Ours to Lose: When Squatters Became Homeowners in New York City, by Amy Starecheski. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2016. ISBN: 9780226399942; 318 pp. $90 hardcover. The Urban Politics of Squatters' Movements (The Contemporary City), by Mig

《Ours to Lose: When Squatters Became Homeowners in New York City, by Amy Starecheski. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2016. ISBN: 9780226399942; 318 pp. $90 hardcover. The Urban Politics of Squatters' Movements (The Contemporary City), by Mig》

打印

作者: Claire Cahen

来源: CITY & COMMUNITY,Vol.18,Issue1,P.416-418

语言: 英文

关键字

作者单位: The Graduate Center at the City University of New York

摘要: While there is a rich literature on squatting, or the practice of occupying vacant buildings and land without permission from the owner, in the Global South, far less has been written on squatting in the Global North. These two books, Ours to Lose and The Urban Politics of Squatters’ Movements, shed light on the topic, combining to cement the place of squatters in the history of several Global North cities. Taken together, the books serve as a reminder that, in industrialized landscapes too, a (growing) housing precariat is struggling to house itself, and waging battles against its displacement not only in formal political arenas, but in vacant lots and properties. Amy Starecheski's Ours to Lose is a New York City story with implications that go well beyond that city. It is the tale of squatters from 11 buildings on the Lower East Side who, after 15 years of taking over empty properties (1985–1999), unexpectedly find themselves poised to become homeowners. In 1999, following over a decade of confrontational struggles to evict the squatters, city authorities offer them a legalization deal. A nonprofit will buy the squatted buildings, a bring them up to code, and the titles of the properties and any debt incurred in the process of rehabilitation will be transferred to the squatters. Is this a victory? Starecheski, a cultural anthropologist and oral historian, is no surer of the answer than her informants. On the one hand, the buildings that complete the legalization process are converted to low‐income, limited‐equity cooperatives with long‐term affordability guarantees—“a gift” (p. 152) of social housing to a gentrifying neighborhood. On the other, no building makes it out unscathed. Some take on onerous debt. Others narrowly avoid foreclosure. And long‐time squatters who, prior to legalization, successfully resist eviction at the behest of police in riot gear, are finally sunk, ousted from their residence when they cannot pay a mortgage. Starecheski seamlessly moves between theories of housing and homeownership and the oral histories of how squatters contested the city's private property regime that bring the book to life. Property ownership, which should provide security, ends up burdening with debt the anarcho‐punk squatters whose lives have long been outside of the market economy. It also turns squatters into landlords, faced with decisions of how to set rental rates, select tenants, and evict those who cannot pay. These tensions are captured in the book's title, lifted from a quote from one of the squatters: “It's our building. It's ours to lose” (p. 215). Tucked into the first chapter, and easily missed in the page‐turning narrative that ensues, is a note on the movement's influences. European housing activists descended onto the Lower East Side to help stage seizures of the neighborhood's many vacant properties at the time. “While most American urban squatters might put up a show of resistance for the media, they expected to eventually lose buildings in the face of overwhelming police power and strict enforcement of private property ownership,” Starecheski recalls. But “European squatters fought for keeps, and they taught New York squatters to do the same” (p. 59). The proposition is intriguing. How and why do European squatters fight for keeps? Anyone interested in this question might consider reading Ours to Lose in conjunction with sociologist Miguel Angel Martínez López's new edited volume on squatting efforts in Europe (Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, Rotterdam, and Brighton). This collection, written by activist researchers from the Squatting Europe Kollective (SqEK), achieves two objectives. First, it recasts squatters not as confrontational activists inclined toward civil disobedience, but as dedicated political actors who house the poor and make serious, but varied claims on the state. These range from demands to resettle refugees in social housing to creating rent‐regulated art venues. Second, it shows how squatting movements have remarkably sustained their existence for over four decades, even in the face of growing repression. Grounded in hard data, Urban Politics can read as very matter‐of‐fact. However, this focus on measurable outcomes is in line with its broader goal: to understand when squatting movements wax and wane, and why. The most convincing answers come in the comparative discussion found in the book's closing chapters, where lessons from the nine cities are juxtaposed. Here we also get a sense of the significant differences in the European and New York City squatting movements. Two points stand out. First, European squats have long been embedded in, and served as movement hubs for, larger student and worker uprisings, from the Paris Commune to the Occupy movements following the 2007 recession. Second, in what is perhaps an accident of history, pioneering squats burst onto the scene in northern European cities in the explosive year of 1968. Amid escalating social unrest, these squats negotiated legalization deals that continue to serve as legitimating precedents today, not only with the public authorities with whom squatters negotiate, but the with local communities, political parties, and the broader public. Will this continue to be true as Europe experiences new waves of neoliberal reform? The authors note that, in recent years, criminalization of squatting has become more common, and gentrification has left fewer vacant properties for the taking. Public discourse in cities like Paris has grown tougher on squatters, and elected officials are increasingly dividing squatters into “good” and “bad” as they justify selective evictions. Artist squatters who set up art galleries in vacant buildings are positioned as good citizens who beautify neighborhoods, while squatters who aim to win housing for those in need are punished as freeloaders. The authors leave open the question of what these tensions will mean moving forward. However, the volume is, if nothing else, a reminder to take the long view: Repression of squatting has often backfired, drawing more housing activists to the practice out of principle—and defiance. Moreover, European squatting movements have, over four decades, yet to completely dissolve, even in their moments of quiet. With limited certainty, the authors suggest: New urban crises will arise and, with them, windows of political opportunity. If there is a criticism to be made of Urban Politics, especially when compared with Ours to Lose, it is that it remains primarily descriptive, leaving the reader wanting deeper theoretical examination. While Ours to Lose uses squatting as a lens into the legal, political, and social valences of property, Urban Politics displays an inward focus, examining squatting qua squatting: A political practice of which the implications for the secondary themes of the volume (housing, gentrification, and urban restructuring) are left unexplored. Still, taken together, Urban Politics and Ours to Lose offer important contributions to our understanding of squatting in the Global North. As both U.S. and European cities continue to deregulate their housing markets, and the need for safe and affordable housing intensifies, both books are certainly worth the read.