In one of my former home towns a group has organized to try to protect part of a street on which I once lived from developers. They have a nifty blog with pictures and all sorts of info. I am thinking of something I wrote some years back about one of the first Fry Street businesses to close during the present era. Fry Street, of course, goes way back, but in the past it has always been funky: that is, back when we still referred to the former teachers’ college that is Denton’s largest employer as North Texas.
Nowadays North Texas is UNT. The institution is growing and gentrifying. With SMU vying for the George W. Bush presidential library to be, and the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex turning istself into a right-wing theme park, Denton and North Texas seem destined to be homogenized into the same stream of dollars that has littered I-35 with car dealerships, strip malls, and restaurant chains. There’s even a Hooters in Denton, now, though the Save Fry Street website threatens nothing more dangerous than Borders and Starbucks.
I’m uneasy about gentrification, being a latter day urban pioneer and living in a St. Louis neighborhood that I somewhat guiltily hope continues to gentrify fairly rapidly (last week somebody was robbed at gunpoint half a block from my house around 10:30 pm). But I wish the folks on Fry Street success in fighting the wowsers. It’s always too bad that a developer with money can force perectly viable businesses out of a neighborhood. We say we believe in property rights in the United States, but I think what we really believe in is bucks. Bucks trumps it all, and everything from sex to God is for sale, including my alma mater.
Back to war news. Here’s a clever little anti war video. I begin to think things have turned. Op eds by Anne Applebaum, Richard Cohen, and E. J. Dionne push limits of discourse that were pretty solidly in place only recently.
I’ve said I think continued engagement in Iraq is morally required of us Americans, but I’m not sure what I think that should look like. I believe we have to clean up the mess we have made to the best of our ability, and I think we must try to determine what our country’s real strategic interests are in the Middle East, given the rise of Islamic militancy outside Palestine since the 1960s. Here’s a link to a pretty good Middle East discussion site.
I don’t know about “morally required” — U.S. needs to remain there long enough to leave behind a powerful enough govt to hold things together. Problem with that is, how long will that be?
possibly the U.S. should begin repairing a lot of damage from decades of actions that have brought about the present situation. This present situation, like many situations on the international and domestic stages, could have been avoided. Much of the problem stems from basically ignoring what has led up to it.
now we have to pay great attention to it.
brings to mind Msr. Franklin’s addage: “A stitch in time saves nine.” paying attention to, and acting to avoid what has led up to the present crisis very possibly would have avoided the present crisis.
U.S. should construct a transitioning plan whereby an international presence would oversee the formation of a new government that would be more stable than the one now in place — a plan to provide autonomous regions with the country that would be representative of their population. Much of the violence is directed at U.S. forces; thus a pullout should result in less violence.
i am suspicious of the U.S. installed govt — mainly because it is U.S. installed and its true strength is obscured by administration propaganda (remember our president has said through the years that the situation continued to improve when in fact it has not — not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan — it’s a military action based on lies, continued via lies, so why should anyone think that lies have stopped) — thus I would think that a reorganization would be in order. The country is divided; the parliament does not reflect that. Kurds have for all intents and purposes established their own autonomous territory in the North and the Sunnis have at least a semi-autonomous territory in the South. Any reorganization should reflect that. The country’s borders are artificially established anyway. Why not attempt to allow its people to establish their own territories, then observe the interaction. This might just be the key to peace in that country. Oversight, with an aim toward attempting to have the various factions work together from their own territories toward the common good, woiuld probably be welcomed. An international presence, mainly from neighboring countries, would be the best to my mind.
The U.S. sheds its state of mind of antagonism toward these people, refuses to believe the Bush Adm. line that these are evil folks out to destroy all that is good in the world, asks what they actually want, presents one hand of peace, but the other of justice so that those who have committed violent acts can receive just response, and works to help this area of the world instead of exploiting it, and a huge step toward peace will be taken.
also, address the Israel problem.
But the U.S. has to shed its own blind, antagonistic attitude.
re: gentrification:
urban pioneers bought houses at very cheap prices ($300 – $1500) when those fleeing to suburbia had given up (even today you will find denizens of the suburbs, particularly the far suburbs who envison the City as basically a “burned out, crime ridden hulk). This in the face of the obvious fact that it is far from that.
Lafayette Square, Soulard, Compton Heights, others, have been brought back pu because of these urban pioneers who bought cheaply and sank tens of thousands of dollars into rehabilitation.
We need not thank City Govt for this — City Govt’s main emphasis has for decades been the Downtown area at the expense of the rest of the City. It has been individual effort that has brought about the most improvements.
One anchor has been the Tower Grove Park South neighborhood. Blue collar workers and retirees had maintained these homes for decades, then younger people, recognizing their value, have bought and moved into a neighborhood of stability.
when we look at other neighborhoods, such as the Shaw Neighborhood, we find a period of decline, then a period of developers purchasing deteriorated shells, then rehabbing and selling at relatively high prices, the structure of the homes being relatively low standard as a result.
We find neighborhoods where decline has almost been allowed (many absentee landlords have friends in City Hall who overlook much), then developers and real estate agents market isolated homes in the midst of this declining area.
2600 – 2700 blocks of Russell are an example — this has been developed heavily when scant blocks away the neighborhood is home to those who would want what the owners of the homes on Russell have and would do anything to get it.
gentrification is positive to those who would avoid crime, but negative in another way.
all over St. Louis, rehabbing and other factors (what the market will allow) has pushed housing prices up, leaving out lower income people (who have been relocated due to destruction of public housing), who than cannot afford housing. There are several factors in the inflation of housing prices, among them, Section 8, which pays much higher for rental than typical St. Louis market rate, and inflated housing values that do not reflect the true value of the house.
St. Louia has its own “Fry Street” — throughout the City, where private and public projects continually displace residents and replace fine old housing with inferior contemporary. Also, neglect, not only by homeowners, but by those with political power to offset this, has a tremendous effect.
the problem with the more affluent settling into the older areas of the City is that nearby are the less affluent, whose patterns and habits will not change with the incursion of the former.
there’s so much more — such as to whom political figures really listen.
Great posts, Dale. I think Maplewood may be a parallel case to Fry Street in some ways. What do you think?