BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL VOL. 29 // 2017 DEPARTMENT OF CITY + REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY STAFF EDITOR IN-CHIEF Amelia Hays ASSOCIATE EDITOR Chester Harvey FACULTY ADVISOR Carolina Reid EDITORIAL BOARD David Amos Rocio Sanchez-Moyano Manuel Santana Palacios BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Nathaniel Decker COPY EDITOR Berkeley Planning Journal Yanin Kramsky University of California Department of City and Regional Planning 228 Wurster Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1850 USA GRAPHIC DESIGN Irene Ho berkeleyplanningjournal.com escholarship.org/uc/ucb_crp_bpj [email protected] ©Copyright 2017, Berkeley Planning Journal All rights reserved ISSN 1047-5192 CONTENTS FOREWORD BOOK REVIEWS 1 Karen Chapple African Futures: Essays on Crisis, Emergence, and Possibility. Edited by Brian Goldstone and Juan Obarrio. 153 2017. University of Chicago Press Shakirah Hudani The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. By Richard Rothstein. 155 RESEARCH ARTICLES 2017. Liveright Publishing. The Racial Contours of YIMBY/NIMBY Bay Area Gentrification Alison Mills 7 Erin McElroy, Andrew Szeto 165 AUTHOR BIOS Gendered Technologies of Power: Experiencing and Unmaking 45 Borderscapes in South Asia Shikha Silliman Bhattacharjee RECENT DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS, MASTER’S THESES, 169 PROFESSIONAL, AND CLIENT REPORTS Housing is Essential: A Commonsense Paradigm Shift to Solve 79 the Urban Displacement and Racial Injustice Crisis Margaretta Lin, Dan Lindheim, Minkah Eshe Smith Revisiting the Costs of Developing New Subsidized Housing: The Relative Import of Construction Wage Standards and 101 Nonprofit Development Scott Littlehale The Right to Remain in the City: How One Community Has Used 129 Legal Rights and Rights Talk to Stay Put in Bangkok Hayden Shelby BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL FOREWORD Karen Chapple In an era of globalization, it is perhaps not surprising that displacement has López-Morales 2016; Smith 1996). Economists and planners have struggled become normalized. The Call for Papers for this volume of the Berkeley Plan- to operationalize displacement and neighborhood context, have examined ning Journal referenced the United Nations estimate of 65 million refugees only a small selection of potential causes, and have modeled neighborhood globally, a staggering total that does not even include the internal displace- change only over short timeframes that cannot possibly capture the entirety ment totals of the most affluent countries in the world. Many heroic efforts of change (for more detail, see Zuk et al. 2018). Existing methodologies and have emerged to assist refugees from nation-states, as well as victims of the data fail to track much of the displacement that is occurring, and the more affordable housing crises of advanced capitalism. Yet, there seems to be little rigorous and thoughtful definitions (Grier & Grier, 1978; Marcuse, 1986) re- movement towards addressing the root causes of displacement, or even tak- main largely ignored. ing preventive action to stabilize communities. Given this vacuum, a Berkeley Planning Journal volume dedicated to dis- Our tiny world of urban planners should take this failure to heart. Since the placement is a welcome addition. These articles deploy a variety of method- mid-twentieth century, the biggest shock to planning practice has been the ologies, conceptual frameworks, and definitions to deepen our understand- traumatic impact of urban renewal, which displaced hundreds of thousands ing of displacement. Expanding on our US-centric definitions and narratives of residents, the vast majority communities of color, for new development of displacement are Bhattarchajee’s examination of the gendered governance and highways. In the wake of resident revolts and new social movements, of mobility and Shelby’s grounded, annotated storytelling about eviction planning entered a new era of reflective or critical practice that increas- pressures in Bangkok. Back to California, the authors deconstruct the hous- ingly acknowledged the multiplicity of views and complexity of institutions ing crisis and its proposed solutions, from the racist epistemologies underly- (Forester 1989; Innes and Booher 2010; Sandercock 2004). Still, planners ing both NIMBY and YIMBY arguments (McElroy and Szeto), to the failure of continue to support infrastructure and real estate developments that dis- a social movement confronted by politics (Lin, Lindheim and Smith), to the place residents either directly or indirectly, by accelerating processes of glib readiness to blame labor costs for the inability to build enough housing neighborhood change. We continue to plan for the jobs and residents to come, at modest cost (Littlehale). rather than for existing communities—particularly those with disadvantaged residents. Taken together, these articles help build the case for new frameworks to un- derstand displacement. Yet, they also point to ongoing challenges: the need Abetting practicing planners is a world of scholarship that has fallen short to combine different ways of knowing, to couple deconstruction with vision, in theorizing about and even describing displacement. Critical geographers and to tell compelling stories in order to affect change. The next generation and sociologists have crafted rich narratives about gentrification pro- of scholarship will need to build such bridges if it is to reach our reflective cesses around the world, but offer almost nothing other than speculation practitioners. about the displacement that is occurring (see, for instance, Lees, Shin, and 1 2 BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL REFERENCES Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Grier, G.W. and E. S. Grier. 1978. Memo Report: Urban Displacement: a Reconnaissance. Prepared for the Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Routledge. Lees, Loretta, Hyun Bang Shin, and Ernesto López-Morales. 2016. Planetary Gentrification. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press. Marcuse, P. 1986. “Abandonment, Gentrification, and Displacement: The Linkages in New York City.” In Gentrification of the City, edited by Smith, N. and Williams, P. London, 153–77. Routledge. Sandercock, Leonie. 2004. “Towards a Planning Imagination for the 21st Century.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (2):133–41. Smith, Neil. 1996. The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. London; New York: Routledge. Zuk, Miriam, Ariel Bierbaum, Karen Chapple, Karolina Gorska and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. 2018. “Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role of Public Investment.” Journal of Planning Literature 33 (1): 31-44. 3 4 BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL 5 6 BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL BERKELEY PLANNING JOURNAL THE RACIAL CONTOURS OF YIMBY/NIMBY BAY AREA GENTRIFICATION Erin McElroy At the height of San Francisco’s hyper-gentrification in 2014, capital- Andrew Szeto ist development groups began coopting anti-displacement grammar, thereby promulgating market-driven solutions for rising rents and eviction rates. Despite the historic roots of pro-development, this new form of San Francisco pro-growth activism emerged as a reaction to a renewed housing justice movement. It was during this time that over a dozen tenant’s rights ABSTRACT and nonprofit housing development organizations consolidated the Anti- Displacement Coalition, collectively framing the “housing crisis” as In this article, we trace the emergence of the false YIMBY/NIMBY dialectic increased eviction and homelessness rates. Coalition members called for now dominant in San Francisco housing rights discourse, studying its con- specific policies such as eviction moratoriums, taxation on real estate stitution and material effects. Specifically, we investigate how racial capital- speculation, and enforcement of short-term vacation rentals to stop the ism is constitutive of both YIMBYism and NIMBYism, drawing upon Cedric displacement of long-term working class communities. Through direct Robinson’s argument that racialization has always been constitutive of cap- action and strong anti-displacement policy advocacy, the Coalition united a italism, and racism is requisite for capitalism’s endurance. We make our ar- renewed movement against gentrification. In reaction, pro-development gument by drawing upon empirical research conducted by the Anti-Eviction groups that were amplified by the Bay Area Renters Federation (BARF) Mapping Project (AEMP), a data analysis, oral history, and critical cartogra- initiated a surge of what they called “YIMBYism” against housing justice phy collective of which we are both a part. We also draw upon collaborative groups’ putative “NIMBYism” (Yes in My Backyard versus Not in My research between AEMP and community-based housing rights nonprofits Backyard). While NIMBYism has long been understood as linked to racist and local housing justice organizing efforts, as well as literary and cultural and wealthy neighborhood preservation, in this article we assert that analysis. Such a methodological approach facilitates the unearthing of the despite YIMBYism’s framing of housing justice activists as NIMBY, both racial logics undergirding YIMBYism, pointing to the need for alternative YIMBYism and NIMBYism shelter similar racist onto-epistemologies. analytics to theorize and mobilize