What is the future of the Indianapolis community?
A Reflection of Oppression
Case Study: Hillside, Indianapolis
Hillside is a neighborhood in Indianapolis that has been ignored as the city chooses to redevelop other neighborhoods instead. A 2016 article in the IndyStar written by Jill Disis cites an estimated 160 houses (about one-third) in this neighborhood alone stand vacated, 20 set to be demolished, 52 under repair [1]. In 2009, Ertel Manufacturing was found liable for contaminating the groundwater and soil [1]. Steven Meyer, a former city brownfield coordinator who now works in community development, was quoted saying the community fell victim to redlining policies in the 1930's and 40's--which effects are still felt today. Properties often changed hands without proper documentation, so in the present day, without proof of ownership, the residents can't sell the houses. If these residents wish to move elsewhere, their only option is to pack up and leave. These houses are left vacant and deteriorate, while the previous resident gains no capital. Poverty and vacant housing breeds crime, and the cycle continues. The other result of residents left without proof of ownership is that they are financially unable to move. These residents need the capital from selling the house in order to purchase a new house elsewhere. This restriction of mobility is gross theft of freedom. Unable to access better job opportunities, education, healthcare, and more in other areas, these residents do not have the same freedom as members of the mobile middle class.
A Push in the Wrong Direction
Many neighborhoods in the Indianapolis area were documented under this "D" category in the 1930's and 40's due to a lack of safety, housing deemed to be livable, nearby resources, or even based on how many people of color were living in the area [9]. However, most of these neighborhoods still do not compare financially to the "A" graded neighborhoods and are still as segregated today as they were during the redlining process [10]. Coincidentally, no legislation was ever created to aid these communities deemed to be within the "D" category with resources that would have evened out the economic playing field of Indianapolis neighborhoods, which is exactly what Hillside, Indianapolis is experiencing. Although several of these neighborhoods have been ignored by the government and policy makers, others have been seen as a potential business opportunity. This is where the idea of gentrification, or the process of renovating and improving a house or district to appeal to the middle-class, comes into play. From the perspective of business developers, lenders, and property owners, it seems like the best solution to improve D-rated neighborhoods and therefore save communities, but in fact the results can cause even more damage. Gentrification inevitably results in higher rent prices, which can displace the current residents of the neighborhood, whose relative low income cannot sustain the higher rents.
Negative Effects of Gentrification
In order to improve D-rated neighborhoods, that are typically non-white, crime-ridden, and impoverished, gentrification methods are used to renovate and build new homes [10]. Once these neighborhoods are claimed to be improved through these renovation methods, housing prices rise, wealthier citizens move in, and current neighborhood members are eventually pushed out. The neighborhood realtors also make tempting offers to the home owners to sell their homes to be renovated to further spread the gentrification of the neighborhood. These solutions are often described as "urban development," but mostly result in more wealthy families moving into the area and all of the current citizens being pushed out instead of assisted by these programs.
The Butler-Tarkington Housing Incentive Program is a prime example of potential gentrification efforts. Butler has created a generous housing incentive for its employees to move into the Tarkington Neighborhood area, a region that is majority black and much less wealthy than the surrounding neighborhoods such as Meridian Hills [8]. This incentive might be a great opportunity for Butler families, but will most likely result in pushing out the current residents of the neighborhood as the housing market prices will rise with the renovation of several homes in the area. Could this be an easy way for Butler to gentrify the surrounding neighborhood, further expand the "Butler Bubble," and make the region around Butler look more appealing?
The Butler-Tarkington Housing Incentive Program is a prime example of potential gentrification efforts. Butler has created a generous housing incentive for its employees to move into the Tarkington Neighborhood area, a region that is majority black and much less wealthy than the surrounding neighborhoods such as Meridian Hills [8]. This incentive might be a great opportunity for Butler families, but will most likely result in pushing out the current residents of the neighborhood as the housing market prices will rise with the renovation of several homes in the area. Could this be an easy way for Butler to gentrify the surrounding neighborhood, further expand the "Butler Bubble," and make the region around Butler look more appealing?
A Not-Too-Bright Future
Case Study: Tarkington Park
In 2012, a group of local neighbors, business owners, and stakeholders proposed to help fix Tarkington Park, a neighborhood filled with crime and neglect in Indianapolis [10]. They presented a $5 million dollar improvement with goals to better the community through increasing the value of retail and residential areas. However, this has yet to be implemented, and plans to make this happen are still in progress. By increasing property values they hope to attract middle class whites to move in and integrate the neighborhoods. On the other hand, by increasing the economic opportunity of the residents, they hope to increase their mobility towards other middle class, majority white neighborhoods. It remains to be seen how effective this policy that many call "gentrification" will be.