The Double Standard

[Note: Blog posts are an ongoing series in which EEMA members explore their personal views and experiences relating to issues of development and community organizing. While the general spirit of the postings may reflect the opinions and work of EEMA the views expressed have not been reviewed or agreed to by the group as a whole.]

If you live in Bloomfield or Garfield you are no doubt familiar with the activities of organizations such as the Bloomfield-Garfield Corporation (BGC), the Friendship Development Associates (FDA), the Penn Avenue Arts Initiative (PAAI), and the like.

The various stated purposes and organizational forms vary, but in general these kinds of groups work to promote and enact a specific political perspective regarding what is good for a neighborhood and what is bad.

Sometimes they have a very specific niche, other times they purport to be general community organizations working for the good of all. In almost all cases some sectors of the population benefit significantly from their activities, the key decision-makers at the groups directly profit from their work, the folks who lose out are obscured, and there is little open debate in the community.

If you are viewed as a threat or enemy, you are no doubt aware they can make your life quite difficult. They can hold up the licenses and permits you need to do business. You may find it hard to get grants or loans. Likely, you will find yourself subjected to extra scrutiny by the police. You may be ridiculed in their media. You will find certain words used to describe your activities that imply you are undesirable and unwelcome in the neighborhood. Perhaps you’ll be asked to attend a meeting constructed to emphasize views hostile to your goals.

Sadly, almost all of the reporting and discussion of their activities is created and managed by the groups themselves. Because of this it seems it would be valuable to talk about some of the points of contention between these groups and those with different values and perspectives. One area of continual conflict is on what basis these groups have the right to create community expectations and the subsequent manner in which they discriminatorily seek to enforce them.

This double standard exists everywhere that a small number of self appointed leaders of a community and gatekeeper institutions have decided that they are special. And, because they are special, they alone should be able to create community expectations. Community expectations which they are, of course, exempted from.

Some general examples of the double-standard:
Derelict property owners are shamed by the BGC, unless the building is owned by the FDA.
Unmaintained lots are a blight on the community, unless they are owned by the BGC.
Large groups of people loudly congregating outside of Penn Aiken or Envy are loitering, while other large groups of people outside of Spak’s are just hanging out.
The cigarettes and alcohol laws related to minors must be strictly enforced for some businesses, unless the businesses are art galleries during Unblurred.
Groups are expected to follow the law on permitting and not walking in the street, unless the people in question are important (BGC/FDA/Politicians) doing a photo op tour of Garfield.
Some flyers and stickers on government owned property are considered vandalism and complaints are made, unless, for instance, they advertise an Unblurred event at Assemble.
Various code violations are apparent during events that BGC staff are present at, but are not called in.

Over the last few months members of our group have received a number of complaints that seem to originate from this double standard. Some folks are angry that they are being singled out while others get a free pass. Some residents are irritated at inconveniences originating with specific events and establishments. To look at a small piece of this puzzle let’s look at some specific examples from the most recent Unblurred. The point of this is simply to illustrate activities and decisions that are discussed and criticized by the organizations in question when they occur in other contexts.

The open door set-up at Most Wanted Fine Art (MWFA) meant music was audible from blocks away.
At different points in the night the sidewalk was completely blocked outside Spak, MWFA, and Roboto.
On three separate occasions we observed people who didn’t seem to be attending the events choose to walk in the street rather than try to make their way through the crowd.
There were a large number of clearly overly intoxicated people loudly wandering around as it got later, a large percentage of which appeared well underage.
Large numbers of people were parking on the Bloomfield streets that lead into Penn, despite an ample number of empty parking spaces on Penn Avenue.
People continually littered despite garbage cans being nearby.
Capacity limits being obviously ignored

The next day, there were beer cans on window sills, hundreds of cigarette butts for blocks from Mathilda to Atlantic, dozens of ATM slips strewn on the sidewalk, numerous empty disposable wine cups, uneaten slices of pizza, broken glass on the sidewalk, pop bottles, crumpled up flyers, and empty food containers.

One can easily imagine the reaction of these community groups to an event with a similar footprint if this was not Unblurred, or if the demographic composition of the folks in attendance was different, and if the organizers and establishments involved were not the favored ones.

This is however the double standard at play. And as these organizations are unlikely to stop trying to manage and control everyone else the least they can do is be consistent. It’s important to suggest positive steps alongside criticism, so, at the risk of stating the obvious, here are some ways Unblurred could be brought in line with the rhetoric of its patrons.

First, encourage attendees to allow other people to use the sidewalks; they belong to everyone in the community. There are times when it is justifiable and necessary to block the sidewalk, but when it is not please allow other people to pass through without having to walk in the road.

Second, clean up after yourselves. Any organization putting on a static event should make some kind of good faith effort to clean up afterwards. The same broken glass has been littering the sidewalk in front of Roboto for two weeks. This is just embarrassing. Please don’t take this as an invitation to double the PAAI/FDA emails imploring residents of Garfield to come help pick up Penn. Why shouldn’t the people who directly benefit from these events have to do the cleaning themselves? Having a clean-up day right before Unblurred is laughable, it just means you’re making things look nice for a bunch of people preparing to make another big mess.

Thirdly, make some kind of effort to mitigate the risks of drunk driving, especially for underage drinkers. Bus service in Pittsburgh is poor. There is no more UV loop. You’ve got hundreds of people from outside the area coming in and many are getting wasted. Implement some measures that encourage people to have designated drivers and some way to spot people who need to stop drinking. This is a risk to residents in the area and anyone else on the road.

Fourth, emphasize to attendees the desirability of parking on Penn Avenue and stop taking up all the spaces in the Bloomfield side of Penn. If someone feels safe enough to attend an event on Penn there’s no reason they shouldn’t feel safe enough to park their car nearby.

Fifth, close your doors if you’re going to have loud music. There’s no excuse to unnecessarily subject neighbors to this, even if you think your music is hella sweet. MWFA needs to keep their garage door set-up closed and other venues should ask people to shut the door when they’re talking to friends or getting some air.