DOMESTIC
er three sections of D.C. saw large-scale
growth during the mayor’s tenure, the
situation in Southeast D.C. continued to
deteriorate. The policies set in place did
not seek to address the underlying issues
within the city, but rather sought to bring
in a whole new demographic of people.
By design, the poorest of the city live in
Southeast D.C. – according to the District
of Columbia Housing Authority, the city
currently has close to 7,590 public housing units, about forty percent of which are
in Southeast D.C. In addition, Southeast
D.C. has failing schools that require metal detectors, and the city’s highest crime
rates. The situation worsened when Williams closed the city’s only public hospital—located in Southeast D.C. Medicaid recipients were transferred to United
Medical Center, which has since felt the
pressure of an overwhelming number of
patients that rely on the government or
are uninsured. Fast forward twelve years
and three owners later: the non-profit
United Medical Center is barely staying
afloat and has yet to see a steady stream
of revenue. The instability of the hospital threatens access to affordable healthcare services for many D.C. residents.
But soon, even Southeast D.C. may
resemble K Street. Although the city as
a whole has experienced increased property values, Southeast D.C. has proven
immune. Relatively low property values
combined with the tax incentives President
Clinton introduced make this quadrant the
perfect location for middle-class residents.
Yet this creeping gentrification is contrary
to public schema. There is a tendency to
blame white middle-class individuals for
the displacement of minorities, and gentrification inherently harms the lower-class.
In the case of Anacostia, however, it is
actually the black middle-class who is entering and shifting the dynamics of the region. Comfortable with the homogeneity,
middle-class blacks have in recent years
24
VANDERBILT POLITICAL REVIEW
entered Southeast D.C. for the relatively
inexpensive housing. For those who see
gentrification as only a race issue, this
middle-class black population gets lost.
Regardless of who does the gentrifying,
local governments must institute policies
that ensure both overall growth and economic equality. Since 424 K Street was
purchased in 2002, the city has continuously focused on how to improve and grow, but
has completely ignored the problems that
stem from growth. There has been a failure
to understand that policies to better the city
must be coupled with policies to help individuals hurt by these changes. Displaced
residents must now readjust to an entirely
different state. While a low-income resident
pushed out of any other U.S. city is assured
the same state assistance as before, D.C.’s
displaced populations lose district government aid. The District of Columbia is only
sixty eight square miles in size, and once a
citizen has been pushed beyond city boundaries, he becomes another state’s problem.
These gentrification refugees are forced to
re-navigate a new state system—a process
that can be laden with bureaucratic red tape.
If gentrification policies included measures to counteract the foreseeable negative effects, there would be greater overall
growth. Taking some of the city’s new financial gains and investing them in more
efficient public housing is one strategy.
“The D.C. Public Housing System, also
known as Section 8, does not always pay
landlords the rent owed,” D.C. real estate
broker Louis Poblete told the Vanderbilt
Political Review. “It has [become] a pattern for [the District’s Housing Authority]
not to pay,” explained Poblete. Failures
like these discourage landlords from volunteering their buildings for public housing.
D.C.’s government should provide incentives for landlords outside of Southeast
D.C. to apply to become part of Section
8. Spreading public housing into different wards allows lower income residents
access to the resources not readily available in Southeast D.C. In Wards 7 and 8
– where about forty one percent and forty
eight percent of residents, respectively, do
not own cars – there are only seven large
grocery stores to service over 144,000 individuals. To address this unequal distribution of resources, the government should
consider providing additional tax incentives for businesses in Southeast D.C. itself, specifically in Wards 7 and 8, which
comprise the majority of Southeast D.C.
It is assumed in the modern literature
that these results are all connected: gentrification leads to the growth of the city’s
wealthier constituency and a decline of
the lower-class. But gentrification does
not have to follow this pattern, nor does it
have to lead to the polarization D.C. has
developed with areas like K Street and
Southeast D.C. There will undoubtedly be
casualties when trying to rejuvenate a city,
but the goal of local governments should
be to limit these as much as possible. No
government can predict exactly what will
happen as a result of its policies, but partnering with community organizations on
the ground provides some insight. Grassroots organizations often understand the
dynamics of the city better than officials
because their work transcends statistics
and focuses directly on the individual.
Too often gentrification is encumbered
by a negative connotation while officials,
like former Mayor Williams, are praised
for spearheading development. The aims
of gentrification should be applauded, but
mayors who allow the process to continue without providing the necessary policies to control it should be disparaged.
But what mayor is going to put in the
extra effort to implement such policies
if the process of gentrification is always
blamed? If the ??[? ?H??[?Y\? ? ?Y]?[???][? ?][??]Y\?\?H ?\??\?[B??[YK????[??\??Y[? ?[?H[?X???[?X?H??Y ?\??[?? \??[?\??Y\???