Neighborhoods with a high proportion of minorities and
low-income residents are generally labeled as food deserts and/or food swamps
(Note: there are exceptions to this statement). In the past the obvious
solution was building a grocery store, however, we’ve seen how little this has
done to remedy the situation. Alternative solutions have been the establishment
of neighborhood grocers that market to a particular demographic and/or
community gardens. In the cases for a lot of our readings I noticed a top down
approach where the people advocating for urban agriculture are outsiders, such
as environmental justice advocates. I have witnessed within the field of public
health where we focus on educating people on their wrongs and encourage them to
eat a standard diet that is not always culturally appropriate. There are
positive and negative impacts to this approach to urban agriculture. The
general positives are economic growth, community building, increase in accessibility
to better food quality and improved physical and mental health. There is one
main negative that can result from the establishment of urban agriculture in
low-income neighborhoods, gentrification. Gentrification can result from the
increase in economic development, which raises property values and can
unintentionally displace the same community we were originally trying to help. My question as we prepare to discuss planning
for food production and urban agriculture is how can planners and public health
professionals be better listeners and advocates for low-income communities? I feel
at times we are so busy trying to convert people to our way of thinking as
opposed to listening and meeting communities at their present state. For example,
you are a city planner that was invited to a community meeting where the
community’s food security concerns were going to be discussed. The general
opinion was they were not interested in having a national chain grocery store
come into their community, but instead have neighborhood grocers and community
gardens that would meet the community’s varied culturally appropriate needs.
However, they had concerns on how the city would be able to assist them in this
effort, which could be implementing rent control policies for low-income
housing, providing incentives to business owners to offer fresh fruits and
vegetables, zoning for urban agriculture, and providing public land that could
be used to establish the community gardens. The difference in this situation is
it’s a bottom up approach where the community is requesting assistance from
their city officials to assist them in advocating for policies that would
benefit their efforts. There will be communities that may not know what they
want, but I feel as planners we could empower them by providing ideas and contributing
to their efforts.
I agree with the example that you created that it's improbable to think that communities know exactly what they want, especially when thinking that they have all of these multi-faceted solutions. I do think that it's probable that communities may know that they want fresher foods and may have a few individuals who are knowledgeable about how to do that. The planner can come in and maybe not so much empower, but I think aid in the already empowered community by providing knowledge and other resources to support their cause. There's also the realization that the planner might not be the traditional technical planner working for the local government, but that the planner might actually be the activist organizing their own community and acting as the liaison between the community and the local government, particularly if this can become a profitable entity. One example that comes to mind is D-Town Farms in Detroit that addresses a lot of these points that you bring up; cultural appropriation, making sure things won't be gentrified (since it already is, won't be worse off), and strengthens the community.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point regarding the individual discretion and personality of planners that influence how they can help a community. While there is no set answer for how to eliminate this issue, I believe there are several methods that could be undergone to get the best effect. A suggestion to urban planners would be to undertake a few courses in social work - that way they recall that in order to help others in a larger community, they first have to listen. In addition, urban planners have to be passionate, determined, and faithful to the community they're working with. Gentrification negatively effects low income residents because their needs are either forgotten or pushed aside. If addressed initially, it should be the motive of the planner to fight for their needs, whether it be through zoning, regulations, or other policies. I also agree planners are like the liaison between the community and the local government because they are more knowledgeable and in a higher position of authority to help strike a change within a neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, you're blog reminded me of this past spring break where I visited Folly Beach, South Carolina. There was a small, organic grocery store called Bert's that is located one street over from the beach shore. I couldn't believe this vegan friendly store had produce and other perishable foods that were double the price of the same item I could get have gotten from Publix or Walmart. However, this was the only fresh produce store within 20 minutes of a driving car. Then I wondered how many times this has occurred in low residential areas who want fresh, local produce at affordable prices. Do they get bamboozled by urban planners and the city by getting an expensive, yet local grocery store within their food desert neighborhoods? This would then defeat the whole purpose of creating local stores that are culturally sensitive and nutritionally adequate.