Systematic Oppression within the Food Industry

You are what you eat.” Parents tell their children this in a slight joking manner. But if you eat Cheetos and Pillsbury rolls every day, what do you become? You become closer to your death. This issue is ignored. It is hidden. It is detrimental. Especially in the United States where majority of Americans are eating foods that have ingredient lists longer than news articles. People don’t know what is in their food. They do not care because the effects are slowly creeping up on them. The idea of the food industry being racist sounds absurd. But go into areas with lower income residents and look for a Whole Foods or a Trader Joes. Find somewhere that has organic food. You won’t. Search for it and your search will end quickly. These companies are racist. Specifically, they are classists. They only sell their products to upper class people. Only the upper class deserves to eat healthy in the eyes of Whole Foods. Yet, placing the blame on these “Yuppie Grocery Stores” does not truly explain the problem. They are nearly a result of the issue. It would be impossible to enter a Whole Foods with a monthly budget of two hundred dollars. You would either starve or not go to that store anymore. Recently, farmers markets have been more accessible to people in the city. But the areas are mainly gentrified. People using food stamps would not be able to purchase anything from a farmers market. They’re trapped in a system that forces unhealthy food down their throats.
In a sense, criticizing SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) would not even be dealing with the root of the problem. Although they are the two major food stamp programs in the United States, they did not cause the problem. They are just a Band-Aid placed on an open wound. This issue (like many issues that are seen on a global scale) is strictly economic. In a capitalist society, there is a basic equation of “be wealthy, create poor.” This is simple Marxism. But this is also an idea that has tortured people globally. ***This post is not finished yet***

Am I the target, for destruction?

The Codes of the Streets: Elijah Anderson's interpretation of violence

Beneath all the problems and chaos in poor inner city communities, there lies a code of rules. These rules govern violence and then controls it; The Codes of the Streets. The problems that are faced on a daily basis are put behind the true issue of interpersonal violence and aggression. It all adds up to alienation and a sense of hopelessness. The stigma of race, the jobs that barely make ends meet, the rampant use and trafficking of drugs, all spring and form violence. The environment is rough and places younger people in positions to be aggressive. The inner city residents say “decent” families are the one force that can stop negative aspects of the inner city. The “decent” family is strong, loving and committed to middle class values. The oppositional culture to that of the streets, is similar to mainstream society. Both cultures, street and decent, create an environment that the children must be able to handle themselves in. Most of the homes do reflect mainstream values, but the street-oriented environment counteracts it. The street culture has adapted to a set of informal rules called a code of the streets. It controls interpersonal public behavior such as violence. The code regulates violence and the people who use aggression to an extend that is oddly approved. The rules are enforced and established by the street-oriented. The decent and street both know the rules and understand the penalties when broken. Although the decent family is opposed to the codes, they still have their children become familiar with it. The heart of the code, is respect. The people who follow the codes want to be treated “right” or the respect they deserve. The inner city leaves people feeling like they can’t control certain forces, so the respect they deserve becomes uncertain. Respect is viewed by young people involved in the street culture “as an external entity that is hard-won but easily lost.” They must constantly be on guard to maintain the respect they fought for. The rules provide a base for negotiating respect. If a person has enough respect, one can be not “bother” in public. If he is bothered then it brings disrespect and he is then “dissed”. Maintaining eye contact for too long is an example of a diss and those actions are serious to people following the code. The traces can be connected to the alienation from mainstream society and the structures created by it. The codes are an adaptation to a lack of faith in systems. The police and the judicial system are the main organizations. The cliché that the police do not respond in the poorer parts in the city, is sadly true. It makes the residents feel as though they must defend themselves and their loved ones. They feel a distance from the rest of America. The decent families instill mainstream values in their children. They’re “working poor” and are generally better off financially then the street oriented. They also hold a value hard work and self-reliance. They’re willing to sacrifice for their children. They harbor hope for their children, they go to church, have interest in their kids schooling, and believe its all a test from God. Their church community provides support along with their faith. They’re well aware of the dangerous environment their children face and often are strict. Their children are encouraged to respect authority. The street parents on the other side, have a lack of consideration for other people. They give off a superficial sense of family. Its not that they do not love their children, rather they are unable to cope with the demands of parenthood, physically and emotionally. They believe in the code and judge not only other people but themselves according to its values. When street and decent kids come together, tensions build because the child understand they must choose an orientation. Children that develop a decency orientation after being from street orientated families usually learn those from another place. School, youth groups and churches can provide a caring adult role model.

Section 8 Housing

There are programs for people in need of housing all across the country. After looking at the website for "The Philadelphia Housing Authority", it was clear that a lot of people truly needed help. The other websites had waiting-lists that were years long, with thousands of families in need. The Philadelphia Housing Authority or PHA is not the only agency in Philadelphia that provides assistance for housing. It is the largest, but there are also community organizations, churches and civic groups that provide Housing Choice rental to low or moderate income people. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is federal assistance provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to sponsor subsidized housing for low-income families and people. Most people know it as Section 8. This comes from the portion of the U.S Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 under the original subsidy program. The United States Code, covers this type of program in Title 42, Chapter 8 Section 1437f. Federal housing assistance programs began during the Great Depressions to help the country’s housing crisis. The federal government created subsidy programs to increase the production of low income housing in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Housing authorities selected eligible families from their waiting list, and placed them in housing after determining the rent that the tenant would have to pay. The housing authority would then sign a leave with private landlords and pay the difference between the tenants rent and the market rate. This was under Section 23 Leased Housing Program amended the U.S Housing Act in 1961. The Section 8 program has tenants pay about 30 percent of their income for rent, and the rest is paid with feral money. The Section 8 program initially had three different subprograms. The New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, and Existing Housing Certificate programs. The Voucher Program was added in 1983 and the Project based Certificate program in 1991. The main Section 8 program involves the voucher program. A voucher, could be either project based, where its use is limited to a certain apartment complexes or tenant based, where the tenant is free to choose a unit. The private sector could be anywhere in the United States or Puerto Rick where a PHA operates a Section 8 program. The voucher program, has individual or families with a lease on a specified complex or a private sector pay only a portion of the rent, its usually based on income. Its no more than 30 percent of the persons income, with 40 percent being the maximum at time of lease up. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD will add income even if the tenant doesn’t receive interest income from something such as a bank account. They call this “imputed income from assets”, they calculated the imputed income from the asset, and in the case of a bank account they establish a stand “Passbook Savings Rate”. It makes the section 8 tenant contribute more since their gross income is made higher by HUD. The public housing agency pays the land landlord the remainder of the rent, based on the cap known as the “Fair Market Rent” or FMR. This is all determined by HUD. The FMR is determined by a couple factors. It could be the city or county, and where the unit is located. If the unit is in a metropolitan area it will have a higher FMR. The size of the unit, the number of bedrooms and if it’s a studio apartment it would generally have lower FMR. The last reason is if the tenant or owner pays for the utilities. The landlord is not allowed to charge the tenant more than FMR. Landlords are required to meet fair housing laws, but are not required to take part in Section 8 program. Some landlords do not want the government involved in their business, they might want to charge more than FMR, fear that their unit will not be maintained by the Section 8 tenants and even racial profiling. All of those factors are reasons landlords do not accept Section 8 tenants. Depending on the state laws, it could be illegal to deny a person rent because they have Section 8. Landlords can only use reasons such as credit, criminal history or any past evictions to not accept a tenant. The other side of landlords who do not want tenants using Section 8 housing, are the landlords who willingly accept. There is a large amount of applicants wanting to be potential renters. The payments are usually prompt coming from the tenant and PHA. Their unit will also be less likely to be damage because the tenant will be removed from the Section 8 Program if they damage the rental unit. While the programs help people, its obvious that they are just merely placing a band-aid on a gaping wound. It helps them for the time being but never addresses the issue that there are millions of people who can't afford to put a roof over their heads. The economic structure places people in a position where they are financially trapped. The years of reasons for poverty are difficult to fix, but need to be in order to truly help people. In terms of gentrification, many people are forced out by their lack of money and then require Section 8 Housing. Those areas were practically doomed but the people do not deserve to be removed from their homes and suddenly can't pay for necessities themselves. In my opinion, Section 8 is a symptom of Capitalism and appears to be beneficial for a short time span.

Mantua Philadelphia

Mantua is a neighborhood in West Philadelphia north of Spring Garden Street and east of 40th street. The neighborhood is simply described as working-class and African American. The southern border of Mantua called Powelton Village has experienced some gentrification from an increased amount of Drexel University students. Before the 1940’s, Mantua was mainly a white Lutheran neighborhood. But over time African Americans families moved into the area. The early to mid 1960’s, the residents began to see the start of gang warfare. Herman Wrice and Andrew Jenkins, community activists, got together and formed the Young Great Society and the Mantua Community Planners. The constant crime and violence didn’t stop them from trying to protect and change their community. These programs held functions on a daily basis like arts and crafts, bands, day trips and tutoring. The Police Commissioner, Frank Rizzo, gave community leaders access to local police stations. When the local kids would get arrested due to gang related charges, the community leaders could post bail and take the residents home. The community leaders would then in return help police by trying to stop these kids from taking part in street life. Mantua was the most crime ridden neighborhoods in Philadelphia, regardless of the efforts of the committees. Between 1960 and 1969, Mantua recorded about 10 percent of total city gang killings. The Philadelphia Police Department often assigned patrols in Mantua simply as punishments to officers. Over a decade, six major gangs called the 10.5 block their territory. In the 70’s, Andrew Jenkins began working with the Mantua Community Planners to build a recreation center in Mantua. Gang violence delayed their efforts. The first rec center was opened on 34th Street and Haverford Avenue. It had playgrounds, a free library, and ball courts. Wrice’s Young Great Society and Jenkins’s Mantua Community Planners collaborated to have urban renewal programs. They included planting tress and building housing units. During the 1980’s there was a ride of drug-related crimes. It’s seen in many industrialized cities during that time period. Many residents started to flee after crack-cocaine and the existing heroin hit the area. Wrice led community marches against drugs and went after drug dealers by putting up Wanted Posters. Andrew Jenkins was Deputy Mayor for eight years and Herman Wrice even started Mantua Against Drugs or MAD in 1988. Jenkins said that the lowest point of Mantua was in the 80’s when the leaders were jealous and created tension causing unsuccessful results. Rumors and stigmas placed on active leaders destroyed the neighborhoods efforts. The drug was not as strong in the 1990’s but community was still suffering from the effects of years of drugs and violence. The number of residents went from 19,000 in the 1960’s to around 6,000 by the 90’s. There were several hundred vacant lots all along the streets. The stores that were in Mantua during the 1950’s like galleries and movie theaters were replaced by grab-and-go beer stores and delis. In the late 90’s, buildings and abandoned lots were bought and renovated by college students from Drexel University. Its estimated that 500 to 1000 college-aged students are living in Mantua. The Drexel University and University of Pennsylvania students have brought a renewed interest to the community. In 2002, the Mantua Community Improvement Committee (MCIC) has goals with the residents, neighbors to Mantua and the City of Philadelphia. The MCIC has initiatives in place, like the Mantua Neighborhood Special Services District. It’s meant to attract commercial investors and new homebuyers.

Gentrification Part 2: Darien Street Philadelphia

In Gentrification Amid Urban Decline: Strategies for America's Older Cities, written by Michael  Lang, the process of gentrification is seen upon the "Darien Street" community in Philadelphia. Darien Street was a "back street", because its not connected to any of the city's main sections. It was even unpaved for most of the time. Darein Street was populated by only Italian families, but after WWII, the government talked about building a cross-town highway, all the families moved out. When the Italians moved out, the houses dating from 1885 and low-rent, went to poor African American families. In the 1970's, Darien Street was at its lowest point and had little property value. The houses were abandoned, the roofs were caving in, broken windows and heaters. Although deep in decay, the houses still had a European charm and people appreciated the architecture. There was no car traffic and children were safe due to being an Alley in the populous Bella Vista neighborhood. The houses were close together and created a very tight-knit community. It was inexpensive and a short distance from the city life of Philadelphia. The city government did not was to hesitate and rehabilitate it. The gentrification began in 1977, to a corner house a school teacher re-modelled and lived in. The next years mainly white middle class men moved into the old houses. The first displacement of the original Darien Street occupants happened in 1979. About two years later five of seven families were evicted because of the inflated house pricing. The only two families left, were renters and expected to leave. In five years, from 1977 to 1982, the original population went from seven African Americans families and one white family to two African American families and eleven white families. The rent increased 488 per cent, so around $500 a month compared to what it used to be, $85. The only positive that came out of the gentrification of Darien Street was an increase of property tax revenues and better quality homes.

Gentrification

The term gentrification could bring up different emotions for different people according to whom it is affecting. When wealthier people buy houses in a less affluent neighborhood, it causes certain socio-cultural changes to that community. These small changes send a shock wave of economic effects. The average income increases and the average family size will then decrease. The economic eviction of the lower income families will result because of the increased rents, property taxes and house prices. Once the higher income residents are there, new businesses that cater more towards them will also move in. The once blighted areas have a new appeal to affluent migrants. It becomes almost impossible for the lower income residents to stay. The neighborhood is less accessible for the people with less wealth. Although the community is technically urban, when gentrification occurs it has a more suburban character. If a depressed urban area has a transportation hub, accessibly for pedestrians, and social interactions it is desirable for people slightly opposed to the suburban community. Besides a change in the average income, there is a decline of ethnic minorities in the area. Gentrification can often be described as the “rehabilitation” of a decaying area in the city. But to a person that was living in the decaying area for their entire lives, they wouldn’t call it rehabilitation rather exile. The people of higher incomes are drawn to the areas because of its low cost. Typically in Philadelphia the people moving into the less prosperous communities and renovated them are college or grad students and post-baby boomer professionals.. But it causes displacement of poorer residents who can no longer afford the high rent and taxes. There are two sociological theories for reasons for gentrification. The first theory explains gentrification as an economic process called production-side theory. It has the relationships between flows of capital and the production of urban space, linked with economics. There’s an continues flow of capital going towards the suburbs causing a devolution of inner-city capital. Neil Smith a geographer put a his rent-gap theory as a major explanation for gentrification. The difference between “the actual capitalized ground rent (land value) of a plot of land given its present use and the potential ground rent that might be gleaned under a ‘higher and better’ use.” When the rent-gap was wide enough, landlords, developers and other people invested interest in the land and saw it as profitable. This redevelopment closes the rent-gap and then leads higher rent and mortgages. The consumption-side theory says that the gentrifiers themselves are important to understand gentrification. The concept of globalization could also be the cause. In terms of demographics, cities are seeing a growing percentage of 25-45 year olds’ in the urban, inner city core. Researchers for urban settings are seeing an increase of single women professionals living alone in gentrified areas. The urban middle class does not settle in new neighborhoods all at one. It’s often the “trend-setters” who are the first to move into gentrified areas. These groups do not have high incomes, but their educational status for example makes them bourgeois. These residents are usually young and have a higher tolerance for urban problems like crime, lack of shops and parks, poor schools than middle class parents would. When the number of “trend setters” grow, then they create services like new bars, art galleries, restaurants and attract other people. They’re adding property value and give more investors and future residents a path of a new community. The first “trend setters” or newcomers, are done with their fashionable community and move on to other areas. The entire process starts all over again. The neighborhoods trickle down the socioeconomic groups. The urban artist colony started in the 1960’s with the hippies in New York City’s East Village. Now the hippies are called hipsters. There artists and subcultural students looking for urban neighborhoods with low prices. Through the 60’s and 70’s the lofts in SoHo were housing for artists and hippies. Those areas became increased in price, so the artist moved to Park Slope, Brooklyn and Hoboken, New Jersey and now to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The people living in the gentrified neighborhoods have organized into grassroots groups to keep affordable housing in their communities. Many of which started in the 1960's. In Miami Florida, the Liberty section, the organization Take Back the Land took control over land and built housings for the homeless which is known as Umoja Village. In response to gentrification, some cities have passed rent control areas. Rent control allows existing tenants to remain but does does affect the increase of property prices. In New York City and the surrounding counties, rent regulation protects over 1 million units and tenants from the rising rents.There are two kinds of regulations on rent. Rent controlled housing and rent stabilized housing. The rent is set annually by the Rent Guidelines Board for rent stabilized housing.

Liquorlining.

It’s not a coincidence that there is more liquor stores in poorer neighborhoods. They’re there to make a profit. Liquorlining is the practice of encouraging very high density of liquor stores and other alcohol outlets in low income areas. Instead of the denial of services to low income neighborhoods, its a profitable option for service providers to sell in these communities. It could cause the neighborhood to go downhill and is defiantly taking advantage of a situation that causes people to feel somewhat helpless. It is not illegal like redlining though. This issue has led activist and local governments to control the liquor store development. In south central Los Angeles community members fought to prevent the rebuilding of the 200 liquor stores burned down in 1992 by the civil unrest. The concentration of liquor stores in lower income and minority communities works as an impediment to the social and economic liveliness. Various studies have shown a link between liquor density and crime in communities. A study done by the Oakland Police Department demonstrated that criminal behaviors such as assaults and drug trafficking occurs with a frequency in and near liquor stores. Community development plans are ruined because its difficult to interest developers or even city funds in areas plagued by “alcohol blight“. Liquor stores take up retail space and prevent other businesses to attract people. A false assumption is that alcohol is in higher demand by lower income residents. However, drinking patterns have shown that whites and people of higher income drink more frequently and are heavy drinkers than people of lower income. It is not a demand problem. In some suburban areas stores that sell alcohol are ban all together. In more affluent areas liquor is sold in grocery stores, multi-purpose stores while in lower income neighborhoods alcohol is sold in liquor stores that have been related to community problems. The liquor industry is known to support liquor stores through touch times by paying for expenses such as rent. When neighborhoods lose population supermarkets and other businesses leave. The area then loses its diverse economic base and becomes less desirable for residents and retail costumers. The cost of land is then reduced because the demand for residential and commercial land declined. It leaves an open game for marginal users.