All Gentrification Isn’t Created Equal

By Jerrell Davis

This 4th installment of the Disaster Gentrification Series takes on a different approach. This time, I want to pose some questions/prompts that the community can take with and discuss.

I also give examples of responses to the questions/prompts.

Why the shift?

At this point, we should be prepared to talk about this topic (gentrification) at a deeper level; the days of surface level dialogue about this intentional and destructive pillar of imperialism are over!

How do “community” based groups differ in their approaches and participation in the gentrifying process? Give some examples.

We have to be real and practical. Our communities, specifically our Black/Afrikan communities are not monolithic and we are not all situated in the same geographic area.

Some consequences of re-gentrification are the breaking up of our community, the separation of our community, and the destabilization of our community. Due to this and the many other ways we diverge, we all have different approaches to how we get our community’s needs met.

When gentrification hits the neighborhood, community-based organizations may differ in how they engage with developers, politicians, stakeholders, etc. This can mean that one group’s decline to partner with a particular developer may create an opportunity for another group that may accept. On the face of it, this is a neutral action. However, with a little more attention to detail, it’s clear that we all will participate and possibly contribute to re-gentrification processes – especially when we are not in agreement, alignment, or in direct community with each other.

In similar ways we aim to have and accept a “diversity of tactics.” It is possible and, in many cases, preferred to have community organizing engaged in a multitude of strategies and goals. The alignment of our movements is important to establishing a united front against the forces that promote and implement re-gentrification. Subtle, and even trivial differences can result in re-gentrification being bolstered and even advocated for, if we aren’t paying attention to detail and outcomes of how we may differ in approaches and participation in the re-gentrification process.

What are other ways we can refer to “gentrification”?

Webster defines gentrification as “a process in which a poor area (as of a city) experiences an influx of middle-class or wealthy people who renovate and rebuild homes and businesses and which often results in an increase in property values and the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents.” This definition focuses on one side of the coin – the place(s) that receive the “gentry.” This definition, however, doesn’t address or refer to the consequences of the process – which makes it an easy buzz word for people to overuse and decontextualize.

Lately I’ve been making more trips between Kent (like deeep Kent) and the South End. During these drives I wonder and see the displacement of the Southend community out to what is now the current Kent/Des Moines/Auburn (South King County!) communities.

The thought that crossed my mind during a recent drive had to do with the other way of referring to the hood – “the trenches.” Thinking about what a trench is, in other conversations afterwards, I came to realize that you don’t ever stay put in a trench. You create the trench for the time being, but it’s never the destination. Once that trench gets worn out, you go somewhere else and find/make a new trench, again and again…

We love the fact that we come from parts of the city that get no love and resources. It forces innovation and creativity that makes the whole city envy us, our swag, our style, our lingo, everything. So, when you hear someone mention “the trenches”, they’re probably saying it with pride. And they should. But when I think about it a little deeper, and apply it to these systems of control that create the conditions we live in, I see a nefarious plot. The displacement that is the result of re-gentrification is not incidental or accidental. It is expected, projected, anticipated, enacted, enforced, recorded, reported, and eventually, repeated. Re-gentrification is the process of creating the demand for a new hood. Another trench…

Therefore, “retrenchment” is now the word I’ll be using to refer to re-gentrification because 1) re-gentrification is a mouthful, 2) “displacement” reads as an incidental and singular consequence but not an intended and cyclical consequence, and 3) this vocabulary shift, although new, is more familiar for our community and it also should bring folx who advocate for “gentrification” to choose their words more wisely as well. Is retrenchment something you would stand behind?

Respond to the following prompt:

→ Retrenchment is a permanent and perpetual process.

I’ve heard people say that “gentrification” is a process that cannot be stopped and happens no matter what and there’s nothing we can do about it – so, we might as well take what we can get from it and play along!

Look – I’m an organizer from the South End so that kinda approach just doesn’t add up for me!

I’ve always debated against that stance and perspective, citing ways and ideas how we could possibly interrupt and eventually end gentrification. Clearly, this was often met with scoffs and rolled eyes, understandably.

Well (again), earlier this year I started reading “Faces at the Bottom of the Well” (Derrick Bell’s book that dives into the idea of what it means to accept racism as permanent). Since then, I have come to some realizations that connect the two sides of the arguments I used to have. This realization presents the opportunity to take on the former perspective: we need to accept retrenchment (okay, applying new vocab NOW) as something that cannot be stopped. It doesn’t end there though – after accepting this, now the invitation to dig deeper, go harder, think and act more radically than ever before presents itself. Instead of the loser’s mentality of “accept it, and get the most out of it for yourself”, we have to use that acceptance to radicalize our tactics and strategy. We are presented with the chance to make other things clear: no matter what words they try to use to convince us otherwise, are the politicians committed to retrenchment as well? No matter how many Black billionaires we develop over time, as long as capitalism exists, will retrenchment continue to exist? Is it a coincidence that public services and resources get cut while development continues? Could that be a sign that retrenchment is an accepted and even valued process in this society? Is it arguable who bears the brunt of this process?

With acceptance of the permanence of retrenchment, we could use this as a strategy to radicalize our opposition to it, therefore moving the horizon of revolution that much closer to the shore…

Where did the idea of “the right to return” come from? Has this occurred enough for it to be a viable strategy for our communities to aim for? Where have there been successful examples of this happening?

This is an interesting one. I’ll keep my response concise: we should analyze and learn from the examples of folx returning to places they’ve been displaced from. The critique is that there are not many examples to look at. The opportunity is to explicitly name if this is truly a feasible option for low-income communities (who are usually multilingual and multigenerational families). Being displaced doesn’t just mean evictions. It also means students are taken out of schools and away from their friends. It means caregivers or breadwinners may need to find nu jobs. It means that elders may have to travel even further to get to the services they need. Even if a family is able to return to a neighborhood that they were displaced from, will they be able to remain there comfortably and still have access to the resources they once relied upon?

Where are anti-gentrification efforts more likely to be successful?

This is a conversation that may be tough to have but is necessary. Analyzing the trends of resistance to retrenchment sheds light on who benefits the most from the resistance and why. Is it possible that certain neighborhoods/people groups will be more successful than others? Is it because their strategies are better? Maybe they have more connections to people in power who they can influence. No matter the results of the analysis, we are overdue for some comparative analytics of anti-gentrification strategies that help identify what works and what doesn’t work. We also need to ask if the “BIPOC” label that came about in 2020 is even accurate and effective to use. From my experience, as a “B” (Black), I’ve seen Black and Indigenous people specifically be tokenized or completely left out of the equation of many “BIPOC” spaces. In fact, it seems that Black people are pressured to use the term “BIPOC” so that potential allies aren’t left out – but there is a clear usurpation of the term, both by the government and by nonprofits to receive funding…all gentrification isn’t created equal, and the way we resist cannot be “one size fits all.”

How are “Transit” and “Transportation” drivers of displacement? What are some of the aspects of the relationship between transit and retrenchment?

Somebody get Sound Transit on the phone! Let’s talk about how the tracks of the Light Rail is a trail of tiers…tiers of retrenchment! For example, all of the Light Rail stations from Beacon Hill to Angle Lake are on the main street. This has created ripple effects of development at every intersection. Whether it is progress or regress is beside the point – the point is that transit influences neighborhood development. That statement is inarguable, yet, we can dive below the surface level conversations to really understand how transit influences development (and displacement). See for yourself, go stand on the corner of Beacon & McClellan or MLK & Othello. Compare it to MLK & Graham (time stamp, 2022) – and see what the difference will be come 2025 when they begin developing that intersection in similar ways. This is a conversation that won’t get old, but should get deeper.

My hope is that these questions are helpful in creating more spaces for discussion about retrenchment and its impact on our communities. We must take our conversations further than we ever have before, to do any less is devaluing the urgency of this issue that is destabilizing our communities. If winning strategies aren’t understood, only confrontation will create clarity.

List of Questions: