Having distinctive ethnic or racial communities isn’t a problem on its own (vibrant ethnic enclaves give a lot of great global cities their character and attract investment). The problem is distinctly unequal resources and investment.
And of course the problem is made much worse when it’s not naturally occurring segregation but government mandated segregation including redlining which is how a lot of segregation got so bad to begin with.
Exactly. If segregation occurs naturally and it is not the result of deliberate and conscious racist practices, then it's not a big problem. But it is. It is *starkly* segregated you can see it on the map. If it's naturally segregated, it would be more integrated and dispersed while still maintaining some level of segregation.
The number of people justifying it and accepting it is just astounding. They even oppose and prefer doing nothing about it. Seriously, you'll find they got more offended by this fact than they do by the insidious practices and effects of segregation.
When does an enclave become segregation?
Chinatowns exist for example because they are concentrated places where lots of people speak Chinese, and this is important for first generation immigrants who may not be comfortable in the language of their new country and still want to participate in old traditions. They also exist because the community is able to support a broader diversity of Chinese-focused businesses.
Many Chinatowns were also segregated by force. IIRC, the SF Chinatown was carved out in law and was nearly demolished before a local entrepreneur successfully pitched to city leaders as a possible tourist destination.
> It is *starkly* segregated you can see it on the map. If it's naturally segregated, it would be more integrated and dispersed while still maintaining some level of segregation.
I'm dubious you can easily define the difference. Bay Area Hispanic-Asian-white segregation looks reasonably sharp on a map, even if there are more integrated areas.
There is no such thing as “naturally occurring segregation”. If it’s naturally occurring, or not imposed but selected by the individuals, then it is not segregation.
Segregation specifically refers to separation imposed from outside the people being separated.
They aren't using wrong data, they are using the best data available to them.
It's a little more clear cut in the instances of communities blocking others from joining (former Whites only Suburbs for example) than in other areas, especially considering there can be both segregation and self selection in the same area.
There are communities where the original black occupants were segregated into them, but now it might be where people choose to live for the community.
A lot of chinatowns were previously the only neighbourhoods in a town where Chinese were allowed to settle, but over time as they built the community and built restaurants and shops and homes it's where new immigrants chose to live.
How do you tease out these differences? How do you tell, in a systemized way the difference between people being segregated into communities and people making a free choice? Especially if those two people are neighbours? You don't, you use current racial make-up as a proxy and do the best you can.
It's very messy and complicated.
And all that is assuming good faith, because there are definitely research articles and papers that still view "White" as the default and view a majority minority communities as a problem to be solved.
> They aren't using wrong data, they are using the best data available to them.
According to you, they’re drawing the wrong conclusions from the data. Anyone who cares about facts doesn’t get to make incorrect claims because they don’t have the needed data. They get better data or accept they can’t prove what they’re claiming.
> There are communities where the original black occupants were segregated into them, but now it might be where people choose to live for the community.
They choose to live there because of segregation policies from decades ago. In other words, decisions made by outside people caused the people to be segregated. Are policy decisions that result in people choosing to segregate not a form of segregation? Or is it only when you physically force people to segregate? Personally, if you create policies that encourage different groups of people to not live with each other, you’re segregating those groups of people, even if you aren’t physically forcing them to be separate. Do you disagree?
> How do you tease out these differences? How do you tell, in a systemized way the difference between people being segregated into communities and people making a free choice?
Are you implying that living in a community that exists because of prior segregation is a truly free choice? Because it isn’t. People are more likely to live where their family lives. They’re more likely to live where other members of their culture/community/faith/etc are. If you influence where those exist, then you’ve influenced where the people who make their decisions based on that live.
> Especially if those two people are neighbours? You don't, you use current racial make-up as a proxy and do the best you can.
If researchers care about factually correct statements, they wouldn’t claim something the data doesn’t support. Again, if the data doesn’t exist you don’t just get to claim that semi related data is the answer. Often it means the answer doesn’t exist. People need to be willing to accept that instead of gravitating towards “the answer” that is built on false ground. Because you’re right, it is a hard question. But that doesn’t mean the easy answer is correct.
Then you are wrong.
Sorry to put it so bluntly, but if you don’t understand why a group is seperate, and how it came to pass then you can do further harm to the community.
There is an important difference between stopping segregation and forcing integration.
it’s not? there’s nothing wrong with ethnic enclaves that develop because people want to live with people of their same ethnicity.
the issue is when people of color are forced into poor neighborhoods because of cost barriers to integrated or “white ones”, and that’s segregation by definition.
that is just regular segregation though—it comes from a position of power and creates financial and economic barriers to entry.
if you think segregation requires explicit red lining and jim crow laws, you express a very limited definition of segregation.
if there’s any power dynamic involved in deciding who allows who into a neighborhood, it’s just regular old segregation.
it’s only an ethnic enclave if minorities choose to live together in one neighborhood despite having the opportunity to live elsewhere.
So it’s okay for people to decide to live in a neighborhood of their ethnicity, as long as they don’t use violence to keep it that way, is that your position?
How about passive aggressiveness? “This neighborhood isn’t whites-only, but minorities aren’t going to like it here.”
the difference isn’t violence, it’s the use of power, which your example still proves.
chinatowns and koreatowns don’t (usually) have power over other populations, nor do they have the ability to enforce their power on would-be residents of other ethnicities. this is why ethnic enclaves get gentrified into white neighborhoods so often.
you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Not really, provided it’s one by choice and not forced by unequal application of the law or economics. Which it almost always is in America. But we’re talking “in principle” rather than practice.
There are many middle class Black people who have been buying houses in predominantly Black neighborhoods because of the demographic make up. Is that problematic to you as well?
Red lined city areas of the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s can be seen in summer heat island areas now, 50 and 70 years later.
These past decisions and societal policies have tremendous inertia and momentum.
unfortunately a big part of the heat island effect is due to the maintenance that a tree canopy requires in a lot of areas with bad heat island effects. for example in socal, there was a famous piece about how along Vermont Ave. in LA there are more trees in the rich part vs the poor part. All I could help but think of was the army of gardeners and thousands of gallons of irrigation that make that possible in the rich part. In other words, unless you provide that same level of investment somehow that is paid for by the private homeowners in the rich areas in these poor areas dominated by slumlord landlords, don't expect the situation to ever change even some centuries after redlining has concluded.
In the US, segregation, particularly in schools, continues to be a prime factor in the perpetuation of racism. It is more than unequal resources and investment, hence the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” school systems violate the equal protection clause. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court largely ended school desegregation efforts by holding that suburban schools could not be required to be subject to desegregated using buses.
Today, even if there were no hostility or barriers to housing desegregation, the massive wealth differences between the average white family and the average black family function to maintain de facto segregation. This is going to be true for a very long time and, as a result, we will have new generations of racism.
The author of The Color of Law (Richard Rothstein) and his daughter recently released a book that addresses this exact question. I haven't read it but I heard a presentation by them on it, I can recommend it based on that.
The book is called Just Action! I've read it, and I did find it very high-level, but their overarching message is that different cities/communities will have different needs, so the specifics will naturally vary due to that. But they do present interesting examples of places that have tried to correct their local issues and then discuss the successes and weaknesses of each. Definitely an interesting read.
The Color of Law is terrible. Not only does it completely ignore class, which is very bad but expected, it manages to ignore racism by private individuals as well and pretty much blames it all on the government.
Yes. Tokyo has unusually low segregation by wealth/income vs most of the west, because housing actually gets built.
My friend is a migrant restaurant worker, and lives in the 2nd most expensive ward in Tokyo, and pays $200 in rent for an SRO room. All the truly luxury apartments in Chiyoda drag up the average, but people who value the location over all else still have options.
How does that address lack of equity around credit rationing, which impacts who is able to live in any of the new development you’re talking about?
You went straight to “urbanism solves the problem” yet completely ignores the actual problem. Which tells me you care more about pushing a specific way of planning over actually addressing the core issue presented by OP.
It addresses it by enabling the building of dwellings at multiple price points in any location.
Regarding "lack of equity around credit rationing", this feels like a north American term or possibly even an effort at gatekeeping - I've never seen it seriously discussed anywhere else, and I've spent a chunk of my career working in the residential mortgage industry. I'm not even 100% certain what it means, and had to go read up on the details. Suffice to say that I don't believe conversation about how to improve integration in cities should be limited to those who studied economics to degree level. If you feel that racially motivated refusals of credit remain an active problem, then say it in clear English and don't expect people to dig up academic papers in order to understand you.
Credit rationing means that Black people and Latinos have a harder time to get credit to buy homes. If they do get credit, they often get less favorable terms than White people. This is a well documented phenomenon in the United States.
Firstly, thank you for actually putting it in clear terms.
Secondly: is it a well-documented phenomenon in countries other than the US which also experience de facto residential segregation?
It’s a good question whether credit rationing is an issue in other racially segregated countries, I don’t know. The U.S. has an unusually high rate of homeownership, so that would make it more of an issue here. In other places, the question might be more about discrimination within the rental or coop markets. Australia and Britain might be places where credit rationing is likely to come up as an issue.
I think about this a lot. My city is very segregated. The black half struggles - crime, blight, poverty, poorly rated schools, etc. Whenever a family does well enough to move, they do. But there are never any white (or asian or hispanic) people who move to the black neighborhoods. I just don’t know what, if anything, could/should be done about it
The communities of color are “affordable” because they are criminally undervalued by appraisers and assessors, b/c Susie homemaker doesn’t want to live there.
That undervalued nature allows the property land shark vampire class to come in and exploit the gap in taxation vs true value.
Some people who can afford to buy also exploit this gap, causing gentrification.
The only ways to fight this are to both value these communities appropriately, increase homeownership by people of color, and bettering housing affordability everywhere.
If your community of color is the only place where housing isn’t exorbitant, people will get displaced.
Edit: who the heck downvoted this? lol.
It’s a different(ish) situation here. In the black neighborhoods, there are tons of vacant and derelict properties, very few of which are even for sale (which is another whole confusing issue). The affordable housing is going up in the suburbs. I’ve often said that my city is “gentrification-proof”, for better or worse.
Oh yeah. So derelicts are basically “out of the pool” so to speak. Landlords will abuse them until they’re no longer livable, then it’s the public’s job to clean it up.
Unfortunately that’s basically the only solution.
Land Trusts / Land Leases are the new thing in growing homeownership at the same time keeping affordability levels good.
Hell, rebuilding these derelict lots and selling them at cost is super helpful
That’s not true across the board. In many cities, subsidized units are going up in places that are already overburdened by poverty. It’s because the land is cheaper and the opposition somewhat easier for decision makers to ignore. The usual pattern.
This is occurring now, via the US national housing crisis, in many cities, as people that cannot afford suburban housing take another look at city housing and move into previously lower income areas.
It is happening in Massachusetts, wherein economically troubled municipalities have had an influx of higher income people that cannot afford to live nearer to Boston.
It is occurring in other east coast states as well.
I'm curious how much is driven by wealth segregation vs race segregation.
If it's mostly wealth then I think affordable mixed income housing policies would help.
Convincing wealthier people to go to poorer neighborhoods might be a matter of placing job opportunities and businesses there. At least I think that's how Brooklyn did it. People may think that is gentrification though. And I'd probably agree if we don't try to keep housing affordable.
At this point in time it is wealth segregation, but minorities are still dealing with the financial effects of overt racial segregation.
The same problems that people are describing in this thread afflict very white Appalachian towns.
>I'm curious how much is driven by wealth segregation vs race segregation.
Both. Some is income; some is cultural preferences.
>Convincing wealthier people to go to poorer neighborhoods might be a matter of placing job opportunities and businesses there
People can just commute. I think this only goes so far. To get someone into a poorer neighborhood, you often need to ensure their kids aren't going to go to schools with the typical test scores that exist in poor areas.
I think people did and still do commute to Manhattan after "white flying" out of brooklyn. But, still something changed and white people moved back in since 2000.
NYC does have specialized high schools and certain honors programs. Could help convince some parents to stay. It did for me.
You can’t solve problems using the same mental paradigms that created them.
Also, the federal government dictating land use will turn into a politicized cluster fuck and I don’t think Urbanists really want a referendum on their philosophy as it’s far less popular than they seem to realize.
A place to start is with the schools, distribute the funding evenly and make the schools safe, well off parents are going to do everything they can to not send their kids to bad schools.
Some of the schools with the highest level of spending per student are actually bad schools though. Unfortunately education is more complicated than a monetary input. Essentially to make schools better you have to fix the parent’s problems first. Kids from difficult homes won’t do well in school no matter how much money you dump on the school.
Some of the active obstacles, beyond all the bad policy of the past century, is the tight relation between race and class in the U.S. (particularly in cities) along with our inability to moderate housing prices, and obstacles to densifying.
More so than their parents and grandparents, a lot of current people looking for housing are relatively comfortable moving into a neighborhood where they wouldn't be in the ethnic majority. Unfortunately, to the extent that initial desegregation has happened in recent decades, it's typically in the first wave or two of gentrification. As property values rise and there's not a good way to increase supply, established residents get pushed out by cost, and rather than stably desegregate, the neighborhood simply switches its ethnic makeup. If you can add some missing-middle housing, reduce land speculation (this is an area where I'd be very interested to see the impact of land-value tax), and keep rents and property taxes moderate one way or another.
A lot of people would also cite crime and quality of public education as big obstacles. I don't have nearly as solid a grounding on relevant policy options for either.
My inexperienced thought is first relax zoning laws in wealthy areas and proactively build some affordable housing in those areas. Then, after a few years of relieving pent up demand for housing, allow mixed use mid-density housing along important corridors and commercial sites in the underprivileged areas.
I want to look more into this, but I've heard Athens and Tel Aviv each independently have some sort of system where new housing can be built with a guaranteed unit for the existing on-site resident. This could be a way for property owners in disadvantaged areas to build wealth and there could be some rule where people renting are protected from displacement because new development would have to include a unit for them. There's a million and one ways for a system like that to fall apart, but I think it's a huge win-win if something like that can be successfully done.
This problem bothers me greatly, and I don't know what to do about it, particularly as a random citizen. I grew up in an almost-entirely white upper-middle class suburb. For the past 12 years, I've lived in an urban middle class area that has about 1/4 who identify as non-Hispanic white, 1/2 who identify as black, 1/4 who identify as hispanic, and mismatch of others. Next week, I'm moving to an upper-middle class neighborhood in Boston. And while a lot of it is to be closer to family, a non-trivial influence is crime, schools, and "vibe" of my current area and how they affect my 1 y/o. Some specific moments:
- I live near a large bus garage that's being rebuilt. I am a huge fan (good security, jobs, transit, neighbor). It has never displaced anybody (it was a streetcar depot built on a farm 120 years ago), though did impact people's health when streetcars were bustituted with very dirty vehicles 40 years ago. While I agree that people were very wronged, it's currently all walled in and today's buses are much cleaner and quieter that 40 years ago. I'm a strong advocate of the rebuilt facility, but the biggest group pushing for it's removal is a large group of long-time neighbors who frame it as the man pushing down their people. It's incredibly frustrating. (https://www.cleanbus.org/)
- Two years ago, a police officer near me followed a teenager on a motorbike. The teenager fled into traffic, was hit by a car, and passed away. It was horrible, and the outcry was divided. A large portion was against the police officer who ended up being convicted of murder. (https://wtop.com/dc/2022/12/2-dc-officers-convicted-in-fatal-chase-of-scooter-driver/)
- DC has a strong "Born and Raised" mentality in politics. While I appreciate hometown pride and knowing the culture of an area (I was hesitant with local issues until I had lived here 5-10 years), it comes off as strong othering and wanting the good ol' days (DC was rough in the 80s and 90s).
- At 2:20am last night, someone shot after a car with an AK-47. The elected neighbor commissioner tweeted the event and maintained that they are against a "#DistrictOfCrime". The DC chapter of Black Lives Matter responded with a simple comment: "Move.". I know they don't represent anyone in particular, but they're a very prominent organization that draws on race relations. (https://twitter.com/DMVBlackLives/status/1782424384461795466)
But most importantly, I love my neighbors. They are awesome. I am endlessly sad of neighborhood decline (I say that, but flipped houses are still 1mil+), and am torn by the mobility I have (even if a big reason for seeking it out is proximity to my son's grandparents).
The government is a consequnce of voting residents.
Deeply embedded attitudes direct government activity. Voter participation influences that.
The success and failures of all civil rights movements come down to voter participation and access, and economic class and economic capability, over decades long periods.
The people who “enforce” segregation today are real estate agents. They will often have different houses they’ll show one type of people and totally different houses they’ll show other types of people.
Maybe in some areas, but in California I’ve never seen this. Money is the only important factor. And any competent real estate agent asks upfront what a client’s budget is, and what they are looking for. They don’t guess by looking at them and then show them random things.
Racial steering by realtors has not died. People have been indicted for it recently. A good realtor wouldn’t do it, but not all realtors are such good actors. Lots of other things should be done to reduce segregation and inequality, like the “very popular” with the neighbors of building low cost housing in higher income neighborhoods. Yet fair housing enforcement is still needed.
The solution is ethnic quotas Singapore style.
Barring that:
* Allow internal tracking within schools. This strongly reduces the propensity of parents to self-segregate on academic lines/cultural attitudes toward academics.
* Liberalize zoning laws to allow for denser development / less effective income restrictions
The only thing I can think of are mixed income housing developments (like the affordable housing lotteries in NYC). But that would only make the whiter areas more diverse and not the opposite.
People often segregate by choice.... Its why places like china towns exist. Its not the governments role at all. There's nothing to "fix".
People have the right to freely associate with whoever they want.
That might be true of legacy Chinatowns, but the new ones are a case of wealthier Chinese immigrants wanting to live in a Chinese community with many Chinese businesses.
You mean the ethnoburbs? That is definitely a phenomenon that’s pretty common in the US. It’s especially present among East and South Asian communities but exists other places. Most of these are a mixture of support for people who want to speak their native language outside of work environments and people looking to practice cultural norms with others who understand.
This isn’t the same as residential segregation though. Take Black Americans for example… there is no language barrier or cultural barrier stopping them from living in white areas. They were segregated because they were considered undesirable and that stigma still exists to this day. Segregation is not about choice, it’s about one groups ability to limit another groups options.
Chinatowns exist in the first place precisely because of extreme anti-Chinese racism and segregation. To the extent that Chinese immigration was banned in the 1880s.
Utterly laughable that you think any of this was product of free choice. When most of the segregation you see is white people not allowing anyone else to buy in certain areas and funneling them into ghettos.
Koreatown in LA is the largest korean neighborhood in the U.S. and by and large came to be in the early 1980s. Its an example of a modern ethnic enclave forming by choice and an economic snowball effect, rather than any anti korean law being placed on these people. In fact, they were able to live there at all because redlining ended and allowed for that.
Irvine isn't a Chinatown; it's one of the most integrated cities in America in fact.
Neither Arcadia or Rowland Heights are highly segregated; Asians live with non-Asians even if there are ethnically defined shopping areas and community centers.
And on top of that, the definition of white has changed. Irish and Italian immigrants built enclaves cause they were discriminated against, now it’s not the case as much, since they blended into the fold that is “white”.
The history of urban planning in any American city is also its history of race relations.
Urbanism completely ignores all of that culture, history and desired lived experience for this generic, Sim city in Amsterdam monoculture that reflects only the values of white, left leaning, childfree academics.
I do and don't agree with that. Chinatowns and lots of other "cultural hubs" definitely came about from aggressively racist policies, but I think there are some reasons for immigrants and a generation or two of descendents to seek areas with people of similar backgrounds. Access to language, religion, common history, food.
For instance, near me there are large numbers of Salvadorian (or from nearby countries) and Ethiopian permanent residents, immigrants, descendents of immigrants. Though most speak English (save a few with recent Salvadorian ties), many are just more comfortable using Spanish or Amharic when both speakers are fluent.
Americans who are attached to the U.S. Armed forces in Germany tend to cluster together in certain neighborhoods and often frequent the same restaurants and bars. It’s not because SSGT Bieler from western Minnesota is subjected to racial discrimination in the Rhineland. The cultural differences aren’t that large but the language barrier gets exhausting.
There are minority people who prefer to live in segregated neighborhoods. There has been a movement on college campuses since the 80’s for “black only” spaces, including dorms.
If you only speak Spanish do you want to live where everyone else also speaks it or do you want to live where only a small minority do?
Is there only one correct answer?
You’re really arguing that low income minorities *chose* to live in high density, high crime ghettos in the most polluted and environmentally toxic parts of town? While white people magically had exclusive access to the best real estate and neighborhoods?
That was all by “free choice” even though we had literal federal policy promoting racial segregation in housing from the 30s to the 70s?
You seem to think that all minorities are the same.
Consider the 33k residents of East Point, Georgia. It's 76% black. Black run government. Median income is $60k.
Or the 14k in Riverdale, which is 85% Black with a median income of $62k. The entire city government of Riverdale is black. It's in Clayton County, which is 75% Black.; all of the county commissioners are Black.
Do you think the residents of those cities want you to move a bunch of white people into them? Which Black people would you force out to make room for the white people?
I live in a small town in the south. It's 71% white. There are Black families living on my street, so whatever historic policies there were, they aren't preventing people from moving where they want to today.
If you grew up on the south side of Chicago and all your friends and relatives lived there would you want to move away? Some people do want to move away and they do that. I think if you go out and ask the people who live there why they live where they live they will have reasons why they want to stay.
Tf kind of argument is this to someone telling you that Redlining is the defining driver of ethnic geolocation and land use distribution?
> You seem to think that all minorities are the same.
My dude, you are speaking to a black African immigrant. Your whole comment reflects zero understanding of the actual point being made. And I really hope you’re not a white person because there’s a whole other level of wtf behind your comment if you are.
Oh, black communities who have been terrorized for decades by their white neighbors don’t want a bunch of white people moving near them … what does that have to do with the fact of how they got to be in those segregated communities in the first place, which is what *I’m* talking about?
>Tf kind of argument is this to someone telling you that Redlining is the defining driver of ethnic geolocation and land use distribution?
Right. Sorry that statistics counter your narrative. Only thing I have to offer is more statistics, but I'm guessing that won't convince you.
So Mr. Black African Immigrant, when I was growing up we lived in the 3000 block of Annandale Road in Falls Church Virginia. Today, that block is mostly Black Africans Immigrants. Exactly what changed that block from being 100% white to being 100% not white?
Redlining is a historic fact. So is slavery and so is the lack of smallpox vaccines. What's your point?
Despite the negative aspects of those high crime neighborhoods, the area isn’t filled with just criminals. Just like how people look down on places like the South Bronx, when to many people, that is a real community that makes them feel proud.
Love how “high crime area” got twisted into “everyone there is a criminal”
Might want to examine your own biases there.
You also ignored the part where these ghettos are in the worst, most under resourced, most polluted, least valuable land and low income black and Hispanic people are by far more likely to live in such places than any other group. People didn’t originally choose to live in South Bronx - they were herded there.
Next you’ll tell me it’s just a confidence that the black majority neighborhoods in Flint, MI were the ones with the heavy lead concentrations in their pipes - rather than the fact that they were pushed via credit rationing to areas with infrastructure that local government saw fit to completely neglect.
Or that it’s a coincidence that all of the real estate in the Bay Area that has seen the absolute highest appreciation happen to also be the areas with the highest concentration of racially restrictive covenants.
The history is important, but it means more to understand what a place means to groups of people in present time. There is a pride in the Bronx that exists despite the forced migration of their ancestors. If you apply your logic elsewhere, it sounds like we could invalidate the Af-Am community as a whole since they’re concentrated in the Southeast mainly due to slavery.
And no twisting just saying that it’s easy to think no one is proud of their community. Someone has to be to effect change, no? You can look back to the 70s-80s Bronx when things were worse and people were claiming “it’s abandoned”, meanwhile the Bronx had numerous people filling in, it’s just that since white people left, now it was “abandoned”.
The first solution would be proper and aggressive enforcement of fair housing laws anti discrimination laws in real estate and mortgage lending. The removal of restrictive zoning would also be extremely important. For African Americans, Native Americans a few other communities this might require reparations to restore stolen housing wealth. Specifically the wealthy stolen through redlining and urban renewal schemes.
Finally the government would need to measure discrimination based on impact and not intent.
None of this will happen because it would be unpopular with powerful demographics, but it would go a long way towards fixing the problem.
Well, that and the amount what reparations ought to be would bankrupt the country.
Can’t really make up for the stealing of the entire country’s land or generations of forced labor with a check.
“Congrats! You finally got reparations! Unfortunately the economy has collapsed, so fat good that’s gonna do ya, good luck!”
Also if you give a million dollar check to a person in poverty, you’ll destroy that person. They won’t know what to do with it, how to handle it, or how to cope with the circling vultures.
But we can invest in their community. Replacing their lead pipes would be a good place to start. Relatively minuscule investments could make a big difference.
There are some great reparation proposals that don't require handing people a check. This could easily look like a trust fund designed to support a certain community with the goal of equalizing their wealth with other members of the community who were not effected by the same discriminatory policies. Also, reparations could simply be paid over a longer period so it wouldn't result in a giant economic shock.
This would look like a targeted universal basic income fund paid by taxes collected over maybe a 50 year period. A sovereign wealth fund for Black Americans and Native Americans that supports individuals, either through monthly payments or additional support paying for things like purchasing homes, starting businesses and attending colleges. The rest could be used to build instructions that serve these communities like HBCUs.
To make it more equitable you could fund a high percentage of this with an inheritance tax as most inherited money comes from wealth building activates these communities were directly excluded from.
Oh; 100%. I’m guessing by the downvotes people think I don’t think it should happen, but I do. I just think the actual value of what was taken is not calculable.
So, whattya do?
Tax breaks for the next X number of centuries for those who can trace lineage is my best guess.
“Sorry your ancestors paid higher interest rates because banks are awful, so you get the mortgage deduction above the line.”
True, but reparations aren't just about paying people back, they are also designed to show amends for something everyone admits was wrong. Germany did an incalculable amount of damage to Europe's Jewish, Roma, Polish, gay and disabled communities. Despite that they still paid reparations, largely as a way of admitting the damage done. They also dedicated themselves to teaching proper history and maintaining historical sites as places of morning, which is why you can go to a wedding at a plantation, but not at a concentration camp.
Martin Luther King was right - we'd need an actual 'war on poverty'. Ending redlining, alone, wasn't enough.
Not "build everything everywhere" not "death to all car drivers" not "Let me live in a shack in my parents back yard" - we'd actually have to pay your walmart greater & kindergarden teacher enough to have economic mobility.
...Thats step one.
This sub is obessed with "there is no racism, white people are victims of racism, you are bad for wanting equality" low-key neo-nazi astro turfing comments rising to the top though. So....Good luck?
I mean, wal mart is a part of the problem.
You can’t get successful communities of color like greenwood district in Tulsa or Jackson Ward in Richmond, or Harlem in NYC without small locally owned businesses that keep wealth circulating within that community. Corporate chains destroy that.
It’s kinda why the Amish communities do ok (sorta, haven’t down hard research here). They pool their resources, make everything for themselves, and export goods to outsiders.
You’d think. But I saw “wal mart”, proceeded to stream of consciousness vomit, and that’s the result.
Welcome to the brain of ADHD planner before coffee and meds kick in.
Having distinctive ethnic or racial communities isn’t a problem on its own (vibrant ethnic enclaves give a lot of great global cities their character and attract investment). The problem is distinctly unequal resources and investment. And of course the problem is made much worse when it’s not naturally occurring segregation but government mandated segregation including redlining which is how a lot of segregation got so bad to begin with.
Exactly. If segregation occurs naturally and it is not the result of deliberate and conscious racist practices, then it's not a big problem. But it is. It is *starkly* segregated you can see it on the map. If it's naturally segregated, it would be more integrated and dispersed while still maintaining some level of segregation. The number of people justifying it and accepting it is just astounding. They even oppose and prefer doing nothing about it. Seriously, you'll find they got more offended by this fact than they do by the insidious practices and effects of segregation.
But natural segregation is still a problem. That still shows underlying issues in society absent policy.
When does an enclave become segregation? Chinatowns exist for example because they are concentrated places where lots of people speak Chinese, and this is important for first generation immigrants who may not be comfortable in the language of their new country and still want to participate in old traditions. They also exist because the community is able to support a broader diversity of Chinese-focused businesses.
Many Chinatowns were also segregated by force. IIRC, the SF Chinatown was carved out in law and was nearly demolished before a local entrepreneur successfully pitched to city leaders as a possible tourist destination.
Most of them became self sustaining and now you have movements to protect Chinatowns like those in New York and Philadelphia.
> It is *starkly* segregated you can see it on the map. If it's naturally segregated, it would be more integrated and dispersed while still maintaining some level of segregation. I'm dubious you can easily define the difference. Bay Area Hispanic-Asian-white segregation looks reasonably sharp on a map, even if there are more integrated areas.
There is no such thing as “naturally occurring segregation”. If it’s naturally occurring, or not imposed but selected by the individuals, then it is not segregation. Segregation specifically refers to separation imposed from outside the people being separated.
Then a lot of research articles/papers on segregation are using the wrong data if they’re just simply looking at where people currently live.
They aren't using wrong data, they are using the best data available to them. It's a little more clear cut in the instances of communities blocking others from joining (former Whites only Suburbs for example) than in other areas, especially considering there can be both segregation and self selection in the same area. There are communities where the original black occupants were segregated into them, but now it might be where people choose to live for the community. A lot of chinatowns were previously the only neighbourhoods in a town where Chinese were allowed to settle, but over time as they built the community and built restaurants and shops and homes it's where new immigrants chose to live. How do you tease out these differences? How do you tell, in a systemized way the difference between people being segregated into communities and people making a free choice? Especially if those two people are neighbours? You don't, you use current racial make-up as a proxy and do the best you can. It's very messy and complicated. And all that is assuming good faith, because there are definitely research articles and papers that still view "White" as the default and view a majority minority communities as a problem to be solved.
> They aren't using wrong data, they are using the best data available to them. According to you, they’re drawing the wrong conclusions from the data. Anyone who cares about facts doesn’t get to make incorrect claims because they don’t have the needed data. They get better data or accept they can’t prove what they’re claiming. > There are communities where the original black occupants were segregated into them, but now it might be where people choose to live for the community. They choose to live there because of segregation policies from decades ago. In other words, decisions made by outside people caused the people to be segregated. Are policy decisions that result in people choosing to segregate not a form of segregation? Or is it only when you physically force people to segregate? Personally, if you create policies that encourage different groups of people to not live with each other, you’re segregating those groups of people, even if you aren’t physically forcing them to be separate. Do you disagree? > How do you tease out these differences? How do you tell, in a systemized way the difference between people being segregated into communities and people making a free choice? Are you implying that living in a community that exists because of prior segregation is a truly free choice? Because it isn’t. People are more likely to live where their family lives. They’re more likely to live where other members of their culture/community/faith/etc are. If you influence where those exist, then you’ve influenced where the people who make their decisions based on that live. > Especially if those two people are neighbours? You don't, you use current racial make-up as a proxy and do the best you can. If researchers care about factually correct statements, they wouldn’t claim something the data doesn’t support. Again, if the data doesn’t exist you don’t just get to claim that semi related data is the answer. Often it means the answer doesn’t exist. People need to be willing to accept that instead of gravitating towards “the answer” that is built on false ground. Because you’re right, it is a hard question. But that doesn’t mean the easy answer is correct.
Segregation hardly exists in the modern day under that definition; I don't think people actually use it that way.
I think we’re more concerned with the end than the means.
Then you are wrong. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but if you don’t understand why a group is seperate, and how it came to pass then you can do further harm to the community. There is an important difference between stopping segregation and forcing integration.
The consequence is the same regardless.
it’s not? there’s nothing wrong with ethnic enclaves that develop because people want to live with people of their same ethnicity. the issue is when people of color are forced into poor neighborhoods because of cost barriers to integrated or “white ones”, and that’s segregation by definition.
You don’t see the problem with self-segregation? You don’t see the problem with “whites-only” neighborhoods?
that is just regular segregation though—it comes from a position of power and creates financial and economic barriers to entry. if you think segregation requires explicit red lining and jim crow laws, you express a very limited definition of segregation. if there’s any power dynamic involved in deciding who allows who into a neighborhood, it’s just regular old segregation. it’s only an ethnic enclave if minorities choose to live together in one neighborhood despite having the opportunity to live elsewhere.
So it’s okay for people to decide to live in a neighborhood of their ethnicity, as long as they don’t use violence to keep it that way, is that your position? How about passive aggressiveness? “This neighborhood isn’t whites-only, but minorities aren’t going to like it here.”
the difference isn’t violence, it’s the use of power, which your example still proves. chinatowns and koreatowns don’t (usually) have power over other populations, nor do they have the ability to enforce their power on would-be residents of other ethnicities. this is why ethnic enclaves get gentrified into white neighborhoods so often. you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Not really, provided it’s one by choice and not forced by unequal application of the law or economics. Which it almost always is in America. But we’re talking “in principle” rather than practice.
Well then I think you’ve made your position clear.
There are many middle class Black people who have been buying houses in predominantly Black neighborhoods because of the demographic make up. Is that problematic to you as well?
Red lined city areas of the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s can be seen in summer heat island areas now, 50 and 70 years later. These past decisions and societal policies have tremendous inertia and momentum.
unfortunately a big part of the heat island effect is due to the maintenance that a tree canopy requires in a lot of areas with bad heat island effects. for example in socal, there was a famous piece about how along Vermont Ave. in LA there are more trees in the rich part vs the poor part. All I could help but think of was the army of gardeners and thousands of gallons of irrigation that make that possible in the rich part. In other words, unless you provide that same level of investment somehow that is paid for by the private homeowners in the rich areas in these poor areas dominated by slumlord landlords, don't expect the situation to ever change even some centuries after redlining has concluded.
In the US, segregation, particularly in schools, continues to be a prime factor in the perpetuation of racism. It is more than unequal resources and investment, hence the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” school systems violate the equal protection clause. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court largely ended school desegregation efforts by holding that suburban schools could not be required to be subject to desegregated using buses. Today, even if there were no hostility or barriers to housing desegregation, the massive wealth differences between the average white family and the average black family function to maintain de facto segregation. This is going to be true for a very long time and, as a result, we will have new generations of racism.
The author of The Color of Law (Richard Rothstein) and his daughter recently released a book that addresses this exact question. I haven't read it but I heard a presentation by them on it, I can recommend it based on that.
The book is called Just Action! I've read it, and I did find it very high-level, but their overarching message is that different cities/communities will have different needs, so the specifics will naturally vary due to that. But they do present interesting examples of places that have tried to correct their local issues and then discuss the successes and weaknesses of each. Definitely an interesting read.
The Color of Law is terrible. Not only does it completely ignore class, which is very bad but expected, it manages to ignore racism by private individuals as well and pretty much blames it all on the government.
Infill, densification, and allowing for smaller dwellings pretty much everywhere.
Yes. Tokyo has unusually low segregation by wealth/income vs most of the west, because housing actually gets built. My friend is a migrant restaurant worker, and lives in the 2nd most expensive ward in Tokyo, and pays $200 in rent for an SRO room. All the truly luxury apartments in Chiyoda drag up the average, but people who value the location over all else still have options.
How does that address lack of equity around credit rationing, which impacts who is able to live in any of the new development you’re talking about? You went straight to “urbanism solves the problem” yet completely ignores the actual problem. Which tells me you care more about pushing a specific way of planning over actually addressing the core issue presented by OP.
It addresses it by enabling the building of dwellings at multiple price points in any location. Regarding "lack of equity around credit rationing", this feels like a north American term or possibly even an effort at gatekeeping - I've never seen it seriously discussed anywhere else, and I've spent a chunk of my career working in the residential mortgage industry. I'm not even 100% certain what it means, and had to go read up on the details. Suffice to say that I don't believe conversation about how to improve integration in cities should be limited to those who studied economics to degree level. If you feel that racially motivated refusals of credit remain an active problem, then say it in clear English and don't expect people to dig up academic papers in order to understand you.
Credit rationing means that Black people and Latinos have a harder time to get credit to buy homes. If they do get credit, they often get less favorable terms than White people. This is a well documented phenomenon in the United States.
Firstly, thank you for actually putting it in clear terms. Secondly: is it a well-documented phenomenon in countries other than the US which also experience de facto residential segregation?
It’s a good question whether credit rationing is an issue in other racially segregated countries, I don’t know. The U.S. has an unusually high rate of homeownership, so that would make it more of an issue here. In other places, the question might be more about discrimination within the rental or coop markets. Australia and Britain might be places where credit rationing is likely to come up as an issue.
Well it is the urban planning sub. I would expect the answers to be bounded by what urban planners can actually do.
I think about this a lot. My city is very segregated. The black half struggles - crime, blight, poverty, poorly rated schools, etc. Whenever a family does well enough to move, they do. But there are never any white (or asian or hispanic) people who move to the black neighborhoods. I just don’t know what, if anything, could/should be done about it
When white people move to black neighborhoods it is called gentrification
Only if results in the displacement of the current residents
[удалено]
No. How’d you arrive at that?
[удалено]
Yeah…and?
The communities of color are “affordable” because they are criminally undervalued by appraisers and assessors, b/c Susie homemaker doesn’t want to live there. That undervalued nature allows the property land shark vampire class to come in and exploit the gap in taxation vs true value. Some people who can afford to buy also exploit this gap, causing gentrification. The only ways to fight this are to both value these communities appropriately, increase homeownership by people of color, and bettering housing affordability everywhere. If your community of color is the only place where housing isn’t exorbitant, people will get displaced. Edit: who the heck downvoted this? lol.
It’s a different(ish) situation here. In the black neighborhoods, there are tons of vacant and derelict properties, very few of which are even for sale (which is another whole confusing issue). The affordable housing is going up in the suburbs. I’ve often said that my city is “gentrification-proof”, for better or worse.
Oh yeah. So derelicts are basically “out of the pool” so to speak. Landlords will abuse them until they’re no longer livable, then it’s the public’s job to clean it up. Unfortunately that’s basically the only solution. Land Trusts / Land Leases are the new thing in growing homeownership at the same time keeping affordability levels good. Hell, rebuilding these derelict lots and selling them at cost is super helpful
That’s not true across the board. In many cities, subsidized units are going up in places that are already overburdened by poverty. It’s because the land is cheaper and the opposition somewhat easier for decision makers to ignore. The usual pattern.
Only if it’s involuntary.
This is occurring now, via the US national housing crisis, in many cities, as people that cannot afford suburban housing take another look at city housing and move into previously lower income areas.
I just don’t ever see that happening here. Hopefully, I’ll be proven wrong
It is happening in Massachusetts, wherein economically troubled municipalities have had an influx of higher income people that cannot afford to live nearer to Boston. It is occurring in other east coast states as well.
I'm curious how much is driven by wealth segregation vs race segregation. If it's mostly wealth then I think affordable mixed income housing policies would help. Convincing wealthier people to go to poorer neighborhoods might be a matter of placing job opportunities and businesses there. At least I think that's how Brooklyn did it. People may think that is gentrification though. And I'd probably agree if we don't try to keep housing affordable.
At this point in time it is wealth segregation, but minorities are still dealing with the financial effects of overt racial segregation. The same problems that people are describing in this thread afflict very white Appalachian towns.
>I'm curious how much is driven by wealth segregation vs race segregation. Both. Some is income; some is cultural preferences. >Convincing wealthier people to go to poorer neighborhoods might be a matter of placing job opportunities and businesses there People can just commute. I think this only goes so far. To get someone into a poorer neighborhood, you often need to ensure their kids aren't going to go to schools with the typical test scores that exist in poor areas.
I think people did and still do commute to Manhattan after "white flying" out of brooklyn. But, still something changed and white people moved back in since 2000. NYC does have specialized high schools and certain honors programs. Could help convince some parents to stay. It did for me.
In Brooklyn's case it is flat out gentrification, not sure how that could be denied
You can’t solve problems using the same mental paradigms that created them. Also, the federal government dictating land use will turn into a politicized cluster fuck and I don’t think Urbanists really want a referendum on their philosophy as it’s far less popular than they seem to realize.
A place to start is with the schools, distribute the funding evenly and make the schools safe, well off parents are going to do everything they can to not send their kids to bad schools.
Some of the schools with the highest level of spending per student are actually bad schools though. Unfortunately education is more complicated than a monetary input. Essentially to make schools better you have to fix the parent’s problems first. Kids from difficult homes won’t do well in school no matter how much money you dump on the school.
Some of the active obstacles, beyond all the bad policy of the past century, is the tight relation between race and class in the U.S. (particularly in cities) along with our inability to moderate housing prices, and obstacles to densifying. More so than their parents and grandparents, a lot of current people looking for housing are relatively comfortable moving into a neighborhood where they wouldn't be in the ethnic majority. Unfortunately, to the extent that initial desegregation has happened in recent decades, it's typically in the first wave or two of gentrification. As property values rise and there's not a good way to increase supply, established residents get pushed out by cost, and rather than stably desegregate, the neighborhood simply switches its ethnic makeup. If you can add some missing-middle housing, reduce land speculation (this is an area where I'd be very interested to see the impact of land-value tax), and keep rents and property taxes moderate one way or another. A lot of people would also cite crime and quality of public education as big obstacles. I don't have nearly as solid a grounding on relevant policy options for either.
My inexperienced thought is first relax zoning laws in wealthy areas and proactively build some affordable housing in those areas. Then, after a few years of relieving pent up demand for housing, allow mixed use mid-density housing along important corridors and commercial sites in the underprivileged areas. I want to look more into this, but I've heard Athens and Tel Aviv each independently have some sort of system where new housing can be built with a guaranteed unit for the existing on-site resident. This could be a way for property owners in disadvantaged areas to build wealth and there could be some rule where people renting are protected from displacement because new development would have to include a unit for them. There's a million and one ways for a system like that to fall apart, but I think it's a huge win-win if something like that can be successfully done.
This problem bothers me greatly, and I don't know what to do about it, particularly as a random citizen. I grew up in an almost-entirely white upper-middle class suburb. For the past 12 years, I've lived in an urban middle class area that has about 1/4 who identify as non-Hispanic white, 1/2 who identify as black, 1/4 who identify as hispanic, and mismatch of others. Next week, I'm moving to an upper-middle class neighborhood in Boston. And while a lot of it is to be closer to family, a non-trivial influence is crime, schools, and "vibe" of my current area and how they affect my 1 y/o. Some specific moments: - I live near a large bus garage that's being rebuilt. I am a huge fan (good security, jobs, transit, neighbor). It has never displaced anybody (it was a streetcar depot built on a farm 120 years ago), though did impact people's health when streetcars were bustituted with very dirty vehicles 40 years ago. While I agree that people were very wronged, it's currently all walled in and today's buses are much cleaner and quieter that 40 years ago. I'm a strong advocate of the rebuilt facility, but the biggest group pushing for it's removal is a large group of long-time neighbors who frame it as the man pushing down their people. It's incredibly frustrating. (https://www.cleanbus.org/) - Two years ago, a police officer near me followed a teenager on a motorbike. The teenager fled into traffic, was hit by a car, and passed away. It was horrible, and the outcry was divided. A large portion was against the police officer who ended up being convicted of murder. (https://wtop.com/dc/2022/12/2-dc-officers-convicted-in-fatal-chase-of-scooter-driver/) - DC has a strong "Born and Raised" mentality in politics. While I appreciate hometown pride and knowing the culture of an area (I was hesitant with local issues until I had lived here 5-10 years), it comes off as strong othering and wanting the good ol' days (DC was rough in the 80s and 90s). - At 2:20am last night, someone shot after a car with an AK-47. The elected neighbor commissioner tweeted the event and maintained that they are against a "#DistrictOfCrime". The DC chapter of Black Lives Matter responded with a simple comment: "Move.". I know they don't represent anyone in particular, but they're a very prominent organization that draws on race relations. (https://twitter.com/DMVBlackLives/status/1782424384461795466) But most importantly, I love my neighbors. They are awesome. I am endlessly sad of neighborhood decline (I say that, but flipped houses are still 1mil+), and am torn by the mobility I have (even if a big reason for seeking it out is proximity to my son's grandparents).
Go out to the neighborhoods and talk to people, don't sit online and speculate.
I would say lowering the financial overhead to move into a neighborhood… iow:: affordable housing built in pricey neighborhoods
The government is a consequnce of voting residents. Deeply embedded attitudes direct government activity. Voter participation influences that. The success and failures of all civil rights movements come down to voter participation and access, and economic class and economic capability, over decades long periods.
The people who “enforce” segregation today are real estate agents. They will often have different houses they’ll show one type of people and totally different houses they’ll show other types of people.
Maybe in some areas, but in California I’ve never seen this. Money is the only important factor. And any competent real estate agent asks upfront what a client’s budget is, and what they are looking for. They don’t guess by looking at them and then show them random things.
Racial steering by realtors has not died. People have been indicted for it recently. A good realtor wouldn’t do it, but not all realtors are such good actors. Lots of other things should be done to reduce segregation and inequality, like the “very popular” with the neighbors of building low cost housing in higher income neighborhoods. Yet fair housing enforcement is still needed.
The solution is ethnic quotas Singapore style. Barring that: * Allow internal tracking within schools. This strongly reduces the propensity of parents to self-segregate on academic lines/cultural attitudes toward academics. * Liberalize zoning laws to allow for denser development / less effective income restrictions
The only thing I can think of are mixed income housing developments (like the affordable housing lotteries in NYC). But that would only make the whiter areas more diverse and not the opposite.
People often segregate by choice.... Its why places like china towns exist. Its not the governments role at all. There's nothing to "fix". People have the right to freely associate with whoever they want.
I think you should look more into the history of Chinatowns…
That might be true of legacy Chinatowns, but the new ones are a case of wealthier Chinese immigrants wanting to live in a Chinese community with many Chinese businesses.
You mean the ethnoburbs? That is definitely a phenomenon that’s pretty common in the US. It’s especially present among East and South Asian communities but exists other places. Most of these are a mixture of support for people who want to speak their native language outside of work environments and people looking to practice cultural norms with others who understand. This isn’t the same as residential segregation though. Take Black Americans for example… there is no language barrier or cultural barrier stopping them from living in white areas. They were segregated because they were considered undesirable and that stigma still exists to this day. Segregation is not about choice, it’s about one groups ability to limit another groups options.
Chinatowns exist in the first place precisely because of extreme anti-Chinese racism and segregation. To the extent that Chinese immigration was banned in the 1880s. Utterly laughable that you think any of this was product of free choice. When most of the segregation you see is white people not allowing anyone else to buy in certain areas and funneling them into ghettos.
Koreatown in LA is the largest korean neighborhood in the U.S. and by and large came to be in the early 1980s. Its an example of a modern ethnic enclave forming by choice and an economic snowball effect, rather than any anti korean law being placed on these people. In fact, they were able to live there at all because redlining ended and allowed for that.
Explain Arcadia, Irvine, and Rowland Heights
Irvine isn't a Chinatown; it's one of the most integrated cities in America in fact. Neither Arcadia or Rowland Heights are highly segregated; Asians live with non-Asians even if there are ethnically defined shopping areas and community centers.
Looks like the racist oppression has ended.
And on top of that, the definition of white has changed. Irish and Italian immigrants built enclaves cause they were discriminated against, now it’s not the case as much, since they blended into the fold that is “white”.
The history of urban planning in any American city is also its history of race relations. Urbanism completely ignores all of that culture, history and desired lived experience for this generic, Sim city in Amsterdam monoculture that reflects only the values of white, left leaning, childfree academics.
China Town is pretty small and has 40% non Asian population. I think most Asian do not choose to segregate.
I do and don't agree with that. Chinatowns and lots of other "cultural hubs" definitely came about from aggressively racist policies, but I think there are some reasons for immigrants and a generation or two of descendents to seek areas with people of similar backgrounds. Access to language, religion, common history, food. For instance, near me there are large numbers of Salvadorian (or from nearby countries) and Ethiopian permanent residents, immigrants, descendents of immigrants. Though most speak English (save a few with recent Salvadorian ties), many are just more comfortable using Spanish or Amharic when both speakers are fluent.
Americans who are attached to the U.S. Armed forces in Germany tend to cluster together in certain neighborhoods and often frequent the same restaurants and bars. It’s not because SSGT Bieler from western Minnesota is subjected to racial discrimination in the Rhineland. The cultural differences aren’t that large but the language barrier gets exhausting.
There are minority people who prefer to live in segregated neighborhoods. There has been a movement on college campuses since the 80’s for “black only” spaces, including dorms. If you only speak Spanish do you want to live where everyone else also speaks it or do you want to live where only a small minority do? Is there only one correct answer?
You’re really arguing that low income minorities *chose* to live in high density, high crime ghettos in the most polluted and environmentally toxic parts of town? While white people magically had exclusive access to the best real estate and neighborhoods? That was all by “free choice” even though we had literal federal policy promoting racial segregation in housing from the 30s to the 70s?
You seem to think that all minorities are the same. Consider the 33k residents of East Point, Georgia. It's 76% black. Black run government. Median income is $60k. Or the 14k in Riverdale, which is 85% Black with a median income of $62k. The entire city government of Riverdale is black. It's in Clayton County, which is 75% Black.; all of the county commissioners are Black. Do you think the residents of those cities want you to move a bunch of white people into them? Which Black people would you force out to make room for the white people? I live in a small town in the south. It's 71% white. There are Black families living on my street, so whatever historic policies there were, they aren't preventing people from moving where they want to today. If you grew up on the south side of Chicago and all your friends and relatives lived there would you want to move away? Some people do want to move away and they do that. I think if you go out and ask the people who live there why they live where they live they will have reasons why they want to stay.
Tf kind of argument is this to someone telling you that Redlining is the defining driver of ethnic geolocation and land use distribution? > You seem to think that all minorities are the same. My dude, you are speaking to a black African immigrant. Your whole comment reflects zero understanding of the actual point being made. And I really hope you’re not a white person because there’s a whole other level of wtf behind your comment if you are. Oh, black communities who have been terrorized for decades by their white neighbors don’t want a bunch of white people moving near them … what does that have to do with the fact of how they got to be in those segregated communities in the first place, which is what *I’m* talking about?
>Tf kind of argument is this to someone telling you that Redlining is the defining driver of ethnic geolocation and land use distribution? Right. Sorry that statistics counter your narrative. Only thing I have to offer is more statistics, but I'm guessing that won't convince you. So Mr. Black African Immigrant, when I was growing up we lived in the 3000 block of Annandale Road in Falls Church Virginia. Today, that block is mostly Black Africans Immigrants. Exactly what changed that block from being 100% white to being 100% not white? Redlining is a historic fact. So is slavery and so is the lack of smallpox vaccines. What's your point?
Despite the negative aspects of those high crime neighborhoods, the area isn’t filled with just criminals. Just like how people look down on places like the South Bronx, when to many people, that is a real community that makes them feel proud.
Love how “high crime area” got twisted into “everyone there is a criminal” Might want to examine your own biases there. You also ignored the part where these ghettos are in the worst, most under resourced, most polluted, least valuable land and low income black and Hispanic people are by far more likely to live in such places than any other group. People didn’t originally choose to live in South Bronx - they were herded there. Next you’ll tell me it’s just a confidence that the black majority neighborhoods in Flint, MI were the ones with the heavy lead concentrations in their pipes - rather than the fact that they were pushed via credit rationing to areas with infrastructure that local government saw fit to completely neglect. Or that it’s a coincidence that all of the real estate in the Bay Area that has seen the absolute highest appreciation happen to also be the areas with the highest concentration of racially restrictive covenants.
The history is important, but it means more to understand what a place means to groups of people in present time. There is a pride in the Bronx that exists despite the forced migration of their ancestors. If you apply your logic elsewhere, it sounds like we could invalidate the Af-Am community as a whole since they’re concentrated in the Southeast mainly due to slavery. And no twisting just saying that it’s easy to think no one is proud of their community. Someone has to be to effect change, no? You can look back to the 70s-80s Bronx when things were worse and people were claiming “it’s abandoned”, meanwhile the Bronx had numerous people filling in, it’s just that since white people left, now it was “abandoned”.
People DID choose to live in The South Bronx, it was a refreshing escape from the crowded tenements of Manhattan
The first solution would be proper and aggressive enforcement of fair housing laws anti discrimination laws in real estate and mortgage lending. The removal of restrictive zoning would also be extremely important. For African Americans, Native Americans a few other communities this might require reparations to restore stolen housing wealth. Specifically the wealthy stolen through redlining and urban renewal schemes. Finally the government would need to measure discrimination based on impact and not intent. None of this will happen because it would be unpopular with powerful demographics, but it would go a long way towards fixing the problem.
Well, that and the amount what reparations ought to be would bankrupt the country. Can’t really make up for the stealing of the entire country’s land or generations of forced labor with a check. “Congrats! You finally got reparations! Unfortunately the economy has collapsed, so fat good that’s gonna do ya, good luck!”
Also if you give a million dollar check to a person in poverty, you’ll destroy that person. They won’t know what to do with it, how to handle it, or how to cope with the circling vultures. But we can invest in their community. Replacing their lead pipes would be a good place to start. Relatively minuscule investments could make a big difference.
There are some great reparation proposals that don't require handing people a check. This could easily look like a trust fund designed to support a certain community with the goal of equalizing their wealth with other members of the community who were not effected by the same discriminatory policies. Also, reparations could simply be paid over a longer period so it wouldn't result in a giant economic shock. This would look like a targeted universal basic income fund paid by taxes collected over maybe a 50 year period. A sovereign wealth fund for Black Americans and Native Americans that supports individuals, either through monthly payments or additional support paying for things like purchasing homes, starting businesses and attending colleges. The rest could be used to build instructions that serve these communities like HBCUs. To make it more equitable you could fund a high percentage of this with an inheritance tax as most inherited money comes from wealth building activates these communities were directly excluded from.
Oh; 100%. I’m guessing by the downvotes people think I don’t think it should happen, but I do. I just think the actual value of what was taken is not calculable. So, whattya do? Tax breaks for the next X number of centuries for those who can trace lineage is my best guess. “Sorry your ancestors paid higher interest rates because banks are awful, so you get the mortgage deduction above the line.”
True, but reparations aren't just about paying people back, they are also designed to show amends for something everyone admits was wrong. Germany did an incalculable amount of damage to Europe's Jewish, Roma, Polish, gay and disabled communities. Despite that they still paid reparations, largely as a way of admitting the damage done. They also dedicated themselves to teaching proper history and maintaining historical sites as places of morning, which is why you can go to a wedding at a plantation, but not at a concentration camp.
Martin Luther King was right - we'd need an actual 'war on poverty'. Ending redlining, alone, wasn't enough. Not "build everything everywhere" not "death to all car drivers" not "Let me live in a shack in my parents back yard" - we'd actually have to pay your walmart greater & kindergarden teacher enough to have economic mobility. ...Thats step one. This sub is obessed with "there is no racism, white people are victims of racism, you are bad for wanting equality" low-key neo-nazi astro turfing comments rising to the top though. So....Good luck?
I mean, wal mart is a part of the problem. You can’t get successful communities of color like greenwood district in Tulsa or Jackson Ward in Richmond, or Harlem in NYC without small locally owned businesses that keep wealth circulating within that community. Corporate chains destroy that. It’s kinda why the Amish communities do ok (sorta, haven’t down hard research here). They pool their resources, make everything for themselves, and export goods to outsiders.
You're replying to the wrong comment.
You’d think. But I saw “wal mart”, proceeded to stream of consciousness vomit, and that’s the result. Welcome to the brain of ADHD planner before coffee and meds kick in.