USC should do more to reduce the effects of gentrification
Everyone has been to a cute new coffee shop that serves matcha, blasts Lizzo on their speakers and has an iPad cash register, in the middle of a neighborhood that in no way matches the same “Instagrammable” aura exuded from the rest of the shops on the block. For many people, these renovations to various establishments feel like a “facelift” or a way for the area to modernize. New businesses, apartment contractors and universities all contribute to this “sprucing up” of the neighborhood and it’s a total win, right?
Wrong.
The ugly side of renovations like this display gentrification, the displacement of lower-income individuals and the overall erasure of an area’s cultural keystones. New apartment complexes in South Los Angeles, North Hollywood and Boyle Heights with skyrocketing rents force longtime, low-income residents of these neighborhoods to say goodbye to places they have called home. Trendy restaurants and cafes have displaced small diners, grocery stores and shops that have resided in a community for years. This progress is only welcomed when it brings all people up, instead of only those who qualify for a higher tax bracket.
The same is happening in the neighborhood surrounding USC. The Health Sciences Campus Master Plan — a $35 million investment in the Boyle/Lincoln Heights neighborhood that will be rolled out over the course of 25 years — as well as the beloved USC Village and investments by independent contractors to make apartment buildings for USC students in University Park might not seem like a direct attack against low-income people (most of whom are Black and Latinx) at face value. However, such investments have resulted in eviction notices for members of this community.
Longtime residents of South Los Angeles have been backed into a corner because of spikes in rent combined with the closure of businesses. Grinder, a diner which closed down in March after operating for 48 years could not compete with the wealthy, more corporate establishments. To combat these effects, USC has invested millions of dollars into community initiatives and scholarship programs and has established a hiring program for local residents. The University has also invested $342,000 in businesses affected by the construction of the USC Village. This, however, is not enough.
The dense population of individuals living in the areas surrounding USC, most of whom are first- or second-generation immigrants with a low-income background according to U.S. Census data, must feel the same security and prosperity that students at this University feel when they walk on campus. Throwing money at a problem to ease the damage that the University has caused isn’t enough, as it does nothing but temporarily mediate an issue that seems to have no halt. Beyond the financial crises it causes, gentrification surrounding USC’s campus contributes to cultural erasure and whitewashing. Not everything shinier or newer is necessarily better, even though the establishment of the middle class itself rests on this ethos.
Rapid investment in this city to help “beautify” it without the consent of the people who have inhabited it means that all these new fancy buildings will forever intrude upon the culture and foundations of the community and replace them with a more palatable version for wealthier people. But establishing a pretty glossy version of reality will not erase the very existence of the people who are suffering, no matter how thick and costly the paint that covers it. The people whose livelihoods and cultural norms are wiped away will still exist even if the upper class ignores them.
So what is the solution to a problem of big money versus the livelihoods of impoverished individuals? In a system where corporations aren’t heavily regulated, the best form of mediation is for the local, city and state governments to step in, provide rent-controlled housing and promote steps to homeownership for longtime residents of the area.
Beyond the protection that comes with housing stability, there also needs to be regulations put in place that prevent wealthy developers and the University from causing local businesses to shut down. USC should practice uplifting these integral keystones of South L.A., rather than perpetuating the idea that opening up a new SunLife-esque establishment is the solution to their aesthetically-related problems.