If It's Good Enough for Rockefeller

On Sept. 15 I attended a meeting here in Portland about fighting foreclosure in our neighborhoods. Present were representatives from citizens’ groups and a representative from the attorney general’s office. At the end of it, I had an idea about how we can turn the situation around. It depends on a legal precedent set by the Rockefellers. Hey, if it worked for them, it can work for us!

Facing astronomical foreclosure rates, dropping property values, and still-rising unemployment rates, what can we do? What if we get the states to take foreclosed properties that are sitting empty back from the banks—as they do for large commercial development projects—and fix them up for people who have lost their homes in the current economy? Oregon can’t afford to do this alone, but could partner with groups like Habitat for Humanity. Prospective residents who aren’t disabled could invest via sweat equity.

The Situation 

Even if you can’t stand numbers, please bear with me while I throw a few out there, because this will give you an idea of the size of the problem.

At the Sept. 15 meeting, I was told that the foreclosure rate is three times higher than it was during the Great Depression. Yes, it really is. This is according to the National Consumer Law Center.

The Case-Schiller Home Price Index (published by Standard & Poors) shows a decline in property values of 29% for the Portland area, and a 33% decline for the 20 cities they track. This was as of March 31. According to the Oregonian (March 8, 2011) 23.1 % of Oregonians owed more than their homes were worth. It’s even worse in some other states. Per a Bloomberg report on real estate, on May 9, 2011, 28% of mortgages in the U.S. were underwater. Figures went as high as 85% in Las Vegas and 73% in Reno.

The official unemployment rate is holding steady at 9.1%, while the actual total number of unemployed is 16.2% and rising. What’s the difference? The official rate tracks people who are unemployed and actively looked for work in the last four weeks. Total unemployed includes people who were too discouraged to continue looking and those who took part-time jobs or work well below their capacity (for example, flipping burgers instead of doing construction work).  Both figures are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 2011. There are five unemployed people for every job opening (NY Times, March 11, 2011).

If you’re out of work, you can’t pay the mortgage. That sends the foreclosure rate up, flooding the market with distressed properties.

The federal government made a lot of noise about a program to help homeowners, but they relied on voluntary action from the banks. I was told at the meeting that only 5% of borrowers have had their loans permanently modified.

At this point, it is important to remember that the banks wrote one fraudulent mortgage after another. They continue to write fraudulent foreclosure documents and have them signed by people who don’t even read them. And the government bailed out those same banks with billions of dollars of our tax money.

Even if you aren't out of work, underwater, or facing foreclosure, the situation has consequences for you and your home. When the banks foreclose on a home in your community, and nobody buys it because nobody can afford to anymore, the house sits vacant. The lawn becomes a waist-high jungle of thistles and dandelions. The building deteriorates. Leaks aren’t repaired, so rain may damage walls and floors. Thieves may break in and rip out copper pipe, appliances, or anything they can sell. They may even use the house as a hideout, meth lab, or base for fencing stolen goods. The value of every neighbor’s property continues to plummet, and everyone in the community is endangered, homeowner or not.

If you rent your home, and the bank forecloses on your landlord’s property, you can stay until the end of your lease. If you have no lease, you may have to leave within 90 days. In either case you will not be reimbursed for relocation costs. (This is according to the “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act,” signed by Pres. Obama in 2009.)

Overall, a grim picture. So what can we do?

The Proposed Solution

Not many people know that the land used for the World Trade Center was acquired by eminent domain. David Rockefeller wanted to build the towers, which would increase the value of his other assets in the area, such as the Chase Manhattan Bank building. As his brother Nelson was governor of New York, Rockefeller was able to get the state to take over the properties that were in his way. Hundreds of small businesses were displaced. Some of them fought the proposal all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Court refused to take the case.

What if our state takes over foreclosed-upon houses, and fixes them up for people who need them?

Nobody likes the idea of eminent domain. Very often it displaces homeowners or destroys thriving businesses, as it did in New York City. But the houses lost to foreclosure aren’t thriving. By evicting residents and leaving the houses vacant, the banks are acting to destroy communities.

The State of Oregon, no doubt like many other states, has no money to restore distressed properties. However, the state could cooperate with partners such as Habitat for Humanity, whose purpose is to build housing for, and with, the people who need it. People who want to live in the houses repossessed from the banks could put in sweat equity.

These houses should be reserved for people who have lost their homes through unemployment, disability, or outright fraud by the banks. They should not be made available to speculators—many of whom are already gobbling up foreclosed-upon homes at fire sale prices.

The banks will oppose this project, of course. They are likely to make exorbitant demands, for instance that the taxpayers reimburse them for the total amount of the mortgage rather than the actual value of the slum they’ve created. The mission and purpose of a bank is to conserve, and increase, its profit. They can't, and won't, let one penny go without a fight. In recent years, we have had ample reminders that a bank has no capacity to care whether Americans live on the street, or whether our neighborhoods rot. We can't expect any cooperation from the banks unless there is some way for them to profit from the project, either directly or in terms of marketing and public relations.

At the foreclosure meeting on Thursday, I proposed the idea—of acquiring foreclosed houses by eminent domain and working with Habitat for Humanity—to one of State Senator Chip Shields’ aides, Mary Briggs. She was enthusiastic, and has arranged a meeting for me with Senator Shields on October 12. I will also be sending this proposal to my local Representative, Tina Kotek, and trying to arrange a meeting with her.

What Can You Do to Help?

If you live in Oregon, send an email to Senator Shields at sen.chipshields@state.or.us and tell him you support this idea. Send another to Rep. Kotek, at rep.tinakotek@state.or.us. The more people who support it, the better chance it has of becoming a reality. If you live in another state, meet with one of your legislators and propose something similar.

Our Bodies Our Selves?

A recent article in the New York Times reported on transgender women, born male, who couldn’t afford the surgery they so desperately desired. They paid “pumpers” to inject silicone into their cheeks, buttocks, and chests so that they would look more like women. The injections might cost up to $20,000.  The pumpers, of course, were not licensed medical professionals. The equipment wasn’t always sterile. The silicone was sometimes industrial rather than medical grade, and because it was not encased in an elastomer shell it began to migrate throughout the body. (Even medically-approved breast implants can rupture and the silicone can migrate.) Some of these people died. Others were left disfigured, permanently disabled, or in constant pain.

Although the Times didn’t mention it, I’m fairly sure that transgender advocates would say that health insurance should cover the surgery as it is a medical necessity and should be available to everyone who needs it, not just the wealthy. In other articles appearing around the country, transgender prisoners are suing their states for this purpose.

In Portland, Oregon, where I live, an FTM is suing his insurance company. He has undergone some medical procedures and self-injects with testosterone, but still has ovaries. As a result, he is at high risk for ovarian cancer—the deadliest of gynecological cancers—and wants the insurer to pay for removal of those organs. Portland's mayor is backing a proposal to have the city pay for sex reassignment surgery for its employees.

The last article I’d like to mention appeared in Just Out, Portland’s LGBT newspaper. The story is about a little girl who started calling herself a boy and played only with boys. When she was ten, the mother took her to a “trans therapist", who said, “You have a little boy there.” As a result, the child was given a boy’s name and allowed to use the boys’ bathroom at school.

I don’t want to see desperate people dying at the hands of pumpers or from ovarian cancer. I believe we all have the right to decide what to do with our own bodies. However, I also believe that “transgender” is a cultural issue, not a medical one, and calls for cultural change, not a medical solution. Even with the best medical care, there are long-term consequences to removing healthy organs and injecting yourself with estrogen or testosterone.

In my youth, in the 1950s, I rebelled against a society that valued women only insofar as we measured up to the standard of beauty set by Hollywood and the advertising industry. We were expected to torture ourselves with extreme diets, girdles, nylons, spike heels, hair curlers that you had to wear throughout the night, eyebrow tweezers, razors, and deodorants. The ideal was to look and smell like a Barbie doll.

Women who could afford it tried to match their bodies to the cultural standard via plastic surgery. Jewish women of my generation were pressured to mutilate our noses so that we would look more like gentile women. Most of those who had nose jobs said they felt much better about themselves afterward.

Even more important than her appearance, a woman had to behave in certain ways:  don’t be too assertive, don’t be better at math than your brother, and don’t apply for an executive position.

In the 1950s, the concepts of male and female were grounded in a philosophical notion called essentialism. (I always hated philosophy in college, and I expect that some of you readers will, too. But please be patient with me here, because this turns out to be important.) Essentialism meant that you born with certain characteristics. A woman, for example, was naturally endowed with psychological passivity, and a preference for frilly pink blouses and secretarial work. If you didn’t express those characteristics in your behavior, you weren’t a real woman.

In the 1950s and for most of the 1960s, anyone who didn’t dress and behave in a gender-appropriate manner risked social ostracism, loss of employment, imprisonment, electroshock therapy, rape, and even murder. These days, people aren’t imprisoned or committed to psychiatric institutions for their sexuality, but gays are still vulnerable to all the other consequences. Transgender people suffer more than any other group from the cultural fear and hatred of sexual difference.

A generation ago, the child who was taken to the trans therapist might have turned out to be a butch lesbian. Now I expect that when she hits puberty, she will be considered for surgery and hormones. (I can’t bring myself to use the pronoun he in this situation.)

As a parent, I am frightened by this kind of early pigeonholing, and even more frightened by the medical consequences of early intervention. But I also remember the child that I was—a little girl who liked science. There were times when I wanted to be a boy, because I didn’t fit in with the girls, and because the options for women were so limited back then. Female relatives often said, “You should have been a boy.” If I were growing up now, I might feel pressured to accept a transgender designation. Instead, with the support of the women’s movement, I helped create space for women like me.

The feminist rebellion of the 60s and 70s was grounded in an opposing philosophical notion called constructionism. That is, all the characteristics society has attributed to women are constructed by the culture we live in. In plain English, feminist ideology said that someone born with a female body is a real woman no matter how she presents herself, who she does or doesn’t have sex with, or what she does for a living. The same is true for someone born in a male body.

The popular culture, though, is still wedded to essentialism. Liberal columnists—including female ones—went after the first female presidential candidate in language that reeked of sexism. For example, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times said that Hillary Clinton’s “message is unapologetically emasculating” and the Times news staff spent some time analyzing the “Clinton cackle.”

Despite the economic downturn, women are still paying doctors to “improve” their looks, whether by implanting silicone packets in their breasts or paralyzing their facial muscles with Botox. (Men also pay for cosmetic surgery, but in much smaller numbers.) Per the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 9.5 million cosmetic procedures were performed in 2010. This is down from 11.7 million in 2007, but the Society expects these numbers to rebound if the economy improves. Please note that this does not include plastic surgery for birth defects or deformities resulting from accidents.

I have met transgender people who were much happier after surgery. From a psychological standpoint, they were better adjusted. Like the women who had nose jobs and breast augmentations, they felt better about themselves afterwards. Each of them has only one life, and I would not want to deny them their chance at happiness. The question remains, though: what kind of society are they adjusting to? An essentialist society—one that says some dress and behavior is inherently male and other dress and behavior is inherently female—is profoundly anti-feminist. And that’s the society we have, despite some superficial changes in the last forty years.

Essentialism says that if your personality doesn’t conform to the cultural norm for someone with genitals like yours, change your body.

Constructionism/feminism tells us to learn to be at home in the bodies we have, and demand the right to be the kind of persons we are. It means that we throw our energy into changing the cultural norms. And since nobody can accomplish these tasks alone, feminism also tells us we must organize to transform society rather than seek individual medical solutions to our discomfort in the world.