Build the new Union Square for the people, part II
A commentary by Matthew McLaughlin

(The commentaries of The Somerville News do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

In an outline for proposed ‚Äúartists colonies‚Äù in Union Square, city officials painted the rosy image of a square rich with culture and diversity.  The document was full of amendments for rezoning the square to support artists:  affordable housing, working spaces and even parking for artists. 
Not one sentence in those 16 pages mentioned any future for the working people that made this city what it is. 

   I am no art hater, but this is a battle for resources pure and simple.  Current zoning requires 12 percent of housing to be set aside for affordable housing.  The zoning amendments propose to have up to half of all affordable housing units set aside for artists.  That leaves only six percent of housing for people who need it.  And yes, artists do not need affordable housing, at least not as much as the average Joe struggling to make ends meet. This is not the great depression and Franklin Delano Roosevelt isn‚Äôt trying to revive Vaudeville.
  What defines being an artist? In order for an artist to qualify for housing, an artist must prove that the majority of their income comes from their art.  That could mean that artists wouldn‚Äôt need real jobs to support themselves.  Being an artist is a lifestyle choice, not a job.  If they want it to be a job, they better be good, in which case they wouldn‚Äôt need affordable housing. 
  Why should artists get up to half of all affordable housing in the square? Why not have housing for the elderly, veterans, or other people in need who contribute greatly to our community?  Artists should not have priority over the working poor who struggle to make ends meet.  They did not choose their jobs because of a dream to write music and paint murals. They did it to survive.  They should always have priority over someone who actively chose to be a ‚Äústarving artist.‚Äù
I would probably be more supportive of artists if I weren‚Äôt suspicious of anything politicians and business soundly support.  Or perhaps it was the words spoken at the first zoning meeting that raised alarms: ‚ÄúArtists help the gentrification process.‚Äù
   City officials think that bringing art to Union Square will generate more revenue.  That is all well and good, but the city continues to ignore the glaring truth that their actions are driving their own people out of the city.  And they want to pass support for artists off as their noble attempt to help those in need.  We cannot allow this to slide by.  Anyone who is concerned with this should call your aldermen and the mayor and tell them: we want a Union Square for the people.