fyi ... from BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News » A Multi-Story Underground: Squatters in the United St
____________________
A Multi-Story Underground: Squatters in the United States
by Hannah E. Dobbz‚ Feb. 23‚ 2011
Matt Bruce is a magician. By this, I mean that he literally works kids’ parties for money and entertains friends with sorcery in his spare time. His room is bursting with occult paraphernalia and he has countless tricks up his sleeve. But Matt Bruce is no one-trick pony; he knows more than how to manipulate a deck of cards and how to have a quarter crop up behind your ear: Matt Bruce knows how to make rent bills disappear.
Bruce and his friends haven’t paid to live in their bungalow home in Salt Lake City, Utah, in over three years. How do they do it? While most magicians don’t reveal their secrets, Bruce is notably open about his illegal living situation. Squatting is not a new form of rent evasion, but it is an increasingly practiced one – and in light of the so-called “housing crisis” of the late 2000s, squatters are increasingly comfortable discussing their lifestyles.
He summed up their ability to maintain the property with the words of a city worker who learned of the squatters a few months after they moved in: “If you don’t say anything, I won’t say anything. You took the eyesore out of the neighborhood.”
Indeed, the rundown property that had once attracted drug addicts and other unseemly types by its ramshackle appearance now glows with life. The mere presence of the new caretakers drove away the seedy elements, and the small gesture of taking the boards off the windows spoke volumes for the mood of the property.
It is for this reason that squatting has become a popular discussion topic in a post–housing-bubble era. With 14 percent of living units in the United States vacant at the end of 2010, many people are questioning the logic of the real estate market, and some are bucking the system by occupying vacant but usable properties. Families and individuals who can no longer afford the high cost of living, then, are able to find homes in houses that are sometimes in better condition than rental properties. And neighbors often turn a blind eye to the illegality of the squatters’ methods since the move-in can actually increase the value of formerly unoccupied properties.
In this way, squatting in the United States is taking on more European overtones. Europe is famous for its squatting history, with its grandiose stories of squatted night clubs in England and squatted castles in Spain. Some countries enjoy what are often called “open” squatting laws, which encourage squatters to openly occupy abandoned buildings. Amsterdam, for example, is known for its comically straight-forward requirement of a chair, a table, and a bed in a squatted building for 48 hours to constitute a legal property transfer. In these situations, neighbors are often supportive. After all, abandoned properties are a symptom of a broken property system. Why not address it?
More recently, some European countries have begun tightening their formerly lax squatting rules, which some read as a slipping away of what was once part of a powerful cultural history. But while a legislative shift is happening now overseas, a cultural shift is beginning here in the States.
Rich countries such as the United States are accustomed to surplus. Just as consumers enjoy a surplus of food, clothes, and plastic trinkets in the U.S., they similarly enjoy a surplus of real estate. Even beyond the housing-bubble burst, developers continue to build new living units despite a surfeit of old ones. This is where the term “housing crisis” is farcical at best and downright inaccurate at worst. The term “crisis” implies a shortage -- an idea that Americans are rarely familiar with; instead, the American poor are victimized by a maldistribution of resources.
While there has never been a shortage of space in the United States, Americans have historically deluded themselves into a state of spatial urgency, moving further West and always developing more for fear of a shortage.
The same can be said of the “housing crisis” that began in late 2007: The most famous example of a wide housing gap is that of Miami, Fl., which was supposedly hit hardest by the economic implosion. But Miami had a 10-percent vacancy rate in affordable and public housing even before the alleged crisis. Further, the city had demolished 482 units of public housing, and, despite $8.5 million of city money allocated to the rebuilding of affordable units, the lot remained vacant until it was later offered to developers at no charge.
Such shenanigans inspired the Miami Herald’s “House of Lies” series, which highlights the corruption and incompetency of city politicians with regard to housing, as well as the well-known organized-squatting movement Take Back the Land.
But squatting was not born of the housing bust: Squatting has a long history in the United States, beginning with colonization, extending through Western Expansion land grants and land boom legislation, homesteading, and into modern housing justice movements like that of ACORN and Homes Not Jails. If nothing else, squatters have historically catalyzed property legislation reform by attacking with two prongs: (1) garnering public support by calling attention to the basic right to personal space and shelter, and (2) becoming such a nuisance to property managers, speculators, and law enforcement that legislators are compelled to create other options.
Unfortunately, little information is broadly available about squatters and squatting. Here and there is mention of them in historical texts, and during the height of the foreclosure crisis articles about down-and-out families cascaded into the news and then quickly evaporated. Perhaps this information firewall is in the nature of American squatting, which remains clandestine; like the tunnel dwellers of New York City and Las Vegas, squatting movements live underground. And while this invisibility is not unintentional, as squatting is indeed an illicit lifestyle, it is squatters’ invisibility that siphons their power and cripples their political sway.
When squatters and other property outlaws can again unite, organize, and step into the limelight to publicly demand housing justice (as they historically have), we may see surprising changes in the legal framework of our predatory property system. Many revolutions begin underground. But none of them can stay there for long.
Hannah Dobbz is the director of the documentary film Shelter: A Squatumentary. She is currently researching and writing a book [AK Press] on the history of squatting, land struggles, and property law in the United States. To view her Kickstarter page or to support her work, please visit: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1578702306/the-history-and-future-of-squatting-in-the-us-the
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
To improve outcomes for poor kids, let them move to the suburbs
By Robert C. Embry Jr.
Baltimore Sun
3:06 PM EST, February 9, 2011
One of the most important recent pieces of education research was released last year — and promptly ignored. The Century Foundation's report "Housing Policy is School Policy" confirms the seminal 1966 finding of Johns Hopkins University sociologist James Coleman: Namely, the school-based variable that most profoundly affects student performance is the socioeconomic composition of the school. In short, poor children do better if they attend schools with affluent children.
The "new" news in the report? It highlights the critical out-of-school influence of where the low-income children reside. Poor children attending an affluent school do even better, it turns out, if they also live in an affluent neighborhood.
In this study, researcher Heather Schwartz examines the impact of Montgomery County's economically integrated housing policies on the academic success of low-income families who live in federally subsidized public housing scattered throughout the county. Families were randomly assigned by the county's public housing authority to both affluent and relatively non-affluent neighborhoods.
The findings: Children who lived in neighborhoods where less than 20 percent of the neighborhood's elementary school's population was poor significantly outperformed similar low-income children who lived in neighborhoods with public schools that had more than 35 percent of students in poverty. In fact, poor children in the low-poverty schools were able to close the achievement gap with their wealthier suburban peers by 50 percent in math and one-third in reading. This was true even though the group of poorer schools received additional funding to implement the more traditional remedial programs to address the academic challenges of low-income students.
A wide body of research over the past three decades has documented the educational benefits of moving from high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods. Research on the remedy in the landmark 1976 Supreme Court housing decision in Hills v. Gautreaux demonstrated that children whose families moved from public housing and other inner-city Chicago neighborhoods to racially and economically integrated suburban neighborhoods were far more likely to succeed in school and go on to college or full-time employment than children whose families stayed in Chicago.
The key finding of this cumulative research is that the combination of living in a low-poverty neighborhood and attending a low-poverty school impacts educational performance of poor children more than traditional reforms and increased funding.
If the socioeconomic composition of the neighborhood and the school are so critical to the educational success of poor children, why have these factors been neglected in the federal Department of Education's reform agenda? Why is this remedy generally ignored in lawsuits attempting to obtain an adequate education for poor children? Why can one look in vain at state and local school board meetings to find any mention of the subject?
One reason is that, to date, there has been no legal compulsion to do so.
A second reason is the long-standing hostility of suburban jurisdictions that routinely oppose any efforts to economically integrate their low-poverty schools, even in small increments.
And finally, there is a shortage of affordable housing units in the affluent neighborhoods that would yield the biggest educational difference.
Given all that, if one agrees with the research on the positive impact of neighborhood and school economic integration, what might be done for Baltimore's poorest families?
One potential scenario: Maryland could enact legislation to permit state education aid to Baltimore City to be used as a rent certificate for families of poor children in failing schools to move to low-poverty neighborhoods in other school districts. It is of interest to note that the Maryland's state aid to Baltimore City schools is $12,191 per pupil, roughly the net cost of a rent subsidy needed to permit an urban family living in concentrated poverty to move to a low-poverty, suburban neighborhood.
Such a shift would give low-income children access to low-poverty schools on a voluntary basis, with the added benefits of living in the same community as their more affluent classmates. The good news is that there are at least 88 public schools in the counties surrounding Baltimore City that would qualify as potential sites, with less than 20 percent of children in poverty.
Clearly, there are many obstacles to accessing the opportunities posed by integrative housing and schools for our poorest families. Yet the research is persuasive: The answer to how to close the achievement gap between poor and rich kids may not be in the debates about class size, math curricula, and other school-based reforms, but in the state's facilitating the enrollment of low-income children in low-poverty schools and housing their families in low-poverty neighborhoods.
Now we must decide whether we continue to ignore the implications of this evidence or choose to find solutions that facilitate greater socioeconomic integration of low-income children.
Robert C. Embry Jr., president of the Abell Foundation, is a former member of the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City and former president of the Maryland State Board of Education. His e-mail is embry@abell.org.
Baltimore Sun
3:06 PM EST, February 9, 2011
One of the most important recent pieces of education research was released last year — and promptly ignored. The Century Foundation's report "Housing Policy is School Policy" confirms the seminal 1966 finding of Johns Hopkins University sociologist James Coleman: Namely, the school-based variable that most profoundly affects student performance is the socioeconomic composition of the school. In short, poor children do better if they attend schools with affluent children.
The "new" news in the report? It highlights the critical out-of-school influence of where the low-income children reside. Poor children attending an affluent school do even better, it turns out, if they also live in an affluent neighborhood.
In this study, researcher Heather Schwartz examines the impact of Montgomery County's economically integrated housing policies on the academic success of low-income families who live in federally subsidized public housing scattered throughout the county. Families were randomly assigned by the county's public housing authority to both affluent and relatively non-affluent neighborhoods.
The findings: Children who lived in neighborhoods where less than 20 percent of the neighborhood's elementary school's population was poor significantly outperformed similar low-income children who lived in neighborhoods with public schools that had more than 35 percent of students in poverty. In fact, poor children in the low-poverty schools were able to close the achievement gap with their wealthier suburban peers by 50 percent in math and one-third in reading. This was true even though the group of poorer schools received additional funding to implement the more traditional remedial programs to address the academic challenges of low-income students.
A wide body of research over the past three decades has documented the educational benefits of moving from high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods. Research on the remedy in the landmark 1976 Supreme Court housing decision in Hills v. Gautreaux demonstrated that children whose families moved from public housing and other inner-city Chicago neighborhoods to racially and economically integrated suburban neighborhoods were far more likely to succeed in school and go on to college or full-time employment than children whose families stayed in Chicago.
The key finding of this cumulative research is that the combination of living in a low-poverty neighborhood and attending a low-poverty school impacts educational performance of poor children more than traditional reforms and increased funding.
If the socioeconomic composition of the neighborhood and the school are so critical to the educational success of poor children, why have these factors been neglected in the federal Department of Education's reform agenda? Why is this remedy generally ignored in lawsuits attempting to obtain an adequate education for poor children? Why can one look in vain at state and local school board meetings to find any mention of the subject?
One reason is that, to date, there has been no legal compulsion to do so.
A second reason is the long-standing hostility of suburban jurisdictions that routinely oppose any efforts to economically integrate their low-poverty schools, even in small increments.
And finally, there is a shortage of affordable housing units in the affluent neighborhoods that would yield the biggest educational difference.
Given all that, if one agrees with the research on the positive impact of neighborhood and school economic integration, what might be done for Baltimore's poorest families?
One potential scenario: Maryland could enact legislation to permit state education aid to Baltimore City to be used as a rent certificate for families of poor children in failing schools to move to low-poverty neighborhoods in other school districts. It is of interest to note that the Maryland's state aid to Baltimore City schools is $12,191 per pupil, roughly the net cost of a rent subsidy needed to permit an urban family living in concentrated poverty to move to a low-poverty, suburban neighborhood.
Such a shift would give low-income children access to low-poverty schools on a voluntary basis, with the added benefits of living in the same community as their more affluent classmates. The good news is that there are at least 88 public schools in the counties surrounding Baltimore City that would qualify as potential sites, with less than 20 percent of children in poverty.
Clearly, there are many obstacles to accessing the opportunities posed by integrative housing and schools for our poorest families. Yet the research is persuasive: The answer to how to close the achievement gap between poor and rich kids may not be in the debates about class size, math curricula, and other school-based reforms, but in the state's facilitating the enrollment of low-income children in low-poverty schools and housing their families in low-poverty neighborhoods.
Now we must decide whether we continue to ignore the implications of this evidence or choose to find solutions that facilitate greater socioeconomic integration of low-income children.
Robert C. Embry Jr., president of the Abell Foundation, is a former member of the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City and former president of the Maryland State Board of Education. His e-mail is embry@abell.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
