Monday, May 2, 2016

A Seattle Pot Shop at the Intersection of Gentrification and the War on Drugs

I grew up well within earshot of the gunshot blasts that occasionally pierced the tranquility of warm summer nights, emanating from the intersection of 23rd and Union. This intersection was at the heart of Seattle’s historically black, working class neighborhood of the Central District. For decades this corner was the locus of gang activity, an open air illegal drug market fueled by the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and the crack epidemic, the last of which hit the Central District particularly hard. While violence had largely subsided by the time my family moved into the neighborhood, and the community was recovering, 23rd and Union was still a corner to be crossed quickly in the daylight, and wholly avoided at night.
            Yet my childhood would come to be dominated by this neighborhoods transformation. I could only watch as my neighborhood transformed around me. Between 1995 and 2010, my family went from the only white family on our block to saying goodbye to the last of our black neighbors when Mattie, who lived next door, finally sold her house. This reversal in ethnic demographics was forced by skyrocketing property values that have coincided with Seattle’s rapid growth. Throughout the city, working class neighborhoods have been invaded by the wealthy, forcing poor people into the suburbs to the South of Seattle.
            Two blocks South and four more to the east of my home, 23rd and Union was one of the last places to be turned over in this process of gentrification. But when it came, it came fast. Ownership of all four corners changed hands within the last five years, a decades old soul food restaurant, post office, and bank have all closed. On the southern side of the intersection, there are development plans for condominiums and an expensive health food grocery store.
            In September of 2014, in the wake of Washington’s legalization of recreational marijuana under I-502, the city’s first pot shop opened on the Northeast corner of the intersection. Uncle Ike’s exemplifies the process of gentrification that has taken over the Central District and the entire city of Seattle. Furthermore, it is tragically ironic that on a corner where hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young men have been arrested and incarcerated for selling weed just to survive, a man by the name of Eisenberg is now raking in millions by doing the same thing.
            Since its opening, Uncle Ike’s has been teaming with taco trucks, expensive cars, and expensive people coming to buy expensive pot. Eisenberg reaps his profit from a customer base that overwhelmingly comes from outside the Central District. It’s a business operated by the upper class for the upper class with little to no benefit for the community its in. The vast majority of those involved are white, but a large mural of a black woman that adorns the side of Uncle Ike’s brick exterior exemplifies the cultural appropriation involved in this process. The cultural history of 23rd and Union as a drug market has been adopted by Uncle Ike’s, and branded for a wealthy white audience.
            The neighborhood has responded with protests that have occurred off and on since it was publicized the corner would become Seattle’s first legal pot shop. Overwhelmingly, the sentiment from the community has been that Eisenberg acted unethically if not illegally in opening Uncle Ike’s. The Mount Calvary Christian Center, which is located directly next door, filed a lawsuit in conjunction with the NAACP claiming that Ike’s is within 250 feet of a teen center, a violation of I-502’s mandated radius from places like youth centers, schools, and parks.  But the suit was dropped when legal fees piled up, a move which many felt was an intentional strategy of the exorbitantly wealthy Eisenberg. The church’s fear comes from memories of the violence drugs historically caused in the Central District, and preventing the next generation from being influenced inappropriately.
            Opening at 23rd and Union placed Ike’s at the intersection of several social issues effecting Seattle and the United States. It is a powerful instrument of gentrification, aiding in the invasion of the wealthy white which has systematically forced working class minority groups from Seattle’s inner cities into the suburbs to the south. A 23rd and Union flooded with wealthy white hipsters on Uncle Ike’s opening day was a disconcerting revelation of the extent to which Central District transformed throughout my youth. It was also a brutally ironic paradox to the pot shop that had always existed clandestinely on that corner and in that parking lot. For decades it was a market riddled with violence, customers and vendors alike were met with arrest, sweeping countless Seattleite’s into prison as victims of the drug war. Now it’s the trendy spot, a required tourist stop, where sales are protected by the cops. It’s a powerful reminder of how the perception of drug use as amoral usually depends more on the class and race of the individual partaking than anything else.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Recycling – to Sort or not to Sort

The recycling bin has become ubiquitous. It's a rare sight to find a trash can not accompanied by a blue bin close by. It's indisputable that we've made much progress on integrating recycling into the consumer side of things – we all do our best to avoid trashing whatever might have use elsewhere.


But what happens once you discard that yogurt carton or newspaper?


Based on some estimates, between 60 and 80 percent of recycling is actually recycled. This is significant, and these numbers are likely to bolster our confidence in America's recycling infrastructure: This might make us feel good when we roll out our stuffed recycling can, and place it next to the mostly empty trash can on the curb.


However, alongside these praises and affirming reports on the efficacy of recycling, we also encounter many damning accounts of recycling, some citing the emissions that recycling centers produce, and how the market for processed materials can directly affect what is recycled and what is simply passed on to the landfill.


What can we do then? If consumers are only improving; getting better and better at recycling our waste, the problem must lie elsewhere.


Ironically, the problem might be a result of a solution to another problem in recycling: As recycling technologies improved, many municipalities took the opportunity to switch to so-called single-stream schemes, which allow the consumer to simply place all recyclables in the same bin, to be sorted at the processing facility. Previously, many cities used multi-stream schemes, which required the consumer to sort out recyclables into bins for glass, paper, plastic, etc. The transition to single-stream is at least partially responsible for the increase in how much waste is passed to recycling facilities: With the introduction of single-stream, consumers need only to differentiate between recyclable and non-recyclable waste, as opposed to keeping and sorting separate collections of paper, plastic, glass, etc.


But at the same time, contaminants are more likely to show up in consolidated streams, as people are more likely to just chuck everything into the blue bin, assuming it'll be sorted out anyway later on. Additionally, the increased complexity of sorting through single-stream recyclables adds cost to the entire process.


So while the adoption of single-stream schemes has solved one problem – getting people to recycle – it has created other problems: Surmounting these issues is not impossible, it can be done only with increased expenditure on waste management. But we need to remember that recycling is a still a business in most cities, with the ultimate aim of making a profit.


And making money off recycling used to be an entirely feasible proposition. Last year, the Washington Post ran a high profile article on the introduction of "the blue bin". The requirement for facilities to sort through single-streams of recyclables is cited as the reason for the increased costs these companies face. These increased costs – combined with reduced demand for the goods these companies produce, due to increased recycling in other parts of the world, namely China – have forced recycling firms to either charge more to the municipalities they contract with, or to simply discard whatever waste is not economically feasible to process, defeating the entire purpose of recycling.


We're faced with a dilemma; what is effectively a very precarious balancing act. On the one hand, single-stream increases how much is available to recycle, but incurs increased costs for the processors, often making it no longer viable for these companies to actually process and sell off the recycled materials. While on the other hand, multi-stream systems can make it more economically viable for companies to process recyclable waste, increase the odds that what is recycled will be processed and reused, but at the same time, reduces how much waste is available to recycle.

Perhaps we can rely on increased awareness of the need to recycle to allow cities to shift the burden of sorting off the processors, back onto the consumer. However, we need to be wary of reversing the progress we as a society have made on prioritizing recycling in our lives.

Image credit: Randall Munroe, XKCD.com, under Creative Commons A-NC

Monday, April 25, 2016

Spider-Man and the Problem with Race in Comic Books



If you're surprised by the above photo, you probably haven't read a comic book in a few years. That's Miles Morales, a mixed race teenager who, after the death (yeah, right) of Peter Parker, the original Spider-Man, has donned the mask of New York's friendly neighborhood web-slinger. He was supposed to be a continuation of the classic Spider-Man motif: that great power comes with responsibility. He's a superhero for a new generation, one where diversity and voice matters. But in recent issues, writer Brian Michael Bendis has dropped the ball on his responsibility that comes with his power as a writer: connecting to his audience. 

Comic books have long been a bastion of progressivism and change. Just look at the original inception of the X-Men, created by Stan Lee to mirror the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Superman is the story of an immigrant struggling for acceptance on an entirely new planet. Losing his parents to gun violence is what inspires Bruce Wayne to adopt the mantle of the Dark Knight. Even the upcoming Marvel blockbuster, Captain America: Civil War functions as a discourse on government regulation.

The character of Spider-Man is a golden opportunity to continue this tradition of bringing liberal discourse to the mainstream. But what we get instead is this page, from Spider-Man No. 2:



Miles doesn't want to be "black" Spider-Man. He just wants to be Spider-Man. It's the same old "colorblind" rhetoric that erases his importance to fans of Spider-Man. In effect, Bendis is sidelining a character of color's racial identity in an attempt to be colorblind. The vlogger girl who gets excited about representation in superheroes is turned into an annoying caricature of a social justice warrior. Its a strategy which alienates fans of the hero, and pissing off your fans isn't a great idea.

Case in point, tweets by J.A. Micheline:






 The erasure of Miles' racial identity eliminates a fundamental aspect of his character, one that makes him distinctly powerful and gives him potential not given to any other superhero. And we're not just talking about spider-sense.

Think for a second about what it means to be Miles Morales. To be a mixed race teenager of color during the Black Lives Matter Movement. During the police violence against young black men across the country. A teenager who lives in New York, a city which experiences unbelievable rates of stop and frisk. To be the target demographic of the War on Drugs. This is not a kid who claims to be Hispanic instead of Latino.

Miles Morales has every justification to be one of the most radical figures in comic book history. Someone who not only has pride in their culture and their identity, but whose actions reflect this. Miles Morales has absolutely no reason to go after drug dealers or bank robbers, and no reason to have even one iota of confidence in any police officer, or as people are so fond of reminding us, "the real heroes".

The thing is, if Spider-Man started defending people from cops and helping people fight poverty, I'm not so sure whatever laws of comic books that exist would still label him as a 'hero'. Such an anti-establishment stance would label him as a villain or at the very least an anti-hero. He'd be an 'other' in the superhero community, just as he is in his secret identity.

Bendis has stated that Miles' opinions in Spider-Man No. 2 aren't set in stone, leaving there much growth for his character and his stance as a POC icon. But the current way he is written, with complete disregard for his place in comic book culture, doesn't seem to echo the progressivism and openness to discourse that the superhero genre has espoused for decades.

So, with that in mind, I leave you with this quote from an essay called "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain", written by Langston Hughes in 1926, 86 years before Miles Morales donned the mask of the Spider-Man on the pages of a comic book:

One of the most promising of the young Negro poets said to me once, 'I want to be a poet--not a Negro poet,' meaning, I believe, 'I want to write like a white poet'; meaning subconsciously, 'I would like to be a white poet'; meaning behind that, 'I would like to be white.' And I was sorry the young man said that, for no great poet has ever been afraid of being himself. "

Seem familiar? 

References:

Hughes, Langston. "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain". The Nation, 1926. 


When Capitalism Won't Pass the J




According to Karl Marx’s capitalist theory, capitalism is flawed and therefore doomed. Because of the bourgeoisie, or upper class, holding control over the “free market”, the proletariat, or working class, is stifled. Eventually, monopolies are created within the market which ultimately cause a revolution of the proletariat class. Those in the bourgeoisie are those who privately own the means of production, separate from the proletariat, working class. Marx describes how the division of labor causes alienation: from the production, from the process, from other people, and from one’s self. He emphasizes the working class’s creativity being stifled, and the problems that causes within society. Ultimately, Marx believed that this leads to a revolution that will overthrow the market monopolies held by the bourgeois.


In the early 1900s in America, capitalism took hold of multiple huge markets essential to the economy and created monopolies that pushed out of these markets a little plant called cannabis. Before this, “cannabis hemp was one of history’s most widely used plants,” dominating large global markets such as medicine and textiles (Bud Fairy).


Some important markets growing and changing at that time were the fuel industry and the synthetics industry, both coming out with new and exciting products derived from fossil fuels. At the time, fossil fuel products were a promising new economic idea - not running out quite as fast as they are now. The elites who had control over this new industry wanted that to become control over the entire market, to completely overtake the means of production.


A man named William Randolph Hearst was the one who was eventually able to help his fellow bourgeoisie. He used anti-cannabis propaganda to get rid of the economic threat weed posed on their plans for monopoly. Another of these markets headed for a bourgeois monopoly, the paper industry, was changed by Hearst, a publisher with a huge investment in timber. He owned a bunch of land covered in trees, readily available to make lots of paper (and make Hearst lots of money), and felt threatened by the existence of hemp paper. Its cheap, highly sustainable growth could easily replace timber to make paper. But because of Hearst’s influence as a publisher, he was able to use propaganda to make his way to the top and create a monopoly of timber in the paper market. At the time, the cannabis plant was mainly harvested for its many uses in the form of hemp, though there were a few tokers here and there. Hearst knew he could take advantage of the multiple uses of marijuana to demonize it, creating ads talking about “reefer madness”, “drug-crazed abandon”, and “weird orgies, wild parties”.

one of William Randolph Hearst's anti-marijuana advertisements
Because Hearst's advertising worked so well on the American people, marijuana was a drug feared by society. It became an illegal substance, and later in the 70s when the War on Drugs was declared by the American government, it was highly criminalized. This benefited another market run by elites: law enforcement. We see the effects of this now with an almost military-like police force in so many places around the country, and the highest rate of incarceration in the world by a large margin.

Before the discovery of aspirin, and after that other heavy painkillers like opiates, cannabis was used often in medicine. As we see today with the huge growth in popularity of medical marijuana as it becomes legalized in more and more states, cannabis is a ‘wonder drug’ of sorts. It can be used in many different forms to treat a multitude of ailments, anything from chronic pain to mental illness to cancer, etc.

Back to Marx’s theory of the doomed nature of capitalism and the eventual revolution that will stop it: the anti-capitalism revolution is coming to the American economic system. And it begins with the legalization of marijuana. This versatile plant, with its uses as a fuel, as a medicine, as a textile, and even as a recreational substance, can solve so many problems created by the monopolizing of means of production by American elites.


Sources:
Fairy, Bud. "How Marijuana Became Illegal." Ozarkia.net. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/pot/blunderof37.html.




Portland Dumping Homeless People Elsewhere



According to the last count made in 2014, there are approximately 4,000 homeless people including men, women, and children in Portland, OR.1 During that same time period, a 10 year plan to end homelessness in Portland, was launched.2 However, a decade later, homelessness is still a social issue in this very city. Although there have been great efforts to address homelessness, permanent housing remains a critical insufficiency. Portland is good about providing resources but the need for permanent housing is severe. Now, the city is turning to an alternative method: dumping homeless people elsewhere. 

Recently, Portland set aside $30,000 to pay for one way bus tickets for homeless people to leave the city.3 However, the requirements for their bus fare includes being able to prove they have secured housing with family or friends in a different city, and are medically fit. But is this really a solution? Are the the main causes for homelessness being ignored? Is this Portland’s way of cleaning off its streets to have a better city image?

The main and most common causes of homelessness include: mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, physical impairments, HIV/AIDS, loss of employment, and lack of support for those emancipated from prison.2 Often homeless people are stereotyped and seen as lazy, criminals, homeless by choice, and all are drug addicts for example.4,5 Translocating them to another city does not necessarily help them gain permanent housing or health benefits. In speculation, it is most likely that the places they are staying outside of Portland are temporary. Additionally, one of the requirements for a bus ticket includes being medically fit, but if that is a person’s main cause for homelessness, they won’t be able to access this, so how is this helping them? Shipping them off to another city is simply clearing up the streets of Portland, and not directly helping them. It’s benefitting the city’s image but does not help the root problems of homelessness. 

During spring break of 2016, I embarked on an Alternative Spring Break Trip that focused on economic justice in Portland. A group of 6 of us explored the different areas of Portland to gain a better understanding of homelessness in our own backyard, learn about the different resources homeless people have access to, and hear some personal stories. We joined forces with multiple organizations aimed to help the homeless community and participated in an immersion program.

Alternative Spring Break Trip Group at JOIN Organization














Alternative Spring Break Trip Group at Right to Dream Too 



























We learned about places like the Blanchet House and Sisters of the Road that help treat homeless symptoms of hunger, and although very beneficial on a daily basis, programs like JOIN provide homeless people with consultants and helps connect them to different long-term resources whether that is education, job training, health information, and applying to homes, which address more of the root problems. We were given a number of tours in various parts of the city and acknowledged the different resources that exist like the Salvation Army, Street Roots, Potluck in the Park, Right to Dream Too, Portland Rescue Mission, Oregon Food Bank, and places like Dignity Village. We also heard personal stories from people who experienced homelessness for years, and learned about what they experienced on the daily, such as being scared of getting stabbed or stolen from, or having to live under freeways and having to fight off raccoons and rats for food. Depression, anxiety, and dementia seemed to be a common result from being homeless for a long period of time. 


Rather than addressing the causes and effects of homelessness, Portland is willing to buy people who are homeless one way bus tickets to leave town. Rather than using the thousands of dollars for more effective programs aimed to get the origins of homelessness, they are simply evacuating them from Portland and making them another city’s social issue. Homelessness is a critical social issue, and can occur to anyone at any point. This is an issue I am passionate about, and I encourage you all to look into how you can help your community members, please feel free to explore these websites:

Right to Dream Too

JOIN

Potluck in the Park



References:

1. ”The City of Portland, Oregon." Ending Homelessness RSS. 2014. Accessed April 25, 2016. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/60643.

2. Oregonian/OregonLive, Anna Griffin | The. "Our Homeless Crisis." OregonLive.com. 2015. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland-homeless/index.html.

3. ”Portland Offering Homeless People a One-Way Bus Ticket Out of Town." Fox News Insider. March 26, 2016. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/26/portland-offering-homeless-people-one-way-bus-ticket-out-town.

4. "Myths about the Homeless - Preble Street." Preble Street. April 1, 2011. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.preblestreet.org/in-the-news/myths-about-the-homeless/.

5. "Common Stereotypes and Misconceptions about Homeless People." HubPages. February 10, 2016. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://hubpages.com/politics/homelessness-myths-misconceptions.