Who: We as a group will create the signs and speak to the locals
What: Interviewing the local shops, silent protest, and speaking to people on the street
Where: Gantry Park
Why: Inform people and have people speak up to their community leaders
When: 11AM to 12PM
We choose gentrification in Williamsburg, Brooklyn as our social issue. Willaimsburg was not the most desirable neighborhood since it used to be an industrial area thus attracting people who were looking for afford rent would. As the neighborhood started to become “renewed” and the L train under construction, the neighborhood began to change. The new ferry has created an easier way to travel between Manhattan and Brooklyn, since the L train will be under major construction it provided relief and opportunity for people seeking an up and coming neighborhood. Change is great for the neighborhood and it will provide a better environment for the next generation to grow up, but there is a sense of community is removed.
Curran, Winifred1. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00420980701373438. Accessed 10 Oct. 2018.
We chose this as our source it highlighted how “urban renewal” has affected Williamsburg specifically. It gave examples of people who went through the rough years are now forced to move because they can no longer afford rent.
Leland, John. “In Williamsburg, Rocked Hard.” New York Times, 28 May 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/nyregion/gentrification-brings-discord-to-williamsburg-brooklyn.html?ref=oembed
In this news article, it was a perspective of the person who lives in Williamsburg and the emotional statement of the sense of community is removed since neighbors are leaving. The new people coming in are taking over the neighborhood by storm of changing the shops and public spaces.
Eisenberg stated, “is it possible to imagine cities with a culture of participatory sharing in which public space is utilized to literally serve the public?” (Fallen Fruit, p. 228), which I believe that in a perfect world people would respect one another. It would more of natural reaction to help someone, but we live in the society of the have and the have nots. Some people were lucky in enough in our society to be born into the right family and the right place to have a well off life while others where born into families that have to face hardship along with being stopped just because of their color of their skin as Cahill text mentions. If society could look past race and income then life would be simple, but as human beings we are individuals who are trying to be better than the person next us or happy where we are.
If we were able to follow Eisenberg’s outline to be more of sharing than claiming as his or her then I think that it would loose the sense of value. Eisenberg demonstrates, “TreePeople Los Angeles had an existing program, Fruit Tree Giveaways, which placed free trees in under-served neighborhoods… we changed the term “giveaway” to “adoption.” The new term carries the implication of an obligation, first to the young tree that requires care to establish itself, but secondarily to the neighborhood (Fallen Fruit, p. 229-230).” By changing the verbiage of free to adoption it gave it a value of that to care for the young tree. When the verbiage of free was used, people would just take it and not give as much care, but when the word usage of ‘adoption’ was used it seemed to make people think and provide more for the young tree. We have to find a ways to create regulations to give people a sense of responsibility without ownership. Our mentality of that it is not our property is not my responsibility to maintain it. Take for instance the public subway stations. It is a public space and we as every day riders should take some responsibility to maintain it; however, if we spill something or drop something the phrase ‘oops my bad’ and we walk away. Now occasionally there would be a person to clean up after themselves because it shows how they are as person and feel responsible to clean up after themselves. We as a society would have work on our morals and our self worth before we are able to take on the responsibility of maintaining a pubic space.
Tyne and Kelly
Topic: Greenham Commons Encampment
- Tactics: Non-violent women protesting peacefully by creating human chains, chanting and making posters.
- Issues: British government allowed the storage of missiles on United Kingdom soil and testing the legality of nuclear weapons.
- Timeframe: September 1981 to 2000
- Place: Bershire, England
- Results: United States missiles were removed from the United Kingdom successfully along with empowering women to be more involved with local government. It showed that our opinions can be expressed without violence.
“Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp.” Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, www.greenhamwpc.org.uk/.
“Women form peace camp to protest housing of cruise missiles at Greenham Common, 1981 -1993.” Global Non-Violence Action Database, https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/women-form-peace-camp-protest-housing-cruise-missiles-greenham-common-1981-1993