This was originally posted to the Adams Morgan Listserv on April 27, 2019, as message #50994, groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AdamsMorgan/conversations/messages/50994
Below is my updated testimony given at the:
Public Hearing on Racial Equity Bill B23-0038
Councilmember Brandon T. Todd, Chair Committee on Government Operations April 25, 2019 – 10 AM (updated)
Chairperson Todd,
My name is William Jordan a 30 plus year resident of DC’s Columbia Heights neighborhood. I am here to speak generally in support of the Racial Equity Achieves Results Amendment Act of 2019 assuming the following improvements:
1. Incorporate the ten (10) improvements recommended by the DC Initiative on Racial Equity and Local Government.
2. A section be added to the bill to authorize and fund a study(s) of the social and economic impacts of our city government’s pro-gentrification and pro-displacement policies implemented since 1995 has had on Racial Equity. The purpose of the study(s) is to determine the best approach to providing Reparations in order compensate those harmed by these policies.
3. Create a District Columbia specific definition of Racial Equity based upon our unique history based on a 1995 baseline.
4. The 1995 Racial Equity baseline should include but not be limited to demographic, social, educational, financial and home ownership parameters.
Contrary to recent press and social media reports, the harms caused by gentrification and displacement to Racial Equity are not primarily the result of newer and Whiter residents complaining about loud Go-Go music or taking the privilege of walking their dogs on Howard University’s Campus. Instead it is more likely the greatest harm to Racial Equity has been caused directly and indirectly by governments policies. Policies implement since 1995 which utilize displacement, public land and financial subsidies to build a city economically and socially depended on Gentrification (catering to White Privilege) for growth and development.
Per a 2018 study released by staff at OCFO, Gentrification is defined as:
“A large influx of financial capital moving into certain neighborhoods of the city for commercial and residential development primarily to better accommodate wealthier in-migrants.”
A Study of the District of Columbia’s Apartment Rental Market from 2000 to 2015: The Impact of Millennials
The bill’s Reparations Study using this definition should among other factors study our government’s role in:
• Targeting certain neighborhoods for commercial and residential development
• The use of land, financial and regulatory subsidies attract large influxes of financial capital to these neighborhoods.
• The use of pro-active displacement policies and tactics such as Hope VI, New Communities Initiative, school closures, and etc.
• The creation and/or destruction neighborhood infrastructural and environmental elements designed which accommodate wealthier and Whiter in-migrants at the expense of Racial Equity.
For example, DC office of Planning states that District policies over the last 25 years have resulted in the largest portion of in-migrants being college educated White adults moving into targeted neighbors, so much so that Black families have had to seek opportunities in other nearby jurisdictions.
The Reparations Study should:
• Be overseen by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
• Focus on the years 1995 through Fiscal Year 2018. [In 1995 DC voters where disenfranchised with the establishment of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Control Board)]
• Seek to place a monetary value on the harm caused to Racial Equity by Governmental policies including Public-Private Partnerships
• Recommend a financial structure for financing and distribution of reparation compensation
Recommended areas of study focus:
• The impact of Control Board (1995 – 2001) policies and operations on Racial Equity
• The impact of the District’s 1999 request to remove income requirements for the distribution and utilization of Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) or Racial Equity
• The impact of Land Dispositions on Racial Equity
• The impact of financial subsidies, Tax Abatement, TIFs, PILOTs and related tools of Racial Equity
• The impact of zoning policies and decisions of Racial Equity
• The impact of Mayor William’s 100,000 New Residents policies (see below) crafted by Alice M Rivlin of Brookings and actions of Racial Equity
• The impact of government displacement vehicles such a Hope VI, NCI and Condo conversions and Rent Control Laws on Racial Equity
• The impact of School closures and reform efforts of Racial Equity
• The impact of ethical lapses and their fallout recently brought to light regarding CM Evans and Former CM Graham as it relates to the distribution of public land and financial resources.
• The impact of the use of the Downtown TIF Fund of Racial Equity
• The impact of zoning rulings especially PUDs on Racial Equity
• The impact of Hot Spots, Broken Class, and Zero Tolerance policing since 1995 on Racial Equity
The study should be completed within one (1) year and all development financial subsidies and land dispositions should be frozen until results can be analyzed and a system to implement Reparations is in place.
———————————————————————
Young, rich and childless: What Washington’s new residents mean for the city’s future
By Lisa A. Sturtevant
April 24, 2012
Special to the Washington Post
In 2003, then-mayor Anthony Williams pledged to attract 100,000 new residents to the District over 10 years. The mayor’s goal was based on research conducted by Alice Rivlin and Carol O’Cleireacain in 2001.
Rivlin—who was chairperson of the D.C. Financial Control Board in 2001 — and her co-author stressed the importance of residential population growth for economic sustainability in the District. The report suggested two different types of residents the city could seek to attract — first: young, childless singles and couples; and second: middle-class families. The report outlined the benefits and costs associated with drawing in each population group but advocated that attracting both groups was important to the city’s future.
By many measures, the new residents to the District fall squarely into the first group described in the Rivlin report — young, middle-and upper-income singles and couples without children.
New residents are much younger than existing residents. More than two-thirds of the households moving into Washington between 2006 and 2010 are headed by a person under age 35. By contrast, less than one-quarter of existing household heads are under 35, according to the 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
The socioeconomic divide between new and existing residents suggests a divide in priorities for the city, which creates challenges for neighborhood leaders and city officials. For example, according to a conversation I recently had with Virginia Tech urban planning professor Derek Hyra, in some neighborhoods– like the U Street corridor — new residents have welcomed the new bike lanes and dog parks. Some long-time residents, on the other hand, feel like they’ve been left out of the planning process.
Furthermore, in order to maintain the city’s economic well-being and support a high quality of life, it is important to keep new residents in the city as they marry and have children, as well as to attract middle-class families to the city. Recent movers to the city have been attracted by upscale condos and apartments, new retail shops and restaurants. Other investments — schools, most importantly — will be essential to creating a city new residents will call home for the long-term..
Lisa A. Sturtevant is assistant research professor at George Mason University’s Center for Regional Analysis.