Brilliant poster.
Might I have an email copy to post to the cacophony group?
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.
I saw your flyer on a street light in Williamsburg... interesting... i especially liked this one "they, unlike the truly poor and disadvantaged, can tattoo, dye and pierce themselves to their hearts content, but without fear of rendering themselves unemployable"
i prefer to use the term "art fags" over "yuppies" as yuppies imply some sort of upward career mobility. most of those settling the n 7th area seem to be either doublign and tripling up or using the trust fund to finance their lifestyle. and at least yuppise sometimes interact with the people they are displacing. artists live in their own world, or gawk at old-timers as if they are animals in the zoo.
as an urban planner and someone at least partly to blame for what you describe, i think you should try harder to get your message out. NAG is dominating the public debate over this, and i know there are a lot of people who feel the way you do - that a dump would bring a lot of jobs and business to the neighborhood without really changing much.
personally, i dont think NAG has a chance in hell of getting a park. they may be able to stop _anything_ from happening on the waterfront by forcing a lengthy environmental review, but the park is a pipe dream. they are the most politically naive grassroots organization i have ever had contact with, and they dont know how to get attention. i was amused that saturday, to protest the placement of a dump on the waterfront, they held a big flea market - essentially a big garbage sale. whatever...
at any rate, i am moving out of williamsburg this week. i wish you the best of luck.
Dear person who wrote the flyer,
I work in G-W [Greenpoint-Williamsburg] and was there today when i saw your flyer (took one, sorry i really wanted to share it w/someone who also works closely on community issues in the area) and was really impressed by your essay. I'm a planning student and have read a lot on gentrification and it was one of the most well thought-out pieces i've read. I was just talking the above person the other day about G-W and she also mentioned how up til now w/the recent throes of gentrification, a lot of people (esp immigrants and industrial workers) had no choice but to live in the area b/c it was the only rents they could afford..
Anyways, i also write a zine called bigger isn't better and was wondering if you'd be interested in writing a piece for it. The focus of the next issue will actually be CA vs. NY, but i'm actually just looking for stuff on both cities. If you'd prefer, i could send you an issue first and let you decide f/there..
ps if you are interested be sure to include your address, or i could also hand it to you in person as i'm usually in bedford ave during the week
you're right.
thought you'd like to know about another approach we've been working on- e.g. to bring the existing pattern of streets and small scale mixed use structures down to the waterfront . i know, i know- even if the streets were brought down and the lots were kept small, only the wealthy could afford it anyway. and, of course, home depot and caldor's would buy a whole block right away. but maybe the community board could mandate that no one could buy a whole block. maybe only people who had lived in the neighborhood for a time could get one lot per household. maybe we could keep a recycling station (locally run- as the high school students at El Puente have suggested) and maybe even radiac and a few porn shops (my favorite anti-yuppie device along with working women- no irony intended here)...maybe we could have some vacant buildings just for squatters. maybe sweat equity could be legitimized here (in Williamsburg) as a viable way to own. maybe people's fire house could design/build some lots with and for families that really needed houses to live in (i think this has been done....). maybe we could keep/encourage local industry in between, below and above living areas on the waterfront...yuppies don't like steelworkers pounding away at 4 AM ...
it's another approach- we're pursuing it through careful injections into the 197-a plan and some agitation- did you see us march against big boxes and luxury condos in the parade sat.???
ps- i've lived and worked here since 1981 and i know i'll have to move if a park gets built and "IT'S NOT OVER HASTA EL FINITO."
JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT I AM ENTERTAINED AND AMUSED BY YOUR RIGHTEOUS WIT AND SINGLE MINDEDNESS IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION. I REALLY SENSE A KINDRED SPIRIT WHEN I READ A DIATRIBE LIKE YOURS, WHOSE LANGUAGE AND TIMING ARE SO WELL CALCULATED TO PISS OFF SO MANY PEOPLE, SO QUICKLY. LOOKING FOWARD TO YOUR FUTURE WRITING AND PROUD TO HAVE YOU AS A NEIGHBOR. YOURS SINCERELY
Hi!
Just a quick note to say "Right On!" in reference to your "We Want a Garbage Dump, Not a Riverfront Park" flyers in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
Cheers,
Greenpoint Resident
Hello. I just read your notice entitled, "MORE GARBAGE, FEWER YUPPIES! FEWER YUPPIES, CHEAPER RENT!"
I agree with you on many points. I come from working class people in rural New York State. I, too, am a "creative" type - a transplant. I don't think I have ever been considered a part of the bourgeoisie by anyone that has known me. In fact, I believe that many of the "disaffected members" that you have spoke of probably have never been members -or have had their membership cards revoked some time ago.
Now, I'm not trying to suggest that there is not a real threat to this community. I am aware of the problems associated with the gentrification of established neighborhoods... increased rents being a strong indicator of deeper psycho-social problems like divisiveness and mistrust and crime (...all those new $30,000 soft, white people with middle and upper-middle class backgrounds with their artistic sensitivities... just begging to be hated)
I don't mean to make light of your characterization. I would not like to see the yuppification of the neighborhood on a purely aesthetic basis- much less at the cost of the working class. (do they have membership cards too?) But I think the general tone of your posting has startled a lot of people... they may even think that you could be responsible for all of the "yuppie go home" graffiti painted on various property. At the moment, there are not a lot of yuppies in our area. I see poor artists. I see poor working class. I see successful working class (you know the kind I'm talking about, I think) I see what is almost certainly Mafioso. I see lots of poor dogs. And I'm sure I see some yuppies cleverly disguised as poor artists. BUT GARBAGE? Do you think that's better than new people?
I think the ideal would be to let the waterfront stay as it is... if the choice is between a garbage dump or a park that will upset the natural balance that the green space has achieved (despite the trash, litter, rubble, squatting and traffic) Maybe the Conservation Dept. of NY might take an interest the property. There are few places left around this city that have that kind of bio-diversity in a semi-natural setting... something I'm sure that full-scale park development would destroy. If there is an ecological reason to maintain a green space which supports very low impact traffic, then it's reasonable to think that it will not be a large draw to the community. If the area were slowly cleaned of rubbish and abondoned, stolen cars, with a few garbage cans, I think the varied people who already regularly visit the waterfront, and other people from the neighborhood, would benefit. (If it is not designed to support a lot of people, then all those bad yuppies from Manhattan wont raise their children here.)
Please consider the effects of advocating the garbage dump proposal. The rich, the middle class, and the poor alike deserve to live in an environment that does not include the thundering late night and early morning sounds of filthy and stinking polluted trucks, they don't deserve that rich smell of rot that already wafts through on the hot days of Summer, they don't deserve to live in garbage. If there is a dump, then people with the resources might move away, leaving the poor to live in a filthy place, saving rent but possibly facing increased medical bills or taking more sick time from their jobs due to the pollution. Although this might seem far-fetched, I'm sure it has happened. This cannot be right.
I felt it was important to send this to you because you're obviously motivated and have seen well the opposing arguments of this issue. I hope there is another path.
I told you I'd write after reading the flyer you gave me Saturday. Instead I've read what you posted on Bedford, which I presume has the same text.
At the street fair, a person at the NAG table told me the ALJ (administrative law judge, the one who presided over the April hearing) ordered the company to prepare an environmental impact statement. This could take years, and a final decision on the transfer station will only be made after the state conservation agency evaluates the report. On the train this morning, a woman next to me reported to the next guy over that the question has been decided, and the dump won. He accepted her version unquestioningly. Lack of confidence in my own information prevented my interrupting their conversation. Why am I mentioning this? To emphasize how poorly informed the people of Williamsburg are.
You claim a park would double the rent in the cheapest units. Do you know what affects those rents and how much? You don't know, for example, what proportion of those units are rent stabilized (as my apartment is). What did your flyer tell us about the elasticity of rental prices in Williamsburg? Do you know who lives in what rental units, paying how much, and where? Do you know that there is a community development initiative addressing this question (I read mention of it in the publication called Waterfront something), and that they can probably answer these questions? Do you know what factors are important to speculators and others looking to buy land near the water? Existent industry and toxicity are among the current deterrents.
Since the first sign of artists in the neighborhood, people have been warning of the horrors you predict. Have they happened? Some gentrification has definitely occurred. Rents are certainly higher notwithstanding various lousy environmental aspects. Have there been major housing shifts, however, or is there an ethnic stickiness to the market, such that, for example, South Williamsburg remains cheap and poor. If a park will only make it harder to find cheap industrial space, don't worry, that's already happened. And if you're worried about keeping the neighborhood authentic and crudy (for economic or aesthetic reasons), why aren't you protesting the whole comfy commercial strip along Bedford? Your arguments are more appropriate to a park v. lumber yard or park v. empty lot dilemma, not the present situation. I'm sympathetic to anti-gentrification arguments generally but not their use to justify increasing major health risks for poor people or anyone else.
On the other hand, if you want to be provocative, why not take the next step? Given the mayor's record on homelessness and his plan to end welfare, New York can learn from Mexico City: if we have a garbage dump, at least the poor will have somewhere to live.
[The following message was written by the same person as above.]
Yes, I'm that person. I appreciate your restraint. Unfortunately I start out on the offensive with situationists, as the ones I've met have been smart, self-assured, and intellectually aggressive. My message combined my reaction to your flyer with my reaction to situationists generally - not fair to you. I hoped I had edited out the latter, but I guess I failed, given your reference to respect. Sorry for my tone.
[...] I was reading on my way to work late, and didn't tear one down to take along.
[...] Anyway, to be more fair, your flyer does not pretend to answer questions but to ask them, which I think is fine. I would just add to the list. I just get frustrated because I've lived in places with strikingly different ethnic mixes, economic factors, and geographies, and yet I've found uncanny similarity in the anti-gentrification expression.
[...] I think we agree here on the facts and that posting something was a good move. I don't really have an impression, much less an opinion, about NAG. This is, however, the first time I've been this passive a participant in a political campaign. I usually feel no dearth of debate. I can't tell if I'm just out of the loop, but even if I am, then lots of other people are too. In any case, I was glad to see your flyers and to see people reading them.
[...] Maybe I skipped a step. I equate the dump with health risks, so pro-dump means pro-risk. But you're not actually pro-dump, are you.
[...] I obviously don't hope we have a dump or that the mayor's policies prevail, so I guess ironic is what my statement was, ala Swift.
I'm sorry my message came across so unconstructively. What an awful way to meet a person! Just yesterday I warned a friend about the dangers of miscommunication in email between strangers. Why I don't follow my own advice is a mystery.
It's sad to say, but your diatribe is absurd.
As one of the new residents of Williamsburg, who perhaps makes more than $15,000 per year, your speech makes me wonder whether I am entitled to live here, whether my dislike of proximal garbage dumps matters and whether you are interested in support from people like me.
Sure, a park would be nice. A park is a revenue drain, though, so I doubt we'll get one. Remember, NYC defaulted on its bonds in 1978 (i.e. went bankrupt), so fiscal responsibility is probably still more important to the city/state than public works.
Getting to the specifics of your manifesto, 1) yes Williamsburg is a traditionally industrial area. And yes, it is gentrifying. But most of the old industries here are no longer viable. Naturally, industrial buildings are becoming residential conversions. I don't here you decrying the movement of artists into old industrial buildings, only yuppies into apartment buildings. The laws of supply and demand do not discriminate between artist and bourgeois tenants. 2) Your statement that most members of the classes moving into Williamsburg are "racially 'white'" is pretty hilarious. First of all, you imply that white people are bad. This is offensive. But more than that, you are missing what to me appears to be the key reason Williamsburg is a place trendies are moving to: IT IS A WHITE AREA. The coolest area is the North side, right? Who are the traditional residents there? Polish spillover from Greenpoint. Poles are "racially 'white.'" The reason hipsters (who are mostly white) have been moving here is because they feel comfortable in this white neighborhood. 3) "members of the bourgeoisie have traditionally been LOATH to live among 'their' factories..." 4) I'll pass over your class struggle arguments which do not seem germane to the fact that the state wants a garbage facility. 5) Your implication that your are poor and inclusive is disingenuous. You don't sound inclusive. I feel as though possibly you don't like members of the bourgeoisie moving into your neighborhood.
Please become inclusive so that the whole community will rally around the problem of the garbage dump, rather than debase your concerns with outdated arguments about class struggle.
[In what follows, quotes from this person's original letter are inset, and our responses to them are placed as per normal.]
Naturally, industrial buildings are becoming residential conversions.
Naturally?! "Naturally" in an unnatural economic system, sure!
I don't here you decrying the movement of artists into old industrial buildings, only yuppies into apartment buildings.
Precisely. It is the heart of my point. When new apartment buildings are constructed, gentrification has become a fait accompli.
The laws of supply and demand do not discriminate between artist and bourgeois tenants.
Ah, yes: those "natural," unchallengable and unchangable laws! Written and passed by God himself!
2) Your statement that most members of the classes moving into Williamsburg are "racially 'white'" is pretty hilarious.
Simply the fact of the matter. If you find reality hilarious, that is your problem or pleasure.
First of all, you imply that white people are bad. This is offensive.
Simply the fact of the matter. The white person's claims to fame on the stage of history: two world wars in just 30 years; the neutron bomb; napalm; atomic weapons; experiments on black people in Tuskogee; intercontinental slavery in the name of a Christian God; global imperialism; laboratory-created HIV; the CIA -- shall I go on?
But more than that, you are missing what to me appears to be the key reason Williamsburg is a place trendies are moving to: IT IS A WHITE AREA. The coolest area is the North side, right? Who are the traditional residents there? Polish spillover from Greenpoint. Poles are "racially 'white.'" The reason hipsters (who are mostly white)
So you agree with me! Then why did you declare hilarity at the idea?
have been moving here is because they feel comfortable in this white neighborhood. 3) "members of the bourgeoisie have traditionally been LOATH to live among 'their' factories..." 4) I'll pass over your class struggle arguments which do not seem germane to the fact that the state wants a garbage facility.
A convincing demonstration of your lack of knowledge of and interest in how capitalism actually functions today.
Your implication that your are poor and inclusive is disingenuous. You don't sound inclusive. I feel as though possibly you don't like members of the bourgeoisie moving into your neighborhood.
Duh.
Please become inclusive so that the whole community will rally around the problem of the garbage dump,
stop whining.
rather than debase your concerns with outdated arguments about class struggle.
We'll see (in our lifetimes) just how "outdated" modern theories of class struggle really are!
[In reponse to us, this person wrote the following back.]
Thanks for your rapid response! Good luck with your movement.
Rose,
Not unexpectedly, I have an opinion about your leaflet. However, since there's nothing worse than an opinion based on assumed or inacurate information, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to answer some questions about yourself and your cause so that I don't undermine my argument with false accusations. After all, as it says in Sun Tzu's The Art of War, "Know the enemy and know thyself and in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."
1. How old are you? 2. What is your ethnic background? 3. Where did you grow up? 4. If you're not from New York, when did you move here? 5. If you're not from New York, what was your motivation for moving here? 7. How long have you lived in Williamsburgh? 8. What is your education level? 9. If you're a college graduate, which college(s) did you attend? 10. What is (or was while you were growing up) your parents income level? 11. What is your occupation (that is, what do you do that provides you with enough money to eat and pay the rent)? 12. What is your income level? 13. Do you perform any community service? 14. How mank people make up the New York Psychogeographical Association? 15. At the end of the 7th paragraph, you say that the bourgeois are already poisoned. I what way do you mean? 16. Do you have any children?
I hope that's not too intrusive. I know it wouldn't be fair to ask those questions and then refuse to provide you with information about myself so...
First of all, we are (my wife and I), what you consider to be the enemy. We are in our late twenties, white, from upper-middle class parents. We both grew up in Maryland and moved to New York because it seemed fun and exciting and, of course, both wanted to persue the arts. We moved to Williamsburgh not out off choice but out of neccessity - the sky-high Manhattan rents. We both have college educations, and we make more that $50,000 but less than $100,000 a year. My wife design book covers and I work for a software company. We don't perform any community service. We've lived in Williamsburgh for a year and can't wait to move out (good news, right?).
So there it is. I hope you'll be honest in your anwers as I have been.
By the way, we do have something in common: I totally agree with your Fucking Ugly Buildings campaign on your web site...
[We wrote the following in response. Quotes from the original letter to us are inset, and our responses are placed as per normal.]
Rose, Not unexpectedly, I have an opinion about your leaflet. However, since there's nothing worse than an opinion based on assumed or inacurate information, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to answer some questions about yourself and your cause so that I don't undermine my argument with false accusations.
You would like to expose our "weak" points *before* you insult us? Fine, just don't expect any help from us.
After all, as it says in Sun Tzu's The Art of War, "Know the enemy and know thyself and in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."
We are quite familiar with the book and its modern uses.
1. How old are you? 2. What is your ethnic background? 3. Where did you grow up? 4. If you're not from New York, when did you move here? 5. If you're not from New York, what was your motivation for moving here? 7. How long have you lived in Williamsburgh? 8. What is your education level? 9. If you're a college graduate, which college(s) did you attend? 10. What is (or was while you were growing up) your parents income level? 11. What is your occupation (that is, what do you do that provides you with enough money to eat and pay the rent)? 12. What is your income level? 13. Do you perform any community service? 14. How mank people make up the New York Psychogeographical Association? 15. At the end of the 7th paragraph, you say that the bourgeois are already poisoned. I what way do you mean? 16. Do you have any children? I hope that's not too intrusive.
No, you don't. It's VERY intrusive, and it appears to be your precise attempt to be so.
I hope that's not too intrusive.I know it wouldn't be fair to ask those questions and then refuse to provide you with information about myself so...
This isn't information; this is bait.
First of all, we are (my wife and I), what you consider to be the enemy. We are in our late twenties, white, from upper-middle class parents. We both grew up in Maryland and moved to New York because it seemed fun and exciting and, of course, both wanted to persue the arts. We moved to Williamsburgh not out off choice but out of neccessity - the sky-high Manhattan rents. We both have college educations, and we make more that $50,000 but less than $100,000 a year. My wife design book covers and I work for a software company. We don't perform any community service. We've lived in Williamsburgh for a year and can't wait to move out (good news, right?). So there it is. I hope you'll be honest in your anwers as I have been.
We have no reason to be "honest" with someone who clearly defines us as an enemy.
By the way, we do have something in common: I totally agree with your "Fucking Ugly Buildings" campaign on your web site...
Did a search for the phrase "New York Psychogeographical Association," didn't you? How very clever!
[The following message was written by the same person as above.]
How venomous! I had hoped that you wouldn't take yourself quite as seriously as you appear to. Oh well, I'll just have to postulate then. My theory is this: you're white, mid 20s to mid 30s, not from New York but probably lived here for a while. Your parents were middle class, and you think that being middle class can only mean being like them. You can't stand the thought of that but at the same time, if pressed, could not give a cogent argument why. You live a series of hypocrisies: you claim to align your self with the poor and destitute but consider yourself above them culturally, spiritually and intellectually and the thought of doing volunteer work for your community never even enters your mind. You claim to want to maintain Williamsburgh the way it is but would move to a better area in a heartbeat if you could. If you are an artist, you are either a failed artist and have admitted to your self and now feel very bitter about it, or you're on your way to being one of those sad individuals who can never admit their mediocrity and work crappy $5/hr jobs until they're 50, while considering a Tuesday night show at some crappy hole-in-the-wall galley in Williamsburgh a breakthrough. But then again, maybe you're not an artist at all. You think it's so great to be a reactionary. As an example, when princess Diana died, you pretended not to mourn because you had to be different. You thought people would be impressed with your insight. What you don't realize it that great reformers like Ghandi or M.L.K. knew there were only 2 ways, their way or no way, but they had the savvy make people compromise without even realizing it. How limited your vision must be to think that the ONLY options are a garbage dump with low rents or a park with high rents. That the only option for keeping rents low a carcinogenic environmental nightmare. What about rent control reform? What about tenants rights? How little you think of the poor and immigrants, whose side you claim you are on. You really think you're opening their eyes, don't you? And what's this about poor and inclusive? You seem to have the disposable income to spend on a computer and maintaining a web sight. The Williamsburg local don't need someone like you on their side. It's so fashionable to rage against the Man, but once that dump is in place you'll pick up and move so you can continue 'struggling'. Here's another formula for you:
MORE GARBAGE, MORE CANCER! MORE GARBAGE, FEWER YUPPIES! FEWER YUPPIES, MORE CANCER!
[In response, we wrote the following. Quotes from this person's original letter are inset, and our responses are placed as per normal.]
How venomous!
you called us "enemy," after all
I had hoped that you wouldn't take yourself quite as seriously as you appear to. Oh well, I'll just have to postulate then. My theory is this: you're white,
the writer of this particular e-mail: half-Polish, one quarter-Russian, one quarter-Austro-Hungarian
mid 20s to mid 30s,
wrong
not from New York
wrong
but probably lived here for a while. Your parents were middle class, and you think that being middle class can only mean being like them. You can't stand the thought of that but at the same time, if pressed, could not give a cogent argument why. You live a series of hypocrisies: you claim to align your self with the poor and destitute but consider yourself above them culturally, spiritually and intellectually and the thought of doing volunteer work for your community never even enters your mind.
really wrong
You claim to want to maintain Williamsburgh the way it is but would move to a better area in a heartbeat if you could.
wrong
If you are an artist,
no
you are either a failed artist and have admitted to your self and now feel very bitter about it, or you're on your way to being one of those sad individuals who can never admit their mediocrity and work crappy $5/hr jobs until they're 50,
the writer of this particular answer (remember: the NYPA has several members) receives weekly government checks and doesn't work
while considering a Tuesday night show at some crappy hole-in-the- wall galley in Williamsburgh a breakthrough. But then again, maybe you're not an artist at all.
one right answer!
You think it's so great to be a reactionary.
we fancy ourselves to be revolutionaries
As an example, when princess Diana died, you pretended not to mourn because you had to be different.
Actually, we expressed our sense of loss by enhancing all three shrines to her in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. (See Houston and Ave B or Ave A and 13th Street)
You thought people would be impressed with your insight.
Actually, the majority of the 10 responses we've received so far (yours included) have been quite favorable.
What you don't realize it that great reformers like Ghandi or M.L.K. knew there were only 2 ways, their way or no way, but they had the savvy make people compromise without even realizing it. How limited your vision must be to think that the ONLY options are a garbage dump with low rents or a park with high rents. That the only option for keeping rents low a carcinogenic environmental nightmare.
We said none of these things. Please read more carefully.
What about rent control reform? What about tenants rights? How little you think of the poor and immigrants, whose side you claim you are on.
See above.
You really think you're opening their eyes, don't you? And what's this about poor and inclusive? You seem to have the disposable income to spend on a computer and maintaining a web sight.
Second-hand Macintosh and $10 a month dial-up expenses. We're rich and we spend the big bucks!
The Williamsburg local don't need someone like you on their side. It's so fashionable to rage against the Man, but once that dump is in place you'll pick up and move so you can continue 'struggling'.
Our lives are sweet and easy!
Here's another formula for you: MORE GARBAGE, MORE CANCER! MORE GARBAGE, FEWER YUPPIES! FEWER YUPPIES, MORE CANCER!
Hotcha!
[The following message was written by the same person as above.]
How disapointing. I thought at the very least that someone with so much to say would be good for a stimulating debate rather than second-grade 'I know I am but what are you' answers.
I have been living in the neighborhood for over 15 years. I remember those days when new apartments were "cheap" or "affordable" to lower income people. The point you are missing here is that in the late seventies, you were more likely to become the victim of street violence than in notorious NY heighborhoods, like the South Bronx (where I came from) or East NY. When I moved here it was a common occurence to be mugged, robbed at gunpoint coming home from the Bedford avenue subway station.
In fact I remember when I lived on the southside, having crackheads attempt to breakdown my door with an axe, while I was home.
But alas, I don't have those problems anymore, now that the police are back.
I must also say that I don't have the problem of unaffordable housing. I live in a rent controlled apartment which I've been in for years.
It seems to me that the only people who have problems affording their apartments here are the new people who are moving in. The faceless, nameless masses who move in and move out in the blink of an eye.
This is the reson for the high rents in the neighborhood. Young, directionless college students who have moved here within the past 5 years because it was hip.
I have yet to meet a yuppie in Williamsburg. I actually remember the eighties, when, from your tract, I would assume you were playing with Star Wars action figures. Yuppie's were plentiful...
Anyhow...the working class of Williamsburg...who are friends of mine...you can find them at Teddy's or the Greenpoint Tavern, don't have any trouble affording Willimsburg. They bought their houses for nothing when everybody left in 1975...when the police station was closed down...when the most common occupation in the area was Heroin Addict...etc...
Check your facts before you litter our finally clean neighborhood with your ill conceived trash.
As an aside I agree that I would rather see more Dumps than Parks. I think that McCarren park is good enough. I'm more pissed about the crowds on the Subway than the cost of living...
Scream on
[We wrote the following in response. Quotes from the original letter to us are inset, and our responses are placed as per normal.]
I have yet to meet a yuppie in Williamsburg.
Come out of your cocoon, butterfly!
I actually remember the eighties, when, from your tract, I would assume you were playing with Star Wars action figures.
Your assumption is *quite* wrong.
Anyhow...the working class of Williamsburg...who are friends of mine...
Ha ha ha. "But seriously folks. . . ."
you can find them at Teddy's or the Greenpoint Tavern,
Alcoholics can be very slow-witted: you do not seem to be an exception. We prefer to amuse ourselves with the members of the working class who do not frequent bars, but who hang out in in the libraries, subways, parks and squatted buildings.
Check your facts before you litter our finally clean neighborhood with your ill conceived trash.
Your "aside" (see below) indicates your accord with our "ill-conceived trash."
As an aside I agree that I would rather see more Dumps than Parks. I think that McCarren park is good enough. I'm more pissed about the crowds on the Subway than the cost of living...
We're not surprised. But fear not: the police will see to it that you are safe.
[The following message was written by the same person as above.]
You are an AIDS spreading Faggot. Put That in yer pipe and smoke it. People like you who still believe that Marx had "a point" can all go fuck themselves.
A dangerous current is flowing through Williamsburg -- "yuppie go home" graffiti, lamppost fliers, and the like are trying to convince people that more garbage will actually lower their rents. These agitators want us to spread out the welcome mat for transfer stations with no prospect for anyone's rent going down even ten bucks.
They should learn their rights under rent regulations and help others who don't know them. To do more, these folks can assist community efforts to build/renovate cooperative or subsidized housing for families, working artists and others.
Asking parents to watch their kids suffer from asthma and other diseases brought on by the transfer stations in some false hope of lowering the rent is unfair and mean-spirited. What will they push for next? Will they try to fire-up the old Greenpoint incinerator with all its soot? Bring back the drug dealers who used to be on every corner? Overflow the Newtown Creek sewage tanks?
The people in this community deserve both a clean environment and affordable housing and we should all be working together to get them.
Annette LaMatto
Greenpoint
Annette LaMatto is the Executive Director of the Northside Community Development Council.
I recently came across the August 15 issue of the Williamsburg Observer (actually it was handed to me in a subway station.) I like the seemingly random combination of politics, poetry, light human interest stories, and odd erotic fiction.
However, I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind the anti-development/ pro-garbage arguments. I'm an UNDER-monied newbie to the area, and I would agree that Williamsburg is a very rare island indeed in New York City where one can find somewhat affordable rent in a neighborhood where an individual feels safe wandering out alone at night. It also has a uniquely diverse salad of people from all walks and ethnicities. As a person who can't afford higher rent, I share your concern that an influx of the upwardly mobile might inflate rents and force out a lot of the people who make Williamsburg what it is. However, the idea that development is inherently bad is a bit short-sighted.
Personally, I rarely feel the price of a cup of coffee at Starbuck's is justified enough for me to venture into their mass-produced, neo-bohemian utopia-by-Ikea franchises, but apparently enough people do that Big Coffee is building on Bedford Ave. Will this installation cater to yuppies? Until they start accepting food stamps for biscotti, I think the answer is obvious. Does anyone honestly believe the well-to-do of the city are going to take the train to Brooklyn for a latte? Clearly, they're building to serve a population that's ALREADY HERE.
Might a stinkin' new garbage dump drive a few out? Sure. But the catch is, I don't really think even the poorest of the poor you seem to be defending want to live downwind of a pile of rotting diapers either. If your solution to defeating gentrification is to make living here so miserable that those who can afford to leave do so, are you really contributing to the quality of life of the people that live here? Are rats better neighbors than Republicans?
If done right, development can mean jobs and an influx of people, and that seems like a more long term solution than a rotting pile of garbage. I live on Havemeyer street, and I've noticed that there are a lot of storefronts here that are sitting closed. New people (even yuppies) mean more businesses for the shopkeepers trying to hold on here, and the possibility for more jobs for the young people, particularly the immigrant population, who live here.
Instead of trying to throw a wrench into the works of "Williamsburg's renaissance" the real solution is to find ways to work with citizens, developers and local government to make sure that existing affordable housing remains available and that a good share of new jobs go to neighborhood Williamsburgers. The trick will be to convince the new business and upwardly mobile residents that what makes Williamsburg appealing is the very ethnic and economic diversity that new money threatens to drive out. If all the working class people leave, then the area will lose its "bohemian chic." Heaven forbid.
Williamsburg, and urban America as a whole, needs to find new ways to end economic segregation. The question is whether or not we have the will or creativity to create those solutions.
A new dump is not the answer.
Eric C---
A funny aside: I met the guy who's been plastering the "YUPPIE GO HOME" stencils everywhere. I'm not going to give his name because a) the ethics of the situation are kind of sketchy, and b) I can't remember it. You'll all be relieved to know, however, that it's the work of a single wing-nut rather than some kind of organized movement. I met the guy at Blackout Books, the anarchist bookstore on Avenue B, just south of Tompkins Square. He's a middle-aged guy and he's wearing a T-shirt with a picture of Lenin on it. He seemed proud of his handiwork. To give you an example of his thinking, he described this publication as "corporate." "Corporate?" I replied, "The whole operation's run by these two women who live on the Southside. I mean, it's more of a traditional community paper. It's geared toward people who have lived in the neighborhood for a while." "That's what I mean," he said. So if he thinks the old Slavic ladies who read Waterfront Week are yuppies, God know [sic] who he considers yuppies. Is it just me, or are guys like him: white, hyperpolitical, obsessed with a "fringe-dweller" pose, even more obnoxious than yuppies? I mean, okay, gentrification sucks, but this whole "politics of self-expression" crap failed in the L.E.S. [Lower East Side of Manhattan] and it's doomed to fail here. While guys with persecution complexes jump up and down and point fingers at any neighbor with a regular adult job, politicians and real-estate developers write off whole communities and snap up all our land. It's like treating a car-crash victim for a vitamin deficiency (say, you're hurt pretty bad, mister -- have some Wheaties!). Whew! Yes, I feel much better, thanks [...]
Dear Editor:
As an urban professional, who happens to be young, I resent the bias against me exhibited in the streets of Williamsburg (ie the "yuppies [sic] go home" graffiti) and especially in the pages of your paper. Could somebody tell me just what is wrong with being a successful young professional? Ever since the mid-1980s, when the term "yuppie" was first coined, people like myself have lived under a cloud of suspicion and hostility, as though we were lepers or infected with some kind of horrible infectious disease. It's just not fair, and it's time we spoke up for our rights.
Let's face it: what all this anti-yuppie sentiment boils down to is envy. It's as if having a well-paying job, and being able to afford the better things in life -- good clothing, expensive wines, fine food, exotic vacations -- it's as if this were a moral offense, like pedophilia or cannibalism. But let's face it, this is America and anyone who wants to earn a good living can; people should stop whining about their lots in life and do something about it. Nobody is stopping you from making $75,000-$100,000 a year but yourself. Go out and get a good job, for christ's sake; sitting home, slacking off, and moaning about it does nothing for your self-esteem.
A poisonous atmosphere has been created by certain elements in this society who want to condemn all those who are successful, and I am beginning to think that graffiti like "yuppies [sic] go home" should qualify as a hate crime, just like the Nazi insignia painted on a synagogue, or "go back to Africa" painted on a Negro [sic] home. Why can't we all live together in harmony? Why does my money make me different? I am still human and deserving of respect. Young urban professionals are people, too, dammit.
This hateful and divisive anti-yuppie rhetoric must stop, or we shall soon find ourselves, as a society, engaged in the kind of class-warfare that Karl Marx predicted, where the working-class sees no common interest with the middle and upper classes. Yes, as an undergrad I thought that Marx was kind of cool; but when you look at Russia now you can see that capitalism rules. Everybody in the world wants to be a capitalist, and who can blame them? It's the only game there is.
Grow up, Williamsburg Observer, and take a bite of reality
Sincerely,
Anonymous
In the past issues of Waterfront Week, texts have been printed about the New York Psychogeographical Association's interventions in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. In the September 10 - September 23 issue, a letter to the editor from Annette La Matto, a local businesswoman, remarked upon the "dangerous current" that "is flowing through Williamsburg -- 'yuppie go home' graffiti, lamppost fliers, and the like." In the October 8 - October 21 issue, columnist Jason Grote proclaims that he "met the guy who's been plastering the 'YUPPIE GO HOME' stencils everywhere." It is possible that the September 24 - October 7 issue also contains something on the subject: we don't know, because we missed that issue.
Our questions are simple: back in July 1998, we didn't Waterfront Week print -- or even acknowledge receipt of both printed and e-mailed copies of -- our address "To the working class of Williamsburg"? Since it is clear you believe that your readers are interested in what's happening in Williamsburg, are you now prepared to publish our original address -- or our subsequent one, "Yuppies Can't Go Home" -- in your publication?
[signed]
The New York Psychogeographical Association
The Editor replies:
Where, oh where to begin: first of all, Annette La Matto is not a local "businesswoman" -- she is a community activist and Executive Director of a local non-profit organization.
I have carefully read both circulars and believe that their sole purpose is to pit one part of the community (working class men and women) against another part of the community ("Yuppies"). While the Association has the right to publish its views, I reserve the right not to print messages that I believe are discriminatory. Instead of trying to divide the community into "us" and "them," the Association would be more effective if it attempted to find some real solutions to the myriad problems which plague this community.
A bit of commentary and then I'll get back to writing about drinking: I've recently angered some anti-gentrification activists with comments I've made in this column. Of course, that's inevitable: one can't please everyone, a little heat is the price of free speech, blah, blah, blah. I might add that this ain't no olive branch, and even if it was I'm sure it would be perceived as too little, too late. So why bother? Well, as evidenced by last issue's letter from Ken Butler (and despite the flippant way the issue was addressed by my esteemed colleague John Korduba), gentrification is a serious problem. Butler was arrested for "vending without a license" in Northside, a "Quality of Life" crime that actually enhances the quality of life for everyone -- except (some) private businesses. My beef with the NYPA et al, is not their end but their means: the "More Garbage/Less Yuppies" strategy, while an accurate description of the real estate business, (a) pits the field slaves against the house slaves, (b) attempts to put a leftist face on environmental racism, and (c) has demonstrated itself to be ineffective (see the Lower East Side). However, every column inch I waste poking fun at them is a distraction from what they and I agree is a danger to all of our way of life. I might point out that chain stores and dull, white professionals are merely symptoms: the disease is the twin bogeyman of business and government -- in other words, destroying our community -- to make the world safe for Starbucks. Infighting helps no one but Ronald McDonald and Mickey Mouse. Viva la revolucion! So does this mean that The Scene will henceforth consist of hard-hitting political reporting? Well, here's a piece about the two-party system: a party on Friday and a party on Saturday! [...]
To: notbored@NOSPAMoptonline.net
From: Colin Moynihan
Subject: Williamsburg garbage
Hello -- I'm about to begin reporting a story for The New York Times about the waterfront property on Kent Avenue and the debate over whether it should contain a park or a garbage processing facility. A friend of mine who lives in the neighborhood gave me a copy of a flier dated July 1998 with the headline "More Garbage, Fewer Yuppies!" that mentioned the New York Psychogeographical Association. I enjoyed your postings on the web, and I'd be grateful if you'd respond to this message, since I would like to talk to you about the Williamsburg issue and about what you're up to in general. My telephone numbers are: (212) 798-3151 and (212) 260-6808. I'm supposed to write this piece as soon as possible, so you'd be helping extraordinarily if you'd get in touch with me today or tommorrow. Thank you -- Colin Moynihan
To: Colin Moynihan
From: NOT BORED!
Subject: letter to the spectacular press
To Colin Moynihan (New York Times):
Well, since it seems clear that, in the absence of being able to meet with one of us personally, you will not be writing an article on us (and thus will not be asking us any questions by e-mail), we thought it might be amusing to provide some honest feedback on a few salient issues.
You wrote about and sent us your article on Al Giordano, with whom some of us are (unfortunately) personally acquainted, and you have a hunch -- way off the mark, but understandable, given the unfortunate fact that many well-intentioned activists confuse news coverage with "getting the word out to the people at large" -- that one of us would like to have an article such as that one written and published about our activities in Williamsburg. But none of us have any such interest, precisely because we -- unlike Mr. Giordano -- are not socially and politically isolated individuals to begin with, nor are we would-be "stars" of any kind whatsoever. It is almost always by accident that our existence and activities are reported upon by the spectacular press: we have no direct interest in publicity or coverage. Mr. Giordano, by contrast, was probably thrilled to be isolated and praised in your pages, and, consequently, the article you wrote about him *destroyed* whatever remained (and it was negligible) of his credibility among the radical communities of this city.
NOT BORED!
[AUDIO RECORDINGS]
[BACK ISSUES]
[HOME]
[LINKS]
[SCANNER ABUSE]
[SELECTED TEXTS]
[TRANSLATIONS]
[LETTRIST INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVE] [SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVE]