“BOYHOOD” THE MOVIE

Boyhood_film

 

I watched “Boyhood” last night. Didn’t think I could deal with a film running nearly three hours focused on the reality-based coming of age theme. I was, however, much impressed by the epic technical achievement the film represents, and I was deeply moved by the genuinely human intimacies shared throughout. The ending was a powerful insight into the human condition.

Got me to thinking about the values of the tech-fueled Bay Area where I live.

I really loath, truly hate, the materialistic, money-fueled tech culture that has enveloped San Francisco. And it’s not the technology per se. I’ve been using and building computers since 1985. It’s the disgusting excess and glorification of same.

Interestingly, watching “Boyhood” last night reminded me that there are other, more appealing, lifestyles and choices still available in the country. The main character in the film was not obsessed with tech. He questions the value of the ubiquitous smart phone. He works after school. Middle class. He doesn’t dream of going to Stanford or MIT, etc., to get a degree in CS and code. Hell, he wants to be an artist. He’s interested in the meaning of life. Like people I used to know in school and throughout my life. He represents my American Dream. Not this SF version with conspicuous consumption and phony hipster culture.

 

 

The secret to the Uber economy is wealth inequality

uber-inequality

WRITTEN BY  Leo Mirani

Of the many attractions offered by my hometown, a west coast peninsula famed for its deep natural harbor, perhaps the most striking is that you never have to leave the house. With nothing more technologically advanced than a phone, you can arrange to have delivered to your doorstep, often in less than an hour, takeaway food, your weekly groceries, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs (over-the-counter, prescription, proscribed), books, newspapers, a dozen eggs, half a dozen eggs, a single egg. I once had a single bottle of Coke sent to my home at the same price I would have paid had I gone to shop myself.

The same goes for services. When I lived there, a man came around every morning to collect my clothes and bring them back crisply ironed the next day; he would have washed them, too, but I had a washing machine.
These luxuries are not new. I took advantage of them long before Uber became a verb, before the world saw the first iPhone in 2007, even before the first submarine fibre-optic cable landed on our shores in 1997. In my hometown of Mumbai, we have had many of these conveniences for at least as long as we have had landlines—and some even earlier than that.
It did not take technology to spur the on-demand economy. It took masses of poor people.

Silicon Valley catches on

In San Francisco, another peninsular city on another west coast on the other side of the world, a similar revolution of convenience is underway, spurred by the unstoppable rise of Uber, the on-demand taxi service, which went from offering services in 60 cities around the world at the end of last year to more than 200 today.

Uber’s success has sparked a revolution, covered in great detail this summer by Re/code, a tech blog, which ran a special series about “the new instant gratification economy.” As Re/code pointed out, after Uber showed how it’s done, nearly every pitch made by starry-eyed technologists “in Silicon Valley seemed to morph overnight into an ‘Uber for X’ startup.”
Various companies are described now as “Uber for massages,” “Uber for alcohol,” and “Uber for laundry and dry cleaning,” among many, many other things (“Uber for city permits”). So profound has been their cultural influence in 2014, one man wrote a poem about them for Quartz. (Nobody has yet written a poem dedicated to the other big cultural touchstone of 2014 for the business and economics crowd, French economist Thomas Piketty’s smash hit, Capital in the Twenty-First Century.)
The conventional narrative is this: enabled by smartphones, with their GPS chips and internet connections, enterprising young businesses are using technology to connect a vast market willing to pay for convenience with small businesses or people seeking flexible work.
This narrative ignores another vital ingredient, without which this new economy would fall apart: inequality.

The new middlemen

There are only two requirements for an on-demand service economy to work, and neither is an iPhone. First, the market being addressed needs to be big enough to scale—food, laundry, taxi rides. Without that, it’s just a concierge service for the rich rather than a disruptive paradigm shift, as a venture capitalist might say. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there needs to be a large enough labor class willing to work at wages that customers consider affordable and that the middlemen consider worthwhile for their profit margins.

Uber was founded in 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the worst financial crisis in a generation. As the ride-sharing app has risen, so too have income disparity and wealth inequality in the United States as a whole and in San Francisco in particular. Recent research by the Brookings Institution found that of any US city, San Francisco had the largest increase in inequality between 2007 and 2012. The disparity in San Francisco as of 2012, as measured (pdf) by a city agency, was in fact more pronounced than inequality in Mumbai (pdf).
Of course, there are huge differences between the two cities. Mumbai is a significantly poorer, dirtier, more miserable place to live and work. Half of its citizens lack access to sanitation or formal housing.
Another distinction, just as telling, lies in the opportunities the local economy affords to the army of on-demand delivery people it supports. In Mumbai, the man who delivers a bottle of rum to my doorstep can learn the ins and outs of the booze business from spending his days in a liquor store. If he scrapes together enough capital, he may one day be able to open his own shop and hire his own delivery boys.
His counterpart in San Francisco has no such access. The person who cleans your home in SoMa has little interaction with the mysterious forces behind the app that sends him or her to your door. The Uber driver who wants an audience with management can’t go to Uber headquarters; he or she must visit a separate “driver center.”

There is no denying the seductive nature of convenience—or the cold logic of businesses that create new jobs, whatever quality they may be. But the notion that brilliant young programmers are forging a newfangled “instant gratification” economy is a falsehood. Instead, it is a rerun of the oldest sort of business: middlemen insinuating themselves between buyers and sellers.

All that modern technology has done is make it easier, through omnipresent smartphones, to amass a fleet of increasingly desperate jobseekers eager to take whatever work they can get.

Six media myths about the Black Friday demonstration in San Francisco

Media Myths About Protests

DSC_2851

By and

Since November 24, protests have been raging across the nation in response to the non-indictments of police officers Darren Wilson, who fatally shot unarmed black teenager, Mike Brown, and Daniel Pantaleo, who strangled an unarmed black man, Eric Garner, to death in New York City on camera. We believe the media has covered the protests in a way that exaggerates their violence and has minimized their significance. Here are six myths about a large demonstration in San Francisco that took place on Black Friday, followed by what actually happened.

Myth 1: the Media Said the Protest Became an Ugly, Violent Riot

Ugly. Violent. Riots. Looting. Cowering shoppers. Frightened crowds. That’s what Americans heard about the Black Friday march in San Francisco from the media.

But how violent was the protest really? The answer: not very. Only a tiny minority of the people present was involved in property damage or assault. And those moments were vastly outweighed by long periods of peaceful marching.

You might think it’s hard to estimate how much of the protest involved criminality. But we’re going to try, based on a minute-by-minute report of the four-hour protest by San Francisco-based freelance journalist Sam-Omar Hall, eyewitness accounts (including from us), and from information released by San Francisco Chief of Police Greg Suhr.

In the five incidents of vandalism and violence in Union Square, an estimated 9 people were involved, out of about 400 protesters — in other words, just 2 percent of those participating. The incidents took place over a span of about 15 minutes, starting at 6:43 p.m. — the only time during which vandalism occurred in the first two hours of the march.

Over the next two hours, in the Mission District, about nine isolated incidents of vandalism and violence took place during a span of about 20 to 30 minutes. In all, the four-hour protest involved isolated incidents of criminal behavior over about 35 to 45 minutes — far from the “riot” described by the media.

For comparison, let’s look back to earlier this fall, when the San Francisco Giants won the World Series. Rioting sports fans in the Mission District damaged 28 Muni buses; lit street bonfires on couches, trash cans, mattresses, and Lyft’s pink mustaches; smashed five police vehicles; and shot guns, wounding two people. The damage to Muni alone totaled at least $140,000. Despite the far greater intensity of property damage and violence, police only made forty arrests — half the number made on Black Friday.

Myth 2: There Was Indiscriminate Looting

In reality, property damage was targeted at major chain stores and upscale businesses. Stores damaged included Macy’s, Bank of America, Simayof Jewelers, McDonald’s, RadioShack, and Beretta — an upscale restaurant on Valencia Street.

What are the common denominators of these targets? They’re either large national chains or symptoms of gentrification.

Myth 3: Police Arrested 79 Vandals

In reality, police did not arrest any vandals. In a press conference last week, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr concluded his statement by saying that “All told that night, we made 79 arrests.”

But Suhr did not specify why the 79 people were arrested, leaving the journalists present with the impression that 79 arrests were made in response to violence and vandalism.

A later question, however, blew that idea to shreds. In response to a media question about how many arrests were made in regard to vandalism, Suhr admitted, “We have no arrests for vandalism.”

In fact, of the 79 arrested, all but 4 were cited and released for misdemeanors unrelated to assault or vandalism. Of the four booked into jail, two were for outstanding warrants, leaving only 2 arrests that had anything to do with violence that night.

But of the 9 news reports of the press conference, only 2 mentioned that none of the 79 arrests were for vandalism.

Myth 4: Police Acted Legally Throughout

In reality, police mass-arrested seventy people on legally dubious grounds. Starting at about 9:45 p.m., police silently arrested around seventy protesters who were trapped and huddled together on Liberty Street. The arrests occurred over a period of about two hours.

So you might imagine that cops had good reasons for the mass arrests. But you’d be wrong.

Those arrested were compliant, exhausted, and wanted to go home. Here’s how they ended up cuffed and jailed instead:

The group had turned onto Liberty in an attempt to escape two police lines trapping them on Valencia. Police chased them onto Liberty and ordered them to get out of the road and onto the sidewalk. Everyone got onto the sidewalk.

Then a different police line approached from ahead and ordered protesters to get back into the road. Police circled the group of protesters, forcing everyone back onto the sidewalk and up against a wall on Liberty.

Police wouldn’t respond to questions, and when approached, they lifted what looked like automatic weapons. (These weapons were probably rubber-bullet guns.) No one knew what was happening, everyone was tired, and no one was offering any resistance. People started calling family to say they were likely getting arrested, as police began picking off and cuffing protesters one by one.

People were not read their rights. Police quickly mumbled the charge numbers to each person as they were handcuffed. It turned out that everyone present had been charged with jaywalking and with failure to obey a law enforcement officer. Everyone was taken to the Hall of Justice in vans, cited, and released some hours later — except for three people detained overnight because they had prior warrants.

Were the arrests legal? Not really, because it was impossible for protesters to simultaneously obey two sets of officers and be on and off the sidewalk at the same time, one legal expert explained. “Implied with any directive is the ability to obey or comply, so if they told you to do something that was in some way impossible then that would be unlawful,” said Danny Everett, a criminal defense attorney and former San Francisco deputy district attorney.

The arrests were legally dubious in another respect, too. The officer who handcuffed one of us — Ryan Heuser — told Heuser that he had “failed to disperse.” But no dispersal order was given in the vicinity of the mass arrest.

We later learned that a dispersal order was given to a different group, several blocks away on Valencia and completely out of earshot. This tactic has been used recently by Los Angeles Police Department officers who arrested a large group of protestors after a dispersal order had been read in a different part of downtown.

Is that a legal move by police? Not exactly. “If you give an order to one set of people and then expect another to comply with it, then that would not be lawful,” Everett said. “It’s not a lawful order.”

Myth 5: Police Acted With Great “Restraint”

Police Chief Suhr said last week that police acted throughout the protests with “restraint.” Media accounts have supported that narrative and totally avoided any criticism of police tactics.

Yet during the protest, SFPD used a kettling tactic — essentially blocking or trapping protesters in a tight area — that is highly controversial in other countries. In the United Kingdom, some legal experts say that kettling is used to make protesting so unpleasant that people who experience it will never protest again.

It’s also widely accepted that kettling is likely to provoke violence. In Union Square, it was only after protesters had been kettled between police lines for more than fifteen minutes that we heard glass break for the first time. “Does the benefit of any prevention of disorder by kettling justify the anger, dismay, and sometimes further disorder that it creates?” asked British reporter Dave Hill in a report after a notorious kettling incident in London in 2010.

Myth 6: Police Acted In The Public Interest

Arresting people who aren’t criminals is not in the public interest. But arresting protesters who didn’t commit a crime has one major advantage for police. It makes those people less likely to ever take to the streets and protest again. “I would highly anticipate that there’s a 99.9 percent chance that all those charges would be dropped,” Everett said. “The purpose is to arrest you and defuse the situation.”

Mary Noble is managing editor of Topix, and has written on politics and social justice since 2012. Ryan Heuser is a freelance journalist and a graduate student at Stanford University.

Stirring portrait of aging drag queens at the last gay bar in the Tenderloin

12.08.2014


Donna

San Francisco has changed both rapidly and radically over recent years. As it’s become more appealing both for cosmopolitan urbanites and the exploding tech sector, gentrification has blessed The City by the Bay with the most expensive one-bedroom apartment in America, even surpassing New York. Many mourn the loss of an earlier San Francisco and its formerly affordable counterculture and queer subculture, while San Francisco documentary photographer and filmmaker James Hosking manages to actually catch some of the twilight.

For his series, Beautiful by Night, Hosking documents the lives of three senior drag queens Donna Personna, Collette LeGrande and Olivia Hart, performers at aunt Charlie’s Lounge, the very last gay bar in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district. The notoriously seedy Tenderloin has managed to mostly resist gentrification on the merits of its reputation and a concerted effort by inhabitants. Still, without the surrounding culture of a former San Francisco to sustain it, the once vibrant queer scene has faded.

Hosking’s photographs are intimate and unflinching, but the mini-documentary is also an amazing portrait of three drag foremothers. Their reflections and reminiscing are complex but disarmingly at peace, and their performances and beauty rituals are (as expected) hypnotic.


Olivia


Collette LeGrande


Olivia


Collette


Olivia talks to shopkeeper


Gustavo at home


Gustavo/Donna


Gustavo/Donna


Collette performs Ke$ha’s “Tik-Tok”


Donna backstage between sets


Via Feature Shoot

 

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/stirring_portrait_of_aging_drag_queens

Don’t call it gentrification

“Dispatches Against Displacement” author James Tracy on fighting to keep cities from becoming rich-only playgrounds

Don’t call it gentrification
(Credit: AP/Michael Dwyer)

In the early 1990s, a punk rock kid named James Tracy moved from the gritty North Bay city of Vallejo to nearby San Francisco and got a job driving a delivery truck for a thrift store in the predominantly Latino, working-class Mission district. During his pickup runs, he noticed that many landlords were making generous donations — the left-behind belongings of former tenants. This was a few years before the rise of the first dot-com boom, but even then, Tracy said, “It was obvious to me that a storm was coming.”

The storm was more like a hurricane. In the late ’90s and early aughts, a torrent of venture capital poured into Silicon Valley and waves of would-be tech entrepreneurs flooded into San Francisco, displacing tens of thousands of poor folks, artists, musicians, activists and families who were evicted to make room for higher-paying tenants. In order to get around San Francisco’s rent-control laws, many buildings were demolished and sterile live-work lofts and generic-looking condos rose from their ashes.

Just as with a real hurricane, this storm also had a body count. In one notorious case, a landlord overcame housing activists’ attempts to block the eviction of an 82-year-old woman, who died shortly after being forced out of her longtime home. Many more San Francisco seniors have met similar fates since then.

Resistance to this onslaught of displacement was widespread, fraught with internal clashes, sometimes victorious, occasionally militant, and occasionally surreal. In one case, the San Francisco police seized Situationist and Marxist books from the library of an anti-displacement propagandist who had been wheat-pasting posters throughout the Mission encouraging people to burn yuppies’ cars and sabotage hip restaurants. Through it all, James Tracy was on the front lines — sometimes quite literally, as a member of groups that would protest on landlords’ doorsteps or during anti-eviction occupations at the homes of families facing displacement.

In his new book, “Dispatches Against Displacement: Field Notes From San Francisco’s Housing Wars,” Tracy not only looks back with a critical eye on the recent history of anti-displacement organizing but also offers solutions for how these struggles can be more successful moving forward. With rent prices for one-bedroom apartments often surpassing $3,000, the need for a book like this is painfully obvious.



You start the book with this quote from Herbert Marcuse: “The housing crisis doesn’t exist because the system isn’t working. It exists because that’s the way the system works.” How does this permanent state of crisis exemplify a system that’s operating as intended?

In the simplest sense, it works well for those who make exorbitant profits from a crisis. It’s working well for speculators and throwing not only tenants, but first-time homebuyers and even some small landlords under the bus. In a larger sense, the housing crisis achieves ideological goals. It tells a public story that it is natural that the rights of this small group of speculators should outweigh everyone else’s need for a safe and decent place to live. The evidence to the contrary is literally under every overpass in America, yet even those harmed by the crisis often defend it.

One of the most interesting things about the idea of a crisis is the issue of when the media decides to call it one. It wasn’t until after the cascading foreclosure crisis in 2008 that the term “housing crisis” was broadly used. This is because homeowners can still generate a great deal of more sympathy than renters. If you look at the history of housing policy, it is access to homeownership, not the construction of public housing, which was the centerpiece of the New Deal reforms. You can trace the narratives from there, homeownership is part of the American Dream, renting makes you part of a second class. Yet homeowners (and I am one) are subsidized as well through income tax breaks. Who is the system working for? The finance and real estate sectors are doing just fine by it. Everyone else is either on the chopping block or standing nearby it.

You cite an infamous quote by a San Francisco city supervisor saying “a little gentrification is a good thing” in explaining your decision to use the term “displacement” instead of “gentrification.” Do you think “gentrification” has too many positive connotations to be a useful word for people challenging displacement? Would you like to see people stop using the “g-word”?

I prefer to use the word “displacement” because it drives home the end result of gentrification: someone loses their home and their community. You can’t play fast and loose with the word! On one end of political thought, there is this underlying assumption that higher-income people improve a low-income community just by arriving there. It plays into this mythos deeply imbedded in our psyche that  rich people will somehow randomly meet their neighbors and help them up the economic ladder.

During the Great Depression there were thousands of cases of neighbors banding together to militantly protect each other from eviction. We saw scattered examples of this in the wake of the Occupy movement, but it didn’t become a widespread phenomenon in response to the still ongoing foreclosure crisis. Why do you think people are so much less likely to use militant or even confrontational tactics now?

You see echoes of this today, although not nearly at the same levels during the Great Depression. Eviction Free San Francisco has had a lot of success in pushing back evictions, most recently in the case of Benito Santiago using a direct action model. There is a lot of innovative housing organizing going on today. Just a few examples are Picture the Homeless; NYC’s anti-vacancy work; in Chicago, the anti-foreclosure and home occupation movement is cutting edge.

Housing activism tends to do best against the backdrop of larger social and movements. In the 1930s, there were large mass-based movements that elevated the needs of working-class people. Movements influence each other both tactically and morally. The formation of the trade union movement, the campaign to free the Scottsboro Men, built a sense of boldness and political consciousness that could easily be translated into a neighborhood context. Also, today’s neighbors have far less connection with each other thanks to climates of fear and the impacts of the greatest work speedup in U.S. history. The fact that both lower-income and middle-income people are working 50, 60 and 70 hours a week damages our ability to organize on the level of the Unemployed Workers Movement.

As you say in the book, “The Clinton Administration decided that the way to deal with public housing’s problems was with a wrecking ball.” Clinton’s history of enacting steep welfare cuts is much more well-known than his equally destructive housing policies. Why do you think this aspect of his legacy doesn’t get as much attention?

Clinton’s housing policy was part and parcel of welfare reform. Certainly, both federal income assistance and public housing needed changes. But Clinton and Congress adopted a model based in punishment and austerity. He was literally worse than the Republicans at every turn. His version of HOPE VI, the program to demolish and rebuild public housing, removed the very reasonable guarantee of one-to-one replacement of demolished housing. I had the privilege of working alongside residents of public housing in San Francisco.

Most of the demands they made on the Housing Authority and Housing and Urban Development were very fundamental. They wanted the renovation process to result in living-wage jobs for their kids, they wanted to come back to their communities. Yet, this was met with scorn, disdain and, in some cases, criminalization. It was an example of what happens when liberals accept the same worn-out assumptions about poor people as conservatives.

Clinton was able to use progressive critiques of the worst aspects of federal housing such as the warehousing of the poor in substandard conditions to accomplish the conservative goal of privatizing formerly public housing. How are progressive arguments still being used in the service of displacement of urban poor?

The Clinton administration argued that public housing was a form of segregation and that the HOPE VI process was a form of integration, essentially fulfilling the promise of the civil rights movement. He was halfway right. Local governments did in fact use public housing programs to reinforce segregation. However, what we saw in the aftermath of HOPE VI was actually a form of resegregation as the displaced just resettled where they could afford to find homes. Simply a different kind of warehousing.

You see this today under the Obama administration as public housing authorities are attempting to implement drastic rent hikes as a perverse incentive toward self-sufficiency. You want people to move towards self-sufficiency? Create good-paying public works jobs and the social supports like childcare and education to make this happen. You can’t essentially apply a Wal-Mart mentality to public policy and expect to change lives with a cheap strategy like this. The people of North Beach Public Housing taught me that the solutions to poverty start with the input, insight and creativity of people facing poverty. The rest of us can and should lend our levels of expertise and skills when needed. But to think that government is going to design solutions without these voices symbolizes they very worst impulses of liberal and conservative frameworks.

We’re in the midst of a wave of “spatial deconstruction” — basically the opposite of white flight — where poor people are being pushed out of city centers into outlying suburbs. There have been various theories about how this is essentially the fulfillment of a decades-long response to the inner city uprisings and riots of the late 1960s with the ultimate goal being decentralization of potentially revolutionary populations. Regardless of the origins of this shift, we recently got a preview of what suburban uprisings look like in Ferguson — and how effectively militarized police are able to shut them down. As an organizer, how do you think this shift to the suburbs will affect the ability of local housing rights movements to grow, thrive and accomplish their goals?

I was born in Oakland but brought up mostly in Vallejo; I think that it is a mistake most of our organizations have made to not nurture progressive organizing in the blue-collar suburbs. It doesn’t mean that big-city organizers need to run and parachute in to Hayward, Vallejo and Fairfield and Concord. But we do need to create relationships with people already doing the work, mostly through church-based organizing.

The Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Council has been doing fantastic work in areas far outside of “hip” areas. Last year, I observed the Participatory Budgeting process in Vallejo and I was impressed by what I saw. By giving a portion of the city budget over to a popular decision-making process, a lot of dialogue between citizens was created over the future of their city. Youth and non-citizens were welcomed and encouraged to participate. It wasn’t uncommon to see a resident of a Section 8 housing development work alongside a middle-class homeowner in a spirit of mutual respect.

When schools, parks, streetlights and other aspects of local infrastructure are improved, it makes neighborhoods more desirable — which makes displacement more likely. How can neighborhoods improve themselves without falling prey to this vicious cycle?

This is the million-dollar question, isn’t it? Because of this reality, many well-meaning people romanticize preserving dilapidated conditions as an anti-displacement strategy. This is simply wrong-headed. Disinvestment is simply the first phase of displacement, the time when speculators can scoop up property on the cheap and wait until the time is right to flip. One of the solutions is to engage in long-term community planning so that improvements such as these can be done in tandem with strategies to preserve affordability in a meaningful, not superficial way.

On a bigger scale, look at projects like BART. Clearly the development of a mass transit system played a key role in mass displacement in San Francisco. But for reasons of environmental sustainability as well as convenience, I think it would be hard to argue that the city would be better off without a rail system. As more cities improve their transit systems, what can low-income communities do so that they’re able to enjoy the benefits of improved transit options without succumbing to displacement?

When Portland put in its rail system a few years ago, it funded a Community Land Trust to work on preserving the impacted communities. The funding was never enough to make the desired impact, but the model was a strong one.

One of the possible solutions you mention in the book involves passing laws to curb property speculation by taxing away the profits. None of the ballot initiatives coming up for a vote in San Francisco next month go quite that far, but several do aim to alleviate the city’s displacement crisis. Are you hopeful that any of these will achieve that goal? If so, what solutions embedded within these initiatives give you the most hope?

Yes. Proposition G on San Francisco’s ballot is critical. It curbs displacement by discouraging the practice of swift flipping of buildings for windfall profits. Even though it will help protect renters, first-time homebuyers who actually want to make San Francisco home will be big winners if this passes. In the absence of political will on the state level to address the Ellis Act, this is the only hope to save what’s left of the San Francisco we fell in love with.

Another option for creating “gentrification-proof bubbles” that you mention is the establishment of Community Land Trusts. The interesting thing about this ownership structure is that it does so much more than just prevent evictions — they actually require that neighbors know each other and learn how to work together. This model feels like the polar opposite of the sole homeownership model of the 20th century in America, which promoted individuality and independence at the cost of community-building. Can you really ever see the CLT model taking off in America?

I helped form the San Francisco Community Land Trust and I believe that this model can simultaneously preserve affordability and build community. It’s basically a rebooted version of the old cooperative housing model where affordability and tenure is protected, much in the same way that forests are protected through trusts. Without forms of community ownership, even the most impressive housing organizing victories are temporary. It’s important not to romanticize the cooperative and deal head-on with the problems it presents. For example, the SFCLT has been incorporated since 2004 and we have secured about six dozen homes. Not enough to intervene in the housing crisis yet. Land trusts are part of the solution, not the entire thing. And yes, one of the main obstacles is the accepted notions of what people expect from their housing. It is hard to move beyond the poles of renter vs. homeowner. The CLT model makes asks of both society and the individual. It asks society to move toward housing as a human right. It asks individuals to take personal responsibility as part of a community. It is a heavy lift given the times we live in.

Liam O’Donoghue is Salon’s communications director. He writes about what’s happening at Salon and manages Salon’s social media assets. You can follow him on Twitter @Liam_Odonoghue.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/02/don%E2%80%99t_call_it_gentrification/?source=newsletter