Income Inequality and Just Cities in the

The Brookings Institution ranked the 50 largest US cities on the basis of their income inequality.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/02/cities-unequal-berube

The study was done based on the analysis of data collected by the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) of 2007 and 2012. The ACS is administered to collect information to help determine the allocation of federal and state funds. The survey asks its respondents for the following:

Age Sex  Race  Family and relationships

Income and benefits Health insurance Education Veteran statys

Disabilities Where you work and how you get there Where you live and how much you pay for some essentials

The data gathered from this survey then helps decide everything from the implementation of new school programs to the building of infrastructure projects. Brookings used this data to look at inequality statistically. They used the “95/20” ratio. This figure represents the income of those in the top 5% divided by that of those in the bottom 20%. Generally over the past few decades the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer. The Brookings study not only confirmed this but also found that the inequality in big cities is more than that for the rest of the country. In other words, big cities are more unequal places by income than the rest of the US. Topping the list was Atlanta followed by San Francisco which has seen the greatest increase in inequality following the tech boom.

I think income inequality is a formidable challenge in the creation of a just city. A just city is premised on the idea of equal opportunities and equitable distribution of resources. However, when there is a large disparity between the rich and poor in the city this is not possible. As the report explains, such a city might face many difficulties. It may not be able to maintain mixed-income school environments that are better for low-income students. It may have too narrow a tax base to raise the revenues required to provide necessary civil services. All of this would eventually lead to greater privatization of communities with the rise of and the exclusion of the poor from the city. Most importantly however, a city with large income inequality may fail to produce housing accessible to middle-class workers and families. It could lead to gentrification and whitening of traditionally low income neighbourhoods (as seen in San Francisco’s Mission District) so that those who move down the income ladder ultimately have no choice but to move out. Thus creating a predominantly rich but inherently unjust city.

New Orleans: “A Funeral that Won’t End”

On August 29^th 2005 Hurricane Katrina struck the city of New Orleans and completely submerged it. Overnight the city collapsed and its citizens struggled to survive without access to food, water, shelter, and electricity. However, the tragedy unleashed by Katrina did not end when the waters subsided. The Hurricane revealed the geographies of social vulnerability or the spatial dimension of social inequalities. Thus it became an arena for several right of return activists demanding that the citizens reclaim their city and rebuild it in an inclusive, democratic manner.

The flooding of New Orleans clearly demonstrated the spatial aspect of inequality. The regions that experienced the worst flooding were disproportionately low-income, working class neighbourhoods with predominantly African American populations. One such area was the Lower Ninth Ward where floodwaters were as high as 20 feet and people were left stranded on rooftops for days. To understand why poorer regions bore the brunt of the disaster it is important to understand the historical and social configuration of the city. A southern city, New Orleans has a history of segregation and racial prejudice. When there was migration from the impoverished rural regions surrounding the city to the main city, New Orleans witnessed white flight from the urban areas to the suburbs. The government responded to this demographic change by constructing public housing to deal with the influx of Black citizens. However, these were concentrated in undesirable areas such as on reclaimed and marshy land, along transportation corridors, and near industrial facilities. As a result they were more vulnerable to natural disasters such as Katrina. Hence, the wealthy occupied the high ground and left for the poor and working classes the lower ground that was more susceptible to environmental pestilence. Thus paradoxically (and unjustly) those who did not have the means to recover from the hurricane were the ones worst effected by it.

Once the storm was over New Orleanians returned to find their homes completely gutted and devastated. In the aftermath of the hurricane people were faced with the daunting task of rebuilding. It was essential that all attempts to rebuild the city had to take into account the thousands who had been displaced by the disaster. However, although this could have been the perfect opportunity to build an inclusive city, New Orleans instead became a model of inequality and injustice.

The wealthy were able to return to the city and claim their insurance or use their savings to build new homes. However, the poor were permanently evicted from the city first by the flooding and then by the political machinery that came into play. As the demand for housing soared, prices skyrocketed. In a blatant demonstration of government authorized removal of the poor from the city, public houses that had been untouched by Katrina were torn down and replaced by mixed income condominiums. The city was rebuilt differently be it geographically, demographically, or politically. More than half of the elderly, disabled, and working class population of the city could no longer afford to live there. Statistics show that in a span of one year the African American population had declined by almost 20%. As the Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Development said – “New Orleans will not be as black as it was for a long time, if ever again”.

Even those who did return to New Orleans found themselves housed in trailers provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These FEMA trailers were parked on vacant land, national state parks and boy scout camps away from the main city. It was hoped that by pushing the people to the outskirts of the city they would eventually get frustrated and disperse. Moreover, it was later discovered that these trailers had dangerously high levels of formaldehyde and hence had to be evacuated. These trailers had been purchased by FEMA for $230,000 each from companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel. Hence, while these corporations profited, the people continued to suffer. The outsourcing of the provision of social services by the government to private companies only aggravated the problems in New Orleans. It replaced the ethics of public care with the ethics of profit and hence sanctioned the exploitation of the suffering of the people to make profits.

Thus, many social movements have arisen in New Orleans that are using the language of right of return to frame the rights of the displaced. They are heavily influenced by the philosophy of Lefebvre, particularly the idea that the use value of land must be prioritized over its exchange value. In other words, the right to housing is more important than the right to property. They also hold that housing of any kind must be a right available to all and not a privilege enjoyed by some. Critics of right of return argue that the poor neighbourhoods of New Orleans were racialized ghettos infested with crime, drugs, and violence. Simply constructing new buildings and housing the same population will only recreate this. However, right of return activists believe that is not the people but the lack of investment that is responsible for the creation and sustenance of poverty. They are asking for the provision of adequate services and resources in these areas to counter this.

Eight years after Katrina New Orleans is still in a state of responding and not recovery. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the highly differential and spatial nature of vulnerability both during and following a disaster, raising important questions about the need to build inclusive and just cities where these differentials no longer exist.

As academic Neil Smith said, “ disasters don’t simply flatten landscapes, washing them smooth. Rather they deepen and erode the ruts of social difference they encounter”.

Banning of Food Distribution in the USA

In 2006 Las Vegas became America’s first city that banned to distribution of food for free or at a nominal price to the poor and homeless in public spaces. It remained legal to serve food to the wealthy. When asked how the police would tell the difference between indigent and non-indigent people, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman replied, “Certain truths are self-evident. You
know who’s homeless”. This law specifically targets activist groups such as Food Not Bombs that give food to the poor and according to Vegas officials “enable homelessness”.