Mais
um artigo recomendado a Manuel Salgado e Fernando Medina.
Lentamente,
demasiado lentamente, os autarcas e políticos estão a começar a
aperceber-se dos efeitos choque da Globalizaçào / Gentrificação /
Direito à Habitação Permanente, no Eleitorado.
OVOODOCORVO
Rotterdam's
anti-gentrification movement must learn the lessons of its failed
referendum
The
Netherlands’ second city is increasingly divided on plans to
replace affordable homes with more expensive properties
Brian Doucet,
Marguerite van den Berg, Gwen van Eijk
Academics at Dutch
universities
Monday 12 December
2016 08.04 GMT
On Thursday,
Rotterdam city council will vote on whether to replace 20,000
affordable homes with 36,000 properties for middle- and upper-income
households.
The vote is the
latest step in the city’s focus on “improving” neighbourhoods,
by combining gentrification with rules preventing some low-income
households from moving into poorer neighbourhoods.
Rotterdam, the
Netherlands’ second city, is an increasingly divided one: while
many neighbourhoods around the centre are gentrifying and the city is
a rising star on the international tourist map, it is also home to
some of the country’s poorest neighbourhoods.
Late last year, a
diverse grassroots movement emerged to oppose the city’s housing
plans. A petition calling for a referendum obtained more than 13,000
signatures, resulting in a vote on 30 November.
But the odds were
stacked against the referendum. While organisers wanted a vote on the
potential disappearance of the 20,000 affordable housing units, the
question they posed to Rotterdammers wasn’t clear. the vague nature
of the question: “Are you in favour or against Rotterdam’s
housing vision?” was likely to have discouraged many people from
voting, because they didn’t fully understand what they were voting
for.
The city also
stipulated a 30% turnout to validate the referendum. Because those in
favour of the housing vision could win based on a low turnout, there
was little incentive for the yes campaign, including the city’s
government, to encourage people to vote.
In the end, 72%
voted against the housing vision. However, only 17% of the electorate
voted, well below the required 30%. The council vote this Thursday,
15 December, is expected to ignore the referendum and find in favour
of adopting the housing plans as official policy.
The grassroots
campaign offers several insights for those dealing with
gentrification in cities around the world. Tenants’ associations,
while active in initiating campaigns, need to do more to engage with
people in their communities. Participation levels in these
associations are very low in Rotterdam and a primary objective for
this movement is better organisation of residents, particularly
tenants in social rented housing.
Debates often focus
on the positive side of gentrification, but it is a political issue
over who has access to a city
However, on the
positive side, because opposition and resistance was focused on a
city-wide issue, rather than a specific development or estate,
gentrification and displacement became major topics of conversation
across the city.
Rather than it being
an abstract academic or political debate about social justice or a
fair city, the referendum was about specific housing plans which will
affect tens of thousands of Rotterdammers for years to come. As a
result, the question: “Whose city is Rotterdam?” was discussed in
homes, community centres and cafes.
It was also a
genuinely bottom-up initiative, spearheaded by local tenants’
associations. The campaign connected a diverse group of people who
all had connections to the issue of gentrification.
This is important
because the organisers of the referendum have announced that they
will protest against every demolition project in the next 15 years.
As the referendum created widespread attention, it will be easier to
mobilise more people to stand with them.
Rotterdam’s
housing referendum was initiated by those who rarely feature in
mainstream and professional debates about the future of the city. Too
often, these focus exclusively on the positive side of
gentrification, but it is a political issue over who has access to a
city.
As urban scholars
who investigate the human cost of gentrification, we believe it is
essential to connect diverse voices into coalitions to fight for a
city that is open and accessible for all.
Brian Doucet is a
senior lecturer at Erasmus University College. Marguerite van den
Berg is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of
Amsterdam. Gwen van Eijk is an assistant professor of criminology at
Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário