That’s the title of an interesting new paper from Leland Seito in Urban Affair Review. Here’s the abstract:
Using the example of three buildings in San Diego, the author examines the negotiations between city officials and local residents over competing images of race and history. He shows how the outcomes of these negotiations are used to support and legitimate economic development and historic preservation policies. His main point is that although policies are depicted as race neutral, the results are often racialized. This happens because of the tendency of routine, institutional processes to recognize the history of White communities rather than those of racial minorities, contributing to whiteness. As part of the process of racial formation, activists counter labels of minority neighborhoods as “blighted” and “slums” with the view that they are attractive centers of business, culture, and tourism.
The article is a good example of how sociologists end up doing decent public choice work without even realizing it. Like a lot of the sociology work I read though, he comes to some strange conclusions (like blaming urban renewal on the quest for profits and capital accumulation), but the overall analysis is a good one. The discussions of class, race, and framing also show economists why they need to look beyond material interests.
- Josh McCabe
And to think I had thought the difference between “blighted” and “historic” was whether or not Bruce Ratner wanted to build a complex in the given area.
That’s a big part of it. For anyone who doesn’t know what Kunal is talking about, see this short trailer:
As part of the process of racial formation, activists counter labels of minority neighborhoods as “blighted” and “slums” with the view that they are attractive centers of business, culture, and tourism.
It was my understanding that activists resist the gentrification that makes “blighted” or “slum” neighborhoods atractive centers of business and tourism, though not necessarily culture. The placement of a Starbucks in the Oak Park neighborhood of Sacramento, where I grew up, was controversial because it undermined the integrity of the surrounding culture, heretofore able to withstand the introduction of popular coffee chains (and, unfortunatley, most non-chain businesses as well).