HomeNewsWake County  }

Portrait of a troubled Raleigh house, in black and white

4 JUN 2008  •  by Bob Geary, rjgeary (at) mac (dot) com



This image popped up on signposts in Boylan Heights and elsewhere in Raleigh during Mathew Curran's recent art show. Southeast Raleigh leaders charged it's a black man being lynched; Curran says it's his little brother, who is laughing.
Courtesy of Mathew Curran
Here's the question surrounding the house at 715 S. Boylan Ave. in Raleigh: Are its owners, an African-American couple in their 70s named R.J. and Agnes Royster, the victims of a racist campaign by neighbors to drive them out of rapidly gentrifying Boylan Heights? Or are the victims really the neighbors, who've watched helplessly as a daily drama of disorderly, sometimes criminal conduct unfolds at the Roysters' address—while the Roysters, though in bankruptcy, reject the neighbors' offers of help and deny the problems?

Two weeks ago, with the house facing condemnation by the city over serious code violations for the second time in two years, several community leaders from southeast Raleigh launched a campaign to make the first charge stick. In e-mails and statements to Raleigh City Council, they alleged that the predominantly white residents of Boylan Heights, located in southwest Raleigh, were "targeting" the Roysters for removal from their house because they're black.

"This is wrong," said J. Ronald White, president of the NAACP's South Central Wake branch. "This is hate crimes."

Danny Coleman, a southeast Raleigh activist and president of the Raleigh Wake Citizens Association (RWCA), the black community's oldest political group, said what was happening to the Roysters borders on "economic-based 'Jim Crow' practices ... that conjures up the past that we all want dead and buried."

The black leaders' charges were given banner-headline treatment by The News & Observer in a May 20 story that quoted R.J. Royster but none of his neighbors.

The N&O gave credence in particular to the charge from Royster and his supporters that someone had posted racist images—"hate signs," White called them—outside the Roysters' house. They said the images showed a black man being hanged.

That allegation, in particular, incensed lawyer and neighborhood resident Steve McCallister when he read it. For one thing, McCallister said, the images in question—pieces of stencil art—were on a post in front of his house, two doors up from the Roysters. Secondly, they weren't racist, McCallister said. Over his lunch hour, McCallister tracked down the artist, Mathew Curran, who is white. Curran confirmed that the stencil image was taken from a picture of his little brother—who was laughing, not hanging.

Curran calls it "innocent art" that was part of his recent show in Raleigh—and the image is reproduced on signposts all around downtown. Nonetheless, as a result of the controversy, Curran was summoned to Raleigh Police headquarters Tuesday afternoon to be interviewed, he said, about his "motivation."

McCallister also disputed White's characterization of recent meetings the NAACP leader attended with him and other Boylan Heights representatives, including City Councilor Thomas Crowder, whose district includes the neighborhood. White told the N&O that Crowder was leading an effort to get rid of the Roysters. On the contrary, McCallister said, the discussions were about how White and the city, working together, might be able to help the Roysters, since they didn't want their neighbors involved. Crowder, also not interviewed by the N&O, said he suggested possible solutions for the Roysters to White, including a possible trusteeship and reverse mortgage so they could afford to fix their property.

In the week since, in interviews with the Indy and in public Monday night at an often emotional meeting of the Central Citizens Advisory Committee, whose boundaries encompass parts of southeast and southwest Raleigh, Boylan Heights leaders have told a very different story about the house at 715 S. Boylan.

Their version: The Roysters are unable to maintain their house or control the behavior of the men and women who congregate nightly in the backyard and drink, curse, fight, and sometimes walk to the sidewalks to engage in hurried transactions with passing pedestrians or motorists.

The Roysters live with a daughter, her nine children, and one other man.

Documents from the Raleigh Police Department and the city's housing inspections department support the neighbors' stories. The police visited the Roysters' house 11 times on their own initiative—not in response to the neighbors' many 911 calls—between November 2007 and April 15, 2008. One such visit in January was to arrest the Roysters' son, Robert "Junior" Royster, on felony charges of possessing cocaine with intent to sell; the son was also charged with being a habitual felon and remains in Wake County Jail awaiting trial, according to the Wake County Sheriff's Department.

Also in January, city inspectors responded to a call from neighbors who'd spotted a power cord running into the house from a neighboring home and children carrying water to the house in jugs. The neighbors worried, and inspectors confirmed, according to housing inspections chief Roger Bonney, that 715 S. Boylan lacked electricity or functioning plumbing. Water pipes were almost totally clogged and the sewer line was too, Bonney said.

Such conditions are considered life-threatening, especially since children live there, Bonney said. His inspectors cited the Roysters for a lengthy list of other violations: loose electrical fixtures; missing switches; defective outlets; a back door that didn't close; broken windows; windows that didn't open; collapsing ceilings, stairs, floors, guard railings and foundation walls; and serious mold, rot and decay.

The city's codes set "minimum" standards for safe habitation, Bonney emphasized.

"This is about life safety, not what's aesthetically pleasing," he said.

He said the Roysters now have electricity, sewer and water and their house is out of immediate jeopardy of condemnation, but other improvements must be made. The City Council has given them 60 days and ordered an investigation into the matter by the city attorney.

At the CAC meeting June 2, Boylan Heights Neighborhood Association leader Jimmy Creech told 50 listeners, including White and Coleman, that he, his wife and other neighbors have tried to help the Roysters hold onto their house, not drive them out.

"We don't want anyone to leave," said Creech, a well-known Raleigh civil rights leader. On the other hand, he added, "What we have lived with [on that corner] are not problems you would want to live with."

Creech said problems at the Roysters' property, and another house at 701 S. Boylan Ave. owned by Agnes Royster's sister, Sarah Williams, date back to the mid-'90s. He described daily parties in the back yards that begin in mid-afternoon and last well into the early morning , with people arriving on foot from the low-income neighborhoods that surround Boylan Heights. "This goes on every night, year-round," Creech said.

In 2005, Creech helped organize an intervention to help the Roysters and Williams clean up their properties and run off the bad elements. Williams acknowledged the issues and accepted their offer, Creech said. So the neighbors pitched in to cut back her overgrown shrubs and trees, install a swing set for her children, and install motion-detection lights around the house. But the Roysters rejected any help, denying they had a problem.

Consequently, Creech said, the parties that once occurred mainly in the backyard of 701, a corner property, relocated to the unlit backyard of 715.

Also at that meeting, Jennifer Royster, the Roysters' daughter, said she lives at the residence with her nine children. Another man who lives there, she told the Indy, is not her brother Roy, contrary to what the neighbors believe. But she refused to identify him otherwise.

The Roysters' telephone number has been disconnected. A man who answered their door said they weren't at home and declined to identify himself, saying he was "just the maid." The Roysters did not respond to a message left with him.

Mayor Charles Meeker, whose house on South Boylan is two blocks away, said Monday following a City Council meeting that the Roysters' house has "the reputation of being a crack house." The housing violations are irritating, he added, but the real problem is drugs.

Asked his reaction to the charges of racism, Meeker said, "I just thought that remark was off-base—that just isn't the reality."

6 COMMENTS

While I feel for the Roysters, attempting to play the "racial" card instead of taking responsiblity for their own actions is disgusting and uncalled for. Of course they are going to call their neighbors racist and deny help. If they accept help and acknowledge the problems they will be forced to take responsiblity for their own laziness and do something about it. I have seen that so-called home and it reminds me of something you would find in a really bad B-list horror movie. The condition of the home proves the Roysters have no intention on doing anything to better themselves; never have, never will. I am so tired of hearing low-income blacks scream "racist" because of their own ignorance and laziness. They have the same access to education and knowledge as the rest of society. I bet if you dig deep enough, you will find that ALL who live in that hell hole of a house are on welfare and food stamps and don't have any intention on ever coming off the handouts given by the tax payers of Wake and Durham counties. I say, get rid of them and demolish that house! If they are so financially secure that they don't need any help then they should have no problem buying another house. The least that should be done is to remove those children from that home. Since the parents and grandparents are obviously not capable of providing a safe, secure, and drug free environment for the kids, then someone else needs to take them.
by education4U Durham 5 Jun 2008, 11:10am Report this comment
Indy you have let me down.

When the president of South Central Wake NAACP says something "is hate crimes" and the president of the RWCA tells you it "economic-based Jim Crow practices", I expect you guys to be jumping on that bandwagon! Not listening to what they say and then going out and listening to the other side of the arguement! Not sitting down to write a reasonable, even-handed synopsis of the actual situation.

Who are you and what have you done with my Indy!?!

by JohnD Raleigh 5 Jun 2008, 11:27am Report this comment
You failed to post the most important point raised at the Central CAC meeting June 2nd and featured by the Indy in the article Peter Eichenberger wrote when Comp Code enforcement was attempted in the South Park Community. No one in District C and specifically low wealth households favor putting the "Compe Code" police on a homeowner. How the Indy has gone from not favoring this type of code enforcement on those households to now writing an article that seems to support this type of "Guestopo" and by definition surely classist, eltitist if not just plain racist. I feel we are engaging a "Final Solution" for low wealth families in Raleigh. We all need to be careful, we could easliy fall into that catagory. I look forward to a more balanced reporting on this issue and the whole topic of "generation with justifcation". As some of you open your tax bills this September take stock of your city and county are working within your means. Finally Mayer Meeker, we have the fine officers in the Raleigh Police Department, the Wake County Sheriffs Department and the Wake County District Attorney's Office to address the Criminal element. We do not need to turn our Environmental Housing Department into something akin to Hiltler's SS. Again, we can ill afford any tactic that is aimed at those most vunerable in our society. The Indy once championed those individuals and families,, now, well I just don't know?
by Dr_Feelgood (district-c-advocate@hotmail.com) Raleigh 8 Jun 2008, 10:05am Report this comment
City-sponsored terrorism in Southeast Raleigh 13 APR 2005 • by Peter Eichenberger V.C. RogersThe question in the wake of the city inspection department's latest ritual public relations self-disembowelment is this: Were a series of terroristic, now-scuttled inspections in Southeast Raleigh some sort of "trial balloon," a test shot to gauge reaction to the latest affront to the people? Or, more likely, are the inspectors and their bosses merely arrogant boobs? A little background: Almost as I predicted in my column "The Knock at the Door" (indyweek.com/durham/2003-01-08/eichenberger.html), Raleigh and its inspections department planned, with no citizen involvement, to subject "blighted" (read "poor and black") neighborhoods to mass, compulsory inspections, intimidating the most vulnerable with documents and policies they might not understand, leaning on those in the least possession of the resources to address deficiencies in their dwellings. After catching hell for it no one will now take responsibility for the idea, and there are no minutes of any closed meetings at which it was discussed. So, at a raucous city council meeting this month, the council and staff got dragged to the woodshed and administered as thorough and systematic a good ole country ass-whuppin' as I've seen by the inhabitants of the area--who let them know that they were on to the city's cruel, arrogant abuse of power. The city council quailed, issued a moratorium on the inspections, and delivered a well-deserved apology. You won't see these sorts of blanket inspections in Cameron Park or Oakwood or Hayes Barton (read: well-heeled white people), which also contain older homes subject to the same sorts of geriatric conditions as any old house (especially when it comes to electrical and heating systems--the top two causes of domestic casualties). Folks with good memories might remember a blaze some years ago in Cameron Park where a large house went up in flames, killing the inhabitant; the proximate cause--a newspaper collection stacked to the ceiling. I recently went on a tour of both sides of the line (Edenton Street), and to tell you the truth, the only difference I saw from the road was that the houses in Oakwood are larger--but with the same problems. In fact, some city-owned rental houses in the "blighted zone" showed the same sorts of problems--peeling paint and such--that they will throw you out of your own house over. But they have an advantage that you and I don't have: sovereign immunity, which roughly translates to tough tits. Look, no one is arguing it isn't in the city's interest to ensure the safety of its citizens. And it is legal as long as they, if one insists, produce a warrant--sure to endear you to the inspector, but still your legal right under Camara v. Municipal Court City And County, 387 (1967). I asked City Attorney Thomas McCormick to comment on Camara, but for now he has chosen silence. So say you're in the zone, black, and face a city employee, who despite "Oh, of course the City of Raleigh would never discriminate," may or may not be a bigoted moron. Maybe you just don't cotton to strangers tellin' you what to do with your property and you get all bowed up. Now you have a couple of strikes against you, and they drop the hammer. Suddenly you have 30 days (70 with the two 20-day extensions) to fix problems that have been literally centuries in the making, given Raleigh's historically abysmal treatment of her poor. So, Grampa Grumpy's presented with orders to spend 20 grand on repairs or get out, board the property up and demo it in a year--at Gramps' expense. But wait, there's more! Grampa gets to shell out 325 bucks (cost of inspection) for the privilege of getting the bad news. (I wonder if there was a "moratorium" on that fee?) And it's not like the city gives the impression they are rendering assistance to assure safety via compliance. The notice says assistance is available but, y'know, somehow someone forgot to put the contact info on the form. "The City of Raleigh prides itself on having a quality of life, [sic] second to no other jurisdiction," the letter opens, delivered on Thanksgiving eve, so the affected had all Thanksgiving Day to fret about it. Yessiree, there's some real concern for quality of life--not three years or six months to conduct repairs, but 30 days if the city had gone through with this cockamamie idea. If I were an inspector, I'd have made sure my insurance was up to date because some grumpy old bastard might well have a rusty old double-barrel tucked behind a door somewhere. I've seen this scam before. It's just another twist on urban renewal, the shadow name for what used to be more accurately known as "negro removal," aka "gentrification." The city should be publicly castigated, and I'm a doin' it. J'accuse. I know how folks live and have lived forever in what used to be called Southside, before Federal Housing Administration policies dictated the destruction of whole thriving neighborhoods back in the '60s. And I have been in some of Jesse and Dot Helms' disgusting rental hovels in the "blighted area." It would give a Hollywood set-dresser fits to try to create the decades of rot and filth in those appalling shacks. Funny how crummy housing was never a "problem" before. At least not until the land said shithole sits upon is suddenly worth money because of proximity to the shiny new downtown. Then, by golly, we have to help these people because, you know, we care. To which Mr. Eichenberger says, "Bullshit." Look, don't try and juke us. This is so transparent, a third-grader could figure out what it is--a land grab. I don't think city employees go to work saying, "Oh boy, another day of screwing niggers." But the truth is that you can be a bigot and not realize it if that is all you know, living as we do within a deeply racist culture of the United States in general and the South in particular. As Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center force us to confront regularly, the Civil Rights Movement wasn't some magic wand that suddenly made us all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Remember, it wasn't until a mere 40 years ago, the Voting Rights Act, that black folks were assured even the right to vote (Russia beat us by a hundred years, for reference). These sorts of behaviors are so ingrained in us, so saturated in the very soil, that you have to climb out of your skin to see the United States--and Raleigh--for what it is. And I don't think developers sitting like vultures in a tree waiting for the last real neighborhoods to be smacked-down are necessarily bigots (although they probably are); they just don't give a damn except for what matters to this nation: profit. Look, guys, don't try to fool us. Threatening or actually kicking some poor old person out of their house because they can't afford to have their chimney repointed is not showing concern for "quality of life" (goopy PR bullshit if ever there was any). It is terrorism, as pointed out by a friend who got zapped--she being white, descended from slaveholders and raised in Eastern North Carolina, a place where bigotry is learned while sitting on parents' knees. I flat out asked her if she thought this was racism. She said yes with neither hesitation nor qualification. Sorry to rip your knickers off, Raleigh. The truth hurts. But the other thing is the loss of texture. Trundling historic properties about like Monopoly pieces and placing them in an artificial construct like Mordecai Park is not preservation, y'all--it's taxidermy. Raleigh has already done such a superb Bronx stomp-job on its history that the only place with actual historic context is the poorest part of the city. It survived because nobody wanted it except for those who live there. No one wants to live in squalor. (And if some of you bigots are under some delusion that "blight" is some sort of black thing, I'd be thrilled to give you a tour of Cincinnati, Ohio's Over the Rhine neighborhood, where the 40 oz. crack-pipe culture thrives among the former "hillbillies" suckered out of Appalachia by the same con-job their black brothers and sisters in Chicago or New York went through.) These neighborhoods deserve to be restored, not crushed. When federal and city housing policies end up erasing whole neighborhoods, something very profound is lost--context, history, stories. The most telling moment of the meeting was when Councilwoman Jessie Taliaferro thanked the residents for having the "courage" to show up. Wow, so now it takes "courage" to express sentiments about oppressive policies to elected officials. Considering what the residents were put through, Taliaferro's slip may well have shown the city's true colors in a way that she hadn't planned. view reader comments email this article print this article write a letter to the editor More by Peter Eichenberger Why are we in Iraq?* A ferry ride to an Orwellian future? Getting behind the wheel, again more (88) » ALSO IN YE OLDE ARCHIVES Sgts. Omar Mora and Yance Gray (again); The City of Raleigh; Orange County Commissioners Auditor Les Merritt; Triangle congressional delegation; N.C. Highway Patrol; University housekeepers SURGE and Dan Coleman; N.C. WARN and UCS; 500 water scofflaws more (2363) » NO COMMENTS
by Dr_Feelgood (district-c-advocate@hotmail.com) Raleigh 8 Jun 2008, 10:12am Report this comment
The city of Raleigh has 18,000 reasons to make sure the Royster's house is up to code. The "Concentrated Code Enforcement" was bait and switch orchestrated by the Central, North Central, and South Central CACs. They complained to the city that residents were paying rent to live in houses that were below code standards and the slumlords were donig nothing about it. The city said it could not pick and choose which houses to inspect, that it was an all or nothing deal. To say there was no citizen input is a flat out lie. But when you get all your information from one source, some details are going to be left out to "tell a good story". The CACs accepted and inspections were conducted in Hunter/Thompson I and II, the area roughly bounded by New Bern, Tarboro/Rock Quarry, MLK and East Street. Inspectors found "too much" wrong in the houses and the citizens didn't like it. A couple of inspectors were too gung ho about performing their duties, as renters were not informed by their landlord to expect the inspection and/or the slumlords refused to let the inspections to occur on their properties. As a result, "community leaders" fought to end the program outright instead of tweeking it to meet the goals THEY THEMSELVES SET OUT FOR THE PROGRAM. The equivalent of posing for papparazi pictures and then complaining about their invasion of privacy. The gang-sponsored terrorism in those communites, especially near East Martin, because community leaders have done everything they can to keep the city out. If the Roysters have not mentioned the neighborhood's efforts to help to the NCAAP, RWCA, and anyone else complaining, is that the neighborhood's fault? If they raised a stink about the matter without having talked to anyone outside the Royster house, are making an honest contribution to the situation? No.
by ncwebguy Raleigh 9 Jun 2008, 7:20pm Report this comment
This article inspired me to interview Mathew Curran and learn more about his artwork. I have posted the interview on my blog here: http://dlatman.com/2008/06/18/conversation-mathew-curran/
by DanielleLa Carrboro 18 Jun 2008, 11:11pm Report this comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
 
return to top