We're glad we stuck around for the audience Q&A after the panel discussion on gentrification Thursday night, hosted by the University of Washington's Evans School of Public Affairs.
That way we got to hear from the intense woman who discoursed on a variety of topics, including the abomination of Wal-Mart, things being done in Boston, and the lack of education about some guy whose name we can't remember; and from the gentleman who wondered aloud why the Ashkenazi Jews ran everything when their skin wasn't brown. (The polite Seattle audience clapped with gusto after both.) Once we heard racism was gonna be put to bed soon, we headed for the door. What else could be accomplished?
The evening's discussion was titled "Revitalization and Gentrification: Is Development without Displacement Possible? Perspectives from Seattle's Central Area" and featured moderator Paul Waddell, Director of the Center for Urban Simulation and Policy Analysis and a panel consisting of Councilmember Larry Gossett, King County Council; George Staggers, Director, Central Area Development Association; John Fox, Director, Seattle Displacement Coalition; and Reverend Dr. Samuel McKinney, Mt. Zion Baptist Church.
The discussion began with some context-setting, defining the Central Area's geography, its historical identity as a predominantly black neighborhood (thanks to realtor-facilitated "segregation" and bank redlining), and its changing character, now that white home-owners have edged into the majority. The numbers are clear on why: Central Area median income has lagged while housing value and rents have increased. In Seattle's hot housing market, you get more home for your dollar there.
Which is what McKinney used to tell his congregation at Mt. Zion: Don't sell. You're located between the two floating bridges and downtown. He also took issue with the proposed description of gentrification (i.e., when a neighborhood's physical infrastructure is upgraded, displacement occurs of its existing population, and the neighborhood's character changes).
"Gentrification," rumbled McKinney, "means the return of the gentry. Urban renewal means Negro renewal. Every time gas goes up $0.10/gallon, white people are going to be moving back to the city." Gentrification refers to privilege, the privilege of those who can make choices about where they want to live.
Seattlest was heartened by this moment of public honesty, but the rest of the panel quickly ran the other direction. Staggers summed it up later, "Gentrification is about money, not race." Everyone could feel comfortable with that, though money and race are not exactly unrelated in the U.S.
Panel discussions almost always call to mind the story about the gang of myopic elephant-discoverers. For Gossett, the questions were political: what happened to the legacy of strong civil rights activism that used to put pressure on City Hall? What are the pros and cons of regulation? McKinney talked about the heart of community, how a church can adapt to a more far-flung congregation. Fox's focus was on getting city government to address displacement. Staggers (while noting that gentrification isn't technically an "upgrade" if you've been historically denied funding) was full of facts and figures about blight removal, home improvement programs, employment of local, minority-owned businesses, and housing development.
In terms of public policy, a few areas of consensus emerged. No one was all that fond of the Seattle Housing Authority. There was a disconnect between the dreams and ambitions of Area residents for their home and City Hall. Neighborhoods wanted more than "input" into plans, they want autonomy. Allocate money and they will decide how to spend it. And the definition of "low-income" housing has become a joke: someone making 80% of the median income in King County -- $41,000 -- is considered low income. (An amount that seemed to thrill the graduate students in the audience.)
And still race plays its role: scattered site housing has been used as a tool to keep public housing developments from "concentrating" poverty in a single area. But as Gossett mentioned, whenever these sites were proposed in North or West Seattle, the largely white communities refused to allow development in significant numbers. Meanwhile, Fox added, Seattle continues to lose 500 low-income housing units every year to demolition.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
In west seattle east of 35th Ave SW in the hilltop area, we have a fair amount of low income housing, which is more than you can say for neighborhoods like Wedgewood, Ravenna, and Wallingford.
I think your initial take -- "...we wonder who listens to panels any more, much less an academic-sponsored one..." -- was accurate.