January 25, 2008
Chocolate City Takes on Gentrification
We've had plenty of heated debates on the issue of gentrification here at DCist, but if we're honest, few of us have likely seen the issue through the eyes of those being gentrified out. And so steps in Chocolate City, a new documentary that attempts to take on the complex issue from the view of residents pushed out in the name of development.
The new movie, first screened last night at the Festival Centre on Columbia Road, follows the story of 400 low-income families of the Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg housing projects in Southeast who lost their homes in 2002 to make room for a new, mixed-income development funded in part by a $34.9 million HOPE VI federal grant. Though they were promised the chance to come back, the movie claims, both the number of low-income units to be built and the threshold used to define "low-income" in the new development pushed them out for good.
Filmed and directed by local filmaker Ellie Walton and British journalist Sam Wild, Chocolate City doesn't seek to deal with gentrification comprehensively. There are no statistics, no historical perspective, and no comparisons to other cities. The documentary merely offers a human portrait of a community pushed out of their homes, both through their immediate experiences and through the interpretation of playwright Anu Yadav, who developed a one-woman performance based on their story. In this, the 46-minute piece is engaging and thought-provoking, ably balancing first-person commentary, Yadav's performance, and imagery of District neighborhoods in the midst of frenzied construction and change.
While the process of gentrification is initially presented in a somewhat binary fashion -- rich white person pushes out poor black person -- Walton and Wild delve into the political conditions that allow low-income residents to be forced out, first among those the city's lack of voting rights and general institutional inability to address the concerns of the city's poorest. They also touch upon the complicated dynamic of the District's growing Hispanic population. While one displaced woman talks of the power a unified black-Hispanic community to face down developers, another expresses resentment towards illegal immigrants, defiantly saying, "The immigrants should be the ones in shelters."
In the end, Chocolate City leaves many of the questions surrounding gentrification unanswered. This is both good and bad. It's good in that it offers up a platform for discussion; it's bad in that it doesn't stop to consider more deeply the causes, culprits and opportunities of a changing city. More timely and relevant it could not be -- the groundbreaking for the new Capper/Carrollsburg development was just last June, and the new development will rise mere blocks away from the new baseball stadium. And as Mayor Adrian Fenty seeks to fulfill campaign promises that include more affordable housing, the documentary adds a certain urgency to the issue.
The next screenings will be on January 26 at Busboys and Poets at 11 p.m.; January 31 at the Marvin Center at George Washington University (time to be announced); and Februart 10 again at Busboys and Poets at 4 p.m. See the website for mroe details. Picture of the Capper/Carrollsburg housing project taken from JDLand.
|
Sounds like an interesting movie on a complicated subject.
Here's a wacky idea on public housing: Why don't we sell it to the residents who live in it? Granted not all could buy in. But wouldn't it make it easier on the city's finances AND help residents build up some equity if we stopped playing crappy landlord and just sold them the properties?
both through their immediate experiences and through the interpretation of playwright Anu Yadav, who developed a one-woman performance based on their story.
If you liked that, you'll love my one-monkey interpretive dance that portrays the plight of the O Street gay clubs. I brought the house down after the "Trail of Tears" segment showing the retreat of Wet, Edge, and Follies to Ivy City, since I did the whole bit naked with a cyalume light stick hanging out my butt. Yes, there was not such a noise since the fall of the Barad-dur.
good riddance...
Like DC needs more poor people.
"presented in a somewhat binary fashion -- rich white person pushes out poor black person" from the trailers it looks like it never goes beyond that. I wonder, did they interview any of the seniors who are in the two new seniors building and out of the old dilapidated building. A complex subject presented in a simplistic, emotional way?
Cranky:
That's been tried before. Specifically, the old Ellen Wilson projects on the Hill were redeveloped. Some of the new townhouses were sold to previous public housing tenants.
I don't know the stats, but the anecdotal rumors on the Hill are that most of these folks sold at the earliest legal opportunity. I don't know if that's fact or not (but, then, the lack of facts has never slowed my posts before......)
I'm assuming it's more like a $34.9 million grant, rather than a $34.90 grant.
$34.90 might get you some nice cardboard boxes, but that's about it.
Phew! Thanks for noticing that. Yes, it was $34.9 million.
Here's a wacky idea on public housing: Why don't we sell it to the residents who live in it?
If only it were that simple. Over the last four years I've been leading a tenant-sponsored condo conversion and it's an uphill battle every step of the way. I can't even imagine trying to do something like that when a significant portion of the families were on public assistance. Unless you had a truckload of money that someone never expected to get back, I would say it would be pretty close to impossible.
C'mon, do you (or the filmmakers) really think the lack of House/Senate representation has anything to do with this case? Cases like this happen all over the country, in places with full congressional representation. If there's some unique angle on this story related to voting rights it might be worth mentioning, but otherwise it comes off as a little gratuitous and sensational (especially coming from a foreign filmmaker) ... "and they don't even have elected representatives who can prevent it from happening!" etc., etc.
Unless you put in a covenant that requires low-income housing to only be sold at reduced prices from market to other income qualifying individuals, you reduce over time the affordable housing stock. Also, it would require an agency to monitor those transactions.
Why was the federal government shoveling money to developers during the late, lamented housing boom?
I don't quite understand the reason for the complaints here. These people aren't losing their homes...
First off, they weren't paying for them... us evil gentrifiers were.
Second, they are getting brand new residences literally a block or two away. There are exactly the same number of public housing units in the brand new development as there were in the old.
They are literally getting their old crappy places replaced with brand new ones. All paid for by someone else.
So what exactly is the complaint?
And the obvious antidote to displacement is to buy your own home. Which many of these people could have done in the decades they lived in public housing.
If you live for free at someone else's expense I'm not sure how you can think you are entitled to do so forever, under exact terms you dictate.
Actually this film premiered at the National Musuem of Women in the Arts film festival earlier this year. The Festival Center screening was its second and if the crowd and the lively discussion afterward was any indication, the Busboys and Poets show will be great.
Hillman - Please get yourself an avatar, I think a picture of Lincoln might be appropriate since your stance on the poor could reasonably lead one to conclude that you are one of those Log Cabin Republicans.
I'm just sayin' . . .
If you liked that, you'll love my one-monkey interpretive dance that portrays the plight of the O Street gay clubs. . Yes, there was not such a noise since the fall of the Barad-dur.
I was at that show. It made 'No Country for Old Men' look like an episode of America's Funniest Home Videos. Have you considered working with Screech, the Nationals mascot? His work is good; Dean Cain good.
Interestingly enough on the subject of tenant purchase, given that low-income families (those with incomes below 30% AMI) are unlikely to recieve financing from an banks at all, they often go to the City for below-market financing to purchase and turn into Limited Equity Co-ops or Condos. Depending on the source of financing, these purchased units are typically required to maintain affordability for 40 years.
A lot of nonprofits around the city are working on these deals with low-income tenants to keep them from being displaced. The groups also do a lot of technical assistance and homeownership (as well as post-purchase) counceling.
However, as not all people are in a place to own a home (I am on that list, and I have a steady job), it is difficult to deal with the issue of displacement as often, with HOPE VI developments the number of affordable replacement units is less than the original number. To me that is problematic on a lot of levels. It's really a double edged sword because HOPE VI is, in itself a good idea. However, expecting people to find affordable housing in an already constrained market without some sort of assistance is an issue that policy makers from local to federal need to examine.
"""C'mon, do you (or the filmmakers) really think the lack of House/Senate representation has anything to do with this case? Cases like this happen all over the country, in places with full congressional representation. If there's some unique angle on this story related to voting rights it might be worth mentioning, but otherwise it comes off as a little gratuitous and sensational (especially coming from a foreign filmmaker) ... "and they don't even have elected representatives who can prevent it from happening!" etc., etc."""""
You think these folks in DC got taken? We've abandonned 9/10 of the law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html
Let me sum that up for you. You OWN a piece of property. Outright. Fee simple absolute, as nerdy law-geeks say. It's a dump, but it's your dump--been ever since the twister came through in Odd Six. But as a dump, the government can't charge a lot in the way of taxes based on its assessment. Along comes some guy who looks at your property and says, "hey, I made a crapload of money as a plaintiff's attorney, I could take that crapshack and build a Starbucks with condos upstairs." You yourself don't have that kind of scratch, not ever having been to law school or taking out an ad on the back cover of a phone book. So Mr. Plaintiff's Attorney goes to the local government (which, unlike the DC Council, is sometimes swayed by people with bags of money) and gets them to condem your crapshack. They give you, as just compensation required by the 5th and Fourteenth Amendments, a coupon for your next Starbucks Mochachino skim latte. Mr. Plaintiff's Attorney gets the property and the government gets increased tax revenues and maybe some other nefarious perks.
Now, I'm not generally a huge fan of the conservative division of the Supreme Court (Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito). And as an environmentally conscientous person, I get kinda jumpy when developers start bitching about takings--especially in picturesque estuaries with charismatic fauna and flora. But Sweet Jesus if the "liberal" Court and swingers-on didn't F$%^ this one up.
"I think a picture of Lincoln might be appropriate since your stance on the poor"
Sortof, but not really. I'm a great advocate for the working poor, since I was one for many years, and I think the working poor in the US often get screwed. It's the non-working free-loading poor that I can't fucking stand. In part because their free-loading ways often screw the working poor.
RugbyKate:
I've heard that Bank of America does a lot of lower income loans in DC, especially east of the river.
Log Cabin Republicans.
Talk about your big fat mess. Belonging to a party that tries every day to make your daily life suck.
On the one hand, us mos are tired of people assuming we're big fat lefties. On the other hand, modern day Republicans are, well, asswipes.
And I do agree with some more conservative ideas (like welfare reform..... yes, I know, comes as a huge shock). But, actually, real conservative ideas aren't Republican, as Republicans long ago gave up conservatism for snake handling freaky deaky Baby Jesus fetishists.
20 comments? That's the best we can do? The damn thing is called "Chocolate City" for Chrissakes.
Rabblerousers we ain't.
21 comments and still no mention of Bootsy or George Clinton? Shameful. Why, back in the day, we used to sit around smoking green and listening to "Ride On" because our copy of "The Rainbow Connection" was scratched.
doin' it in the park....rock creek park
yeah, i'm just not feelin' it today...
"So Mr. Plaintiff's Attorney goes to the local government (which, unlike the DC Council, is sometimes swayed by people with bags of money) and gets them to condem your crapshack."
Interesting take on local governments, by which, I assume, you mean ANCs. Have any particular ANCs in mind when you wrote that?