I just attended a talk by Sociologist Matthew Desmond, highlighting his book Poverty, by America at City Arts and Lectures here in San Francisco.
One of the most profound moments of the night was not necessarily about the contents of his book, or the many profound observational experiences he's had of studying poverty in America.
The most interesting moment came when he talked about housing. See, one of the major premises of his book is that those suffering from economic depression are not the only actors in this production that we call “poverty,” but that their condition is inextricably linked to the condition of the middle class and wealthy. He stated that wants to “widen the aperture” of what it means to be poor, by focusing on the many subtle ways the middle class benefits or remains complicit in the poor’s everyday exploitation. Bank overdraft fees, disproportionately exacted on the poor, is what keeps free checking “free” for middle class consumers. The home interest mortgage deduction is a form of regressive taxation, so bad that it should make anyone benefiting from it to be given pause, and even consider donating the savings to, say, a local nonprofit fighting for economic justice.
But one of the most pernicious ways this dynamic plays out is through local zoning, where via local policy, wealthy homeowners ensure exclusion of economically diverse populations by blocking the construction of new housing.
It was at this point, members of the audience became audibly uncomfortable.
When Desmond was asked a question about housing in San Francisco, he deliberately explained why he is not using the term NIMBY (“not in my back yard”).
What did he do instead? Well, he much had much harsher language for San Francisco's complicit class, saying they may be more adjacent to “segregationists” rather than NIMBYs.
Segregationists, he says, often hold this contradiction as “progressives,” erecting proverbial walls around their neighborhoods (by blocking new development) while at the same time demanding the construction affordable housing, as long as they are built outside the limits of these invisible walls.
Much of the audience in attendance that night we're likely members of the complicit class. A few gasped (and even booed) when Desmond went so far as to endorse State Senator Scott Wiener’s policy efforts at deregulating housing development.
I'm not going to lie, that gasp was music to my ears. But that is not because I am part of the YIMBY (“yes in my back yard”) Movement, and that I simply rejoice in the squirming of wealthy homeowners afraid of change.
No, I was more pleased to see the main idea of Desmond's book embodied in that tiny interaction, that the privileged (but well meaning readers) of his book should practice a little bit of introspection over their role in perpetuating a system that keeps people in poverty.
I myself am not exempt from the task.
