Neoliberal Governance and Uneven Development in Jersey City

Abstract

In 2015, Jersey City was once again in midst of a round of economic development creating more jobs and housing. A news release from mayor's office described construction of 6,000 housing units along with 18,000 underway as, the greatest construction activity in City's history. It also noted that city added 9,000 jobs in construction, small businesses and corporations resulting in a decline in unemployment rate from 10.6%to 6.5%. Also highlighted was creation of 150 small businesses including 50 restaurants. At same time, it was noted that: While growing jobs and attracting businesses, Jersey City has also enacted ordinances such as earned paid sick leave, prevailing wage, stricter [tax] abatement compliance, and project labor agreements to ensure that all Jersey City shares in benefit (Jersey City 2015).In citing steps it has taken to spread benefits of growth more broadly, mayor's office was emphasizing that this stage of redevelopment would be more inclusive than those in past. For decades redevelopment has divided city with most investment going to its waterfront creating corporate jobs and housing for newly arrived professional workers. A tale of two emerged as a common refrain in public discourse by those feeling excluded from benefits of growth (Donohue 1999; Jacobs 2001; Frasca 2007; McDonald 2014; Morgan 2015).However, while current administration may be doing more than previous ones to spread gains of growth more broadly, its overall topdown approach to redevelopment is similar in perpetuating major inequities. Most of new jobs are corporate jobs being relocated to Jersey City while most of housing is market rate luxury housing unaffordable for most residents. Subsidized with tax breaks, they are main drivers of economic development following a pattern of uneven and unequal development over three decades. This is result of a neoliberal approach to governing in which elected officials continue to give major corporations and developers a free hand in deciding what gets built, where, how and for whom. This paper is an attempt to document some of ways in which neoliberal policies have been implemented and contested in Jersey City.UNEVEN DEVELOPMENTThe concept of uneven development derives from Marxist theories of capitalist development and is used today by urban geographers and other social scientists to describe disparate impact of investment and disinvestment on cities. Some neighborhoods prosper while others decline as capital flows into those that promise highest rate of return for investors. The uneven development that results affects well-being and life chances of residents as those in more affluent areas have greater access to better jobs, housing schools and safe streets than those in poorer sections of city (Gottdiener and Hutchinson 2011). You don't have to walk or drive very far in most cities to see examples of this.The uneven impact of redevelopment in Jersey City, which has waxed and waned for more than three decades, can be seen in current Census figures. Almost a quarter of households have incomes under $25,000 a year while nearly a third have less than $35,000 and over 40 percent have incomes under $50,000 a year. On other hand, over 40 percent of households earn at least $75,000 annually while 30 percent earn at least $100,000. The top fifth of Jersey City's wage earners receive over half of city's income while bottom fifth gets less than 3 percent. The median household income for whites is $72,000; blacks $45,000; Latinos $38,000; Asians $91,000. The per capita income for whites is $49,000 and for Asians $43,000, more than twice that of blacks and Latinos.The same is true for unemployment and poverty rates. The unemployment rate for whites and Asians is 6%: while for blacks it is 14% and for Latinos, 10%. The poverty rate for whites and Asians is 13%; blacks 24%; Latinos 27%. …