Bennett 1

Joseph Bennett
15December2014
Urban Poverty
Final Paper
Question 1:
My experience with Part of the Solution (POTS) has been eye opening to the state of
poverty in the Bronx. The goal of POTS is to provide the people suffering within the community
with services to help them free themselves from their poverty spells, as it states on their website
helping low-income individuals and families move from crisis to stability, and ultimately selfsufficiency (potsbronx.org). Poverty within the Bronx community can be characterized as a dual
affliction: the historical racism and economic injustice on colored communities by the white
cartel as Daria Roithmayer describes it in her study Locked In Segregation, coupled with an
insufficient governmental response. The specific work I have done with POTS has been with the
Family Club. Here, older students (mainly high school or college) volunteer to help younger
students of the community with their schoolwork. The Family Club is valuable because it
provides a resource for parents of the community to help their children within an education
system which sometimes be ineffective. This is one of the many POTS services aimed at
reducing the poverty within the community.
First and foremost, one of the major problems Bronx residents face are those involving
low incomes and unemployment. Low income and unemployment can strip lifes bare necessities
away from someone, leaving them in a state of desperation. When one is unemployed, they may
not have access to some of the most basic living needs, like food, clothes or personal hygiene.
POTS ensures that basic needs and hunger of all who come to its door are nourished
(potsbronx.org). Many of POTS services seek to provide these basic needs to those facing these
subsequent issues of low income or unemployment; some of their services include: community

Bennett 2
dining room (which gives free hot meals), a food pantry, mail services, a barbershop, clothing
room (which provides donated clothing), shower facilities, and a medical and dental clinic
(potsbronx.org).
Furthermore, another major problem of low income communities like the Bronx is
individuals inability to access some of the public benefits entitled to them. Oftentimes access to
public benefits such as, welfare assistance (TANF), tax credits (EITC) or food stamps (SNAP)
are difficult to pursue. According to Handler and Hansenfelds Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty
and Inequality, one of the biggest obstacles in the way of low income individuals or families
receiving their benefits is the knowledge of their eligibility. This has been the case for SNAP,
because according to the USDA, only 54% of those eligible for food stamps actually receive
them and nearly half (45%) of eligible nonparticipants experienced food insecurity in 2000
(Handler and Hasenfeld 92). This is largely due to a language barrier or lack of legal experience,
or both, because many low-wage workers are in fact immigrants. These people are often unaware
of the benefits they are legally eligible for. This is where POTS provides additional services.
POTS has services like, a legal clinic and a case management center, that can provide legal
guidance and expertise to people not receiving their granted benefits, which may help bring them
above their poverty spell (potsbronx.org). Lastly, POTS also has services which can just try to
make the life more pleasant for families who are constantly faced with the brutality of poverty.
Providing holiday activities and gifts, and the Family Club aim to make these families lives
easier and provide them with a sense of decency, living with a system which often causes pain
and hardships.
The problems POTS fights to improve within the Bronx are rooted within the history of
the Bronx and many other low-income (often largely colored) communities, which is the

Bennett 3
systematic destabilization of these communities into the ghettoes that they are commonly
referred to today. Roithmayer outlines some of the historical forces which have created this
situation. She describes that the segregation of neighborhoods in to white, primarily better-off,
neighborhoods and neighborhoods, like the Bronx, which are in economic disarray, has been the
doing of what she calls the white cartels (Roithmayr 1). These white cartels are groups of
white figureheads which use political tactics to remove people of color from their neighborhoods
and congregate them into neighborhoods with less economic stability, poorer resources, and
fewer connections. One political tactic which Roithmayr describes which has led to the
establishment of Bronx-like communities is redlining. Historically redlining has been a tactic of
the Federal Housing Association (FHA) and the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC),
where ethnic neighborhoods were physically outlined in red as areas to not extend housing
credits too. While at the same time, these organizations were providing the same credits to white
individuals, allowing them to move from the city into suburban neighborhoods (Roithmayr- 27).
In addition, another segregating demonstration of the white cartels described by Roithmayr has
been the works of organizations like the Homeowners association, which has kept people of
color out of white neighborhoods. In barring these people of color from the nicer
neighborhoods, they often do not have access to better public institutions (schools, hospitals,
etc.) (Roithmayr 24-27).
Furthermore, many other systems still today play a role in keeping these low income
individuals and families within the area, and thus, within a state of poverty. The low wage-high
rent cycle has been a trend which keeps families from removing themselves from poverty
stricken areas, while simultaneously hindering the region from economic progression. Many jobs
in areas like Bronx usually only provide minimum wage income, with little to no benefits. In

Bennett 4
addition, as is stated in a study of living wage ordinances conducted by Jared Bernstein and Jeff
Chapman, governmental action against these low wages has been characterized as the following:
there has been little to no action regarding policies to raise pre-tax wages (Bernstein and
Chapman 85). In collaboration with these low wages, high rents coupled with unnecessary rent
fees have kept low-income families in a position where they can barely make ends meat. These
miscellaneous fees often drain the incomes of the tenants, profiting the landlords; meanwhile,
conditions within the apartment are often always subpar (CASA 14). Some of these random fees
which are outlined in a report done by the Community Action for Safer Apartments, or CASA,
include: legal fees, utilities (washing machine, air conditioning), major capital investment fees
and other damage fees (CASA 3). As mentioned, these fees hemorrhage capital from the already
low tenants wages. With all of the families income going to both rents and other living
expenses (food, transportation, etc.) these families can never accumulate enough capital to
mobilize above their state of poverty, and are thus stuck in the ghettoes as Roithmayr
describes, with all of the mediocre resources that they entail.
Speaking on my own experience working with the Family Club tutoring at POTS, It is
clear that the children within this community have receive a lesser education, than white
neighborhoods, as Roithmayr explicated. I come from a predominately white school district, and
comparing my own educational experience from when I was in grade school to the children that I
am tutor with POTS, it is clear to me that I benefitted from better quality teachers. This plays
into Roithmayrs theory because better teachers often have more leverage in their job placement,
whereas often lesser experienced teachers do not have that same mobility. These better teachers
then usually move to districts with better prejudices than the Bronx, which is stereotypically

Bennett 5
characterized as being very dangerous. This leads to the deterioration of the educational system
in the Bronx, and worse education means less opportunities; thus proving the system of poverty.
The way POTS differentiates itself amongst other organization directed at alleviating
poverty in the Bronx is that it also combats the culture of poverty. Handler and Hasenfeld
explains the seven common myths about poverty. One important myth is that poverty is totally a
matter of personal responsibility, that the situations which individuals or families face are their
fault because of their own bad choices. Moreover, it is a common misconception that poverty
indicates a lack in morality, that poverty is a moral fault and that these people do not play by
the rules (H&H 18). POTS understands that this isnt the case, and does not treat any of its
beneficiaries with any of those negative stigmatizations. Because these people do not have the
resources to take part in socially deemed normal activities, like shopping at the grocery store,
POTS tries to provide them with that sense of normalcy. For example, the food pantry is treated
like a trip to the grocery store: people have a choice in their food selections, they are provided
with carts, and at the end, they have a food checkout. POTS is cleaning the mess in the Bronx
where society and the government have both had a part in. They truly lead the way in providing
a solution for the poverty issue of the Bronx.

Question #3:
Wage disparity and economic injustice are some of complicated issues facing lowincome, urban communities. Urban businesses and developers have always been profit-minded,
providing minimum wage jobs, keeping people in poverty and furthering their net gains. With
the government providing these workers with little to no support, it has often been up to the
people to put a stop to these injustices. This is the embodiment of the new accountable
development movement (NADM), where community actions fight against unfair wages (Parks

Bennett 6
and Warren 90). Two NADM actions, living wage ordinances and community benefits
agreements have proved to be helpful in this fight.
Living wage ordinances are contractually agreed employee minimum wages set for
businesses which have contracts with or receive subsidies from a local governmental body. They
work at the city or county level (B&C 82). More specifically, businesses which have contracts
with the government would include the service jobs: maintenance of government building,
cleaning streets, etc. (B&C 82). These living wage ordinances include a higher minimum wage
than the federal wage, which has proven to be too low, causing low-wage workers to spend all of
their money on living expenses, like food and housing. These ordinances allow the workers to
rise above the cycle of poverty. Essentially they provide the low-wage worker with the
breathing room that theyre deserve. These contractual mandates can often also include
required benefits, like health insurance. In addition, if the low-wage workers have more spending
power, than more money will be placed into economic circulation, rather than accumulating
amongst the high wage earners. This systematic switch reduces the large wage disparity seen in
in low income urban communities. The socioeconomic reasoning behind the living wage
ordinance campaigns is explained in Bernstein and Chapmans The Living Wage: A Progressive
Movement in Action, regarding the relationship between the business contractor and the
governmental body when an organizer stated, Its our money, and as taxpayers, wed prefer not
to subsidize low-wage employers creating lousy jobs in our city (B&C 83).
Being that these contracts are restricted to local governments they never have the same
terms. This is due to the different regional economic circumstances. In The Living Wage,
Bernstein and Chapman highlight some of the alternative factors which might influence a living
wage contract terms of what types of firms or employees are covered, which workers are

Bennett 7
covered and the nature of the coverage (B&C 82). These factors modulate the conditions of the
Living Wage Ordinance contracts. There are over 120 completely different living wage
ordinances in place, with their own regulations (B&C 82).
The flexibility of living wage ordinances is definitely one of their advantages. As
previously stated, they are able to fix their contracts to the intricate needs of the locality, rather
than abiding to the static federal minimum wage. An example of a factor which needs to be
considered in living wage contracts is the cost of housing. The Living Wage provides the
example of San Jose, California, where living wages are comparatively higher than the rest of the
nation; however, the motivation for this wage floor factors the high price of housing in Silicon
Valley into the contract. This housing market often forced low-wage workers to travel long
distances to get to their jobs (B&C 84).
In addition, for businesses which receive subsidies from the government, these
ordinances are a way for the people to regain some of this governmental investment. This return
of investment is received in the form of higher compensation for workers (B&C 83). It is stated
in a study by Virginia Parks and Dorian Warren, subsidies are often no-strings, rewards to
private capital for projects that would have been built anyway (P&W 96). However, in this way,
instead of the subsidized money accumulating amongst the highest earners, the money is put
back into the hands of the workers, increasing their spending power.
Campaigners against the installment of living wage ordinances often try to expose some
of the disadvantages of the movement. For the most part, these campaigners try to besmirch the
benefits of these ordinances, claiming that they can hurt the economy, subsequently increasing
problems like unemployment. Two common claims is that living wage ordinances will lead to
workers being laid off, because the higher wages will reduce the amount of salary space. They

Bennett 8
have also claimed that the increased wages might increase contract prices or reduce development
in the city or county. However, according to The Living Wage, in trying to prove these assertions,
evidence is inconclusive. Addressing the layoffs, a study was conducted on the effects of a living
wage ordinance in Boston; discovering that overall, the amount of available work hours was
generally unaffected (B&C 86). To disprove that ordinances decrease development, according to
a study summarizing the data of cities and counties after the implementation of ordinances, on
average the price of contracts increased around only 1% higher (B&C 86). This is because
despite ordinances, there is still profit to be made in a city with a living wage ordinance. These
businesses accept marginal profit loses, results in a decrease in the amount of profit benefitting
the developers, incidentally bolstering regional business competition (B&C 84).
The only certain disadvantage of living wage ordinances is their thin coverage.
Unfortunately, in order for campaigners to persuade local governments to pass ordinances, they
must make them more economically attractive, raising the economic fortunes of affected
workers without leading to economic distortionssignificant layoffs, tax hikes, or reduced
competition (B&C 87). Regardless of the studies which suggest that ordinances do not create
such distortions, private sector lobbyists for profit-hungry firms often have an effective hand in
politics. As a result, not many workers are provided with living wages, according to The Living
Wage, approximately only 200,000 workers are affected by a living wage out of the roughly 30
million low-wage jobs in the country (B&C 87).
Another more recent, innovative tactic in an effort to alleviate the wage crisis in low
income areas, in accordance with this NADMmaking business developers more responsible
for the livelihood of their employees, has been Community Benefits Agreements or CBAs.
CBAs are legally enforceable contracts between business developers or governmental body and a

Bennett 9
coalition of community organizations, labor groups, environmentalists or other advocacy groups
that stipulates the provision of a host of community benefits as part of a development project
(Parks and Warren 91). In providing these provisions, the coalition pledges to support the project
with their public backing, usable when the presiding governmental body considers approval of
permits of subsidies for the project (P&W 91). CBA contracts seek to provide specifically
needed assistance to systematic problems afflicting low income areas where the local
government fails to do so.
These CBA contracts can host a variety of community desires; however, the centerpiece
of all strong CBAs currently in effect is the contractual agreement of employment related
provisions. These provisions are geared to address two employment-related issues of low income
areas: job access (getting residents into jobs) and job quality (making sure that the jobs provide
decent pay) (P&W 92). Some CBA provisions which target these problems are job training for
impacted residents targeted hiring for these residents, living wages, and labor peace (P&W 90).
Job training entails that developers use funds dedicated to job training for impacted residents.
These residents are defined by those who are either geographically affected by the development
or those who generally cannot find jobs due to the system of poverty (low income workers,
special needs workers, those chronically unemployed, etc.). Job targeting ensures that workers
within the impacted community are targeted to be hired by that development project through
process which, for the most part, caters opportunities for positions to these people. As previously
mentioned, living wages ensure that workers arent only making ends meat from their
employment, but are making enough for them to rise out of the system of poverty. And lastly,
labor peace provides workers with job more job safety in the event that they want to unionize.

Bennett 10
Historically, when low wage workers attempt to unionize in an effort to gain more decent pay
and benefits, they are often illegally fired.
Strength amongst these provisional agreements outlines the criteria for an effective CBA.
In addition organization is another quality which makes an effective CBA. According to Parks
and Warren, A CBAis only as good as the organizing behind it and (it) hinges on the ability
of the coalition partners to organize and turn out their members, whether a community meeting,
a protest, or a ballot box (P&W 99). Furthermore, good organization entails deliberate research
into any of the governmental regulations which may coincide with your agreement goals or
campaign process. Another important criterion is alliance. CBAs gain strength when the join
forces with other groups; the most important of which are labor unions. According to Parks and
Warren, the backing of a labor union is a tactically valuable political partner to CBAs because
they create more leverage over the developer. Most developers projects are dependent on the
unions to set forth the building of their plans. This occurred with the Staples Center in Los
Angeles in 1999. Miguel Contreras, the president of LAs Labor Federation halted the signing on
the production of project on the behalf of five labor unions until Staples Centers developers
signed a CBA. In addition, the unions are also a valuable mobilization partner, ready to turn out
its members for the CBA in order to work towards economic justice.
Good organization and valuable alliance often times coalesce to create a robust CBA, as
Parks and Warren suggest, Strong CBAs result from carefully crafted organizing strategies that
bring together community and labor constituencies with overlapping interest and engage both
insider and outsider tactics (P&W 99). However, like living wage ordinances, CBAs fall
short in their coverage; they only benefit the workers of the development project. This is the
issue for many of the NADM practices. However, there is a silver lining, these practices like

Bennett 11
living wage ordinances and CBAs lay the groundwork for expansive economic change for the
future, working towards sweeping justice for all low-wage employees where the government
fails to do so.

Bennett 12

Works Cited
Bernstein, Jared, and Jeff Chapman. "The Living Wage: A Progressive Movement in Action."
Poverty and Race. N.p.: n.p., 2004. 82-89. Print.
CASA, comp. "The Burden Of Fees: How Affordable Housing Is Made Unaffordable." The
British Medical Journal 1.3000 (1918): 727-28. Sept. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.
<http://www.anhd.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2013-The-Burden-of-Fees-CASAUJC.pdf>.
Handler, Joel F., and Yeheskel Hasenfeld. Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality. New
York: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.
Parks, Virginia, and Dorian Warren. Journal of Community Practice. Vol. 17. Chicago: U of
Chicago, 2009. 88-106. Print.
"Part Of The Solution (POTS) Home." Part Of The Solution POTS Home Comments. N.p., n.d.
Web. 15 Dec. 2014. <http://www.potsbronx.org/>.
Roithmayr, Daria. "Locked In Segregation." University of Illinois College of Law. The Berkeley
Electronic Press, 2004. Web. 10 Dec. 2004. <http://law.bepress.com/uiuclwps/art18>.