I suppose it's just an ethnic group seeking to maintain their territory. Unfortunately they don't have the right to dictate who can or can't live amongst them. I fear there might be tensions like this around the city though it might be more class than ethnic or racial. Unfortunately neighborhoods has always changed hands between different ethnic or racial groups. That'll probably never change even if those PR flags stay up on Division.

This is no different that an all white neighborhood trying to keep blacks from moving in out of fear that it will bring crime and drive down property values.This is the same kind of bigotry and discrimination. All parts of all American cities belong to all American people. If these people are not willing to live in an American neighborhood where all Americans can live together and want to live in an all Puerto Rican neighborhood, they should go back to Puerto Rico.

Humbolt is not a Hispanic name. It is an Anglo name. This area was not always Puerto Rican in the past, and there is no reason why it should continue to be Puerto Rican in the future. And there is no reason why areas that are economically well suited for above median income housing should be used for low income housing. That represents an inefficient use of scarce resources.

"Humboldt" is from the ancient Irish "Von Humboldt".

Not Anglo, but Germanic. Although the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic so……….but I digress.

This really doesn't annoy me too much. It does annoy me when political or community "leaders" talk that kinda stupidity though. You see it in Pilsen and you see it in other neighborhoods. Whether it is in West Virginia, where some elderly white guy says he won't vote for a "colored fella", or anywhere else the stupidity is always the same. It is just the shade of the speaker that may be different.

I heard similar crap growing up. "The blacks will never get west of (insert N/S streetname here). This has always been white and it always will be." Of course the idiots who said that stuff seldom used the word "blacks". They used another term which said more about those saying it than anything else. Those who are still alive largely live in the 815 area code or Indiana. I guess the neighborhoods changed.

I got news for the brave "leaders" in Humboldt Park. It is no longer predominantly Puerto Rican. Hasn't been for decades. The Mexican population of Humboldt Park overtook the Puerto Rican population in the eighties. I recall reading stories about "battles" in the park itself over soccer or baseball fields depending on ethnicity. Add in the significant number of white folks and blacks and Humboldt Park hasn't been "Boricua" for a long time.

Obviously that varies from area to area within the larger community.

Encyclopedia of Chicago on Humboldt Park.

The ironic, or "ironical" thing as da mare might say, is that the placement of the Puerto Rican flags over Division Street actually signified the declining presence of the Puerto Rican community.
A stable, thriving or growing community would not have felt the need to pressure the city to put up that flag.

I don't think they need to worry about the flag coming down. That flag will likely still be there in 30 years when I expect the presence of those of Puerto Rican descent in Humboldt Park will be slightly greater than the Irish presence in today's St. Sabina's Parish. That ain't saying much.

Then perhaps in 2058 the flags will come down invoking heartfelt cries from geriatric "leaders" who fought to save "Puerto Rican" Humboldt Park three generations before. Perhaps even later.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this street, flag sculptures, conceived in pride and bigotry, and dedicated to the proposition that all Humboldt Park belongs only to Puerto Ricans".

GRRRRRRRRR.

Hey,

I only meant to highlight/link the sentence that mentions the "Encyclopedia of Chicago".

Please correct that as apparently my late night rant and wine caused me to screw up. Not the first time.

Corrected per your request, irishpirate.

The really smart Puerto Ricans will sell their property at an exhorbitant price to the gentrifiers and use the money to buy a nice single-family bungalow in the suburbs, where there is a lot less crime, no drugs, no gangs, and better schools. Gentrification will then eliminate the drugs and gangs and reduce the crime in Humboldt park. The gentry will send their children to private schools.

CaptainVideo,

I know where the suburbs are that have little crime, no gangs and good schools.

I've yet to see one that has no drugs.

I imagine the gentrification of Humboldt Park will take a lot longer than Bucktown, Wicker, Logan Sq., etc.. Due to the (comparatively) large concentration of scattered site affordable housing in the neighborhood.

The word "disgust" is far too strong. As a fair housing advocate/activist I certainly understand where this sentiment comes from. It must be placed in the context of a history of government policies and real estate industry practices that steered ethnic and racial minorities into specific neighborhoods. A few generations later, after residents of those neighborhoods have improved or maintained their neighborhoods despite economic forces arrayed against them, folks are not surprisingly resentful and fearful of rapid change that results in older neighborhood residents being pushed out.

A large part of the problem is that both sides of the equation - long-time neighborhood residents (in this case Puerto Ricans) and developers/new owners from outside the neighborhood - see a zero-sum game: the neighborhood (in this case Humboldt Park) must be defined as either only for Puerto Ricans or only for wealthy whites. Old residents look to skirt fair housing laws to keep the ethnic character of a neighborhood while some developers (there are many and wonderful exceptions, such as Bickerdike) use their influence and resources to push old residents out.

The sad part of this equation is that both sides have, at their core, the same goal: improved quality of life in the neighborhood. And while they disagree on how to get there, I think that there is much more common ground than disagreement. Both agree that high quality schools, low crime rates, and vibrant community-based organizations play an important role in improving the community.

The reality is that there is a middle ground between gentrification and ethnic isolation. Neighborhoods can be improved, new housing can be built, new owners and renters can come into the neighborhood without kicking out the old. The work of the New Communities Program (http://www.newcommunities.org/) is a great example of how this can happen - engage for-profit developers, non-profit CDCs, and community residents in a planning process with a heavy dose of community organizing thrown into the mix. In the end, you see neighborhoods that improve the quality of life for old residents while welcoming in the new.

[…] editor Joe Zekas has touched off an interesting discussion about the below video with his post "Yet another anti-gentrification rant". The video, from the Humboldt Park Participatory Democracy Project, is quite interesting and […]

Justin,

I chose what I thought was a rather mild word - disgust - to describe my reaction.

Listen to the not-so-veiled threats of "riots" in that video. These are naive and hateful people who are stirring up some of the ugliest, most corrosive and potentially most explosive sentiments in our society. Some of these folks are not so naive and play with this fire because they hate America. Do some more checking on their vision of "participatory democracy." They deserve the harshest possible condemnation for that rather than any understanding or empathy.

I think you're unduly romanticizing local residents and activists, unfairly demonizing developers and engaging in fantasies about the impact of outfits like New Communities (a great and useful program) on a process that plays out against the backdrop of larger forces and changes. Each of these topics could be the subject of a more extended and useful discussion than is possible in a comment thread.

ADDED: Here's where I was 40 years ago. Read about the demons these anti-gentrifiers want to release.

Hi Joe-

To clarify/add to my original post, I should make it clear that I also completely understand your perspective as well. On its face, the tone and strategy behind the video violates the spirit of the Fair Housing Act (I'm not certain if the folks behind the video also offer housing for sale or lease or other housing services, so can't comment on whether it breaks the letter of the law as well). I am a firm believer, as you are, that separate will always be unequal. Until we live in racially and economically integrated neighborhoods and move beyond our segregated living patterns our neighborhoods will continue to be plagued by unequal opportunity.

You also point to what I think is at the heart of the problem - the larger forces and changes at play. Efforts like the New Communities Program and Bickerdike Redevelopment Corp hold amazing promise but both are swimming against a larger tide that does not see integrated, balanced living patterns as possible. Challenging the idea that neighborhoods are either gentrified or ethnic, wealthy or poor is a difficult argument, especially given that there are so few successful examples in our region. That discussion is certainly too large and complex for this forum.

Let me also clarify that not all, not even a majority, of developers have unscrupulous motives. But just as there are neighborhood residents and activists who inflame tensions with the threat of violence there are some developers who unfairly use their influence and resources to push old residents out. My hope - and belief - is that these activists and developers represent a minority on each side of the divide and that cooler, more hopeful heads on both sides will prevail.

Key is that those concerned with improving the quality of life for all residents - new and old; wealthy, middle class, and poor; of all races and ethnicities - sit down around the same table and together develop and execute plans for their communities. Certainly not an easy or small task, but then again when was anything worthwhile easy or small?

As one of the filmmakers of the above documentary, I have to say, some of these responses don't surprise me. You have the common reactionary responses like "they hate America" or that "neighborhoods change" as if gentrification was a natural process. In reality, I have no time to argue with a bunch of 40+ white middle-class men on an online forum where racist and reactionary ideas are safely and comfortably vomited in the safety of ones own home and computer. For those who want a healthy and productive dialogue (with the goal of actually producing alternatives and fostering new, innovative ideas, which this forum is NOT doing or is about) then you are invited to our Humboldt Park Community Forum:

After months of production, Northwestern University and Inspire Films will be premiering a documentary on youth activism in Humboldt Park, focusing around the issues of community preservation in the face of displacement. The film was directed by Alberto Roldan. May 30th, 7 PM, $5 donation Batey Urbano, 2620 W. Division St. (Paseo Boricua)

Xavi,

So calling people racist and reactionary, and speculating about their age and skin color, is a way to start a healthy and productive dialogue? Get back under your rock.

Judging from the comments and the anecdotes from the responders, all of my "speculations" are valid. I pointed out those attributes because they all reveal a specific world view that is legitimized by those comments. It's obvious that you have no intention to be part of a dialogue anyway.

The invitation is still open.

Xavi,

I have a video camera too. That doesn't make me a documentary filmmaker. You can type that doesn't make you an intellectual or particularly bright for that matter.

When I see words such as reactionary, vomited, and "dialogue", I realize the writer is hiding his lack of actual knowledge or ideas behind a veneer of vocabulary. I think of it as the "aluminum siding" of real debate.

i don't believe "real debate" takes place on an online discussion forum behind, as I stated before, the comfortability of ones own homes where none of these comments or "ideas" will be actually implemented. tired of "anti-gentrifiers," what are you doing about it? I believe gentrification is unjust and I'm part of a campaign that has organized hundreds of people to challenge it. if you really want to engage in real debate, as i stated before, the invitation is still open….goodbye

Thanks for leaving, Xavi, We 40+ evil white men thank you.

I looked through your myspace page and others linked to it yesterday. Before you suggest this site is racist I suggest you start deleting the comments on your own site that referred to "cute blonde assholes". That is the translation. The Spanish word used was "pendejo".

Ever here of the psychological term "projection"?

I didn't think so.

I meant to use the word "hear" and not "here". Damn, I am so annoyed I need to move and go gentrify Humboldt Park. Which could go back to the word "here".

I'm not particularly "cute" or blonde, but I'm certainly pasty and will be happy to "gentrify" Humboldt Park. As for my being a "pendejo". well that is just a given. As it is for Xavi.

Is gentrification unjust? Why do you believe this to be the case? The reality isn't so simple. It's also "unjust" that Humboldt Park exists as a Puerto Rican neighborhood in the first place. Ghettos were created by government policies and social attitudes that were racist and unjust–such as redlining, segregation, racism, etc. Puerto Ricans moved to Humboldt Park because there were few other options for them in American society. This is changing, and Humboldt Park would be losing it's "Puerto Rican-ness" even if gentrification weren't occuring. Many new studies of "gentrification" confirm this reality: "Displacement" of "original" residents would be occurring at about the same pace without the new, wealthier residents moving in.

Xavi, your "film" is simply hate-mongering for the satisfaction for your own narcisistic martyr complex. Instead of actually looking at the complex issue of gentrification, you look for someone to blame. And of course, it's convenient to blame Starbuck's-sipping white college grads who are looking for a cool new neighborhood close to Wicker Park. Because, who likes them anyway?

Gentrification is more than a class war, or a racial/ethnic/cultural tension… gentrification to me is market forces (economics) that drive these tensions. It is the fight between the real estate haves and have nots— who is in control of the future identity of the neighborhood.

There's no doubt when you see the condos and the Starbucks in HP you can see the identity shifting and hence, the control.

Sure, it's ok (and even desirable) for developers to buy cheap, underutilized/vacant land, and economically revitalize neighborhoods by brining in new residents (taxpayers). And, our great country offers land use laws and generally uphold the rights of developers to do so (within the criteria set by the planners, of course).

But that does not address the fact that the market begins to force long-time, low to middle income families out. Whether it's diminishing low-cost rent opportunities, substandard housing, affordable property taxes, or cultural identity, gentrification eventually reaches a tipping point where everything is fair game.

Like the flags.
Like the stores.
Like the cultural institutions.
Like the people.

So, am I disgusted by the idea of No Se Vende or preserving HP for Puerto Ricans? Hell no. Are there serious fair housing concerns raised by the comments in the video? Indeed. Of course, fair housing laws are present in order to prevent the xenophobia and resistance that is encountered in neighborhoods across the country whether by color, race, ethnicity, and the other protected classes. But at the same time, this is a territory fight, and underrepresented, underfunded, and marginalized communities are gathering their troops and organizing and strategizing to protect their hoods so it remains a place they can live in. I don't blame them. The city is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and areas surrounding the central areas of the city are ripe for targeting.

I agree with what Justin has offered and won't repeat his statements.

I disagree with Joe and the statement in response to Justin: "I think you're unduly romanticizing local residents and activists, unfairly demonizing developers and engaging in fantasies about the impact of outfits like New Communities (a great and useful program) on a process that plays out against the backdrop of larger forces and changes."

To reply: Working in real estate and affordable housing, I feel qualified enough my experience to say that often witness real estate developers that have no sensitivity whatsoever to balancing the economics, property rights laws, and social context of development. To be successful, developers need to have a little broader sense of what development does beyond their piece of land, their condo development, their marketing. Like these developers are marketing the "culture" of HP? Hell no- they are calling HP "West Bucktown" and capitalizing on other new construction developers rather than marketing a diverse, integrated community for all races/ethnicities/classes. This leads to greater resistance from the community. If it weren’t for the Bickerdikes, LUCHAs, HHDC’s, these neighborhoods would be radically different already.

I believe that Xavi has raised some valid points, however, narrow-minded comments about the readership of this blog or saying that this forum's dialogue is unhealthy is not exactly the same as backing up your points and engaging in what can be a difficult and conflicting subject for us all.

To lay my cards down:
- I have worked with several non-profit affordable housing developers in recent years, most of them based in or with property in Humboldt Park.
- I currently work for a private management company which owns and manages affordable housing in Humboldt Park.
- I'm white, female and a non-resident of HP.

Why do I state that? Because it does matter, whether I want it to or not

maybe I missed it, but where was anyone actually saying that whites/yuppies shouldn't be allowed to rent or buy property in the neighborhood?

ah_specialist

That you're white and female and don't live in Humboldt Park is completely irrelevant to the issues here. It's profoundly sad that you think otherwise, and that so many share your opinion is a fundamental part of the problem.

Xavi's a blind, smug name-calling, ignorant, lazy hater whose mind shuts down when confronted with an opposing viewpoint. Like so many participants in the conflict over gentrification Xavi wants to throw our legal system, with the bundle of rights and responsibilities it entails, out the window and fall back on some vague concept of justice and fairness.

It's a good thing to be sympathetic to the plight of people who are in the grip of economic and social changes and have little control over their lives. It's quite another thing to disregard the rights of people (yes, developers are people and the affluent are also people) who are changing a neighborhood, and go beyond the legal system to nullify those rights or mock them.

Carter:

The fact that some people are calling for Puerto Ricans to preserve HP implies that some Puerto Ricans don't want whites moving in.

Statements like that are perfect examples of reverse discrimination. Neighborhoods change whether some Puerto Ricans like it or not.

Neighborhoods change? There is a big difference between the white flight of the 1960s (i.e government policies facilitated racist housing policies so white, like my family, could leave) and contemporary gentrification (the re-colonization of poor people's land).

Re-colonization?

Lorain, you are an amadan. That is Irish for idiot.

Please go play at another site.

Those arguing for maintaining the recent status quo of the HP neighborhood show a shocking ignorance of history, and the dynamism of the urban environment.

I suppose the only 'just' situation here would be if the Potawatomi Indians came back to 're-colonize' HP.

"The fact that some people are calling for Puerto Ricans to preserve HP implies that some Puerto Ricans don't want whites moving in."

how exactly is that violating any laws?

in Logan Square in 2008 you have people actively posting on bulletin boards that they can't wait for gentrification to pick up - does that not imply they are calling for more well-heeled white folk to move in and thus for poorer browner folk to move out?

I'd say it does, but I doubt it directly translates into anyone being denied a place to rent/buy based on their ethnicity.

can't people be proud of their culture as well as sad if they see it getting squeezed out by corporate chains (not unique to HP by any means, the fine white folk of Andersonville feel the same way) without that translating into actually hating people not from that culture?

Carter,

This kind of war is fought in the trenches.

PR landlords are pressured to not rent to non-PRs and / or voluntarily discriminate. PR homeowners are pressured not to sell to non-PRs. Real estate agents quickly learn that they're shut out of some listings if they show property to non-PRs. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Make no mistake about it. This is no simple expression of ethnic pride. It's counseling lawbreaking. And it's encouraging hatred. Look at some of the think pieces from the folks associated with this group and focus on what "participatory democracy" means to them - contempt for American democracy and representative government.

Did you serously mean to say "squeezed out by corporate chains" or was that just Pirate bait?

Matt,

The Native Americans should come back. They could open a casino and bring jobs to HP.

Joe,

the only viable place in HP for a casino is the park itself. Carter wouldn't want that. Although if it was a Children's Museum/Casino he might be enamored of that idea.

After all Grant Park must be saved so future generations can not utilize it like the current one doesn't!

Poor Carter. His Jesuit Ignatius education failed to teach him the concept of "logic". He would have been better off if he had been taught by Dominicans.

Interesting Xavi, you now label others racist when clearly , the material and views you presented in the video openly contain racist content, racist attitude and specific racist language that would get most "white middle class men" (as you call it) fired or sued by the ACLU.

To top it off, in support of your bs move to assert others as racist, you lump all whites into one group based on color, yet your video talks of the need to protect Puerto Rican culture and ethnicity. Had someone confused your move with Mexicans, you would be up in arms…you need to look in the mirror 'sweetie'.

I'm just floored that people want to preserve the current neighborhood/city/suburb segregation that has served the urban poor so badly over the years. After "White Flight", the city was well on it's way to becoming a large slum in which urban residents had no hope for mobility, be it economic or geographic.

The two-fold phenomenon of "gentrification" and poor residents moving to the suburbs is exactly what the metropolitan region needs. Now families hoping to escape from minorities and the poor are finding it more an more difficult in the suburbs, to the point that people are searching out the far corners of Will County or buying houses they can't afford in purely "white" communities. How far can they run? How long can this possibly last? The suburbs are becoming less and less "white" each year… Even the far-flung ex-urbs!

Sooner or later, this diaspora will turn into a mixing bowl–especially after gas prices hit the roof–and the upper and middle-classes will have no choice but to be face-to-face with the urban dwellers they have been trying to avoid all of these years. When we had the rich suburbs/poor city arrangement, it was easy for middle-class America to just forget about the lower class's problems. This will get harder to do as mixed-income communities become more of the norm.

I'm doing my best to forget the long, sorry history of Puerto Rican activism and gang activity in Chicago.

I have forgotten exactly how many times Puerto Rican nationalists bombed the IBM building in the 5 years my office was there. Three? Four?

If anyone wants to learn more about the backdrop of this never-ending saga, just do some reading on the Web. For your amusement, read the history of poor, oppressed, misunderstood Cha Cha Jimenez. Don't miss the Young Lords Party platform. It's a real treat, and something you need to read to understand the video.

UptownR,

HP may serve its population very badly, but it serves some people very well.

Think PR landlords and businesses who exploit PR residents. Think poverty program leeches and community groups that need a concentration of poor Puerto Ricans to justify their ineffective existence. Think voting blocs. Think drug markets. Think pools of ready recruits for gangs. Think of the pleasures of suckering useful idiots like Xavi.

One has to know very little of life to be able to take these anti-gentrifiers at face value.

I'm a white guy who can afford a pretty swanky condo and I would love nothing more than to renovate some neglected graystone and undo all the horrible architectural and interior design atrocities that poor people inflict upon them. So, I guess I'm pro gentrification.

However, I'm also a gay guy who can't help but feel proud whenever I see those ugly "rainbow rockets" on Halsted. I grew up in a very conservative area, and something about those ridiculous sculptures makes me feel more welcome in Chicago. So, I kind of understand why minorities would feel protective of an area where they feel comfortable. (I'm not saying they should riot if the flags come down. I'm just saying I can see why they want to have a neighborhood that feels familiar and welcoming.)

Of course, I don't think most gay people care who moves into our 'hoods as long as they don't make us take down the risque photos of half-naked men in our store windows. Unlike some of the people in this video, my motivation for wanting boystown to stay gay isn't really out of any dislike for straight people. It's mainly because if I'm surrounded by other gay folk, I'm less likely to get the crap beaten out of me for being the only guy walking home at night who looks gay. I doubt the Puerto Ricans are afraid the yuppies are going to beat and mug them if their numbers dwindle, but perhaps they would argue that they're being robbed in another sense as property taxes and rent go up.

In the end, I don't care what color the people are in my neighborhood as long as I feel that I can be myself and that I'm safe. Unfortunately, I haven't found poor minorities (or poor people in general) to be very gay friendly. So, I guess I'm stuck looking at places in Lakeview and fighting the good fight to keep out those Lincoln Park breeders with their Range Rovers and screaming kids. I'm all for fair housing laws, but where is the law to keep those brats from ruining my right to an evening of sushi and overpriced cosmopolitans without a crying baby at the next table?

It is irrational to have an arragement where the people who work in the offices downtown should live in the suburbs and spend a lot of time commuting from there, while low income people, most of whose jobs are in the suburbs live in the areas adjacent to the downtown offices. This is an aberration that resulted from the white flight form the 50s to the 80s. It needs to be undone. Gentrification of areas relatively close to the downtown areas is an essential part of this rationalization process and therefore highly desirable. Instead of trying to keep low-skilled workers locked up in the central city, where there is a dearth of jobs for them, efforts need to be made to relocate them in the suburbs, where the jobs are.

Lorain:

Re-colonization and government policies? I have no idea what you are talking about. My family left Rogers Park because the area was changing and they wanted a bigger house. They did not leave because of government policies allowing them to leave.

And Irish Pirate: please don't call her an idiot. I think she is wrong. But its not fair to call her names.

RSS,

there is a difference between having a legitimate opinion and being an idiot. Lorain: I D I O T.

Danny, if you are looking for a gay friendly area I suggest Uptown. There seems to be a very gay friendly business district developing at Lawrence and Broadway that caters to the 30+ or 35+ gay community. Large numbers of gay couples are seemingly moving in daily. While they largely don't have kids they do have dogs and a propensity to improve the landscaping in front of their buildings. Bastards. I've bought more plants and grass seed recently than in the previous decade trying not to have the worst looking landscaping on the block. I want to have middling landscaping so it is not noticed.

Also the young couples that are moving in to Uptown with kids or planning kids don't have Range Rovers and consequently the kids attitudes tend to be better and quieter. Plus the parents around here may not be able to afford the night out at the Sushi restaurant because all the gays are forcing them to buy landscaping. The kids around here are mostly limited to being pushed in their strollers or walking next to the stroller carrying their younger sibling while staring at the gay landscaping and the gays and straights walking their dogs.

Gays began moving into Uptown in significant numbers back in the late 80s. There were several nearly all-gay buildings back then.

I watched a gay Realtor I knew, with a twinkle in his eye, tell two straight girls, who were looking to buy, that all the good-looking guys they saw in the back yard of the building he was selling were single and professional.

From what I saw on a recent visit to Pullman there's also a small community of mostly older gays down there. Gay guys I know have lived in places like Bridgeport, Ravenswood and many other neighborhoods without incident for a long time.

Joe,

I'm not aware of any all gay buildings in Uptown. At least buildings of 6 or more units. As you said though there have been a significant number of gay men here since at least the late 80's. From talking to the few people who have been here longer than me I suspect early 80's would be a better description. There used to be a gaggle or flock of transvestite hookers living at Broadway and Buena. Thankfully they seemed to move on. I'm over 6 feet tall and seeing hookers taller than me prancing down Broadway almost made me give up alcohol. I thought I was hallucinating.

What I've noticed over the past few years is an increase in the number of 30+ gay male couples who have settled down. We still lack lesbians though in any numbers. I think I scare them since I dress worse than they do. Although I could use their assistance with all the landscaping I am being forced to do.

When I think of the long term owners around here they often fall into three categories: gay men, Japanese Americans, and married formerly yuppie couples. Of course on a street of 800+ people, 4000-4400 Kenmore there are likely less than 15 people who have been here 20+ years. I know of less than 10, but I'm assuming I don't know everyone. That is not a big sample to draw conclusions from.

Irish Pirate, your comment made me laugh out loud. I have definitely considered uptown as an option for my next move. My main concern is I don't know when things will ever improve around the Wilson stop and at the moment most of the condos I've seen don't seem much cheaper than Lincoln Park or Lakeview. Yes, I know you might get better finishes or better room sizes, but I don't really care much about that because I want to rehab something myself and I only need enough space for me and an occasional house guest.

In addition, I have a thing for townhouses because I really hate dealing with condo associations and people living above and/or below me. I've seen a lot of ugly townhouses in LP and Lakeview for sale for 450K or less over the last year or so, and Uptown doesn't seem to have anything comparable to offer. The single family homes there are a lot more from what I've seen and there aren't many townhouses (if any) on the market. I can't decide yet if I just want to bite the bullet and spend 450K for the extra independence that a townhouse affords…I might just stick with condo living. If that's the case, I can probably find more of a bargain in Uptown sooner or later. I just don't know if it's worth being drawn into the next 50-person fist fight at Popeye's.

I'd say my 20+ unit building in Uptown is about 30-40% gay. But I'm in southern Buena Park within close proximity to Boystown. The gay presence in Buena Park is definitely quite heavy.

IrishPirate,

I wonder if your gaggle of transvestite hookers was what I used to call the "fleet" that worked Broadway when our office was at Wellington and Broadway in the mid-90s.

The group I recall was African-American, about 6'5" and wore blond wigs and black leather mini-skirts. Quite a striking sight. They had a scrawny black pimp who usually stayed a modest distance away from them.

We had a beat cop magician named Ed Kelly who could make all sorts of things disappear, and the fleet set sail for other ports shortly after Kelly came on the scene.

Danny, there are few owner occupied non rental townhomes in Uptown. There is one 10(?) unit building around 4300 Kenmore and a few other locations that the addresses escape me. Now there are some duplexed, first floor into the basement, condos around. That might be an option.

I renovated an apartment building years ago and lived in it and duplexed "my" unit into the basement. Then I put groups of college girls in the units above to annoy me with their hair clogged drains and lack of any interest in fulfilling my twisted Landlord "Penthouse Letters" fantasies. If you could find a single owner two-three flat in Uptown that might also be an option. Those too are rare. Although towards Andersonville there are more.

Joe,

the trannies I'm thinking off were largely white and hispanic.

One of them was walking down Kenmore one morning around 8AM probably around 90 or 91 and I told him to get the hell off the street because the kids were walking to the Catholic school. I assume the cops chased him off Broadway. He proceeded to threaten me and spew some very vile comments about me, the kids, and the Catholic church. I started to cross the street and he took off his high heels and started running while screaming "fire". I remember telling one of my Irish born uncles the story and having him just look at me trying to figure out whether I was drinking or hallucinating. You just didn't see tranny hookers working on side streets on the SW side during his day. "You mean it was a man wearing a dress? High heels? Running? Yelling fire? "Amadan"(which is Irish for idiot and he directed it at me).

I struggled with whether or not to participate in this blog, particularly as I read the pejorative comments directed at Xavi. Various posted referred to him as an idiot, racist, lazy, and a hater – all personalized attacks. Notwithstanding, I am compelled to participate little of the above "conversation" has attempted to grapple with the central problematic of gentrification (at least from my perspective).

The issue is not, again from my view or experience, an abstracted opposition to urban "development." Rather, the issue is the social cost of development for existing residents. This cost rarely figures prominently in discussions of revitalization, gentrification and urban renewal. Long-standing residents in Humboldt Park (as in other gentrifying areas) are increasingly subjected to an economic situation in which they cannot afford the rents and/or property taxes. Moreover, the racial (and profoundly racist) component in this scenario, which was raised by Xavi, should not and cannot be wished away or aimed at community residents who wish to preserve their homes, social networks, cultural production and history. If members of this blog wish to be honest, we are aware, to differing degrees, of the way gentrification is sold to young urban professionals and according to whose cultural interests the process is catered to. The flip-side of this intentional "framing," we clearly see a particular depiction of the existing population within a gentrifying area. Gentrification is seen as a solution to gang violence, moral decay, blight, poverty. Problems that are completely racialized in popular discourse. When a developer thinks about Humboldt Park, I doubt they recognize a community that for the past 50 years has fought against racial marginalization, slum housing, poor education facilities, unemployment and health issues. I doubt they see, or more importantly value, the immense and vibrant cultural production of murals, restaurants, and festivals. More likely, developers see an area of deficiency in which great profits can be made. They might even see themselves a doing a public service.

In sum, I raise what I raised because the central problematic of gentrification, which Puerto Ricans (like myself) and other long-standing residents (Black, Mexican and Eastern Europeans) are deeply frustrated and angered about is displacement. Should those that have wealth decide the fate of thousands of residents, who have worked to build a sense of home in this city? Are they irrelevant to future of Chicago as a 21st century city? Do long-standing-residents not have the ethical right to resist and challenge the politics and economics of gentrification? Regardless of what members of this blog believe, I committed to challenging the anti-democratic project of urban development, known as gentrification. More than the future of Humboldt Park is at stake; even more, the future of the city and who has a right to inhabit it, is at stake.

Michael,

Thanks for your thoughtful perspective.

You might pause to notice that Xavi arrived on the scene with a blitz of name-calling and having taken no time to understand what this site is about. Do you really consider Xavi's posture defensible? Are arguments irrelevant because of the age or skin color of the person who makes them?

I don't think anyone here is unsympathetic to the plight of people who are displaced as a result of economic changes. I don't think anyone here would dispute anyone's right to inhabit any part of this city - except, perhaps, the anti-gentrifiers. That's the problem: this city, or any part of it, doesn't belong solely to the people who are already living there.

We're all subject to being buffeted about by forces beyond our control in many aspects of our lives. Most of us simply adapt and move on rather than trying to assign blame and demonize someone as being responsible for those forces.

I'd refer our readers to this article (presuming you're the author) for a deeper understanding of your perspective - and your fundamental aversion to American and democratic values.

As I read it, it's warped perspectives like yours that are oppressing people.

Joe, I thank you for taking the time to read my article and making it available for the participants of this discussion. Although it clearly approaches gentrification from a non-conventional (or as I would prefer, critical) perspective, I would disagree with your characterization that my views are "warped" and somehow "oppressing people." Aside from rhetorical or inflammatory language, can you actually substantiate your interpretation?

Before you react, I would humbly suggest you consider reviewing a body of empirical research from a wide range of academic disciplines that illustrates the limitations and historical contradictions of U.S. "representative" democracy. Although these works (which I will not list due to space) may not subscribe to entirely to my positions, they do provide a firm foundation on which to propose alternative visions for contemporary development.

No where in my work or even in the comments of my good friend Xavi, is it claimed that whites should not be allow to move or live in Humboldt Park. However, I have written numerous times about the social consequences of gentrification (which is carried out primarily by white developers, real estate agents, and consumers) and the colonizing logic that informs it. It is the social consequences of gentrification (like displacement) that are regularly and intentionally obviated in discussions like these. Socially determined and organized power imbalances that are at the root of the gentrifying project are rarely problematized or even contextualized.

I do not suggest I have the answers or the "truth" on this matter. But I do contend that gentrification is complex process with serious consequences for racially and economically marginalized populations. With that said, a bit more historical analysis and an even great deal more ethics would help us collectively craft a more humane process of urban development. Unfortunately, long-standing residents of Humboldt Park are not in the position of power, prestige, or status to implement such a vision. But even worse, those in power are concerned largely with perpetuating their privilege and enjoying its benefits, regardless of the "cost" for others.

Michael -

I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence, but respectfully suggest that you're the one concerned with perpetuating your privilege and enjoying its benefits, regardless of the cost for your purported constituents.

I don't know you personally but I've known and worked among - and at one point in my life agreed with - many people who share your perspective. As I read your article, the Puerto Rican residents of Humboldt Park are suitable cannon fodder for your larger agenda and not much more.

I don't, by saying that, mean to demean or diminish what I am confident is your sincerity and your sacrifice for your community and your personal commitment to social justice. I just think you're wrong and harmful.

While Joe and Michael don't agree on much, I think that both are on the same page on two issues: displacement and choice. Regardless of one's opinion of developers or neighborhood activist groups, it seems as though what is at the heart of the issue is whether or not current Humboldt Park residents are involuntarily displaced by ________ (insert alleged developer-caused factor here) or being overtly influenced by _______ (insert alleged activist-caused factor here) to stay in the neighborhood; or - on the flipside - whether they are making a choice to stay in the neighborhood or to move away. While we can continue to argue (likely ad nauseum) about whether developer or activist influences/threats are helpful or hurtful, I think and hope that both sides agree that at the heart of the issue is preserving the right of current residents to freely choose whether they stay or go.

For far too long, our housing markets have been subjected to undue and harmful influences that keep us segregated by race and income. Until all housing seekers, developers, and activists focus their efforts on preserving free choice - or as I would call it fair housing - our segregated living patterns will continue.

As I stated earlier,I do not want to contribute to a "discussion" on an online forum that will not result in actual social change or a wider dialogue, especially with the actual long time residents that we keep referencing but are not included in this conversation (except for Michael and I whose origins in Humboldt Park begin in the late 1940s). Therefore, I have decided to analyze some of the comments in my next column, Fijate, in the newspaper La Voz del Paseo Boricua so that thousands of people can participate in this dialogue. I suggest you pick up a copy. My last article is called "The Yuppie Question, Part I." Maybe another community forum can come from it to make sure that we aren't just arguing in the coziness of our homes but are in a real debate with real ALTERNATIVES.

Xavi,

Sit down with me and let's conduct a dialogue on camera and post it on YouTube. You pick the venue. E-mail me to set it up.

As always I endeavor to bring light to the darkness and facts to the discussion.

"Puerto Rican" Humboldt Park started declining in numbers in the 80's because of the influx of Mexicans and other groups from Central or South America. Many, if not most, of the Puerto Ricans who have left since that time have not done so because of "gentrification", but because they were looking for a better and safer place to raise their families or live. I know a number of guys with city jobs who grew up in or near Humboldt Park and trace their family history to Puerto Rico, who left for safer areas to the west.

As any group reaches the working or middle class they tend to leave "their" old neighborhoods behind for what they perceive to be better opportunities.

Are some Puerto Ricans being "gentrified" out of Humboldt Park……yes I imagine some have been. Have more moved out for other reasons. Yes. Just as importantly the people who have left have largely not been replaced with people of a similar ethnic background.

Look at the movement of the black middle class to the south and western suburbs. Look at the movement of Poles SW or NW down Archer or Milwaukee out into the suburbs. I could drone on and on and on and on, but then I would get boring.

If you want to maintain a Puerto Rican presence in Humboldt Park the way to do it is by buying property and trying to make the area a decent place to live for Puerto Ricans of all economic backgrounds. Make it a safe, desirable neighborhood and some of the folks who left or their children may move back. That also means living with other groups in relative harmony. Be they pasty faced white folks, blacks, or other Latins. If you can't successfully do that then in 40-50 years Puerto Rican Humboldt Park will be know as RicanTown and be the equivalent of Greektown. I won't use Chinatown as an example because amazingly those folks still live their in large numbers.

Humboldt Park no more belongs to Puerto Ricans that it did to Germans, Norwegians, Poles, or Jewish folks who lived their in the past. It doesn't belong to the Mexicans, blacks or yuppified white folks who may be living there. It belongs to no particular group.

I've read some stuff in the past few days whining about how the current residents of Lincoln Park don't realize the Puerto Rican history of parts of the neighborhood. I got news for you, they don't realize the German or Italian history of parts of it also. Just like the current residents of Humboldt Park don't largely realize the various groups that came before. That is called human nature.

It has been said that those who forget the past are bound to repeat it. It can also be said that those who can't forget the past are bound to fail.

If you think that be organizing you will stop the gentrification of Humboldt Park you are wrong. Perhaps you may slow it down. Although that is debatable. I suspect that it is possible that the more people talk and fight "gentrification" the more likely they are to speed the process. "My God they are trying to keep me out. Hmmmm, must be a good place to live and invest in."

I may be wrong on that.

I'm not wrong in knowing that the "movement" to "save" Humboldt Park is wrong in both its goal and methods.

WRONG.

Justin,

Michael and I are on very different pages, and you and I appear to be on very different pages.

Free choice and fair housing are not the same concept.

Current residents of any neighborhood – Humboldt Park included – have no unrestricted right to choose whether they stay or leave. If they're renters, they have the right to stay in their home until their lease expires as long as they observe its terms. If they own their home they have the right to stay in it as long as they can afford to. They have an unrestricted right to move anywhere they want that they can afford, and I would defend their right to live anywhere they choose.

Anyone who can afford it has the right to move to Humboldt Park or to buy there. I believe Michael and Xavi want to nullify or restrict those rights, and that's were we find ourselves in disagreement.

Humboldt Park has an alderman who's sympathetic to the interests of the Puerto Rican community, and his aldermanic prerogative allows him to block zoning changes and, sadly, to make gaining demolition and building permits more difficult.

Our legal system and our electoral system have provided Humboldt Park residents a bundle of rights that ought to be treasured and respected. They have, as well, provided would-be residents and developers a bundle of rights, but not rights that Michael and Xavi seem to want to respect. When rights clash we have a system to resolve them. The riots referred to in the video are not part of that system.

Michael and Xavi are, fundamentally, questioning our system. I think we all respect their right to do that and their right to work within the system to change it.

I helped in the fight for fair housing more than 40 years ago and have defended it ever since. I don't think either Michael or Xavi would do the same.

Hey IP, Greektown is a poor example, there never was a large residential population there, let alone a Greek one. Although of course, it is an example of an "ethnic" business district, certainly more coherant than the Swedish of Andersonville.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

Sadly even tho gentrification is morally wrong there isnt much the people affected by gentrification can do.

joe zekas whats up wit the censorship on this forum.. what wrong with saying that
""GENTRIFICATION IS MORALLY WRONG""

Could you last two posters let me know where you live?

I need to invest some money and gentrify a few more neighborhoods.

gentrification …

First-time commenters go into a moderation queue for reasons that are obvious to every grown-up and have nothing to do with censorship of viewpoints.

If you'd taken the time to read this site you'd realize there's no censorship here.

your so full of s***

Gentrification is what has saved, and is saving, Chicago from becoming one big impoverished, destitute, bankrupt, slum that lacks the resources to provide proper services and educational opportunities to all the people living there. If Chicago is to thrive and prosper it needs to attract more upper (from above median to high) income people to gain the badly needed tax revenue they generate. Therefore such people need to be provided the opportunity to move into those areas of the city that they find attractive and are willing to move to, such as the areas surrounding downtown, and the lakeshore.

The areas that are being gentrified were not always slums in which low income people lived, but, rather, were originally prosperous areas. And therefore there is no reason why they should continue to be impoverished slums. Gentrification merely restores these areas to their previous prosperity, which their favorable location entitles them to.

Renters only have the right to stay in an apartment as long as their lease lasts, and property owners have the right to sell their property at high prices to developers and use the money to buy a home in the suburbs where they get away from the crime, drugs, and gangs that prevail in these areas and offer their children a better education.

gentrification,

I think you've proved my point with your response. If that's all you have to offer - and I suspect it is - we will bar you from commenting.

Call that censorship if you will. I call it maintaining a civil environment for people who want to contribute to a discussion.

Gentrification,

Joe is often way off-base, but in this case, he is not. The comments put forth by the community advocates are proof that racism cuts both ways.

I also think that this description of Humboldt Park in the De Paul paper is kind of interesting:

"This Northwest Side neighborhood has a strong Puerto Rican population, as evidenced by the large steel Puerto Rican flag that flanks the Paseo Boricua business corridor.

In recent years, Mexican immigration has also seen an upsurge. Roughly half of the Latino population—which makes up 48 percent of the Humboldt Park population—is now of Mexican descent. The area, which has been gentrifying steadily for over a decade, has been hit hard by the recent foreclosure crisis. In 2006, there were 150 foreclosures; in 2007, there were 1,000."

The interesting thing in all of this is the rise in foreclosures. Just who is foreclosing? I am not pointing any fingers here, but seriously posing a question: is it the condo-buyers, those who partake in investment properties or (fill in the blank)??

The rules of gentrification have nothing to do with conspiracies, but rather, the once-almighty dollar. Certain groups of people in areas like Humboldt Park and Pilsen have done so much to devalue property in certain areas that pointing fingers…oh, I digress. Gas is up, so more and more people are going to want to live near their jobs…It's only going to get worse.

whatever you say mr zekas =aka= captin video =aka= irish pirate. seems like you just want YOUR VOICE HEARD. i suspect my comments were not the first you have deleted, with your bias CENSORSHIP.

gentrification,

I am only known as Joe Zekas, and you are unknown and unknowing.

There are many voices heard here. Just read this thread. But you don't seem to want to hear any voice but your own.

Your comments were deleted because you were simply cutting and pasting a lengthy selection from wikipedia in those comments.

We linked to that wikipedia entry, in one of the comments you posted, so that people could read it in its entirety. Far from censoring you, we said what you wanted to more effectively. What kind of person objects to that? Perhaps the kind of person who's upset because the wikipedia entry in its entirety doesn't support any conceivable point you're attempting to make.

If your only purpose here is to be a troll then, as noted above, we will ban you from the site. It's your choice. And again, it's not censorship because, thus far, you've said nothing. Nothing at all.

Joe Zekas ain't the IrishPirate and versa vice. Or something like that. That's the first time that accusation has been made.

Now I often agree with Joe Zekas, but I do on occasion disagree. If you are bored have at the archives and look around. Mostly it's a question of degree as I think are viewpoints on many issues are similar.

Just because some people who are smarter, more experienced and ,in my case at least, better looking than you disagree with your silly viewpoint doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.

There are people who are hurt by gentrification. There are also people who benefit. Including long time property owners in an area gentrifying. I happen to believe that the city as a whole benefits. Trying to keep out "el blanco pendejos" , or even wealthier folks of the same ethnic background is wrong.

You can live in the real world and try improving the lives of your community by encouraging education, property ownership, frugality, and hard work or you can blame the "other". I suspect you blame the "other". Try looking in a mirror.

I would never stick up for Joe Zekas, except for when he's right. I'd also have to say that he and Pirate are not the same. But that's just my unscientific opinion.

Gentrification is right. Joe Zekas is often wrong. But in this case, he's pretty much right. You people are borderline racists.

the subject is GENTRIFICATION the reason i put the comments i put is becuase sadly even in 2008 alot of people dont know about gentrification AND WHAT GENTRIFICATION IS ""REALLY ABOUT""

SO BY DELETING MY COMMENTS LOOKS LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY..

AND THE ONLY REASON YOU PUT THAT LINK TO WIKIPEDIA IS CUZ I COMPLAINED ABOUT YOU DELETING MY COMMENTS. AND THATS WHY I SAID YOUR FULL OF S*** CUZ THERE WAS NOTHING OFFENSIVE IN MY COMMENTS FOR YOU TO TAKE THEM DOWN..

YOU WANT TO BAN ME GO AHEAD DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IM DONE

GIWMS,

again. Please let me know where you live. There just aren't enough people left in Uptown to loathe me. I need to move somewhere else where I can do some immoral gentrification. To add to the other immoral things I do. Which reminds me I need to peruse Craigslist hooker section. One issue with gentrification is it hurt the hookers by driving them out. Now THAT is immoral.

gentrification,

You've been done from the start, and you're not telling the truth about what was in your comments or what happened to them.

You thought they were deleted when they were simply in a moderation queue - as is the case for every first-time commenter.

AS YOU SAID I PASTESD THEM FROM WIKI, WHAT CAN BE OFFENSIVE ABOUT THAT. YOU KNOW THERE WAS NOTHING OFFENSIVE IN MY COMMENTS.. YOUR SO FULL OF BS

gentrifiction,

So, now you admit that all we deleted was something you pasted. And we linked to it instead. And by that we were censoring you?

Do you realize how loony you sound?

your just tryin to twist it,, your such an a** h***
CUZ YOU KNOW THERE WAS NOTHING OFFENSIVE ON MY COMMENTS for you to take them down the H*** with you..

you know you were wrong you f**K

your just tryin to twist it,, your such an a** h***
CUZ YOU KNOW THERE WAS NOTHING OFFENSIVE ON MY COMMENTS for you to take them down the H*** with you..
you know you were wrong you f**K

Gentrification, Joe is an asshole. But not in this case. My comments are often hung up in the queue, or at least, that's what I'm told. Now why don't you go and spew some more hatred about why white people don't belong in Humboldt, or Pilsen, or wherver. Racist.

UIC, MY COMMENT DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE OR ANY OTHER PEOPLE MY COMMENTS DID NOT CONTAIN ANYTHING RACIST'S YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WAHT MY COMMENT'S SAID SO STAY OUT OF OUT.. IF ANY ONE IS A RACIST ITS JOE THE H**

BUT YEA JOE IS AN A**H***

Gentrification is morally wrong…Your CAPS lock is on and your grammar is atrocious. So be cool…STAY IN SCHOOL!

Irish Pirate I checked out the archives, and it looks like you have nothing better to do than spew insensitive comments. My analytical skills lead me to believe you are racist. Not only are you racist, but you seem to hate yourself also.

Joe:
It's a shame that you now take such a position on gentrification. When you were fighting for civil rights in the 60s, folks would have never imagined you taking representing yourself in this manner. One can't imagine the toll activism must have taken on you. In the 60s, people would have sided with you. Even when you became an attorney, you were level headed.
Gentrification is causing lots of damage to a lot of people. If one thinks that yuppies in Wicker Park are well off. They're wrong. People who have gentrified communities find themselves in a lot more debt than they did before they moved into a not so affluent neighborhood. With the economy being in a recession, I believe people are mad that they are not making as much money as they foresaw and now they (realtors/developers) are pointing the finger. They are blaming activists for their empty pockets and unsold property.

UIC Alumni,

I'd be curious to know what you think my position on gentrification is. I suspect it's something entirely different than you conceive it to be.

Activism never took a toll on me. It energized me. And being an attorney taught me that civil rights are never simply the province of one side, but nearly always involve the balancing of conflicting but equally legitimate interests.

I think any discussion of "gentrification" has to start by ceasing the use of that word, with all of its loaded connotations, and all of its implications that there are good guys and bad guys on opposite sides of the issue, and that only one side has any legitimacy.

Any discussion of the impact of social and economic change on neighborhoods also needs to start with a solid grounding in the facts of each individual situation rather than a series of assumptions based on demonizing "the other."

Lots of things cause lots of damage to lots of people - that doesn't tell me anything about whether any of those things confers more benefits on more people than the damage caused. Not a bad point to consider on this Memorial Day weekend - when we focus not on the dead but on their honor and what it bought for us.

UIC Alumni,

I have nothing to do, but spew insensitive comments and I'm a racist? Moreover, I hate myself? Interesting. Your analytical skills suck and my analytical skills tell me your IQ and common sense are somewhere around room temperature. Now if you formally studied psychology that would tell me much more about you than one of your limited intellect could ever grasp. Or was your study of psychology similar to your study of economics and social sciences? In other words "half assed".

As for my comments I suggest you look up the word "sarcasm" and then perhaps you will begin the journey of understanding my highly developed sense of humor.

That's why I live in Uptown. Because all the people I hate live close by. I mean just within mere yards I have blacks, hispanics, gays, Asian Indians, mixed race couples, Muslims, Jews, lapsed Catholics and some people I am undoubtedly forgetting. So much too hate. I mean beyond myself that is.

I am many things. Racist is not one of them. Am I imperfect. Yep. Do I have my prejudices? Yep. Do I try to overcome them? Yep.

Am I "unfunny"? Perhaps, although the people who have hired me to write might feel differently.

Do I support Obama? Yep. Do I like McCain? Yep. Will I vote for McCain? Nope. Hmmm, interesting. Do I see that most issues are more complicated than you can imagine and that simple answers or explanations are seldom correct? Yep.

Am I a military veteran who generally votes Democratic? Yep. Sorta a Jim Webb Democrat with a bad moon rising. Did I oppose the Iraq invasion and mock those who used terms such as "freedom fries"? Yep.

Your last paragraph, I am being generous in calling it a "paragraph", and the way you use terms such as "yuppies", "realtors" and "developers" gives more insight into your lack of wisdom than anything else.

I can guarantee you many of those "evil" people who bought in Wicker Park over the last 15 years are VERY happy with their choice. Just like I am in Uptown with the price appreciation of my place.

You can delude yourself into thinking anything. You can believe that the majority of "yuppies" are unhappy with their purchases in "developing" neighborhoods. It's no more "true" than your "wondermonious" analytical skills leading you to assert that I am a racist. Wait, I need to go. My Klan meeting starts in 30 minutes. I don't want to be late. I'm bringing the cookies.

The Pirate is not a racist, just a skeptic. Joe Zekas isn't a racist either, just a loud-mouthed, self-described activist. Basically, if Joe is feeling it, and you are at the polar-opposite of what the brother is feeling, your opinion means nothing. After all, he's an expert on every and all things…he has an interest in. See the Pilsen arguments.

UICstudent,

I've always thought of you as an aged Little Hans, and you reinforce that thought every time you speak up.

Boy the dialogue has really degenerated the last few posts hasn't it? This leads me to beleive that, like Xavi mentioned, there really isn't a purpose to this site except to type words that one will never have to stand by in the "real world". Having siad that let me add me words to this "useless" forum.

Fair housing laws were created to protect the marginalized, which has historically been people of color, from unfair discriminiation by unscrupulous landlords. Folks have now taken these laws to decry the call for Puerto Ricans to support their "own" people when renting out apratments. This process is not different from other ethnic neighborhoods, historically in Chicago. How do you think Jews prospered, an contnitue to prospeer, in their respective communities? They encourage thier "people" to buy from Jewish shop owners and rent to Jewsih families. No one has called them racist or questioned their ethics. Why? Is it skin tone. ethnicity or nationality?

Additionally there is nothing wrong with attempting to create and/or maintain local networks of support by encouraging Puerto Ricans to remain in Humboldt Park. As a colonized people our support networks are what allow us to forge a life in a society where we are U.S. citizens but yet marginalized by the establishment and treated as second-class by our own neighbors. It becomes difficult to actualize ourselves without agitating new community residents who don't understand our context. When we advocate for our "own" we are not demeaning any Other in society. If folks are offended by our efforts, that fact may say more about the issues in they aren't dealing with than with any perceived reverse "discrimination" we are purportedly directing against new white residents.

This world isn't becoming a homogenized existence where we are all the same (meaning capitalist, consumerist, 'all-American'). Our reality is that the peoples of this world are awakening to the destructive force of this U.S. culture, which rather than celebrate the differences that we share as ethnic people of the world, tries to force us all into its hegemony. We are coming to grips that we are all human beings and therefore equal, despite the things that make us unique and different.

This is what I feel is really behind the insecurity about "Humboldt Park No Se Vende"-folks don't mind when marginalized people speak out against injustices as long as they don't invoke race, ethnicity or nationality, which makes certain people uneasy because they realize that they themselves may be part of the systemic institutions that are creating the marginalization in the first place.

So are you implying that you are my father and I want to kill you? Have you ever heard of a god complex? Every time you speak up, you reinforce it.

Raul,

You're marginalizing yourself with stale 60s cant.

Here's a news flash for you: those "systemic institutions" welcome you and all Puerto Ricans as full participants in American society and beneficiaries of its material and spiritual bounty. The Puerto Rican residents of Wilmette and Winnetka and Kenilworth and many other communities beyond Humboldt Park are living that, for you, inconvenient truth.