Using Climate Justice to solve Climate Gentrification
Around the world cities are recognizing the rising consequences of climate change and are building climate resilience infrastructure to adapt to a warming planet. While this is a positive development to protect against climate disasters, it has also widened already prevalent inequalities around the world. For example, in response to rising seas, land developers in Miami are moving inland on higher elevation in a neighborhood called Little Haiti. This development is displacing low-income, black residents, forcing them onto lower elevation where they face higher flood risks and associated costs, consequently widening disparities. This gentrification can be seen around the world, where climate change infrastructure is only used to protect the wealthy and displace low-income and marginalized groups. Looking globally, we can see that this disparity is part of a larger problem of a climate apartheid and climate injustice, where minority and low-income groups, who have contributed the least to climate change, are the ones facing the brunt of climate change disasters. Though in Quito, Ecuador, the government has acknowledged these disparities and has worked to construct climate resilient infrastructure with vulnerable groups in mind, thereby limiting displacement of residents and avoided widening disparities. This shows that while climate resilient infrastructure is a benefit that should be implemented in an era of climate change, it should have minorities and other vulnerable populations in mind, because otherwise climate adaption policies will only work to widen disparities around the world.
Globally, climate gentrification is a part of a larger pattern of climate change creating a “climate apartheid” and contributing to climate injustice. A climate apartheid refers to a global divide “between those populations most negatively affected by climate change and those populations capable of insulating themselves from the most severe consequences of the climate crisis” (Rice et. al 2). Climate infrastructure is a part of this climate apartheid because “protected enclaves for the rich are created amidst segregation and displacement for poor and communities of color” (Rice et. al). This “climate apartheid” is also part of a larger phenomenon called “climate justice” and it refers to “the issues and concerns that arise from the intersection of climate change with race, poverty, and preexisting environmental risks” (Burkett). Authors Researchers Angelskin et. al. also argue in their opinion piece how the rise in climate gentrification across cities displaces low-income and people of color, creating a “climate injustice …because these populations are among the social groups most likely to experience residential and social displacement” though they “have contributed the least to climate change” (“Opinion: Why green “climate gentrification” threatens poor and vulnerable populations”). Looking at climate gentrification and climate apartheid through a climate justice lens is necessary because it brings to light the voices of minorities who have been pushed to the side in climate change discussions and have been ignored in climate change mitigation policies. For example, one approach to curbing climate change is sustainable development but without acknowledging inequalities, it becomes problematic because “global capitalism deploys race and racism as techniques of exclusion and control, creating expendable geographic locations (sacrifice zones) and expendable people” (Gonzalez 115). This means sustainable development is used to exclude vulnerable populations rather than protect them, which is what has happened in Little Haiti with Magic City developers building a climate resilient and sustainable neighborhood on high elevation but also displacing Little Haiti’s residents into high flood risk areas. Magic city is creating a climate apartheid and simultaneously feeding into climate injustice by displacing residents into more climate vulnerable areas.
Climate gentrification in Miami is a clear example of how climate change is changing the housing market, consequently creating a climate apartheid by widening already prevalent racial and income inequalities. Historically Miami has used segregation and redlining to relegate low-income black residents inland onto higher elevation, while wealthier white residents lived on beach front properties (Structural Racism In Miami). In an article by Aparna Nathan, “Climate is the Newest Gentrifying Force, and its Effects are Already Re-Shaping Cities,” he argues how this geography is changing as climate change is largely influencing where people live, citing how low-income neighborhoods on high elevation have historically been undesirable in Miami, until the seas started to rise, and wealthy residents and investors moved inland, subsequently spiking the price of homes and gentrifying the area. They show this by pointing to a study titled “Climate gentrification: from theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida,” by Jesse M Keenan, who found that homes on higher elevation are increasing in value while homes on lower elevation are decreasing in value. Magic City developers themselves deny that Little Haiti’s elevation had anything to do with their decision in choosing the location, but they do recognize the value of that elevation in an era of climate change, claiming on their website that “Magic City Innovation District’s® elevation…provides the basis for achieving long term urban resiliency in South Florida” (Magic City). Developers are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities of Little Haiti, caused by a history of racism, to raise housing prices and make them unaffordable for low-income groups, consequently displacing residents into areas vulnerable to flooding and widening inequalities.
Magic City development is displacing Little Haiti’s residents by raising rent prices and excessively fining business to drive them out. Rollin Virgile, owner of a tuxedo shop, says that “he couldn’t afford to stay in Little Haiti, and his business had lost more than half its clients after being priced out of the neighborhood he served” (“High ground, high prices”). Another article titled “Will Magic City Innovation District improve or damage Little Haiti?,” by Gabriela Enamorado and Edvina Paul, also found that development is displacing business by excessively fining them in an attempt to drive them away. In an interview with Ore Nelson, owner of Tripod Collision and Repair Shop, he says that “Miami City Hall is helping developers by citing business for code violations and imposing fines.” In an article by Diana Olick, she observes how Little Haiti’s business have been removed to make way for new infrastructure catered to a wealthier clientele, writing how “an entire row of formerly Haitian-owned businesses are empty and being gutted. On one side of the street, a sleek and trendy high-end coffee company has already moved in, in stark contrast to the ethnic stores.” While revitalizing the neighborhood is a benefit that will bring more businesses and economy, development is also making it impossible for resident to live there anymore.
Rising rents and fines are causing displacement, but underlying factors such as Little Haiti’s cost-burdened renters and Miami’s low wages accelerates that displacement because residents were already struggling to afford rent even before developers came in. In an article by Patrick Sisson, he points out how Little Haiti’s residents can easily be displaced because most of them are cost-burdened renters, meaning they pay more than a third of their income on rent, and Miami’s “city’s tourist-driven economy keeps wages low.” Mario Alejandro Ariza also emphasizes this in his article, “As Miami Keeps Building, Rising Seas Deepen Its Social Divide,” claiming that because most of Little Haiti’s residents are cost-burdened renters, they “could easily be displaced onto lower ground.” With no protection from rising rent costs, residents are stuck in a state of vulnerability where rising rents can easily displace them, and there is no support for residents to find another affordable home.
In fact, Miami’s housing crisis has only exacerbated the consequences of displacement because of the limited amount of affordable homes available. In an article titled “In Miami, rising seas threatening the few affordable neighborhoods” by Alex Hariri and Yadira Lopez, they find that the amount of affordable housing in Miami is small and the few affordable houses that are available are usually vulnerable to flooding and hurricanes. In fact a report on Miami’s housing crisis, titled “Miami’s Housing Affordability Crisis” found that “Greater Miami ranks as the seventh least-affordable large metro (with more than 5 million people) in the world” and that unaffordability usually hits black residents the hardest who “have, on average, less than $4,000 in income left over after paying for their housing each year” (Florida et. al). Not only is affordable housing scarce, but a study by Earth Economics also found that even if Little Haiti’s displaced residents find affordable housing, which will likely be in an area prone to flooding, they also face significant relocation, commute, and flooding costs. This means climate change is magnifying inequalities between socioeconomic classes and this highlights just how important it is for Magic City developers to prevent displacement and avoid placing this already vulnerable community in more climate vulnerable situations.
While the project is doing more harm than good for Little Haiti’s residents, Magic City developers continue to claim that the project will benefit Little Haiti by creating an economy and jobs and deny the displacement they are creating. Tony Cho, cofounder of the Magic City Innovation District, denies that development is causing climate gentrification saying “I don’t think it’s true…a lot of the residents were moving out even before I came into this community” and the plan will “do something really positive for this community” (“Little Haiti residents forced from home again as climate change upends Miami real estate”). Admittedly, Magic City developers have taken steps to help the neighborhood by offering a community benefits agreement which includes a $31 million fund for affordable housing. Though this fund has not protected residents who are already priced out of their homes and businesses and has not helped them afford homes in a city that “has the eighth-highest rental prices in the nation” (Florida et al.). Meena Jagannath, cofounder of the Community Justice Project, was left out of final negotiations with Magic City, “believes [the community benefits agreement] lacks the foresight and farness to set an example for future agreements (an initial plan to require 550 units of affordable housing was scrapped during the final negotiations)” (Sisson). This means the fund was a replacement for a more effective plan to include affordable housing. Instead the fund will allow still allow developers to displace residents. In regard to the community benefits agreement, Meena also claims that “Very little in that agreement looks at the climate vulnerability of Miami…If it did, it would have been more specific about including more workforce and affordable housing directly on site” (“As sea level rises, Miami neighborhoods feel rising tide of gentrification”). On the other hand, Max Sklar, a member of the development team, claims “Can we appease everybody? Not 100%, that’s not feasible. It’s not realistic. But we’ve listened to them” (“Miami’s Little Haiti wasn’t a target for developers”). I disagree that developers have properly listened to residents during negotiations. As Meena argued, if they did the agreement would have acknowledged the climate vulnerabilities of Miami, and the vulnerabilities of residents too, by adding direct affordable housing on higher elevation, because if residents are displaced then they will most likely move towards high flood risk areas in lower elevations.
Some solutions to increase the lack of affordable housing and avoid gentrification in Miami, have been to implement climate resilient infrastructure or remove zoning restriction, but there are problems with these solutions. In an opinion article titled “Climate gentrification and affordable housing policies,” authors David L. Kelly and Renato Molina specifically argue that combining resilience investments with the removal of zoning restrictions is the solution to curbing climate gentrification. This means building infrastructure that is resistant to climate disasters along the coasts and removing zoning restrictions, which would allow developers to build more housing which curbs rising rent prices. The problem with resilience investments is that not only are they expensive and there are limited funds, but they are also only a temporary solution to protect Miami’s coasts. Miami’s coastal homes are sitting on porous limestone where water can rise up from the ground, and climate infrastructure like walls can do nothing to prevent it. This means that as sea levels continue to rise, residents on the coasts will eventually have to move inland despite the creation of resilient infrastructure. Additionally, building pumps that drain floodwater only contributes to climate change because they release large amounts of carbon emissions (Highwaterline). Furthermore, removing zoning restrictions to build more housing does not guarantee that affordable housing will be built, because essentially the “housing market is structured to maximize profit” (Budds).
Instead, the implementation of mandatory inclusionary housing policies is an effective solution that will help prevent displacement in Little Haiti. Inclusionary housing policies will require developers to reserve 10–20% of new residential units to residents in the neighborhood at affordable prices. An article from the National Housing Conference (NHC) found that inclusionary housing policies curb displacement of residents and allow low-income residents to benefit from “amenity-rich neighborhoods.” In other words, affordable housing will allow residents to live in the neighborhood and actually benefit from the new development that is being built. A research report on Miami’s housing crisis, titled “The Dynamics of Housing Affordability in Miami-Dade County” also found that with dwindling state and federal housing programs, inclusionary housing will be at little cost to the public, who are already living on low wages in Miami (Greiner et al. 32). Inclusionary housing would also specify the income target range for affordable housing, which would be implemented based on local need. To ensure that affordable housing stays affordable an affordability time period should also be implemented. This means having an affordability requirement of at least 30 years to 99 years or permanent affordability (NHC). Of course, inclusionary housing alone will not alone solve climate gentrification in Miami and should be implemented with other policies, such as raising wages, to provide a long-term solution. Though for now it will provide relief to the current displacement by providing homes that developers are already building.
Though they are obstacles in implementing inclusionary housing polices on developers. Creating affordable housing at below-market rates conflicts with the developer’s goal to create profits. Though incentives could be used to offset the revenue developers lost in the process. For example, the most common incentives are density bonuses which “allow more homes to be built on a parcel of land than would otherwise be permitted by the underlying zoning code” (NHC). Other incentives include relaxing design standards of housing, while ensuring that affordable housing is not built sub-standard. There is also the obstacle of ensuring that affordable housing stays affordable and is not “lost due to illegal sales, foreclosure or lax rental management practices” (NHC). Though monitoring procedures would also ensure that affordable housing stays affordable, by “overseeing production, pricing units, monitoring occupancy and payments” among other elements (Greiner et al. 37). Additionally resale restrictions would keep “resale prices affordable for subsequent low-and moderate-income homebuyers.”(Inclusionary Housing). While inclusionary housing policies would provide affordable housing, there is also controversy over whether it is right for the “public sector to regulate private development” in the first place (Inclusionary Housing). Though I would argue that private developers should not be able to profit off the displacement of low-income black residents, who will often be forced to live in more climate vulnerable locations, and do nothing to help to alleviate it. While developers alone are not expected to solve the housing crisis, they should play a role to mitigate the climate gentrification they are causing through rising rent prices. Otherwise, they will be complicit actors in creating a divide where the wealthy can escape climate change while the poor are left unprotected.
Not just in Miami, but around the world we can see examples of climate resilient infrastructure in cities displacing low-income residents. In Dhaka, Bangladesh, climate change is increasing the risk of “river flooding [sea level rise] SLR, high heat, and waterborne disease” (Anguelovski et al. 336). As a result, the government created a plan to build infrastructure catered to curbing flooding from a nearby river to “protect the more urbanized western Dhaka” (Angeulovski et al.338). Though “because of the inadequate application of land use controls and insufficient provision of land and public housing, … [planning has] caused displacement of poor communities inside and outside the protected zone.” (Angeulovski et al 338). Additionally, the city has “allowed powerful and private developers to conduct landfilling in these areas for middle-and high-income housing,” driving displacement. Similarly in Surat, a resilience strategy policy was implemented to create projects to mitigate flooding but with little consultation from the marginalized communities. These projects “entrenched ongoing privatization trends in redirecting infrastructure towards economically important petrochemical, textile, and diamond industries, monetizing of water and sanitation services, and evicting marginalized communities from public lands” (Angeulovski et al. 342). Since then land use and infrastructure has been catered to protect these industries from flooding, while displacing residents into flood risk areas. Similar to Miami, these cities have built infrastructure that is resilient against climate change without addressing the inequalities that were already present and without consulting the residents in these vulnerable communities. They “[favored] certain privileged groups while simultaneously denying resources and voice to marginalized communities,” creating a division between those who can afford being protected and those who cannot and creating an injustice because the poor are often the least responsible to climate change (Angeulovski et al. 343).
Now this does not mean that cities should not invest in climate resilient infrastructure. Of course with “over 800 million people at risk from the impacts of rising seas and storm surges”, cities should invest in this infrastructure (C40Cities). Though in the process developers and governments need to recognize the inherent inequalities in their cities and work to make sure that that infrastructure protects all residents, not just the wealthy who can afford it. This means looking at planning through a climate justice lens and including the lives of vulnerable populations within planning and making sure that climate resilient infrastructure is inclusive for all. This means “adaption processes should also pay attention to issues of displacing and relocating the urban poor” and planners should “advocate for transformative adaption interventions that place justice front and center” and “initiate meaningful engagement of marginalized urban residents” (Anguelovski et al 344). Recognizing the needs of the poor and vulnerable creates planning that is inclusive and mitigates inequalities.
For example, Quito, Ecuador is a city that highlights the voices of minority and low income populations in their inclusive urban mitigation and adaption planning. Adaption planning is planning that “[makes] …cities more sustainable and resilient” while mitigation focuses on “developing clean technologies or changing consumer demand” (Carmin et al. 18). Currently, due to climate change, Ecuador faces a “decrease in water availability, changing urban temperatures, and more flooding and landslide events, which will disproportionately impact lower-income neighborhoods” (Chu et.al. 377). Government officials planned measures to mitigate and adapt to these climate consequences and “specifically encouraged the participation of lower-income citizens, [which] set the precedent for widely-inclusive planning processes” to create the “Quito Climate Change Strategy” (Chu et.al. 379). For example, the city also “has paid much attention to adaptation projects and outcomes that address the needs and livelihoods of the urban poor, especially indigenous groups living on the hillsides and in more rural areas of Quito” (Chu et al. 385). Additionally, with socially vulnerable groups at the forefront of planning, Quito “has put in place an early warning system, constructed new water and sewerage infrastructure, implemented a relocation program of 600 families to new social housing… and only considered relocation “when no other solution has been found and when climate risks cannot be mitigated ”( Chu et.al 385). Overall Quito’s inclusive adaption policies were able to “simultaneously address environmental and socio-economic vulnerabilities” and “[generate] adaptation outcomes that not only reduce climate impacts in poorer neighborhoods, but also incentivize infrastructure development and service delivery improvement projects in socially and environmentally fragile areas of the city” (Chu et. al. 381). Using a climate justice approach that highlights vulnerable populations, Quito was able to create climate adaptions policies that benefited the most vulnerable groups and with limited displacement that included social housing.
Both Quito and Miami, faced looming climate disasters and built infrastructure to mitigate or avoid climate change disasters, but unlike Miami, Quito acknowledged low-income and indigenous groups, who are some of the most vulnerable to climate change disasters, thereby making sure they benefited from climate change adaption and mitigation policies. Furthermore, by taking into account climate vulnerabilities, Quito relocated residents away from climate vulnerable areas and provided social housing in the process. Conversely in Magic City, developers preferred to avoid even acknowledging the climate gentrification they are creating and avoided building affordable housing which would have mitigated displacement and curbed exacerbating disparities, opting to offer a fund that has done little in preventing displacement. Admittedly, the main actor in Quito was the government, who created a climate change strategy specifically for planning climate change adaption and mitigation policies, while in Miami it is private developers who are creating climate resilient infrastructure with the goal of creating a profit. Nevertheless, Magic City developers should use Quito as a model to create an inclusive plan that allows all residents to benefit from the climate resilient infrastructure they are building, instead of feeding into a global climate apartheid and simultaneous climate injustice by displacing low-income black residents. This means developers need to develop with climate justice in mind by “[taking] into account historic legacies of social and racial injustice in order to avoid turning adaption into a private and privileged environmental good with exclusionary and maladaptive externalities (Anguelovski et al. 345). Additionally they must “critically consider the distribution of adaption benefits, costs, and responsibilities across society, address unsustainable and inequitable development patterns, and apply interventions that, at a minimum, treat groups equally regardless of socioeconomic status or, better yet, actively prioritize beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups” (Anguelovski et al. 345). This means first recognizing the vulnerabilities of residents caused by historic systemic factors, acknowledging climate gentrification as a real issue, and listening to the concerns of residents and making them active participants in the process. This also means implementing a “certain number of affordable homes on-site (instead of letting [developers] simply contribute money to a fund meant to pay for affordable housing elsewhere in the city), guaranteeing residents the right to stay” (Rogers). Inclusive adaption policies with vulnerable population at the center will ensure that Magic City does not exacerbate inequalities, instead it will mitigate them in the face of climate change by ensuring Little Haiti’s residents continue to be protected by climate resilient infrastructure on high elevation.
Though again, one of the main barriers to this inclusive planning is that fact that Magic City developers’ main goal is profit. Especially in Florida “property taxes make up the bulk of local budgets, leading to an overreliance on real estate revenue to fund the city’s budget. That has resulted in a developer-friendly economy and political climate that will be hard to change” (Sisson). This means that it will be difficult to influence developers to develop with affordable housing and equity in mind because the state also relies on developers to create a profit. As Kilan Ashad-Bishop, vice chair of the Miami Climate Resilience Committee, also claims “the rule of thumb is, let developers do all they want, to be honest with you, so it’s hard to have a forward-thinking conversation about this… Developers are thinking of profit, and profit and equity have a very hard time coexisting” (“As sea level rises, Miami neighborhoods feel rising tide of gentrification”). This mindset of profit could have also contributed to why developers pulled back on creating 550 units of affordable housing on site and have denied causing climate gentrification. Profit may be the ultimate goal for developers, but again they should not be able to take advantage of the systemic racial inequalities that has made Little Haiti’s residents vulnerable to rising rents and climate change, and profit off their displacement while doing little to mitigate it. By having meaningful representation from residents and creating onsite affordable housing with incentives that offset profit losses, developers could create inclusive development that does not encourage a global climate apartheid that will” insulate some populations from the greatest climate threats, while simultaneously dismissing other populations as unfortunate casualties of a changing planet” (Rice et al. 13).
Looking worldwide there also have been international organizations taking steps to tackling the inequality that has arisen within cities. For example, in the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 11 is to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” and Goal 10 is “Reducing inequalities and ensuring no one is left behind” (United Nations). This is an important development because if we see rising inequalities caused by climate gentrification in cities around the world then we could also expect “increasing political and social tensions and, in some circumstances, driving instability and conflicts” (Untied Nations). Though cities have shown little progress in creating inclusive cities, as progress reports from the UN show that “rapid urbanization has resulted in a growing number of slum dwellers, inadequate and overburdened infrastructure and services…” (United Nations). Globally, cities need to do more to acknowledge inequalities and create climate change planning and infrastructure with vulnerable populations at the forefront.
The climate gentrification in Miami, is not just a problem of a lack of affordable housing, but it also intersects with race, poverty, and other factors that make some groups more vulnerable to climate change disasters than others. Climate gentrification in Miami is therefore part of a larger global problem of a climate apartheid, where climate change adaption measures only work to protect the rich and widen disparities among low-income and minorities groups. This also feeds into a climate injustice because while low-income and minority groups are the least responsible for climate change, they will often be the first ones to feel its negative consequences. Looking forward within nations, climate adaption policies need to put vulnerable populations in the center and make sure that the infrastructure they are building will not work to widen inequalities, instead everyone will benefit. This includes participation from vulnerable groups, acknowledgement of inequalities, and implementing climate resilient affordable housing so they are not displaced and will not relocate to even more climate vulnerable areas. Otherwise we will only create a global divide between those the wealthy can afford to escape disaster from vulnerable groups who cannot, exacerbating disparities and social unrest. This shows that climate change adaption is not enough, it has to be equal as well.
Sources:
https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/30/21115351/upzoning-definition-affordable-housing-gentrification
https://www.miamiandbeaches.com/neighborhoods/little-haiti
https://highwaterline.org/sea-level-rise-faqs/
https://nhc.org/policy-guide/inclusionary-housing-the-basics/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-miami-keeps-building-rising-seas-deepen-its-social-divide
https://urbanandracialequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Structural-Racism-in-Miami-.pdf
https://magiccitydistrict.com/neighborhood/
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/11/us/miami-little-haiti-climate-gentrification-weir-wxc/index.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/52/26139
https://www.wired.com/story/cities-fighting-climate-woes-hasten-green-gentrification/
https://inclusionaryhousing.org/inclusionary-housing-explained/what-are-the-downsides/
Anguelovski, Isabelle, et al. “Equity Impacts of Urban Land Use Planning for Climate Adaptation: Critical Perspectives from the Global North and South.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 36, no. 3, Sept. 2016, pp. 333–348, doi:10.1177/0739456X16645166.
Carmin, JoAnn, et al. “Urban Climate Adaptation in the Global South: Planning in an Emerging Policy Domain.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 32, no. 1, Mar. 2012, pp. 18–32, doi:10.1177/0739456X11430951.
Granberg, M.; Glover, L. The Climate Just City. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1201. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13031201
Gonzalez, C. G. (2020). Racial capitalism, climate justice, and climate displacement. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 11(1), 108–147. Retrieved from https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/1214
L Rice, Jennifer, et al. “Against Climate Apartheid: Confronting the Persistent Legacies of Expendability for Climate Justice.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, Mar. 2021, doi:10.1177/2514848621999286.
