The Claridad article is an excellent example of media using its newspaper as a platform to elicit a public outcry when in fact it’s using the newspaper to further a political agenda in much the same manner as the opposition media and politcal parties do to achieve their own goals.
Claridad’s omission of facts reduces it to the same levels of poor “journalism” as its rival newspapers and corrupt politicians.

No; what I am saying is that Claridad is making the residents of La Perla out to be the victims.
La Perla has been there “since the beginning of time” and it has always been what it is – a blight on the rest of the seven square blocks that is San Juan. It’s been the place where criminals have lived in virtual sanctuary from the law. It’s harbored plenty of people who have preyed on victims in the city’s streets and run back to it, knowing full well that the police would hesitate to follow. Why would a pollice officer, many who grew up in caserios themselves, want to risk their lives for the laughable wages that they’ve always made, to apprehend criminals who kill without compunction?
That the residents don’t want to leave La Perla to go and live in other parts of the city, in public housing where perhaps their rivals live is also about the failed social experiment of Luis Muñoz Marín. Destroying impoverished neighborhoods and moving those residents into housing without instilling a sense of community responsability only created a refuge for people who grew accustomed to handouts and zero accountability. The people who got stuck with the problem was the middle class; though thru the years the upper middle class as well as some of the wealthy have been saddled with the social legacy.
But let’s go back to Claridad’s claim that La Perla is suffering from lack of services. Every politico who has run for mayor, the accepted steppingstone to governorship, has showered residents of La Perla, just like they have with Llorens Torres, Nemesio Canales, etc. with whatever could get them votes, and that included the basic services. For decades, civic-minded citizens have suggested that the days of the neccesity of a place like La Perla to exist, was well in the past. The politicos balked because pan, vino y circo guaranteed votes at the appropriate moment. The growth of Puerto Rico as a drug transshipment point from the continent made such “neighborhoods” excellent fortresses from which the dealers could operate without too much concern, plus the truly honest residents knew better than to talk about what others were doing.
San Juan, like Cartagena and La Habana are excellent examples of fortified cities, and San Juan is one of the most compact of all of them. Creating a world heritage site that is free of additions that were not in the original plans is not some socio/political witch hunt but a forward-looking strategy to capitalize on the patrimony of the nation that will attract people from all over the world to see what the first European urban Planned settlements in the Américas look like. The fortified city of San Juan wasn’t built without plenty of forethought; it was one of the first successful settlements that Spain created that reflected what it had learned from the Roman Empire as part of the Caliphate. The Spanish worked with the local materials, and it’s a marvel of engineering of its time and place. La Perla was never factored into those plans. It grew out of the upheaval that came with a rural population that couldn’t live on agriculture alone and was lured to cities such as SJ to look for work. Other blighted neighborhoods have disappeared – they weren’t all contributing to a cultural fabric; they were borne of necessity. The 21st century’s necessity is to save San Juan, and demolishing La Perla is good for the entire nation. No one would argue that Calle Luna will eventually have to be rehabilitated, why should La Perla be the exception?
The disservice to all of the people of Puerto Rico is that Claridad is championing a cause which doesn’t have national merit and doesn’t compare with such issues as rampant, unplanned development in other parts of San Juan and the island. Cement for the lucre of the developers is what Claridad should focus on – La Perla’s removal isn’t going to invoke the nation’s lamentation of a bygone era.

No Maegan, I’m not using a “broad brush” with this one, nor am I an armchair athlete making these calls from a safe distance.
Nor am I “making sweeping generalizations” about the poor of Puerto Rico. What I AM doing, is giving you an assessment of the political hay that the topic of La Perla produces.
Claridad has touted itself as the clarion of all Puerto Ricans who believe in independence, regardless of race, sex, or social condition. That’s a good thing. But, what it isn’t doing in the case of La Perla, is rationally arguing for the necessary forward-thinking ideas that is good for the nation as a whole. It’s “hinting” to the people of La Perla, and to Puerto Rico that this is nothing more than big business doing what it has done for decades, trampling the rights of the poor. Claridad has been very accurate in the past, making that assessment. For historical nosiness, I’d like to read Claridad articles of the era when a handful of black families were forced to leave land that they had occupied for a very long time, so that the International airport and hotels, such as the then Americana and El San Juan could be built. Claridad could have fallen on the side of those families, claiming that their rights were being trampled so that Puerto Rico could foster tourism and have an airport capable of handling the new and larger planes of the day – facilitating travel for Puerto Ricans and foreigners alike; remember “La Guagua Area”? Remember what it was like to arrive at the airport – the ratio was usually 10:1 – ten relatives to every passenger leaving to the unfamiliar US. Remember how you marveled at the huge fountain with all of the flags of Latin America, and the tunnel? Remember having to go thru Aduana on the way OUT of Puerto Rico?
Was the displacement of those families good for all Puerto Ricans, or was it another day of injustice? Having met some of those families, I would venture to say that their sacrifice benefitted all of the people of Puerto Rico and allowed Luis Muñoz Marín Airport to become the Caribbean gateway that it is today. Oh, and while the airport has gone thru a huge make-over, it hasn’t taken a metre more of property than it did in the 50s.
The point is that championing a cause or plan that benefits the entire nation is more patriotic than making political hay.
For Claridad to gain political traction with ALL of the people of Puerto Rico, it has to be honest and willing to present the larger picture, so that all of the people can have confidence in its reporting and judgement, and not to come off as a fringe rag looking for the next windmill.
IF it purports to be the voice of the patriot, and IF the average Puerto Rican feels the tug of patriotism, then it’s time to define that patriotism in terms of what can be done for the greater good, and not solely for the individual. Government, big business, and the wealthy have the “me first” market cornered. The only way that positive changes are going to benefit ALL of the people is when plans are made for the good of future generations. A stagnant, poverty-stricken La Perla doesn’t serve its residents or the nation.
The political model for the caserio has helped foster generational dependency on government and not enough on self-reliance. Subsidized water, electricity, telephone and rent HAS fostered a strata of society that hasn’t met their potential as contributing members of a society that must formulate a long-term work/success ethic if it wants to compete in the global market. The countries surrounding Puerto Rico are realizing this and moving forward while Puerto Rico is locked in endless debates that should have the long-term ramifications of the solutions in mind rather than the big-business camp on one side, and staus quo of in this case, La Perla, on the other.
“The fortified city of San Juan may have been well planned for certain types of citizens of that colonial city but that didn’t want to deal with the poor.” Huh??? I’m not going to put any words in your mouth; I’m going to let you explain that one all by yourself!
“I can assure you are criminals just as I can assure you that not all residents of the caserios are used to handouts.” Thanks – I already know people from Llorens Torres, Nemesio Canales, Lagos de Blasina and a few other caserios. Talk to the ones who grew up there in the 50s and 60s – ask them what has changed; don’t take my word for it.
While you’re at it, convince the people of Puerto Rico why La Perla should remain, and in what way is this community contributing to the greater good.
If La Perla has some “Yokum-berry Tonic” like Dogpatch, it needs to share it with the rest of the country.
Was San Juan supposed to allow La Princesa to remain for the sake of nostalgia? Was La Puntilla a mistake?
As for the Trump thing; as a world heritage site, and given that when the city walls were built, La Perla did not exist, the idea of converting that land to anything other than a breaker against the ocean damaging the city wall has to be off of the table. It’s incompatible with the original design, and it would therefore be a candidate for losing its protected status. With the rising global tides, even comb-over Trump can’t be that stupid to think that buyers would flock to property that would have to face the brunt of the more destructive weather that’s coming. Look at the weather-related damage that is so evident from Puerta de Tierra to Luquillo. Salt corrosion is reigning supreme – and the worst is still to come.

Ramon, I am currently trying to get funds together to do a documentary based on la perla.
You seem like a man who knows much of what has gone on down there.
Are you in PR or NYC.
Would love the opportunity of speaking about this subject in more depth.
THnks for your words.
JW