A Letter-to-the-Editor
Greetings:
I am writing about the Herald's one day series on the development boom in Miami. The two major stories, "Miami's Changing Skyline" and "High rises, high hopes"
While the building boom is clearly news and historic, there are also significant aspects of this historic news story which the series- and, frankly, most of the coverage on the subject to this point - just touches on but never really addresses adequately.
While there will clearly be enough luxury condos to go around, there is no adequate affordable housing for either moderate income working people or the poor who need someplace to live as badly as you and all those snowbirds. The gleeful reporting of these exciting new developments marginalizes the long time residents and their interests. The extent to which you play up the positives and ignore the very real negatives of this story not only makes it incomplete, but ultimately makes the story inaccurate cheerleading for this type of building centered development, as opposed to people centered development.
This bias manifests in at least three ways:
First, the demonization of these poor communities makes it appear as if nothing is lost when hundreds, even thousands, of people are forced out of Edgewater, Overtown, Little Haiti, Liberty City and countless other areas under the guise of "revitalization."
Specifically, writing that any community is inhabited with "just prostitutes and drug dealers" and is a "dark, crime infested" area only serves to convince your readers that nothing good every has come from those communities, and nothing ever will without destroying it first.
Equally as important, such a one sided, unbalanced presentation of a community is highly offensive to the many hard working people who live, work and struggle there. Is the Herald sure there are "just prostitutes and drug dealers" living there? The Herald occasionally reports on the suburban home raided by the police because it served no other function than as a drug factory. Would the Herald dare say the same about those glorious suburban neighborhoods? Would the Herald write four articles about Kendall, Coral Gables or Aventura without focusing on the affluent people who were getting developed over without their consent or participation?
It was also a bit disheartening to see that "critics fear" the new development would "stamp out what remains of Edgewater's historic Old Florida charm." There is charm - and value - in human beings, even if they are poor or have problems.
There are at least two sides to this story, and, believe it or not, one of them has nothing to do with the rich. Those of us who live(d) here deserve to have our story told and interests considered in any legitimate news piece.
Second, all the assumptions about the post development makeup and problems presume the perspective of the affluent who are the sole benefactors of these plans. City leaders are promising to "take steps to get Edgewater ready" for the development and the associated traffic, etc. Who is responsible for making sure the current residents are ready? Do City leaders have to plan for their presence? Since they lived through the bad times, will they get to live there during the good times? Is the primary responsibility of City leaders towards the residents who live here, pay taxes and vote today or is their responsibility towards those who will replace them? Does anyone even care?
Finally, the fundamental baseline assumptions about what it means to "develop" a community are all geared towards objects. Bigger condos, more retail (who says retail is "much needed" there? Residents or retail developers?) wider roads - all of those things, those objects, are written about as if they are synonymous with "development."
I submit that development is not about things or buildings or roads, but, rather, about people. While advancements in buildings and toilets and a/c reveals quite a bit about a society, what reveals far more are advancements in the condition of its people. If downtown Miami rebuilds and becomes a huge, beautiful, skyscraper city - which I have not doubt it will - but it does so without addressing any of the horrific social needs of the poorest city in the US (I think it still is), than it has accomplished little as a human society.
The real keyword for what is happening across this town is not 'revitalization,' its GENTRIFICATION, which happens when you improve an area without benefiting the people who live there now. You have an obligation to cover that side of the story as well - it involves more people and has a greater impact on their lives than a new condo and boutique can ever have in the live of the affluent.
Max Rameau Center for Pan African Development
PS I lived in Edgewater Bay on 62nd and Biscayne and in Little Haiti on 59th St. half a block off of Biscayne for about 10 years before being priced out of my favorite neighborhood less than three years ago.