The Debate Over Who Owns Public Spaces

Davila, A. Puerto Ricans, Latinos, and the Neoliberal City. (p. 27-58).

In his chapter, "Dream of Place and Housing Struggles," Davila makes the point that growing numbers of Latinos are recognizing the need for collective action in the face of increasing threats to their communities from gentrification. Further exacerbating the process has been declining levels of federal and state housing assistance that has made it even more difficult for this population group to secure and maintain adequate low-cost housing, especially in communities where property values are being artificially inflated due to the influx of more affluent mainstream Americans. For instance Davila emphasizes that, "Rents are rapidly increasing, and buildings that a decade ago would have been abandoned or sold cheaply are being coveted by nonprofit investors and private speculators alike" (p. 28).

The implications of these trends on the Latino community in these urban communities have included growing numbers of residents seeking some type of low-cost alternative, which in many cases means reliance on publicly subsidized housing. The relegation of minorities to "the projects" carries involves significant social stigmatization, an outcome that is inconsistent with the need to empower local residents to exert more control over their own circumstances. Given the scarcity of this type of housing, though (there is an 8-year waiting list in some communities), it is little wonder that these trends have troubled many Latino observers. Nevertheless, the attitudes about gentrification vary according to social and economic status, even within the Latino community itself, and Davila suggests that those communities where Latinos openly embrace gentrification may suffer from exploitation by developers.

Kohn, M. Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space (p. 167-188)

In his comparison of the perspectives advanced by the political theorists Jeremy Waldron and Robert Ellickson, Kohn makes the point that homelessness remains a serious problem in the nation's cities, but there remains less consensus concerning what should be done about the problem. On the one hand, the homeless are deprived of the fundamental ability to perform the most basic needs of living in a private space. Clearly, providing additional shelters for the homeless could alleviate part of the problem, but Waldron emphasizes that the homeless also enjoy a certain amount of freedom from ownership of private property that makes their status more difficult to resolve.

On the other hand, Kohn also makes the point that some observers argue that because the types of behaviors that contribute to homelessness are inevitable, authorities should adopt a more pragmatic "skid row" approach by restricting them to certain special zones in a city where such behaviors can be more closely regulated. This approach would promote more visitation to central urban areas by ensuring that "good" residents and visitors would not have to witness the debauchery and depravity that are characteristic of the "bad" parts of town. In an approach Ellickson analogizes with traffic control systems, a green light zone would mean "safety ahead" and visitors could proceed with impunity, yellow zones would of course mean "caution" and red zones, allowed to occupy 5% of a city's geographic area, would be the really bad places where prostitution, drunkenness and panhandling proliferate. In either case, the homeless are being relegated to a second-class citizen status where they are expected to remain invisible to mainstream society and an out-of-sight, out-of-mind way.

Mitchell, D. The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. (p. 227-237)

In his concluding chapter, "The Illusion and Necessity of Order: Toward a Just City," Mitchell emphasizes that longstanding beliefs about the effectiveness of so-called "broken window" policing have not only failed to reduce crime and poverty, these types of law enforcement initiatives may well do more harm than good by creating further divisiveness between community members and police. Moreover, this debate has assumed new relevance and meaning as the threat of terrorism has loomed large over the American consciousness following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Indeed, Mitchell makes the point that it remains unclear whether it will even be possible to maintain public spaces in America's cities in the future given the anonymity such venues provide. For instance, according to Mitchell, just as the homeless are criminalized by broken-window policing because of the tendency of others to commit crimes, so too are ordinary citizens being increasingly held suspect simply by virtue of occupying space in public. In this regard, Mitchell notes that, "The vision of the city promoted by security experts indicates that all people in public will need to be made suspect since there might be some in the city who are terrorists (or even lesser criminals)" (pp. 229-230).

It is reasonable to suggest that in any group of one thousand Americans, there are at least nine hundred who have committed "lesser crimes" and have simply not been caught, another 50 who have been caught and released back into the community and a few would-be or even active terrorists who are bent on destroying American cities so these concerns are not misplaced. What is misplaced, though, is the mindset that by creating a culture of fear in which Americans are prevented from enjoying the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution through these types of draconian policies. In fact, Hitler used a similar strategy in Poland and it is reasonable to suggest that the outcome would be similar if security experts of this mindset were allowed to have their way.

Mitchell, D. and L. Staeheli. "Clean and Safe? Property Development, Public Space, and Homelessness in Downtown San Diego." In Low and Smith, eds., The Politics of Public Space. (p. 143-175)

When it comes to public space in America's cities, the question of what "public" really means become important because not everyone has reasonable access to these spaces. The authors highlight the conflicting interests of developers and city promoters who want exclusionary policies to protect the haves (affluent citizenry) from the have-nots (i.e., the homeless) and the fundamental rights of everyone to enjoy equitable access to public spaces. Moreover, many of the policies that have been a concomitant of urban development have further exacerbated the problem for the homeless because they have involved eliminating the meager resources they had in the form of one-room occupancy hotels, public restrooms, and community shelters. The remaining common areas can no longer be truly regarded as "common" since they increasingly seek to exclude the undesirable elements of society.

Certainly, property owners and developers have a vested interest in ensuring that they experience a reasonable return on their investments, but their interests have expanded to include the ability to enforce arbitrary zoning laws that marginalize the less fortunate residents of American cities. As Mitchell and Staehli emphasize, "When the maintenance and policing of public spaces is handed over to business and property owners, the means by which public space is regulated, and hence the relationships that constitute it as property, are transformed" (p. 151). Because many American cities have made heavy investments in their downtown regions, there is a corresponding push to keep these regions pristine (translated as homeless-free zones) where tourists will not be offended by having to witness the dregs of society while they are otherwise enjoying the best the cities have to offer.