A roster of articles analyzing the economic and politics of housing
Previously published in the Berkeley Planet
“Development: Causes and Problems,”
This article outlines the proposed development that is
planned for Berkeley, its size, extent, and what PDA means. It describes why
and how ABAG has allotted a certain amount of housing to Berkeley, and how that
will in turn produce a gentrification of the city, and massive dislocation of
low income families. (published April 23, 2015)
“AffordableHousing? Affordable for Whom?”
Affordable housing has become an issue because of ABAG’s development requirement for Berkeley and other bay area cities. This article describes the way “affordable housing” is defined by HUD, and what “cost burdened” living means. It describes the complex obstacles to building affordable housing, involving permits, mitigation fees, financial schemes, ABAG requirements and loopholes for developers in the laws. On the other hand, notice is given that for affordable housing built by the Housing Trust Fund, a system of monitoring and surveillence of tenants is also included. (published April 30, 2015)
Affordable housing has become an issue because of ABAG’s development requirement for Berkeley and other bay area cities. This article describes the way “affordable housing” is defined by HUD, and what “cost burdened” living means. It describes the complex obstacles to building affordable housing, involving permits, mitigation fees, financial schemes, ABAG requirements and loopholes for developers in the laws. On the other hand, notice is given that for affordable housing built by the Housing Trust Fund, a system of monitoring and surveillence of tenants is also included. (published April 30, 2015)
“ABAG
and its ‘Footprint’,”
This article describes
the Catch-22 of setting affordable housng goals as part of development projects
building market rate housing. It goes over some of ABAG’s history, the
concretization of its plans in Plan Bay Area, and what its political purposes
are. ABAG now constitutes an important element in the disconnect between the
people and the government. (published May 14, 2015)
“Housing
and Justice,”
This article ties
together three movements that are addressing three separate issues that are
nevertheless interwoven: the issue of affordable housing, the issue of
harassment and criminalization of the homeless, and the process of city
gentrification. Each is an issue of justice, which reveals an inequality when
justice is not served. Because market rate has become a high income rent level,
it is injustice toward low income families. Because the homeless are produced
by market operations, it is unjust to criminalize their poverty or to use them
as a political tool to benefit developers, and becaue gentrification is imposed
from the top (the rich), it is anti-democratic. (published June 5, 2015)
“Gentrification
and the Corporate Structure,”
In the context of movements trying to gain a city government policy that will prioritize affordable housing, this article outlines some of the major economic factors and structures that lead development corporations (and the city) to focus only on building market rate housing. It reveals how urban racialization and the representative (as opposed to direct democracy) system collude to advance corporate interests. (published July 7, 2015)
In the context of movements trying to gain a city government policy that will prioritize affordable housing, this article outlines some of the major economic factors and structures that lead development corporations (and the city) to focus only on building market rate housing. It reveals how urban racialization and the representative (as opposed to direct democracy) system collude to advance corporate interests. (published July 7, 2015)
“To
Plan or Be Planned: A Conflict of Interests,”
How corporate interests
(in recapitalization) work their way through the city planning process, and
how the neighborhoods to be affected are excluded from that process at every
turn. It discusses how community interests stand in diametric opposition to
corporate interests, and how community interests are blocked by the
representationist system. (published August 2, 2015)
“Critique
of the BNC Forum of Sept. 12, 2015,” Sept. 26, 2015
In the face of rising
neighborhood movements demanding affordable housing and protection against
dislocation through changes in property and rent levels, this Forum, organized
by the Berkeley Neighborhood Council, addressed the facts of the problem
without dealing with organizational responses. Indeed, it maintained the old
“let the leaders and officials do it” ideology rather than espouse local
neighborhood organizing, self-determination, and political power. Thus, the
Forum was essentially useless.
“Corporate
Economics and Development,” October 9, 2015
A critique of the notion
of “market rate” housing, tying that critique to corporate economics, and the
fact that the corporate structure determines that one cannot resolve the
housing crisis by building market rate housing. Only by building affordable
housing will the housing crisis be resolved. The corporate structure, in
jettisoning the law of supply and demand through financial operations, insures
that the simplistic use of trickle-down with respect to housing will not work.
“Report
on City Council, Oct. 27, 2015
This is a report on how
city council addressed a ridiculous proposal by Droste to allow developers to
omit on-sit parking. It was a perfect example, in the face of the corporate
structure and Plan Bay Area’s requirement for thousands of new housing units,
of how city council has become useless.
“City
Council’s Double Bind,” November 6, 2015
Though the city is
organizing teach-ins on affordable housing, it cannot produce because it is
stuck in a bind between several economic and political forces. These are Plan
Bay Area, which is pushing property values and rent levels up through speculation,
the corporate structure’s need to build recapitalizable buildings, the legal
prohibition against requiring affordable units in new developments, and the
prohibition against rent control or any moratorium on rent increases. Thus,
massive dislocation and gentrification are assured.
“Linda’s
Laws,” November 11, 2015
This is an analysis of
the relation between criminalizing the homeless and building only market rate
housing units. Both are violations of human rights, both represent a failure on
the part of the city government to protect its citizens against impoverishment
by real estate profitability, and criminalizing the homeless is actually a
tactic used to further the interests of corporate developers and
gentrification.
State of Emergency 101, November 18, 2015
The city’s teach-in on
affordable housing, “Affordable Housing 101,” actually served to inform the
residents that there is nothing that they or the city council can do to stem
the housing crisis in Berkeley. Though neighborhoods were calling for no rent
increases, no market rate development, and no dislocation, these were absent in
the teach-in. And this article explains why, and why a moratorium on rent
increases is the only way to insure that even building affordable housing will
resolve the housing crisis.