Hot News!
• Cincinnati Progressives on the Bailout
• EXPOSED! Two sets of rules on Fountain Square
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Nick Spencer’s Urban Pioneers: A Movement In Racism
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
A few weeks ago, after yet another crushing defeat in his bid for City Council, Nick Spencer returned to the blogosphere by resurrecting his former domain: nickspencer.blogspot.com. Several of his posts have dealt with the whining propaganda that can typically be associated with a misdirected movement known as “Urban Pioneers.”
I’ve been considering that monicker—“Urban Pioneers”—ever since Spencer’s crybaby post entitled ”Do They Really Want Us?”
I started thinking about the word “pioneer,” and what specifically it means. Consider the following relevant definitions, cited from the Oxford English Dictionary Online:
1. Mil. One of a body of foot-soldiers who march with or in advance of an army or regiment, having spades, pickaxes, etc. to dig trenches, repair roads, and perform other labours in clearing and preparing the way for the main body.
3. fig. a. One who goes before to prepare or open up the way for others to follow; one who begins, or takes part in beginning, some enterprise, course of action, etc.; an original investigator, explorer, or worker, in any department of knowledge or activity; an originator, initiator (of some action, scheme, etc.); a forerunner (in such action, etc.).
Hopefully, the problem with the concept is immediately obvious: there were already people in Over-The-Rhine when people like Nick Spencer started to colonize! Like the early American pioneers who “cleared the way” by destroying Native Americans and stealing their land so white civilization could build on their graves, so too does the Urban Pioneer movement seem hellbent on doing the same to center-city blacks.
What does it mean if we think of Urban Pioneers as people who are “clearing the way,” as the word itself denotes? What are they clearing? For whom are they clearing it?
How can Urban Pioneers “take part in a beginning” in a place where something is already happening?
The old American stories mythologized the Wild West into something savage. When the people who were already there were reduced to “savages,” it became easier in the collective American consciousness to do whatever was necessary to clear them out of the way. We called it “Manifest Destiny.” We thought we were on a mission from God.
And it certainly looks like Nick Spencer and his Urban Pioneers are cut from the same cloth as their historical predecessors. But what really makes me sick is their desire to become mythologized in the same way.
Human beings are human beings (even if they are poor and/or black), and no person should be treated as some kind of bothersome obstacle for the actualization of a later arriver’s enterprise.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
21 Jan 2006 at 08:32 pm | #
Zinzinnati was known as “the Imperial Queen city of the west”.
I think it’s sad that even the Freedom center barely recognizes the genocide that took place here. We still celebrate a brutal murderer named Christopher Columbus.
You are pretty harsh on Spencer, but I do think he’s been insensitive towards the poor that were here long before he was.
Poor people are human and should be treated as such.
21 Jan 2006 at 08:56 pm | #
I think you should change the name of this site to Bizarro World.
21 Jan 2006 at 10:39 pm | #
Disturbing!
22 Jan 2006 at 06:24 am | #
From Spencer’s post, my italics:
Do They Really Want Us?
Its a question a lot of urban pioneers and activists in Cincinnati are asking, I think…
If given the opportunity, these folks could be the city’s foot soldiers. If empowered, they could be our greatest ambassadors, selling Cincinnati’s urban core to their friends and family.
22 Jan 2006 at 09:11 am | #
Dean- your points are right on target. People in the “urban pioneer” movement seem to be frustrated and downright mean. The development of center-city is important, but it should walk hand in hand with creating opportunities for the people who already live there-not just the ones who recently moved in with their own vision for the area.
22 Jan 2006 at 01:14 pm | #
Who the hell is Nick Spencer & why should anyone care about this issue?
22 Jan 2006 at 01:21 pm | #
Without people like Nick Spencer and other “urban pioneers” this city would be in the toilet, not on the way to the toilet like it is now. He has not advocated “kicking out the poor” as you say. If anything, his blog has been compassionate to the poor. I think you are associating poor with criminal. Criminals need to go, they are the problem there.
These so-called pioneers are trying to fix up a waste land, otherwise known as OTR. Wake up!
22 Jan 2006 at 02:17 pm | #
Spencer himself frequently equates the poor and the homeless. That is why he wants the social services like the Magdalene House moved out of “his” neighborhood.
22 Jan 2006 at 02:17 pm | #
My bad, I ment the poor and criminals.
22 Jan 2006 at 03:13 pm | #
It is great to see Spencer’s former field manager attacking him now.
So what was it Andrew. Were you just chasing the evil dollar working for him?
Got to love those principled greens who look down on democrats for selling out their values when they do the smae themselves.
22 Jan 2006 at 05:03 pm | #
Interesting point, fred. Perhaps Andrew will write a reflection about his time working for Spencer…
22 Jan 2006 at 05:08 pm | #
Fred, and anyone else who thinks working on a campaign is about money, if someone did, they would be destitute. Period. Mr. Warner may not have even been paid. A lot of people work on campaigns because they believe in the cause, the person, a strong issue, etc.
It ain’t about the dollar, except for a very few. It couldn’t be.
However, the equivocation with poverty, drug use/alcoholism, and crime is as fair an assessment as can be drawn, in my opinion.
22 Jan 2006 at 06:58 pm | #
I would hardly consider this an attack. Nick and I have always disagreed on some issues. This is one.
When you support a politician do you believe in everything they say no matter what? We have to choose who we support, but you don’t have to support every move they make.
22 Jan 2006 at 09:26 pm | #
that is in a response to an article that calls spencer a racist- I think that is fair to call an attack. If you agree someone is a racist i think it would be hard to call that a compliment
The question is why you would choose to align yourself with someone that you consider a racist who built his entire campaign around this urban movement and then attack him a couple months later for the same thing.
You disagree with him on managed competition, crime, and urban pinoneers. Thta is what spencer ran on last time. what exactley do you agree with him on? How can you support him and then lambast others for supporting david pepper for not being true progressives?
pot meet keetle
22 Jan 2006 at 09:38 pm | #
dean;
Yes all that compassion and anti-gentry rhetoric have worked wonders on OTR over the past 30 years! Less people and more crime every year. People like you actually make it worse for us down here, believe it or not.
22 Jan 2006 at 09:45 pm | #
Dean:
Urban Pioneers are ditching the suburbs in favor of fixing up houses in blighted neighborhoods. You called Spencer’s post a Movement in Racism, but I fail to see exactly how it is racist to improve a neighborhood that badly needs improvement. Poor people, as well as the new pioneers, will benefit from the increased home values and greater safety that an improved neighborhood will provide. Cincinnati will benefit, too.
No one is throwing out the poor. When Section 8 started giving vouchers, lots of poor folks left OTR on their own in search of safer neighborhoods. Many moved to my neighborhood. Think of it this way: one more urban pioneer=one less crack house.
22 Jan 2006 at 09:56 pm | #
Nick has a lot of good theories on center city development. He has a few I disagree with, namely the ones I mentioned earlier.
I frequently give lists of many things we agreed on. Election reform, support for the arts, help for small businesses, support of public transportation, environmental issues, GLBT issues, independent politics, etc., etc. Had Nick gotten on council he no doubt would have championed these issues, which is what the city needs.
I have no problem with people moving to the city and trying to make it a vibrant community. While the semantics of the title “urban pioneer” are suspect as the Dean points out, I understand the cause and even support it to a great degree. However, I think a vibrant, urban core is achieved through the list I just provided and not through attacks on social services.
The Spencer campaign message of managed competition, crime, and urban pioneerism were bullet points that ended up being a mistake for Nick and his campaign. I personally think his important issues got lost. You can’t blame Nick for that, message politics are in style these days, but it is a shame that that his rather intelligent mind are boiled down to such simple issues. Complex issues that he has a firm grasp on unfortunately don’t fit on a 5 x 8 piece of campaign literature.
What I should have said is “certain members of the urban pioneer movement are becoming frustrated and as a result are getting downright mean.”
One difference between Nick and David Pepper is that Nick runs with the Charter Committee which means he isn’t really bound to a platform. David runs as a Democrat and opposes Democratic ideas- such as managed competition. When I discuss faux Democrats I am mainly discussing their hypocrisy.
You also forget that Nick had the endorsement of the Southwest Ohio Green Party… An endorsement I had nothing to do with.
22 Jan 2006 at 09:59 pm | #
Andrew:
I propose moving the Magdelene House out of “Nick’s neighborhood” and into yours. Sound ok? People like you love to pander to the poor, but do you actually know any poor people? Let’s face it: poor people are magnets for crime. Homeless shelters are magnets for people who commit crime. That’s why we don’t see shelters in Hyde Park. Rich Hyde Parkers would never tolerate it, so why should we? Concentrating the poor(and services for the poor)leads to a neighborhood’s decline. Spread the poor, save a neighborhood.
-Jim
22 Jan 2006 at 10:39 pm | #
Jim-
I wouldn’t start a homeless shelter in Hyde Park for the same reason I wouldn’t open a bar in a neighborhood of Mormons. There’s no market for it.
Honestly I wouldn’t care if they put a shower facility for the homeless on Ludlow. The two or three homeless people that are regulars in the neighborhood would really enjoy it. I’ll grant you the fact that me saying that means little, as I live in an apartment and don’t have a business here.
This argument based on the fact that people don’t live in the neighborhood is getting old. There are plenty of residents of the neighborhood who seem to utilize the services and support them being there. Maybe they should get some computers and free wi-fi in these centers so they can give you their opinions on the blogs.
22 Jan 2006 at 10:44 pm | #
Pepper a true progressive? That’s a good one.
The poor were there first. Nick doesn’t live there, does he?
I would love to see OTR as a vibrant, mixed income neighborhood. I agree that poverty should be spread out and we should work to end it as much as possible. I don’t believe gentrification is the way to do it. There are enough abandoned buildings to accomodate everyone. These empty buildings invite the criminal element. OTR should be a place full of arts, small businesses and PEOPLE.
I agree with Andrew that Spencer championed some great issues, but some of his views I disagree with, like managed competition. I thought the article in City Beat really hurt him.
I think it’s a shame politicians have to pick three bullet points, it doesn’t help the discussion about what direction the city should move in. Choosing his points are his decision.
I applaud Nicks efforts to make some positive change. I disagree with him on some issues,but encourage him to continue to share his ideas.
22 Jan 2006 at 10:52 pm | #
If you build it they will come. A homeless shelter in Hyde Park...HP is on the busline and there are plenty of rich people there to rob and harass. It would be a gold mine for the homeless and the criminal element they attract. If they weren’t too busy loitering and committing petty crimes on Main, they would have thought of that already.
The argument that people who advocate shelters but don’t live in the proposed neighborhood IS old. But does that mean it is wrong? No. It means that we need political leaders who will risk re-election and forsake political correctness and say enough is enough.
-Jim
22 Jan 2006 at 11:05 pm | #
Or maybe people that share that vision should have put more effort into the Spencer campaign. He had no problem taking on that difficult issue, but the community just didn’t agree with him or care enough to put the time and money to a candidate with that vision.
I don’t know that your particular argument is right or wrong. But it seems like I have to move to every neighborhood that has a social service issue to have a say in the matter.
23 Jan 2006 at 02:56 am | #
Rich people in Hyde Park won’t allow a homeless shelter, they own the politicians. While bus fare doesn’t seem like anything to you, to a homeless person it’s a lot.
The homeless aren’t all criminals, just as the rich aren’t all law abiding citizens.
It is classist (maybe a little racist) to say the poor and homeless are “too busy loitering and committing petty crimes on Main”.
Nobody talks about white collar crime, which does far more harm to soceity than petty crime. There is a myth that all rich people work hard and all poor people are lazy. I have known a lot of rich and poor people. It seems to me the poor work harder. They are more likely to do more time for the same crime. Rich people can get away with murder, while poor people are more likely to go to jail for a crime they didn’t commit. The benefit of the doubt goes up and the blame goes down. Shit flows down stream.
23 Jan 2006 at 05:15 am | #
The Hyde Park argument is plain stupid. The Magdalen House, for example, was on Main Street BEFORE the white liquor establishments showed up. Now alcohol dealers want the homeless to catch a bus to Hyde Park to get clean.
Ridiculous.
23 Jan 2006 at 07:47 am | #
If these people are homeless, then does it matter where we put the shelter? It seems people ardently defend their right to be in a certain location. The homeless by definition are not beholden to any location. What’s wrong with moving the social services to an area that is not desired real estate? I belive in helping the less fortunate. Concentrating them in a small area in such a way that prohibits any economic developement is not the solution. So we can offer them temporary relief fron hunger and the elements, but we have no jobs or opportunities for advancement. The location does not matter. We may as well cart them all off to some paupers camp. Isn’t that what over the rhine is anyway, a place where “we” can put “them” so they don’t come into our neighborhoods? I applaud Nick. He is standing up for the advancement of his community. Dean, don’t you live in Norwood? Your city sold its own people off to some corporation in an outrageous abuse of eminant domain. Why are there no passionate quasi-personal attacks against the dean from people who don’t live in his hood?
23 Jan 2006 at 08:34 am | #
Dean; your analogy to the wild west doesn’t hold water. There were people in OTR before the current residents. And hopefully there will be people after the current ones move (including myself)
OTR population:
1900: 44,475
1960: 30,000
1970: 15,000
2000: 7,500
Do you prefer that the trend continue?
23 Jan 2006 at 09:25 am | #
If the trend continues, white bars will be safe to open in OTR by 2030, without the embarrasment of being called names by the dean, as there will be no one left to displace.
Is 30 social service agencies enough for a neighborhood of 7,000? Maybe we need more free lunches, and a few more places that give free showers. Maybe Alchemize could be turned into another homeless shelter.
23 Jan 2006 at 11:38 am | #
I had a problem with Nick’s blog because of his pessimism, I have a problem with Dean’s because of his racism. I am an Urban Pioneer and proud, not because I am white, but because I went against what most kids do who were born and raised in Amberly Village or any other suburb for that fact where life was a bit easier, and I moved to the inner city. And yes Dean, I am clearing the way for other suburbanites to do the same. My home on Mulberry was not occupied by a poor minority that I had thrown on the street, no, it was vacant and had been for some time. My neighbors, both of which are black are Urban Pioneers also, both vacant homes, one from West Chester, one from Columbus. Our neighborhood historian in one of the new homes on Mulberry is a retired teacher from Mason.
None of us rich, not all of us white, all of us Urban Pioneers.
We are pioneers in that we are the first group in a long time who are choosing to move to OTR, not because we have to, but because we want to. Your ignorance is amazing.
23 Jan 2006 at 12:23 pm | #
To M. Redmond above, well said!
23 Jan 2006 at 01:04 pm | #
What amazes me is the haste with which an intelligent discussion is reduced to petty name calling and verbal abuse. It is obvious to me that everyone that has posted on this blog has an opinion and strong feelings about these issues. The cause of economic depression in Cincinnati is no different than in any other rust belt city. The opportunities no longer exist to make a living that were once here. At one time land and labor were the source of wealth of our nation. Raw materials were used to produce manufactured goods or food was produced by small farmers that fed the people. This has mostly been replaced by mass production of food and outsourcing of jobs to countries where labor is cheaper.
Lacking the political will to address these conditions it remains up to the citizens to be the change. If political decisions are made to benefit the contributors that realize increased profits from outsourcing and other questionable practices then the needy in this society will never have a chance to improve their lot.
It would be refreshing to me to see some of this intellectual power redirected to more productive discussions. Like what can we do to change conditions for those of us in need?
The “urban pioneers” need to be applauded for their venture into the unknown and the risk they take to make things better. If they had maps they would merely be tourists.
23 Jan 2006 at 02:06 pm | #
The simple statement above continues two of the biggest lies of the “urban pioneer” movement.
1. All poor people, including those living in OTR, don’t receive Section 8 vouchers.
2. Many poor and working-class people are indeed being thrown out of OTR to make way for these “urban pioneers”.
23 Jan 2006 at 02:13 pm | #
There is a third point that sticks out at me.
3. Everyone being kicked out of OTR didn’t live in a crack house.
This is a good topic for discussion, Dean, and I’m glad you raised it.
23 Jan 2006 at 02:16 pm | #
I guess you are right Nate, I am poor, I do not recieve public assistance. Where have they been “thrown out” to make room for the pioneers? I am somewhat familiar with the developments down in OTR so tell me where they what development threw people into the streets.
23 Jan 2006 at 02:32 pm | #
Well Nate, I can’t just sit around all day and wait for your response so lets explore some of these developments together, shall we.
5 New homes on Mulberry, what was there? an abandoned garage
over 15 rehabs (all abandoned, one was to be torn down)
I am working on a Brewery which will hold 19 condos (currently unoccupied)
KD Lamp scheduled to hold 95 condos (currently unoccupied)
German Towne Lofts-over 90 properties in all-most unocupied-the rest recieving vouchers
Dunlap - market rate condos for sale now-what was there? an abandoned building
We are trying to get Denny to put condos into Metal Blast (currently unocupied)
I can keep going, but why don’t you chime in and tell me where we are throwing people into the streets.
23 Jan 2006 at 02:40 pm | #
Note to all those with reading comprehension problems: the issue here is in the characterization inherent in the word “pioneer.” To substantiate my claim, I provided evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary—the best authority that can be cited in terms of what words mean.
You people are not pioneers. You are interested in moving into a neighborhood, and you have a political vision you bring with you.
That can be either good or bad. That is not my point, anyway.
23 Jan 2006 at 02:51 pm | #
Right, got it
“One who goes before to prepare or open up the way for others to follow; one who begins, or takes part in beginning, some enterprise, course of action, etc.; an original investigator, explorer, or worker, in any department of knowledge or activity; an originator, initiator”
I and others have opened up a way for others to follow, we work everyday to convince people that downtown is a viable place to live, not just a drug haven and a place to get yourself killed.
We have begun, or at least are taking part of the beginnings of seeing OTR and surrounding communities turn around from decay to prosperity.
We are part of the first people who are choosing to move to the inner city instead of the suburbs to do our part in cleaning this place up and making it a city for the all, not just the few you are talking about.
We are pioneers, we are interested in moving into this neighborhood, and I do not know exactly what you believe my political vision is but yes, we are here to change some things. I can tell you what this pioneer has done for his community, what have you done for yours?
23 Jan 2006 at 03:39 pm | #
You are a self-righteous SOB!
You wrote:
Do you understand that there were people living downtown BEFORE you? Do you understand that many of these people are not involved in a “drug haven”? Do you understand that they do not want to get themselves killed? How can you open up a way for others to follow when there are already people there?!
You wrote:
How does the fact that other people already lived in the inner city match your romatic version of yourself?
You wrote:
Please write specifically on those things you want to change that have a direct impact on those who already live there. How do these pre-existing residents fit with your vision? Are you “clearing them out of the way?” If not, why the insistence on the word “pioneer”?
What have I done for my community? I am a media activist, and I work to provide alternative news sources for Cincinnati. I presume you appreciate my efforts, since you are occupying my bandwidth.
23 Jan 2006 at 04:34 pm | #
"You are a self-righteous SOB!”
Dean, look in the mirror. You are the self riteous one in this case.
I do not like the term myself, and wouldn’t use it to describe myself, however not just cowboys were pioneers. Edison called himself a pioneer… in the positive sense, and no one has to be displaced by the light bulb, except candle makers, I guess.
I am part of an OTR community, and hope to join with others here to make positive change. You may have noticed my ealiers posts noting that OTR lost residents every decade since 1900. Then, you have the nerve to call people SOB, racist, whiners, because they are spending years of their lives, taking risks on a dangerous and poverty stricken neighborhood. People are honestly trying to make positive change, and it is a very difficult path.
Dean, you are very condescending to the current residents. I know many people in my block, and surrounding streets, and the last thing they are concerned about is Nick Spencer and so-called pioneers. They want less crime, less litter, less public intoxication, and better apartments, schools and jobs. The so-called pioneers are fighting with the current residents, not against.
One question for Dean; What would you like to see change in OTR?
23 Jan 2006 at 04:39 pm | #
No Dean, you are the self-righteous SOB. The people you defend so desperately did nothing to improve the neighborhood. We are. And people like you will continue to launch attacks against people like me and the other urban pioneers on this board. The benefits of our efforts to the existing residents have been posted all over this board. Everbody (except the criminals) wins.
Your attacks against the white man are truly stunning. How terrible it must be to wake up everyday and see a white face staring back in the mirror. If only the reflection could be brown, or black, or yellow. Anything but the dreaded white face!
23 Jan 2006 at 04:47 pm | #
Overwhelimingly, you continue to disregard the original thesis, which involves the use of the word “pioneer,” and the kind of colonialism it both connotes and denotes.
Or, do you agree that you share the same kind of beliefs in “Manifest Destiny”?
I am quite confortable with my own whiteness: it is the whiteness of crazies like you that gives me pause.
The people I defend are the hardworking, non-drug-using residents of these neighborhoods before you got there. I have been to an OTR community council meeting, and listened to some of these citizens speak. They are not good-for-nothing criminals, though they lack some of the resources you seem to possess.
But the manner with which you “dispense” your resources in an self-centered attempt to improve your own lot is not only egocentric, but socially unjust.
And if you are not as egocentric as I believe, please show it through inclusive acts.
Start by dropping the word “pioneer” from the ways in which you describe yourselves.
23 Jan 2006 at 04:48 pm | #
Hometown, you are an idiot.
Edison is a pioneer because he cleared an intellectual wildspace that had not been staked previously—but in so doing (if we follow the metaphor), he did not displace anyone who already lived there.
I’d like to see people in OTR like Spencer to stop being such assholes.
23 Jan 2006 at 05:14 pm | #
Dean:
This is obviously a topic that is near to your heart, hence the name calling and emotion. You’ve mentioned repeatedly that poor folks are being thrown out so these “pioneers” or whatever you want to call them can come in and take over. Who is being displaced? Do you have sources to back up the claim? If the poor are being thrown out, yes, that is a problem. But if not, what’s the problem?
23 Jan 2006 at 05:55 pm | #
someone earlier posted the population of otr was once 45,000 now it’s 7,500… seems like there’s room for anyone that wants to live there, pioneer or poor.
23 Jan 2006 at 06:05 pm | #
dean
why is it that oxford defintion fits what you want it is “the best authority that can be cited in terms of what words mean.” but you dont use their definiton or racism?
could it be the best authority is the one that matches what the answer you want?
23 Jan 2006 at 06:21 pm | #
Dean,
Do you live downtown, and where? How long, who did you displace when you moved here?
“Please write specifically on those things you want to change that have a direct impact on those who already live there.”
Vacancy rate
Murder rate
Drug rate
Prostitution
Pan Handling
Loss of business
Loss of population
All these things I want to help change for those who live here now and those who will hopefully decide to live here in the future. I do so by..........
I am part of the OTRCC, and hope to have a board seat soon
I sit on the MT. Auburn Leadership Counsil
Chairman of the Events Committee
I am Captain of the Mulberry/McMicken Sector
I am part of the OTR Chamber
I sit on the Brewery District CC
Sit on the Marketing Committee
I work closely with Dan Dell with Main St. Live
I am Co Chair of the Mulberry Hill Tour for Life
And you, a media activist? Hey thanks for opposing reason. You can have your bandwith back.
23 Jan 2006 at 06:44 pm | #
Michael Redmond
I’ve played this silly game with Nick Spencer and other gentrifiers and am more than happy to play it with you. For some reason, I doubt you’ll ever admit that gentrification is taking place in OTR. (Nick and his ilk certainly haven’t admitted it.)
Until I moved to Northside, I lived in a rented apartment on Walnut Street in OTR. The owner was an outfit called Middle Earth. (I’m told that former Republican Judge David Grossman, the guy who challenged Todd Portune for County Commissioner, is part owner.) Not that it’s any of your business, but I never received a Section 8 voucher. Instead, I paid my rent with earings I raised from working every day.
The building I lived in was fully occupied with paying tenants. I knew my neighbors and can tell you that we all chose to live in OTR. One day Middle Earth slipped a letter under our door notifying us that we had to move because the apartments we currently occupied were being converted into condos. Did I mention, the building wasn’t vacant!
Middle Earth isn’t alone in kicking people out of their buildings to make way for so-called “urban pioneers”. What’s sad is that people like you and Nick deny that this is happening. If your urban pioneer movement is so honorable and good for OTR, why don’t you tell the truth about what you are doing?! Or, said another way, why do you continue to deny that people are being kicked out of their apartments and displaced from OTR?
23 Jan 2006 at 06:45 pm | #
fred, you are right that I do not use the OED when it comes to defining racism. That is because my definition of choice is more like a philosophy of race. The dictionary is not about philosophy.
If you have an essay on the philosophy of “pioneering,” I would be interested to see it. But when it comes to the plain dictionary definition of a word, that is the one to use. So, until I have a philosophy of pioneering on which to base my use of the word, I will use the best dictionary for the English language. Is there a problem with that approach? Please explain, and in your explanation do not disregard the reasons I have just set forth.
Michael Redmond, I challenge you to logically demonstrate a lack of reason in this strand from my end. If you show me, and your claims are substantiated, I will retract the statement and issue an apology.
I do not live downtown. Do I need to live downtown to talk about it? Why or why not?
The list of things you wish to change are good. I agree with them. Now, why be a colonizer in the process? Be a liberator!
It also sounds like you are active. Good job. Now drop the term “pioneer,” treat all residents equally, stop defending crybabies like Spencer with his hateful rhetoric, and you will be on your way to great things.
23 Jan 2006 at 06:48 pm | #
BTW, from the OED: racism—a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
If we take “characteristics and abilities” to be determined through processes of socialization and not genetics, then my most often cited definition and this do not disagree.
23 Jan 2006 at 06:49 pm | #
Switzerland
People are being thrown out. Please see my comments posted above. Now, what say you?
These people want to share OTR with the poor about as much as the white man wanted to share America with the Indians. They’ve assumed more than the name “pioneer”.
23 Jan 2006 at 06:50 pm | #
Nate, that is a story you should publicize more!
23 Jan 2006 at 06:51 pm | #
I mean the one from 8:44 (looks like we’re commenting concurrently). The one about being evicted.
23 Jan 2006 at 06:58 pm | #
Dean
It is difficult to discuss issues with people who won’t accept certain basic truths.
23 Jan 2006 at 07:00 pm | #
Can you prove we aren’t actually the same person posting under different names? Please do so right after you prove that poor people are being displaced in OTR, a place, by the way, that you’ve never lived in!
23 Jan 2006 at 07:04 pm | #
Is OTR gentrifying? God willing. Hey sorry the owner of your building decided to use it for different uses, it is a property OWNERS right. Did that note say out by noon tomorow? Did you have time? Did you find another place? Or were ya livin on the streets?
Why don’t you spend some of your hard earned money investing in this neighborhood? I have. I spend time making it better, Ive spent my money, got involved, and made a difference. Sit back and complain all you want Nate, because something has to change in OTR, or were you happy with the status quo- astronomical murder rates, buildings falling, vacancy rates on the rise, loss of population, loss of business.....well I have said it before, your way did not work. Call it what you want, this is everyone’s city, not just yours, not just mine, not the ignorant SOB who runs this site, no - it belongs to everyone.
23 Jan 2006 at 07:16 pm | #
Dean,
That was the nicest and most reasonable thing I have heard yet from you. Bottom line is we are not insistant on being called Pioneers, Hell, my whole family when hearing I was moving downtown called me a fool, pioneer just sounds so much better.
No one on this board probably cares about the pioneer thing, but we do care about people telling us we do not belong because we were not the first, but neither were they. This is an old city and I have to think that some of the queen anne and victorian style homes were not originally built for the poor. But my point is I have great section 8 neighbors, I have great middle class neighbors, and I have yet to meet any rich neighbor of mine.
As I said above, this is everyone’s city, we all live in Cincinnati, we all have a vested intrest in seeing it be the best it can be, rich-poor, black-white, asian-gay, I don’t care. (except Nate Livingston, he should move!)
23 Jan 2006 at 07:24 pm | #
Dean-
You lost this one. Time to take your ball and go home. Even your favorite cheerleader, who’s name rhymes with Hate, couldn’t bail you out here.
Dean=0
Urban Pioneers=1
23 Jan 2006 at 07:31 pm | #
Re: proof of displacing the poor. If I wanted Nate to answer, I would have asked Nate. Dean, got the proof or just the hot air?
BTW, no offense, Nate, but everything you say is crap.
23 Jan 2006 at 07:34 pm | #
Nate:
The problem I see with your Middle Earth story is pretty simple--
The building you were in wasn’t low-income housing. It was market rate rental that became market rate condos, wasn’t it? That’s obviously not displacing low-income residents.
And Jason, please act your age and stop hurling insults around. You’re starting to display that nervy psychosis you try so hard to hide.
The simple fact is that I do not, in any way, support reducing the number of low income housing units in OTR. Jason may not want to accept that this is my position, but it still is. I’m not trying to kick anyone out that actually LIVES here.
I do however, want to see ALL neighborhoods and municiplaities offer their share of low-income housing. That will result in better lives for the poor, by offering them better access to jobs, education, etc. It has to be pretty obvious to anyone that concentrating poverty in one area is a bad thing, and not something the poor actually CHOOSE to do. Still, people like Jason defend it, apparently without recognizing the racism and classism that created the situation in the first place.
I honestly think Jason would rather disagree with me than do anything productive on this stuff. This whole site, and its previous incarnation, is basically built around name-calling, gossip, and shrill rhetoric.
I hope everyone can agree that shoving poor people in one place and inundating it with social services doesn’t work. The key now is where do we go from here?
1. We need a regional housing strategy that requires every neighborhood to provide affordable housing. The deconcentration of low income housing will provide better access to jobs and education for the poor.
2. We need to locate social services in non-residential areas that are still easily accessible to those that need them.
3. We need mass transit to help connect the poor in the urban core to jobs in the outer suburbs.
4. We need more homeownership opportunities for the poor, continuing the good work that Mercy and Model Mgmt. are doing.
Does anybody have any disagreement with the actual merits of these four points, or will we simply continue to accuse anyone who advocates these as part of a plan to revitalize the core of being an anti-poor racist?
Because so far, Jason, I see you calling people a bunch of names and accusing them of lots of things, but not really backing it up with much in the way of thought or logic. Pretty typical, actually.
23 Jan 2006 at 07:41 pm | #
Interesting and troubling! First they asked for the information. Then I provided it. Now they seek to change the subject. Typical. But at least we have one of the gentrifiers admitting what most reasonable people knew all along—OTR is being gentrified.
23 Jan 2006 at 07:50 pm | #
Nate--gentrifying is generally understood to mean the rich kicking out the poor. You said you were not being subsidized. Poor people get subsidies. Your example doesn’t qualify as gentrification. Buy a house. Surefire way not to get kicked out.
23 Jan 2006 at 08:04 pm | #
It strikes me as odd that the people fighting the people from moving to and investing in downtown don’t even live downtown. Even Nate lives in Northside.
23 Jan 2006 at 08:10 pm | #
Nick
You are an amazing piece of work. You’ve spent months, no years, pretending that there is no displacement going on in Over The Rhine and that the condos are only being put into vacant buildings. I’ve provided the example of me and my former neighbors as evidence that what you’ve claimed isn’t based in reality. You’ve lied (and apparently continue to lie to yourself). The fact is the building I lived in housed people with low to moderate incomes. It was affordable housing. Middle Earth kicked the tenants out to make room for, I believe the term you folks were using then was, “young professionals”. Working class Black people weren’t part of the desired neighborhood mix. And if some of you gentrifiers were honest with yourself, you’d admit that you don’t want to see Black people in the neighborhood, either. You don’t want to share the neighborhood, you want to take it over and rule it. Have any of you ever thought that one reason for the problems in the community is that people in the lower middle class, like me and my family, are being ran out of the neighborhood.
Yeah, I’ve got many problems with your points. My biggest problem is that instead of asking people what they need you seem to think you know what’s best for them. You may not like hearing it, but I think your viewpoint that a mostly-poor neighborhood = a bad neighborhood but a mostly-rich neighborhood = a great neighborhood is classist and, yes, racist.
Now, how in the world will the “deconcentration of low income housing ... provide better access to jobs and education for the poor”? What does that even mean? If I put low income housing in Indian Hill, how does that poor person then have better access to a job not in Indian Hill or to an educational institution not in Indian Hill. Now throw some poor people in Hyde Park and Oakley, neighborhoods that also don’t have jobs or educational institutions. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this isn’t a workable solution to the problem, it is a theory crafted by some people who have never been poor. I think people like you Nick just say things over and over again so many times that you begin to believe them. Your quoted comment above makes absolutely no sense.
No we don’t! Social service agencies don’t need to have someone like you dictating where they locate. If these agencies weren’t in locations easily accessible to their clients, they’d go out of business. The decision to locate in OTR, or the West End, or Avondale, or Price Hill, etc. is based on the fact that people in those communities need services, and people from other neighborhoods can travel to those locations.
Why don’t we move alcohol establishments into non-residential areas?
We need a lot of things, but an improved mass transit system doesn’t seem to be in the works. So, your idea is just talk. You’ve got all these theories about what should be and what could be, but you don’t seem to grasp the fact that people are living in desperate conditions NOW. This is not the time for your theories, this is the time for compasionate people to figure out how they can help RIGHT NOW.
Do you have any proposals to address the problems facing OTR (or any other neighborhood) that can actually be accomplished in a reasonably short period of time, say by the end of the year?
23 Jan 2006 at 08:27 pm | #
dont want to get off the thread too far but you have said that by the defintion you use black people cannot be racist. there is nothing in the oed that limits racism to “white european males”. The two defintions are very different
you appear to be choosing defintions that fit your beliefs which is fine but dont trumpet the oed as “the best authority” of what words mean when you dont use it as such unless it meets your beliefs.
23 Jan 2006 at 08:29 pm | #
Jim
I disagree.
1. Gentrifying may be understood by you to mean “the rich” kicking out “the poor” but that isn’t a definition I subscribe to, and I don’t think it is a definition used by the general public.
According to dictionary.com gentrification has two meanings: (1) The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people, and (2) the restoration of run-down urban areas by the middle class (resulting in the displacement of lower-income people).
Notice that the terms “rich” or “poor” aren’t used in either definition. Instead, the term for “poor” is lower-income. Me and my former OTR neighbors were “lower-income”, working-class people. We were displaced by middle-class or affluent people. The only thing that wouldn’t apply is the notion that we lived in deteriorated or run-down property. Our apartments were neither.
2. Poor people get subsidies?! Really!!! Does it bother you that your definition of gentrification is so similar to one found here on a racist website dedicated to “victims of reverse discrimination”? It’s kinda scary to hear some of you tell how you feel about poor or lower-income people. You think we are all bums on the government welfare role.
3. Instead of deal with what’s happening in OTR, and defend the ongoing gentrification, you’d rather argue about definitions. I guess I’d change the subject too if I were in your position.
23 Jan 2006 at 08:34 pm | #
Fred, don’t you know by now Jason twists everything to fit his anti-white beliefs?
23 Jan 2006 at 08:41 pm | #
According to dictionary.com gentrification has two meanings: (1) The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people
....translation: rich (affluent) and poor (lower income). I saved you a little time by providing the common meaning already, but thanks for consulting the dictionary anyway. What’s your issue? Nada. You have no issue.
23 Jan 2006 at 08:42 pm | #
Hmmm… so was it subsidized housing, was it taking vouchers, or were the rent below the range of market-rate? Actually, it wasn’t any of the above was it?
My apartment is affordable housing. I pay $400 for a one-bedroom on North Main. At some point over the next couple of years, it will go condo. At that point, unless I want to buy the unit, I’ll have to move. But wait… I’m a white young professional!!
Could it be this is about units moving to homeownership from rental (a good thing for any neighborhood), rather than some black vs. white thing? And again, your unit wasn’t low income housing.
And your point about deconcentrating low-income housing is just nonsensical. Let’s say a low income single mother moves to Milford. Suddenly, the public school her kid goes to is a hundred times better. She’s a lot closer to tons of jobs, entry level and beyond. The neighborhood in which she raises her kid is safer and gets better basic services.
And if we put the Drop Inn Center in Queensgate tomorrow, we will have just as many beds filled as we do today. Or is there some other reason the homeless are concentrated in OTR? They just like it there or something?
But then I realize I’m arguing with a race-obsessed psychopath on the web site of a guy who made a name for himself by putting on an academic gown and publicly humiliating himself. Ah, gotta love the local blog scene.
23 Jan 2006 at 08:54 pm | #
Nate,
You are really grasping at straws. Lower income not poor! Come on. Looks like you need to hang it up. Both you and Dean are losers on this issue. Time to go back to your hate rhetoric on your own blog.
23 Jan 2006 at 08:56 pm | #
Downtown Resident
It strikes me as odd that people like you are apparently too feeble-minded to understand a simple point. No one is fighting people from moving to and investing in downtown. All we’ve said is that the self-described “urban pioneers” should share the land with the people who already live there instead of displacing them. No one has disputed that the urban pioneers do exactly what the Dean claimed. Please allow me to point them out below.
1. They invaded a neighborhood that was already populated with residents, leaders, businesses, and services.
2. Instead of work with the existing neighbors, the urban pioneers sought to (and still seek to) demonize the residents by suggesting that they were bums, panhandlers, and Section 8 recipients.
3. Any non-poor Black residents were seen as a threat and asked to leave. (That’s one reason why there are so few middle-class, or even lower-middle class Blacks in OTR today. We didn’t voluntarily leave or abandon our people, we were forced out of the neighborhood to make room for white “young professionals”.)
4. Having removed the working class residents, and painted the remaining poor residents as modern-day savages (with lots of help from the white media), the pioneers then sought to undercut the leaders and businesses. First the leaders ... When the pioneers couldn’t infiltrate and take over an existing organization, they created a new one, with a mission directly counter to the old, and used the new group to undercut the old one.
For example, when Nannie Hinkston was president of the OTR CC she spent much of her time fighting to keep OTR from being oversaturated with liquor establishments. The tried to take over the CC but couldn’t. So, they created the OTR COC. They pumped thousands of dollars into the COC and made it appear that the neighborhood supported the COC’s efforts, not the CC’s. Because the COC had wealth, and the CC didn’t, the politicians ignored the CC’s concerns and flooded the neighborhood with alcohol.
Small businesses that catered to the people who lived in the neighborhood, including the poor, like Fran’s, found themselves out of business.
Let me repeat this again so that you don’t miss it. OTR is big enough for everyone. No one opposes suburbanites moving into the neighborhood. What’s objected to is this notion that certain white people are pioneers who shouldn’t equally share the neighborhood with the existing residents, but instead should either kick the existing people out, or dominate the one’s who remain.
23 Jan 2006 at 09:07 pm | #
I know a lot of people who are moving downtown who aren’t racist or gentrifying the neighborhood, especially my friends on Mulberry. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t any gentrification going on. Western Southern bought some buildings and kicked some people out. They then sold the properties to CPS supposedly at cost, but really at a profit of $1.2 million dollars. My point is that you are both right to a degree.
The Housing Advisory Council plan is something that should be pushed by all of you that are concerned. There are plenty of abandoned buildings that need attention and I applaud those that are stepping up. Those that are pushing out the poor are a different matter. This is also happening.At the end of the day we all want a better city and an improved OTR is crucial to that cause.
I think blogs have tremendous potential, we should have debates about whats going on in this city and where we should go without all the name calling. It quickly deteriorates it’s productive potential. Let’s disagree without being disagreeable. These are important issues and we should all do our part.
Not everyone is racist and classist
Thanks!
23 Jan 2006 at 09:14 pm | #
Nate,
We all know OTR has been a slum for years. You act like these horrid rich people tried to take command of a vibrant, safe community. Remember how you used to refer to Jason as the Dummy of Cincinnati and banned him from your blog? Would love to hear how you guys kissed and made up, but I have an appointment to go kick a poor person out of their OTR home.
23 Jan 2006 at 09:18 pm | #
Nate,
Keep up the good fight for Northside, or wherever you are from. We will take OTR from here, thanks for your support. Good Luck and good riddance.
23 Jan 2006 at 09:38 pm | #
Nick
I love it how you look down your nose and pretend to be so much better than other participants in this part of the blogosphere. You are such a snob. I also love how you complain about people calling names only to turn around and call names yourself. This quote from the end of your last comment is classic Nick Spencer.
You are a class act, Nicky. A class act. And you’ve got a lot of nerve. I doubt anyone reading this has ever seen the Dean humiliating himself by being photographed weeping in public, but you have. Let me think about this, would I rather be photographed crying like a little bitch or dressed in a graduation cap and gown? Let me get back to you on that one.
On to you points… the more you talk, the more you show that you don’t know jack!
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
1. Education - I reject your suggestion that Milford Public Schools are better than Cincinnati Public Schools. Many CPS students receive an outstanding education. And many MPS students fail to appreciate education and don’t take advantage of the presented educational opportunities. What we’ve got here is a case of someone thinking the grass is greener on the other side. It’s not.
Besides, your earlier comments were about adult education. Which college or university is in Milford? Oh, I forgot, they don’t have one!
2. Employment - There are no entry level jobs in Indian Hill, Hyde Park, or, to use your latest example, Milford. But considering you’ve never held a job in your life, you wouldn’t know this now would you.
3. Basic Services - Milford has better basic services than Cincinnati? Really! I’ve been through Milford and the place is a dump!!!
You are wrong on all three of your points.
If you want higher education, you are better off in Cincinnati.
If you want the best education for your children, CPS is your best bet.
If you want to be near jobs, especially entry level jobs, and you don’t have a car, stay in Cincinnati.
If you want (or need) to be near hospitals or health clinics, stay in Cincinnati.
If you want the best basic services, stay in Cincinnati.
Back to gentrification… What makes your definitions right and mine wrong? Yes, the apartment I lived in was both affordable and market-rate. Yes, I’m both poor, lower-income, and working-class. I refuse to follow the simplistic and limited definition of gentrification provided on this board. What’s going on in OTR is that poor, lower-income, working-class people, or whatever term you want to use, are being pushed out of the neighborhood. Taking our place are middle-class, rich, young professional, urban pioneers, or whatever you want to call them. As far as I’m concerned, this is gentrification and it is taking place in OTR.
The point you refuse to address (are you incapable of addressing it) is that these “urban pioneers” aren’t limiting their renovation to vacant buildings (as you and others have claimed over the years). They are kicking people out of the neighborhood.
23 Jan 2006 at 09:45 pm | #
Patriot
How do you ever find common ground with people who refuse to admit what you’ve just said is true? Some people refuse to admit that any gentrification is going on or that any poor people are being kicked out of the neighborhood. They’ll argue over the definition of gentrification or the definition of poor as a way to avoid the addressing the issue.
I don’t speak for anyone but myself but the problem in OTR, from my perspective, is that the “urban pioneers” don’t want to share the land with the poor or renovate the thousands of vacant buildings. They want to kick the current occupants of OTR out, live in their buildings, and bitch about the vacant buildings.
What’s step one of the scientific method?
23 Jan 2006 at 10:20 pm | #
Middle Earth is one of the leading developers doing market rate rehab in the city. Nate, you were part of the gentry in OTR while renting from them. Maybe you should buy one of their condos, they start under 100K. The mortgage payment wouldn’t be much more than a rental payment.
23 Jan 2006 at 11:02 pm | #
"How do you ever find common ground with people who refuse to admit what you’ve just said is true?”
We agree on some things, like better mass transit etc, you start there. What you don’t want to do is assume their racist and part of the problem. Some of them really do rehab abandoned buildings and are part of the solution. Instead of name calling and patronizing them, engage them in respectful dialog. When others sink to that level try not to join them. (I know you didn’t start this, but you asked.)
“Some people refuse to admit that any gentrification is going on or that any poor people are being kicked out of the neighborhood. They’ll argue over the definition of gentrification or the definition of poor as a way to avoid the addressing the issue.”
Agreed. Lets try to provide examples of this. Some people will never concede, but we should assume most people are reasonable. We probably share more in common than we disagree. We all want a better city, we just disagree on how to get there. We should try to educate each other, not prove to ourselves we’re always right. Sometimes our egos get in the way. I’m not trying to single anyone out, it’s just the negative side of the blogs. We should try to elevate things a bit.
“What’s step one of the scientific method?”
If I remeber correctly, it’s formulating a hypothesis.
Here’s one,3CDC has bought up over 200 buildings in OTR. They are not interested in helping the poor.
Best!
23 Jan 2006 at 11:22 pm | #
It is Northside. Just call him “Northside Nate” from now on. He doesn’t like to bring that up.
He was kicked out of OTR because of you rich white people, but he can afford Northside. Maybe we should inform Northside Nate of the numerous opportunities to move back into the city.
Northside Nate, go and check the affordable housing sites in the downtown area. You will find that many are struggling with vacancy rates. They can’t get people to live there. If you want to buy in now, you can still buy a house downtown for a reasonable rate. Yeah, you might be painting, scraping, and cleaning your own gutters, but the true affordable housing right now exists downtown. I invite you to invest and work in our community. Right now you are just another outsider, albiet an outsider with a megaphone sized mouth and an ego problem.
Northside Nate, as far as your mental condition goes, I suggest you seek professional help. You aren’t part of any of the communities that you proport to represent, and even Northside doesn’t want a thing to do with you. Nobody wants a thing to do with you, and you have no credibility.
Could you list any community that supports anyone of your actions or statements for the rest of us all? Does any community in this City formally support anything that you say? Are you just a mad black man with a blog? I live in a community that is 90% black, and nobody that I have met gives a damn about what you say. Have you ever clued in on that fact?
24 Jan 2006 at 12:04 am | #
I would prefer not.
My wife and I were discussing the irony of this discussion as we sat in court this morning and sent a man to jail today because of the terrible shape of his buildings on Mulberry. He was not poor, not black, instead he was a white man with an estimated net worth of 40 million (Larry Rhodes). Now if your argument is true, why would we as a community do this? Perhaps race or income has nothing to do with it. And I do not mean this in a bad way, but it is ignorance on the part of the people who are not down here everyday working hard to make things better who make statments that we are just kicking out the poor every chance we get.
Nate, other than complain on the internet, what do you do for OTR, or even Northside. Any involvement in helping some of the problems that we have down here? Attend any Safety Sector Meetings? Do any community work ie clean ups or volunteer on any of the various committees to help make change in any direction? Or is this all you do?
24 Jan 2006 at 02:32 am | #
Downtown resident and Michael,
I applaud your efforts (especially going after the slum king)and I know a lot of people on Mulberry who are also doing great things.In all fairness, I do believe there is some gentrification going on in OTR. We should acknoledge it and it should concern us all. We have to learn to get along and work together to end the racial tension that has gone on for far too long.
OTR is a problem that we as a city need to address because it affects the entire city. There are good things happening, like the renters equity program in St. Anthony’s village. If we work together, maybe someday city hall will get behind these efforts in a more meaningful way. Everyone is needed and should be valued!
24 Jan 2006 at 02:33 am | #
Positive things I agree with in no particular order.
1. We need a regional housing strategy for more affordable housing. The Housing Advisory Council plan is a great start.
2. We need better mass transit,