Amidst rapid gentrification, East Palo Alto locals give back

I’ve worked in the East Palo Alto (EPA) nonprofit community for the last three years.  I’m honored to be among the ranks of people who grew up in this community and have decided to give back to the place we call home.  My family has been in EPA for five generations and my maternal grandparents went to Ravenswood High School.  While I’ve been writing about the (often heated) topic of gentrification for the past three years as well, I want to acknowledge the locals that have chosen to come back and give back to EPA.  Here are six insights that I’d like to share: 

1. Know that gentrification isn’t inevitable – it isn’t a force of nature, but a process brought about by human actions. This helped me not to feel immobilized when navigating how to address the issue, meaning there was still a way to combat gentrification (and subsequent displacement of long-time EPA residents) as a person who grew up in this community.

2. Pick your battles – find the issue you want to invest time solving.  I didn't have a particular issue in mind when I moved back, but it became giving visibility to the Bay Area’s tech inequality with a focus on policy solutions in EPA, and urging tech companies (like Facebook) to be “good neighbors” in EPA and beyond (read my Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg here: https://writetoliveblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/an-open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg.html). There are many issues to fight for, always meetings going on, and people will likely want you to be a part of it all, but to be effective, you will have to pick a focus area and put your shovel to the ground.

3. Decide your negotiables and non-negotiables – it helps if these are tangible.  Negotiables and non-negotiables vary depending on who you talk to.  For example, a transplant to the city may have a different view than do locals, or younger locals may have differing opinions on what is best for EPA than those who grew up in the community pre-redevelopment era.  There will always be difference of opinion. But figure out what works and doesn't work for you and be clear about that – it will inform how you go about your work.  Let's use the Amazon decision as an example (see Figure 1), since it happened about a year ago (March 2017).

One of my non-negotiables was that my local government not be complicit in perpetuating tech inequality in the Bay Area (by not negotiating jobs in tech for residents).  To my first point, the above chart conveys how human actions can spur gentrification. The Amazon outcome helped me identify my own stance in what I believed to be best for my community. The intent here isn’t to blame EPA city council for the whole sum of the Bay Area’s tech inequality, or debate whether or not this was a “difficult” decision, but point to the tangible factors which influenced our complicity in the current state of affairs.

At the same time, our city council is currently discussing whether or not to put a parcel tax on the November 2018 ballot (https://vimeo.com/278531156).  The proposed parcel tax would tax incoming tech companies and commercial developments (of a certain size), requiring them to pay a per square foot fee for the space that they occupy in EPA.  This would be an annual tax and the accrued funds could go towards creating an actual pipeline to tech jobs for EPA residents and to net new affordable multi-family housing units, for example.  It is a well known fact that the rapid expansion of the tech industry has exacerbated the region’s housing crisis and placed undue burden of solving it on low-income communities like East Palo Alto.  For example, people often flock to rent in cities where the rent is cheaper (typically a low-income community), thus creating a high demand on top of the already limited supply of existing housing. Units are then “sold to the highest bidder” and this process pushes out those residents who don’t have access to the capital in the tech sector.  Not only this, the proposed tax mandates an accountability report every year to see that the program has met its objectives, so that residents don’t remain forever at the margins of the wealth of Silicon Valley.  The council will deliberate on this item on Tuesday, July 31, 2018, at City Hall at 7:30pm. I invite the community to come and participate in this discussion.

While I do not speak for city council members, part of me feels that this current conversation on the possible parcel tax (also referred to as “the Tech tax”) may be an attempt not to repeat the Amazon deal, and to leverage this moment to create tangible and accountable pathways for economic opportunity (especially from the tech companies!) for our community.  While I can’t predict the future, I’m hopeful and I believe that what we decide in this moment is a critical step towards reversing the tech inequality equation.     

4. Define your win – for me, here are some policy pieces that may address the tech inequality equation: (a) update/enforce our First Source Hiring policy, which will provide a steady bank of available/comparable jobs for residents (in and outside of tech), (b) have incoming tech companies create/enforce corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies that create pathways to jobs in tech and hold them accountable to these equity-based programs (while some companies, such as Facebook, have hired community liaisons – and while those are needed, this position isn’t a hardwired CSR policy – this element should fall on an entire department, not one person), and (c) have tech companies and universities contribute significant amounts of housing to the region and simultaneously limit their expansion policies/initiatives, so as to ultimately create a jobs-housing balance. These pieces require humans to enact them, they won’t happen on their own.  I don’t feel we have fully reached these wins, but they are ideas to work towards when people say they “don't know how to address the tech issue.”  Also, as for people who say, “No one is EPA is qualified to work in tech” (which by the way, isn’t true) – I don’t know any tech company that’s strictly run by engineers.  For example, they hire people in departments beyond engineering: human resources, management, marketing, operations, project management, and legal, just to name a few.

Recently, I read about a civil rights attorney, Ari Theresa, who is suing Washington, DC for gentrification (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennawang/2018/06/28/residents-sue-washington-d-c-over-1-billion-for-racist-gentrification-practices/#6d80cb0c3e8f). What is interesting, is that Anacostia, located in Southeast DC (the lawyer’s neighborhood), bears a striking resemblance to EPA – a once predominantly low-income African-American community.  The suit is based upon “the city’s discriminatory housing and urban-renewal policies that favor white millennial renters [of certain professions] over long-standing black residents,” and residents are asking for answers from their local government officials.  I will certainly keep my eyes on this case!  In addition, it should be stated that fighting for one’s community (specifically, anti-gentrification work) is important, even when people try to minimize its importance.  I’m glad to see that people are giving back to and fighting for their communities, and not just here in EPA.  And while some people will cheer you on in this work, be mindful that as we define our wins, it is not on one, two or even three individual activists to hold the ‘hood together. The work belongs to all of us.  Either we have a collective strategy for maintaining our community or we don’t.  Either way, where we stand on these issues, will come out in the wash.  Our young people are watching us, as they will inherit the problems we address or don’t address.

5. Expect pushback – People will disagree with you about what is best for EPA, this is normal and happens in community work, but keep going.  Pushback may come in the following forms: people discrediting your work as a community organizer as “not a real job,” people calling your allies (on an issue) “anarchists,” people touting that you are simply “anti-development” when you’ve made it clear that development can happen – but not at the cost of displacing long-time residents, it may look like transplant EPA historian-researchers hesitant to meet/speak with you, people calling you “naïve” when you begin to question the status quo, or being excluded from meetings specific to the issue you’re working on for fear that your critical analysis/stance on issues (as a local!) will "jeopardize" an organization’s relationships with incoming entities such as Facebook or Amazon (in other words, corporate interests may take precedence over community interests) – keep going!

6. Realize you’re planting seeds that you may/may not see in your lifetime.  Let the spirit of God and change-makers that came before you (especially those who incorporated the city!) guide you as you agitate/advocate for your community. I’m grateful for long-time EPA locals, who amidst gentrification and ALL of the politics… STILL give back!

PS. If you're reading this post, I hope to see you on July 31st! 😊

#Gentrification #TechTakeover #StopTheTechTakeover #techequity #socialjustice #jobs #affordablehousing #Facebook #Amazon #EastPaloAlto #SiliconValley #WashingtonDC #StoopLaw 

Facebook, where is your corporate social responsibility policy?

Six months ago, I wrote an article, "Facebook needs corporate social responsibility policy" (The Almanac, August 2nd).  More recently, I attended a meeting (November 29th) in East Palo Alto (EPA) with community members, residents from the Belle Haven neighborhood of Menlo Park, Stanford University students, and three Facebook representatives (Bernita Dillard, Lewis Knight and Juan Salazar).  Kate Bradshaw’s article, “Private meeting held between Facebook officials and East Palo Alto advocates” (The Almanac, November 29th), covers this same meeting.

During the question and answer segment, I asked, “Has Facebook given any thought to creating a corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy to institutionalize programs which alleviate the adverse impacts of its expansion on neighboring communities, namely, Belle Haven and EPA?”  According to Mr. Salazar, Facebook’s public policy manager, the answer was, “No.”

Last June, I attended another meeting in EPA, asking the same question.  Facebook’s VP of communications and public policy, Elliot Schrage, answered, “We don’t have a CSR department because all departments should be socially responsible.”  When Bradshaw highlighted my question in her previous article, a Facebook spokesperson delineated that the corporation has a “community engagement team (e.g. Juan Salazar, Bernita Dillard) akin to a CSR team that meets regularly with people in East Palo Alto, Belle Haven and North Fair Oaks.”

After considering all three answers, I realized: (1) corporations aren’t innately socially responsible, (2) a community engagement team isn’t a codified CSR policy, and (3) Facebook isn’t interested in creating one and it’s better they admit this, than give ad-hoc additions to job descriptions or insulting responses to long-time EPA and Belle Haven residents whose families are being displaced daily, because of the tech giant’s expansion.

While Facebook spokespersons downplay a CSR policy, it should be stated that:

(1) Stanford University's Haas Center for Public Service, whose aim is “a more just and sustainable world” has seven pillars, of which, CSR and social entrepreneurship is one. While Stanford’s also complicit in exacerbating the Bay Area’s housing crisis (they have a 17-year expansion plan on the Peninsula) -- I applaud Stanford’s acknowledgement that with social entrepreneurship comes CSR!

(2) Corporations, such as Starbucks, have CSR departments or strategies which become policies.  Mr. Schultz (retired Starbucks CEO) said, “There’s a great need to achieve the fragile balance between profit, social impact, and a moral obligation” to do everything possible “to enhance the lives of our employees and the communities we serve,” in a New York Times interview, last November.  I applaud Schultz’s CSR work.

Evidently, Facebook’s more interested in charitable acts than justice.  My suggesting a CSR policy moves beyond donating money, towards shifting the culture -- and possibly the mission of the corporation.

Facebook/Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative’s recent donations to EPA:
• $2M for water shortage
• $20M for affordable housing (Catalyst Fund)
• $3M for legal support of tenants facing evictions (Community Legal Services)

That’s $25M.  My next questions are: “How much of this money created actual jobs for EPA residents? How is progress being tracked?”  Jobs are critical in allowing people, amidst the gentrification spurred by the #TechTakeover, to simultaneously access the wealth of Silicon Valley and afford to live in the community where they grew up.

I’ve been writing on this topic since February 2016, and I gather that ultimately, Facebook’s “bottom line” is expansion.  Yet, a CSR policy would limit that expansion, thus conflicting with their bottom line.

At this point, what I find most disconcerting is the white and/or corporate privilege of key decision-makers at Facebook, which allows them the choice -- to not engage fully and long-term to combat the detrimental impacts of their well-intentioned start-up, on both communities.  This is unfortunate, because populations of color in EPA and Belle Haven are shrinking daily -- and we don’t have that same luxury.

Lastly, given the current damage and history of corporations entering and erasing similar communities, good intentions aren’t enough.

Dear Facebook, Humanity must become your bottom line! 

#EastPaloAlto #BelleHaven #UrbanErasure #TechTakeover #HousingCrisis #CSR #policy #HowardSchulz #Facebook #ChanZuckerbergInitiative #SiliconValley #Gentrification

10 Facts for White People Who Wanna Discuss Gentrification

1. Gentrification* is "the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper or middle-income families or individuals, raising property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses." By definition, the topic of gentrification is very likely to stir up racial and/or class conflicts.

2. Gentrification is not inevitable. It is not a force of nature, but a human act -- brought about by human agency.

3. Gentrification is a complex process with multiple players, many moving parts and those involved in the process will help it happen faster, slow it down, end it altogether or avoid addressing it at all.   

4. There is a possibility that low-income communities can survive the process of gentrification, albeit there is a collective strategy to preserve the community before that process begins.

5. The process of gentrification may yield more negative impacts than positive ones. We will let history and/or the communities most impacted be the judge.

6. We have to address the negative impacts of gentrification in substantial ways and work to mitigate them or historical communities of color will cease to exist in the Bay Area (and across the nation).

7. The impact that local governments, corporations and universities have in the process of gentrification cannot be understated.

8. We cannot have a conversation about gentrification without discussing the phenomenon that is white flight, the creation of the ghetto to begin with and the observation that when white people move into a neighborhood property values rise, automatically.  

9.  In a world where development is a reality, perhaps the ethical thing to do is place limits on the expansion of corporations such as Facebook and Amazon, and universities such as Stanford University.  This is one way to have development within reason or "development without displacement."

10.  If I have to explain the importance and value of preserving my community on a regular basis, there is a fundamental problem.  It won't be long before I have to explain the value of my culture and then after that, the value  of my very personhood.  This is not something I am willing to do.  Ever.  And the gentrification conversation is no exception. 

Ashe.

*Definition from www.dictionary.com 

#Gentrification #TechTakeover #EastPaloAlto #BayArea 

Facebook's expansion into Belle Haven calls for a corporate social responsibility policy

In Kate Bradshaw's Almanac article, ("Facebook unveils plans for giant new development in Menlo Park," July 7: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/07/07/facebook-unveils-plans-for-giant-new-development-in-menlo-park) her statement, "Facebook has been expanding its land holdings, office space and workforce in Menlo Park at a breakneck rate," is one that I agree with.  Oftentimes, a mantra in the technology industry is: "Move fast and build things."  But in my opinion, when tech companies build or expand, there should be ethics involved.  One way this can be done is via creating a corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy. 

In October (2016), I wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg (http://writetoliveblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/an-open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg.html), asking the corporation to consider the negative impacts of their expansion (into Belle Haven) on my hometown of East Palo Alto (EPA) and consider what it means to be a “good neighbor” (Luke 10).  Since that time, Facebook has given $20M for affordable housing to EPA due to community pressure, the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative has donated $2M to help aid EPA’s water shortage (partly because without it the construction of their pre-school in EPA would be delayed), and both entities have donated abundantly to nonprofit organizations which serve EPA and Belle Haven – historically under-resourced communities.

In this ongoing discussion of the #TechTakeover (with Facebook expanding into phase II in Belle Haven and Amazon now expanding its second-leg of development in EPA), some contend that millennials such as myself should be disregarded on this topic because we are simply “anti-development.”  While we are not saying that underserved communities don’t deserve to be developed, we are insisting that development should not result in the displacement of families (property values rise and often push low-income residents out of their communities) or the extinction of communities of color overtime -- therefore, the expansion of any corporation should have limits.

    

(Photo credit: Pinterest; Residents protesting negative impacts of gentrification in Brooklyn, NY & East Palo Alto, CA)

Spokespeople from Facebook have come forward and stated that they want to do their part in being a good neighbor.  It is my position that this can be done through Facebook crafting a corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy (e.g. see Sullivan principles).  That way, they can continually and intentionally stitch the thread of being a good neighbor into the fabric and culture of a corporation that exists within a capitalistic society.  The policy wouldn’t only place limitations on the tech giant’s expansion, it would list the ethics/values which govern that expansion.  If Facebook doesn't create a CSR policy, the alternative is that we expect corporations to be socially responsible on their own.

(Reverend Leon Sullivan, author of Sullivan principles: http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/sullivan-principles/)

Beyond my letter, I started to wonder what justice looks like, larger than monetary donations (although these can be helpful).  I asked myself, ‘Is Facebook willing to question its values as a corporation in regards to growth and “connecting the world,” write a CSR policy and take a hard look at what justice looks like tangibly, here in Silicon Valley, starting with EPA and Belle Haven communities?’ I sure hope so.

Dr. King writes it this way:

“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

#TechTakeover #Amazon #Facebook #EastPaloAlto #HousingCrisis #SiliconValley 

This post is dedicated to Reverend Leon Sullivan, Rhonda Rhea Byrd, M.Div., JD & Howard University Professor, Dr. Harold Dean Trulear