Agri-Gentrification: The Latest in Urban Renewal Trends

(Article first published in DUNIA print magazine, New Year 2019 Edition)

Image credit: Aleksandar Videnovic

What It Is

As Africans on the continent go through residential gentrification and farm land encroachment resulting from the immigration of Europeans and Diaspora Africans, Americans of African descent are experiencing a new phenomenon– Agri-gentrification. It is the displacement of urban dwellers, specifically low-income residents, for farming activities for the purpose of economic development. Many American cities in particular Detroit, Michigan, are following this trend in conjunction with residential gentrification. These activities have left few options for affordable and low-income housing.

In the late 1950’s and into the 60’s similar economic development projects came to be known as “Nigger Removal” among social activists. As U. S. American cities built infrastructure to bypass Brown and Black neighborhoods in exchange for expedient suburban commutes, it forced low-income residents to move. Many of these residents never found replacement housing and we can see similar results with agri-gentrification.

What It Does

Touted as an answer to food deserts and an economic development driver, agri-gentrification allows urban farmers to use the same principles as developers. They look to buy or lease cheap land and maximize profits. The food grown is not readily available to persons living in the neighborhoods. Most produce is sold at farmers markets at competitive prices, not close to residents, which does not resolve the food desert problem. Some growers sell their products for processing, meaning that they are not growing edible foods. Often, the farmers do not live in the respective city where they farm. Therefore, the revenue does not circulate within the community, nor the city. The only revenue the city realizes is through leases. Leased land typically does not require the renter to pay property tax.

The land and buildings used for urban farming activities are taken out of residential use for years at a time. The duration depends on the type of crops grown. A Detroit tree farmer has leased land for 40 years, possibly more, for the trees to reach full maturity for harvesting. This longevity of land use in turn discourages the replacement of affordable and low-income housing, as well as encourages blight. Slum lords are motivated to allow their properties to fall in disrepair, then clear it for more profitable ventures. Commercial buildings converted into farming use also discourage the creation of retail businesses; thereby, omitting Brown and Black families the opportunity to benefit from the urbanization trend of walkable communities.

In the 1980 Master Plan for the city of Detroit, urban agriculture was mentioned as a remedy for the out-flux of cash resulting from urban sprawl. This left a lower tax base and challenges to provide city services. It was to be a way for the local residents to earn money to contribute to the tax rolls. However, not much attention was paid to it or community activist growers after the defunding of the once viable Farm-a-Lot program the city sponsored. By the time planning officials took it seriously the explosion had begun. Trying to catch up, the city began to pass ordinances to manage the growing industry. However, it did little to ensure area residents were incentivized to participate. Thus, much of the land was gobbled up by large scale urban farmers who were predominately Americans of European descent. Developers were also paying attention and began to buy vacant residential lots and run-down properties to hold for speculation. As long as they met Detroit’s requirement to present a Plan for the development, they could keep the property indefinitely by continuing to revise their plans. One such entity was the Ambassador Bridge owners who inflated residential vacant lot prices thwarting neighborhood growers from using the land for its intended economic development purposes.

By taking land out of production for housing it has forced people to live in high-density structures or occupy fewer square feet for higher costs. Newly built or renovated studio apartments have rented for as much as $1,000 or more per month, for less than 800 square feet. This high density living is at a price. The effects are psychological as well as socio-economic. High density living and generational stacking studies have shown that there is an increase of psychosis and depression among residents. In some areas, health issues have arisen with the influx of wildlife such as deer, which carry Lyme disease.

Where Do We Go From Here

Urban Agri-business is a wonderful opportunity if plans are made to house the displaced. It is up to informed Brown and Black citizens to organize and insist on programs to create affordable and low-income housing. We must be creative in working with these new developer farmers who use more than one parcel of residential land.

For every residential parcel sold or given a long-term lease, a premium could be paid that goes into a trust fund to secure residential land in another location. Farmers could commit to build one house in the same area where they have located their farms for every five (non and contiguous) parcels bought or leased for more than 10 years. Local governments can do more to identify land for urban farmers that will not displace whole communities or discourage investments in building single and multiple housing in areas kept blighted through planned obsolescence.

There is an economic reason in doing so as well. Without neighborhoods to house the poor, government support systems are overwhelmed. Homeless shelters seek more funding because they cannot accommodate those in need. And our prison system continues to fill up with Brown and Black people because of the pressures to earn enough money to pay for housing, among other items. Everyone has a stake in ensuring that affordable housing is available to all that need it.

The problems of Agri-gentrification also migrate to Africa with the return of Africans from the diaspora. What is expensive in the U.S. is not in other countries. Americans take advantage of this and have driven up the price of housing for locals by paying exorbitant prices for farmland and housing. Because Americans can live in luxury in many African countries due to the currency exchange does not mean that they should. By doing so we are no better than the European investors who have pushed us out of our homes and communities.

Facebook Comments

Related Posts

Comments

Do not miss