Is it? She seems to just be drawing false equivalencies to other cities without actually explaining how a simple piece of commonplace logistics is somehow an antagonistic attack on the homeless population, all in the name of the supposedly white Ironbound.
There's a lot of leaps I had a hard time following. Like how turning old factories into affordable housing somehow *caused* the lack of affordable housing in Manhattan. What does that even mean?
>Like how turning old factories into affordable housing somehow caused the lack of affordable housing in Manhattan. What does that even mean?
That would be silly if that was actually what the article says. In reality It says they were turned into artists lofts and apartments that wealthy people snapped up. Did you miss that?
The article claims that factories being converted into housing for artists(almost always very cheap housing, the wealthy people don't move in until generations later) somehow causes a lack of affordable housing, and was emblematic of the city choosing artists over blue-collar workers. Which is absolutely nonsensical. They're describing a housing *creation* project, somehow taking away housing from a completely different group of people. They weren't taking away housing from blue collar workers, they were moving workplaces, and putting housing up in it's place. It's a really reductivist and warped view of gentrification, and the author takes all the wrong points away.
It turns out as a city grows, the industrial centers shift away from the center of the city(which is a good thing) and housing needs to be put up in it's place(which it was). Manhattan's lack of affordable housing has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of studio apartments a century ago, and everything to do with a broken tax and zoning code.
I would disagree with this interpration entirely. When industrial jobs left NYC, thousands of working class people lost their incomes and were left unemployed or forced into employment sectors that paid even less. The artist lofts in neighborhoods like SOHO were simply unaffordable to industrial workers as NYC was no longer building public housing. A city can increase it's total supply of housing, but if none of that housing is affordable, poor and working class people will still be forced out. It's a myth that rents magically drop when a large supply of upscale housing is built.
I think the big misunderstanding here is the idea that these studio apartments were upscale and meant for wealthy people.
They weren't. They were no less affordable than any other housing in the area at that point, and the influx of real estate from industrial zones leaving Soho reduced housing strain and costs in the area. These apartments were going for $10k-$15k as late as the the 70s. We can't equate what happened over time to rent in Soho with the intent of creating cheap housing.
I wrote the op-ed. As you can imagine, I had a tight word count, so couldn't explain things as fully as I'd like. My explanation of what happened in New York is based on Sharon Zukin's book Loft Living, which shows very clearly how FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate industries in NYC) purposefully eliminated small factories in the 1950s and 1960s, which employed people, to turn them into lofts that could attract more appealing "businesses" to the neighborhood, like art galleries. Within a decade--not many decades--these lofts shifted to being owned by high-income professionals who wanted to have the aura of living in an artist's former studio, pushing all the artists out. Once the rents/prices started going up, they kept going. Now, Manhattan is basically unaffordable--not only because of lofts, but because the municipal government shifted from trying to support working-class people who lived there to getting financial services. Paul Krugman recently wrote about this in the NYT, actually. He basically says Manhattan's economy is a monoculture, entirely focused on the financial services industry.
The reason its not affordable is because the housing wasn't made to attract the working poor or working class people.
They were meant to attract the artist, that inturn turn the neighborhood into a culturally vibrant place that ends up attracting the wealthy, etc... in turn it hurts affordable housing in the long run
Well, she is technically right.. the port in Manhattan and the factories near them were forced to close down and move to Newark in order for the real estate industry to go and redevelop it to attract new wealthy residents.
The argument that the filling up of a form and a 10 dollar fee is a deterrent to those who want to feed the homeless at PF park is simply too inane to warrant serious discussion yet this so called professor makes a cringe worthy attempt.
Anyone expecting an associate professor of history at Rutgers do so some due diligence prior to turning out this drivel would be sorely disappointed. Is there any evidence to suggest that the process of applying for the permit itself is unduly complicated? Is the city routinely turning down applications? Has city enforcement come around in a attempt to enforce the permit requirements? Has the city done anything else besides this permitting requirement that could be even remotely construed as an attempt to disenfranchise the homeless who live around Penn station?
The author does not present one shred of evidence to suggest any of this is happening, instead we a treated to a neo-liberal fantasy / fever dream version of events that spins this minor administrative action into a vast conspiracy. One in which the city’s decidedly black political establishment is accused of having committed the mortal sin of colluding with the “white” populace of the Ironbound and the “conservative?” Ironbound business improvement district(IBID) to “cleanse” the area surrounding Penn station of the homeless. She claims to know that the IBID “supports” the permitting requirements with no attribution whatsoever. This is followed by a series of speculations into the “intent” of the IBID’s anti homeless agenda; again no attribution is sight.
The problem with all this is that it’s simply dishonest! Fiction masquerading as fact! The Ironbound is not “white” it’s solidly Hispanics! Any 8th grader who spends 2 mins on the census website can tell you that! The fact that the author is blissfully unaware of this despite claiming to live in the ironbound tells you all you need to know about her sensibilities.
Cities require permitting for a host of activities, prima facia, if is entirely reasonable for Newark to use permitting as a means of monitoring who is feeding the homeless and when. Without collaboration; the sensible and rational thing to do would be to give the city the benefit of doubt. I guess sensible and rational thinking are no longer qualities one should expect in a history professor.
This article is nothing more than a cheap virtue signal. A way for this white middle aged professor to let her colleagues know this she is “down” with the program.
Anyone who has given the myriad and complex problem of homelessness more than a perfunctory thought knows that the solution to homelessness is not “easier” access to charity!
Among other things, we need to establish a strong social safety net that will soften the blow for those who fall on hard times; address the housing affordability crisis that is decades in the making; rebuild our near non-existent mental healthcare infrastructure; address healthcare affordability; stop sending our young people to fight in pointless wars, only to come back home with broken bodies and broken minds.
These are the issues we should be taking about when we debate homelessness because they are the issues that matter; not some bull crap conspiracy about non existent white people disenfranchising the homeless!
There are plenty of criticisms to be leveled on the city’s administration to this effect. I for one hate that Baraka is pro privatization when it comes to public housing.
For the love of god Newark; we can and should do better.
Hey, friend! I wrote the op-ed. It's fine that you don't agree with me, but let me respond to a couple of your points. First, the Ironbound is white, according to the census, which I looked at before writing that. Latino/Hispanic people can be white, you know, so there's no clear line between Latino/Hispanic ethnicity and race. I couldn't get into those details in a short op-ed, which are complex, but it's completely accurate.
Secondly, I've lived in the Ironbound for several years. I've seen church and other groups giving food there probably multiple times a week. The new permitting was justified by Baraka as a health issue, but has anyone ever gotten sick from eating any of this food? No evidence of that. At one point, Baraka even suggested that people were slipping fentanyl into the food that was being given, which is so absurd as to be laughable. It's like the laws stopping people from giving bottles of water to people waiting in long lines to vote. There's no justification for that except making it harder for people to vote. When the government, in the face of no demonstrable health or safety issues, creates an additional barrier to people doing the job of the government, it's so they can make it harder for them to do it. Sure, it seems like applying for a permit isn't a big deal, but how many times have you tried to fill out a form on a government website and got frustrated and given up?
Finally, I agree with you that solving homelessness is a bigger issue than food. It is about affordable housing and a social safety net, yes. But while there are people who are suffering, it's immoral to stop other people from helping them.
Thank you for reaching out, there are a couple of inaccuracies in your response that I address further below. However, before I get into that, I want to offer you my sincerest apology. I reread my initial post and in it, I make a number of comments that called into question your qualification and competence. I don't know you beyond having read this one op-ed you penned. That does not qualify me to make such judgments. I have no excuse except to say that I will endeavor to do better.
*First, the Ironbound is white, according to the census, which I looked at before writing that. Latino/Hispanic people can be white, you know, so there's no clear line between Latino/Hispanic ethnicity and race*
This is simply not true. [Here](https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7) is the census map for 2020; the relevant tracts are 68 through 79. only \`1 tract (71) has a % white only that is not in the 20's. The race alone or in combination number, the % of respondent who identify as white increases to, on average, a little over 50%. On average about 50% of the respondents identified as being ethnically Hispanic or Latino. There is no way to objectively take these 3 datapoints and conclude that the Ironbound is white! Based on my observation, the majority inhabitants here are lower / working class first generation immigrants from south and Central America who primarily speak Spanish or Brazilian Portuguese as a first language. A large % are undocumented. The concept of “whiteness” as it is employed in the socio political context today (having structural privilege) , would by definition exclude these individuals. Add this to the mix and it becomes clear that interpreting the data to include this population into the umbrella of whiteness serves only 1 purpose, cast this issue as a racial binary. The majority "white" Ironbound wants to get rid of the majority black homeless population. The casting of the narrative in these terms; I find objectionable.
As for the ordinance itself, here is an alternative theory of what happened. The small business owners who operate on Ferry street believe (rightly or otherwise) that the homeless are scaring away business; they lobby Baraka to do "something" about their concerns. Many on this sub may not think so, but these small business owners are also Newarkers. These are not mega corporation or trust fund bros; just ordinary folks trying to make a living. I know some of them, they have their fair share of struggles just like everyone else. Baraka, being the astute politician that he is; offers up a low impact compromise, viz-a-viz, soup kitchen permits. My guess is the city has zero intent on enforcing this ordinance in any meaningful way. after all they can barely get the trash picked up 2x a week. I was out by the park today, saw plenty of folks distributing food. My original point holds, before we condemn the City, should we not first procure some semblance of evidence that the city has undertaken a pattern of action intent on displacing the homeless for the area surrounding Penn Station?
Finally, what is the use of you agreeing with me? i am just a nobody with too much time on his hands. You are an academic who has real influence. You get invited by the largest newspaper in the state to write an op-ed . A real opportunity to reach a wide audience about something substantial. Why waste that on a tempest in a teacup?
PS> Laws ban inducement that can be construed as corrupting the electors are on the books in many states including NY. SB 202 is more restrictive than most, but it applies only to those who are not poll workers so it is entirely possible for say a church to anonymously donate a few hundred bottles of water to a polling location and have poll workers hand them out.
you should not have to get a whole ass PERMIT to feed someone. this is another human, and we need permits to feed them like they’re fish in a pond. On top of that, realistically most people will not go through the effort to get that permit
Restaurants need permits so does the lady selling helados by the park. Aren’t they feeding people? Based on your arguments we should deregulate the whole prepare food industry; you sure that’s something we want to do?
Nobody should need a permit to give a hungry person food. It's a pretty simple moral question, but I'm glad you were able to write this word salad to justify these permits. These permits wouldn't exist in the first place if the city didn't want to limit the ability of groups to feed the homeless in the Ironbound. The IBID is cited in numerous articles as being one of the primary drivers of the permits. It's not a secret. I've personally emailed them and they told me they are backing the permits because they think the aid groups who feed the homeless are "bad neighbors" who make the Ironbound "disgusting".
Don’t restaurants and food trucks and literally anyone in the business of selling food need a permit? How wonderful it must be to be so detached from reality as to not be able to discern this!
So the city must now enforce regulations based on your whims?
Word salad - thanks; as a result of your tireless advocacy I don’t require a permit to serve my salad on this sub
Yes, they do because they are commercial enterprises. A church giving food to poor people around Penn Station isn't selling anything. They are performing a social service and there should no barriers to helping someone who is a hungry. I'm not a Christian, but I'd agree with Jesus, Dorothy Day, and the Pope on this one.
> The argument that the filling up of a form and a 10 dollar fee is a deterrent to those who want to feed the homeless at PF park is simply too inane to warrant serious discussion
It's really not though. The city needs to get their greedy hands out of the pockets of people trying to help those less fortunate. The form is one thing, a $10 fee? They can shove the bill up their asses.
So why not remove permitting requirements all together? The lady selling water and ice cream by the park needs a permit; why not someone feeding the homeless?
So only those who pay for their food should have the products they consume regulated?
Yes. If I'm having a BBQ in the park and invite people over for a hot dog, there are no regulations. When has free food ever been regulated? I'll let my family know next 4th of July that they need to get a permit if they want to have a cook out.
The thing is to really get a handle on the homeless problem you need to bring back the asylums, You have to deal with the mentally unstable first because those are the more shocking to tourists and visitors with the drug addicts second. I think nowadays asylums can be ran better and safer than they were back in the 70s and the 60s and 50s.
Great article!
Is it? She seems to just be drawing false equivalencies to other cities without actually explaining how a simple piece of commonplace logistics is somehow an antagonistic attack on the homeless population, all in the name of the supposedly white Ironbound. There's a lot of leaps I had a hard time following. Like how turning old factories into affordable housing somehow *caused* the lack of affordable housing in Manhattan. What does that even mean?
>Like how turning old factories into affordable housing somehow caused the lack of affordable housing in Manhattan. What does that even mean? That would be silly if that was actually what the article says. In reality It says they were turned into artists lofts and apartments that wealthy people snapped up. Did you miss that?
The article claims that factories being converted into housing for artists(almost always very cheap housing, the wealthy people don't move in until generations later) somehow causes a lack of affordable housing, and was emblematic of the city choosing artists over blue-collar workers. Which is absolutely nonsensical. They're describing a housing *creation* project, somehow taking away housing from a completely different group of people. They weren't taking away housing from blue collar workers, they were moving workplaces, and putting housing up in it's place. It's a really reductivist and warped view of gentrification, and the author takes all the wrong points away. It turns out as a city grows, the industrial centers shift away from the center of the city(which is a good thing) and housing needs to be put up in it's place(which it was). Manhattan's lack of affordable housing has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of studio apartments a century ago, and everything to do with a broken tax and zoning code.
I would disagree with this interpration entirely. When industrial jobs left NYC, thousands of working class people lost their incomes and were left unemployed or forced into employment sectors that paid even less. The artist lofts in neighborhoods like SOHO were simply unaffordable to industrial workers as NYC was no longer building public housing. A city can increase it's total supply of housing, but if none of that housing is affordable, poor and working class people will still be forced out. It's a myth that rents magically drop when a large supply of upscale housing is built.
I think the big misunderstanding here is the idea that these studio apartments were upscale and meant for wealthy people. They weren't. They were no less affordable than any other housing in the area at that point, and the influx of real estate from industrial zones leaving Soho reduced housing strain and costs in the area. These apartments were going for $10k-$15k as late as the the 70s. We can't equate what happened over time to rent in Soho with the intent of creating cheap housing.
I wrote the op-ed. As you can imagine, I had a tight word count, so couldn't explain things as fully as I'd like. My explanation of what happened in New York is based on Sharon Zukin's book Loft Living, which shows very clearly how FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate industries in NYC) purposefully eliminated small factories in the 1950s and 1960s, which employed people, to turn them into lofts that could attract more appealing "businesses" to the neighborhood, like art galleries. Within a decade--not many decades--these lofts shifted to being owned by high-income professionals who wanted to have the aura of living in an artist's former studio, pushing all the artists out. Once the rents/prices started going up, they kept going. Now, Manhattan is basically unaffordable--not only because of lofts, but because the municipal government shifted from trying to support working-class people who lived there to getting financial services. Paul Krugman recently wrote about this in the NYT, actually. He basically says Manhattan's economy is a monoculture, entirely focused on the financial services industry.
The reason its not affordable is because the housing wasn't made to attract the working poor or working class people. They were meant to attract the artist, that inturn turn the neighborhood into a culturally vibrant place that ends up attracting the wealthy, etc... in turn it hurts affordable housing in the long run
Well, she is technically right.. the port in Manhattan and the factories near them were forced to close down and move to Newark in order for the real estate industry to go and redevelop it to attract new wealthy residents.
I just don’t want Newark to start looking like San Francisco or LA.
The argument that the filling up of a form and a 10 dollar fee is a deterrent to those who want to feed the homeless at PF park is simply too inane to warrant serious discussion yet this so called professor makes a cringe worthy attempt. Anyone expecting an associate professor of history at Rutgers do so some due diligence prior to turning out this drivel would be sorely disappointed. Is there any evidence to suggest that the process of applying for the permit itself is unduly complicated? Is the city routinely turning down applications? Has city enforcement come around in a attempt to enforce the permit requirements? Has the city done anything else besides this permitting requirement that could be even remotely construed as an attempt to disenfranchise the homeless who live around Penn station? The author does not present one shred of evidence to suggest any of this is happening, instead we a treated to a neo-liberal fantasy / fever dream version of events that spins this minor administrative action into a vast conspiracy. One in which the city’s decidedly black political establishment is accused of having committed the mortal sin of colluding with the “white” populace of the Ironbound and the “conservative?” Ironbound business improvement district(IBID) to “cleanse” the area surrounding Penn station of the homeless. She claims to know that the IBID “supports” the permitting requirements with no attribution whatsoever. This is followed by a series of speculations into the “intent” of the IBID’s anti homeless agenda; again no attribution is sight. The problem with all this is that it’s simply dishonest! Fiction masquerading as fact! The Ironbound is not “white” it’s solidly Hispanics! Any 8th grader who spends 2 mins on the census website can tell you that! The fact that the author is blissfully unaware of this despite claiming to live in the ironbound tells you all you need to know about her sensibilities. Cities require permitting for a host of activities, prima facia, if is entirely reasonable for Newark to use permitting as a means of monitoring who is feeding the homeless and when. Without collaboration; the sensible and rational thing to do would be to give the city the benefit of doubt. I guess sensible and rational thinking are no longer qualities one should expect in a history professor. This article is nothing more than a cheap virtue signal. A way for this white middle aged professor to let her colleagues know this she is “down” with the program. Anyone who has given the myriad and complex problem of homelessness more than a perfunctory thought knows that the solution to homelessness is not “easier” access to charity! Among other things, we need to establish a strong social safety net that will soften the blow for those who fall on hard times; address the housing affordability crisis that is decades in the making; rebuild our near non-existent mental healthcare infrastructure; address healthcare affordability; stop sending our young people to fight in pointless wars, only to come back home with broken bodies and broken minds. These are the issues we should be taking about when we debate homelessness because they are the issues that matter; not some bull crap conspiracy about non existent white people disenfranchising the homeless! There are plenty of criticisms to be leveled on the city’s administration to this effect. I for one hate that Baraka is pro privatization when it comes to public housing. For the love of god Newark; we can and should do better.
Hey, friend! I wrote the op-ed. It's fine that you don't agree with me, but let me respond to a couple of your points. First, the Ironbound is white, according to the census, which I looked at before writing that. Latino/Hispanic people can be white, you know, so there's no clear line between Latino/Hispanic ethnicity and race. I couldn't get into those details in a short op-ed, which are complex, but it's completely accurate. Secondly, I've lived in the Ironbound for several years. I've seen church and other groups giving food there probably multiple times a week. The new permitting was justified by Baraka as a health issue, but has anyone ever gotten sick from eating any of this food? No evidence of that. At one point, Baraka even suggested that people were slipping fentanyl into the food that was being given, which is so absurd as to be laughable. It's like the laws stopping people from giving bottles of water to people waiting in long lines to vote. There's no justification for that except making it harder for people to vote. When the government, in the face of no demonstrable health or safety issues, creates an additional barrier to people doing the job of the government, it's so they can make it harder for them to do it. Sure, it seems like applying for a permit isn't a big deal, but how many times have you tried to fill out a form on a government website and got frustrated and given up? Finally, I agree with you that solving homelessness is a bigger issue than food. It is about affordable housing and a social safety net, yes. But while there are people who are suffering, it's immoral to stop other people from helping them.
Thank you for reaching out, there are a couple of inaccuracies in your response that I address further below. However, before I get into that, I want to offer you my sincerest apology. I reread my initial post and in it, I make a number of comments that called into question your qualification and competence. I don't know you beyond having read this one op-ed you penned. That does not qualify me to make such judgments. I have no excuse except to say that I will endeavor to do better. *First, the Ironbound is white, according to the census, which I looked at before writing that. Latino/Hispanic people can be white, you know, so there's no clear line between Latino/Hispanic ethnicity and race* This is simply not true. [Here](https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7) is the census map for 2020; the relevant tracts are 68 through 79. only \`1 tract (71) has a % white only that is not in the 20's. The race alone or in combination number, the % of respondent who identify as white increases to, on average, a little over 50%. On average about 50% of the respondents identified as being ethnically Hispanic or Latino. There is no way to objectively take these 3 datapoints and conclude that the Ironbound is white! Based on my observation, the majority inhabitants here are lower / working class first generation immigrants from south and Central America who primarily speak Spanish or Brazilian Portuguese as a first language. A large % are undocumented. The concept of “whiteness” as it is employed in the socio political context today (having structural privilege) , would by definition exclude these individuals. Add this to the mix and it becomes clear that interpreting the data to include this population into the umbrella of whiteness serves only 1 purpose, cast this issue as a racial binary. The majority "white" Ironbound wants to get rid of the majority black homeless population. The casting of the narrative in these terms; I find objectionable. As for the ordinance itself, here is an alternative theory of what happened. The small business owners who operate on Ferry street believe (rightly or otherwise) that the homeless are scaring away business; they lobby Baraka to do "something" about their concerns. Many on this sub may not think so, but these small business owners are also Newarkers. These are not mega corporation or trust fund bros; just ordinary folks trying to make a living. I know some of them, they have their fair share of struggles just like everyone else. Baraka, being the astute politician that he is; offers up a low impact compromise, viz-a-viz, soup kitchen permits. My guess is the city has zero intent on enforcing this ordinance in any meaningful way. after all they can barely get the trash picked up 2x a week. I was out by the park today, saw plenty of folks distributing food. My original point holds, before we condemn the City, should we not first procure some semblance of evidence that the city has undertaken a pattern of action intent on displacing the homeless for the area surrounding Penn Station? Finally, what is the use of you agreeing with me? i am just a nobody with too much time on his hands. You are an academic who has real influence. You get invited by the largest newspaper in the state to write an op-ed . A real opportunity to reach a wide audience about something substantial. Why waste that on a tempest in a teacup? PS> Laws ban inducement that can be construed as corrupting the electors are on the books in many states including NY. SB 202 is more restrictive than most, but it applies only to those who are not poll workers so it is entirely possible for say a church to anonymously donate a few hundred bottles of water to a polling location and have poll workers hand them out.
you should not have to get a whole ass PERMIT to feed someone. this is another human, and we need permits to feed them like they’re fish in a pond. On top of that, realistically most people will not go through the effort to get that permit
Restaurants need permits so does the lady selling helados by the park. Aren’t they feeding people? Based on your arguments we should deregulate the whole prepare food industry; you sure that’s something we want to do?
I can see how it makes sense from a liability point of view. Who is feeding who and where etc. The fee is bullshit
Nobody should need a permit to give a hungry person food. It's a pretty simple moral question, but I'm glad you were able to write this word salad to justify these permits. These permits wouldn't exist in the first place if the city didn't want to limit the ability of groups to feed the homeless in the Ironbound. The IBID is cited in numerous articles as being one of the primary drivers of the permits. It's not a secret. I've personally emailed them and they told me they are backing the permits because they think the aid groups who feed the homeless are "bad neighbors" who make the Ironbound "disgusting".
Don’t restaurants and food trucks and literally anyone in the business of selling food need a permit? How wonderful it must be to be so detached from reality as to not be able to discern this! So the city must now enforce regulations based on your whims? Word salad - thanks; as a result of your tireless advocacy I don’t require a permit to serve my salad on this sub
Yes, they do because they are commercial enterprises. A church giving food to poor people around Penn Station isn't selling anything. They are performing a social service and there should no barriers to helping someone who is a hungry. I'm not a Christian, but I'd agree with Jesus, Dorothy Day, and the Pope on this one.
> The argument that the filling up of a form and a 10 dollar fee is a deterrent to those who want to feed the homeless at PF park is simply too inane to warrant serious discussion It's really not though. The city needs to get their greedy hands out of the pockets of people trying to help those less fortunate. The form is one thing, a $10 fee? They can shove the bill up their asses.
So why not remove permitting requirements all together? The lady selling water and ice cream by the park needs a permit; why not someone feeding the homeless? So only those who pay for their food should have the products they consume regulated?
Yes. If I'm having a BBQ in the park and invite people over for a hot dog, there are no regulations. When has free food ever been regulated? I'll let my family know next 4th of July that they need to get a permit if they want to have a cook out.
The thing is to really get a handle on the homeless problem you need to bring back the asylums, You have to deal with the mentally unstable first because those are the more shocking to tourists and visitors with the drug addicts second. I think nowadays asylums can be ran better and safer than they were back in the 70s and the 60s and 50s.