At the end of a weekday, many working Americans watch the clock: 3:45, 4:30, 4:50, 4:55, 4:57, freedom. At the end of a weekday, many working Americans sit in traffic: 5 more exits, 3 more exits, 1 more exit, home. Oh how it feels to be home and isolated from the troubles of the day - the phone calls, the files, the complaints. But for many Americans, that is precisely where the trouble begins. Oh how it feels to be homeless. Pushing papers and flipping burgers almost seems like an escape for many of Seattle’s individuals and families who cannot afford housing in this metropolitan city. While some seek solace in shelters, others are not as fortunate. As a naïve transplant from the suburbs, I found this out the hard way.
Riding on the number four bus headed downtown from Capitol Hill, I sat next to a woman and her two young children. “While I was pregnant with this one” she said nodding to the eldest of the two, “this was home.” Her “home” was under the I-5 James Street overpass. As one of the 2,685 individuals who live and sleep on the streets of Seattle nightly, this single mother-to-be was in desperate need of a true home with walls, running water, and heat. Fortunately, through a series of opportunities and city services, she was able to move from under the freeway to 1 of 10,000 affordable housing units created by the city’s 2002 Seattle Housing Levy.
True, my heart strings were pulled by her story, but I wanted more.
I wanted to know how many units in how many years, in which neighborhoods, and at what cost to the city and its taxpaying citizens. My curiosity had been sparked by her story, but its energy ran on wanting answers. In 2002, city policymakers were able to convince Seattle voters to pass a seven-year, $86 million property tax levy that would provide affordable housing opportunities to low-income residents. It then implemented incentive programs for developers to include moderate to low-income housing units in projects that met certain standards. Program after program, dollar after dollar the city was on a mission.
Compelling stories of hardship and success, I found out, only go so far until the citizens of Seattle want results, numbers, and profits in this day of recession and federal failings. Politicians were accused of bending over for interest groups. Developers were labeled the Big Bad Wolf of the Emerald City. Many people even threw their hands up at the thought of low-income individuals and families living in their neighborhoods, shopping at their stores, and attending their schools. It seems, even today as we approach the 2009 renewal of the levy, as though no one can be pleased.
If people can not be convinced by street to home sweet home stories, the question remained: What economic benefits does affordable housing lend to the public?
Before I argue that affordable housing presents the city with many economic opportunities and benefits, we must first recognize that there is an existing and growing problem of homelessness in Seattle. As companies begin to downsize and budget cut during times of economic stress, Washington State has seen unemployment rise from 6.3 to 7.1% from November to December of 2008. Additionally, many individuals and families are struggling to pay rents and mortgages. In Seattle’s annual One Night Count of homelessness, it was estimated that the number of individuals living on the street increased 2% since the 2008 count while South King County saw a 68% increase and numbers nearly tripled in Kent. Many blogs focused on traveling, like the Virtual Tourist, are host to extended online conversations about the adverse effects of homelessness on tourism in Seattle. While homelessness is preventable and has a direct effect on the city’s economy, many people remain opposed to the development of more low-income housing.
One of the most prominent arguments against the development of affordable housing is that it has the possibility of de-valuing neighborhoods. It is cautioned that with the introduction of moderate and especially low-income housing, property values will drop; newcomers with children will burden the school systems, cost the community more than they pay in taxes, while residential areas will become cramped with pillbox building structures. Many people even worry about the quality of life that affordable housing and its tenants will bring to their streets.
Many of these arguments are based on stereotypes and unreasonable fear. In contrary, the development of affordable housing complexes means a facelift for surrounding areas; it means money that is put into parks and remodeling. Funding that goes to moderate to low-income housing has helped to conceive and execute the philosophy of “smart growth,” which redevelops neglected neighborhoods into communities that are walkable, have ready access to mass transit, and are designed around architecture that is dense and compact but attractively built. Parts of New Jersey have realized the positive effects caused by creating affordable housing. Places like South Orange, Union Township, and Cranford have developments built adjacent to train stations as a modest cure to the region’s overwhelming addiction to the car and low-density sprawl.
Following in its footsteps, Washington State is creating a bill that ensures the close proximity of affordable housing and light-rail lines in South Seattle so that people are able to live and work within the same or nearby communities. Some opponents argue that high-density building would cramp communities and congest streets. This would not be the case with an increase and revitalization of mass transit. People must be able to live and work in the same neighborhood if the economy expects to grow. But why?
The answer is simple: SPRAWL IS NOT AN OPTION.
Low-density sprawl is not an option for a variety of reasons. First, we have already witnessed the housing market crash and mortgages skyrocket. It is not economically viable to families to sell or buy suburban homes, nor can developers create large scale, low-density neighborhoods. The bulldozing has stopped. Above all, investments in affordable and mixed-income residential housing in areas of high employment help keep cities and neighborhoods vibrant and economically strong. Big businesses must come to understand that they can only thrive if skilled workers can afford to live in either their immediate communities, or within easy commuting distance. Productivity is lost when workers have to commute long distances every day. In total, communities without affordable housing choices find themselves losing employers, workers, and a quality of life that comes from an economically diverse environment.
When families and individuals pay more than 30% of their income for housing, they are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. It is important for their sake and the surrounding community, that these households have extra money on necessities. Neighborhoods and businesses financially profit when individual workers such as retail clerks, receptionists, janitors, insurers, teachers, restaurant and construction workers return a part of their income back into the local economy.
Instead of “de-valuing” neighborhoods as some worry, a variety of income levels ensures economic diversity, returns to local businesses, and a generation of large tax surpluses. These communities are not only made up entirely of families but of elderly people, divorced singles, and young couples. With the additional funding acquired through taxes, developers’ incentive programs, and federal spending, many communities and large cities use the money for open space acquisition and additional school programs. In the fall of 2008, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City announced that the city has met its halfway point in its creation or preservation of 165,000 units of housing for low- and moderate-income New Yorkers by 2013. This success is due to “A number of strategies have helped the city reach the halfway point, including rezonings, new financing incentives for developers and the identification of land that city and state agencies own but no longer use.”
But while the successes of the New York City plan have been applauded, many housing activists have argued that it has not kept pace with the shrinking numbers of subsidized apartments in the city. This issue could be countered by employing more construction workers (who would be able to afford living in these neighborhoods) to build more housing complexes. Construction begins immediately, is continual because of contractual commitments, and is funded by all three sectors: the non-profit, the for-profit developers, and federal taxes. Additionally, profits could be made by revitalizing empty industrial sites, desolate shopping malls, and other underused properties. These spaces and the construction jobs that they create are opportunities for economic gains and social redevelopment.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
PETA
The name "PETA" evokes a variety of emotions from its supporters, the neutral-minded, and from those who vehemently oppose its messages. For some, PETA is a tireless machine working to enforce animals rights everywhere, while others feel as those the organization over steps its limits in an offensive and truth distorting manner. It is almost impossible however, to argue that its messages are not powerful and effective.
PETA's Internet homepage is organized and attention grabbing. Instantly, the first three images our eyes are drawn to are a picture of Madonna in fur, a small white rabbit, and a rat looking at us with pleading eyes. You wouldn't think that rats could do that, except that PETA has made it happen. While we may not know how these three images are connected, the importance is that we know that they are and that they appeal to us in one way or another.
Following the homepage to a wide selection of videos, we can pick our choice of topic: cruel companies, domestic animal issues, torture for research, and celebrity faces. As we watch the myriad of videos, our emotions are torn apart, our opinions run up and down, and our stomachs turn inside out. Is it "right" that they show rabbits having their fur torn right off their bodies? What about the kittens and dogs that are unable to open their eyes? They are our beloveds! Is it ethical that we are audience to the spectacle of cows getting their necks slashed once, twice, three times? That is our food!
I believe that PETA is justified in showing their videos. After all, we are not a captive audience to their website. We are able to choose where we click, what we read, and how often. Their message is so polarized because it has to be. They give animals human characteristics so that we grow attached to them and relate to their predicament. Not all people would be persuaded by plain facts, perhaps because we imagine the countless numbers of animals out in the world. Much like statistics about human beings, we are less persuaded by large numbers than by individual stories and suffering.
Something that I find interesting that PETA uses as a tool is the use of "celebrity." Stardom is utilized in order to bring attention to a problem, whether a particular celebrity is encouraging or discouraging certain acts. For instance, their website hosts a list of "Worst Dressed Celebrities of 2009" where we see images of "Hairy-Kate and Trashley" Olson wearing fur vests. In contrast, PETA also uses celebrity to fight against the use of fur for fashion - most notably in pictorial pieces of nude starlets. Alicia Silverstone is featured in PETA's "first-ever naked vegetarian testimonial" and Girl Next Door Playboy model, Holly poses naked while seductively saying that she'd "rather go naked than wear fur." Additionally, the organization's "banned" Super Bowl ad uses sexy women to suggest that studies have found that vegetarians have better sex.
This appeal to nudity and sex is the least effective of all of PETA's campaigns but it does what the organization does best - grab attention. It seems as though PETA strives to shock and awe us. To survive, it must continue to bring horror to its supporters, continually introduce those who may not know, and highlight what opponents might be missing. I think that if a group or individual is going to make an effort to persuade other human beings that animals are important on all levels, it naturally takes some drastic measures. Without these drastic measures, perhaps we wouldn't consider the effects of our actions.
PETA's Internet homepage is organized and attention grabbing. Instantly, the first three images our eyes are drawn to are a picture of Madonna in fur, a small white rabbit, and a rat looking at us with pleading eyes. You wouldn't think that rats could do that, except that PETA has made it happen. While we may not know how these three images are connected, the importance is that we know that they are and that they appeal to us in one way or another.
Following the homepage to a wide selection of videos, we can pick our choice of topic: cruel companies, domestic animal issues, torture for research, and celebrity faces. As we watch the myriad of videos, our emotions are torn apart, our opinions run up and down, and our stomachs turn inside out. Is it "right" that they show rabbits having their fur torn right off their bodies? What about the kittens and dogs that are unable to open their eyes? They are our beloveds! Is it ethical that we are audience to the spectacle of cows getting their necks slashed once, twice, three times? That is our food!
I believe that PETA is justified in showing their videos. After all, we are not a captive audience to their website. We are able to choose where we click, what we read, and how often. Their message is so polarized because it has to be. They give animals human characteristics so that we grow attached to them and relate to their predicament. Not all people would be persuaded by plain facts, perhaps because we imagine the countless numbers of animals out in the world. Much like statistics about human beings, we are less persuaded by large numbers than by individual stories and suffering.
Something that I find interesting that PETA uses as a tool is the use of "celebrity." Stardom is utilized in order to bring attention to a problem, whether a particular celebrity is encouraging or discouraging certain acts. For instance, their website hosts a list of "Worst Dressed Celebrities of 2009" where we see images of "Hairy-Kate and Trashley" Olson wearing fur vests. In contrast, PETA also uses celebrity to fight against the use of fur for fashion - most notably in pictorial pieces of nude starlets. Alicia Silverstone is featured in PETA's "first-ever naked vegetarian testimonial" and Girl Next Door Playboy model, Holly poses naked while seductively saying that she'd "rather go naked than wear fur." Additionally, the organization's "banned" Super Bowl ad uses sexy women to suggest that studies have found that vegetarians have better sex.
This appeal to nudity and sex is the least effective of all of PETA's campaigns but it does what the organization does best - grab attention. It seems as though PETA strives to shock and awe us. To survive, it must continue to bring horror to its supporters, continually introduce those who may not know, and highlight what opponents might be missing. I think that if a group or individual is going to make an effort to persuade other human beings that animals are important on all levels, it naturally takes some drastic measures. Without these drastic measures, perhaps we wouldn't consider the effects of our actions.
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
It is hardly a secret that homelessness is one of the most pressing issues in the city of Seattle today. If it were a secret however, to keep tourism afloat and the gleaming image of the Emerald City alive, then it would not be well kept. Homelessness in Seattle is not whispered nor is it concealed in the shadows of the high-end condo and apartment buildings that have begun to sprout in neighborhoods like Ballard and Capitol Hill. No, instead homelessness is shouted, it is pressed to your face, and tugs on your jacket sleeve. Not even tourists can escape its presence. Places like the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square, often the face of our urban core, have become the front lines of the battle between those asking for spare change and those with the change to spare.
Since the 2008 One Night Count, there has been an estimated 2% increase in the number of homeless people on the streets. This number, though seemingly small, is preventable and affects individuals like you and I on a grand scale. It is the absolute duty of non-profit organizations, for-profit businesses, and the city government to create housing for those without homes that is affordable and available. Between rising rents and mortgages and a state unemployment rate that has reached 7.1%, the problem will only worsen in our city. We must abandon our stereotypes of those who sleep in doorways to realize that many of them struggled to keep homes that very much resemble our own. No longer should the former factory worker who built our cars sleep under the I-5. No longer should the veterans who sacrificed for our country suffer from bitter Seattle winters. No longer should single mothers have to explain to their children why they must sleep in their car again. Shelters are at capacity, especially when Seattle weather does not spare us from rain, or sleet, or snow. Public government housing wait lists only grow longer while availability shrinks smaller.
I call for stronger efforts on the part of non-profits, businesses, and the city government to create partnerships and initiatives that will help to develop more affordable housing throughout Seattle. Such developments should not be designated to specific neighborhoods only, but must be spread throughout the city in order to ensure that individuals and families from all walks of life interact with one another and share the same opportunities for quality food business, access to public transportation, and proximity to places of employment.
But why? Why should these three sectors come together and work through disputes to create more affordable housing? First, we must state the obvious – because all human beings are worthy and deserving of fundamental rights. Having a roof over your head is simply one of those rights, like water and food. Additionally, such projects are proven to create tens of thousands of jobs in the housing and construction industries. While individuals gain more money through employment and are able to save from affordable rents, their income would go back in the economy through spending on both necessities and luxuries. Existing neighborhoods that host successful developments like the Pantages, Stone Way, and the Village Square apartments have become more vibrant, diverse, healthy, and sustainable.
Above all, increased cooperation between non-profits, businesses, and the city of Seattle would help to prevent thousand of families from becoming homeless through rental assistance. Those who were once homeless would once again live safely and comfortably with dignity. As citizens, we must support housing levies, be open to affordable housing developments in our neighborhoods, and encourage for-profit developers and businesses to become involved in a process that could ultimately have a positive effect on their lives along with the 2% of homeless individuals and families living on the streets today. Homelessness is not a secret in Seattle and should not be treated like one.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Vance
It is hardly a secret that homelessness is one of the most pressing issues in the city of Seattle today. If it were a secret however, to keep tourism afloat and the gleaming image of the Emerald City alive, then it would not be well kept. Homelessness in Seattle is not whispered nor is it concealed in the shadows of the high-end condo and apartment buildings that have begun to sprout in neighborhoods like Ballard and Capitol Hill. No, instead homelessness is shouted, it is pressed to your face, and tugs on your jacket sleeve. Not even tourists can escape its presence. Places like the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square, often the face of our urban core, have become the front lines of the battle between those asking for spare change and those with the change to spare.
Since the 2008 One Night Count, there has been an estimated 2% increase in the number of homeless people on the streets. This number, though seemingly small, is preventable and affects individuals like you and I on a grand scale. It is the absolute duty of non-profit organizations, for-profit businesses, and the city government to create housing for those without homes that is affordable and available. Between rising rents and mortgages and a state unemployment rate that has reached 7.1%, the problem will only worsen in our city. We must abandon our stereotypes of those who sleep in doorways to realize that many of them struggled to keep homes that very much resemble our own. No longer should the former factory worker who built our cars sleep under the I-5. No longer should the veterans who sacrificed for our country suffer from bitter Seattle winters. No longer should single mothers have to explain to their children why they must sleep in their car again. Shelters are at capacity, especially when Seattle weather does not spare us from rain, or sleet, or snow. Public government housing wait lists only grow longer while availability shrinks smaller.
I call for stronger efforts on the part of non-profits, businesses, and the city government to create partnerships and initiatives that will help to develop more affordable housing throughout Seattle. Such developments should not be designated to specific neighborhoods only, but must be spread throughout the city in order to ensure that individuals and families from all walks of life interact with one another and share the same opportunities for quality food business, access to public transportation, and proximity to places of employment.
But why? Why should these three sectors come together and work through disputes to create more affordable housing? First, we must state the obvious – because all human beings are worthy and deserving of fundamental rights. Having a roof over your head is simply one of those rights, like water and food. Additionally, such projects are proven to create tens of thousands of jobs in the housing and construction industries. While individuals gain more money through employment and are able to save from affordable rents, their income would go back in the economy through spending on both necessities and luxuries. Existing neighborhoods that host successful developments like the Pantages, Stone Way, and the Village Square apartments have become more vibrant, diverse, healthy, and sustainable.
Above all, increased cooperation between non-profits, businesses, and the city of Seattle would help to prevent thousand of families from becoming homeless through rental assistance. Those who were once homeless would once again live safely and comfortably with dignity. As citizens, we must support housing levies, be open to affordable housing developments in our neighborhoods, and encourage for-profit developers and businesses to become involved in a process that could ultimately have a positive effect on their lives along with the 2% of homeless individuals and families living on the streets today. Homelessness is not a secret in Seattle and should not be treated like one.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Vance
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
On Motherhood
Motherhood - a foreign and frightening idea for a twenty-two year old college student life myself. I can hardly take care of my own responsibilities and indulge in too many selfish weekend escapades to really, truly, sincerely care for any other human being! Just call me selfish. There are however, women who wait their whole lives to become a mother; to finally hold their own child in their arms. It can be a beautiful sight that renders images of the women who have made a difference in our lives. Its concept however, when placed into the dangerous public sphere of controversy and newswires is, in my own opinion, a psychological, social, and physical imprisonment of women everywhere.
We read about Nadya Suleman and call her selfish for being too motherly - the woman just wanted more and more babies! We hear about female soldiers becoming mothers or enlisting already as such and call them selfish as well. Why? They abandon their children to fight for their country. Or what about the argument that they abandon their duties and their country to focus on themselves and their children? Those selfish, selfish women...
On the other hand, motherhood as a concept can be extremely empowering. After all, it is the ultimate power to create a living human being and introduce them to the world. We look to our mothers for advice and learn how to be functioning individuals more often than not through the lessons given to us by them. But despite the wonders of watching your child walk for the first time or or go off to college, motherhood as a concept limits women. You can be a mother or you cannot. Or you can be both, but only within the restrictions created by workplace and societal standards. So while I look up to my own mother, I choose to remain that selfish, childless twenty-two year old woman in order to escape the imprisonment of motherhood.
We read about Nadya Suleman and call her selfish for being too motherly - the woman just wanted more and more babies! We hear about female soldiers becoming mothers or enlisting already as such and call them selfish as well. Why? They abandon their children to fight for their country. Or what about the argument that they abandon their duties and their country to focus on themselves and their children? Those selfish, selfish women...
On the other hand, motherhood as a concept can be extremely empowering. After all, it is the ultimate power to create a living human being and introduce them to the world. We look to our mothers for advice and learn how to be functioning individuals more often than not through the lessons given to us by them. But despite the wonders of watching your child walk for the first time or or go off to college, motherhood as a concept limits women. You can be a mother or you cannot. Or you can be both, but only within the restrictions created by workplace and societal standards. So while I look up to my own mother, I choose to remain that selfish, childless twenty-two year old woman in order to escape the imprisonment of motherhood.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Letter of Intent
Dear Weyerhauser Company Foundation,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Northwest Housing Oranization, a 501(C)(3) organization that works to increase low-income housing in the city of Seattle. Specifically, we build and support low-income housing programs in Seattle's Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, and Beacon Hill neighborhoods. Our organization intends to create safe and inclusive communities for individuals and families that are at risk of becoming or are currently homeless. For over twelve years we have successfully built and restored eleven high and low rise apartment buildings as well as six traditional houses in order to create what everyone fundamentally derserves - a home.
Currently, we are developing a plan that would create a fifty person apartment complex in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on the block of 13th Avenue and Jefferson Street. This housing project will provide a safe environment for single parent families to live and create supportive community. As studies show, single parent families are four times as likely to become homeless as those supported by two adults. Additionally, homelessness for single family households has climbed 2% every year since 2006 within Seattle. The requirements to live in the 13th and Jefferson apartment complex would include: a past history of homelessness within the family, no criminal drug records, and a total family income of less than $25,000 a year. We intend to being building on May 26th, 2009 and finish by September 15th 2009.
Attached is a detailed form that provides a budgetary breakdown of how we intend on carrying out a greatly needed project. Please consider the information we have provided and the Seattle families that depend on organizations like our own, Northwest Housing Organization. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I am writing to you on behalf of the Northwest Housing Oranization, a 501(C)(3) organization that works to increase low-income housing in the city of Seattle. Specifically, we build and support low-income housing programs in Seattle's Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, and Beacon Hill neighborhoods. Our organization intends to create safe and inclusive communities for individuals and families that are at risk of becoming or are currently homeless. For over twelve years we have successfully built and restored eleven high and low rise apartment buildings as well as six traditional houses in order to create what everyone fundamentally derserves - a home.
Currently, we are developing a plan that would create a fifty person apartment complex in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on the block of 13th Avenue and Jefferson Street. This housing project will provide a safe environment for single parent families to live and create supportive community. As studies show, single parent families are four times as likely to become homeless as those supported by two adults. Additionally, homelessness for single family households has climbed 2% every year since 2006 within Seattle. The requirements to live in the 13th and Jefferson apartment complex would include: a past history of homelessness within the family, no criminal drug records, and a total family income of less than $25,000 a year. We intend to being building on May 26th, 2009 and finish by September 15th 2009.
Attached is a detailed form that provides a budgetary breakdown of how we intend on carrying out a greatly needed project. Please consider the information we have provided and the Seattle families that depend on organizations like our own, Northwest Housing Organization. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Grant Writing
In every nation, city, and small town we as a people recognize that each person deserves some basic fundamental rights. Some of thoses would include food and water, but what I am most concerned about is shelter. Despite the apparent and immediate need for housing in city's like Seattle, many people and families go without sufficient housing. While homes provide the most simple aspect of a person's livelihood, like having a roof over your head, they are also the centers of our worlds, of our existence as a family. Without proper housing, many people lose this sense of connectedness and are at serious risk socially, physically,and psychologically.
What I propose is more funding to non-profits in order to increase the amount of housing that would respond to our city's serious need. With available funds, small pocket communities could be formed throughout Seattle in a way that integrates low-income individuals and families with moderate and high income tenents. By doing so we would create a sense of inclusion and immediate resources to provide happy, healthy, and safe lives.
What I propose is more funding to non-profits in order to increase the amount of housing that would respond to our city's serious need. With available funds, small pocket communities could be formed throughout Seattle in a way that integrates low-income individuals and families with moderate and high income tenents. By doing so we would create a sense of inclusion and immediate resources to provide happy, healthy, and safe lives.
Fashion Forward
I am Top Romine dinners. I am free ketchup packets at McDonald’s. I am “take what you can get from relatives that live nearby.” Above everything, I am a starving college student. Tooth brushes last too long and grocery store coupons litter the face of my refrigerator. Despite living in a house that rejects the heater to save on utility bills, I am high fashion. Marc Jacobs, Vivienne Westwood, Yves Saint Laurent, and Coco Chanel are all dear friends of mine – except for the fact that they do not know me. It is also a little problematic that two of my four “dear friends” no longer walk among us or the iconic celebrity models that they helped to create. What I am really trying to say, is that although I cannot afford high end threads nor fulfill my lifelong dream of spending Parisian nights in Indian silks, I live to learn, consume, and break down all things fashion. One may read this piece or know me personally and think, “She has no real experience in the fashion world” but I ask you, what is the fashion world? Is it defined by solid borders or is it a nebulous heaven-like place somewhere in Milan? And if you happen to find out, could you please take me there?
Jokes and late night wondering aside, I find myself believing that I am an expert on matters of fashion – whether they are critiques of London, New York, or Berlin’s recent fashion shows or analysis of everyday wear on the streets of Seattle. To be engulfed by the world of fashion and to have an authoritative opinion on it, one needn’t be in the epicenter of its madness. I study from afar, but I study well. My day starts and ends with a thorough scanning of fashion blogs; some are created in the cluttered rooms of college students like myself and others are professionally written and hosted by publications like The New York Times. Additionally, my bookshelves are lined and my bedroom floor is stacked high with books on Cold War German fashion, stage make-up by famed artist Kevin Aucoin, and Vogue magazines dating back for years. This love, this passion, this thirst for fashion began, I do not doubt, with my first home sewn dress made in the seventh grade with the help of my aunt Kathy.
Since then, I have been a strong believer that fashion inspires minds both young and old to think critically about design and artistic philosophy, as does it encourage creative everyday habits. When traveling I note and photograph different interpretations of fashion and the means by which people from around the world choose to express themselves. There is absolute beauty in cultural diversity. By being a devout follower of the fashion world, I am not only an outsider looking in, but an integral part of its creation, building process, and influence on others.
One place in the worldwide web that has helped to drive my love for fashion is on Scott Schumann’s blog “The Sartorialist.” Selected as one of Time Magazine’s top 100 design influencers, enlisted by Style.com for six running seasons, and as a permanent New York Times online contributor, Schumann has had an effect both on exclusive runway elites as well as on everyday folks like myself. His blog (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com) is home to countless photographs of people from around the world that have an interesting and innate taste for fashion. There are plaids mixed with polka dots, five inch heels and trench coats, Parisians in Central Park, and dapper old men on bicycles. Some individual photos live under witty titles and others survive by Schumann’s acute attention to detail. We, as early morning and late night voyeurs, spy on everyday New Yorkers with lattes and social royalty with what else? Lattes. The Sartorialist is divided between the years and their months, but also by categories like “My favorites,” “Scenes of New York,” “Bicycles,” and “Men in Paris.”
Schumann’s blog however, is not focused on the written. In fact, the less words the better. How is this persuasive, then? Isn’t he missing the ticket by depriving his audience of his years of fashion industry know-how? I argue not. The Sartorialist leaves us with straight forward and catchy titles, few and brief pieces of explanations, but most importantly, photographic eye candies that have over time created an influential and persuasive narrative. This blog relies on “the power of the visual.” Its narrative is a series of fantasy themes for which Schumann’s audience aspires for. We see his models on Florence bridges and know that “with those 1930’s vintage shoes and that Lavin couture dress I could live their lives, too!” The scene is set - New York park benches, Parisian alleyways, and that famous Florence bridge. The characters are chosen – the beautiful, the intriguing, the fashion forward. The plotline to Schumann’s narrative screams, “People from around the world! Come forth and witness creative design! Together we can change the face of our day with opaque stockings and trimmed leather jackets!” With these aspects, we actively participate with the designer, photographer, and creator.
First, we look. We are fashion voyeurs looking in on a different world through our computer screens and a camera lens. We are distant and critical, but at the same time we share a common ground of interest. The interest lies in the lives of others and the fantasy world of fashion. We talk amongst our friends, “Did you see the third picture from Wednesday’s submission with the Italian man in the purple coat? Great structure.” We criticize and applaud within our own minds, “The Swedish girl in the simple black dress reflects the country’s dedication to minimalism and simple elegance.” We are inspired and we are persuaded. The effectiveness of his overall message is founded in close to mid-range photographs so that we have a visual on the full person as well as specific pieces of detail. The background is unimportant, yet we are intrigued by the bystanders watching as well as the setting of whichever city he happens to be in. We are given emotions through Schumann and his lens from his subjects. Some people smile, others laugh, while occasionally some do not know that we see them at all. The images connect us to different cultures and to worldly fantasies. How does one man travel from Brussels to London to Hong Kong so quickly? How does he find such beautiful people everywhere?
Questions remain and others are answered, but it does not matter in the persuasive narrative of Scott Schumann because we are always evolving with him as a part of his work, yet separately as we find our own creative ways. His persuasion lives within The Sartorialist’s photographs and as we have all heard said before, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” And this starving college student is glad that it doesn’t cost one thousand dollars.
Jokes and late night wondering aside, I find myself believing that I am an expert on matters of fashion – whether they are critiques of London, New York, or Berlin’s recent fashion shows or analysis of everyday wear on the streets of Seattle. To be engulfed by the world of fashion and to have an authoritative opinion on it, one needn’t be in the epicenter of its madness. I study from afar, but I study well. My day starts and ends with a thorough scanning of fashion blogs; some are created in the cluttered rooms of college students like myself and others are professionally written and hosted by publications like The New York Times. Additionally, my bookshelves are lined and my bedroom floor is stacked high with books on Cold War German fashion, stage make-up by famed artist Kevin Aucoin, and Vogue magazines dating back for years. This love, this passion, this thirst for fashion began, I do not doubt, with my first home sewn dress made in the seventh grade with the help of my aunt Kathy.
Since then, I have been a strong believer that fashion inspires minds both young and old to think critically about design and artistic philosophy, as does it encourage creative everyday habits. When traveling I note and photograph different interpretations of fashion and the means by which people from around the world choose to express themselves. There is absolute beauty in cultural diversity. By being a devout follower of the fashion world, I am not only an outsider looking in, but an integral part of its creation, building process, and influence on others.
One place in the worldwide web that has helped to drive my love for fashion is on Scott Schumann’s blog “The Sartorialist.” Selected as one of Time Magazine’s top 100 design influencers, enlisted by Style.com for six running seasons, and as a permanent New York Times online contributor, Schumann has had an effect both on exclusive runway elites as well as on everyday folks like myself. His blog (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com) is home to countless photographs of people from around the world that have an interesting and innate taste for fashion. There are plaids mixed with polka dots, five inch heels and trench coats, Parisians in Central Park, and dapper old men on bicycles. Some individual photos live under witty titles and others survive by Schumann’s acute attention to detail. We, as early morning and late night voyeurs, spy on everyday New Yorkers with lattes and social royalty with what else? Lattes. The Sartorialist is divided between the years and their months, but also by categories like “My favorites,” “Scenes of New York,” “Bicycles,” and “Men in Paris.”
Schumann’s blog however, is not focused on the written. In fact, the less words the better. How is this persuasive, then? Isn’t he missing the ticket by depriving his audience of his years of fashion industry know-how? I argue not. The Sartorialist leaves us with straight forward and catchy titles, few and brief pieces of explanations, but most importantly, photographic eye candies that have over time created an influential and persuasive narrative. This blog relies on “the power of the visual.” Its narrative is a series of fantasy themes for which Schumann’s audience aspires for. We see his models on Florence bridges and know that “with those 1930’s vintage shoes and that Lavin couture dress I could live their lives, too!” The scene is set - New York park benches, Parisian alleyways, and that famous Florence bridge. The characters are chosen – the beautiful, the intriguing, the fashion forward. The plotline to Schumann’s narrative screams, “People from around the world! Come forth and witness creative design! Together we can change the face of our day with opaque stockings and trimmed leather jackets!” With these aspects, we actively participate with the designer, photographer, and creator.
First, we look. We are fashion voyeurs looking in on a different world through our computer screens and a camera lens. We are distant and critical, but at the same time we share a common ground of interest. The interest lies in the lives of others and the fantasy world of fashion. We talk amongst our friends, “Did you see the third picture from Wednesday’s submission with the Italian man in the purple coat? Great structure.” We criticize and applaud within our own minds, “The Swedish girl in the simple black dress reflects the country’s dedication to minimalism and simple elegance.” We are inspired and we are persuaded. The effectiveness of his overall message is founded in close to mid-range photographs so that we have a visual on the full person as well as specific pieces of detail. The background is unimportant, yet we are intrigued by the bystanders watching as well as the setting of whichever city he happens to be in. We are given emotions through Schumann and his lens from his subjects. Some people smile, others laugh, while occasionally some do not know that we see them at all. The images connect us to different cultures and to worldly fantasies. How does one man travel from Brussels to London to Hong Kong so quickly? How does he find such beautiful people everywhere?
Questions remain and others are answered, but it does not matter in the persuasive narrative of Scott Schumann because we are always evolving with him as a part of his work, yet separately as we find our own creative ways. His persuasion lives within The Sartorialist’s photographs and as we have all heard said before, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” And this starving college student is glad that it doesn’t cost one thousand dollars.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
To Ms. Goodloe-Johnson:
To put a price on education is to jeopardize the future of our community's youth as well as that of the city. You sought the board's approval in late October to consider closing schools this coming June because of the state of our nation's economy. Have you considered however, that budding minds are priceless? The way that children develop, be it what they think or how they think, is not done quickly and we should not be as careless as to make any final decision regarding the future of our educational institutions in such a haste.
With such an outcry from the community, are you deaf to its passionate opposition? The issue cannot be resolved by way of numbers and digits. The issue is not quantifiable by counting funds and squeezing budgets. To address this issue, we must look at the quality of our chlildren's education. Instead of improving programs and rebuilding a deteriorating system, you choose to build on top of an un-sound foundation. Look to the roots of the problem, the struggling communities surrounding the closing schools, and what is at stake for our future.
To put a price on education is to jeopardize the future of our community's youth as well as that of the city. You sought the board's approval in late October to consider closing schools this coming June because of the state of our nation's economy. Have you considered however, that budding minds are priceless? The way that children develop, be it what they think or how they think, is not done quickly and we should not be as careless as to make any final decision regarding the future of our educational institutions in such a haste.
With such an outcry from the community, are you deaf to its passionate opposition? The issue cannot be resolved by way of numbers and digits. The issue is not quantifiable by counting funds and squeezing budgets. To address this issue, we must look at the quality of our chlildren's education. Instead of improving programs and rebuilding a deteriorating system, you choose to build on top of an un-sound foundation. Look to the roots of the problem, the struggling communities surrounding the closing schools, and what is at stake for our future.
College Humor Lacks
If you want cookie-cutter humor, the College Humor Show has it. If you want juvenile pranks enveloped in lack luster dialogue, this is the place to be. Screaming, pies to the face, and the degradation of women drive this *NEW*EXCITING*INNOVATIVE* show hosted by (who else?) MTV.
Did I mention the degradation of women? The only significant role played by a female character, Sarah, is within in a cast of seven men. She is constantly being put down for her un-appealing and un-sexy looks. She is plain. She is built like a tomboy. She is...normal. While Sarah is often portrayed as the intellect of the group, what she says is disregarded - her presence is not important. Additionally, any other women within the show are portrayed as mindless "sexy" college girls who, at times, travel in zombie-like packs. The message that the College Humor establishment sends about women includes today's staff pick, "POV: Hot Girl. Get inside her. Deep inside her." Real classy.
If we even pretended as if this was not an issue within the narrative the College Humor Show, there still remains the problem of an overall horrible production. Sure, its show makes us laugh (myself occasionally included) however, it has already been done. "Jackass," anyone? Office humor? Try the overwhelmingly successful show, "The Office." Done and done. The College Humor Show has been if anything, regurgitated to cling to what's left of the minds of today's budding university intellects. If we wanted to dig to the center of the show's core, we wouldn't get far. It's quality lies on the surface as an expected, slapstick shtick that degrades not only the role of women within society, but the overall quality of thinking and level of criticism within our minds.
Did I mention the degradation of women? The only significant role played by a female character, Sarah, is within in a cast of seven men. She is constantly being put down for her un-appealing and un-sexy looks. She is plain. She is built like a tomboy. She is...normal. While Sarah is often portrayed as the intellect of the group, what she says is disregarded - her presence is not important. Additionally, any other women within the show are portrayed as mindless "sexy" college girls who, at times, travel in zombie-like packs. The message that the College Humor establishment sends about women includes today's staff pick, "POV: Hot Girl. Get inside her. Deep inside her." Real classy.
If we even pretended as if this was not an issue within the narrative the College Humor Show, there still remains the problem of an overall horrible production. Sure, its show makes us laugh (myself occasionally included) however, it has already been done. "Jackass," anyone? Office humor? Try the overwhelmingly successful show, "The Office." Done and done. The College Humor Show has been if anything, regurgitated to cling to what's left of the minds of today's budding university intellects. If we wanted to dig to the center of the show's core, we wouldn't get far. It's quality lies on the surface as an expected, slapstick shtick that degrades not only the role of women within society, but the overall quality of thinking and level of criticism within our minds.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Stasis
Building more affordable housing throughout the city of Seattle will help to improve the failing economy. I argue that this is because it will 1). create more jobs in engineering and construction, 2). alleviate budgets of low-income individuals so that they have more money to return to the economy and 3). encourage the development of local businesses. Additionally, it will increase the flow of funds between non-profits, for-profit businesses, and the city government.
Debate Response
Not being one entirely educated on the viaduct controversy, I hardly know where to begin. I felt as though the in-class debate was extremly helpful in clearly explaining the opposing arguments of the issue. When it came to the vote however, I sided with James in favor of building the viaduct. This was mostly because of its opportunity to create more jobs. In doing so, people will be able to not only survive with rising costs of food, rent, etc but will also have the funds to put back into the economy. By creating more jobs, we are building better lives.
What concerns me however, is where the funds are coming from exactly. In order to more people that this is a good idea, I think that there needs to be a clear budget presented to the public. Is the money for the viaduct being taken from the public schools closing? I doubt that they are, but it is always important to be re-assured.
What concerns me however, is where the funds are coming from exactly. In order to more people that this is a good idea, I think that there needs to be a clear budget presented to the public. Is the money for the viaduct being taken from the public schools closing? I doubt that they are, but it is always important to be re-assured.
Final MAP
The American home is a brownstone in Brooklyn, a stucco two-story in Los Angeles, a studio in Portland, and a double-wide in Phoenix. It is brick walls and tiled roves, modern decorum and thrift store finds. Regardless of the physical make-up of a house, the memories, traditions, and values within it create a home. One could almost argue that the home is where we begin to define ourselves to ourselves as well as to greater society. Home is our last refuge after a long day at work, but also the centerpiece to family gatherings both large and small. We set our own visual narrative to the home through Norman Rockwell paintings, but also through images of houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The American home however, sometimes struggles to exist. After Hurricane Katrina for example, many houses that were homes to the poor, the elderly, and the disabled were torn down out of necessity, but re-built for the middle and upper class advantage. In a December 2007 article about dangerous confrontations in New Orleans over housing demolition, The New York Times reported that “the federal government is beginning this week to tear down thousands of apartments in the city’s four biggest public housing projects” because, as some see it, “the government’s real aim was to keep the poor, mostly female, almost entirely black residents of public housing from returning to their city, to their homes.” Others argue that it was time for an economic boost in the area. The destruction of the American home however, does not always occur through natural disasters. With the help of an economic crisis, that has raised unemployment in Washington State to 7.1%, many individuals and families are struggling to pay rents and mortgages. In Seattle’s annual One Night Count of homelessness, “Volunteers counted 2,826 people sleeping in vehicles, structures and doorways and under overpasses, among other areas.” These numbers indicate a 2% increase since the 2008 count. Additionally, South King County saw a 68% increase while numbers nearly tripled in Kent. Like a repetitive nightmare, America is seeing many of the same problems of the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. While individuals and families on all economic levels are struggling, those who were already in the midst of personal financial crisis are beginning to feel the weight of a nation; they are losing their homes, their refuge and family strongholds.
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why the demand for affordable housing is rising. Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. Regardless of whose interest is what, the issue of low income housing in Seattle takes shape through different definitions of community and how we may approach them to help those in need.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate income housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of the high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the site’s 481 low income-housing units and replaced them with 1,010 new homes which were created for moderate income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city. It was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs for low income residents almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act, as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, non-renewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income individuals will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy” that would also provide green jobs and improve energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have shown that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Wells believe that “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate that sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those who would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
Additionally, in not addressing their opponents’ arguments, the articles ignore the issue of “community” in terms of who defines it and in what ways. Yes, they argue for more low income housing and for valid reasons, but what specific effects will take place in the community? What about claims of rising crime rates? Will creating communities of low income housing keep families in poverty or provide support systems? Many people believe that in building large low income developments, criminals have a large pool of so-called victims to choose from. Moreover, it is also believed that individuals and families are not exposed to a wide range of economic opportunities and are basically trapped in “projects” apart from “the rest of” society. These articles merely introduced the need for housing in Seattle and did a fine job, but could have strengthened their arguments by citing success stories of low income developments that have been integrated into high income neighborhoods or even communities on the rise. As readers, we need to be better informed on where these particular communities are situated, what makes them successful, and why Seattle would benefit from an increase in their development.
In contrast, opponents to their articles do address the negative effects of increased low-income housing. Lyn Tangen, director of government and community relations for the Seattle based project management company, Vulcan Inc. argues that an incentive-zoning program to increase low-income housing could result in no redevelopment at all. This is, she claims, “because there would be no economic incentive to take advantage of the bonus.” Tangen worries that this program would slow business growth and create a decline in high-paid, skilled jobs. Additionally, she argues that the incentive-zoning program would not work in many parts of the city. Tangen supports her claims with quotes from Planning and Land Use Committee members, other city officials, and the mayor’s consultant, Heartland – all of which have issue with the program. She criticizes Mayor Nickels push for the plan last summer when the real estate market was “red hot” but does not offer much more concrete information other than “some Seattle condos have been put on auction for half of their asking price.” Overall, she believes that increased low-income development in particular parts of the city will deliver a stifling blow to economic development.
What is interesting about her argument however, is that she cites Vulcan’s contribution to low-income housing in the past - $6 million dollars to build a project in South Lake Union. While Tangen disapproves of certain low income development in specific parts of Seattle, she supported “housing needs and development rights for a building that will fit well in the gateway to downtown.” Her article is an example of the varying grey areas within the debate. As an advocate for the business community, Tangen is invested in creating economically sound developments based on location and community. The efforts of Vulcan and other corporations like it however, are hardly far-reaching. Some argue that their “community investments” a mere bones thrown to gain support. In focusing on economic cause and effect, or the loci of the existent, Tangen ignores the fight for the greater good. A problem still remains that could, I would argue, affect Vulcan’s future development. What if the city beats these businesses to land purchasing opportunities and excludes their interests entirely? Perhaps opponents to city-wide development should re-consider definitions of “community.” Should they help to spread low income housing throughout the city for the benefit of all, or create small contained developments that hinder economic growth in specific neighborhoods?
In developing and defining inclusive neighborhoods, all opinions must be taken into consideration. For example, business leaders who refuse to have a hand in helping to shape future projects risk government control that has proven to make more than a few missteps. In a Time article titled, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” author Madison Gray explores the government’s short comings in the affordable housing debate. Gray’s article does not necessarily oppose low-income housing, but is wary of state and federal programs, like Norman and Tierney’s, that put renters, businesses, and entire communities at risk. The programs are likely to give struggling building owners the opportunity to opt out of housing subsidy contracts in the wake of our economic crisis and mortgage meltdown. “According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as many as 13,000 Section 8 contracts,” those that support low-income development, “will expire by 2013.” Who will be affected? Madison cites Michael Bodaken, executive director of the National Housing Trust, who says that about 1.5 million apartments housing between three and five million people will be affected. But building owners and landlords nationwide say that they are suffering from “HUD fatigue” –frusteration with having to work through government bureaucracy in order to receive subsidies; payments which, many claim, are consistently late.
Again, we find that the debate over low-income housing is a gray one. Madison’s article does not openly oppose affordable housing. In fact, she supports it more than anything, but finds that government programs like those of the Department of Housing and Urban Development help to break struggling families’ backs by disregarding their needs and crumbling under economic pressures. Madison even argues by way of community activists that “a mass opt-out by landlords would leave many poor people with only one alternative of receiving HUD vouchers to help pay their rents.” The federal voucher system, she claims, has its advantages but the wait to qualify is extremely long and landlords are not required to accept them. Like all of the articles leading up to our final piece, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” presents a well defined argument but leaves out possible opportunities, partnerships, and solutions. Yes, there is an evident need for low-income housing nationally and locally, but how to you propose that we go about doing it? Should we rely on government developments? Federal subsidies and programs? Clearly not. Should we look to community business leaders for support? Not entirely. Madison’s article was a well written criticism that leaves us wanting more. Unlike Tangen, Madison includes the quantity loci but is not productive in igniting a fire beneath her assumed readers.
So what? We have heard from those who complain about business ethics and corporations’ lack of investment, those who question the economic benefits of developing low-income housing, and those who do not trust the government to serve its own people. It is evident that within our current financial crisis, there is a growing need to serve the struggling. Their faces and stories vary but their pleas are all equally important. They are seniors living on fixed incomes, working class individuals, families living on the edge of homelessness and they all need a roof over their heads. It is time to stop the finger point and begin a productive dialogue that suits the needs of all parties. There is opportunity enough for businesses to profit, non-profits to be served, and government programs to be strengthened.
Conversation needs to begin first and foremost by finding ways to feed the need and in a way that is financially sound. There is the possibility for the government to create programs for for-profit developers that involves evolving and profitable “green” construction. City centers like downtown Seattle can become more developed so that individuals can walk to work without jamming freeways. Additionally, with more people living downtown, the economy could be boosted by building more than just one or two grocery stores – or even businesses that do not catering only to the Belltown elite. Ultimately, the issue at hand and conclusion that we must come to is an answer to: How will we define community in Seattle by including low income housing? Already projects have been created by organizations like Capitol Hill Housing Project that have made this particular neighborhood inclusive when it comes to those living in both high and low income brackets. It is time to make this kind of development widespread through Seattle through the collaboration of both for and non-profits as well as federal, state and city government. In doing so, families will be able to survive, businesses will thrive, and the down-and-out will not be cast out of the community like the un-deserving.
Work Cited
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment: December 2008.” United States Department of Labor. Released January 27, 2009. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_01272009.pdf (accessed February 1, 2009).
Eaton, Leslie. “In New Orleans, Plans to Raze Low-Income Housing Draws Protests.” New York Times, December 2007, U.S. section, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/nationalspecial/14orleans.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=low-income%20housing&st=cse.
Eskenazi, Stuart. “City oversight of low-income housing project sought.” The Seattle Times, July 31 2001, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010731&slug=rainier31m.
Iwasaki, John. “Homeless count rises.” Seattle PI, January 30 2009, Local section, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/398138_homeless31.html.
Madison, Grey, “Low-income housing: Another crisis looming,” Time, September 18, 2009.
Navarro Wells, Mia and Myers, Rachael. “Preventing homelessness with economic stimulus.” The Seattle Times, January 23, 2009, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008664331_opinc24wells.html.
Norman, Stephen and Tierney, Tom. “Wise to invest in public housing.” The Seattle Times, January 8, 2009, Opinion section.
Press Release October 10, 2007, “House of Representatives Passes Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act,” House Committee on Financial Services, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press1010072.shtml (accessed February 1, 2009).
Tangen, Lyn. “Seattle’s proposal to boost affordable housing would in fact discourage it.” The Seattle Times. December 15, 2009.
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why the demand for affordable housing is rising. Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. Regardless of whose interest is what, the issue of low income housing in Seattle takes shape through different definitions of community and how we may approach them to help those in need.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate income housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of the high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the site’s 481 low income-housing units and replaced them with 1,010 new homes which were created for moderate income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city. It was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs for low income residents almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act, as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, non-renewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income individuals will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy” that would also provide green jobs and improve energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have shown that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Wells believe that “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate that sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those who would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
Additionally, in not addressing their opponents’ arguments, the articles ignore the issue of “community” in terms of who defines it and in what ways. Yes, they argue for more low income housing and for valid reasons, but what specific effects will take place in the community? What about claims of rising crime rates? Will creating communities of low income housing keep families in poverty or provide support systems? Many people believe that in building large low income developments, criminals have a large pool of so-called victims to choose from. Moreover, it is also believed that individuals and families are not exposed to a wide range of economic opportunities and are basically trapped in “projects” apart from “the rest of” society. These articles merely introduced the need for housing in Seattle and did a fine job, but could have strengthened their arguments by citing success stories of low income developments that have been integrated into high income neighborhoods or even communities on the rise. As readers, we need to be better informed on where these particular communities are situated, what makes them successful, and why Seattle would benefit from an increase in their development.
In contrast, opponents to their articles do address the negative effects of increased low-income housing. Lyn Tangen, director of government and community relations for the Seattle based project management company, Vulcan Inc. argues that an incentive-zoning program to increase low-income housing could result in no redevelopment at all. This is, she claims, “because there would be no economic incentive to take advantage of the bonus.” Tangen worries that this program would slow business growth and create a decline in high-paid, skilled jobs. Additionally, she argues that the incentive-zoning program would not work in many parts of the city. Tangen supports her claims with quotes from Planning and Land Use Committee members, other city officials, and the mayor’s consultant, Heartland – all of which have issue with the program. She criticizes Mayor Nickels push for the plan last summer when the real estate market was “red hot” but does not offer much more concrete information other than “some Seattle condos have been put on auction for half of their asking price.” Overall, she believes that increased low-income development in particular parts of the city will deliver a stifling blow to economic development.
What is interesting about her argument however, is that she cites Vulcan’s contribution to low-income housing in the past - $6 million dollars to build a project in South Lake Union. While Tangen disapproves of certain low income development in specific parts of Seattle, she supported “housing needs and development rights for a building that will fit well in the gateway to downtown.” Her article is an example of the varying grey areas within the debate. As an advocate for the business community, Tangen is invested in creating economically sound developments based on location and community. The efforts of Vulcan and other corporations like it however, are hardly far-reaching. Some argue that their “community investments” a mere bones thrown to gain support. In focusing on economic cause and effect, or the loci of the existent, Tangen ignores the fight for the greater good. A problem still remains that could, I would argue, affect Vulcan’s future development. What if the city beats these businesses to land purchasing opportunities and excludes their interests entirely? Perhaps opponents to city-wide development should re-consider definitions of “community.” Should they help to spread low income housing throughout the city for the benefit of all, or create small contained developments that hinder economic growth in specific neighborhoods?
In developing and defining inclusive neighborhoods, all opinions must be taken into consideration. For example, business leaders who refuse to have a hand in helping to shape future projects risk government control that has proven to make more than a few missteps. In a Time article titled, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” author Madison Gray explores the government’s short comings in the affordable housing debate. Gray’s article does not necessarily oppose low-income housing, but is wary of state and federal programs, like Norman and Tierney’s, that put renters, businesses, and entire communities at risk. The programs are likely to give struggling building owners the opportunity to opt out of housing subsidy contracts in the wake of our economic crisis and mortgage meltdown. “According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as many as 13,000 Section 8 contracts,” those that support low-income development, “will expire by 2013.” Who will be affected? Madison cites Michael Bodaken, executive director of the National Housing Trust, who says that about 1.5 million apartments housing between three and five million people will be affected. But building owners and landlords nationwide say that they are suffering from “HUD fatigue” –frusteration with having to work through government bureaucracy in order to receive subsidies; payments which, many claim, are consistently late.
Again, we find that the debate over low-income housing is a gray one. Madison’s article does not openly oppose affordable housing. In fact, she supports it more than anything, but finds that government programs like those of the Department of Housing and Urban Development help to break struggling families’ backs by disregarding their needs and crumbling under economic pressures. Madison even argues by way of community activists that “a mass opt-out by landlords would leave many poor people with only one alternative of receiving HUD vouchers to help pay their rents.” The federal voucher system, she claims, has its advantages but the wait to qualify is extremely long and landlords are not required to accept them. Like all of the articles leading up to our final piece, “Low-Income Housing: Another Crisis Looming?” presents a well defined argument but leaves out possible opportunities, partnerships, and solutions. Yes, there is an evident need for low-income housing nationally and locally, but how to you propose that we go about doing it? Should we rely on government developments? Federal subsidies and programs? Clearly not. Should we look to community business leaders for support? Not entirely. Madison’s article was a well written criticism that leaves us wanting more. Unlike Tangen, Madison includes the quantity loci but is not productive in igniting a fire beneath her assumed readers.
So what? We have heard from those who complain about business ethics and corporations’ lack of investment, those who question the economic benefits of developing low-income housing, and those who do not trust the government to serve its own people. It is evident that within our current financial crisis, there is a growing need to serve the struggling. Their faces and stories vary but their pleas are all equally important. They are seniors living on fixed incomes, working class individuals, families living on the edge of homelessness and they all need a roof over their heads. It is time to stop the finger point and begin a productive dialogue that suits the needs of all parties. There is opportunity enough for businesses to profit, non-profits to be served, and government programs to be strengthened.
Conversation needs to begin first and foremost by finding ways to feed the need and in a way that is financially sound. There is the possibility for the government to create programs for for-profit developers that involves evolving and profitable “green” construction. City centers like downtown Seattle can become more developed so that individuals can walk to work without jamming freeways. Additionally, with more people living downtown, the economy could be boosted by building more than just one or two grocery stores – or even businesses that do not catering only to the Belltown elite. Ultimately, the issue at hand and conclusion that we must come to is an answer to: How will we define community in Seattle by including low income housing? Already projects have been created by organizations like Capitol Hill Housing Project that have made this particular neighborhood inclusive when it comes to those living in both high and low income brackets. It is time to make this kind of development widespread through Seattle through the collaboration of both for and non-profits as well as federal, state and city government. In doing so, families will be able to survive, businesses will thrive, and the down-and-out will not be cast out of the community like the un-deserving.
Work Cited
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment: December 2008.” United States Department of Labor. Released January 27, 2009. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/laus_01272009.pdf (accessed February 1, 2009).
Eaton, Leslie. “In New Orleans, Plans to Raze Low-Income Housing Draws Protests.” New York Times, December 2007, U.S. section, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/nationalspecial/14orleans.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=low-income%20housing&st=cse.
Eskenazi, Stuart. “City oversight of low-income housing project sought.” The Seattle Times, July 31 2001, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010731&slug=rainier31m.
Iwasaki, John. “Homeless count rises.” Seattle PI, January 30 2009, Local section, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/398138_homeless31.html.
Madison, Grey, “Low-income housing: Another crisis looming,” Time, September 18, 2009.
Navarro Wells, Mia and Myers, Rachael. “Preventing homelessness with economic stimulus.” The Seattle Times, January 23, 2009, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008664331_opinc24wells.html.
Norman, Stephen and Tierney, Tom. “Wise to invest in public housing.” The Seattle Times, January 8, 2009, Opinion section.
Press Release October 10, 2007, “House of Representatives Passes Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act,” House Committee on Financial Services, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press1010072.shtml (accessed February 1, 2009).
Tangen, Lyn. “Seattle’s proposal to boost affordable housing would in fact discourage it.” The Seattle Times. December 15, 2009.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Underdog Vs. Husky Tradition
To be the underdog is to not be held up to dazzling expectations and shining moments in history. To be the underdog is to be beaten, discouraged and ignored. If Seattle University's men's basketball team expects to make it in DI, they should also expect to remain the underdog for a while longer. They will walk into the spotlight and be shamed. They will dance on the basketball court time and time again, but lose game, after game, after game. Not all is lost in losing, however.
Each time that the bigger team takes the win, SU's basketball team will learn why. In struggling as the underdog, they will see what makes a success versus a failure. The team is proud to climb the division ladder and should remain so as they are shown what it takes to succeed in D1. Surviving as the underdog means struggling with head above water until breaking through with a fresh breath of air.
Each time that the bigger team takes the win, SU's basketball team will learn why. In struggling as the underdog, they will see what makes a success versus a failure. The team is proud to climb the division ladder and should remain so as they are shown what it takes to succeed in D1. Surviving as the underdog means struggling with head above water until breaking through with a fresh breath of air.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
MAP Rough Draft
The American home is a brownstone in Brooklyn, a stucco two-story in Los Angeles, a studio in Portland, and a double-wide in Phoenix. It is brick walls and tiled roves, modern decorum and thrift store finds. Regardless of the physical make-up of a house, the memories, traditions, and values within it create a home. One could almost argue that the home is where we begin to define ourselves to ourselves as well as to greater society. Home is our last refuge after a long day at work, but also the centerpiece to family gatherings both large and small. We set our own visual narrative to the home through Norman Rockwell paintings, but also through images of houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The American home however, sometimes struggles to exist. After Hurricane Katrina for example, many houses that were homes to the poor, the elderly, and the disabled were torn down out of necessity, but re-built for the middle and upper class advantage. In a December 2007 article about dangerous confrontations in New Orleans over housing demolition, The New York Times reported that “the federal government is beginning this week to tear down thousands of apartments in the city’s four biggest public housing projects” because, as some see it, “the government’s real aim was to keep the poor, mostly female, almost entirely black residents of public housing from returning to their city, to their homes.” Others argue that it was time for an economic boost in the area. The destruction of the American home however, does not always occur through natural disasters. With the help of an economic crisis, that has raised unemployment in Washington State to 7.1%, many individuals and families are struggling to pay rents and mortgages. In Seattle’s annual One Night Count of homelessness, “Volunteers counted 2,826 people sleeping in vehicles, structures and doorways and under overpasses, among other areas.” These numbers indicate a 2% increase since the 2008 count. Additionally, South King County saw a 68% increase while numbers nearly tripled in Kent. Like a repetitive nightmare, America is seeing many of the same problems of the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. While individuals and families on all economic levels are struggling, those who were already in the midst of personal financial crisis are beginning to feel the weight of a nation; they are losing their homes, their refuge and family strongholds.
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why is the demand for affordable housing rising? Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. The debate has been divided down the middle, to build or not to build, but there still remain complexities that take the controversy into all areas of grey.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the sites 481 low-income-housing units and replaced them with 1, 010 new homes, which were targeted at moderate-income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city; it was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low-income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate-income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate-income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low-income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, nonrenewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low-income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income people will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy, providing green jobs and improving energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have be proven to show that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Well believe that, “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate-income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate the sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low-income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
We must ask what kind of a response the writers were seeking to evoke anyway. In my opinion, the two articles address the same topic and seek similar goals but were written for different audiences. For example, in “Wise to invest in public housing” Norman and Tierney were writing, I believe, for an audience of city officials and the citizens of Seattle who would be able to affect legislature through the vote. Their piece appealed to the emotional through the loci of the quantity, “Public housing serves more than 3 million people nationally.” They rely on “disparity” and the idea of inequality to generate an awareness for a need. Perhaps they write to bring about a feeling of guilt, the idea would make a voter or city official think, “Gee, I have my home and safety net but 3 million people plus rely on public housing and more remain on waiting lists!” Norman and Tierney do not fail to mention the kinds of people affected by homelessness and a lack of housing - seniors living on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, low-wage workers and families with children.
Wells and Myers on the other hand, have created a more ambiguous piece that argues for the movement of Congress, but do not provide any vehicles for readers to use in order to take action should they agree with their argument. Yes, Congress should use this money in this fund
So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why is the demand for affordable housing rising? Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. The debate has been divided down the middle, to build or not to build, but there still remain complexities that take the controversy into all areas of grey.
As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the sites 481 low-income-housing units and replaced them with 1, 010 new homes, which were targeted at moderate-income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city; it was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low-income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate-income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”
Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate-income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low-income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, nonrenewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low-income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income people will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.
Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy, providing green jobs and improving energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have be proven to show that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Well believe that, “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate-income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate the sagging economy.
All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low-income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.
We must ask what kind of a response the writers were seeking to evoke anyway. In my opinion, the two articles address the same topic and seek similar goals but were written for different audiences. For example, in “Wise to invest in public housing” Norman and Tierney were writing, I believe, for an audience of city officials and the citizens of Seattle who would be able to affect legislature through the vote. Their piece appealed to the emotional through the loci of the quantity, “Public housing serves more than 3 million people nationally.” They rely on “disparity” and the idea of inequality to generate an awareness for a need. Perhaps they write to bring about a feeling of guilt, the idea would make a voter or city official think, “Gee, I have my home and safety net but 3 million people plus rely on public housing and more remain on waiting lists!” Norman and Tierney do not fail to mention the kinds of people affected by homelessness and a lack of housing - seniors living on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, low-wage workers and families with children.
Wells and Myers on the other hand, have created a more ambiguous piece that argues for the movement of Congress, but do not provide any vehicles for readers to use in order to take action should they agree with their argument. Yes, Congress should use this money in this fund
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Narrative Introduction
At the end of a weekday, many working Americans watch the clock: 3:45, 4:30, 4:50, 4:55, 4:57, freedom. At the end of a weekday, may working Americans sit in traffic: 5 more exits, 3 more exits, 1 more exit, home. Oh how it feels to be home and isolated from the troubles of the day - the phone calls, the files, the complaints. But for many Americans, that is precisely where the trouble begins. Oh how it feels to be homeless. Pushing paper and flipping burgers almost seems like an escape for the x percent of Seattle individuals and families who cannot afford housing in this metropolitan city. Sitting on the number four bus headed downtown from Capitol Hill, I sat next to a woman and her two young children. "While I was pregnant with this one" she says nodding to the eldest of the two, "this was home." Under the I-5 overpass. Home. At the end of the weekday, this annonymous, selfless mother was happy to return to her new home in a low-income apartment complex on Broadway Avenue and Pine.
That's so girl wearing a skirt as a shirt
I would dare to make the sweeping generalization that everyone has said or been apart of a conversation when something was "so gay" or someone was a "fag" for doing or not doing something. Living with three boys and a few of our adopted roommates, almost everything revolves around this language in one way or another. Homework - so gay. Traffic tickets - twice as gay. Cleaning the bathroom? You could only imagine. The fact of the matters is however, that these words have become a part of a vernacular un-phased by Ad Council campaigns. This is our new culture, whether you like it or not. Like time, you cannot "un-do" existing language. Phase it out? Yes. But with what? More words that mean the same. As a society there will always be words that thrive on our fears, that further stereotypes, and become embedded in our everyday conversations.
The Ad Council's "Think B4 You Speak" campaign is a valaiant effort, but one that I think should be revised. Answer me this - are 15 year old boys likely to listen to Hilary Duff? Wanda Sykes? Although I wish, I also doubt. The effectiveness of these ads reaches our lived lives in that they are visually appealing and speak to the truth of a problem. The artistry is well played (*see attractive celebrity personalities and teenage actors, interesting scenes, and engaging dialogue) but the problem, I believe, is that they do not reach to the level of seriousness. The narrative is so light-hearted that I think it fails to address just how hurtful and destructive this language can be.
On the other hand, I also believe that this series of ads is a smooth and easy introduction to the issue at hand. In terms of creating and developing political behavior and identity, "Think B4 You Speak" opens up the doors to the idea that words do mean more than what they seem and that they do have effects, regardless of what we may think. For young students, these ads help to identify an existing problem and the support resources that address them.
The Ad Council's "Think B4 You Speak" campaign is a valaiant effort, but one that I think should be revised. Answer me this - are 15 year old boys likely to listen to Hilary Duff? Wanda Sykes? Although I wish, I also doubt. The effectiveness of these ads reaches our lived lives in that they are visually appealing and speak to the truth of a problem. The artistry is well played (*see attractive celebrity personalities and teenage actors, interesting scenes, and engaging dialogue) but the problem, I believe, is that they do not reach to the level of seriousness. The narrative is so light-hearted that I think it fails to address just how hurtful and destructive this language can be.
On the other hand, I also believe that this series of ads is a smooth and easy introduction to the issue at hand. In terms of creating and developing political behavior and identity, "Think B4 You Speak" opens up the doors to the idea that words do mean more than what they seem and that they do have effects, regardless of what we may think. For young students, these ads help to identify an existing problem and the support resources that address them.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hooking-up: an ominous threat
In his opinion piece "Hook-Up Culture" written for the Tufts Daily, student Jack Grimes argues for the restoration of what he defines as dating in an attempt to erase the "cold soulless, heartless, loveless business" of one night stands and commitmentless sex. His article is founded on the idea that our youth's culture is so entralled with "hooking-up" for its basic physical pleasures that college students are at risk of becoming dead to the ache within for intimacy.
Additionally, he believes that one night stands and the like are "inextricably tied up with the emotional." I would argue that Grimes weakens his claim by arguing that everyone wants to be loved through an act of deepest intimacy. He believes that everyone wants seeks such a level of gratification that "the porno fiend fabricates it and the rapist steals it." This is, in my opinion, a gross overgeneralization. First, not everyone looks for intimacy at this level. Many people are pleased with being deeply intimate on a non-physical level. How is it that Grimes only finds "intimacy" through sexual experiences? We must look outside the box. Secondly, I would also argue that there are those who are seeking to escape intimacy through careless sexual encounters. In all, the writer greatly limits his argument with such an overgeneralization.
Additionally, I find a post hoc fallacy in Grimes' belief that one night stands and casual sex are causes that would effectually be the death of true intimacy within our culture. He argues "if this" then "that" and again greatly limits his argument. But where do Grimes' ideas stem from anyway? I believe that his article is so weaak in its claims and is written without any factual reasoning because it comes from a single point of view that does not include opposing ideas. I was turned off from "Hook-Up Culture" so to speak, because it was written from a college student, who may not be completely educated on the topic. The frat boy, heterosexual paradigm that calls women "unpaid prostitutes" uses an ad hominem to attack women's characters as mindless tools to be at men's leisure.
In all, Grimes's article is filled with fallacies that weaken his argument while demeaning women on his quest to break down "hook-up culture" and build up traditional intimacy.
Additionally, he believes that one night stands and the like are "inextricably tied up with the emotional." I would argue that Grimes weakens his claim by arguing that everyone wants to be loved through an act of deepest intimacy. He believes that everyone wants seeks such a level of gratification that "the porno fiend fabricates it and the rapist steals it." This is, in my opinion, a gross overgeneralization. First, not everyone looks for intimacy at this level. Many people are pleased with being deeply intimate on a non-physical level. How is it that Grimes only finds "intimacy" through sexual experiences? We must look outside the box. Secondly, I would also argue that there are those who are seeking to escape intimacy through careless sexual encounters. In all, the writer greatly limits his argument with such an overgeneralization.
Additionally, I find a post hoc fallacy in Grimes' belief that one night stands and casual sex are causes that would effectually be the death of true intimacy within our culture. He argues "if this" then "that" and again greatly limits his argument. But where do Grimes' ideas stem from anyway? I believe that his article is so weaak in its claims and is written without any factual reasoning because it comes from a single point of view that does not include opposing ideas. I was turned off from "Hook-Up Culture" so to speak, because it was written from a college student, who may not be completely educated on the topic. The frat boy, heterosexual paradigm that calls women "unpaid prostitutes" uses an ad hominem to attack women's characters as mindless tools to be at men's leisure.
In all, Grimes's article is filled with fallacies that weaken his argument while demeaning women on his quest to break down "hook-up culture" and build up traditional intimacy.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Yellow is the IN color of 2009
Above the Seattle Times headline “Jobless jolt hits Seattle area, state” is a picture of a smiling, waving Michelle Obama dressed in her yellow Isabel Toldeo dress. "'In' color for 2009...is yellow" is what reads next to her image although, other prestigious publications like the BBC online edition call the “jury out” on her inauguration style. Headlines of the century? I think not. Among other infatuations with the First Family are Sasha and Malia dolls, Obama cupcakes, rap songs made into remixes of the President’s inauguration speech, and t-shirts – oh, the t-shirts! Obama’s face has become an iconic symbol painted onto canvas, sprayed onto walls and posters, printed on t-shirts, and frosted onto baked goods. Impressive, I know, but what does this mean to a country in crisis? Is there any real substance in an image or mass product goods?
It is hard not to be swept up in the wave of excitement that has overcome our nation since November 4th, 2008 but we must ask if what we truly find inspiration in is the Obama message or image. He is young and fit but is anyone really listening to what he says? The Inauguration Day itself was a sight to be seen but what of it? As a nation facing an economic crisis and a long running war abroad, I argue that we must not be blinded by the fresh new paint on the White House. Instead, we must remain critical of our government and their actions. Not all is solved with the introduction of a new leader. The fairytale hasn't necessarily come true - yet. So while Michelle Obama's style is appealing and Sash and Malia capture our hearts, American citizens should remember what is at stake. Perhaps publications like the Seattle Times and the BBC should be more careful in what they select as "news." Obama-mania is intriguing but it is not the narrative of our lives. News media should not lessen the importance and seriousness of today's politics by trading it in for articles proclaiming Michelle's "in" yellow as the color of 2009.
It is hard not to be swept up in the wave of excitement that has overcome our nation since November 4th, 2008 but we must ask if what we truly find inspiration in is the Obama message or image. He is young and fit but is anyone really listening to what he says? The Inauguration Day itself was a sight to be seen but what of it? As a nation facing an economic crisis and a long running war abroad, I argue that we must not be blinded by the fresh new paint on the White House. Instead, we must remain critical of our government and their actions. Not all is solved with the introduction of a new leader. The fairytale hasn't necessarily come true - yet. So while Michelle Obama's style is appealing and Sash and Malia capture our hearts, American citizens should remember what is at stake. Perhaps publications like the Seattle Times and the BBC should be more careful in what they select as "news." Obama-mania is intriguing but it is not the narrative of our lives. News media should not lessen the importance and seriousness of today's politics by trading it in for articles proclaiming Michelle's "in" yellow as the color of 2009.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Aesthetic Imperative
In her article, The Aesthetic Imperative, Virginia Postrel writes that we, citizens of the 20th century's future, still value function in our everyday "things" (be it computers, stores, or kinds of dress) but are increasingly attracted to the aesthetically pleasing. She argues that what was once seen as an "unnecessary luxury" or "special indulgence" is now seen as a necessary form of expression. Not only do our iPods house our own personal tastes in music, but they do it in a variety of colors - white, light grey, dark grey, purple, yellow, orange, red, blue, green, pink, and black. But why? Why devote so much energy into making our "stuff" so visually and audibly pleasing?
Postrel believes that function no longer stands alone because our sensory side is "as valid a part of our nature as the capacity to speak or reason." She points in the direction of biology as a reason for acting this way - for needing to interact with the sensory experience. In her argument, Postrel looks to psychologists in order to support her argument; we perceive changes, they say, through sensory outputs. But even everyday shoppers feel this way. A Utah grocery store customer finds her shopping experience much more appealing after the store received a facelift, regardless of the fact that the items did not change. In saying "the environment offers something special" Postrel claims that aestheticism is an increasingly important value within our society. By enlisting professionals and everyday consumers, Postrel attempts to get to the center of this curious transformation.
While we layer our sensory perceptions and their emotional appeals onto ordinary functions, Postrel argues that we must not confuse our increasing interest in aesthetic pleasure with other values or the "narrative" of the story. I am in agreement with this point out of the fear that what is aesthetic is not always sound. We must use reason to navigate life or end up by way of the dodo. Will a basic mp3 player outlive a multi-colored iPod? Sometimes these dilemas are much more consequential. For example, a car may have the sleakest design but is it the safest? Are we willing to give up safety features for aesthetic pleasure? In beauty pagents, where the best aesthetics are literally the reigning queens, we are pleased with what we visually see but what about beyond that? The women in Miss Universe have increasingly begun to look like one another...except that they're from different countries! I argue that, like Postrel, that choosing aethetic pleasures over true value could lead to dire consequences and a devaluing of even our own society and culuture.
Postrel believes that function no longer stands alone because our sensory side is "as valid a part of our nature as the capacity to speak or reason." She points in the direction of biology as a reason for acting this way - for needing to interact with the sensory experience. In her argument, Postrel looks to psychologists in order to support her argument; we perceive changes, they say, through sensory outputs. But even everyday shoppers feel this way. A Utah grocery store customer finds her shopping experience much more appealing after the store received a facelift, regardless of the fact that the items did not change. In saying "the environment offers something special" Postrel claims that aestheticism is an increasingly important value within our society. By enlisting professionals and everyday consumers, Postrel attempts to get to the center of this curious transformation.
While we layer our sensory perceptions and their emotional appeals onto ordinary functions, Postrel argues that we must not confuse our increasing interest in aesthetic pleasure with other values or the "narrative" of the story. I am in agreement with this point out of the fear that what is aesthetic is not always sound. We must use reason to navigate life or end up by way of the dodo. Will a basic mp3 player outlive a multi-colored iPod? Sometimes these dilemas are much more consequential. For example, a car may have the sleakest design but is it the safest? Are we willing to give up safety features for aesthetic pleasure? In beauty pagents, where the best aesthetics are literally the reigning queens, we are pleased with what we visually see but what about beyond that? The women in Miss Universe have increasingly begun to look like one another...except that they're from different countries! I argue that, like Postrel, that choosing aethetic pleasures over true value could lead to dire consequences and a devaluing of even our own society and culuture.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
God hates fags.
If I didn’t know any better, I would think that the Westboro Baptist Church was a joke – a laugh out loud, feel your belly roar joke. They are so passionate about their hateful “message” that it all almost seems satirical. No other church dares to affiliate with them and most Americans do not even understand where their ideas stem from. “You’re going to HELL” does not in the least scare nor threaten me mostly because it is shouted from disillusioned cult members. Arguing that “Fags eat poop” is a fact also makes me laugh. Maybe it’s because of the word “poop.” Say it again, I will probably laugh. Poop. Haha. Perhaps I find humor in such an accusation because they are serious. I cannot remember the last time that I used “poop” to strengthen my argument against someone. Should I come across such picketing on the street, I would probably stop to take a picture – like finding Mickey Mouse at Disneyland, it’s a rare gem. Tell a classroom full of college students to research the Westboro Baptist Church and you’ll just have to wait a few minutes before you hear giggles and jokes.
But I cannot completely disregard their actions. Shocking, I know. Truth be told, what WBC does is remind Americans that our freedom to speech lives on. To silence their absurd messages would mean giving more power to the government and the masses to shut down anything that "offends." That is why I believe we should remember to listen and constructively converse with Phelps and his members. While they disregard most people's opinions and lack respect for most other human beings, we cannot dismiss them entirely. I would be interested in engaging in a conversation or following a debate with them for the sake of better understanding their actions and beliefs. We cannot completely disregard individuals as human beings simply because they seem crazy. Additionally, the Westboro Baptist Church also serves as a reminder for perhaps our own ignorance. Their limited respect and acceptance of others could bring to light the fact that maybe we ourselves are closed minded to different lifestyles and cultures. The Westboro Baptist Church is a reflection of our own culture. They are a piece of our history and socialized thought that should be explored and analyzed more - not disregarded simply as a laugh out loud, feel your belly roar joke.
But I cannot completely disregard their actions. Shocking, I know. Truth be told, what WBC does is remind Americans that our freedom to speech lives on. To silence their absurd messages would mean giving more power to the government and the masses to shut down anything that "offends." That is why I believe we should remember to listen and constructively converse with Phelps and his members. While they disregard most people's opinions and lack respect for most other human beings, we cannot dismiss them entirely. I would be interested in engaging in a conversation or following a debate with them for the sake of better understanding their actions and beliefs. We cannot completely disregard individuals as human beings simply because they seem crazy. Additionally, the Westboro Baptist Church also serves as a reminder for perhaps our own ignorance. Their limited respect and acceptance of others could bring to light the fact that maybe we ourselves are closed minded to different lifestyles and cultures. The Westboro Baptist Church is a reflection of our own culture. They are a piece of our history and socialized thought that should be explored and analyzed more - not disregarded simply as a laugh out loud, feel your belly roar joke.
MIA #1
At one point or another, many of us have heard or seen the phrase “Home is where the heart is” and would also generally accept it as true. After all, “home” is where most people create their first memories of childhood or yearn to return to after a long day at work. When it comes to the debate over building low-income housing in downtown Seattle and its surrounding neighborhoods however, opinions are divided around the legitimacy of these specific homes and to what effect they would have on the community. On one side of the street so to speak, city politicians and housing advocates argue that housing affordability is a fundamental right that should be shared across the board. Opponents however, such has for-profit developers and specific groups of residents and business owners, believe that low-income housing proposals and tax levies are government infringements that only provide “modest answers” to a much larger, even nebulous, problem.
Even as our economy dwindles, the need for affordable housing will continue to grow and remain as an imminent dilemma. For example, the City of Seattle spends about $40 million annually to address the issue of homelessness; a problem that could be tackled by creating affordable homes for families and individuals alike. The 2008 One Night Count of the Homeless in King County found that there had been a 15 percent increase from 2007. Neighborhoods that were once affordable are witnessing a transitioning “face lift” that tailors to a more gentrified, upper-middle class. Additionally, family shelters are turning away families on daily basis due to a lack of space. Will we change our fundamental value to rest on “My car is where the heart is” or “Underneath bridges is where the heart is?” Doesn’t sound quite right, does it?
As a believer in increasing affordable housing, I argue that we should utilize city proposals and tax levies as a means of supporting non-profit organizations working with low-income housing. This will also include for-profit developers in an evolution of thought and business practice. Since 1980, Seattle residents have consistently supported city tax measures that help to soften the impact of rising rents. Why should we continue to do so? First, because we can all agree that having a home is a necessity as well as an individual’s and a family’s fundamental right. Secondly, increasing low-income housing within the city gives people more immediate access to their needs like groceries, banks, and hospitals without having to rely on cars for transportation. Finally, developing more homes and apartments for people who make less than $43,000 annually (80% of median income) within an urban atmosphere allows for more employments opportunities. Select residents and for-profit developers should realize that this is not a city just for them, but for all citizens who deserve a certain standard of life.
While many people agree that everyone deserves an equal standard of livelihood, others feel strongly about what they have and still do work for. Opponents to an increase in low-income housing feel as thought city taxes and proposals for development directly infringe on their rights. As a doubter of such measures like the 2008 affordable-housing proposal, which collected $20 million from commercial and residential developers, I believe that government puts too much responsibility on hard-working citizens and should not control private business interests. “Incentive zoning” is an interference on commercial practices that does not offer any incentives to add affordable units. They could even drive businesses away and deter potential home buyers from considering certain neighborhoods and developments. Already, some residents have objected to a disproportionate share of lower-income housing in their neighborhoods because it could lower the value of their own homes or change the face of their existing communities.
In a December 2008 Seattle Times piece by Emily Heffter, she supports measures that increase affordable housing in Seattle but criticizes the way in which the city manages funds collected by commercial and residential developers. Her article addresses the existing problems, but also realizes many shortcomings of both its supporters and opponents. For example, Heffter writes that while taxes have been collected to begin the many projects for low-income housing, city officials have worked inefficiently with both time and money. Heffter responds to the question of “So now what?” The city has its funds to support its programs, but problems does it still face? In my opinion, articles by the Time and P.I. are largely in support of increasing low-income housing, but many of their readers who respond with online comments remain skeptical and critical. Although some funds have been collected and there is substantial support behind affordable-housing projects, there still remains an existing conflicting and a mismanagement of details.
Even as our economy dwindles, the need for affordable housing will continue to grow and remain as an imminent dilemma. For example, the City of Seattle spends about $40 million annually to address the issue of homelessness; a problem that could be tackled by creating affordable homes for families and individuals alike. The 2008 One Night Count of the Homeless in King County found that there had been a 15 percent increase from 2007. Neighborhoods that were once affordable are witnessing a transitioning “face lift” that tailors to a more gentrified, upper-middle class. Additionally, family shelters are turning away families on daily basis due to a lack of space. Will we change our fundamental value to rest on “My car is where the heart is” or “Underneath bridges is where the heart is?” Doesn’t sound quite right, does it?
As a believer in increasing affordable housing, I argue that we should utilize city proposals and tax levies as a means of supporting non-profit organizations working with low-income housing. This will also include for-profit developers in an evolution of thought and business practice. Since 1980, Seattle residents have consistently supported city tax measures that help to soften the impact of rising rents. Why should we continue to do so? First, because we can all agree that having a home is a necessity as well as an individual’s and a family’s fundamental right. Secondly, increasing low-income housing within the city gives people more immediate access to their needs like groceries, banks, and hospitals without having to rely on cars for transportation. Finally, developing more homes and apartments for people who make less than $43,000 annually (80% of median income) within an urban atmosphere allows for more employments opportunities. Select residents and for-profit developers should realize that this is not a city just for them, but for all citizens who deserve a certain standard of life.
While many people agree that everyone deserves an equal standard of livelihood, others feel strongly about what they have and still do work for. Opponents to an increase in low-income housing feel as thought city taxes and proposals for development directly infringe on their rights. As a doubter of such measures like the 2008 affordable-housing proposal, which collected $20 million from commercial and residential developers, I believe that government puts too much responsibility on hard-working citizens and should not control private business interests. “Incentive zoning” is an interference on commercial practices that does not offer any incentives to add affordable units. They could even drive businesses away and deter potential home buyers from considering certain neighborhoods and developments. Already, some residents have objected to a disproportionate share of lower-income housing in their neighborhoods because it could lower the value of their own homes or change the face of their existing communities.
In a December 2008 Seattle Times piece by Emily Heffter, she supports measures that increase affordable housing in Seattle but criticizes the way in which the city manages funds collected by commercial and residential developers. Her article addresses the existing problems, but also realizes many shortcomings of both its supporters and opponents. For example, Heffter writes that while taxes have been collected to begin the many projects for low-income housing, city officials have worked inefficiently with both time and money. Heffter responds to the question of “So now what?” The city has its funds to support its programs, but problems does it still face? In my opinion, articles by the Time and P.I. are largely in support of increasing low-income housing, but many of their readers who respond with online comments remain skeptical and critical. Although some funds have been collected and there is substantial support behind affordable-housing projects, there still remains an existing conflicting and a mismanagement of details.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Holding our breath.
Holding our breath, we cannot help but try and imagine what is waiting to greet our newly elected president and the country that chose him. January 20th will be President Obama's moment of truth - to fail or not to fail? It is inevitable however, that he will not escape criticism and will have to bear the burden of so many wishful people. For all of those struggling families mentioned in his emotional speeches along the campaign trail, will he live up to his promises? Were their stories, their lives used for career advancement or progress as a nation? Older generatitons remember newly elected leaders that held the faith of the nation in one hand while they crossed their fingers on the other. Younger generations, including my friends and peers, fling themselves on to the man who encapsulates the idea of a new day. January 20th will be a new day not to live in doubt and regret from past misdeeds created and left by a self-serving administration. Instead, it will be a moment to briefly reflect then turn on our heels and march towards a better future. For that we will hold our breath until we have arrived.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Daily Assignment #1
With their text, They Say/I Say Graff and Birkenstein hope to introduce a certain kind of writing formula to students and developing writers so that they may become more engaged in critical thinking and discussion. They argue that by enlisting their "they say___, I say ___" formula, we can move beyond our own ideas in order to listen and respond to others. In this way, we as better writers give power to a constant global conversation that allows everyone to be heard and everything to be discussed. Professor Bammert's course description also calls for writing that is analytical and reflective. By first evaluating others' arguments and developing our skills at analyzing, we may begin to become writers that use language to inspire change and more fully understand one another. Both arguments about academic writing and rhetoric rely on the idea of language and communication as a tool to analyze our world and promote thoughtful arguments.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Michele Obama's DNC Speech
During her speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama did not talk to the American people but with them. By recalling intimate moments with her husband and newborn child as well as stories told to her by people from around the nation, she created a sense of trust that most politicians would pay for and a level of humbleness that others could only dream of. What Michelle Obama did was develop an emotional and inclusive, yet concrete message through story telling. We as viewers suddenly found ourselves in an understanding relationship with a woman that most of us have never even met.
As our new found friend, what advice did Michelle offer to us? She told her audience, presumably working class families, to never let go of the American dream. After all, Michelle's own father never let her doubt that she was loved or that she could go to college. Her speech reminded us that this dream endures in both her and Barack's values, the future of her own two daughters, and American families from across the country. While she finds inspiration in the women who pioneered the 19th amendment as well as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Michelle encouraged her own audience to find the same in her husband, Barack. To have faith in him is to find inspiration, a dream, and change to make the country a better one.
Michelle Obama's speech did nothing to belittle the opposing party nor did it put her White House ready family on a platform. Instead, she spoke to the nation as an average American looking for a better future. She spoke soft enough to allow us to get to know her, but appeared assured enough to remind us of her confidence and readiness. While she was as elegant as a modern day Jacqueline Kennedy, she also tripped on her words and sounded like, well, you or me. Her speech told us that she is us, we are her, and together we make a nation ready to move on with the leadership of a man just like the rest of us - Barack Obama.
As our new found friend, what advice did Michelle offer to us? She told her audience, presumably working class families, to never let go of the American dream. After all, Michelle's own father never let her doubt that she was loved or that she could go to college. Her speech reminded us that this dream endures in both her and Barack's values, the future of her own two daughters, and American families from across the country. While she finds inspiration in the women who pioneered the 19th amendment as well as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Michelle encouraged her own audience to find the same in her husband, Barack. To have faith in him is to find inspiration, a dream, and change to make the country a better one.
Michelle Obama's speech did nothing to belittle the opposing party nor did it put her White House ready family on a platform. Instead, she spoke to the nation as an average American looking for a better future. She spoke soft enough to allow us to get to know her, but appeared assured enough to remind us of her confidence and readiness. While she was as elegant as a modern day Jacqueline Kennedy, she also tripped on her words and sounded like, well, you or me. Her speech told us that she is us, we are her, and together we make a nation ready to move on with the leadership of a man just like the rest of us - Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)