The dictionary definition of colonialism is: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.
In thinking about the pros and cons of the library/Spaceworks partnership that was presented before us at the Red Hook library this week, we have come to the conclusion that colonialism is an apt description of this plan.
One one side is an economically disadvantaged neighborhood surrounded by economically advantaged neighbors. Red Hook has a history of being underserved by city government, and has had to fight to obtain relief from waste transfer stations, poor schools, bad policing and general indifference from the rest of the city. One remnant of those days is a library starved of books and operating hours.
On the other side is a public library system starved of funds, possibly mismanaged, attempting to maintain a boroughwide infrastructure of buildings housing books.
There is now a third side – a private, non-profit entity, composed of people who believe themselves to be do-gooders, looking to impose its vision of good without a full knowledge of the community it believes they are helping.
The real villain is our tax policies. We live in an age where the superwealthy have gamed the system by convincing the masses that government is the problem. One result of this propaganda campaign that took root in the Reagan era is that wealth is not taxed as it used to be. The idea of a Great Society has been replaced by Compassionate Conservatism.
Faced with a shrinking budget, city agencies including Libraries, Parks and even the Housing Authority are forced to accede to the neoliberal idea of public/private partnerships.
Spaceworks was set up with the mission of converting what they decide to be underutilized space in city properties into affordable practice space for artists. They are basically a real estate company which uses a mix of public and private funds to manage public spaces. They are headquartered in a renovated building in Gowanus, and no doubt view Red Hook as a gentrifying area to exploit.
Spaceworks has spent the last two years grooming our acclaimed local dance troupe, Cora Dance, to be a supporter of their plan. Cora’s founder, Shannon Hummel, spoke before the public meeting. She framed this situation as their seeking of community support for Cora Dance, allowing Cora Dance to better support the community.
That is a false argument. This community loves Cora Dance, and wants it to remain in Red Hook and continue to provide a platform for local children to excel. But this community also wants, and deserves, a world class public library. The Spaceworks plan would diminish the library footprint, replace almost half of it with a practice space renting for $12 per hour. Cora Dance, by the way, rents out it’s practice space for $9 per hour, and is not privy to the NYC capital budget, as is Spaceworks, whose bribe to the library is $650,000 of NYC capital funds.
The Red Hook Library already has over a million dollars allocated to it for renovations. Spaceworks’ supporters claim that the library is underutilized so it should be downsized, and receive rental income for half it’s space. We believe that the Brooklyn Public Library system should do a better job at its mission, which is “to ensure the preservation and transmission of society’s knowledge, history and culture. ” Nowhere in this mission statement does it say that they should rent out space to anyone.
Let’s concentrate on making our library a world class institution. More books and library activities would make it more desirable. The better it is, the more utilized it will become.
This is not to say that Cora Dance is unworthy of our support. Real estate developers will become rich exploiting the now desirable Red Hook real estate market. That is where Cora and other arts organizations should seek additional support. It should not be at the expense of helping a lazy library system to achieve quick and easy answers to their problems.
15 Comments
Amen, Red Hook Star Revue! We need our libraries as libraries. It was ironic that the dance lady was the one, and only person in the room, to declare that the library was often empty that’s why it should be a … dance studio (oh right she is the dance lady). If the library folks can’t figure out how to program for literacy, fire them and start again. The blackmail tactics of the library leaders – take this dance studio or not have air conditioning in your library – was the absolute wrong thing to do. The dance lady would be better off looking for funding from the Arts Council than from the SpaceWorks-wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing operators.
Bottom line: The city should put 1% of its budget into its libraries and its parks – we wouldn’t have these horrible privatization situations if our politicians mandated the 1%. Politicians, stand up for what is right! Is 1% too much for the 99% who need our parks as parks and our libraries as libraries? Enough of private public partnerships.
Thanks George, nice
Thanks.
Well written!!!!!!
You say the real villain is our tax policy, which I agree with, so why sensationalize and try to sow division in the neighborhood with politically loaded words like ‘colonialism’? Neighbors can have differing opinions without the need to reduce it to Us vs Them. Focus on the real issue, which is lack of funding for public libraries and parks, and leave the rabble rousing out of it, it serves no one well.
I write it as I see it. Sometimes one has to ‘sensationalize’ in order to get people to pay attention. As far as division, the only division I saw was between the people who stood to benefit from the proposal, and those who stood to lose. That was obvious at that meeting, we had nothing to do with it. In fact we have friends and allies on both sides. And it was about sides, in this case. As I reported, only Reg Flowers got up and apologized for failing to alert the community on this plan. There were plenty of others who were consulted over the past two years and failed to mention it at any public meeting, including John McGettrick.
No, sometimes one doesn’t have to ‘sensationalize’ to get a point across, that’s just lazy writing.
All I can say is that the paper is going real well on Lorraine Street. People are reading it. And PS – while I left the editorial as is (that is where I spoke about colonialism, not in the news story), I did change the headline in the print version.
I disagree that speaking about a historical fact, and defining it, is lazy writing. It is making a point, perhaps a la Jonathan Swift, but nonetheless.
I wrote it, in the editorial, because I thought it needed to be said. Hopefully, it will get some people to read down to the part about tax policy. Grover Norquist has done his part to get his point across, it’s time for some countervailing and credible views to be heard among the powers that be.
Thank you for keeping us abreast of what’s happening with our beloved library, it is a really wonderful-albeit underutilized-resource in our community and the staff are so incredibly magnanimous and kind.
I think we need to be careful about the use of the word ‘colonialism’. While there are definite patterns occurring that are similar to the patterns of colonialism, such as the displacement of people, violence/harassment by so-called law enforcement, etc., we should really be careful with the use of that word, particularly because this is all happening within the context of a settler-colonial society occupying stolen indigenous lands. We should not equivocate the displacement caused by gentrification and the erosion of common resources–as violent and oppressive as they are–with the violence and oppression suffered by peoples who have experienced colonization; peoples like the Lenape, who used to call the land that is now known as Red Hook their home.
I would suggest that instead of using the sloppy metaphor of colonialism to describe what is going on, let’s just call it what it is: capitalism. Capitalism, since it’s inception, has been about the enclosure and privatization of land and resources held in common. Modern capitalism has gone through periods of liberalization (increased privatization and free markets) and reform (‘captialism lite’, i.e., FDR’s New Deal). This era we are in now, of Neoliberalism and austerity, is a period of liberalization, where public goods and services are being privatized and the funding for resources, such as our library and our community-based organizations, are limited. These limits on the resources available to community institutions and organizations create conflicts like the one occurring now with our library.
Let’s stop beating around the bush when talking about gentrification and the erosion of common spaces; they are not aberrations, they are examples of capitalism doing what it does best.
I wrote it the way I saw it – theft of public space by people who believe they are helping, but attempt to act unilaterally. Call it what you will, in the end it’s outsiders imposing themselves on a community. What is distressing is that their methods ended up pitting up different parts of the community – artists vs. parents. The parents were wise enough to understand that this was not the battle. The community groups should have insisted on a public airing of these plans way before it was forced on them by a Community Board meeting.
I somewhat disagree with analysis also. If this was about capitalism then the library would be sold and become something else. One might think a bookstore, but most likely a condo development, as that is what is making the most money in NYC these days. And the city would receive money for the transaction. In this particular case, space is being rented out for what is considered to be a different sort of public good, in exchange for public funds to renovate the space. It’s not the best return that the market would give for the space – hence not a true example of capitalism. There are no market forces being adhered to here.
The answer is that the library should become better at what it does and give the community a better library which could then be better utilized. If you are back in town, go in and check out the book selection and you’ll see what I mean. That’s the real problem.
You and Allison Reeves may think I am being sloppy and lazy, in fact it is the central library people that are the sloppy and lazy ones. Lazy for not working for a better library, and sloppy because of their presentation in which they mostly pointed around the room to say what they were going to do, bringing very few numbers to the meeting, and acting as if this was all a done deal (until they saw that maybe they might have a problem or two, they kept talking about construction that was to begin in six months. Because of the respectful but strong voice of the community, they have now backtracked.)
Pingback: IMHO: Democracy Works (If Imperfectly) | Brooklyn Heights Blog
Just to be clear, I wasn’t calling you sloppy; I was stating that it was an ill-fitting and inappropriate metaphor. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
As for the library’s relatively small number of books when compared to other branches, it never bothered me so much. There is always space for improvement, of course. At the same time, anyone can easily place holds on books located at other branches and they will arrive at the Red Hook branch within a couple of days for you to borrow.
The point I was attempting to make about capitalism was that because it is in a period of liberalization/contraction/austerity, there are less resources allocated to community resources by federal, state, city governments as well as foundations. It is in this context that these unfortunate conflicts arise between community organizations and institutions that are trying to both serve their missions and remain financially afloat.
At the meeting Velmanette Montgomery spoke about the city budget. She claimed it was a matter of choices. The city has chosen to fund some things at the expense of libraries. What you call an unfortunate conflict I went into more detail about, and called it what I thought – an example of outsiders coming into a community, deciding for it what is best, and using an unwitting part of that community to get its way. Having a rehearsal space is a quick and easy way out for the library administration to solve their problem without having to work hard. And it gives jobs to the spaceworks people.
“…a quick and easy way out for the library administration to solve their problem without having to work hard.” Another example is the Brooklyn Heights Library. Instead of improving the services within the library, they are causing it to languish by removing books and ignoring upkeep. Never mind capitalism, let’s talk GREED!
We explain how Berlin Rosen-de Blasio-Lander-Levin-Squadron-Sikora Gang use the hospital, condos in the park and the libraries as campaign props to fool the people. In the library case, Berlin Rosen, in addition to representing above, represent developer Forest City Ratner who wants to tear down the Brooklyn Heights Library and the Brooklyn Public Library. Holy conflicts of interest. But that’s why the voter is shut out of the decision and has no control in their communities.
http://dougbiviano.com/index.php/press-releases/4-it-s-time-to-respect-the-voters