Public Space... for Whom?
As a law student, I canโt help but think about how the use of public space is regulated and repressed in a selectively classist manner. I see it, I read it, I study it... and it fills me with anger. Because Law, far from being a neutral tool, is a reflection of power relations. It is a political, ideological tool, historically shaped by class struggles. And this issue makes that painfully evident.
The regulations that prohibit street vending, those that regulate the occupation of public space, those that "protect" urban order... they exist, yes. But what bothers me โ what Iโm denouncing โ is how they are applied: with brutal selectivity, always directed at the most vulnerable sectors. The problem isnโt the occupied sidewalk: itโs who occupies it.
The street vendor, the peddler, the homeless person, the one sleeping on the street... all of them are labeled as "the problem." As if their mere presence disrupted the urban landscape that is supposed to be clean, orderly, hygienic. But what about the bars that take over sidewalks with tables? What about cars double-parked? What about concerts and fairs sponsored by big brands? All of that is tolerated. Itโs even celebrated. Because behind the discourse of "order" lies a class-based aesthetic. A morality of consumption.
Public space, in theory, should be just that: public. A common good, accessible, diverse, shared. But in practice, it is deeply stratified. Itโs managed as a privilege, not as a right. And what is penalized isnโt the improper use of space, but the use that isn't authorized by the market or political power. What is punished is poverty.
I see how a protest is repressed for "disrupting traffic," while the same police that repress it block the street to do so. I see how the peddler is chased for "blocking the passage," while a restaurant can occupy half the sidewalk without question. I see candidates promising to "clean up the city," as if theyโre talking about trash and not people. As if the problem were the existence of the poor and not the structural inequality that pushes them into such conditions.
Law โ my field of study, my future profession โ is not neutral. It never was. Itโs a tool of power, which can be used to guarantee rights or to legitimize injustices. And in this case, it is used as an exclusionary machine, a way of disciplining poverty, of hiding it, of expelling it from the common space.
I mind the hypocrisy. I mind that survival is criminalized while consumption is applauded. I mind that legality is talked about when whatโs really being discussed is social control.
What bothers them isnโt chaos. What bothers them is the poor. And that, as a law student, future lawyer, future jurist, Iโm not interested in justifying or legitimizing this.
