The City that Could Do No Wrong?
While the Duke lacrosse case seems far out of the purvey of this website - and the substance of the case certainly is - the tenor of the report, released yesterday, regarding the police department's actions in the case presents a point of comparison. Rather than a frank examination of what parts of the investigation were handled per procedure and which parts were botched, the document is an exercise in outward finger-pointing and strenuous self-justification by the city. This may sound familiar to those who attended the code enforcement 'summit' nearly two weeks ago.
By failing to acknowledge errors that have already been noted by the attorney general ("[the PD] did not pursue basic evidentiary trails to learn what happened at the lacrosse party") the report damages the credibility of the police department. While the motivation for this self-exoneration may be a perverse desire to serve what those involved see as the city's, and thereby, the public's best interests (an attempt to avoid costly lawsuits) what results is discredit, and the loss of opportunity to make substantive changes to benefit the public.
This posture, which seems to have infected government (and perhaps the public) at-large, obviously does not serve the best interests of the community - it serves governmental path-dependence and personal egos.
Unfortunately, those who have followed Durham politics over the long haul know that this isn't a new phenomenon here - while events such as 'loangate' and malfeasance at DHA have received the headlines, the problem extends more broadly and deeply. My longstanding experience in dealing with the city over vacant/abandoned properties is one of encountering obfuscation, defensiveness, and externalization of blame. For ~6 years, while working with Preservation Durham, we tried to establish the most basic of relationships - information sharing - to no avail. Periodically, after something else got knocked down, there would be a meeting where we'd express disappointment, and they'd share earnest expressions of wanting to "work together." Nada.
After watching Constance Stancil and Gray Dawson fail to show up at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting over the intended demolition of 120 West Main St. (and a minion go scurrying out to try to get them there) and, once having arrived, proceed to be dismissive of the commission's authority and concerns, I'd had enough. I got out of the abusive relationship.
Defensiveness, self-justification, and a disturbing effort to blame others and divide the public obscures, rather, squanders the opportunity to recognize that, with vacant and abandoned housing, we have a common problem that most of us in the older neighborhoods have dealt with to degrees small or extreme - neglectful and/or abusive property owners. While there are those of us who care more about the architecture and built history of the community than others, there is a body of evidence (although disturbingly small, given the effects of these policies) out there about how to best deal with the problems coincident with vacant/abandoned property. Fertile ground for coming together, right?
No. While issues of race, economic status, my neighborhood vs. yours, etc. are inherently part of the local political minefield, city administration could try to transcend those issues. Instead, they have played those cards to protect the status quo.
With the police department and Mr. Baker's memoranda on the lacrosse case handling came a different response from Bill Bell - one that was also mentioned a few days ago by Mike Woodard - the need for third party scrutiny. I hope that our political leaders can embrace serious, objective scrutiny (whether third party or not) of our housing policy and NIS as well. It's a system that has been broken for far too long, and the rhetoric of the entrenched should not be the last word.
Posts
7 comments:
The police report was absurdly self-serving; it seemed to me that since they already had a scapegoat in Nifong, they could have simply said it was his fault. Then again, as you point out they are trying to avoid litigation brought by some very deep pocketed victims, so I guess we should have seen it coming.
Personally, I am outraged. I can't believe there hasn't been discussion of this by the various listservs related to PAC2, DurhamResponds, TrinityPark, TownGown, etc.
At the same time, I'm chagrined as this is nothing new to those of us who've always lived in dysfunctional yet funky cities: New Orleans, New York, Durham, etc. Indeed it's part of Durham's charm, as ironically the high level of taxes necessary for all this graft and corruption keeps out the Caryites to some extent (to say nothing of the blight).
One thing I try to consistently keep in mind while commenting on this website is the perspective of the common man. For example, mandatory rental inspections will only serve to speed up gentrification, in my opinion. When issues of race and class rear their ugly head in Durham politics, I submit that the opponents of programs such as these (e.g., the Reverend WhatsHisName in East Durham) are merely trying to represent the interests of their disenfranchised communities. A lot of vacant buildings are owned by elderly people with no other investments, and whether they’re a commercial building on Gregson or a burned out shell on Mangum they were bought and held fair and square. If you start dictating the amenities I have to offer as a landlord, or raising the taxes on vacant properties, I have even less incentive to redevelop versus bulldoze, or even to buy it in the first place. Only Greenfire, et al will have the resources to deal with this crap on such a large scale; the funky mom and pop landlords such as myself will put our money back into the stock market and try to live as cheaply as possible to minimize our taxes. In other words, we’ll leave Durham for somewhere cheaper and more funky, just like what happened to Chapel Hill and Greenwich Village.
When the yupsters complain about the oligarchy of the big bad real estate developers, they almost never consider the libertarian perspective that the poor people in this world always suffer the most under shitty government, and the only way to fix it is to get government out of the way. (Christian Laettner doesn't need any handouts, and by the same token neither does the Arts Center, Self Help, Duke University, or Preservation Durham. I’ll take 305 South over another RBC Center, and if you need a bigger space take a tip from the rolling stones and use Wally Wade [or better yet, drive to Raleigh].)
On the other hand, "good" government such as the Pat McCrory junta in Charlotte is hardly any better, as it usually results in more sprawl and less diversity (Durham's greatest strength).
Any, great post.
Dave
Thanks for your comments - good points about the mom and pop landlords; we often speak about the one-down position of tenants vs. landlords, but there are plenty of nasty, callous tenants out there - of every race/ethnicity and income - who destroy the property they inhabit. Dealing with these people and the problems they leave in their wake puts real pressure on the 'good' landlords to get out of the business, further pushing the rental market towards the shady characters with 50 barely-habitable living units who hide behind layers of unlisted phone numbers, po boxes, and management agencies. For this reason, I disagree about rental inspections and gentrification; my greater concern is that it will further consolidate the market into the shadowy, lawyer-layered companies that can bob and weave far better than local government can jab.
The question is, how to deal with the latter without harming the mom-and-pops? If that is impossible, how 'lenient' are you with the latter to avoid hurting the former, knowing that, given the character of those owners, they will exploit any loophole out there?
I think that eschewing government is an appealing (especially given behavior noted in this post) but ultimately flawed answer. The question for the libertarian perspective always hinges on how you cope with public goods (like national defense) and externalities. The market does fail, as all systems do, and I see it as government's role to account for those market failures - whether through 'market-y' policies such as cap-and-trade, or more traditional policy. I think it depends on the specifics of the situation.
I agree that Rev. Whitley is advocating for his self-identified constituency, and I wouldn't expect otherwise. I think the challenge is to engender the trust that we - including the mom-and-pop landlords - are a larger constituency that has the oligarchy (to use your word, 'cause I like it) as a common problem.
Thought-provoking comments - thanks.
GK
So which is better -- barely habitable units with owners that are waiting to cash out, or vacant lots with owners so saddled with back taxes (since they can't rent and were billed for the fraudulent demolition by NIS) that they're ripe for gentrification?
Personally I prefer the former. Economic diversity is a luxury worth paying for, at least to those on the fringes of the creative class. One of the reasons I moved to the "no man's land" of Markham Ave. that was neither Duke Park nor TP was because I wanted
(a) a short walk to campus, ninth st., etc. All the usual stuff that draws the other yuppies to TP and OWD.
(b) cheap rent relative to the rest of TP (not to mention the rest of the triangle area).
(c) working class neighbors, who I knew wouldn't complain when I parked my cars in the yard, had loud parties in my backyard, and who generally do the other things discriminated against by the "quality of life" do-gooders. Neighbors on two sides were semi-professional musicians (a white hipster, an aging beach bum), and on the other two sides were a carpenter and a car mechanic (black and mexican, both of whom helped me on some repairs). They also drank a respectable amount when it came time to empty the keg before taking it back to Sam's.
Those are your two choices; you can't make up a third option with rental inspections. One person's barely habitable is another one's palace. I remember when I got evicted and was living in my car circa 1997, I couldn't believe my good fortune at scoring a bed in a friend's basement (complete with dirt floor and fumes from the oil furnace; when he was home I could pee upstairs, but otherwise I used a gatorade bottle and took my shit/shower/shave at the gym or coffeehouse).
This is the way the rest of the world lives. Five mexicans in a condemned cold water flat is paradise to those back home who are getting their earnings from Western Union.
BTW I ripped off oligarchy from its usage on bullshat (the "Ogilvy" sign). Glad you like it. Shout out to my homeboy HazMatt for "triangle area"; Stecker once got a call from the WXDU station manager after reading a PSA for the rape crisis center. Helping Women in The Triangle Area -- heh.
I think it's a false dichotomy - neighborhoods, housing, and policy have a multitude of unique mixtures and context. My next door neighbor is an older African-American man who ran a bookmaking operation out of his house for years. I'll put that out there now because I think he has retired (the stream of cars making bets on the big game has ceased in the last 2 years.) I never said anything about it, except when some 'clients' blocked in my car and I couldn't get out. I was much more pissed off by the yuppies I lived next to in New Orleans when I was in med school who left their unpleasant, unfriendly, constantly barking dogs out in their yard until whenever they got home (1-2 am not infrequently).
I only mention those two situtations to make the point that externalities are more complex than tolerance/hands-off vs. homeowner's association compulsive. I don't think we have to choose between a slide towards anarchy or a slide towards fascism. I do think (agree?) that the complexity makes policy difficult, because unintended consequences always occur. But that's why I believe in empirical research to hone policy while controlling/adjusting for other neighborhood factors. While your ability to grossly transform anything is probably minimial - or inefffective, if the market can't support it, I do think you can effect change at the margins.
Where that policy is targeted is a point people will differ on - I personally don't think shantytowns are a relevant point of reference for a green-gushing place like the Triangle. I'm not an ardent supporter of rental inspections - I'm quite leery of them actually. But I'm not going to manage to disabuse anyone of the evidence-poor notion that code enforcement improves neighborhoods - and maybe it does - I just haven't seen anyone prove it - everything out there seems to be this anecdotal, case-study junk. The housing code seems far too broad and unfocused to me; I went to a housing appeals board meeting to seek a stay of execution for 501 Oakwood, and the inspector cited both the significant structural issues as well as the lack of faceplates on outlets and less than 6 feet of countertop. Given the proclivities of the department, I do have grave concerns that penny ante stuff like that will be used as an excuse to implement unspoken public policy.
But rental inspections may get the use of this policy on more people's radar screens, and we may be able to push it towards something more useful. Theoretically, if people value their assets, and the code is dealing with real safety/health issues, it could be a good thing. Will it raise those rents/costs? Perhaps, which is why we subsidize affordable housing. But that another huge issue that I'm sure we have different opinions on - perhaps best discussed another time.
GK
Gary, thanks very much for this bost and for your comments here. Your articulation of a means of dealing with this is really clarifying and inspiring. After defending the rental inspections on the PAC2 mailing list, I've come to think that we really need a comprehensive discussion about housing enforcement in general that merges the RIP discussion and the demolitions discussion along with a discussion about making the minimum housing code more reasonable, in order to emphasize things that really matter. (Crumbling foundations over lack of storm doors.) If I didn't have this freakin' job they keep expecting me to do, I'd go about trying to convene a panel discussion on all of these issues, to try to get some meaningful discussion going. (After I finished trying to help organize an offshoot of the Durham Food Co-op, became a representative from First Pres. to Durham CAN, got back on the board of OWNDA, started a Durham Public Market, etc...)
Dave, I really enjoy reading your posts, even if we come at these problems from pretty much diametrically opposed political philosophies. (It seems to be the case that I hate many of the tenants of libertarianism, but get along well with lots of libertarians.) The main thing I would argue here is that the notion that poor people suffer most under shitty government isn't solely the province of Libertarians, and that Pat McCrory's brand isn't the only store in town when it comes to good governance. The uproarious political environment of the late 20th century has largely subsumed what was once a strong progressive tradition of demanding competence from government. I frankly wish my left-liberal and libertarian friends would spend less time arguing about whether or not government should be expanded or gotten rid of and more time trying to make sure it was doing its job well. But then again, I'm as guilty of that as anyone, so what do you do..
All I have to say is that -- based on personal experience when my father was killed in Durham about 5 years ago -- the police department here is quite incompetent.
Besides incompetence, laziness and racism were my top complaints with regards to the PD; laziness in that it was rare to find an officer or detective who would actually do his or her job as it should be done, and racist in that white officers/detectives seem prejudiced against blacks, and black officers/detectives seem prejudiced against whites. Of course, there were exceptions, but it was the exception rather than the rule. I did deal with a few police officers who helped me tremendously and did their job with the utmost competence. But, they'll most likely quit or move on as it's tough to be one of the few competent people in a sea of incompetents.
The police chief is someone who should definitely move on, based on his and his department's performance over the years. When he became chief years ago, I remember an old-time Durham resident laughing saying that of course Durham PD would make one of their own the chief.
Anyway, if Durham has a true outsider take a deep look at what happened with the lacrosse case, I'd be surprised. I'm sure it'll be in-house and the blame will be shifted elsewhere. Maybe one day Durham will learn, but probably not in our lifetimes.
Too bad.
Wow, how did i miss this?
c) working class neighbors, who I knew wouldn't complain when I parked my cars in the yard, had loud parties in my backyard, and who generally do the other things discriminated against by the "quality of life" do-gooders. Neighbors on two sides were semi-professional musicians (a white hipster, an aging beach bum), and on the other two sides were a carpenter and a car mechanic (black and mexican, both of whom helped me on some repairs). They also drank a respectable amount when it came time to empty the keg before taking it back to Sam's.
Possibly the biggest line of bullshit Dave has ever posted.
I'm a pretty working class guy, living on a pretty working class block in Duke Park. My house, at 1525 sqare feet, is probably the biggest on the block. Most of them are around 1000 square feet. None of us care for neighbors who park on the lawn, have loud (and by loud, i mean "disturbing the peace loud", not "I can hear your ethnic music" loud) parties, or do all those other things that make life miserable for those around them.
What a bunch of classist, racist hogwash to say (or imply) that only middle class white "do-gooders" want to live on blocks and in neighborhoods that are safe, clean, and peaceful.
You think that being able to impose yourself with "loud parties" and otherwise making other people's lives unpleasant is somehow a benefit of a libertarian philosophy? What a childish, moronic outlook on life.
You've basically lost all of your credibility as far as i'm concerned.
Post a Comment