move somewhere, is a double edged sword. The residents that are not directly involved in the gang life usually both benefit in some way and are exploited in some way by the gang. Before Big Cat decided he wanted to be a "community man", the residents were almost more thankful that the gang just kept to themselves and only worried about their own illegal activities, and let the rest of the community keep to themselves in most regards. As soon as the dominant gang involves itself in the community though, there is no way to escape dealings with the gang. They have their hand in literally everything because of their willingness to use violence and their connections to gain respect and authority. In The Wire we see D'Angelo try to escape the gang life altogether. He is even willing to spend the next twenty years in prison and give up all the comforts that the gang provides to him and his family to have no connection with the gang. But it is not possible to escape the grasps of the gang, even when you are willing to give up the perks of being in a gang. D'Angelo is too deep in and knows too much, much like many of the characters in Off the Books, and the gang has to take into account the opportunity cost of letting him out. There is too much of a risk of him snitching so Stringer has to kill him off in able for the gang to keep safe from the police. I think this analysis also helps us come to grips with the rationality of joining a gang and cooperating with gangs when there are no better opportunities for protection, not even the police.