Characterizing character

When it comes to the Manhattanville expansion, the most common argument that I hear from the Columbia far left is that—in the words of the Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification—gentrification is bad because it, “infuses neighborhoods with private capital, displacing longtime residents and changing the character and affordability of the community.” Issues of affordability have already been debated ad nauseam—if you support the Obama stimulus package, you have to believe that the 1,200 unionized construction jobs created each year by the expansion will be a net benefit to the West Harlem community, despite the opinions of three justices on the New York State Supreme Court. Rather, the issue that I would like to consider is this argument that gentrification changes the “character” of a neighborhood. Of all of the reasons to impede economic development, this is certainly the most baseless and irrational, especially if we consider it from a historical standpoint.

Fundamentally, the “character” of a neighborhood is a completely subjective construct, which makes it virtually impossible to placate dissatisfied parties who hold grievances on these terms. Naturally, this is exactly why opponents of gentrification use this argument, since it cannot be disproved because it isn’t based on anything tangible. Consider one of the rare cases in which SCEG does try to argue facts with Columbia. The SCEG alleges that the Manhattanville expansion will “directly remove 132 families from their homes.” Sounds pretty bad, right? Well, Columbia counters with the fact that “Columbia has made a commitment to relocate residents of these units to equal or better housing in the area.” In this facts-to-facts exchange, the SCEG suffers twice. Not only is it difficult for them to find facts that make the expansion look bad (since the reality is that the expansion promises many benefits), but they also run the very high risk of being debunked by Columbia, and thus losing their credibility.

By using these subjective notions of “neighborhood character” or “social diversity,” anti-expansion activists are able to keep the debate on their terms, since only they can really define what those terms actually mean. For instance, they say Manhattanville is a vibrant ethnic neighborhood—I say it is blighted. Nothing is resolved. However, even if we cannot debate these issues with facts, we can still illustrate their irrationality by looking back at history. Ultimately, SCEG is arguing that economic development is bad because as neighborhoods become more expensive, poor people are pushed out. By that logic the development of the Lower East Side from its 19th century overcrowded, impoverished state to its current incarnation as a hipster hangout was a great tragedy. Moreover, if we take their logic to its natural conclusion, no development of any kind should ever occur, since the character of a neighborhood is sacred and inviolable.

In reality though, these kinds of arguments are only made when the neighborhood in question is predominantly poor and non-white. Ultimately, what the “character” argument comes down to is an issue of race. Opponents of the expansion don’t want it to occur because they are worried about an influx of whites into an area that is currently predominantly black and Hispanic. CEG is therefore opposed to changes in the racial makeup of neighborhoods—fine. However, by taking this position they completely ignore the fact that the original residents of the neighborhood of Manhattanville were Jews and Irish Catholics. Thus, if anything, Columbia’s expansion is actually doing quite a bit to restore the original racial character of the neighborhood.

Obviously, my point is not that we should be returning to 19th century demographic patterns. My argument is that making development decisions based on their impacts on the character (read: race) of a neighborhood is illogical, and can only be justified if you arbitrarily stop the historical clock at some point that is convenient for your position. As a result, the only logical stance to take is that we shouldn’t care about the character of a neighborhood, and should base development decisions solely on the tangible benefits and costs of the project.

Despite what members of SCEG may believe, New York City is not made up of racial fiefdoms, each of which having some sort of non-specified right to determine what their “character” should be. New York City is governed for the benefit of the city as a whole, and if there is a project like the Manhattanville expansion that offers to utilize precious Manhattan real estate more effectively, to generate huge social benefits through the construction of a new biomedical research laboratory, and (most importantly) to increase New York City tax receipts so that more social services can be provided to low-income residents, then the city should support it. Arguing that we should sacrifice real economic benefits in the name of “neighborhood character” is irrational, and should have little influence on the policy process of one of the world’s greatest cities.

Jon Hollander is a Columbia College senior majoring in economics. He is the director of intergroup affairs for the Columbia University College Republicans. Reasonably Right runs alternate Wednesdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.

Tags: Opinion, Jon Hollander, Eminent Domain, Manhattanville, Manhattanville expansion, Manhattanville Expansion Plan