In their blog of the same name, Brooke and Lian point to a growing movement in West Oakland to reduce the tide of social change driven by gentrification. They point out that since 2000, 20 percent of Oakland's black population has left Oakland, and -- they claim -- most of that departure from West Oakland.
There's a campaign to stop this and the leaders of the effort have posted signs and even a large billboard in protest of what is called "predatory development."
This has been ignored in the mainstream media, with people like the East Bay Express' Chris Thompson calling retailers like Walgreens champions of urban development, but offering no proof to back his claim.
Still, the drive -- as uncoordinated as it seems to be -- moves on. My prediction is that it will eventually lead to the first full scale riot Oakland has ever seen. All of the drivers are in place: wildly disparant income levels, high crime, poor neighborhood job opportunities, angry police officers, unwelcome development, and a growing digital divide. Oakland's not for burning, but if this keeps up, someone in West Oakland might change their mind.
Comments
Wood Street development in West Oakland.
The article shows that there is at least some support for development from neighborhood residents. Cities and neighborhoods are dynamic and often transitory, and demographic changes happen for a variety of reasons. Even if it's possible to stop these changes, is it a good idea? Oakland's Asian and Latino populations are growing rapidly while the black population is decreasing (I think the white population is constant, despite "Jerrification")--can we really stop that? Or should we?
Your call for a riot is disgusting. Just Cause is bunch of hippie kids who don't live in West Oakland and don't care about the neighborhood's desire for improved schools, more retail, and reducation of blight.
And now that we're finally making some progress, we have to deal with white hippie kids screaming "gentrification" every time somebody wants to build something other than low income housing around us. Hasn't it occurred to anyone out in the Lake area or the hills that we've been stuck with enough low income housing and halfway houses already? Let them put the next one up in Adam's Point!
Jesus, we even have to deal with a newspaper that runs articles shrieking about gentification when someone wants to turn a litter dump into a garden! Just Cause isn't doing anything to help. All they do is try to create anger while setting us back 20 years.
This "movement" you are referring to comes from people outside our area, most of them white, telling us they know what is best for us, and that we should fight to stop the improvements in our neighborhood that we have wanted for years. Those signs are being paid for by people who don't even live here.
If you're truly interested in Walgreens' history of investing in inner cities, here's an evaluation of the company by the nonprofit group Business For Social Responsibility.
"Walgreens, in its more than 100-year history, has maintained drugstores in low-income, inner city neighborhoods. Since the early 1990s Walgreens has opened more than 3,000 stores throughout the United States and of those, 15 to 20 percent were opened in inner-city, economically depressed areas. As a healthcare products provider, it is part of the company philosophy to provide healthcare necessities to underserved areas, while also providing jobs and daily personal care goods. Walgreen reports that its stores have been very well received in low-income neighborhoods and the company intends to continue doing business in these markets."
Awesome.
But I guess poor folks can't have it all, can they? They should just be sooooo grateful someone's willing to invest in their neighborhoods, even though we know there's plenty of money in poor communities. Also, Walgreen's makes money on its pharmacy, so there's plenty of MediCal green to hoover up in low income neighborhoods.
Walgreens is a corporation. When there's no money to be made, their "commitment" to the ghetto will evaporate.
Also, BSR is widely criticized as a greenwashing organization, which has many of the corporations it reviews as dues paying "members." It's not the worst thing around, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt.