Do Not Go Gentry Into That Good Night (Part II)

So far, we've discussed the most common government "solutions" to the problems caused by the former government "solutions" to so-called urban blight, namely (1) the construction of new middle-class housing; and (2) the encouragement of urban homesteading, under the umbrella term "revitalization". The former solution generally involves the construction of modern-day Potemkin villages, where all is well within the gates and all is darkness and anarchy without. The latter solution yields up "diverse" neighborhoods that are, in short, white by day and black by night. And both solutions have an air of artificiality about them. Without constant government support and subsidizing -- "enhanced law enforcement" -- PR campaigns -- and other forms of care and feeding, these settlements would be on very shaky ground indeed. They are very like pioneer settlements, in that without a lifeline to the more civilized centers, they would be vulnerable to the predations of the natives and other natural forces.

Fortunately, government "help" has been shown to be far from indispensable in this matter. It turns out that, under the right conditions -- like, an opportunity to make money -- the private sector can be persuaded, by its own reasoning and not by government bribes or sanctions, to take an interest in the revitalization process. And this typically happens not on a neighborhood basis, or even a block basis, but one commercial lot or residential doorway at a time. And the push into these areas is not accomplished in the delusional way government does it, i.e. by parachuting people in behind enemy lines. The transformation is accomplished from the fringes, or the gray areas, using already-settled blocks or streets as anchor points and venturing in only as far as one can without taking inordinate risks. So, for example, a Whole Foods store (giving credit where credit is due, because they have been just about as successful at this as any enterprise in the country) buys up a large commercial lot a few blocks into the "marginal" neighborhood. Not right on the very edge (already too expensive), but not in the interior either. They set up a store, which not only serves the already-settled area on one side, but serves as an anchor point for new settlement in the other direction. At the same time, some low-risk-averse, "trendy" enterprises are starting to open up in storefronts and old warehouses -- coffee shops, third-world ethnic restaurants (think: Ethiopian), night clubs (gay and "whatever"), art galleries, "performance art" venues, off-off-Broadway playhouses, "art" cinemas, etc. With any luck, an "experimental school" opens up. And while this is going on, we have _individuals and couples_ buying _single dwellings_ to fix up, move into, and maybe "flip" later on so they can start the process over again down the street. Now, this idyllic picture is not some pie-in-the-sky utopian dream; I saw it happening, exactly as described, in a part of Washington DC between DuPont Circle and Logan Circle, in the late 1990's and early 2000's. And the area being settled crossed the notorious "14th Street riot corridor" which had been an undeclared no-man's-land since the "troubles" of the 1960s. And here's the point. The city -- i.e. the taxpayer -- was not on the hook for any of this. All risk was assumed by the people doing the settling. But guess what, they were all making money -- some a little, some a lot -- but the effort was paying off. And did the neighborhood change overnight? Absolutely not. After two or three years it was still funky, gritty, and a bit perilous. Panhandlers still plied the thoroughfares, and rats scuttled along alleyways. But it was going somewhere. And it was getting a name. And people were showing up -- to have a look, to buy, to be entertained. And once it got to a certain point, the "condo people" showed up and started buying up old school buildings for conversion. Now, once things get to that stage, it's "case closed" -- you know you have a success story on your hands.

But wait a sec -- how about those drawbacks of the government solution? Won't they obtain here as well? Well, they might to some extent -- but remember I described the private-sector process as occurring from the fringes, and there is, after all, strength in numbers -- or in this case, numbers plus economic clout plus the social pressures that go along with gradual (emphasis on "gradual") neighborhood transformation. An artificial settlement is going to be seen as an invasion, and the settlers as interlopers -- and rightly so. A more natural "morphing" at the margins is less likely to be met with opposition or direct hostility -- or so it seems to me.

Another advantage is that the new settlers -- the "gray area" people -- will not be isolated from the social and cultural supports they depend on. They can always go a few blocks back into the more settled area of town to do their shopping and socializing -- not to mention their jobs. Likewise, law enforcement in the "gray area" can be tailored to fit the tranformational model (think: more attention paid to graffiti, vandalism, vagrancy, etc.). What we're talking about is natural evolution -- the kind that has characterized urban areas ever since the days of Nineveh. Government imposition, on the other hand, typically produces more problems than it solves, and increases both the scope and variety of misery. To paraphrase a classic quotation, government housing is to housing as military music is to music.

What I'm saying is that the "private sector" solution, as exemplified here, was and is superior _in every way_ to the government/bureaucratic solution. The return on investment starts promptly -- within the working lifetime, even, of the people who took the risks. No white elephants are created... no "new slums" are created... and the city gains not only revenue but also self-respect. The only down side is the same one connected with government-initiated revitalization, which is what one does with the DPs -- "displaced persons". I'm not going to treat that problem right now, other than to acknowledge that it does exist and it's non-trivial.

In conclusion (for now) -- there are solutions to the urban complaint that are not only viable, but have actually worked in practice. And, as always, the primary role for government is to get the hell out of the way and not thwart the process by an excess of regulation, taxes, and fees.