Couple of interesting facts:
- Chicago is NOT the murder/homicide capital of the United states. In fact it is not even in the top ten according to http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/06/13/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-3/3/.
- Chicago is not even in the top ten for U.S. for poverty rate. That illustrious prize goes to Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas with a poverty rate of 36.3% (http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/10-metro-areas-with-the-highest-poverty-levels/11). "Chicago has the third highest rate of extreme poverty of the nation's 10 largest cities, at 10.4 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey" (http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckrakers/2013/03/chicago-has-third-highest-extreme-poverty-rate-in-the-nation/). I bring this up to show how a perception can skew a persons view. While I am sure that Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas is a small place that most of us have never heard of; by percentage far more of their residents live in poverty. If you look at poverty rates through that microscope, Chicago would probably not make the top 100 for poverty rate.
The reason I bring this up is that Chicago often gets a bad rap when it comes to crime, as does many of our nations largest cities, especially ones Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. I have to admit that my own personal view of Chicago has been tainted by what I read and see in the media, as well as my trips on Interstate 80 passing through only the South side of Chicago. Just recently over the Labor Day weekend I was traveling back from New York City where my wife and I sat next to a very nice woman from Chicago. she had lived in many places and works as a physical therapist After talking with her and seeing her admiration for the city of Chicago I decided that I needed to set aside my preconceived notions about Chicago and find out the facts for myself. Now that is of my chest, on to the assignment...
The article Death and Life of Chicago was a very interesting read. I admire the conviction and dedication to the cause of the Anti-Eviction Campaign J.R. Fleming founded. The work he does in many ways is inspiring and I can at least agree with him that the responsibility to act in the name and interest of humanity is important. After reading the entire article and having a few days to think it over there was one thing that bothered me; a character he introduced in the story named Martha Biggs. I found myself wondering if Martha would have put as much effort into finding work as she did in squatting in a foreclosed house; if her story would be any different. I know that sounds a little sharp; however, one thing that was mentioned was they needed to act to take care of themselves and taking over bank owned foreclosed houses was their answer. I admire the work to get homeless people off the street and into housing, and I also think a home with family living in it is much better for the community that an empty foreclosed home that is deteriorating. The problem is what happens when the real owner come to take it back, or when the economy improves enough that the real owner cares again? I find no real difference, at least with the attitude, in a vigilante and this type of activism. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. One other issue is that there seems to be a correlation between the types of decisions made while living in public housing; both Fleming and Biggs lived at Cabrini Green and were drug users. I am sure it was a horrible place to live and grow up and I find that very sad, even cruel, but when do personal responsibility and consequence matter? Quoting from the article, "J. R. liked to proclaim that he didn't concern himself with the law, because he had human rights to back him up." I find this thinking dangerous, even though his cause is worthy, that he still finds it acceptable to break the law. In my mind there must be a better way to be an activist, one in which you do not have to break the law, steal, or squat in a bank owned foreclosed home.
The facts of Chicago that you found are interesting. They do shed light on Chicago and how it compares with other cities in the U.S. I believe you make a good point about how we all might need to explore Chicago's facts and history yourselves instead of relying on preconceived notions. Sampson's book is a good starting point for doing just that.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on J.R. Fleming's Anti-Eviction Campaign caused me to think about it a little differently. I had pulled from the article that J.R. had a lawyer whom helped to ensure that the law was followed in the end. J.R. initially going into a bank owned foreclosed home is technically breaking the law. However, once he and his group improve the property then the breaking-in and entry law is trumped by their improvements. That's how I understood Chicago's squatting law. Regardless, you are right that J.R. could possibly find a different way of going about things. I posted in my comment that I just didn't think his efforts would ever overturn the poverty traps. I think a more systematic/holistic approach like Sampson's approach is necessary.
Wow, really interesting to hear about those statistics on other parts of the country with even higher poverty rates than Chicago. However, I do think Sampson chose the city of Chicago because it is "The Great American City".
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your comment on filling up these empty foreclosed houses versus leaving them empty in a declining community. I think you make a great point by questioning the fact that these homes have previous owners and they might come back to take what was theirs to begin with. There are other ways that other big cities have fixed problems with too many homeless people. The program Common Ground in New York City helped to give a room and a place to stay for so many homeless people living on the streets. If other cities modleded organizations like these I believe we could eliminate homlessness for good.
Scott brings in outside information, which is always welcome. He also is participating as both blogger and commenter in an emerging discussion (see also Erica's, Daniel's, Devan's, and Remick's blogs and comments, for instance) about the efficacy and ethics of Sampson's approach vs. JR's. I'd love for people to weigh in on this in their own blogs and comments and to come to class prepared to discuss in light of the texts, personal experience, and whatever different fields of emphasis might bring to the table.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts on the readings. I agree with you 100% on the actions of J.R. in taking matters into his own hands. Again it's admirable and making things happen for the betterment of humanity is a good principle, but again like you said it's very dangerous thinking when someone starts stating that they are "above the law" or "untouchable" in a sense because they have these certain rights that noone can ever take away. That's exactly what J.R. was doing and that lack of accountability can raise a lot of problems.
ReplyDeleteI definitly agree with J.R. Flemmings and is actions too. I agree that an occupied home is much better for a community then one that is abandoned and decaying away. Abandoned structures only invite vandalizm and crime. This negatively effects a community and I think it is wrong for the banks to do what they do to take homes from people and abandon them. This is all just very disconcerting to me and I admire J.R. Flemmings for his desire to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comments that call for a more lawful way to tackle these problems. It's ironic to me to realize that, in a way, JR is just fighting crime with a different kind of crime. Fighting fire with fire isn't typically the most efficient way to deal with an issue, is it? Like Collin said, it's dangerous thinking you're above the law. As JR goes around these neighborhoods, he is striving to do a good deed, but he's doing it in a very unstable way that will most likely result in more crime and poverty.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Sarah, this is all very disconcerting!