Nathan McClintock’s chapter argues that food deserts in Oakland did not just happen naturally or because of crime, but were created through long histories of economic decisions, racism in housing, and the movement of industry and supermarkets to the suburbs. His idea of “demarcated devaluation” shows that certain neighborhoods—especially the flatlands where many low-income residents and people of color live—were intentionally left without investment. Because of this, access to fresh and affordable food became limited, while liquor stores and convenience stores became more common. This shifts the conversation away from blaming individuals and toward examining the systems that shaped these neighborhoods over time. What stood out to me most is the contrast between Oakland’s past as an “industrial garden” and its present reality. The area once combined industry, housing, and the ability for residents to grow some of their own food, which created a kind of everyday security. Over time, that balance disappeared as land was paved over, factories closed, and capital moved elsewhere. Residents were left dealing with pollution, unemployment, and fewer food options. This makes the food desert feel less like an empty space and more like evidence of historical choices that prioritized profit and suburban growth over community well-being. I also found the discussion of community gardens interesting because it shows both hope and limitation. On one hand, gardens and local food programs can help people reconnect with land, culture, and healthier food. They can feel like acts of resistance and rebuilding. On the other hand, expecting small volunteer projects to solve problems created by decades of policy and disinvestment seems unrealistic. From my perspective, gardens are meaningful socially and culturally, but real change would also require larger policy shifts, economic investment, and fair access to housing and jobs. Overall, the chapter suggests that food deserts are not just about food—they reflect deeper inequalities in how cities develop and whom they serve. Understanding that history helps reveal that these neighborhoods are not empty or broken, but shaped by decisions that could, in theory, be changed.
1 comment:
I believe I have the same stance on the community gardens and related ideas as you. I think it is great for getting some small amount of fresh food to people and for allowing people to see what they are missing out on, which could spark new ideas. But yes, long term it is not going to fix anything on its own. Places like Oakland will need more than a taste of fresh food to radically change the city.
Stable jobs, stable housing, and like you said, "decisions that could, in theory, be changed" all need to happen. Decisions like changing roadways, re-zoning, investment incentives from the government, and much more are a few examples. But unfortunately most of these will only happen when the people who could actually make it happen actually care enough to do so, likely through hope of investment value. Parts of D.C. were reworked when the government laid down tax incentives for grocers, business grants, public transit expansion, and more for potential investors. But, this only really happened because these neighborhoods were neighboring downtown D.C. which at the time had an influx of wealthy individuals moving in, and the surrounding neighborhoods went from looking like a bad investment to dirt cheap land to expand the areas downtown can reach. Even though grocery access increased, the surrounding neighborhoods had rising property taxes and so on after the re-investment of capital. Double edged sword I suppose.
Post a Comment