New Feature: Five Things

So the "Top ___" is nothing new, especially in the blogosphere. But I liked Naomi's recent Top 10 and was inspired to do my own. Except only five. And I think it's important to say that these are not actually the "Top" five anything; they are more of a "first five" things that come into my head.


Five Places to Be:

1. In a warm, local coffee shop on a rainy day with a book, laptop, and headphones, and nothing important to do - such a cozy state of mind.
   
2. At work, closing out your documents and browser windows at 4:45pm on a Friday - the entire world seems ahead of you!
3. In bed with your lover at 10am on a weekend morning, just before completely coming to, immediately after having realized that you have a number of hours before any responsibilities kick in
4. Right up at the front of the stage, a lil' bit off to the right, just as the lights dim and you see the headliners congregating backstage waiting for their cue to come out, and you're just starting to feel the buzz from the beers you drank earlier and the one overpriced cocktail you deigned to purchase at the club
5. Standing on a ridge at the end of a hike through the Santa Monica mountains looking out as the sun just begins to dip behind the horizon - this is perhaps the only thing I miss about Malibu.
   

North Beacon Hill - a Gentrification Pseudo-Case Study

"Gentrification" has lost some of the cultural cache it once held. One commenter even told me she had to look up the meaning of the term...

I had the privilege (the right?) to address the Seattle City Council last month. We went to voice our opinions about the recent craziness regarding development in South Seattle (the link is to a great article the Stranger wrote about it).

Basically what's happened is we have a big empty lot that we want to build affordable housing, an open community space, a large events space/community center, and some retail/office space - and we can't, at least for another year, because some neighbors object. If you open the link to the article the first comment is mine and you can read some of my views on the issue.

I was somewhat enraged to hear about the appeal because this is one of the most incredible opportunities that I can imagine happening in a city. How often does a city have a community-oriented, non-profit organization as a developer? Of land that they own, across the street from a brand-new transit hub? In an up-and-coming, middle-income, incredibly diverse neighborhood that is less than 10 minutes from downtown? Not often, is my bet.

The most important part of El Centro's plan, in my opinion, to develop the property is affordable housing - and this is because, as a neighborhood with the characteristics I mentioned above, it is rapidly becoming gentrified. By people like me.

When you walk/bike/drive through North Beacon Hill, you can see the initial signs of gentrification immediately. Fancy new condos and apartment buildings dot the landscape every few blocks, and more are under construction (though it's been slowed by the recession, they are still being built). The rest of the neighborhood is small, one-story houses, in various stages of disrepair:

One of the most attractive aspects of Beacon Hill is its diversity; White people are a noticeable minority. I think that's what "Bayview on Beacon" is advertising: a "vibrant, growing community." All of the relevant statistics are interesting; Beacon Hill is basically just below the city average on almost all measures of affluence: median home prices, median family income, median rent, etc. Probably not for long. 

Gentrification happens in neighborhoods like Beacon Hill for obvious reasons - cheap rent, close to downtown, diversity, etc. It's not so poor that it's hard to adjust from the lifestyle you want, and not so far away from more affluent areas of the city that you can't go do the expensive things you want to do without too much trouble. I would much rather live in Beacon Hill than in a snazzy, hip neighborhood like Ballard. And that's why I moved here. I like this neighborhood.

When I spoke to the Seattle City Council, I identified myself as a gentrifier, and explained that one of the most important reasons I believe affordable housing is necessary in the new development on N. Beacon Hill is that if people like me keep moving to Beacon Hill, which we will, especially because of the new light rail station, all these condos, and if the development that El Centro de la Raza wants to do on their lot goes through, housing on Beacon Hill will no longer be affordable for the people who have lived there for years long before I came.

When, in middle-income neighborhoods, developers build condos and develop squalid properties, cities revitalize public spaces, and somewhat-to-very affluent (often White) people move in, property values go up. This inevitably pushes out the non-White, middle- and low-income original denizens of the neighborhood. That's just what happens. And it's called gentrification.

gen·tri·fi·ca·tion /ˌdʒɛntrəfɪˈkeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[jen-truh-fi-key-shuhn] –noun

1. The buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.

Well, here's the rub - this definition seems to place the onus of responsibility on these upper- or middle-income families or individuals. But because I am one of these upper- or middle-income families or individuals, I want to throw the blame because I don't want to feel guilty for what I'm doing. The chicken-or-egg question then is, which happens first - the gentrifiers moving in or the city and developers making it attractive to?

Silly question; no answer - much like the question of gentrification in general. Unless there's a contingent of folks convinced that White people move into these neighborhoods with the explicit intention of displacing poor people, what's the problem?

I recently listened to/read some of NPR's coverage of gentrification (IRONY???) and all of the normal frustrations were expressed - police/city services only seem to come to a neighborhood once White/rich people move in, the "character" of a neighborhood changes, new big box/chain stores lack the cultural component of old local stores and create a boring, "monocultural" aesthetic and, of course, poor folks are priced out of the neighborhood. What I realized is that, aside from the displacement issue, this sounds a lot like NIMBYism too, doesn't it?

What I also realized is that "gentrification," when looked at in the following way, would perhaps be better termed "neighborhood redevelopment" - it has a lot of positive aspects. More city services/policing. Cleaner streets. More business investment. Increased revenue for local businesses as a result of higher-income residents and more density overall (if these businesses aren't forced out of the area, that is). Neighborhood pride as a result of being a "destination" neighborhood (in most of the talks about developing Beacon Hill, the idea of being a "destination" neighborhood is brought up. The underriding assumption is that nobody that's not from here ever comes here, and why would they? It's probably a fair assumption).

Gentrification seems to me to be, in itself, a case-study in ethics - if you do something that you want to do without any conscious malice (move, as an affluent non-minority, to an up-and-coming neighborhood like Beacon Hill), are you responsible for the negative consequences of these actions (you help increase property values thus pushing poor people out of the neighborhood)?

Are you a gentrifier?

Is that such a bad thing?

Besides advocating for affordable housing in your neighborhood, what are you supposed to do about it?

Bite-Sized Musings: Morality

UPDATE: Sam Harris, noted Athiest, Author, Neuroscientist, and Philosopher, read this blog post and decided to write his own blog post about science and morality. His is complex and difficult to understand, so feel free to read this one instead.
____________________________________________________________

Today I was listening to NPR and heard a story linking morality to brain processes - as opposed to one's morality being located somewhere in the "heart" or "soul" or what have you.

Participants were told two stories - one in which someone did something malicious by accident, and one in which someone did something malicious but failed in the attempt.

Normal adults judge the first person as relatively innocent and hold the second person accountable morally for their bad behavior.

But, with a little electromagnetic stimulation to a specific part in the brain,

"The stimulation caused people to pay less attention to [Person 2]'s intention and more attention to the outcome, Young says.

"If no harm was done, then subjects would judge [Person 2's behavior] as OK," she says, even if the story made it clear [Person 2] was trying to poison her friend. That's the sort of moral judgment you often see in kids who are 3 or 4 years old, Young says."

The study argues, sort of, that if moral judgments are brain processes like any other, then "it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul."

I grew up believing that morality was God-given; that "good" and "bad" were defined by God, you could say. That humans aren't meant to judge others, that God would do the judging at the end of things.

This is a great theory; less judgment among humans is, generally speaking, a good thing. Not that Christians tend to take heed of this Biblical advice (Luke 6:37 among others) more than any other population, but that's neither here nor there.

This study, when extrapolated sociologically, suggests that morality is cultural, is society-driven. We learn to judge "good" and "bad" behavior like we learn to subscribe to other social norms.

This can be taken both positively and negatively - if we aren't to judge anyone but instead see behavior as subscribing to or not subscribing to our own culture's norms, are we allowed to judge anyone at all anymore? (See this post about drinking in the daytime) This seems swell to our post-modern, live-and-let-live liberal sensibilities. But what about things like some instances of murder, or incest, or ritual disfigurement (think FGM)? Can we still judge those?

I can obviously see why Christians, and in fact many persons of other monotheistic faiths and others, would balk at this idea. I kind of like it but part of me is a lil' dismayed.

What do you think? Do you buy the conclusions suggested by the study?

Do you think this discounts the argument for a soul?

Do you think the study suggests the sociological conclusion I've made?

Do you think morality is largely culture-specific or are there universal morals?

If morality's culture specific status were to be widely accepted, do you think that this would be a good thing or a bad thing?

Who Am I?

I was filling out the Census 2010 form with my housemates last night and I struggled to answer some of the questions about "Who I am." Hispanic/Latino heritage is no longer a race, y'all! That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the way the question is worded on the Census form.

It asks whether I am of Latino/Hispanic "origin." What does that mean? My grandmother was from Spain. I think. Or maybe my great-grandmother. So I am "Hispanic," sort of. But I'm not of Hispanic "origin." I've never been to Spain. I don't know whether my grandmother has ever been there, or where she was born. "Origin" implies a starting place of sorts; does it mean where my "family line" originated, or me personally? Because it was too confusing, I put "No, I am not of Hispanic origin." But I felt like I was leaving something out.

The whole Census thing was difficult for someone like me who doesn't fit into the lil' boxes. My dad is Black, too, or as the Census form suggests, "Negro." I was initially appalled by the inclusion of that word, so entangled it is with our country's racist history, but apparently more than 50,000 people wrote-in "Negro" on their form in 2000. So, whatever.

Got me thinking about identity, though. Like Nick Jonas would say, I want someone to love me for "Who I Am." (sweet tunes, actually somewhat-talented Jonas bro). But who am I? Got me thinking about this recent Cat and Girl comic:

click to enlarge.

I was listening to NPR a couple weeks ago and they were discussing a new report about Millenials - us, y'all! I don't remember everything that was discussed, but I think they mentioned the tenuous relationship that us young folks have with work - something about how previous generations have imagined a much more direct link between what they do and who they are.

I like Girl's understanding of the issue as a positive social trend - we are moving away from defining people by "accidents of birth." This is nothing new in American society, at least ideally or intellectually - we tend to believe that the United States is a land of opportunity, with upward mobility and all that. But maybe in previous generations that's been less the actual reality than we want to believe. And maybe it's still not the reality for this generation either.

As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry explained about grown-ups in The Little Prince,

When you tell [grown-ups] that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?" Instead, they demand: "How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?" Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.

When we meet people, we still ask them "What do you do?" Should we ask the above questions instead? And surely, how one chooses to spend one's time can, and I'll say should, say a lot about who they "are." But only to an extent, you see.

But to what extent? If it's not what you "do," then what is it?

Awhile back, Dick and Barry and I agreed that what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the damn truth.

But to what extent are someone's "likes" and "dislikes" representative of who they "are," either? Rob Gordon says that who you are is what you like - the things you choose to entertain yourself with.

Another dimension is politics - are you libertarian, republican, anarchist, centrist? This seems like it has to do with ideals, or vision - how should the world be run, what should motivate people, how you think power should be distributed. I think faith fits in here too - "I am a Muslim. I am Baha'i. I am spiritual but not religious." This is an intellectual identity, of sorts; has to do with your inner self.

But all of these things change and grow as we do. I don't like the same music I did when I was younger, I don't do the same things, I don't practice the same religion or have the same politics. Is there something deeper? And it's deeper than DNA, here, too, I think.

It gets into the question of the individual soul - is there a pure essence to who I am, an "Elliott" deep down in there, never changing? Is my identity transcendental? Does it reincarnate? Is there such thing as a soul? If I had a twin brother, and he had my exact same job, pursued the same interests and passions, had the same upper-middle class upbringing, liked the same music and movies, had the same political leanings as I do, would we effectively be the same person? Or is there something deep within me that constitutes "me?"

It could be all of these things, to varying degrees. We all have the opportunity to define ourselves. So what do you think? Who are you?

Bite-sized Musings: Drinking in the Afternoon

The other day I was sitting outside during my lunch break (around 12:30pm) near where my workplace's parking lot exits out into the street. A car pulled out of the parking lot and stopped before driving into the street. In the car were two men - both of them with cans of beer in their hands.

I was appalled. Some people drink and drive. It's not a crime to have one beer or so and then hop in your car, right (or is it? One beer wouldn't put me over the legal limit...)? But drinking while driving seems ludicrous (they were drinking tall cans of Steel Reserve, too - the equivalent of two crappy beers in one) . In the middle of the day! They were asking for trouble.

I was so flabbergasted that I didn't have time to get the license plate number and report them to the police (which I should have done, right? I don't want dudes drinking while driving around my neighborhood. I ride my bike through this neighborhood). But it got me thinking - part of the reason I was so surprised to see this was that it was at lunchtime.

Whenever I'm at or near the gas station in my neighborhood in the afternoon I see people (usually scruffy-looking men) buying and/or drinking beer in the middle of the day. Go to a city park on a normal afternoon and you will see people (again, usually scruffy-looking men) drinking and/or passed out drunk in the park. This is both illegal and almost universally looked down upon.

The questions are:

• Why is drinking in the early afternoon, even if just a beer or two, unacceptable while getting smashed at a party or the bar at 10pm is fine?
• Does it matter whether it's a well-dressed businessman having a drinking lunch in a restaurant vs. a scruffy dude buying a beer from the gas station and drinking in the park?
• Why is driving after having had a couple beers sometimes OK but driving while drinking not OK?