Pittsburgh: A communique from a cold night at The Take space

Authored by: nostalgia on Monday, October 26 2009 @ 12:23 AM UTC

Go GPAC! Fuck the haters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: thatveiledgazell on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:06 PM UTC

As anarchists, we have a philosophical critique of private property and many of its implications. However, in the world we inhabit, pretty much all of us own property to one extent or another. Say, for example, that you have the privilege of owning a nice bicycle. Yes, you may be lucky to be in this position. You may also believe that in a perfect world everyone should have a bicycle. But you have this bicycle, and if you lend it to someone in good faith, you might be annoyed if it turned out they had no intention of returning it as originally agreed.

In our case, the property we own is a building. This building is a mixed commercial and residential property with an apartment, a storefront, and two other sections in various states of (dis)repair and usability. At the time we bought it (2006), the radical community was still reeling from the loss of project 1877 three years previously. However, despite several large meetings for the purpose of forming a similar collective, everyone was too busy to commit to a project of that scale. The years went by and we did what we could to fix up the space ourselves, until in 2008 when GPAC approached us to use the space. Because of our interest in anarchist projects and our inability to fully utilize the space ourselves, we made an agreement with GPAC that they could use the storefront space for a year, beginning on November 1, 2008. Originally we hoped we could participate in the space in an equal role within the collective, but GPAC was very intent on having their collective closed. We agreed to act only as the building owners with no stake in the group we would share our living space with. The terms of the agreement were that they would fix the raw, currently unusable space up to a code-legal state before opening to the public, that they would consult with James (one of the owners, and an experienced builder) about how to do this, and that they would not do anything illegal in the space. These conditions were required by us in order to feel physically safe sharing the building and also risking our potential legal liability as owners. In addition, GPAC was to pay 1/5 of the annual property taxes on the building (based on the fact that they were using 1/5 of the total building space) and a 1/5 of the utility costs for the first floor (far less than the total amount used by their project). These payments did not constitute rent, as we did not profit from them at all, and did not intend to. Most importantly, it was repeatedly stated by us and agreed to by GPAC representatives in official meetings and in our written contract that this year was a trial period of sorts, and that while we might choose to continue the arrangement after a year, we might also choose to discontinue it FOR ANY REASON. We brought up then that our employment was very uncertain, and that the building was expensive to keep up with at all, and that we might need to move. At the time of this agreement, no objections were raised, and GPAC seemed pleased with the opportunity to take on this challenge.

Several months into the year, it seemed that work was going very slowly in the GPAC space. At this point we had another meeting and voluntarily agreed to extend GPAC's lease for two more months, until the end of 2009, because we we're worried that they would not have as much time to make full use of the space as they had originally hoped. Our only additional stipulation, which was agreed to at the time, was that they would take over full utility costs for their space during this final two month period, as we didn't feel we could afford to cover additional expenses any longer than the year, especially because the additional period would be in the winter (heating just our 19' x 32' apartment is exorbitant in the winter and the 13 foot ceilings of the first floor are out of our budget). We also raised a concern at this point that GPAC could be unsatisfied with the use they got out of the space in relation to the effort they were putting in (based on how long it was taking) and we reminded them that they could withdraw from the project at any time if they felt that their potentially limited tenure wasn't worth the effort. At that point several months in they had only managed a handful of work days. However, GPAC decided to continue with the renovations at this point and open the space. Their goal for opening kept getting pushed back, but eventually it happened.

There are various additional critiques that we've had with the actions of GPAC, and that GPAC has had of us. At the very least, communication between the two groups has not been ideal. It seems relatively meaningless to hash out these details in a public statement, as they're somewhat beside the point...the relevant points being, from our perspective, that:

1. Things aren't working out between the two groups. There is obviously not a relationship of mutual trust. We, the owners, don't feel like we have had a good working relationship with GPAC, and GPAC's recent statements on the subject of the space (in addition to their actions and comments for some time) indicate that they also aren't comfortable with us. Our perspective is that we believe in very different tactical approaches (as well as, to some extent, ideologies. We're not insurrectionists, and while we believe in a diversity of tactics, sometimes those tactics really seem to clash when combined in a small space). This is not intended as an objective judgement on GPAC and the value of its activities, but a statement about our comfort level in being involved with them. We're kind of amazed that they seem to want to continue to exist in close proximity, considering their recent claims that we're worse than normal landlords. This is hard to believe, but if true, we encourage the group to enter a standard for-profit rental agreement with another property owner in the area and hope that this arrangement is more satisfactory to them.

2. We want to sell the building so that our family can move to a small house. The thought of living in one room with two children seems unsustainable, and the financial burden of continuing to exist in 5001 is too much to shoulder. Even though we own the building, we have to pay ~$700/month in taxes and utilities. That's before any maintenance or repairs on this old, big-ass building. We considered trying to rent some of the spaces so that we could afford to move without selling the building and allow certain projects to continue taking place there, but the philosophical and practical issues of becoming ACTUAL landlords are completely unappealing. This strikes us as somewhat ironic because GPAC seemed to object to our privileged status as owners of the building they have been inhabiting, but now they object to us wanting them out so we can get out of that position of ownership. GPAC has expressed theoretical interest in renting the space, but again, it would require us being actual landlords... and the disdain they have for us when we only ask a pittance of the money they cost us would only likely multiply if they were paying more. It's for this reason we haven't bothered to collect even the 1/5th we originally agreed to. They've also expressed interest in buying the building, which initially we were not very interested in due to concerns about our impressions that they were becoming a divisive and aggressive presence within the neighborhood, but we've come around on this point and are now willing to sell to anyone who intends to use the building personally rather than speculate on its increasing real estate value. In a second ironic twist, we've taken some heat for daring to consider choosing certain buyers over others based on our opinions about their politics, but we're pretty sure that GPAC wouldn't wish us to sell to developers, who would probably pay the best. Incidentally, our consideration of discriminating between buyers at all was never based on the belief that we know better than anyone else what's best for all the stakeholders in the neighborhood, but on the fact that, like it or not, we were in the position of having to choose and felt we should possibly do so based on our best effort. We certainly don't envy the next owners of the building who will step into this position. Also, GPAC wants the power to choose who uses the space themselves... so suggesting we're wrong for considering the impact of which buyer we select feels a little hypocritical to us. Their main argument for them getting to choose seems to be that there are more of them than there are of us. Is a bigger group always better at making complex calls than a smaller group? If so, why is GPAC a closed group with a small decision-making body at it's center?

The last thing we want to address here is the class elephant in the room. To a large extent we feel that this is irrelevant to the current situation, but it has been repeatedly brought up by GPAC, which constantly claims solidarity with working people, so we want to be clear on this point. We are a couple with a young child, expecting another in February, and we work just like most people to get by. James does construction work within an egalitarian business structure that he organized, Laura does copywriting when time permits, and we both take odd jobs when we can get them. During the period we have owned this building and hoped to use it as a helpful community resource, we have rarely owned a working vehicle, often lacked health insurance, and at times lived from month to month with no savings and no guarantee of work. For those who aren't familiar with the area, in Pittsburgh it is often cheaper to buy property than to rent, so this certainly shouldn't be enough to stigmatize us. It's undeniably true that at one point we were privileged to have the funds to buy this building. It's also true that we've always tried to use whatever resources we feel we can spare to support our community and the radical causes we believe in, and we frequently donate our time and energy as well as sharing material resources to further this goal.

We didn't intend to comment further on the specific financial issues involved here, but as GPAC statements have repeatedly brought up these details, we want to set a few things straight. We were able to buy the building because several years ago (2004) we received a generous financial gift from a friend. When this occurred, we had some misgivings because of the potential fallout from this (such as this situation!), and we strongly questioned the best course to take. At this time, we consulted many other anarchists about what they would do if they, for example, won the lottery, and while almost all professed their interest in supporting radical projects, most also indicated that caring for friends and family and buying property or land would be high on their lists. We thought about many options: should we donate all or most of the money to organizations? Hand out a dollar to each person we met on the street until it was all gone (the most equitable)? In the end, we gave quite a bit to friends and local projects we supported to do anything of their choosing, did some traveling (partially for work training), bought some things we wanted and needed (primarily equipment for our work, including music), and ended up living through some times of slow work availability. However, the largest chunk of the money went into purchasing a commercial property for ~$60,000, which we hoped to use for community purposes. At the time, we had previously owned a very inexpensive house (under $20,000) that we lived in with housemates, but eventually due to increasing violence including deadly shootings on our block, we decided to sell that house (for zero profit), put the proceeds of the sale directly into fixing up the building to a livable state, and move to the third floor of the commercial space. While we never wanted to live in the building, since moving in, we've spent another ~$20,000 in paid labor and material improvements to the building including completely repairing the water and drain systems for the building, replacing the roof, and removing two dumpsters of debris, etc... James has personally put in about six months of hard labor on the building, often working from the time he woke up to when he went to sleep at night so that we could safely live here more quickly. This is much more work than members of GPAC, collectively, have ever contributed to the space. Our current hope in selling the building is to walk away from the sale with between $80,000 and $100,000, or in essence to at least get out the $80,000 that we put in and get up to $20,000 compensation for James' half year of hard labor. We have never included any increased value from GPACs renovations in our calculations, as we have no interest in profiting from this. If anyone believes that GPAC's statements that we intend to sell the building for three times what we paid for it due to gentrification are more accurate than our claims, we can provide complete documentation of the price we paid initially and the price we are asking, and partial documentation of the materials and labor we've put into the space. Aside from concern that whoever buys the building from us may be looking to flip the building and capitalize on inflation, we have no interest in artificially increasing property values in the area. The work we did wasn't for luxuries in the building, but again, simple necessities, hazard removal (lots of lead), water, gas and electrical work, roof, etc...

We realize that overall our situation isn't the most ideologically pure, but we have had to approach our decisions as human questions rather than just anarchist questions. Should we have turned down the money that was offered to us? Possibly, but we don't believe that most people including activists would have made that choice. Should we have shared the money with a group, or should we share it more fully now? Maybe, but if we had/did, that group certainly wouldn't be GPAC. It's odd to us that the entitlement GPAC now seems to feel to the space is based on a combination of our willing contribution and their construction work (by which standard we should still be more entitled, since we have done much more work). We ask anyone who owns property or a savings account and prefers to control the contents of it until a new social order is established to consider how comfortable they feel determining a precise financial cutoff above which these principles should no longer apply, and in particular to consider the merits of setting the bar for automatic class enmity as low as a family with up to $100,000 in total assets including home equity. (If this is within an unacceptable range, how much lower does that range extend? $50,000 per family? $10,000? The associated implication that renting is morally superior to buying property since the payments go to a landlord permanently and don't build up equity for the occupant is also somewhat baffling.) Fundamentally, the fact is that this building is our home, in addition to whatever else it might be, and up to this point we have been voluntarily sharing it. Yes, we're lucky that due to circumstance we may have the opportunity to sell it and move, which we realize isn't an opportunity open to everyone (although we're fairly certain that some mobility of living situation is a privilege available to most members of GPAC). But considering the fact that we're soon to be a family of four currently living in a one-room apartment and aspiring to move to a modest house in a working-class neighborhood (one with less danger of gentrification), we feel that the disrespect we're getting for this decision is highly disproportionate at best (and we wonder how many of our detractors voluntarily share a room with three roommates so they'll have more resources to spare for activist work).

Critiques and conflicts notwithstanding, we have made no efforts to end the verbal/written agreement early, despite GPAC violating many of the terms themselves, often involving legal and safety issues. We gave them three months warning of our decision to leave. We hope that this situation can be resolved peacefully although it is becoming increasingly nerve-wracking to live in close proximity a group that clearly considers us the enemy and utilizes aggressive tactics. We have never used lawyers, police, or development organizations to intimidate or act against GPAC in any way, and have no interest in doing so. We're not sure why this implication is being tossed around, as it is completely unfounded. In fact, our limited interactions with developers and police have been 100% in support of GPAC's effort...we've fielded a lot of complaints from people in the neighborhood, local organizations and developers about GPAC, but always asserted that GPAC was attempting to be a community service organization with a commitment to local concerns. We wanted this collaboration to work out, but clearly it hasn't. Over the years in question we have always tried to freely share the resources under our control that we felt we should spare, and for the most part all we've gotten in return is a lot of further expense, personal attacks, and worry. We wholeheartedly wish that we had chosen a group more trustworthy than GPAC to collaborate with in such a fundamental way, regret that we are now likely to be hated by people we haven't even met, and believe that we are being singled out as terrible offenders primarily because we're an easy target.

(This is a long statement as it stands, and would be much longer had we gone in depth into all the specific issues raised by both sides. We've tried to be slightly brief and to the point, but we are willing to discuss any aspect of this subject in depth with any seriously interested party. We believe that most of GPAC's criticisms of us are unfounded and many of their statements have been downright false.)

[ Reply to This | # ]