Salon Article - Gentrification / Racism / White Supremacy (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

OMG this is like tossing a live grenade into an armory and saying "keep it down". I'm going to hold off and see what johnjohn thinks.

...

Ha. Really.

Also, fyi to all, prior thread on the gentrification issue here:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=703788&hl=gentrification

Remember this. This was only like a week or two ago, right?

 

[[icon]]

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

Bingo.

If families move into my neighborhood who don't care for their property, have the police called frequently, or increase the risk of crime or domestic disturbance, I will most definitely be moving. I don't care WHAT race they are. I want to live around people who care for their property, and who are inoffensive neighbors.

 

[Koya]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

It's about balance. For both social and long term economic reasons, mixed-income, mixed-ethnic communities are far more sustainable than segregated ones (as we are witnessing now). The wealthy area's price out the workforce and contract their local / regional economy and the poor areas become resource sucking ghettos.

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

I'm not sure I was clear as I think you missed the point.

We can't expect people to run counter to natural instinct. Namely, you aren't going to just get rich white folk to move to poor areas to fulfill some public good.

However, when you have new development activity in downtrodden areas that will lead to gentrification, you can certainly utilize legislative provisions that ensure a place for locals to remain, you can provide stipulations for local hire provisions that allow an organic economic uplift of the poor to remain in a revitalized and more expensive area. It's hardly a panacea, but that can help prevent the whitewash of an area as an exclusive future enclave for those of greater economic means down the road.

In addition, wealthier areas by and large HAVE a legal obligation to provide a range of housing options at all economic levels, but wealthier areas have done a historically terrible job of fulfilling these requirements.

So, when I say balance, you can look to future development to help balance the scales of what pure market economics might result in - because its (1) the right thing to do and more importantly perhaps (2) the long term economic interests of the area will be better served by allowing for mixed-income living rather than pricing out an important component of the economy regarding the working class (and younger workers in general)

 

[rockaction]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

It's about balance. For both social and long term economic reasons, mixed-income, mixed-ethnic communities are far more sustainable than segregated ones (as we are witnessing now). The wealthy area's price out the workforce and contract their local / regional economy and the poor areas become resource sucking ghettos.

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

And I think that's the point of the article, and the actual thing to think about. "But look how much better it is now!" is inherently filled with that white supremacy that the article is talking about. Better for whom? It's more in line with a white suburb or a white area of the city, and white people feel more comfortable there. That's how it's better.

"We're going to clean up an area of the city" means "we're going to raise property values and probably police presence." If that means raising property taxes and given the rate of incarceration of black males in this country if that means more young black men in the area will get arrested, well, that does tend to turn off some in the black community.

Jeez, I'd written a long response conceding some points, but this is something else. Terrier, you.

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

Point was made before, but when I lived in D.C., we used to laugh about "white flight." Weren't wanted, were wanted. What was the deal, exactly? Oh. Yeah. Tax base.

Well, which brings the institutional issue back to the forefront. This isn't about individuals buying property - it's about a pattern. Gentrification by its very definition involves a pattern of replacement inside a community. The pattern over time seems to be: abandon land to the lower class, let the value drop significantly, buy up the land at a significant reduction in price, move back in.

Except it looks pretty shady and exploitive to people who said "alright, we can put down roots and build a community right here... oh, wait, you want it back now? Damn."

It's almost as if white people get together to do this. C'mon man, don't go to motive; go to spontaneous hand or something.

 

[Koya]

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

Bingo.

If families move into my neighborhood who don't care for their property, have the police called frequently, or increase the risk of crime or domestic disturbance, I will most definitely be moving. I don't care WHAT race they are. I want to live around people who care for their property, and who are inoffensive neighbors.

It has been demonstrated the mixed-income environments result in FAR less issues of this type than grouping low income residents either in one building or worse yet, in multiple buildings all in one area. In fact, the case is almost always that the market rate housing within mixed-income buildings can not tell the different between those paying market rates or sub-market rates.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not inconsequential, but not nearly as significant as the attachment that comes with owning the property. At some point there's a distinction between the emotional ties you form to a space that you must continue to rent on a year-to-year basis and the emotional ties you form with a property that you own. I'm sympathetic to people who are forced to leave a rental due to rising rates, but at the same time they sign and renew that lease, they probably know what rights it provides and doesn't provide. I know that some people can't afford to be homeowners, and if you show me legislation or a private program to help low-income families become homeowners or stay in gentrifying communities and I'll happily support it. But I don't think we can just act like the end of a rental agreement, even a longstanding one, is the same as forcing someone to sell their property.

I think the perspective may be different for someone that has lived their entire life in rental homes and does not see renting as a temporary arrangement.

I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't chance the fact that they are a temporary arrangement, and that's why myself and many posters here feel differently about displacement due to changing market conditions than they do about displacement due to exercise of eminent domain. The temporary nature of renting has upsides too.

 

[Slapdash]

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

Bingo.

If families move into my neighborhood who don't care for their property, have the police called frequently, or increase the risk of crime or domestic disturbance, I will most definitely be moving. I don't care WHAT race they are. I want to live around people who care for their property, and who are inoffensive neighbors.

It has been demonstrated the mixed-income environments result in FAR less issues of this type than grouping low income residents either in one building or worse yet, in multiple buildings all in one area. In fact, the case is almost always that the market rate housing within mixed-income buildings can not tell the different between those paying market rates or sub-market rates.

Isn't this an argument in favor of gentrification policies?

 

[[icon]]

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

Bingo.

If families move into my neighborhood who don't care for their property, have the police called frequently, or increase the risk of crime or domestic disturbance, I will most definitely be moving. I don't care WHAT race they are. I want to live around people who care for their property, and who are inoffensive neighbors.

It has been demonstrated the mixed-income environments result in FAR less issues of this type than grouping low income residents either in one building or worse yet, in multiple buildings all in one area. In fact, the case is almost always that the market rate housing within mixed-income buildings can not tell the different between those paying market rates or sub-market rates.

If that was indeed the case I'm not sure that white flight would be as prevalent as it is now. I think people move because of crime, neglect, or socially offensive neighbors... not because of race.

 

[Koya]

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

Bingo.

If families move into my neighborhood who don't care for their property, have the police called frequently, or increase the risk of crime or domestic disturbance, I will most definitely be moving. I don't care WHAT race they are. I want to live around people who care for their property, and who are inoffensive neighbors.

It has been demonstrated the mixed-income environments result in FAR less issues of this type than grouping low income residents either in one building or worse yet, in multiple buildings all in one area. In fact, the case is almost always that the market rate housing within mixed-income buildings can not tell the different between those paying market rates or sub-market rates.

Isn't this an argument in favor of gentrification policies?

It's an argument in favor of balances and responsible mixed-income development that addresses the needs of the existing population, especially those of a lower economic strata. So, it's pro-economic development that's done in a socially conscious manner.

When I hear "gentrification policies" the thought is an unbalanced approach that REPLACES a native population with a more economically stable / wealthy population.

 

[Slapdash]

Remove race from the equation entirely for a moment.

Assumption: The free market sets the value of residences based on convenience, amenities, quality of lodging, quality of life.

Why should a community in which the free market has set a lodging value of X, be forced artificially lower the value of a segment of housing in that community?

Who absorbs the difference if it's a private development? Is it not unfair to expect the owner of that property to be forced to accept less value?

Short answer:

1. In terms of regional economics, it's very dangerous to price out the working class. Works well in the short term, but the long term impacts of the middle class (not just the lower class) not being able to afford to live within Manhattan, then Brooklyn, Then close in area's of queens.... this becomes an economically unsustainable platform that causes significant issues down the road, all for near term growth in tax revenues

I think a large part of the answer here is to use these new tax revenues to fund better transportation alternatives, although the timing probably runs in reverse.

 

[Henry Ford]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

It's about balance. For both social and long term economic reasons, mixed-income, mixed-ethnic communities are far more sustainable than segregated ones (as we are witnessing now). The wealthy area's price out the workforce and contract their local / regional economy and the poor areas become resource sucking ghettos.

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

And I think that's the point of the article, and the actual thing to think about. "But look how much better it is now!" is inherently filled with that white supremacy that the article is talking about. Better for whom? It's more in line with a white suburb or a white area of the city, and white people feel more comfortable there. That's how it's better.

"We're going to clean up an area of the city" means "we're going to raise property values and probably police presence." If that means raising property taxes and given the rate of incarceration of black males in this country if that means more young black men in the area will get arrested, well, that does tend to turn off some in the black community.

Jeez, I'd written a long response conceding some points, but this is something else. Terrier, you.

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

Point was made before, but when I lived in D.C., we used to laugh about "white flight." Weren't wanted, were wanted. What was the deal, exactly? Oh. Yeah. Tax base.

Well, which brings the institutional issue back to the forefront. This isn't about individuals buying property - it's about a pattern. Gentrification by its very definition involves a pattern of replacement inside a community. The pattern over time seems to be: abandon land to the lower class, let the value drop significantly, buy up the land at a significant reduction in price, move back in.

Except it looks pretty shady and exploitive to people who said "alright, we can put down roots and build a community right here... oh, wait, you want it back now? Damn."

It's almost as if white people get together to do this. C'mon man, don't go to motive; go to spontaneous hand or something.

And I don't think "white people" get together to do this as a racist thing - it's just what ends up happening as a result of profit motive and having more money as a group for several generations.

It's perspective: Guy whose family has had money for generations wants to buy back the land where his grandfather's first store was built. Area is now a low-income area, which is why it was abandoned in the first place, and that's how family made huge amounts of money. He convinces other business owners he knows that they should all go in together and buy a bunch of cheap property and build it up. Guy buys it back, gets zoning laws on his side because of the "revitalization" he's bringing into the area, gets tax breaks and leads to beautification projects and higher property values, and dominos start to fall. He's white, the lower-income "new" residents he's displacing are black, and it's gentrification. From white guy's perspective, he's fixing something up. Might not be the same from the other perspective.

 

[Slapdash]

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

Bingo.

If families move into my neighborhood who don't care for their property, have the police called frequently, or increase the risk of crime or domestic disturbance, I will most definitely be moving. I don't care WHAT race they are. I want to live around people who care for their property, and who are inoffensive neighbors.

It has been demonstrated the mixed-income environments result in FAR less issues of this type than grouping low income residents either in one building or worse yet, in multiple buildings all in one area. In fact, the case is almost always that the market rate housing within mixed-income buildings can not tell the different between those paying market rates or sub-market rates.

Isn't this an argument in favor of gentrification policies?

It's an argument in favor of balances and responsible mixed-income development that addresses the needs of the existing population, especially those of a lower economic strata. So, it's pro-economic development that's done in a socially conscious manner.

When I hear "gentrification policies" the thought is an unbalanced approach that REPLACES a native population with a more economically stable / wealthy population.

OK, I was more meaning the first part here. Not really sure the best term for it.

 

[Eminence]

Isn't gentrification just strategic marketing? You want to raise the property values of the area?

Change the name. Raise the prices. Open a Gap and Banana Republic.

If you know crime is linked to poverty rates, you make it more expensive to live somewhere.

Anything that deals with race after that is coincidence. If more whites are wealthy than blacks, so be it.

There is a group of people willing to pay the price of having nice things. If they want it, let them have it. No one is more or less entitled to it. Everyone had equal opportunity to gobble up cheap property.

 

[Koya]

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

Bingo.

If families move into my neighborhood who don't care for their property, have the police called frequently, or increase the risk of crime or domestic disturbance, I will most definitely be moving. I don't care WHAT race they are. I want to live around people who care for their property, and who are inoffensive neighbors.

It has been demonstrated the mixed-income environments result in FAR less issues of this type than grouping low income residents either in one building or worse yet, in multiple buildings all in one area. In fact, the case is almost always that the market rate housing within mixed-income buildings can not tell the different between those paying market rates or sub-market rates.

If that was indeed the case I'm not sure that white flight would be as prevalent as it is now. I think people move because of crime, neglect, or socially offensive neighbors... not because of race.

Mixed-income development is a new phenomenon. Hope VI projects are a good example, albeit on a smaller individual scale.

A lot more thought is now going into the urban an social planning side of development than in previous iterations - or rather urban and social planning that is not designed to result in segregation and separation as had been the case in the '60's-90's.

Had we utilized the tools and approaches that are being implemented today back then, we might have a far different outcome with less pockets of poverty that becomes a vicious and self fulfilling cycle of need, dependence and segregation.

 

[Koya]

Isn't gentrification just strategic marketing? You want to raise the property values of the area?

Change the name. Raise the prices. Open a Gap and Banana Republic.

If you know crime is linked to poverty rates, you make it more expensive to live somewhere.

Anything that deals with race after that is coincidence. If more whites are wealthy than blacks, so be it.

There is a group of people willing to pay the price of having nice things. If they want it, let them have it. No one is more or less entitled to it. Everyone had equal opportunity to gobble up cheap property.

Not much a student of history, eh? (pretty much, all history, ever, for that matter)

 

[rockaction]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

It's about balance. For both social and long term economic reasons, mixed-income, mixed-ethnic communities are far more sustainable than segregated ones (as we are witnessing now). The wealthy area's price out the workforce and contract their local / regional economy and the poor areas become resource sucking ghettos.

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

And I think that's the point of the article, and the actual thing to think about. "But look how much better it is now!" is inherently filled with that white supremacy that the article is talking about. Better for whom? It's more in line with a white suburb or a white area of the city, and white people feel more comfortable there. That's how it's better.

"We're going to clean up an area of the city" means "we're going to raise property values and probably police presence." If that means raising property taxes and given the rate of incarceration of black males in this country if that means more young black men in the area will get arrested, well, that does tend to turn off some in the black community.

Jeez, I'd written a long response conceding some points, but this is something else. Terrier, you.

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

Point was made before, but when I lived in D.C., we used to laugh about "white flight." Weren't wanted, were wanted. What was the deal, exactly? Oh. Yeah. Tax base.

Well, which brings the institutional issue back to the forefront. This isn't about individuals buying property - it's about a pattern. Gentrification by its very definition involves a pattern of replacement inside a community. The pattern over time seems to be: abandon land to the lower class, let the value drop significantly, buy up the land at a significant reduction in price, move back in.

Except it looks pretty shady and exploitive to people who said "alright, we can put down roots and build a community right here... oh, wait, you want it back now? Damn."

It's almost as if white people get together to do this. C'mon man, don't go to motive; go to spontaneous hand or something.

And I don't think "white people" get together to do this as a racist thing - it's just what ends up happening as a result of profit motive and having more money as a group for several generations.

It's perspective: Guy whose family has had money for generations wants to buy back the land where his grandfather's first store was built. Area is now a low-income area, which is why it was abandoned in the first place, and that's how family made huge amounts of money. He convinces other business owners he knows that they should all go in together and buy a bunch of cheap property and build it up. Guy buys it back, gets zoning laws on his side because of the "revitalization" he's bringing into the area, gets tax breaks and leads to beautification projects and higher property values, and dominos start to fall. He's white, the lower-income "new" residents he's displacing are black, and it's gentrification. From white guy's perspective, he's fixing something up. Might not be the same from the other perspective.

Still think that's spontaneous hand.

Also, I get the perspective from the other side, and I have no lack of sympathy for it. When Spike Lee spoke out a few weeks ago -- which is relevant, as that's when the first gent. argument was started in the FFA-- all he asked was that you listen to a freakin' saxophone in a former music district at a reasonable hour. Not that tough.

 

[igbomb]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

Point was made before, but when I lived in D.C., we used to laugh about "white flight." Weren't wanted, were wanted. What was the deal, exactly? Oh. Yeah. Tax base.

Well, which brings the institutional issue back to the forefront. This isn't about individuals buying property - it's about a pattern. Gentrification by its very definition involves a pattern of replacement inside a community. The pattern over time seems to be: abandon land to the lower class, let the value drop significantly, buy up the land at a significant reduction in price, move back in. That seems like a stupendous overall business model for profit. Except it looks pretty shady and exploitive to people who said "alright, we can put down roots and build a community right here... oh, wait, you want it back now? Damn."

Sorry but this comment is completely off-base.

You're portraying these trends as characters in some narrative, implying that the same person who moved away and let the value disappear is now the one coming back in and buying up land. These things typically take generations to swing up and down and up again.

Just because white people fleeing Detroit was a big driver of its current devastation, does that suggest that every white person who now invests their money into the city should feel a portion of the guilt for what came before?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just a few thoughts here:

Something I've learned on the FFA is that people come from a vareity of different places and perspectives, so it isn't necessarily advertised as such. Some of us may live in small rural towns, some of us may be suburban, some of us may be in the city and some may even be in these gentrified areas.

I can tell you my experiences with gentrification: NYC (friends in Brooklyn, Tribeca, Meat Packing, East Village) and New Orleans (Carrollton, Garden District, Central City, Marigny/Bywater/9th Ward).

I say this because I wonder how many people who comment on it really have had experience with it.

Here's what I love about gentrification:

• Preservation of historic architecture
• People mixing
• Decrease in crime (yes)
• Property values and investment rising, good for everyone
• New businesses in old neighborhoods - few things I love better than seeing a grand old building put into commerce via a small business

Here's what I don't like:

• The "race" word and politics
• The loss of great neighbrohood people - the people who staked out ground and kept the neighborhood as safe and happy as can be... are driven out or just want to leave
• Some people especially renters get priced out

The NYC story is based on real estate development. It's a story about developers creating fancy/cool/hip names like DUMBO or NOHO or Tribeca and overnmight turning them into buzzwords and desirable place to be.

The New Orleans story is about Katrina: 80% of our city was flooded. It's too complicated to really break down here, but New Orleans had neighborhoods that were Irish, German, Italian, creole over the 150 years and then, partly due to hurricanes like Betsy (causing mor flooding) in the 50s and 60s and partly due to the typical white flight that went on everywhere, along with black migration from Mississippi and rural LA in the 1920s through the 50s, those neighborhoods changed.

I could go on because our neighborhoods are fascinating. My people on my father's side started out in what became an all black area. Now it is becoming gradually more white.

After Katrina, much in the way of what was left of some really big housing projects were torn down. It's just a fact that the neighborhoods around them flourished not long after. If any of you have seen the HBO show Treme there is some discussion of this.

Overall the net has been very beneficial, the city has done a 180 degree turn and it's now a good place for investment, for entreneurship, and though there is still a ton of political corruption perhaps it's at least more professionally run.

One other thing about NO: the city is ridiculously violent, and the police force has been deservedly investigated, punished, embarrassed, and more for over a hundred years of corruption, and now there are just 1000, maybe less, policemen, which is crazy. And yet the violence is largely statistically black on black, and relegated to parts of the city which you could truly live here your whole life and never, ever see if you so chose. And yet now as stated whites are moving into areas that have been black for the last say 50 years.

About the article:

The author is Hispanic and from Brooklyn.

http://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Jos%C3%A9-Older/e/B008JO19JK

This gets back to the perespective element I was discussing. One difference between NYC & NO is that in NO you have blacks and whites living perhaps very segregated and yet still just blocks from each other. You cannot grow up in NO without getting to know the other races/ethnicities. Can't. In fact it's often impossible to tell us apart, we are indeed very interbred and blacks can look whites and whites can look black. "Race" itself is a very vague, self-perceiving non-scientific thing and if you want proof come here.

Yet elsewhere, in places like NYC it is very, very real and concrete, You can go blocks and blocks, scores of blocks, that are segregated.

When Older says this...

Gentrification is violence. Couched in white supremacy, it is a systemic, intentional process of uprooting communities. It’s been on the rise, increasing at a frantic rate in the last 20 years, but the roots stretch back to the disenfranchisement that resulted from white flight and segregationist policies.

...He seemingly can't be serious, but he is. And yet that's his perspective in NYC.

With gentrification, the central act of violence is one of erasure. Accordingly, when the discourse of gentrification isn’t pathologizing communities of color, it’s erasing them.

I think what I find really disturbing is the notion that any one person must first be classified by "race" and then must be told where to live. That's horrible. A city is a living, breathing thing. To stop the movement of people is to stop the flow of blood within the body. It's not only wrong, it's lethal to a city's future.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Personally? My personal belief is that you should move into a neighborhood you like and want to be a part of, rather than moving into a neighborhood you want to change. I think that takes care of both.

Thanks. I think that makes sense too.

But say the neighborhood you want to be a part of is a renovating older neighborhood that would fall under this gentrification label.

Is someone contributing to the problem doing this?

I don't mean this specifically for you, Henry. Just asking in general.

I guess part of my thing is I see people railing on how gentrification is bad. Then what are we to do? Stay in our own areas and not make any moves?

J

 

[igbomb]

My main beef with this article and the concept in general is that most of these areas now 'suffering' from gentrification are the same areas that folks have been complaining about for decades. They are often high crime, no money, no jobs places that residents wish would improve in a meaningful way. Yet folks like this writer only want those improvements on their terms. Yes, we want more money, but outsiders aren't welcome. Yes we need more jobs, but not those jobs.

It evokes a feeling that you just can't win. Now that these places have money coming in, and safe streets and streetlights that work, the complaint is about a loss of culture. It's as if the author wants someone to just drop briefcases of money from the sky so the existing residents can suddenly have enough money to do all the things they can't afford today yet no new outsiders need to intrude on their space.

Ridiculous. And it sounds like a complaint of the privileged.

 

[Eminence]

Personally? My personal belief is that you should move into a neighborhood you like and want to be a part of, rather than moving into a neighborhood you want to change. I think that takes care of both.

Thanks. I think that makes sense too.

But say the neighborhood you want to be a part of is a renovating older neighborhood that would fall under this gentrification label.

Is someone contributing to the problem doing this?

I don't mean this specifically for you, Henry. Just asking in general.

I guess part of my thing is I see people railing on how gentrification is bad. Then what are we to do? Stay in our own areas and not make any moves?

J

That kind of goes back to the line of thinking brought up earlier in the thread. Oftentimes these areas heavy populated by low-income African Americans were populaces that were once predominantly white. They, effectively "changed" the neighborhood over the years; albiet unintentionally.

Blacks began moving in, whites respond by moving out.

Years later, whites decide they want to restore the community which formerly flourished. If anything, the people in the community had years upon years to do something "constructive" with the area and failed to do so. Now an entrepenuer is coming in (ignoring race) and trying to make the most of the area. Many times there is opportunities in these areas because of the historical significance.

I view it as an open ballgame for everyone involved. When the blacks moved in, the whites didn't throw a hissy fit; they took their ball and went somewhere else. If the current blacks in the area do not like what the whites are doing with the area, they have the same option to take their ball and move somewhere else like the whites did decades before. The blacks had the right to move in years before, just as the whites have the rights currently to renovate a community.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Saints. Appreciate your perspective.

J

 

[[icon]]

Supply and demand.

 

[Henry Ford]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

Point was made before, but when I lived in D.C., we used to laugh about "white flight." Weren't wanted, were wanted. What was the deal, exactly? Oh. Yeah. Tax base.

Well, which brings the institutional issue back to the forefront. This isn't about individuals buying property - it's about a pattern. Gentrification by its very definition involves a pattern of replacement inside a community. The pattern over time seems to be: abandon land to the lower class, let the value drop significantly, buy up the land at a significant reduction in price, move back in. That seems like a stupendous overall business model for profit. Except it looks pretty shady and exploitive to people who said "alright, we can put down roots and build a community right here... oh, wait, you want it back now? Damn."

Sorry but this comment is completely off-base.

You're portraying these trends as characters in some narrative, implying that the same person who moved away and let the value disappear is now the one coming back in and buying up land. These things typically take generations to swing up and down and up again.

Just because white people fleeing Detroit was a big driver of its current devastation, does that suggest that every white person who now invests their money into the city should feel a portion of the guilt for what came before?

Quite the opposite. That's why it's "institutional racism." I agree with you. In fact, a later post of mine describes the perspective I'm talking about.

 

[Henry Ford]

Personally? My personal belief is that you should move into a neighborhood you like and want to be a part of, rather than moving into a neighborhood you want to change. I think that takes care of both.

Thanks. I think that makes sense too.

But say the neighborhood you want to be a part of is a renovating older neighborhood that would fall under this gentrification label.

Is someone contributing to the problem doing this?

I don't mean this specifically for you, Henry. Just asking in general.

I guess part of my thing is I see people railing on how gentrification is bad. Then what are we to do? Stay in our own areas and not make any moves?

J

I think gentrification is often bad for the people who currently live there. Fortunately for my conscience, I don't particularly care much for most people in any area.

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations? Absolutely. Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

I'd say something to think about is a discount card for your business for people who live in the neighborhood. Or actually getting to know your neighbors - all of them, not just the fellow gentrifiers. Respect the people who were there before you as much as possible. Understand what kind of place you're moving into and support keeping the things about it that make it what it is. Help fight against restrictions on live music and zoning restrictions that have never been enforced until white folks moved in. Be a part of the neighborhood, not a part of changing the neighborhood. If you do that, I think you're helping make a success story like those talked about earlier in the thread.

 

[[icon]]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

 

[rockaction]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

Brookings Institute took great pains to point out this was a class issue, not a race issue. I'd have to find the paper.

But that was nice.

 

[Henry Ford]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

Because the article we're discussing is about gentrification as a reflection of white supremacy.

 

[rockaction]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

Because the article we're discussing is about gentrification as a reflection of white supremacy.

Kinda like it wasn't about eminent domain?

I wish I had that picture of the dog with the stuffed animal and ####e.

 

[Henry Ford]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

Because the article we're discussing is about gentrification as a reflection of white supremacy.

Kinda like it wasn't about eminent domain?

I wish I had that picture of the dog with the stuffed animal and ####e.

You seem upset about this. Eminent domain has been used by cities looking to help large shopping, housing, and/or medical complexes move in and build. The mere threat of it is often enough to get people to sell. Why is this idea such a hot-button issue?

 

[rockaction]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

Because the article we're discussing is about gentrification as a reflection of white supremacy.

Kinda like it wasn't about eminent domain?

I wish I had that picture of the dog with the stuffed animal and ####e.

You seem upset about this. Eminent domain has been used by cities looking to help large shopping, housing, and/or medical complexes move in and build. The mere threat of it is often enough to get people to sell. Why is this idea such a hot-button issue?

I really was kidding. But it is a hot-button issue with me. Because the transfer of private property to private citizens via the government is radically offensive to me.

Not much else than that. It's the Fifth Amendment, bastardized.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

If we're talking about the government using eminent domain to force people out of their homes so that yet another Starbucks can go up, then yeah, you and I are in complete agreement.

That wasn't my takeaway from this article though. The author seems to feel like his neighborhood was perfect the way it was, before Those People started moving in and messing with property values. It read to me like a caricature of 1970s-era segregationism, except that this was written a couple of days ago and the author seems completely sincere and not satirical at all.

 

[Clifford]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

Because the article we're discussing is about gentrification as a reflection of white supremacy.

The article itself is a big hot mess of white guilt and ultra-liberal assertions that are backed up by absolutely nothing. The article isn't worthy of discussion as it is the left equivalent of something on breitbart. Unadulterated trash that really damages salon's reputation as a journal.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Personally? My personal belief is that you should move into a neighborhood you like and want to be a part of, rather than moving into a neighborhood you want to change. I think that takes care of both.

Thanks. I think that makes sense too.

But say the neighborhood you want to be a part of is a renovating older neighborhood that would fall under this gentrification label.

Is someone contributing to the problem doing this?

I don't mean this specifically for you, Henry. Just asking in general.

I guess part of my thing is I see people railing on how gentrification is bad. Then what are we to do? Stay in our own areas and not make any moves?

J

I think gentrification is often bad for the people who currently live there. Fortunately for my conscience, I don't particularly care much for most people in any area.

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations? Absolutely. Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

I'd say something to think about is a discount card for your business for people who live in the neighborhood. Or actually getting to know your neighbors - all of them, not just the fellow gentrifiers. Respect the people who were there before you as much as possible. Understand what kind of place you're moving into and support keeping the things about it that make it what it is. Help fight against restrictions on live music and zoning restrictions that have never been enforced until white folks moved in. Be a part of the neighborhood, not a part of changing the neighborhood. If you do that, I think you're helping make a success story like those talked about earlier in the thread.

That's interesting you say that. I was talking to a friend last week and we were in one of the neighborhoods and I said, "If I put a place up there, first thing you'd do is make best friends with that entire apartment building next door". And I would. It's not just the right thing to do. It's the best business thing you could do.

So yes, if I ever did something like this, I think I'd put a priority on melding into the area.

J

 

[Henry Ford]

You seem upset about this. Eminent domain has been used by cities looking to help large shopping, housing, and/or medical complexes move in and build. The mere threat of it is often enough to get people to sell. Why is this idea such a hot-button issue?

I really was kidding. But it is a hot-button issue with me. Because the transfer of private property to private citizens via the government is radically offensive to me.

Not much else than that. It's the Fifth Amendment, bastardized.

It's radically offensive to me, too.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations?

I don't understand this part. Who is the "we" who are pushing low-income people into less desirable neighborhoods? Can you think of any examples in which low-income people live in awesome, desirable neighborhoods while the rich live in ghettos? I can't, and that's not because anybody picked who got to live where. It's because low-income people generally can only afford low-income housing, which tends to be in depressed areas. There's no mystery or insidious planning here.

 

[Henry Ford]

Personally? My personal belief is that you should move into a neighborhood you like and want to be a part of, rather than moving into a neighborhood you want to change. I think that takes care of both.

Thanks. I think that makes sense too.

But say the neighborhood you want to be a part of is a renovating older neighborhood that would fall under this gentrification label.

Is someone contributing to the problem doing this?

I don't mean this specifically for you, Henry. Just asking in general.

I guess part of my thing is I see people railing on how gentrification is bad. Then what are we to do? Stay in our own areas and not make any moves?

J

I think gentrification is often bad for the people who currently live there. Fortunately for my conscience, I don't particularly care much for most people in any area.

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations? Absolutely. Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

I'd say something to think about is a discount card for your business for people who live in the neighborhood. Or actually getting to know your neighbors - all of them, not just the fellow gentrifiers. Respect the people who were there before you as much as possible. Understand what kind of place you're moving into and support keeping the things about it that make it what it is. Help fight against restrictions on live music and zoning restrictions that have never been enforced until white folks moved in. Be a part of the neighborhood, not a part of changing the neighborhood. If you do that, I think you're helping make a success story like those talked about earlier in the thread.

That's interesting you say that. I was talking to a friend last week and we were in one of the neighborhoods and I said, "If I put a place up there, first thing you'd do is make best friends with that entire apartment building next door". And I would. It's not just the right thing to do. It's the best business thing you could do.

So yes, if I ever did something like this, I think I'd put a priority on melding into the area.

J

There's an area in New Orleans that's currently "shifting." The first, probably biggest step was the creation of a fresh produce market that carries produce grown in Louisiana. One of my clients delivers produce to them for sale. They give 10% or something off of everything bought by someone who lives within the traditional confines of the neighborhood, and named themselves after the neighborhood, showing that they're not trying to "rebrand" the area.

It's worked out pretty well for them. Of course, it's worked out pretty well for Costco, which is now nearby. And they employ a lot of people in that neighborhood with some pretty solid jobs.

 

[rockaction]

You seem upset about this. Eminent domain has been used by cities looking to help large shopping, housing, and/or medical complexes move in and build. The mere threat of it is often enough to get people to sell. Why is this idea such a hot-button issue?

I really was kidding. But it is a hot-button issue with me. Because the transfer of private property to private citizens via the government is radically offensive to me.

Not much else than that. It's the Fifth Amendment, bastardized.

It's radically offensive to me, too.

But that wasn't really what the article was about, and you're reading your own knowledge into it. Which is actually fine, IMO.

And so the left and the right can agree!

 

[culdeus]

Henry Ford, are you seriously arguing that it can be a negative for your house value to rise?

This is not that far fetched of an opinion. Take the 10000 foot view of this question.

 

[Henry Ford]

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations?

I don't understand this part. Who is the "we" who are pushing low-income people into less desirable neighborhoods? Can you think of any examples in which low-income people live in awesome, desirable neighborhoods while the rich live in ghettos? I can't, and that's not because anybody picked who got to live where. It's because low-income people generally can only afford low-income housing, which tends to be in depressed areas. There's no mystery or insidious planning here.

Sure, but it's a reasonable question to ask "what are we destroying when we change this neighborhood?"

Who are the "we"? Well, me and lots of other people who financially support businesses that come in and take over large swaths of land that used to be houses and apartments.

 

[rockaction]

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations?

I don't understand this part. Who is the "we" who are pushing low-income people into less desirable neighborhoods? Can you think of any examples in which low-income people live in awesome, desirable neighborhoods while the rich live in ghettos? I can't, and that's not because anybody picked who got to live where. It's because low-income people generally can only afford low-income housing, which tends to be in depressed areas. There's no mystery or insidious planning here.

Sure, but it's a reasonable question to ask "what are we destroying when we change this neighborhood?"

Who are the "we"? Well, me and lots of other people who financially support businesses that come in and take over large swaths of land that used to be houses and apartments.

It still sounds conspiratorial, HF. People do things individually. They don't plan. They don't summit. It just happens.

 

[TheIronSheik]

About 300 years ago, we began moving in to a run down area known as the United States and fixed it up. Now we can't wear Indian headdresses when doing a bikini shoot. :(

 

[Henry Ford]

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations?

I don't understand this part. Who is the "we" who are pushing low-income people into less desirable neighborhoods? Can you think of any examples in which low-income people live in awesome, desirable neighborhoods while the rich live in ghettos? I can't, and that's not because anybody picked who got to live where. It's because low-income people generally can only afford low-income housing, which tends to be in depressed areas. There's no mystery or insidious planning here.

Sure, but it's a reasonable question to ask "what are we destroying when we change this neighborhood?"

Who are the "we"? Well, me and lots of other people who financially support businesses that come in and take over large swaths of land that used to be houses and apartments.

It still sounds conspiratorial, HF. People do things individually. They don't plan. They don't summit. It just happens.

Well, except when they convene a "beautification and revitalization" board, jointly petition local government for zoning variances, negotiate tax breaks together, reroute streets and negotiate responsibility for sidewalks and street lights, fund campaigns, and request that governments exert pressure to aid in the process.

 

[rockaction]

Is it horrible and disgusting on some levels? Absolutely. So is virtually everything else in this world. Are we continually pushing low-income and low-social status people into less and less desirable ghettos unless we make some accommodations?

I don't understand this part. Who is the "we" who are pushing low-income people into less desirable neighborhoods? Can you think of any examples in which low-income people live in awesome, desirable neighborhoods while the rich live in ghettos? I can't, and that's not because anybody picked who got to live where. It's because low-income people generally can only afford low-income housing, which tends to be in depressed areas. There's no mystery or insidious planning here.

Sure, but it's a reasonable question to ask "what are we destroying when we change this neighborhood?"

Who are the "we"? Well, me and lots of other people who financially support businesses that come in and take over large swaths of land that used to be houses and apartments.

It still sounds conspiratorial, HF. People do things individually. They don't plan. They don't summit. It just happens.

Well, except when they convene a "beautification and revitalization" board, jointly petition local government for zoning variances, negotiate tax breaks together, reroute streets and negotiate responsibility for sidewalks and street lights, fund campaigns, and request that governments exert pressure to aid in the process.

Urban planners are funny. The real gentrification happens spontaneously.

 

[Slapdash]

What are we destroying by improving sidewalks and fixing streetlights?

 

[Henry Ford]

What are we destroying by improving sidewalks and fixing streetlights?

Nothing, but when business owners collectively bargain to make the city responsible for it instead of the business owner in exchange for bringing in tax dollars, it's not some "spontaneous movement" where people just happen to buy up land and set up shop.

And I meant for building new sidewalks and street lights, but whatever.

 

[rockaction]

I guess that kind of depends on the level of federal, state, municipal, or local control over your government, HF. Like NO.

 

[Yenrub]

In order to even begin to accept the conclusions of the article, you have to accept the premises - and they are controversial. I accept them, but I know a lot of people who don't. You have to believe that the term "violence" doesn't just include physical violence. You have to be willing to accept that "domestic violence" can include verbal abuse and controlling behavior, and then move those feelings over to include "institutionalized racism" in the discussion of violence.

If you can't or won't do that, it's a non-starter. If you can, the article has some interesting points.

Thanks HF,

Can you elaborate more on the "institutional racism" angle of it and how it relates to gentrification? It may be missing the writer's point, but I'm kind of moving past the "gentrification is violence" thing and just thinking about "gentrification is bad" idea.

And maybe this is me not really understanding what is meant by gentrification.

J

Sure. Go find a copy of Boyz N The Hood. Fishburne does a great bit on it.

Gentrification from the white middle-class perspective is awesome. Look, we took this place I would never have gone, and turned it into a shopping mecca! There are hipster bars and $9 margaritas now!

What happens during gentrification is that an existing culture and neighborhood is overrun with new money because it's a place where cheap property can be bought. So out go the mom-n-pop stores and in goes a Costco. And a Discount Tire, and all kinds of other stuff. Individual business owners are displaced, and replaced with, usually, corporations owned by white people. And in order to make those stores and bars and malls exist, property is purchased, sometimes under the threat of seizure by the city in the name of progress. So people sell.

It's kind of the old academic philosophical argument of the surgeon removing body parts - how many parts can be removed before the patient isn't "the patient" anymore? How much of an existing body can be removed before what we've done is kill an entire culture and neighborhood, and start a new one that's nicely tailored to white folks?

And where do those people whose families have lived in that neighborhood for generations go? I mean, sure, they probably got a fair price for their houses. But now they're nomads, culturally speaking. Especially in a poor community, a neighborhood is everything - a support system, a babysitter, a guy at the corner store who will give you credit when you're out of money and let you pay him on payday, whatever. People who know to call the police when your husband comes home drunk, before he starts hitting you. A cop who always works your street and you feel comfortable talking to. You have a place, and a voice, in that community.

Now even the people who stayed don't have that voice. White business owners have that voice. And the neighborhood becomes about supporting industry and business, instead of about closing ranks. And through all this, the businesses that come in raise property values, sure - but all that means for a person who makes minimum wage is that property taxes, rents, and all kinds of other costs go up.

From The Coup's Fat Cats, Bigga Fish

Mr Coke said to Mr Mayor: "you know, we got a process like Ice T's hair

We put up the funds for your election campaign

And, oh, um, waiter can you bring the champagne?

Our real estate firm says opportunity's arousing

To make some condos out of low-income housing

Immediately, we need some media heat

To say that gangs run the street and then we bring in the police fleet!

Harass and beat everybody til they look inebriated

When we buy the land, mother####as will appreciate it

Don't worry about the Urban League or Jesse Jackson

My man that owns Marlboro donated a fat sum"

That's when I stepped back some to contemplate what few know

Sat down, wrestled with my thoughts like a sumo

Ain't no one player that could beat this lunacy

Ain't no hustler on the street could do a whole community

This is how deep #### can get

It reads "macaroni" on my birth certificate

"Puddin'-Tane" is my middle name, but I can't hang

I'm getting hustled only knowing half the game

 

[Clifford]

What are we destroying by improving sidewalks and fixing streetlights?

The community, whitey

 

[Koya]

We really need to bring spike lee into the conversation.