Power and Privatization

Perez 1

Power and Privatization

A community is made up of many different power relations and there are many factors that go into how these relationships work with each other. Privatization of public space in a community can have a considerable effect on the power relations between the citizens and the local government as well as big business owners. Privatization can also impact the local government and city relationship of power when a local government uses privatization for their personal agenda or needs. Public housing can help or hurt citizens’ ability to have power in their city as well as give more power to the local government. Gender is also greatly affected by the privatization of public space. Through these effects of privatization the power among local governments, as in who has the most power, can change. Privatization of public space can impact the power dynamics of a community government relationship.

The power within a community appears to come from the government at the local and state level, but individuals or small groups within the community can have a lot of power too. When some members of the community want to change or regulate their community but do not posses the power or want to get around existing policies, they can work with the local and state government on privatizing public space. This was done the 1950’s as well as in present day. In the 1950’s desegregation was taking root and appeared to be happening in Atlanta, Georgia but something else was going on. Middle class whites used privatization to legally receive segregation. Kevin M. Kruse explained that while there was desegregation people did find an alternative “…white Atlantans decided to flee those public spaces and create private alternatives in their stead” (Kruse 2005. page 612). One way whites achieved this was through working with city and buying land that was part of city gulf courses “Atlanta’s blacks wanted to play a round, they had to haul their equipment beyond the city limits to the privately owned Lincoln Country Club” (Kruse 2005. page 613). Civil rights activists took this to court and the judge did rule that they could not deny only blacks; he also stated that the city had no obligation to have public courses. Privatizing gulf courses may not appear to be a large deal however; it does allow private companies to charge whatever about they wants which in return may exclude many people.

Another form of privatization that the public used for their own individual needs or wants was the privatization of parks in Georgia. “A 1954 report from the Atlanta Urban League noted that although blacks represented over a third of the city’s population, they could use just 3 of 132 park spaces operated by the Atlanta Parks Department” (Kruse 2005. page 613). Along with Atlanta facing these problems in 1950, in present day there are many cases like this, just not as obvious.

Gated communities and shopping centers within these communities have become a way for the public to separate and take something that was public and make it private. This was the case in Southern California “…a planning- based strategy in which a neighborhood secedes and becomes its own city, that private gated communities in Southern California have used to their economic advantage” (Low, 2008. page 88). Privatizations of the communities were made where public spaces used to be, such as beaches and parks. This made it so that only people who lived there (in a certain tax brackets) could use those amenities. The author argues that this will lead to “…here also will be increased social, spatial, and economic segregation; a public that votes for private interests” (Low, 2008page 104). This will have a negative effect on the people in the community.

The privatization of public housing can also have a profound affect on the power dynamics in a community because it shifts the type of people that can live there as well as changes the power in the community. This can be seen at the city level, in New York City

“governments and developers build luxury public spaces to lure tourists and wealthy consumers for leisure and consumption the High Line and the Brooklyn waterfront greenway are two prominent New York examples—while parks catering to poor “communities and immigrants are underfunded, forgotten unless they can serve “growth” schemes” (Loughran, 2014).

The idea of the growth machine plays an important role in the privatization of public housing and land. In order for the politicians and the city to make money they build to the wealthy and public housing does not fit in their plan. Due to that, public housing is slowly being pushed out. This causes the power to transfer from individuals or small communities to big names or wealthy individuals. The author of BLANK argues that “In the era of neoliberal urbanism, public spaces structure social practices in ways that reinforce the social relations of contemporary capitalism” (Loughran, 20140. This meaning that the privatization is a catalyst in capitalism and does not allow for other things.

In the privatization of pubic housing there is also a flip side, which is in Chicago. There have been efforts by the Chicago Housing Authority’s to make more public housing “largest, most ambitious rehabilitation and redevelopment of public housing in the nation's history” (Mann, 2011). While the plan does come with reservations from some citizens and it does call for many high-rise buildings to be destroyed, it is an example of the opposite situations that many other article highlight (Mann, 2011). Chicago’s plan adds to public housing instead of taking away from it. Under this plan the power remains within the city and does not leave it in the hands of others, which in returns gives more power to the people. Privatization does not only influence the cycle of capitalism but also gender inequality.

Privatization is in most very country but when looking at other countries and their cities there is a correlation between what the United States is experiencing and other countries. A major theme that stood out was the results of privatization of city space effects on the gender power relations. In an article from Research in Urban Sociology author Kern argued that “under a neoliberal rubric is also a gendered political process, the outcome of which is the redevelopment of urban space in ways that reflect a masculinist and corporatist view of city life” (Kern, 2008.page 233). The over use of privatization in cites can result in the city reflecting a masculine view and not equally a feminist view. Also it may be a way “urban growth politics that align the interests of business with that of municipal politicians, whereby a small group of powerful investors, builders and developers in certain class, gender and racial groups is able to shape cities” (Kern, 2008. page 234). Giving the power to companies does give money to the people that own the company but does not help the people of the city/county and takes away a voice from the people. The author argues that through privatization the power shifts from the people and their ability to have a say and gives it to a select few big money people who then develop the area to reflect them. Also argues that this is usually when women get left out. Because the majority of big business owners are males then women’s voice gets taken out of the power cycle.

Local governments involved in a community can chose to assert their power in many different ways; privatization is one. Through the use of policy, money and government the individuals of a community can have many factors working for or against them. In some cases it is the local governments of a community working together to assert their power over member in that community. However in some cases it is the local government and neighborhood committees working through housing, whether it be public or private, to gain power and use it for their wants. Or in some cases it the bigger business working to assert their common beliefs over everyone to asset their power. No matter the case, privatization plays an important role in the power dynamics of a local government.

Works Cited

Kern, Leslie and Gerda R. Wekerle. 2008. "Gendered Spaces of

Redevelopment: Gendered Politics of City Building." Research in Urban Sociology 9:233-262 (http://ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1315601594?accountid=12299).

Kruse, Kevin M. 2005. "The Politics of Race and Public Space:

Desegregation, Privatization, and the Tax Revolt in Atlanta." Journal of Urban History 31(5):610-633 (http://ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/60515650?accountid=12299)

Loughran, Kevin. 2014. "Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines,

and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces." City & Community 13(1):49-68 (http://ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1531932942?accountid=12299).

Low, Setha M. 2008. "Incorporation and Gated

Communities in the Greater Metro-Los Angeles Region as a Model of Privatization of Residential Communities." Home Cultures 5(1):85-108 (http://ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/61671928?accountid=12299).

Mann, Nicola. 2011. "The Death and Resurrection of Chicago's Public

Housing in the American Visual Imagination." University of Rochester,

Ann Arbor (http://ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/871877711?accountid=12299).