When politics is personal

Earlier tonight, I attended the wedding of Ryan Bunch and Micah Majoubian at City Hall. As I walked up to the building before the ceremomy, I was pretty surprised to see about 20 protesters. Apparently these crazies can read, and had seen the front page Inky article about the wedding earlier this week.

The article detailed Mayor Street's role officiating this ceremony. The Mayor had said he would not sign a marriage certificate, but was simply officiating a non-legally binding ceremony as a friend of Micah's.

The protesters felt that the Mayor's participation was inappropriate so they threw some signs in their trunks, with sayings like "Homosexuality is a Sin" and quotations from Corinthians and Leviticus, and came downtown to protest.

Boy is that First Amendment pesky.

I don't dispute these folks' right to protest, but I gotta tell you, I was shocked by their disrespect. There's a Bridezilla lurking inside of me, so even though this wasn't my wedding, all I could think was "leave them alone, it's their SPECIAL DAY!"

In all seriousness, who would protest a wedding? Well, obviously the radical right would. These protesters were from Repent America, the group that has made a nuisance of itself protesting Philly gay pride events. Their brethren in [the perversion of] Christ, like God Hates Fags, have been perfectly happy to protest at funerals in the past. Tacky.

So anyway, I see all these protesters. And I gotta tell you it hurt my feelings some. I don't know if I mentioned this before, But I'm gay. And as much as I know homophobia exists in the abstract, it's always upsetting when it hits you in the face. Joel, my boyfriend, acts fast. He grabs my hand and we walk past a phalanx of protesters and police into City Hall.

The ceremony itself was great. The Mayor did a great job, and as much as he made point to the Inquirer that this was not going to be a marriage ceremony, save the marriage certificate, that's exactly what it was.

After the service we all troop outside to blow bubbles and send Micah and Ryan off to the reception in CarShare Mini Cooper. We've all done the blowing bubbles/throwing rice thing before right? Ever try it with 20 right-wing nut job protesters?

My intention in this post (at which I may be failing) is not to lecture about the need for LGBT rights. That should be obvious. And for the record, I get that Mayor Street officiating at a wedding at City Hall opened the door for a private event to be publicly protested. However, today's events do inspire me to share is that the issues we talk about here are real.

I mean I guess that's obvious right, but to see protesters today at a private event (not Outfest or Equality Forum) is a reminder to me that there are no polite battle lines. And not just on LGBT issues either.

It may not be customary to see protesters at the homes of low-income Philadelphians with signs that say "you deserve to be poor," but the assault by predatory lenders, gentrifiers, the gun lobby, insurance companies, and others is just as personal.

More simply put, the lack of progressivity in our local, state, and national laws is no accident. Sometimes it's because of incompetence and laziness and petty politics and/or corruption. But sometimes our lack of progressivity is because of plain old selfishness and greed and wrong-headedness.

I know politics is personal, but sometimes I forget how personal. Today was a good opportunity to reaffirm that.

Despicable

Pathetic really. I honestly do not understand how any "Christian" now matter what their belief is can see fit to dishonor two people committing to each other with dignity and love in this way. The answer is of course they are actually motivated by hate and fear and not actual "faith".

One very, very, very small thing. "Gentrifiers" the same as hate-mongers and predatory loan companies? Most so-called "gentrifiers" are just people looking to find a place to live that fits their budgets and are quite happy to live with any neighbor that is happy to live with them. Gentrification is a problem to managed and compensated against but the idea of neighborhoods becoming more economically and racially diverse rather than less is hardly same thing as hate-mongering.

Hating on "gentrifiers" is sort of like hating on raindrops because you are rightfully concerned about erosion. 1. Its not a terribly effective way of tackling the problem 2. It turns potential allies for real solutions to the big picture (water management) into enemies.

it's not about hate

my post is not about hate. my post is about the fact that people who have one set of views have a personal impact on people who have a different set of views.

gentrifiers may be looking for a neighborhood that fits their budget, as you suggest, but i am suggesting that many of the gentrifiers I know use their class and race privilege to find afford ability that would not be available to other people.

i am not hating on gentrifiers, but i am suggesting that they personally take responsibility for and acknowledge their personal impact on other people.

Here's some video

Here's a clip from Action News of the wedding and the protest:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5782137

What do you mean by this:

"but i am suggesting that many of the gentrifiers I know use their class and race privilege to find afford ability that would not be available to other people."

I don't want to be tangential, but if you accept the premise that people are looking to (1) live in the city (people who traditionally have moved out of the city); and (2) are looking to move into areas they can afford, how is that a problem the gentrifiers should take personal responsibility for. Don't we want people to live in the city? Don't we want young professional to live here, think about raising a family here and sending their kids to school here? Don't we want racial and economic diversity in our communities? Don't we want people with deeper pockets and people who are more likely to be civically engaged to move into our communities.

I would hardly characterize the role of gentrifiers in the City as "assault." Moreover, how is it personal to you?

As for the true point of your post, it is disgusting that a bunch of idiots decided to be disrespectful on a special day for Micah and his partner. Certain politics can be very personal, particularly the politics of hate and fear, the use of intimidation and the bullying that generally goes on at these affairs.

About 4 years ago, it was eye-opening that these same folks were protesting at the funerals of Iraq war veterans. I was happy to see the individuals step up and block the protestors from site. That is why, I really like these guys: http://www.patriotguard.org/.

But, I think what makes politics personal is the politics of hate. Hate is a gut reaction that has no basis in reason. Responses to hate are, therefore, very personal. We can all sit here and debate the tax code or gun laws, but have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone who truly "hates". I have. It is disgusting, and even though I wasn't in the scope of that hate, I took it personally.

The Southern Povery Law Center does great work on civil rights, tolerance education and discrimination. Their web-page is eye-opening. Look at the Pennsylvania page alone concerning ACTIVE hate groups:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=PA&m=5

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

a moral conundrum

This is was a post about my feelings. So you are gonna be hard pressed to get me to respond point by point logically.

Very simply though, it seems like a moral conundrum to me that we have created a city where the demand for housing is such that traditionally affordable neighborhoods for working people are becoming unaffordable.

I was not saying that is a personal issue for me (though it it to the extent that purchasing a home in my neighborhood is a lot harder for me to do--have not done it yet--than it would have been pre-housing boom), but that gentrification itself is personal for people getting priced out.

Beyond that, I think that the protesters on Saturday, with the exception of a few, truly believed that what they were doing was right. Normally, we confine disagreements to newspapers and kitchen table talks and blogs and other safer forums...but sometimes, as rude as I think it was to crash a private wedding, sometimes we disagree at protests on the streets.

I think this is the hardest reality to face: some people really just disagree with other people's views. Or more clearly, that some people have tunnel vision when it comes to what they want/need/believe.

I think about economic injustice a lot--and the reason I have linked that issue to the story about the protest on Saturday--is that I think a lot of people in this country are as morally judgmental of low income and working people as those Christians were about me--but they don't even have the guts to judge and protest in public. Or, their own needs for profit (in the case of a predatory lender) or housing (in the case of the gentrifier) come before those of a community of low-income people who may stand in the way.

Maybe this is too tangential a thought process to have shared, so I am happy to end it here.

I think you really summed it

I think you really summed it all up here:

some people really just disagree with other people's views.

Isn't that kind of where we get to when we've wiped away all of the reason and debate. Sometimes, people just disagree. Then there is something more than disagreement. Some people may be firmly against gay marriage, but are not necessarily basing that belief on hating you or other gay people. I'll bet, those are not the people who protested on Saturday. I'll bet they were going about their normal routine.

The people who were protesting the wedding ceremony were inspired by something more than disagreement.

I agree with this:

I think a lot of people in this country are as morally judgmental of low income and working people as those Christians were about me--but they don't even have the guts to judge and protest in public.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

Maybe I can dig up links

When I saw Martha Nussbaum speak at Penn, two or so years ago, she had a really interesting philosophical framework for this problem:

"some people really just disagree with other people's views."

... the problem of disagreement among members or groups within a society as to what that society should be or provide. I think that she proposes certain baselines of respect or capability that each member of society should be afforded. I am sure I am butchering the ideas.

But these seemingly absolute disagreements are real problems, and cannot just be dismissed as intractable--like the gay marriage issue, there are implications for the ability of fellow citizens to live full and equal lives.

this is my point

I'll bet, those are not the people who protested on Saturday. I'll bet they were going about their normal routine.

It is easy to write the people off who actually show up and protest as crazy. And maybe they were, but they do represent a broader group of people's opinions. That is my point.

Because most people DO just go about their normal routine, we are not confronted with disagreement so clearly in our every day lives, yet the disagreements that exist still have real and often personal impacts.

Again, maybe too tangential, but that is why I make a connection to economic justice issues.

I think we need a moratorium

on talk about gentrification and stop-and-frisk...

One thing: I don't think your points about the desirability (or, more unarguably, the inevitability) or people with more privilege and resources moving into the city are incompatible with Ray's actual point.

Whether or not what the phenomena that we are broadly calling gentrification is desirable or inevitable, it does have effects. Ray I think is calling for attention to those effects, which may or may not be personal to him, but are personal to those affected.

I do think myself that it is a good general rule: to be attentive to the collateral effects of your actions and decisions and positions, because they touch other people's lives in acutely personal ways, whether directly or indirectly.

So, you want a moratorium . . .

After you expand on the point. Interesting.

I agree, it does have its collateral effects. And, we should really work to mitigate those. But, by and large, much of Philadelphia remains very affordable.

But, I'd hardly compare gentrifiers to the Saxons after the Romans left Britain! Not that Ray was, but it is, in my mind, something that we should avoid--characterizing them as raiders or something like that. Their individual intentions are good.

Real estate developers, now that could be a different story.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

still missing the point

Yes, gentrifiers may think that they have good intentions.

I am telling you, the people who protested the wedding thought their intentions were good too.

Need I remind you, a good Protestant, about the road to hell and intentions?

Buying a home is a much

Buying a home is a much different activity than protesting someone's wedding. I'll leave it to the YPP community to judge the merit of the intentions.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

still not the point

You can leave judgment to the YPP community--and there is plenty to be offered--but the only point I am trying to make is that for a resident of a neighborhood--like Fishtown or Francisville--although the coming of gentrifiers has many good points (homes that were once worthless are now worth more than ever could have been imagined) there are bad points like increased taxes, pressure to make major repairs to exterior of home that are hard to afford, a loss of community/neighbors, etc.

When a neighborhood becomes gentrified by individual people, the other individual people who live there feel a personal impact. At that level, intentions and judgment of some abstract notion of good/bad don't matter.

And the distinction you draw between protesting someone's wedding and buying a home is much more semantic than you let on. In fact, in such a strongly capitalistic society one could argue that any transaction that involves money (buying a home) has more power and meaning than one that does not (protest).

Finally, I am curious about two things:

1- Without being too judgmental, I said I thought "gentrification" was a moral conundrum. Do you disagree?

2- I mentioned a lot more than gentrification in my original post. Why are you hung up on that?

I'm not hung up . . .

Above we talk about the real point of your post. I was ready for a moratorium on gentrification.

I think that there are aspects to gentrification that are difficult as a matter of policy and fairness. For instance, what about the old folks. Those who have lived in their homes for 20-30 years, live on a fixed income, etc. We need to be fair to these people. They should not be pushed out of their communities due to taxes. I think that, as long as that is happening, it is a moral issue.

Upkeep and a percieved loss of community are different aspects of this debate. I'll write on those in a little bit.

But, as I've said before, comparatively, Philadelphia's real estate is not over-valued and remains an afforable city for a number of types of people. Consider Boston, San Franscico, Washington and New York. Working and middle class folks can't afford to live within 15 miles of these towns. We are not there.

Since we're sticking to this point, I'm still trying to understand what you want gentrifiers to do? Do you want them to consider their impact on the new community and decide not to buy? Do you want them to buy? What personal responsibility do you want them to take?

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

just talk

Since we're sticking to this point, I'm still trying to understand what you want gentrifiers to do? Do you want them to consider their impact on the new community and decide not to buy? Do you want them to buy? What personal responsibility do you want them to take?

Yea, pretty much just talk.

Just imagine a real life scenario based on what you describe above. You and I both buy houses on either side of an 80 yo woman. Reassessment happens, her taxes go up. We say, "Hey, that sucks. Sorry we bought our houses for so much. But it was in our price range and well-located. Listen, it's not as bad here as in SF."

Well, if it were SF you and

Well, if it were SF you and I couldn't afford to buy and she probably isn't there anyway.

I understand your point. But, you ask for personal responsibility, and I don't know what you would have people do. If it is simply to talk, then I'm in. If it is obliging yourself for more fair housing policy, i.e. my own reverse tax abatements for that 80 year old woman, I'm in.

I didn't buy in what some would consider a gentrifying community. I bought where I grew up in the Girard Estate neighborhood. It has always been a great place with a decent housing stock and working to middle class families. Some middle-upper middle class families too. Doctors, judges and lawyers have always lived in the area. What we lacked in racial and ethnic diversity, we made up for in economic diversity.

Right now, prices are higher than they've ever been. There are $450,000 townhouses being built around the corner from me. Most are unsold. Also, further south, Westrum is building in Packer Park. But, many of the people who are buying them are neighborhood people who are (1) moving up; and (2) moving back from New Jersey.

My community is not in real danger of changing in terms of the type of people or affluency. If it did, many of the residents would likely be okay for a long time.

By the way, I think buying in the City IS excercising personal responsibility instead of living in the consumption filled land known as the suburbs.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

that's great

just to be clear, i never made this about you and me specifically, except for that last example.

there are clear-cut neighborhoods where traditional gentrification is going on. bella vista and fairmount are sort of done at this point, fishtown is almost done, lots of south philly is in play and francisville/brewerytown and parts of grays ferry are sort of starting.

in the context of my original post, i was trying to point out how gentrification (in those neighborhoods) is a personal act that impacts low-income residents adversely. I also mentioned predatory lenders and health insurers etc.

for people who live in or are going to live in these areas--as especially as homeowners--i am not trying to make you feel bad. But I am trying to say that your need for an affordable home that is in a location you want might have a personal impact on someone else. It's not abstract as much as our conversations about EVERYthing communal are abstract.

Along the same lines, as much as I hated those people on Saturday, at some level I had to admire them sort of attempting to make their abstract ideas about homosexuality real and personal.

I know you didn't. I added

I know you didn't.

I added the personal story for some context relative to gentification and that, at least where I live, the biggest incoming group are former South Philadelphians.

BV is mostly done. The original families that are there can afford to be there and helped make that community what it is. Many of the old-timers are passing on. My family roots are in BV and when I was a kid, I'd visit my grandmother and know all the old ladies on the block and on Montrose street. When I lived there after law school, it was a much different place. Not better or worse, but different.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

Gentrification and Poverty

Are two interrelated issues.

One is a local issue, the other national.

On a responsible intellectual level, progressives need to respond on both levels. But progressives, who are WAY too used to being out of power, so we respond intellectually to problems that are, so to speak, out on the street for less comfortable folks.

Personally, I LOVE when progressives get their liberal sensibilities out of academia and the Web and employ them out on the street in real life situations. It's been kind of a lifelong personal project with me. Now, it TOTALLY TOTALLY sucks that the real life situation that prompted this discussion involved such insane fear-mongering hate-mongering assholes as those you encountered Ray, when two people are doing the most noble thing two people can do, pledge love in a world filled with, well, so much fear, hate, and assholes, but I digress...

Gentrification is a moral conundrum, but one in which there has to be a reliable process that allows for its happening AND mitigates its negative effects.

For the old woman living on the street where Gaetano and whatever other lawyers just raised the housing values, gentrification sucks. The locus of sucking is city government. Her property taxes go up, she needs to move from the house she's lived in for decades.

There needs to be an answer to her problem at the city government level, not just for the old woman, but for the school down the street.

This is where it gets complicated. The school down the street, and every other part of city government, needs more money. Rising property values alleviate this problem. Gentrification is good, in this sense.

So the city needs to come up with a property tax cap for the old woman, perhaps setting an age limit AND a maximum rise for her. That's an intellectual response, I know, but tax problems are like that.

The lawyer then needs to be respectful of the neighborhood he's just bought into, and should actively campaign for political candidates who will alleviate poverty on the national level.

Making politics personal will eventually help progressives, I think.

Gotta go teach.

Some men see things as they are and say, “Why”? I dream of things that never were and say, “Why not”?
Robert Kennedy, 1968

That is a really perfect account of the problem, Sam

But, I am disappointed. The Martha Nussbaum invocation was totally supposed to be Sam-catnip.

shh!

please Jennifer! Let a moment where Sam and I agree online pass in silenc

one age-old quibble though Sam

The lawyer then needs to be respectful of the neighborhood he's just bought into, and should actively campaign for political candidates who will alleviate poverty on the national level.

There are definitely some local (munincipal) ways to address poverty.

And more importantly, the Republicans at the federal level intentionally and successfully devolutionized the federal government so that many, many poverty/jobs related policy matters can now be settled at the state level.

Haha

it really is a beautiful moment.

Party as Neighborhood

Ray asked me to explain what I meant in the other thread, where I said he was trying to gentrify the discourse of the Democratic party, and since the let-us-pass-over-this-in-silence-by-talking-about-it stuff about gentrification is going hot and heavy, it's worth taking a snarky joke and turning it into a better analogy.

The analogy is that the Philadelphia Democratic Party is a neighborhood in Philadelphia. And that the netroots progressives' entry into the party is a lot like the gentrification of that neighborhood.

About forty or so years ago, the neighborhood became integrated, which scared a lot of people into leaving. But a lot of people, brave and ordinary people, stayed and did their best to make it work. Times weren't very good for a while, and the racial politics were especially ugly. But then things started to look better; the kids grew up and instead of leaving, bought houses not far from their parents. There were still plenty of problems, and feuds, but everybody knew everybody, and the neighborhood stuck together.

Then a new group of people, younger, better-educated, mostly a bunch of white guys, starts showing up. At first, they're just happy to be there -- this part of the city is so great! Then they start looking around and wondering why things are the way they are. They don't understand why everybody double parks (ethics violations), or gets mad when you hook up your bike to the streetlight (your disabled neighbor Carol Campbell can't open her door) or why one neighbor keeps a Doberman chained up in his back yard (John Dougherty). Even the kids who grew up in the neighborhood don't dress or act like the other kids. They're so excited about what the neighborhood can be, and occasionally a little ignorant about its history, that they think of all sorts of new things the neighborhood needs, ways the neighborhood could be better, and even which neighbors live in "problem houses."

Meanwhile, the old neighbors, who fought the really bad guys, the drug dealers (crooked bosses) and the developers who wanted to plow through the neighborhood with an expressway and build condos (Republicans), can't understand why these kids are breaking their balls. Sooner or later, the street is going to get permit parking, there's an argument, and some angry words are exchanged. These college kids don't know their asses from a hole in the ground, and it's time somebody said it. Meanwhile, the new neighbors are frustrated, because they know that they can't just continue to do things the old way. They love this neighborhood. They don't want anybody to leave, they just want to change how things are done, make them better, make them more democratic and diverse... Their feelings get hurt, too.

In other words, this politics is just as personal. We shouldn't be surprised when people on either side take it personally.

--Tim (aka Short Schrift)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content