DOCSLIB.ORG

Sarah E. Hamill*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sarah E. Hamill* McGill Law Journal ~ Revue de droit de McGill PRIVATE RIGHTS TO PUBLIC PROPERTY: THE EVOLUTION OF COMMON PROPERTY IN CANADA Sarah E. Hamill* 2013 CanLIIDocs 274 This article uses the recent Occupy litiga- En s’appuyant sur le récent litige « Oc- tion of Batty v. City of Toronto to argue that cupy » dans l’affaire Batty c City of Toronto Canadian courts no longer have a robust under- (Batty), cet article montre que le judiciaire ca- standing of common property and its attendant nadien n’a plus de compréhension solide des rights. The lack of judicial understanding of biens communs, ni des droits qui y sont asso- common property is hardly surprising given ciés. Ce manque de compréhension judiciaire en property theory’s focus on private property, par- matière de biens communs est à peine surpre- ticularly individual private property. This arti- nant compte tenu la focalisation de la théorie cle argues that rather than use the traditional sur la propriété privée, et particulièrement la analogy of governments holding common prop- propriété privée individuelle. Cet article sou- erty in trust for the public, Batty relies on an tient qu’au lieu d’utiliser l’analogie tradition- analogy of common property which treats the nelle, selon laquelle le gouvernement détient les government as an owner. The emergence of the biens communs en fiducie pour le public, Batty latter understanding of common property can se fonde sur une analogie qui considère le gou- be traced to Supreme Court jurisprudence from vernement comme propriétaire. L’émergence de the early 1990s. Although the government-as- cette dernière compréhension des biens com- owner analogy of common property was intro- muns peut être retracée à la jurisprudence de la duced in a concurring judgment, more recent Cour Suprême du début des années 1990. Bien Supreme Court decisions have since reiterated que l’analogie gouvernement comme proprié- the analogy. Such an understanding of common taire ait été introduite par un jugement concur- property is a clear attempt to force all property rent, des décisions plus récentes de la Cour Su- into a private property model and emphasize prême l’ont réitérée. Une telle compréhension the rights of owners above all other rights in de la propriété est une tentative évidente de property. This article argues that the govern- forcer tout le droit des biens dans un modèle de ment-as-owner analogy is problematic given its propriété privée, et d’accentuer les droits des emphasis on the government’s use of property propriétaires par-dessus tous les autres droits rather than the public’s benefit from common reliés à la propriété. Cet article soutient que property and calls for a return to the trust anal- l’analogie gouvernement comme propriétaire est ogy of common property. problématique puisqu’elle met l’accent sur l’usage que fait le gouvernement des biens communs, et non les bienfaits publics qui en ressortent. L’article appelle ainsi à un retour à l’analogie fiduciaire des biens communs. * PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta. I am indebted to the three anon- ymous reviewers for their advice and suggestions on this article. © Sarah E. Hamill 2012 Citation: (2012) 58:2 McGill LJ 365 ~ Référence : 2012 58 : 2 RD McGill 365 366 (2012) 58:2 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL ~ REVUE DE DROIT DE MCGILL Introduction 367 I. Kinds of Property and the Bundle of Rights 370 II. Batty: Parks, Protesters, and Private Property 380 III. The Rise of the Government-as-Owner 388 2013 CanLIIDocs 274 IV. Bringing Back the Public 396 Conclusion 403 THE EVOLUTION OF COMMON PROPERTY IN CANADA 367 Introduction “How do we live together in a community? How do we share common space?” These questions opened Justice Brown’s judgment in Batty v. City of Toronto and were prompted by the Occupy movement’s “occupation” of a park in downtown Toronto.1 Despite these opening lines, the decision in Batty does not deliver the promised discussion of common space. Instead, Batty repeatedly defers to private property rights or the rights of the city of Toronto in its role as manager of municipal parks. That is not to say that Batty reached the wrong decision but to say that Batty reached the 2013 CanLIIDocs 274 right decision for the wrong reasons, and rather than taking common property rights seriously—particularly the public’s right not to be exclud- ed from such property2— the case upholds individual private property as the only acceptable way to think about property. It is the purpose of this article to explore the state of common property in Canada. I argue that in cases dealing with issues of what would tradi- tionally be understood as common property, such as streets and parks, Canadian courts have shown themselves to have a weak understanding of such property. By weak understanding, I mean that the courts have pre- ferred to force instances of common property into a private property model rather than delineating what rights exist for common property qua com- mon property. The resulting picture of common property emphasizes the state’s role as regulator of such property or, less often, the impact of com- mon property on private property rights. The unease that Canadian courts have with common property appears to stem from questions over ownership. I argue that this unease is hardly surprising due to two fac- tors. First, the conventional categorization of property tacitly assumes that individually owned private property is the base-line model or original form of property.3 Second, the conventional categorization’s tacit assump- tions about private property are compounded by the dominant theory of property as taught in law schools and promoted by academics. This theo- ry, generally known as the bundle of rights theory,4 has in recent years 1 Batty v Toronto (City of), 2011 ONSC 6862 at para 1, 108 OR (3d) 571, [Batty]. 2 I use the term common property to mean instances of public property which are open to the public. My definition of common property and choice of terminology are explained below (infra notes 20 to 50 and accompanying text). 3 Elinor Ostrom & Charlotte Hess, “Private and Common Property Rights” in Boudewijn Bouckaert, ed, Property Law and Economics, Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 2nd ed (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010) 53 at 53-54. This argument is further explored below. 4 For academic discussions of this theory see Tony Honoré, “Ownership” in Making Law Bind: Essays Legal and Philosophical (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) 161; Thomas W Merrill & Henry E Smith, “What Happened to Property in Law and Economics” (2001) 111:2 Yale LJ 357; JE Penner, “The ‘Bundle of Rights’ Picture of Property” (1996) 43:3 368 (2012) 58:2 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL ~ REVUE DE DROIT DE MCGILL come to concern itself with questions of how best to define and recognize ownership of private property.5 Put simply the bundle of rights theory as- sumes that if a person holds all of the rights then she is the owner of the property.6 The question of ownership of common property is much more complex than ownership of private property because whatever rights there are to common property, they are shared among the population and between the public and the government. Rather than struggle with the complexity of common property, Canadian courts have sought to simplify the issue and force all forms of property into a private property model.7 2013 CanLIIDocs 274 There are two paradigmatic ways to understand common property. The first is the trust analogy whereby the common property is described as being held in trust by the government for the benefit of the public. The trust analogy has the same roots as the American public trust doctrine, but in Canada, the idea of a public trust is much weaker and less devel- oped than in the United States.8 Hence, to avoid confusion with the more powerful American public trust doctrine, I call the Canadian version “the trust analogy”.9 The trust analogy is one with a long history,10 but this ar- ticle argues that it has since been replaced with the government-as-owner UCLA L Rev 711. For a discussion of this theory in law textbooks see Bruce Ziff, Princi- ples of Property Law, 5th ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2010) at 2-3; Daniel H Cole & Peter Z Grossman, Principles of Law and Economics 2nd ed (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2011) at 109-110. See also Michael A Heller, “The Dynamic Analytics of Property Law” (2001) 2:1 Theor Inq L 79 at 92, [Heller, “Dynamic Analytics”]. 5 Larissa Katz, “Exclusion and Exclusivity in Property Law” (2008) 58:3 UTLJ 275 [Katz, “Exclusion and Exclusivity]; Thomas W Merrill, “Property and the Right to Exclude” (1998) 77:4 Neb L Rev 730; Merrill & Smith, supra note 5 at 385-387. 6 This is further explored infra notes 54-75 and accompanying text. 7 See Parts II and III. 8 Constance D Hunt, “The Public Trust Doctrine in Canada” in John Swaigen, ed, Envi- ronmental Rights in Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981) 151 at 151-56, 166; Barbara von Tigerstrom, “The Public Trust Doctrine in Canada” (1997) 7:3 J Envtl L & Prac 379 at 380-81; John C Maguire, “Fashioning an Equitable Vision for Public Resource Pro- tection and Development in Canada: The Public Trust Doctrine Revisited and Recon- ceptualized” (1997) 7:1 J Envtl L & Prac 1 at 2-7; Kate Penelope Smallwood, Coming out of Hibernation: The Canadian Public Trust Doctrine (LLM Thesis, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, 1993) [unpublished] at 12-42, 78-93. 9 This term also has the benefit of emphasising that an actual trust is not created and therefore the law that applies to private trusts does not apply to property held under the trust analogy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Media and Tactical Considerations for Law Enforcement
    Social Media and Tactical Considerations For Law Enforcement This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2011-CK-WX-K016 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. ISBN: 978-1-932582-72-7 e011331543 July 2013 A joint project of: U.S. Department of Justice Police Executive Research Forum Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 145 N Street, N.E. Suite 930 Washington, DC 20530 Washington, DC 20036 To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770. Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. Contents Foreword ................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ........................................................... iv Introduction ............................................................... .1 Project Background.........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Women Activists of Occupy Wall Street Consciousness-Raising and Connective Action in Hybrid Social Movements Megan Boler and Christina Nitsou
    11 Women Activists of Occupy Wall Street Consciousness-Raising and Connective Action in Hybrid Social Movements Megan Boler and Christina Nitsou REDEFINING SOCIAL MOVEMENT “SUCCESS” On the Second Anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, September 17, 2013, political commentator Robert Reich dismissed the movement as having failed, in part due to its “lack of a clear leadership.” 1 Such judgments per- sistently accusing Occupy Wall Street (OWS) of having “no clear goals or aims”—widely held misrepresentations of OWS which began almost as soon as media began reporting—refl ect a fundamental misunderstanding and misrecognition of the particular commitments, aims, and visions of OWS as well as how contemporary “hybrid social movements” function, mobilized by a new generation of young, often fi rst-time activists. In par- ticular, the horizontal (nonhierarchical) organizational structure can appear to those unfamiliar with horizontalism as a lack of clear goals. Such accu- sations fail to recognize a key feature of contemporary social movements: the increasingly important commitment to a process of liberation as part and parcel of any end goals or singular aims. OWS is known as a leaderless movement for this reason, including features such as consensus-based deci- sions and radical inclusivity. Horizontalism creates a nonhierarchical space which invites women to thrive and fi nd spaces and places to assume “leadership.” A key participant from Occupy Santa Cruz tells us, . since we were in a horizontal structure, and in a vertical structure women are often put at the lower rung of the ladder, it was a way for women to be heard. So that did happen and .
    [Show full text]
  • BAEK-DISSERTATION-2015.Pdf
    Copyright by Kang Hui Baek 2015 The Dissertation Committee for Kang Hui Baek Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: PHYSICAL PLACE MATTERS IN DIGITAL ACTIVISM: INVESTIGATING THE ROLES OF LOCAL AND GLOBAL SOCIAL CAPITAL, COMMUNITY, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT Committee: Stephen D. Reese, Supervisor Thomas Johnson Renita Coleman Joseph Straubhaar Wenhong Chen PHYSICAL PLACE MATTERS IN DIGITAL ACTIVISM: INVESTIGATING THE ROLES OF LOCAL AND GLOBAL SOCIAL CAPITAL, COMMUNITY, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES IN THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT by Kang Hui Baek, B. Political Science; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2015 Dedication To my parents who helped me with their endless love throughout my doctoral journey. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible without the consistent support and encouragement of my committee members. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Stephen Reese, for his excellent guidance in providing me with numerous opportunities to develop my academic knowledge and scholastic attitudes. His advising has allowed me to take an intellectual journey as I have asked and answered for myself critical questions such as: Why should we be concerned about certain issues and how my research work may contribute to areas of academic pursuit. This training has helped me strengthen my critical thinking skills and trigger my intellectual curiosity. I owe deep appreciation also to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Election Commission Memorandum To
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Washington, DC 20463 MEMORANDUM TO: The Commission FROM: Commission Secretary's Offfic DATE: April 18,2013 SUBJECT: Commente on Draft AO 2012-38 (Socialist Workers Party) Attached are timely submitted comments from Lindsey Frank and Michael Krinsky on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Workers Nationai Campaign Committee, and committees supporting candidates of the Socialist Workers Party. Attachment Page 1 of2 AOR 2012-38 (Socialist Workers Party) Lindsey Frank to: mi^Z 17 Pi. '2 chemsley 04/17/2013 05:05 PM OFFICi Cc: f ll : •• kdeeley, rknop, NStipanovic, EHeiden, ABell, "Michael Krinsky" Hide Details From: "Lindsey Frank" <lfrank(grbskl.com> Sort LisL.. To: <[email protected]>, Cc: <kdeeley(@fec.gov>, <rknop(gfec.gov>, <NStipanovic(@fec.gov>, <EHeiden(gfec.gov>, <ABell(gfec.gov>, "Michael Krinsky" <[email protected]> I Attachment AO 2012-38_SWP Comments.pdf Dear Ms. Hemsley: Attached please find the comments on the drafts of AO 2012-38 made by our clients, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Workers National Campaign Committee, and committees supporting candidates of the Socialist Workers Party. A hard copy was sent by overnight Federal Express delivery earlier today. ^ Sincerely, S Q Lindsey Frank :PO ^ZJOS^O Lindsey Frank, Esq. Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C. -o §£2^^ 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 ^ >9oo New York. NY 10006 Ol g Tel:2l2-2S4-llll ext 114 ro ^ Fax:212-674-4614 O This transmission is intended only for the use ofthe addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt Irom disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any use of tiiis communication is strictly prohibited.
    [Show full text]
  • Has Public Protest Gone to the Dogs? a Social Rights Approach to Social Protest Law in Canada* Graham Mayeda
    Has Public Protest Gone to the Dogs? A Social Rights Approach to Social Protest Law in Canada* Graham Mayeda A. Introduction How should the law react to social protest? Should it facilitate it? Should it limit it? This question is particularly poignant today, when protests such as the Occupy movement, the Québec student tuition protests and the Idle No More movement demonstrate the continued importance of protest as a form of social action. In this chapter, I argue that the social rights approach to resolving social conflict can be applied to develop a progressive legal framework for dealing with social protest. To determine the proper role of law in regard to social protest, I begin by examining what “legal rights” are. 1 The traditional approach to rights treats them as having determinate content – each right can be given a legal meaning. For instance, the right to privacy is the right to be free from unreasonable intrusion into personal life by the state. 2 Moreover, in the traditional approach, rights holders can come into conflict. When they do, the role of law is to resolve their competing rights claims. The essential paradigm of the law that animates the traditional view is one of conflict and confrontation. Two or more rights holders enter into conflict, and the conflict must be resolved through a theoretical confrontation between competing rights holders undertaken in the abstract by legal tribunals. In this paper, I compare this traditional approach to a social rights approach. The social rights movement, which expands the panoply of rights * This is a pre-publication draft of a chapter for the forthcoming book Social Rights in Canada (edited by Martha Jackman & Bruce Porter) to be published by Irwin Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Occupy Wall Street” a Few Demands
    The “Occupy Wall Street” Movement Factsheet Series No. 138, Created: October 2011, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East What is the “Occupy Wall Street” a few demands. Although the General Assembly in New Movement? York City aims to come up with specific demands, it has responded to criticism by saying that it sees its goal, “not Occupy Wall Street, or simply the “Occupy” Movement so much as to pass some piece of legislation or start a (because it has spread far beyond Wall Street and New revolution as to build a new kind of movement.” York City) is a rapidly growing phenomenon that began as Organizers have also made it clear that they seek to jump- a series of demonstrations in the heart of New York City’s start a world-wide movement which could feasibly form a Wall Street financial district. The demonstrations and new basis for political organizing.8 occupation have been mainly peaceful although initially there were many arrests amid accusations of police brutality. Well known Canadian author and activist, Naomi Klein, was among those arrested in New York during the initial demonstrations. 1 The Occupy Wall Street protests were initiated by several groups including Canadian activist organization Adbusters,2 US Day of Rage, Anonymous and the NYC General Assembly, a coalition of students, artists, and activists. The General Assembly is the defacto decision making body, self-described as: “a horizontal, autonomous, leaderless, modified-consensus-based system with roots in anarchist thought,” portraying itself as akin to other recent social movements around the world, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Occupy Gardens? a Case Study of the People’S Peas Garden in Toronto, Canada
    OCCUPY GARDENS? A CASE STUDY OF THE PEOPLE’S PEAS GARDEN IN TORONTO, CANADA by ALIA KARIM Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies at Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia November 2014 © Copyright by Alia Karim, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. iv ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED ................................................................................................. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 ‘Plotting’ against powers: Urban gardening as a response to socioeconomic crises .......................... 1 1.2 Purpose of research ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Research question ............................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Research objectives ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.5 Research
    [Show full text]
  • Occupation, Exclusion and the “Homeless Problem” During Occupy Montreal
    Oñati Socio-legal Series, v. 5, n. 1 (2015) – Indignation, Socio-economic Inequality and the Role of Law ISSN: 2079-5971 Occupation, Exclusion and the “Homeless Problem” during Occupy Montreal ∗ VÉRONIQUE FORTIN Fortin, V., 2015. Occupation, Exclusion and the “Homeless Problem” during Occupy Montreal. Oñati Socio-legal Series [online], 5 (1), 114-134. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2569088 Abstract As part of the Occupy movement in the fall of 2011, the Indignés in Montreal occupied a public square and set up an autonomous encampment to protest against socio-economic inequality. However, cohabitation problems soon arose in the camp and tensions between so-called homeless occupiers and Indignés occupiers developed, leading to the exclusion of the homeless people. This paper addresses this tension and inscribes the concept of occupation in a larger historical context. It teases out the legal histories of occupation-as-exclusive-appropriation to cast another light on occupation-as-protest. Key words Occupation; Occupy Movement; Homelessness; Public Space; Municipal By-laws; Property Theory; Protest Movements; Social Exclusion Resumen Como parte del movimiento “Ocupa” del otoño de 2011, los indignados de Montreal ocuparon una plaza pública, y levantaron un campamento autónomo para protestar por la desigualdad socio-económica. Sin embargo, en el campamento pronto se dieron problemas de cohabitación, y se produjeron tensiones entre los llamados Article resulting from the paper presented at the workshop Indignation, Socio-economic Inequality and the Role of Law held in the International Institute for the Sociology of Law, Oñati, Spain, 30-31 May 2013, and coordinated by Jane Matthews Glenn (McGill University), Anneke Smit (University of Windsor) and Véronique Fortin (University of California, Irvine).
    [Show full text]
  • CBC News in Review (December)
    News in Review Resource Guide December 2011 Credits Resource Guide Writers: Sean Dolan, Peter Flaherty, Jim L’Abbé, Jennifer Watt Copy Editor and Desktop Publisher: Susan Rosenthal Resource Guide Graphics: Laraine Bone Production Assistant: Carolyn McCarthy Resource Guide Editor: Jill Colyer Supervising Manager: Karen Bower Host: Michael Serapio Senior Producer: Nigel Gibson Producer: Lou Kovacs Video Writer: Nigel Gibson Director: Douglas Syrota Graphic Artist: Mark W. Harvey Editor: Stanley Iwanski Visit us at our Web site at our Web site at http://newsinreview.cbclearning.ca, where you will find News in Review indexes and an electronic version of this resource guide. As a companion resource, we recommend that students and teachers access CBC News Online, a multimedia current news source that is found on the CBC’s home page at www.cbc.ca/news/. Close-captioning News in Review programs are close-captioned. Subscribers may wish to obtain decoders and “open” these captions for the hearing impaired, for English as a Second Language students, or for situations in which the additional on-screen print component will enhance learning. CBC Learning authorizes the reproduction of material contained in this resource guide for educational purposes. Please identify the source. News in Review is distributed by CBC Learning, P.O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6 Tel: (416) 205-6384 • Fax: (416) 205-2376 • E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2011 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News in Review, December 2011 1. The Rise of the Occupy Movement (Length: 13:28) 2. Canada’s Controversial Crime Bill (Length: 14:56) 3. The Struggle to Save Canada’s Farmland (Length: 13:36) 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarah E. Hamill*
    McGill Law Journal ~ Revue de droit de McGill PRIVATE RIGHTS TO PUBLIC PROPERTY: THE EVOLUTION OF COMMON PROPERTY IN CANADA Sarah E. Hamill* This article uses the recent Occupy litiga- En s’appuyant sur le récent litige « Oc- tion of Batty v. City of Toronto to argue that cupy » dans l’affaire Batty c City of Toronto Canadian courts no longer have a robust under- (Batty), cet article montre que le judiciaire ca- standing of common property and its attendant nadien n’a plus de compréhension solide des rights. The lack of judicial understanding of biens communs, ni des droits qui y sont asso- common property is hardly surprising given ciés. Ce manque de compréhension judiciaire en property theory’s focus on private property, par- matière de biens communs est à peine surpre- ticularly individual private property. This arti- nant compte tenu la focalisation de la théorie cle argues that rather than use the traditional sur la propriété privée, et particulièrement la analogy of governments holding common prop- propriété privée individuelle. Cet article sou- erty in trust for the public, Batty relies on an tient qu’au lieu d’utiliser l’analogie tradition- analogy of common property which treats the nelle, selon laquelle le gouvernement détient les government as an owner. The emergence of the biens communs en fiducie pour le public, Batty latter understanding of common property can se fonde sur une analogie qui considère le gou- be traced to Supreme Court jurisprudence from vernement comme propriétaire. L’émergence de the early 1990s. Although the government-as- cette dernière compréhension des biens com- owner analogy of common property was intro- muns peut être retracée à la jurisprudence de la duced in a concurring judgment, more recent Cour Suprême du début des années 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Decolonizing Being, Knowledge, and Power: Youth Activism in California at the Turn of the 21St Century
    Decolonizing Being, Knowledge, and Power: Youth Activism in California at the Turn of the 21st Century By Samuel Bañales A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the Graduate Division of the University of California at Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Charles L. Briggs, chair Professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes Professor Nelson Maldonado-Torres Fall 2012 Copyright © by Samuel Bañales 2012 ABSTRACT Decolonizing Being, Knowledge, and Power: Youth Activism in California at the Turn of the 21st Century by Samuel Bañales Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology University of California at Berkeley Professor Charles L. Briggs, chair By focusing on the politics of age and (de)colonization, this dissertation underscores how the oppression of young people of color is systemic and central to society. Drawing upon decolonial thought, including U.S. Third World women of color, modernity/coloniality, decolonial feminisms, and decolonizing anthropology scholarship, this dissertation is grounded in the activism of youth of color in California at the turn of the 21st century across race, class, gender, sexuality, and age politics. I base my research on two interrelated, sequential youth movements that I argue were decolonizing: the various walkouts organized by Chican@ youth during the 1990s and the subsequent multi-ethnic "No on 21" movement (also known as the "youth movement") in 2000. Through an interdisciplinary activist ethnography, which includes speaking to and conducting interviews with many participants and organizers of these movements, participating in local youth activism in various capacities, and evaluating hundreds of articles—from mainstream media to "alternative" sources, like activist blogs, leftist presses, and high school newspapers—I contend that the youth of color activism that is examined here worked towards ontological, epistemological, and institutional decolonization.
    [Show full text]
  • The Benefits and Costs of Urban Public Spaces the Benefits and Costs of Urban Public Spaces
    JANUARY 2020 THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF URBAN PUBLIC SPACES THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF URBAN PUBLIC SPACES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LEAD AUTHORS Hamil Pearsall (Temple University), Anneclaire J. De Roos (Drexel University), Stephen Dickinson (Temple University), Patrick L. Gurian (Drexel University), Yuki Kato (Georgetown University), Michelle Kondo (USDA-Forest Service), Asa Lewis (Drexel University) CONTRIBUTORS Grace Chung, Sarah Ehsan, Kathleen Fenlon, Marissa Gabriel, Levi Krum, Lindsay McCarthy, Claire McGinley, Casey Mitchell, Radha Pennotti, Dylan Pontice, Theany Su ADVISORY BOARD Marvin Carr (Institute of Museum and Library Services), Richardson Dilworth (Drexel University), Genevieve Dunton (University of Southern California), Myron Floyd (North Carolina State University), Linda Hwang (Trust for Public Land), Maria Jackson (Arizona State University), Kathryn Ott Lovell (Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Department), Toni Griffin (Urban Planning for the American City and Harvard University Graduate School of Design) The research in this report was produced by the research team above. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The William Penn Foundation, Temple University, Drexel University, Georgetown University, the USDA-Forest Service or the advisory board.. 2 Commissioned by the William Penn Foundation. THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF URBAN PUBLIC SPACES INTRODUCTION ......................................... 7 WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY PUBLIC SPACES? ...................................... 9 GUIDE TO READING THE REPORT ......... 10 WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS ABOUT URBAN PUBLIC SPACES? ......... 11 WHAT ARE THE KEY KNOWLEDGE GAPS THAT LIMIT THE POTENTIAL OF URBAN PUBLIC SPACES? ................ 15 SOCIAL BENEFITS ..................................................... 19 1) Do public spaces build social capital and cohesion within social groups? . 19 2) Do public spaces foster social capital or cohesion across existing social division lines (e g.
    [Show full text]