The Oregonian: "Gentrification, Apartheid, the Holocaust-- Y'know, Stuff Like That"

For the cynic, Portland's gentrification discussion series, the "Restorative Listening Project," is troubling. On the one hand, the people responsible for it at the Office of Neighborhood Involvement are obviously neither stupid nor evil, and in fact are trying to get a grip on something truly vital. On the other hand, though, can these really be boiled down to much more than hand-holding hug-sessions, functioning more to assuage guilt than to materially prevent further dislocative pressures on the Black community in North and Northeast Portland? I honestly doubt it very much, and as gentrification has been presented in the material I've seen on this series as something that can be talked about but not controlled, I haven't been interested in attending. As a progressive leftist myself (of the bitter resignation variety) I find often embarrassing the lengths well-meaning Portland liberals can go in terms of figurativeness, metaphor, language or what have you, without actually getting to the meat of any matter and hammering out a deal that would actually challenge the status quo in any way.

I was informed by a commenter on this blog earlier in the year about these meetings. Of course, bloggers aren't reporters, and in any case the rules of blogging (as I understand them) restrict me to sniping away from behind my Dorito-encrusted keyboard about this and that as it appears on the Information Superhighway, while wearing a bathrobe. Fortunately, today's Oregonian finally weighs in on the Restorative Listening Project:

The city of Portland is using a deceptively simple technique -- storytelling -- to confront the complicated issue of gentrification.

And it's bringing surprisingly powerful results.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian....0271814

For one thing, gentrification is a "complicated issue" only to those who like it but feel guilty about getting perhaps more than their fair share out of it. Calling it "complicated" sustains gentrification by telling the rest of us we can't make any assertions about it that won't be routinely disarmed with equivocation (e.g., "yes but the crackhouses are gone" etc.) And this is a poor use of the words "powerful" and "results," in my opinion. However, certain facts remain: Should newer white residents of N/NE be aware of their neighbors' names? Should they understand the concept behind the dog issue? Yes. Should they keep their mouths shut about shit that the folks who lived there before them do in the course of their normal everyday life that yuppies can't hang with, like church services or cookouts you can hear from across the street? Well, yes also. If we talk about working to recognize and bridge the white/black disconnect, if we talk about cooling it with the dog-walking, and if we talk about how people should stop lodging complaints with the city about the neighbors that were there first, have we really done much? I think not. The Oregonian seems to disagree, or else has printed a story meant for their April Fool's edition:

Some question how storytelling can make a difference after housing prices already have forced out so many. Yet similar projects that grappled with much weightier issues -- the horrors of apartheid, the Holocaust and World War II -- show how the fundamental acts of telling and listening can heal.

Wow. Let me get this straight:  Storytelling is so powerful it healed the victims of apartheid and the Holocaust, so how can it fail to make things hunky dory in North Portland. Even though it's too late because housing prices "have forced out so many." Gosh that's sure too bad. But there appears to be some of you left -- would you like to tell us your story and make us feel better? Thanks oodles. And gee, sorry about Rover, I don't know why he's acting this way -- maybe if you keep your voices down he'll stop barking?

Another meeting is this Monday, April 21st at 4304 N. Vancouver. Talking Drum Cafe and Bookstore has been having "debrief" meetings for these sessions, the date is TBA but more information in any case is found here: http://www.portlandonline.com/ONI/index.cfm?a=192295&c=29385

************************************************************************************************************************

And if that isn't depressing enough I'd like to share this little tidbit about rent hikes. This is from the enemy publication, Landlord Times, from the Q&A of their so-called "blogger" Marcia Gohman (of National Tenant Network screen-out moguls), charmingly titled,

Raise the Rent!

It seems that at this time, every year, I get calls from Landlords wondering what is wrong with their property...After talking with these landlords I find that in their rush to rent, they have lowered their fees and the overall rent itself. When you lower the rent, you lower the expectations of the applicants and you start attracting the wrong kind of applicant. Think about it.

Apparently there's no such thing as a market rate, then. It seems that the prices of apartments reflect more what the landlord wants to charge than any figure occurring in the self-regulating Adam Smith wild. Unless this "marketplace" can give you a reason to raise it, of course:

If you aren’t getting the right kind of applicant for your property, there are several things you can do.
1. Check similar rentals in your area on either Craig’s List or local papers. See what other rentals are going for and consider your rent, should you raise it a bit?

And here's the down low on the "application fee" thing. You thought that's really how much it costs a landlord to check out your paperwork or something? Nope. It's just to make sure they don't rent to anyone who's not the kind of person to whom forty bucks is laundry lint:

4. Do charge an application fee. If the applicant passes you can always credit that amount back out of their first month’s rent. But an applicant who can’t come up with $35-45 to apply will not be able to come up with rent money.
http://www.thelandlordtimes.com/?q=blog/investment-blogs/raise-rent%21

What's a prospective tenant to do, when the landlord has raised the rent so as to repel "the wrong kind of applicant"? Well, do as the North Portlanders do, and heal him with the powers of storytelling!


Oregonian story:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1208402718146010.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
Restorative Listening Project on the city's ONI site:
http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/index.cfm?c=45627&
The Landlord Times homepage, you're a serious businessman with a duplex, so check it out:
http://www.thelandlordtimes.com/

Comments

[Ari]

Yeah, I thought the Holocaust and apartheid analogies were quite a stretch. Seems like filler material to pad an otherwise thin story.

But, I am glad to see the reporter, Erin Hoover Barnett, take on something a littler meatier. She usually does breezy, phoned-in stories on "hot" and "up-and-coming" neighborhoods with real-estate agents and their yuppie clients as her only sources. Her articles are almost as insufferable as Ryan Frank's. At least Frank is willing to drop a turd in the punchbowl once in a great while with some reality-based assessment of the Portland real-estate market.

[anonymous landlord]

FYI, it costs me $19.50 to run an application. I do charge the $40 application fee for the exact reason listed above. I fail to see anything wrong with that logic. It sucks when people don't pay rent.
Also, I subscribe to "Apartment Manager," a free newspaper not available online. Let me know if you'd like a copy of this month's issue.

[libruls, HELLO!]

Can we please note the real difference between Holocost, Apartheid and gentrification?

The Allies busted into the camps, liberated the survivors and put the perps on trial for war crimes. The South Africans overthrew their overlords, and redistributed their system.

After those things, AFTER intervention and justice, then they did the truth and reconciliation process, which was then, and only then, of value. Launching "restorative listening" without intervention and justice first is as perfect a muffin-headed liberal stunt as one could imagine.

[Dave J.]

"Should they understand the concept behind the dog issue?"

Er, what is the "dog issue"? Can you explain?

[PG]

"Intervention and justice" - me like!

[petrichor]

yes, please, what's the dog issue?

[Bridgetownpeddler]

Being of Irish, English, Scottish and German heritage I am about as white as they come so given that I could be waaaayyyyy off base here.

But my understanding of the "Dog Issue" is that Whites tend to really enjoy dogs and bring a lot of dogs with them when they move into new neighborhoods. In this same equation there is a history of Whites using dogs to track, hunt, control or frighten Blacks and because of this Blacks carry a historical fear of dogs (were not talking Dachsunds here...).

Something along those lines.

[PG]

Oh sorry - referring to new white residents of black neighborhoods being insensitive to the sort of historical associations some blacks have seeing white folks marching around armed with dogs, the civil rights era being a fairly recent memory to the middle-aged and older. I think a city's no place for a dog big enough to threaten a human, but people have them partly for protection, which is to say, to maintain exactly that threat.

[social]

drug and gang violence are on the rise. the smug dog-owning white folk will start moving back to gated suburban enclaves soon enough.

[petrichor]

that makes sense, thanks. more of a cat person myself...

[The Green Redneck]

Why is there not even the slightest, faintest discussion of legislating limits on the selling price of real property? Why is the economic mugging of "house flipping" not taxed at a punitive level--flipping pretty directly drives up housing prices. Why not progressive property taxation--homestead exemption for first 33% of value, then rising levels of taxation with increased increments of value? People who don't think gentrification is a bad thing like to pretend that those inner city residents could have bought their properties years ago when cheap--they obviously have never heard of the slimy old practice of "redlining" minority neighborhoods and refusing to loan money on properties therein.