federally recognized historic districts become eligible to 10% tax credits, which are usually enough to enable redevelopment of historic properties. also, conforming to the physical guidelines in an historic district sometimes requires physical improvements to the home that may be cost prohibitive (era-appropriate paint, roofs, windows, etc.) this has been a gentrification enabler and has displaced people who have lived in areas with depressed property values. african americans, broadly, have not embraced historic preservation/historic districts as a tool for redevelopment. the reasons are complex, but include some of the above comments about land v. landless, and from an environmental justice perspective, a general lack of community access to information/captial/power connected to change in the built environment.

despite the epidemic of predation on the black community by shady mortgage companies, the best tool for empowering people to have a role in change is to get them owning their property. generally, renters have no leverage. owning you home doesn’t guarantee that you can stay given change, but it does allow you to beneift from change, even marginally, from building equity and/or taking the money offered by a developer and using that money as you see fit. a first/parallel step to historic designation should be an aggressive strategy to identify the risks to homeowners holding on to their homes (limits of fixed income, etc.), developing strategies for addressing them, and moving as many renters to owner as you can.

if tax credits are not an issue (or outweighed by negative impacts), there is state and local designations, which don’t carry the tax break, and don’t enable gentrification. there are also conservation overlays/districts. i’ve worked on one in a black community and the advantage is that the community self-defines their community values (preserve x house, don’t allow y use) and it goes into policy. since it doesn’t come with the tax credit, or the physical guidelines in historic districts, its not as disruptive to people’s lives.

if the gentrification tide is inevitable (hard to say) there’s the urban land trust. the dudley street initiative is a model. working with the city to cede land decisions to a third party made of of community folk gives a structure for land planning that is not purely profit driven.

That parallels your school voucher position, doesn’t it?

Hmmm…
You’re right.

That parallels your school voucher position, doesn’t it?

You’re right, though. The way European society and all its ex colonies are written, owners rule.

Anyway, in a case like this, I think the rights of the owners have to take precedence over those of the renters. “Affordable rents” isn’t a “Black issue” but I would think that if renters get moved around enough, it should provide strong motivation to own something.

First, we must realize that private property is a totally Western concept. In Africa and among American Indians, land ownership was an incomprehensible idea. “The land belonged to the people and the people belonged to the land” was an African proverb.

Second is the concept of landed property as “capital”. Being Capital, it has a tract of its own- and that is, to appreciate in value. Otherwise, it would not be considered capital or of economic value. Capital has no personality, no favoritism, and no skin color.

Third, landed property has a downside risk. Normally, Capital (here, in the form of landed property) appreciates in value, except in deteriorating neighborhoods. In these neighborhoods, the property value falls, because of a lack of demand or interest.

The attempt to shore up property value by designating the community as a “historic district” is artificial. Local government may invest in new infrastructure, parks, plazas, etc., but the underlying character and unabated trend will only bring the property values down again.

Formation of communal ownership through a financial instrument like a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) may provide all parties with a “vested interest”. There would be the less likelihood of residents feeling “estranged” from the community. People with a vested interest care for their lawns, take root in the community (less roaming), protect their property and neighborhood, and take an interest in political decision-making that affects their property investment.

So, it all boils down to private or communal ownership- either every man for himself, or each man for the good of all.

Cobb isn’t just privileging one set of freedoms, he isn’t even acknowledging that other forms exist. And such a move–which happens all the time–ends up justifying the jack move, in the name of a particular “black interest.”