Responding to a post at the AAUP listserv:Sharon E. Sutton Professor, Department of Architecture
was distressed about the NY Times report that claims to show long term poverty may be addressed by people moving to certain cities .. including Seattle. Her key comments were:
was distressed about the NY Times report that claims to show long term poverty may be addressed by people moving to certain cities .. including Seattle. Her key comments were:
- That this, and other studies like it, are framed in a way that devalue people-in-place relationships. Yet the NYT also published an article recently about the strength of these relationships, even in Baltimore. And if you doubt the importance of these relationships, please view a short film about the destruction of Yesler Terrace called “Even the Walls.”
- Relatedly, that the study’s legitimizes corporate capitalism’s raping of these people-place relationships. The problem is not that outrageous wealth establishes an unattainable lifestyle for the poor and working poor, but rather that bad people live in bad places. Therefore the good people have a responsibility to get out of these bad places even if it takes 80 percent of their earnings to do so—or so implied by the article.
- That remedying the spatial and economic conditions that are at the heart of the differences found in children’s attainment of the American Dream was only put on the table in the last sentence of the article.
- That a democracy is supposed to advance the public good, but this study assumes that private advancement (as measured by income) is the primary indicator of good in society’s well-being.
How ever are we to make a nation indivisible from such an individualistic worldview? Where is the university in its traditional mandate to produce citizens who can make the democracy—a collective enterprise?
Blaming persistent poverty on “the corporations” is an easy out. As Pogo said, “I have seen the enemy and they are us.” Thanks to Jefferson, WE are the government and if WE choose to live in a corporate society then we get what we choose.However, OUR choices are very much shaped by media .. and the media have deteriorated hugely since Jefferson’s time. The only effective media today, in terms of politics, is Fox .. Fox literally controls reality for 1/3 of the public. These pople literally live in alternative reality where science is wrong, Obama is a Muslim, blastulas are people, African Americans are never seen as talking heads, and the US is under immediate threat from hordes of nuclear armed Muslims.
Back at the Times article AND democracy, what I see is an opportunity. something seems to have worked in OUR county and Our city. the UW ..IF IT WERE DOING ITS JOB … should be helping shape the debate about issues, especially housing since the UW is a MAJOR STAKEHOLDER int he discussion.
A good start would be addressing the reality of low income housing in Seattle (not likely to happen off chaos with Seattle’s lack of media outlets) . This (or any listserv) is a poor place for such discussions because issues here either generate flames and then burn out or disappear into the rear view mirror of emails.
For better or worse that sort of discussion is why I founded THE-Ave.US. Here are a few of the issues relevant to the UW all of which have been discussed previously in The-Ave.US. obviously I welcome discussion there.
1. The proposal to build high rise housing in the District. This hosing is not student dorms, ti si intended to attract the same sort of people now moving into SLU. Will faculty be able to afford these sky homes? Will this new community (if you will this new corporate community) have the amenities needed to support families?
2. The immigration of 100,000 new people into a newly urban areas of the city .. including the U District. It is very likely that new faculty coming here will choose to live in these places .. often being built with no schools, no parks, lousy transportation, lousy internet, few neighborhood amenities relevant to faculty (pubs and books stores), and horrid prices.
2. The immigration of 100,000 new people into a newly urban areas of the city .. including the U District. It is very likely that new faculty coming here will choose to live in these places .. often being built with no schools, no parks, lousy transportation, lousy internet, few neighborhood amenities relevant to faculty (pubs and books stores), and horrid prices.
3. These areas include parts of the city of immense interest to the UW: Eastlake, Broadway, and SLU.
4. Developers seem to be focusing on two forms of housing … high end apartments and podments.
5. The major employers in these new “urbs” include the UW, Amazon, Expedia, and Microsoft.
______________________________
_________________
—