In my formative years, those years of adolescence and semi-maturity between 14 and 21, I was exposed to the educational approach known as the Preventive Method based on the trinity of reason, religion, and kindness.

As religion waned for me as important and relevant as time went on, it was replaced in my triumvirate by Transcendentalism as by explaining it in lay men’s terms, the students would see we were all in this together and should help each other as a benefit to another is also a benefit to self. This approach was intended to replace the constant need for discipline that disrupts what should be the constant flow of learning.

With reason, each rule was explained so that students would see they were for the students’ benefit and not just an exercise in power and control. Transcendentalism united the students to help with, not disrupt, the learning of others, and with kindness the classroom was a good and needed safe place to be in despite the occasions a student tried your last nerve and you had to remind yourself on the ride home after school that Jesus once cursed a fig tree because He was hungry and there were no figs.

I know this method to be effective because in the transcript of the case that proved I had been wrongfully terminated from my teaching position due to bigotry, the other side explained to the judge that one of the proofs of my ineffectiveness and negligence of duties was that in all my years at the school I hardly ever sent any students to the office and this showed I either had no discipline and the students were running wild with no consequences or, in the minds of my students, I did not have my authority accepted enough by students to go to the office when told to.

The judged asked if this could also be a sign there were no discipline problems requiring office intervention and thus no need to send someone to the office.

In time her question was answered in my favor by the evidence presented.

The best way to solve a problem is to prevent it in the first place.

To solve the problem of water in the basement that returns or remains no matter the effort you put into removal, the better approach might be to fix the leak in the pipe.

Disappointed with the absence of any renter supportive information at the community development open house a few days prior, upon a friend’s insistence, I attended a four hour presentation and discussion about managing and ending homelessness in the city of New Bedford.

The presenter from Bergen County, New Jersey, had been the driving force in coming up with a solution to homelessness there that has become a national model.

Although New Bedford has eliminated veteran homelessness completely, there is still a problem with the number of non-veteran homeless.

Initially, the theories behind the causes of homelessness and how establishing temporary housing with supportive services were very enlightening and applicable to a city dotted with empty school and factory buildings that could be refurbished into decent temporary housing for the homeless where presently these are all becoming yet more upscale apartments and condos.

Some of the causes of homelessness were reviewed with an emphasis on mental health which was covered in more detail in the afternoon session where it was the topic.

It was toward the end of the morning presentation that the speaker showed us a picture of what had once been a dying city that was now a vibrant place with high end restaurants, luxury hotels, and upscale apartment buildings which not only brought the city back, but brought it back with a vengeance.

It was an example of how eliminating homelessness can bring a city back to life.

Having been un-housed from the apartment building I had been living in that had been bought by someone who is converting it to luxury apartments and needed the building empty to start, giving tenants a 30 quit notice before eviction action would begin causing panic among many tenants who were too young to have experienced this before or knew no one who had, I just had to ask what happened to all the people who had lived in the areas now covered with yellow structures on a relief map representing the reborn downtown area’s luxury apartments and hotels.

Granted, the county had eliminated existing homelessness, but how responsible was it for producing homelessness that often results in people moving away from where they had been rendered homeless by necessity or the desire not to be seen by those who knew them in better days.

In my case I wanted to live within walking distance to the Whaling Museum, where I have been a volunteer since moving to New Bedford, and the other places that I had come to regularly be at for business, politics, or recreation. I found a place that is acceptable but not the dream.

Other tenants had to move away from the city and the jobs they had been conveniently living near. Some went from having an apartment and an established life to couch surfing until able to find a place in a city whose rebirth is creating homelessness, a cause and effect situation that city leadership is too unobservent to see it or, if it is aware of the situation, allows it to continue as it benefits those who should prevent it.

In the past, I am a senior who has lived in various places in the country where city leaders wanted to bring their city back to life making them Class-A cities, I have seen such rebirth being quite the feather in the cap when it comes to leaving a legacy, and in each city, when the plan for rebirth is revealed to an accepting public, what the public does not see, or, as in one situation, saw only too late, the plan was only made public after all advantageous benefits were guaranteed those who formed the plan. No Johnny come latelys.

When one city’s long neglected former storage and factory area was slated for refurbishing for the sake of the city and the plan revealed that called for adding a penny to the sales tax of all dollars spent by anyone in the city, resident or pass-through tourist, what was not revealed was that the buildings that would be refurbished were owned by those promoting the plan they had created claiming it was for city pride.

If the tax was not allowed or after refurbishing the plan did not pay off, the planners would be left with the old buildings they could easily unload to developers having spent very little money on upgrades because those were paid for by everyone else.

It is not unique that those things that benefit a city are coincidentally only things that also benefit the planners regardless how teh Great Unwashed are affected by the plan.

The promoters of the city’s renewal plan, although it was good for the city, benefited the most and would not have promoted the plan had they not been able to benefit. There is a reason the plan only encompassed a certain area and not the area nearby, the Deep Deuce, E 2nd St. that had a more universal history than being a place where stuff was stored and horses shod.

Long before the reveal of a commuter train coming to connect New Bedford to Boston, there was a proposal followed by planning with those in on the planning knowing exactly how this would affect property values.

When ghosts begin purchasing property as a city gets a chance of rebirth, here with a commuter rail and an off-shore wind company after the failure of the plans for an aquarium and/or casino, you can be sure the promoters are benefiting more than the city and are in a position to ensure any changes for the better will only include that which benefits the planners.

It was obvious from the presentation and the schematic of the reborn city in New Jersey, that people only count if they are necessary for the plan, while the plan does not take their existence as people and residents into account.

That city was dying yet people stayed.

Since the downtown areas in many cities like the one touted is heavily renter occupied, one has to ask where the people who had been there went.

Were they removed from old buildings to make way for more expensive and luxurious ones, or removed to make room for those who will be attracted to the city because of its luxurious offerings with no regard for where they go, ignoring that these were the people who, when the city was on life-support, kept it alive so investors, who should be grateful for their having done this by choice or necessity, will prophet.

Disappearance and erasure is a poor expression of gratitude.

Was the building of a model homeless center spurred by the knowledge it would be needed soon if the rebirth were to create the future occupants, or did the city institute a program to ensure that the displaced who chose not to move or could not because of situations like work and school are not just thrown out on their own resources to find housing because there is a place to send them guilt free.

As New Bedford goes through its rebirth and those who planned it, acted according to inside knowledge by investing in property whether openly or more likely as part of a ghost property owner, and want the money and reputation,  where are the displaced going?

Is the desire to manage and end homelessness based on morality, or having a place for the displaced to be sent.

Or, do renters not count enough as citizens to pay attention to?

Two events dealing with the future of the city and housing to excite the citizens about the future city failed to include those who should be able to celebrate the city’s bright future with them in it, yet neither spoke of renters.

The easily displaced, Great Unwashed who stayed when the city was raped and with it after the act, are not people. They, like vermin are to just go.

People will be impressed if the plans for my former building come through. Tenants will have a roof top deck with an unobstructed view of the downtown area and the harbor beyond and the city leaders will point to it as an example of how the city is blossoming again.

What did these same people, knowing that displacement through gentrification was inevitable, do to mitigate the increase in homelessness.

It seemed in the example proffered at this event, as with information at the other, that the city’s plans rely on creating more homeless people who might simply just go away to make room for the more acceptable people who want luxury things and have the income to enjoy them.

It also seemed odd that while the two hour afternoon session was about Mental Health and how that plays into homelessness, in ignoring renters, which means they most likely do not talk to them until after they are un-housed, they are not aware of those whose displacement was the cause or contributing factor to a mental health problem perhaps while previously feeling and presenting as just fine or teetering on an unseen ledge until that knock on the door and the receipt of the 30 day quit notice.

One tenant after nearly 25 years of spotless performance at work and known for an even disposition was injured at work as he was now dealing not just with the requirements of his job but also thinking constantly about his living situation. At the worst possible moment when he needed all his money to move to a desired place, his injury put him on a leave of absence with no promise of his being called back when healed and without Union protections.

The man who moved out of that apartment was not the man I knew as a neighbor for seven years. He was dejected and depressed when he left to couch surf at a friends house obviously a temporary situation as his lack of employment would keep him from contributing to his friend’s home, and an embarrassing situation for an, up to this point, independent person. His length of stay on any couch would depend mainly on the patience of the person whose couch he is on at the moment.

Yet, apparently, whatever issues developed after the displacement, are of no concern because, hey, it is all for luxury apartments.

His mental health will only be a concern if he ends up at a shelter.

The city, like the state, has its ordinances that protect landlords.

It, like the state, has very little to nothing to protect renters .

Some will say gentrification is good for an old city because it improves the economy and quality of life, but it is only good if it benefits the people who are there while welcoming newcomers. It is immoral when gentrification removes, displaces, and un-houses people for the benefit of those not here and are only a hope to those anticipating a good return on their, perhaps secret, investments.

Before touting the wonders of a reborn city, first tell me where the people went and how they  were treated in the process.

Another consideration is that, good or bad, if you do something there should be proof of that and the proof is usually something that can be seen. You manage homeless and end it, and along with the bragging rights, you can show people something. This may be a before and after or a was not then but is now situation, or the opposite.

But if you prevent something there is nothing to show. There is no praise.

We all appreciate the heroics of someone who manages to do the heroics during a flood after the dam bursts, but who gives even a passing thought to the guy who built the damn so it wouldn’t burst and cause a flood to begin with.

No razzle-dazzle there.

The default impulse is to go with the actions with obvious results not the ones whose results, though better, aren’t advantageously visible.

With the excitement of bringing life back to what is left of a city already raped twice for profit that did not go to residents, the effect on the people of the city should have been anticipated and planned for.

The two main choices for present renters should not be Homelessness or Fall River.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This past weekend I attended an open house held by my city’s Redevelopment Committee at the elementary school around the corner from my apartment.

The elementary school is around the corner now that I had to find a place to live when, after buying the building in which I lived, the tenants of the 24 apartments were given 30 days to get out or face eviction by the new owner so the ghost company could remodel the building and charge higher rents.

 In this process it was the building that counted as an investment and the existing tenants were just in the way. Tenant removal was impersonal and insulting even though their having lived in the building kept it occupied and not derelict so the seller could get a higher price.

The notice I received about the event in an email said,

 “The event allows everyone a chance to drop-in and provide their input on the city’s comprehensive plan. Additionally, representatives from City departments will be present, and family-friendly activities, raffles, and lunch will be included. Translation services will also be available.”

And, so, having just gone through the experience of being unhoused for the sake of city improvement and having experienced my own search and observing those of others, some of whom ended worse off because of the forced move, I was interested in what the city had come up with for renters who can so easily become displaced in the name of progress in what was said to be a comprehensive plan for the city and its future.

Upon entering the school, I signed in and signed up to get more information as time goes on and, while skipping all the tables that I am sure were interesting when relevant, like employment and healthcare, headed straight to the table with the sign that had the word “housing” on it.

I looked at all the printed forms and pamphlets, but these only dealt with assistance when buying property, remodeling what you bought, or repairing what needs it.

When I asked for renter information there was none and, by way of explanation, I was told that this committee dealt with housing and I felt I had to explain that for renters, apartments are their housing, and did.

 Not only were renters ignored when it came to housing, but there were, basically, forms and instructions on how to purchase property in a city beginning its rebirth, a process that usually results in tenants becoming unhoused as the new landlords raise rents.

The instructions were all the ways to have this displacement happen with nothing for the benefit or protection of renters.

The city might be talking about dealing with the homeless, it has already put slanted Belgian Stones at a major intersection so standing is next to impossible for panhandlers so they just moved, but unfortunately, the only information at the Community Development open house was on how to begin creating the homeless.

In seeking a solution to homelessness, besides eliminating those already homeless, the other consideration should be how to prevent homelessness, or at least reduce it, in the first place.

The best way to deal with a problem is to prevent it.

The section of the city I live in now has a rich history. There had been a bustling main street with merchants, social clubs, a movie theater, and all those things one would see in a small town center. To reduce the traffic congestion caused by the trucks from the fish processing plants clogging city streets, the state built a highway from the interstate to a traffic light in the South End and in the process wiped out a large chunk of the neighborhood and its people, replacing them with a four-lane highway that separates the city from its waterfront.

To me, it is the New Bedford street level version of Boston’s elevated Expressway before it was replaced with the Rose Kennedy Greenway, it, too, having been a good idea at the time.

Having seen historical pictures of the area from the days before the highway was built, I have wondered where the people went, and may have accidentally found what was done to clear the area of houses, businesses, and, more importantly, the people or, at least, I saw in practice what an attitude did and, although in different form, continues to do.

My car is somewhat comatose as the glowing check engine light seems to be a permanent fixture in spite of repeated work on the engine and after a brake pad fell off, so I have learned the bus routes by buying a monthly pass and taking each bus to see where each went. I found that all routes, save one, go to places people want to go, places with stores, medical centers, and schools. This one route, however, after going in a straight line through a typical city neighborhood as if it needed to get somewhere fast, veers off the main road and spends a great amount of time weaving through what were obvious the projects, low income, and elderly housing.

The buildings were well kept and the area clean, but the idea that people of certain demographics seem to have most likely been moved to what, at the time, was empty land with no reason to be there other than that is where in the city they could afford to live, seemed an effective way of removing people while the land was available whereas now it calls for those displaced and unwanted to not be seen by getting out of Dodge .

If the people there need things, there is that one bus that can take them from Siberia to downtown and then, thankfully, back home again and away from where they are not wanted once every hour for 12 hours.

The ride on that bus brought to mind the time in Oklahoma City, when, gathering historic information about the school at which I taught to get it on the Historic Register, I had the occasion to sit with someone at city hall to go over old maps of the school’s area and in the process learned a lot about the city.

As generally happened in cities that had streetcars and inter-urban lines as that city did, the oil companies and automobile companies got enough control, often by buying the existing system and letting it deteriorate, successfully moving people to automobiles, and this led to the elimination of street cars and brought in their replacement, the bus.

The original purpose of the streetcar system in that city as it was built by those who had somehow gotten quite a bit of land and resulting power during the Land Run that produced the city was to have people take the streetcars to various recreational areas, usually with a lake used to generate the power that ran the system that just so happened to pass through all the plots of land for sale by the same people who owned the streetcar company. This resulted in new neighborhoods springing up in new areas further away from down town and with that a need to get domestics to those areas.

The city would get federal money if it, rather than private companies, owned the transportation system, and to keep the funds coming while not overusing the buses, thus saving on repairs, the bus routes were laid out so that, while very inconvenient for those who needed domestics, it was the way the domestics in a Jim Crow city could get from the Black side of town to work.

I saw this bus route like that.

They had displaced the people but, as many were the working backbone of the city, still needed their labor even if they did not want their presence.

I could be wrong, but sometimes new eyes see the old things others close to it do not.

A few years ago, at a community meeting about the planned commuter rail to Boston presented by local people and some from Boston, when I asked about the displacement of present residents by gentrification, something I had no idea at the time was in my future, I was told by the MBTA representative that the train was all about economics as the train will bring improvements to the economy and that meant some people simply would just have to move.

These people would no longer be useful.

This idea, right or wrong, yet obviously and publicly announced as a given, should have figured into the plan for community development from that point on as, knowing people would have to move, the city should have established a department to help make the necessary and known move less painful and difficult.

It has been about five years.

When I needed to find a new place, as a 72-year-old, retired, cis-gender, Gay, White male I should not have had to contact city hall only to be given a list of agencies I might want to contact, the same list given to a young, single mother.

I was advised to do what I had already stumbled on and had done.

It was stated publicly that moving, voluntarily or otherwise no matter the negative hardships on the person displaced was expected and, apparently, would be allowed with nothing done to prepare for the known which shows clearly that the people here, the ones who kept the city alive even in its lowest days, are not of the caliber the city would like to attract because of the better incomes and disposable incomes of others.

And those displaced?

As the MBTA gentleman informed the room, they could move to Fall River.

And here, at an open house to get people all jazzed about the city and its future, it was clear that renters were of no consideration.

The owner of my building, an 1884 two family house which, like so many of the big old houses in town, was broken into apartments decades ago that are presently affordable, is getting close to 70 and, if he sold his property for its evaluated price, could retire on what he gets. I would not blame him if he sold the building to do this, but then the question comes in regarding what protects the tenants from eviction so the new owner can remodel the place for higher rents, or save time and money by just jacking up the rents and weeding people out.

For renters in the city the selling, buying, and upgrading of rental property too often for rents higher than present tenants can afford is a HOUSING issue and should be addressed when housing in the city is addressed.

It is almost as if renters in the city are a source-commodity. They benefit the city by their existence which brings in tax dollars and supports local businesses, but like a right-to-work employee, they can be easily replaced and forgotten by others who are seen as more desirable until they too are replaced by the next group deemed more useful to the economy.

The urge to convert old mills to high end condos and luxury apartments to attract money should be tempered by the need to turn some of them into low rent housing based on local realities not national averages for those slated for planned displacement from the more gentrifiable sections of town, and small temporary residences for homeless people who will then have an address when applying for work or having them easily located for healthcare.

Fix up the Ash Street jail, get rid of the bars and replace them with regular doors after remodeling the cells as small apartments with the cafeteria being refurbished along with recreational areas if the Charles Street Jail in Boston can become a luxury hotel, Ash Street conversion could be a simple matter of will.

Just as with Homeless encampments cities bulldoze as they do little to house those whose communities they destroy so it is removal without concern, the city seems intent on first ignoring their existence and then helping in getting rid of the housed great-unwashed, the renter, for the higher moneyed people with no concern where they might go.

The MBTA made it known that people will be removed, people who live here now, for the benefit of those whom the city would rather have for financial reasons, so it seems only right, moral, if you will, that the city deal with the people being affected.

I found when I was displaced that there are few if any laws in Massachusetts that actually protect renters and was reminded of this at the open house by having it suggested that a state law would be effective and was needed when it came to renters as most rental laws favor landlords not tenants,

I go to an open house about the community, its strengths, and its future and not only do I find the city does not even count my demographic as being worth attention and inclusion, but I seemed to have been given homework if I expect visibility and respect.

If I want protections as a renter, it is suggested that I work on getting a state law passed.

High school teaching payback.

I don’t see why New Bedford can’t be the leader in renter protection and a model in that for other cities and ultimately the state.

Homeowners are not the only citizens of a city, renters are too.

It seems to be a betrayal of the public trust if elected city leaders ignore their present citizens they have been elected to represent and for whom they have been entrusted to run a city beneficial to all citizens giving more loyalty to people still to arrive, if they do in the numbers imagines.

Renters should be included in community development, not ignored.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.