Buy the block Pt.1
When we talk of combating gentrification, there is this impulse to say folks need to buy the block–from rappers and celebrities to everyday people on the come-up. I've been a victim of promoting this idea myself. You see, there's a push for people of color in the hood to become homeowners even when mortgages are above folks' means. As if buying the block was a one-shot solution to the illness of gentrification. Truthfully, "buying the block" has never been enough.
When gentrification is knocking at the door, it's not always hipsters and foreign implants moving into our neighborhoods and raising the rent. Often what affects us the most is happening in neighborhoods blocks away from where we live. It's the rezoning and rapid development of areas where we never even got the option to buy. We're referring to the closed-off waterfronts turned factories and docks–they're all now luxury buildings for those that can afford it.
We experience the ripple effect of hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into these new developments while the surrounding communities–our communities–are slowly maimed. It's not like skipping stones in a pond; it's like cannonballing into a kids-size pool where it's a tsunami for anybody standing idle nearby. It doesn't matter if you own on your block. You're still going to get wet. Once Construction begins, you get the never-ending traffic that comes with that, the hazardous air quality, and non-stop noise pollution. All of this comes with that.
People have been fighting for the betterment of the South Bronx independently for decades through poverty with little funds and resources. Buy back the block? Organizations like Banana Kelly did that in the 70s. We've been "buying the block" since it was burning. And if there's anything to learn, it's not enough. Ownership doesn't mean much when communities are disenfranchised and disengaged despite people owning. It doesn't mean much when the necessary resources to sustain and promote growth in these spaces don't exist. Sure, you can buy, but what good will that do if the entire community lives under the national poverty line and property value is low? How does ownership help mitigate the effects of rapid development when there isn't enough economic development in the region and residents are encouraged to leave the borough to make ends meet?
Housing security is needed but in a place like the South Bronx–it's just not enough. Food insecurity means families spend more on average on the limited food available compared to most other parts of the city. Poorly resourced schools and a lack of recreational spaces push us to spend much more outside our community than we do within the community. Think about this–there was a moment when zero bookstores existed within the Bronx. There is only one currently.
It's always "buy the block!" but what about when corporations pollute drinking water and governments block access to resources located outside our communities? When our public transport system fails and wars across the globe lead to high gas prices. Imagine surviving gentrification only to have your neighborhood garden fall apart due to the massive shadow cast over what was once a vibrant space for growing locally. What happens when a corporation like Fresh Direct opens a huge distribution site in a place like the South Bronx–where asthma rates are already high. Buying the block–even for those who can afford it–comes at a cost. Most of the time, the price is our survivability and sanity. If we make it, our culture doesn't.
I think about towns like Austin (Indiana) and others where manufacturing jobs allowed residents to own in their community only to see industries pull out and shut down completely. The folks in those communities bought the block–still, it wasn't enough. Even as an owner, the lack of economic development and growth in these towns encouraged the next generation to sell cheap and move elsewhere. It's not uncommon–we've also seen this here in NYC–in Harlem and neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy (Brooklyn) and Jamaica (Queens). Sometimes it's influenced by unemployment and private companies that employ locally pulling-out–other times, divestment or failed government projects such as the Cross Bronx Expressway are to blame. People lose hope, fall out of love with the community they once called home, and bounce. In other cases, they stay and fight, but it's never enough. Buying the block is just never enough.
Why taxing the rich isn't enough
If you're reading this then I'm sure that you've also read the latest exclusive from The New York Times. That's right, aside from the $750 in his inaugural year, President Donald J. Trump hasn't paid a dime of federal income tax in the last decade. To many Americans, this is a clear indicator of what's wrong with this nation. The rich continue to get richer through tax loopholes and financial Abracadabra, while average Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. But, what if things were different? What if we banned inheritances, the rich paid enough, and stronger regulations on Wall Street, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, were back in place? I'd like to argue that it still wouldn't be enough.
It's easy to talk about taxation;
Someone who makes more can afford to pay more. At least that is how things are supposed to work. You pay your fair share of taxes and if you've paid more than what’s fair you get a big ol' tax return for overpaying. Dependents, donations, and whether you've fought for this country make your "fair share" smaller. After all, why should you pay the same in taxes as someone with little expenses and no burden right?
Things start to change when wealthy corporations come to the table. Anyone who's worked a 9-5 understands that money doesn't grow on trees. No matter how much work, there is always a limit to how much income you can bring home at any point. For corporations, things are very different.
Corporations produce capital at a faster rate than individual citizens. It’s simple, money makes money faster than people make money. Aside from the millions in tax rebates, Amazon, for example, makes money every second of the day, whether it rains or shines. As Americans, we have a right to be angry every time we hear that a corporation or its owners paid $0 in taxes. A lot of sweat and sacrifice goes into filling the federal budget; Too many hours, too many working to get the short end of the stick.
When it comes to taxes, the assumption is that the more revenue we generate as a nation, the bigger the aid to citizens. Better roads, improved quality of life, healthcare, housing, and education for all. The bigger the budget, the more that we can do. Or the more that we should do.
But where do things stand right now?
In 2019, the federal government spent $4.4 trillion; $3.5T from federal revenues, and borrowing covered those expenses. Individual income taxes contributed the most, while the least came from taxing corporations. Only $230 billion came from corporate income taxes. In 2019, Amazon made $280B in revenues and paid $0 because of a federal tax rebate. $2.13T was the sum of all corporate profits in 2019. Besides the $230B in taxes, $1.9T in profits went to dividends and into creating more wealth (individual and corporate).
The message is clear, the more you produce, the fewer taxes you pay. Since President Trump passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), corporate taxes have gone down 14% from 35% to 21%. TCJA has made it easier for the wealthy to pay less on estate taxes and for corporate buybacks. It's been two years and, we're now feeling the negative impact. There are currently about 13.55M Americans unemployed. When COVID hit, corporations laid off millions and bought back billions in shares. Through the CARES Act, Congress has temporarily banned buybacks for corporations receiving aid. But it's still not enough. That is, the income tax, whether individual or corporate, is still not enough.
Last year most federal funding went to health insurance, social security, and national defense. The least went into healthcare, education, transportation infrastructure, Science, and medical research. We weren't, and in many ways, still aren't prepared for this pandemic. We have the third-largest population in the world but the highest cases of COVID.
When it comes to this pandemic, both parties are to blame. While economic conservativism allowed the curve, liberalism has made it difficult to flatten. We've chewed much more than we could swallow this year. A war against hate, unpacking systemic racism, unemployment, and the death of (RIP) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Let's not forget that we're still in a pandemic and have an upcoming election, oh, and Trump's taxes. That's what started this whole conversation. I had promised that I'd explain why taxing the rich wasn't enough.
Here's the truth
An increase in the federal budget does not equal an improvement in the American quality of life. But by lowering the tax burden on everyday Americans, we put ourselves in a better position to do so. Raising corporate taxes back to 35% would get the ball rolling. Creating stricter penalties for anyone storing profits offshore in tax havens also helps. But even if we did it all, it still wouldn't be enough.
The problem with America isn't a lack of capital, but instead how we distribute it. If our budget increases but distributions remain the same, we won't see much of a difference. Yes, the pie will be bigger, but the quality of life, for the most part, will remain unchanged. Last year our government used $676B of their $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending on defense. Of all non-defense expenditures, only $66B went to healthcare. $136B of those expenses went to Science, technology, agriculture, housing, energy, and others. While $375B went to paying interest on the national debt, an estimated $95B was paid for education and training. It's why COVID hit us so hard. We spend more on health insurance than actual healthcare.
The bottom line is until we change how we spend, more specifically, how our government spends, things will never change. We can, and should, tax corporations at higher rates, but it won't mean a thing unless we change our spending habits.
Gentrification or the 167th steps
Preface: yes, the title is a play on “Salo or 120 days of Sodom”. This piece is about the intended and unintended impact of Hollywood and the film industry on gentrification. Are they a positive force or are they hurting our communities?
If you’re reading this then it means that you’re either a concerned Bronxite or buying into the Insta-moment created by the new “Joker” movie. Now, This isn’t a critique of the film itself or the story, rather it’s a mild look into how films can perpetuate gentrification and encourage outsiders to co-opt the local culture of communities at risk of displacement.
Some time ago Warner Bros. released the trailer for the Joker film and in it were the locally iconic “167 Stairs” as a backdrop for arguably the most memorable scene in the movie; you know, the scene where he’s dancing right on the stairs. There were some comments on the fact that the Bronx was chosen as the primary location to shoot this fictional story but the conversation quickly died down until its release a few weeks ago.
Since the film’s release and quick success, we’ve seen memes, fan art, and also, a sudden influx of people wandering onto those iconic stairs to take selfies and buy into the moment created by the film. Now, that’s more or less to be expected with any film that becomes a favorite, but it’s deeper than that. The iconic and local monument which we’ve always referred to as either “the steps” or “the 167 stairs” is being rebranded, or shall we say, named “the Joker stairs”. People are flooding the stairs to take selfies under #jokerstairs to the degree that it’s even discoverable on Google Maps under that name. Yup, that’s a problem.
It’s a problem when a local monument is claimed by outsiders inspired by a 55-70 million dollar film and co-opted under a different name; It’s literally colonization. 167th Street falls between the Concourse and High Bridge, communities that are currently seeing rampant changes because of their proximity to Manhattan. It’s an immigrant-strong community where people are just trying to get by and now as a result of this film have one more thing to worry about.
It’s not a surprise or coincidence that a film of this magnitude would be released at a time when the community where the film was primarily produced is experiencing gentrification. Let’s dive a bit into that.
Films are a form of artistic expression and storytelling but we mustn’t forget, especially in the case of big studio productions, that they are also intellectual property and as such products of a business. Films require money to produce and a budget, and that all plays a huge role in how the story unfolds. There is the revenue from ticket sales but there is also the money that comes in from product placement. So no, it’s not a coincidence that a particular scene in a movie or Netflix series was shot in a particular location.
Sometimes, writers fuss about where the story needs to unfold but in the case of fictional works, it’s more of a feeling rather than a very specific location. These flexible parts of a screenplay are where product placement works best because it’s such subtle advertising that the story flows without people paying too much attention.
Now, let’s juxtapose it with the current situation here on 167th Street. Would a real estate developer looking to fill vacancies at a new project not want to have a film shot near their development site? Is it not in their best interest to invest $10-$15 million (as did Ford for 3 minutes in Casino Royale) to fill up vacancies in a community where people were previously too afraid to visit?
After all, if we follow real estate trends then any big firm would have purchased any building in that area for pennies on the dollar. So what’s 20-30 million dollars to have a gentrifying community placed as a backdrop for the beloved “JOKER”? especially when you’ve saved on real estate purchases and are benefiting from Opportunity Zone tax incentives. Nothing more than business as usual.
But, to us it’s much more; It means displacement and when you have movies and entertainment complicit in this, it hurts even more. When business is being conducted on the backend that involves us but doesn’t include us, it hurts even more. Business is business but when it involves communities at risk of displacement when there are no safety nets in place to prevent displacement, it’s a dirty business.
So, how can Hollywood and these big production flicks tell a story in a community at risk of displacement without the negatives? Some people would argue that they shouldn’t or can’t.
I’d offer this advice:
Create a fund that comes directly out of the ticket sale revenue to help these communities at risk.
Cast people from the community in the film and hire scouts who will be transparent with the community so that everyone has a fair shot of getting involved.
Stop taking money from real estate developers to shoot films in the communities where they’re gentrifying.
I grew up on 170 (One, Seven, Oh!), it’s the first place I made friends and had a crush. For fellow Bronxites, 167th Street which is literally 3 blocks away is just another part of our community; It’s part of what makes us who we are. But for the Bronx as a whole, it’s part of our DNA and as such a place that we intend on keeping ours. 167th is the street and 167th is the stairs. NO JOKE.