The beginnings of private interests in public space:

Condemning the growing trend placing more and more public amenity and open space in private hands, Low describes the history behind the American phenomena of widespread gated communities and their appropriation of public open space from the wider community. Citing racism as the introduction of the gated residential community as a viable and socially acceptable option (Low, p.87), the trend has only escalated with the establishment of zoning laws, local police patrols and quiet laws that encourage the desire for seclusion and class segregation. Pronounced as the ‘impoverishment of the public realm’, Low quotes 16 million Americans living in gated communities in 1998 (Low, p.86), illustrating the degree in which the precedence of gated communities have infiltrated settlement patterns throughout the United States.

What is the ‘gated community’?

Gated residential communities are owned by private developers providing private policing of their premises and allowing only ‘a certain public’ to use its privatized public facilities (Low, p.83). Contained within these walls is restricted access to public spaces and services such as the streets, parks and facilities all closed off from non-residents with entrance gates operated by a guard, key or electronic identity card (Low, p.84). For these reasons, public resources within these gated premises cannot actually be considered as for the public use, since access is not open to non-residents.

The appeal of the gated community:

There are a number of reasons explaining the appeal of the gated community that contribute to the phenomenal trend of gated communities in America. Providing a separation between the upper-middle-classes and lower income population, gaining entrance has become the distinction between the ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ classes. The suburban designs of gated communities also enable people of different income groups to have virtually no contact with one another – deemed as the desirable end as shown in the emergence of the ‘pod’, ‘enclave’ and ‘cul-de-sac’ designs of the 1900s. Advertisements promoted the security, exclusiveness, and ‘extraordinary level of amenities’ at the centre of these new walled cities (Low, p.88).

These additional amenities are catered to by the planning regulations themselves. With incentive zoning packages for common interest development housing (ie. gated communities), these incentives allow developers to maximize their profits by building to a higher density on land that has been zoned low-density (Low, p.88). This is exactly what developers want and contributes to being the preferred developmental option in the US. The justification for this zoning is that the public will be the beneficiary of additional open space or public amenities achieved through increased housing density and other zoning concessions’ granted to large scale developments (Low, p.96). The result is a sad indication of reality.

The reality of the gated community:

Low accuses gated communities of taking public open space and amenities and using them for private interests, and by using taxpayers’ money to maintain infrastructure, private parks, tennis courts, club houses, and swimming pools without nongated residents being able to enjoy any of these superior amenities they are helping to upkeep. Low quotes the example of Hidden Hills, a gated community the size of a city, which placed its ‘city hall’ outside the gates so that they would not have to be opened to admit non-residents. With literally no enhancement of useable public space or amenities for nongated residents, Low compares taxpayers as unwittingly ‘trading higher-density housing for privatized open spaces and reduced public amenities (Low, p.96)’, as well as helping to subsidize the very creation of their loss of amenity.

Another example Low uses to highlight the unfair advantage gated communities enjoy in funding is the $30 million loan taken out by one such gated community for parks, roads and beautification of its neighbourhoods, only to be too expensive for gated community taxpayers to repay. The entire municipality (including nongated community residents) ended up paying for it (Low, p.94).

In spite of this, Low argues that gated communities are actually looked upon favourably by municipalities and states who do not have to provide and maintain infrastructure, amenities and facilities, but still be able to collect property taxes from residents (Low, p.88). Low attributes the rise of private communities (gated and nongated) as a response to the ‘inability of local governments to supply services in rapidly growing areas (Low, p.96)’, where the private housing market has been forced to intervene and provide for communities.

Gated communities are now lobbying for rebates on the triple taxation occurring for some (homeowners association fee, county and city taxes), and even rebates on taxes paid to maintain public roads (Low, p.99). If they are successful, it will mean that gated community residents can use public highways, parks and services without having to pay for them.

Questions:

• The concept of gated communities: how appealing does it seem? would you like to live in one?
• Are gated communities justified in taking over public open space and amenity?
• Is it fair to require residents to pay for municipal expenditures they do not use (or which does not lie within their gated community)?

Reference:

Low, S. 2005, "How Private Interests take over public space: zoning, taxes and incorporation of gated communities", The Politics of Public Space, ed. Low, S., Smith, N., Routledge, New York, ch5 (23p)

10. Services 13th May, 2008 02:41:33   [#] 

Comments

Low, S. 2006, `How Private Interests Take Over Public Space`
Low details in this article some of the reasons why the residents prefer to live in a gated community. The gardens, roads and other facilities and amenities do not need to be shared and this gives the residents an all exclusive feeling.
If I had children the idea of allowing the people who only live within these walls to use the parks will be very comforting. The concept of gated communities does feel appealing because it allows residents to feel safe and special. Other consequences of gated communities outweigh the benefits it creates. Social segregation begins to develop and you begin creating areas and parts of cities which virtually become inaccessible for people who do not call these gated communities home.

If individuals where not required to pay for municipal expenditures they did not use or which did not lie within their gated community then the argument can be switched over and people that do not live in gated communities would not have to pay for expenditure that is for gated communities. But I do not see the logic of people paying for expenditure within gated communities if outside residents are not allowed to go inside and use their facilities. The example Low gave proves that non-gated communities have to pay for the cost of maintaining amenities within the gated communities when funding is not provided.
My opinion for the reason why gated communities are popular is that these groups do see living in these non-gated communities as be safe. In certain countries like Brazil and Indonesia, these gated communities are guarded by security personal that actually have automatic guns. In countries were police cannot guarantee the safety of all its citizens, people are forced to live in these gated communities to foster a sense of protection.

B.T. (Bachir Tanios)  13th May, 2008 13:00:02  

Gated communities
I really think that gated communities are a bad thing. And that they dont establish within in Ausrtalia to the extent they have in the US, that's one they can keep for themselves.
I think that it was allowed to exist over there through weak social policies and poor efforts of local governments to integrate communities.
Sam Finch  13th May, 2008 20:09:36  

Low, S. 2006, `How Private Interests Take Over Public Space`
Two readings this week discuss the exclusion and segregation of people within a society. Looking at the Low article which discusses 'Gated Communities' the view that I come to is that this is a very controversial subject which consists of both pros and cons. The pros unfortunately only involve one group of people and not the whole society, and that is the people living enclosed the walls of the ‘gated community’. ‘Gated communities’ are simply not beneficial for the whole of society, they are only beneficial for those who can afford it which is such a small group of people. Ultimately they lead to alienation and divisions forming within communities. The fact is however we do not live in a communist society, those who can afford it and want to live in these enclosed societies can and will. The problem I find with the Low article is the fact that these people cant actually afford to live in these societies, that the tax-payer and people living outside the divisional walls have to subsidize the ‘gated communities’ which is totally unacceptable! In my opinion ‘gated communities’ will continue to exist and probably flourish as more people grow suspicious and in some cases a little frightened of the communities they live in and feel that the safety these ‘communities’ provide is a better option for their family. Unfortunately for them this is not the real world!
Vanessa  14th May, 2008 11:45:53  

low
A gated community is an example of those people in society that really want to shut themselves off from everyone else. I would certainly not want to live in a gated community, and realistically, only a small section of society does as well. I certainly think that it is fair that residents pay for municipal expenditures that they do not use. They would use something that others don’t use etc, so all in all, everyone end up with the same costs and benefits. Gated communities should have an extra tax!
c123  16th May, 2008 22:38:30  

Low, S. 2006, `How Private Interests Take Over Public Space`
The concept behind the gated community i guess involves, exclusivity (is this a word), class and saftey, sort of like a special club for special people. To some it may seem like being a part of a community, or not being left out. Personally i see gated communities as quite snobbish and possibly very exclusive in terms of socio economic factors and race, however the concept of living in one makes me feel like i would be safe and secure - that is being in one.

They can justify taking over public space and amenity if they acquire it legally and financially. If someone is willing to pay for some thing, why deprive them of it?

The last point i can parallel to that of the whole debate on whether we should all contribute to maternity leave. Seriously, if we start picking out every single thing we do not need to pay and what we need to pay for, it will be a complete mess.

Smokers who refuse to pay for maternity leave, then i should choose to not pay taxes which looks after them when they get cancer, it just doesnt work out. Ultimately, we will be paying for things we need and dont need and, NEED to remeber that at the end of the day someone else is paying soemthing WE need in which THEY may not need.


LN  29th May, 2008 17:43:46