Turf War in Shaw
Many of you have probably already seen this, but one of the neighborhood listserves pointed out this article in the City Paper about gang violence in Shaw. The author does a good job of showing the connections between the violence--for the most part, these incidents are not random, one act of violence leads to another. That chain of violence has to be broken, but how? It seems like the work of the non-profits is not bearing much fruit, but can we really expect much from them? And what can a white gentrifier like me, who lives in and cares about Shaw, really do to help the situation?
One interesting paragraph from the article, that I'd love to hear others thoughts on:
The resulting gunfire breaks out at random moments on Shaw’s streets. And gang warfare is not supposed to happen in a long-since-gentrified neighborhood, right next to the Walter E. Washington Convention Center and wedged in between the U Street corridor and the Gallery Place-Chinatown area, the epicenter of new D.C.: corporate development and condos galore, loaded with residents who can’t believe their shiny new buildings still haven’t driven out the crack dealers below their windows. Here, four blocks from the Verizon Center, crime landmarks dot a neighborhood with $800,000 homes, chic new eateries, and boutiques that sell purses for $200. The Shaw of yesteryear has disappeared, and yet its crew history is still evolving.
Ok, back to work...
Comments
I disagree with his assessment that Shaw is "long-since-gentrified". Far, FAR from it, and thank goodness for that: it's a wonderful mix of old and new residents, all levels of socio-economic class. And that comes with blessings, and, well, not-so-blessings. But to describe Shaw as "long-since-gentrified" is inaccurate at best; misleading is more like it. This guy clearly knows the area, and cannot be so blind as to describe Shaw as gentrified. "Up-and-coming"? Sure. Transitional? Absolutely. "Long-since-gentrified"? BAAAN! Wrong.
The "Shaw of yesteryear" may have disappeared... but the current Shaw is not accurately described as "a neighborhood with $800,000 homes, chic new eateries, and boutiques that sell purses for $200" alone; that is to paint half a picture. Less than half. A quarter. An eighth! I feel like the author must have been twisting a bit for effect. I encourage him: you don't need to! Describe Shaw as it is, please; you make it sound like it's Dupont, or Georgetown. I enjoyed the article, but let's not twist the facts.