Santa Barbara has notoriously high housing prices, limited housing options, and tourists as far as the eye can see. Our community thrives on the tourist industry and the spending of high income residents, but the increasing influx of visitors also inhibits the ability of working class people to continue existing and working in Santa Barbara. The Milpas Community Association (MCA) was created to help shape Santa Barbara into a city that lives up to its reputation as a upper class hotspot. They seek to “beautify,” and generally “improve” the Milpas neighborhood on the East Side of Santa Barbara in order to increase business and gain revenue. The MCA has proposed the creation of the East Side Business Improvement District, (EBID) which would be directed by the MCA and would require East Side businesses to pay fees for beautification efforts. The MCA has been quoted extensively on how these improvements would create a better sense of community and cohesiveness throughout the city by following in the footsteps of the State Street area.
However, the MCA and the EBID proposal have proved controversial. There have been worries voiced by the city and by community members that these efforts will gentrify one of the last neighborhoods in Santa Barbara that contains large populations of working class people of color. The media coverage of the issue highlights the conflict between anti-gentrification sentiments and the drive to create a “better” neighborhood around Milpas. However, the discourse surrounding these local issues is framed in a way that discusses gentrification as an outside and unknowable force. Local media ultimately parallels discourse produced by the MCA by “beautifying” the ugly truth that ethnic minorities are being pushed from their own neighborhoods. Here I will explain how through coded language and the decontextualization of gentrification, local media has framed the MCA as a neutral and depoliticized force and therefore fallaciously separates their efforts from the efforts to gentrify the city.
Each article examined here frames the MCA gentrification issue slightly differently. In an article from the Independent Newspaper, “Doubling Down on Milpas Street Will New Business District Keep It Real or Accelerate Gentrification?” The issue of gentrification is posited as a possible consequence of the MCA’s actions, but simultaneously creates a dichotomy between “the community” and its needs, and the residents of Milpas through language that commends the MCA. Writer Nick Welsh writes “four years later, the MCA has won community-organizing accolades nationwide, not just for its efforts to clean up Milpas Street, but for fostering a genuine sense of community spirit. ” While the headline suggests an unbiased approach to the conflict, the positive connotations of the phrases “clean up,” “efforts,” “genuine, and “community spirit” all suggest that despite problematic aspects, the MCA is striving to improve Santa Barbara. The introduction of the MCA as an inherently harmless organization makes it impossible for this to be an unbiased approach to the controversy: Welsh makes the MCA “good guys” before even considering the opposition.
The article has a notable lack of quotations from actual residents of the Milpas area (a problem in most of the articles) and focuses extensively on the ideas of members of the MCA and specifically their leader, Sharon Byrne. For example, the author cites “the enthusiastic support Byrne and the MCA got from homeless-rights advocates, not to mention several longtime homeless individuals MCA helped get off the street.” However the article does not actually quote or even name these supporters or explain their situations or how the MCA assisted them.
Ultimately Welsh frames gentrification as not a real threat: “While Murillo used different language, she worried that whatever authenticity is left on Milpas Street could soon go the way of State Street — pretty, she said, but notably devoid of small, locally owned businesses (...) Murillo expressed concern about the G-word, stating, “I would like to see a plan to avoid gentrification.” Welsh admits to paraphrasing concerns Murillo has about the MCA and EBID and edits the original conflicting concerns. The reference to gentrification as “the G-word” is an almost tongue-in-cheek joke that undermines the seriousness of the issue.
In another Independent article, “Milpas Community Association Does EBID Outreach
Leader Sharon Byrne Says Fee-Assessment Plan Would Help Save Small Businesses” written by Mark Salay, gentrification is framed as an uncontrollable issue that is perpetuated by outside forces. Salay quotes Byrne (once again) who explains that gentrification’s cause is rooted in property prices: ““You’re paying supreme top dollar for rock bottom property,” Byrne said. “The supply is so tightly constricted and the demand is so big it’s only going to drive the price up. Nothing that we are doing or ever will do can cause that.” The choice of this quotation as a rebuttal to the claim of gentrification reveals a bias in support of the MCA because increase in large businesses and “beautification” efforts of the MCA directly contribute to property prices. Byrne is quoted claiming that the issue is bigger than EBID when simultaneously advocating for the types of changes to neighborhoods that create gentrification. This quotation is a framing device that attempts to portray gentrification as outside community control while simultaneously cleaning up the dirty politics involved in this process. If gentrification is presented as an inescapable fate for poor people, there is no reason to hold wealthy gentrifiers accountable for their actions-- they are framed as spectators instead of perpetrators.
This tactic is redoubled when Byrne is quoted (again) saying “If you don’t do something to band the little mom-and-pop shops [together] and help them boost their businesses as much as possible, you make them ripe to be picked off by gentrification,” effectively conflating the causes of gentrification with ways to prevent it. Again, this quotation goes uncritiqued or questioned by Salay. This frame is cemented by Salay’s reference to PODER’s (People Organizing For The Defense Of Equal Rights) opposition to the proposal without any quotations or information to explain why they oppose it. This is a classic example of political propaganda tactics: give one side a voice that is denied to the other.
The next news article, “Milpas Community Association Brings Back Milpas Street Holiday Parade,” comes directly from Sharon Byrne herself, and obviously extols the virtues of the MCA. While the article is about the Holiday Parade and does not mention gentrification, the language used and messages sent by the article clearly frames the MCA as a force for good. Byrne reflects on how the MCA has “brought back” the holiday parades (that have been taking place far before the existence of the MCA) and repeats the words “community” and “family” in order to establish the event as important to town morale. Notably, the emphasis on the “community (being) hopeful and excited,” creates a unified community voice that Byrne herself is the spokesperson for. The discourse is shifted to the pretty, nice things that the wealthy people of East Santa Barbara get to enjoy through the MCA’s efforts.
This is juxtaposed against the KEYT news video “May Day Coalition Members Rally Against Gentrification,” in which the community members opposed to the proposal are referred to as “coalition members,” which others them as a population separate from the “community” who supports the MCA, even though the coalition members are Milpas residents. This framing also neutralizes the MCA and EBID as apolitical: “EBID… has put a wedge between longtime residents and those with an eye for development.” While the headline has the word “gentrification” there is no direct connection expressed between EBID and gentrification. This is reinforced by the narrator’s statement that the MCA “ (does not) want to see poor displaced, yet the area is just a stone’s throw away from Montecito,” as if the proximity to Montecito is the source of the problem. This characterization paints gentrification as a faceless “bad guy,” with no actual people at fault for its consequences. Once again the issue is repainted as sad but unavoidable problem that no one must take accountability for.
In a rare stauch oppositional piece to the MCA and EBID, the op-ed from OpEdNews “Gentrifying Santa Barbara's Eastside” by Kathy Swift effectively frames the issue of gentrification as a class and race issue that is hidden by coded language. Swift differs from other writers by clearly and concisely defining what gentrification is and explaining how it comes to be rather than conceptualizing it as an evil that exists without context. If one were just to read the Independent, it would be easy to dismiss charges against the MCA because there is no supporting evidence as to how the EBID proposal would hurt community members. Swift explains “the amount paid would determine the proportion of each business owner's voice in the decision-making process for the EBID with hotels paying a bigger tax and enjoying a greater voice while retail businesses would pay a smaller tax and have a lesser voice.”
Swift also frames the conflict as a specifically racialized and classed issue: “Words like "beautification, cleanliness, and safety" get bandied about with great frequency in discussions of low-income and minority communities and should be decoded for their meaning(...) (people view) these neighborhoods as less than beautiful, sanitary, safe, or law-abiding.” Swift contextualizes the MCA and points out they have in the past fiercely supported the Santa Barbara Gang Injuction that has been widely criticized for unfairly targeting working class Latino community members by punishing them for past actions.
The image of the MCA that is constructed through local media coverage is one of an organization that is attempting to increase the business efficiency and sizes throughout the creation of a business district and has no ill intent for the people of our community. These articles create a discourse that tends to the needs of a “community” that is racialized and classed, but through language that beautifies the topic, hides the fact that there are many people in this neighborhood who would be excluded from these positive outcomes. The large scale framing of the issue pretends to acknowledge the topic of gentrification but obfuscates the meaning of the word and how it functions. Gentrification is posited through vague references and quotations from the MCA instead of those opposing it so that it is regarded as a concept perpetuated by outside forces that are unavoidable and beyond one’s control, instead of perpetuated from within a community. There is no “bad guy” in gentrification, it is just a bad thing that happens without context.
Milpas is presented as a place that needs improvement regardless of discussions on gentrification. While the Latino population is mentioned, there is not any type of discussion on the racialized aspect to the population the MCA is attempting to bring to the area. There are many references to State Street as a “better neighborhood;” but no clear statement that it also happens to be a whiter neighborhood. The class and racial oppression happening here is hidden by the media when writers and reporters choose to repeat the language that the MCA uses. “Beautification” is clearly and plainly a code word that is used to suggest that because the Milpas neighborhood houses a large population of poor people of color, they are in need of efforts that would make the East Side more palatable to the tastes of the upper class white individuals who populate the MCA.
This coverage could be reframed to be less biased. Writers and reporters should include the thoughts and words of the business owners on Milpas, the residents of Milpas, and the working class people in Santa Barbara, and those people should be included when referring to the “community.” When discussing issues of gentrification, the way gentrification is already in effect and functioning in this city should be explicated and these claims for beautification should be given context. The MCA’s history of support for arguably racist legislation in the past should be included when discussing the possibility that their platform is not beneficial to residents. And finally, the problem of gentrification should be addressed as an issue that is internally perpetuated and is racialized and classed. Therefore people of color and working class people should be the people being asked about whether or not city plans will affect them negatively.
However, the MCA and the EBID proposal have proved controversial. There have been worries voiced by the city and by community members that these efforts will gentrify one of the last neighborhoods in Santa Barbara that contains large populations of working class people of color. The media coverage of the issue highlights the conflict between anti-gentrification sentiments and the drive to create a “better” neighborhood around Milpas. However, the discourse surrounding these local issues is framed in a way that discusses gentrification as an outside and unknowable force. Local media ultimately parallels discourse produced by the MCA by “beautifying” the ugly truth that ethnic minorities are being pushed from their own neighborhoods. Here I will explain how through coded language and the decontextualization of gentrification, local media has framed the MCA as a neutral and depoliticized force and therefore fallaciously separates their efforts from the efforts to gentrify the city.
Each article examined here frames the MCA gentrification issue slightly differently. In an article from the Independent Newspaper, “Doubling Down on Milpas Street Will New Business District Keep It Real or Accelerate Gentrification?” The issue of gentrification is posited as a possible consequence of the MCA’s actions, but simultaneously creates a dichotomy between “the community” and its needs, and the residents of Milpas through language that commends the MCA. Writer Nick Welsh writes “four years later, the MCA has won community-organizing accolades nationwide, not just for its efforts to clean up Milpas Street, but for fostering a genuine sense of community spirit. ” While the headline suggests an unbiased approach to the conflict, the positive connotations of the phrases “clean up,” “efforts,” “genuine, and “community spirit” all suggest that despite problematic aspects, the MCA is striving to improve Santa Barbara. The introduction of the MCA as an inherently harmless organization makes it impossible for this to be an unbiased approach to the controversy: Welsh makes the MCA “good guys” before even considering the opposition.
The article has a notable lack of quotations from actual residents of the Milpas area (a problem in most of the articles) and focuses extensively on the ideas of members of the MCA and specifically their leader, Sharon Byrne. For example, the author cites “the enthusiastic support Byrne and the MCA got from homeless-rights advocates, not to mention several longtime homeless individuals MCA helped get off the street.” However the article does not actually quote or even name these supporters or explain their situations or how the MCA assisted them.
Ultimately Welsh frames gentrification as not a real threat: “While Murillo used different language, she worried that whatever authenticity is left on Milpas Street could soon go the way of State Street — pretty, she said, but notably devoid of small, locally owned businesses (...) Murillo expressed concern about the G-word, stating, “I would like to see a plan to avoid gentrification.” Welsh admits to paraphrasing concerns Murillo has about the MCA and EBID and edits the original conflicting concerns. The reference to gentrification as “the G-word” is an almost tongue-in-cheek joke that undermines the seriousness of the issue.
In another Independent article, “Milpas Community Association Does EBID Outreach
Leader Sharon Byrne Says Fee-Assessment Plan Would Help Save Small Businesses” written by Mark Salay, gentrification is framed as an uncontrollable issue that is perpetuated by outside forces. Salay quotes Byrne (once again) who explains that gentrification’s cause is rooted in property prices: ““You’re paying supreme top dollar for rock bottom property,” Byrne said. “The supply is so tightly constricted and the demand is so big it’s only going to drive the price up. Nothing that we are doing or ever will do can cause that.” The choice of this quotation as a rebuttal to the claim of gentrification reveals a bias in support of the MCA because increase in large businesses and “beautification” efforts of the MCA directly contribute to property prices. Byrne is quoted claiming that the issue is bigger than EBID when simultaneously advocating for the types of changes to neighborhoods that create gentrification. This quotation is a framing device that attempts to portray gentrification as outside community control while simultaneously cleaning up the dirty politics involved in this process. If gentrification is presented as an inescapable fate for poor people, there is no reason to hold wealthy gentrifiers accountable for their actions-- they are framed as spectators instead of perpetrators.
This tactic is redoubled when Byrne is quoted (again) saying “If you don’t do something to band the little mom-and-pop shops [together] and help them boost their businesses as much as possible, you make them ripe to be picked off by gentrification,” effectively conflating the causes of gentrification with ways to prevent it. Again, this quotation goes uncritiqued or questioned by Salay. This frame is cemented by Salay’s reference to PODER’s (People Organizing For The Defense Of Equal Rights) opposition to the proposal without any quotations or information to explain why they oppose it. This is a classic example of political propaganda tactics: give one side a voice that is denied to the other.
The next news article, “Milpas Community Association Brings Back Milpas Street Holiday Parade,” comes directly from Sharon Byrne herself, and obviously extols the virtues of the MCA. While the article is about the Holiday Parade and does not mention gentrification, the language used and messages sent by the article clearly frames the MCA as a force for good. Byrne reflects on how the MCA has “brought back” the holiday parades (that have been taking place far before the existence of the MCA) and repeats the words “community” and “family” in order to establish the event as important to town morale. Notably, the emphasis on the “community (being) hopeful and excited,” creates a unified community voice that Byrne herself is the spokesperson for. The discourse is shifted to the pretty, nice things that the wealthy people of East Santa Barbara get to enjoy through the MCA’s efforts.
This is juxtaposed against the KEYT news video “May Day Coalition Members Rally Against Gentrification,” in which the community members opposed to the proposal are referred to as “coalition members,” which others them as a population separate from the “community” who supports the MCA, even though the coalition members are Milpas residents. This framing also neutralizes the MCA and EBID as apolitical: “EBID… has put a wedge between longtime residents and those with an eye for development.” While the headline has the word “gentrification” there is no direct connection expressed between EBID and gentrification. This is reinforced by the narrator’s statement that the MCA “ (does not) want to see poor displaced, yet the area is just a stone’s throw away from Montecito,” as if the proximity to Montecito is the source of the problem. This characterization paints gentrification as a faceless “bad guy,” with no actual people at fault for its consequences. Once again the issue is repainted as sad but unavoidable problem that no one must take accountability for.
In a rare stauch oppositional piece to the MCA and EBID, the op-ed from OpEdNews “Gentrifying Santa Barbara's Eastside” by Kathy Swift effectively frames the issue of gentrification as a class and race issue that is hidden by coded language. Swift differs from other writers by clearly and concisely defining what gentrification is and explaining how it comes to be rather than conceptualizing it as an evil that exists without context. If one were just to read the Independent, it would be easy to dismiss charges against the MCA because there is no supporting evidence as to how the EBID proposal would hurt community members. Swift explains “the amount paid would determine the proportion of each business owner's voice in the decision-making process for the EBID with hotels paying a bigger tax and enjoying a greater voice while retail businesses would pay a smaller tax and have a lesser voice.”
Swift also frames the conflict as a specifically racialized and classed issue: “Words like "beautification, cleanliness, and safety" get bandied about with great frequency in discussions of low-income and minority communities and should be decoded for their meaning(...) (people view) these neighborhoods as less than beautiful, sanitary, safe, or law-abiding.” Swift contextualizes the MCA and points out they have in the past fiercely supported the Santa Barbara Gang Injuction that has been widely criticized for unfairly targeting working class Latino community members by punishing them for past actions.
The image of the MCA that is constructed through local media coverage is one of an organization that is attempting to increase the business efficiency and sizes throughout the creation of a business district and has no ill intent for the people of our community. These articles create a discourse that tends to the needs of a “community” that is racialized and classed, but through language that beautifies the topic, hides the fact that there are many people in this neighborhood who would be excluded from these positive outcomes. The large scale framing of the issue pretends to acknowledge the topic of gentrification but obfuscates the meaning of the word and how it functions. Gentrification is posited through vague references and quotations from the MCA instead of those opposing it so that it is regarded as a concept perpetuated by outside forces that are unavoidable and beyond one’s control, instead of perpetuated from within a community. There is no “bad guy” in gentrification, it is just a bad thing that happens without context.
Milpas is presented as a place that needs improvement regardless of discussions on gentrification. While the Latino population is mentioned, there is not any type of discussion on the racialized aspect to the population the MCA is attempting to bring to the area. There are many references to State Street as a “better neighborhood;” but no clear statement that it also happens to be a whiter neighborhood. The class and racial oppression happening here is hidden by the media when writers and reporters choose to repeat the language that the MCA uses. “Beautification” is clearly and plainly a code word that is used to suggest that because the Milpas neighborhood houses a large population of poor people of color, they are in need of efforts that would make the East Side more palatable to the tastes of the upper class white individuals who populate the MCA.
This coverage could be reframed to be less biased. Writers and reporters should include the thoughts and words of the business owners on Milpas, the residents of Milpas, and the working class people in Santa Barbara, and those people should be included when referring to the “community.” When discussing issues of gentrification, the way gentrification is already in effect and functioning in this city should be explicated and these claims for beautification should be given context. The MCA’s history of support for arguably racist legislation in the past should be included when discussing the possibility that their platform is not beneficial to residents. And finally, the problem of gentrification should be addressed as an issue that is internally perpetuated and is racialized and classed. Therefore people of color and working class people should be the people being asked about whether or not city plans will affect them negatively.