Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quote ......"Then, of course, you have the '80s, and with it came the flood of drugs [by the government] into poorer black communities, thus ravaging Kirkwood, East Lake, Grant Park, East Atlanta, etc."
Tell us more about this "Government" flood of drugs!!! specifics please.....
These are just from a random internet search... I hope they help.
In the initial white flight of Atlanta, the prices were extremely inflated--this was mainly due to the high demand since black neighborhoods were severely overcrowded.
I'll have to disagree. I've read Kruse's book twice and unless I'm completely mistaken there were very few if any instances of drastically inflated housing prices during white flight. In most cases just the opposite occurred.
Can you cite to anything in Dr. Kruse's book (or the many others that have been written on this subject) that documents any instance of extremely inflated housing prices?
In the latest few months, I've been doing a bit of research on intown neighborhoods, schools, real estate, etc. Based on my findings, this is what I've been led to believe:
As I'm sure we all know, back in the 1960s, Atlanta was heavily segregated and areas like Grant Park, Kirkwood, East Atlanta, Candler Park, Inman Park, and East Lake were like 100% white. In fact, an older guy at my job told me that Decatur had more blacks than all of the aforementioned placed combined back in the day. Is this true? However, with integration, came white flight and whites fearfully fled intown to the suburbs in droves while selling their homes to blacks at exponentially inflated prices (except for communities like West Buckhead and Druid Hills which remained heavily segregated due to sheer inaffordability and the practice of passing down family estates). This disparity can be seen most evidently today IMO along Northside Dr. as one transitions from sheer opulence to urban blight. This is also true along Monroe/Boulevard and Briarcliff/Moreland (but in lesser degrees due to gentrification).
However, in Kirkwood (for example) [still marginalized] middle class blacks moved into a community that was stripped of its infrastructure. And after spending exponentially more on homes that were worth far less, black Atlantans found it difficult to restore the community as the black version of its former self from scratch. Plus, you had the black flight of families barely above poverty making the move from the slums of Vine City or English Ave. to the opportunities of Kirkwood, East Lake, East Atlanta, or Grant Park, etc. thus flooding the communities with too many people. Then, of course, you have the '80s, and with it came the flood of drugs [by the government] into poorer black communities, thus ravaging Kirkwood, East Lake, Grant Park, East Atlanta, etc.
Then, in the late 80's to early 90's, was the second wave of white/black flight: Middle class blacks escaping intown Atlanta to Decatur, Stone Mountain, Clayton County, South Fulton, etc. while whites in those areas moved to far flung suburbs and exurbs.
Today, we have the movement of middle class suburbanites moving back into areas like Kirkwood, Grant Park, East Atlanta, East Lake, Oakhurst, etc. And while many poorer blacks where forced into Clayton and Dekalb counties due to rising taxes or by simply being bought out, many residents who "live in Grandma's house" still reside in these gentrifying intown neighborhoods, their kids and grand-kids attending Grady (and maybe Decatur high) beside affluent children from Virgina-Highland, Inman Park and Candler Park or Northern Decatur city.
The irony is that many blacks that have escaped to the bastions of black suburbia, such as South Dekalb and South Fulton cannot as readily take advantage of the opportunity to move back into "grandma's old neighborhood" because their property values have diminished while intown values have staunchly risen. There are mansions in South Fulton and South Dekalb that rival those in North Fulton, however, the values of these homes are significantly lower.
[But to be fair, I know or white professors who are kicking themselves because their parents sold their home in Candler Park due to white flight which is now worth three times as much as her spacious Gwinnett County home.]
Nevertheless, we all know black communities (regardless of class and income) appreciate at a slower rate than comparable white communities. Can anything be done about that?For example,what would a home in Hidden Hills (in Stone Mountain) be worth if the area was all white? Would it be the same if the area was all black with an identical class of resident? I don't know.
The double irony is that many suburban blacks are isolated in all-black communities and have little exposure, yet many kids are raised to emulate Jeezy, Juiceman, Flocka, and Gucci (who are all fake) and feel it is who they are to be "hood". What popular black people that they respect are telling them otherwise? And of course, if you live in an all-black community of $400k houses (that would be worth $600k elsewhere) and the kids try hard to act "'hood", it drops the values from $400k to $200k, then from $200k to $60k, and it becomes the hood. While shacks on Hosea Williams (in Grandma's old 'hood... where your mom worked to get you out of) would sell for $200k+. Bitter irony indeed.
Now my question is about the schools and communities. I believe that most middle class blacks live in the suburbs and would have a difficult time selling a home and moving intown (if they so chose). I believe that the majority of people/families moving into gentrifying intown communities are white. I also believe that the majority of the black people in these gentrifying intown communities are poorer blacks (many of whom have been there for decades). Is this the case?Does Kirkwood or East Lake (for example) generally consist of middle class whites and poorer blacks, and is this truly diverse if middle class black families are not noticeably represented?
Secondly, in time, with homes of increased value being passed down to their kids, more exposure, and more educational opportunities, do you think the descendants of that population of poorer intown black families (which I feel far exceeds the number of middle class intown black families) become affluent themselves? Ironically, the blacks in middle class suburbia may suffer due to poor schools, nepotism, and a youth mentality that longs to be in the most notorious 'hoods of the City of Atlanta, not knowing that many of the people who live in those notorious 'hoods, are becoming educated and edified. But don't get me wrong, I know crime, drugs, poverty, and this mentality exists among intown blacks on a large scale, but you get my point...
Is this an accurate representation or am I way off base here?
Now since IMO massive white flight on the scale that we have seen in the 1960's and 1980's is like a one time deal as the mentality of most Americans has changed significantly since them (for the most part). What are the long term affects of gentrification? Is it possible for a community to completely gentrify yet still remain very diverse?
Additionally, is a place really diverse if it is not also economically diverse? For example, if a community is 50% white, 40% black and 10% other races, yet 80% of those whites are wealthy and 70% of the blacks are poor, is that really a shining example of diversity? [Perhaps if there were more poorer whites and more affluent blacks.] Is this the case in East Lake, Kirkwood, East Atlanta, Edgewood, or Grant Park? It seems that the remnants of white/black flight along with gentrification has caused this sociological conundrum...
It seems that gentrification is a chance for integration to work the way that Dr. King initially intended for it to. But unfortunately, it is hard for the black middle class to participate.
I know I've said a mouthful and I have no problem with you correcting me if I'm wrong, but what are your thoughts on any of these issues?
Awesome post, equinox...I'll probably comment more later. You'll need some reinforcements against the tarantula onslaught...
PS -- It's an interesting fact that as a demographic, BLACKS in Fayette County are wealthier than WHITES by a significant margin ~~ they earn more and the median value of black-owned homes is greater. The census district that covers North Fayette (where Evander Holyfield and countless black celebs live) is the wealthiest African-American neighborhood in the nation. And it borders both College Park and Riverdale, two of the least desirable areas of the metro for anybody -- blacks included.
Can you cite to anything in Dr. Kruse's book (or the many others that have been written on this subject) that documents any instance of extremely inflated housing prices?
Well, the example below doesn't imply "extremely inflated housing prices", but it does say that houses sold by whites - - to realtors using scare tactics - - for below market price, only to then be sold by realtors, NOT the white former homeowners to blacks at "prime market value." (Which is not even close to the same as "extremely inflated, or "exponentially increased" prices.)
"Real-estate agents used white anxieties about having black neighbors to blockbust, convincing white families to sell their homes at below-market prices and then reselling these same homes to black families at prime market prices, pocketing the profits."
I do. I'm sitting here with the book on my desk and can't find any reference to what you or the OP are talking about. During the 50s there were occasional efforts in some white neighborhoods to buy back houses that had been sold to blacks but they weren't successful in changing anything.
One of the most common anxieties among whites in the neighborhoods that experienced white flight was that integration would lessen property values. For instance, on page 89 Kruse writes:
Quote:
As the course of black expansion continued toward the heart of Kirkwood, whites eyed the changes with alarm. "We have enjoyed our modest homes," one white man worried in 1960. "Now a vast flood of Negros are coming East ward & threaten to swamp the area." Like the residentsof most borderline areas, these were working-class families. Along Montgomery Street, for instance, stood the homes of a policeman, a firefighter,a cab driver, a baggage handler, a few truck drivers, some railroad men,assorted mechanics and repairmen, and assembly line workers for Ford,General Motors, and General Electric. Much like the working-class whites of Mozley Park and elsewhere, they counted their home as their only investment of note. They too understood racial transition as a threatto property values and reacted accordingly.
I'll have to disagree. I've read Kruse's book twice and unless I'm completely mistaken there were very few if any instances of drastically inflated housing prices during white flight. In most cases just the opposite occurred.
Can you cite to anything in Dr. Kruse's book (or the many others that have been written on this subject) that documents any instance of extremely inflated housing prices?
I've read the book too...
There were many instances of drastically inflated housing prices during the initial white flight.
That was the whole premise in the first half of the book...
That's what got the whites to initially sell in droves...that could make more selling to upper/upper-middle/middle blacks that had the means to upgrade then they could to other whites.
I wouldn't dare condescend and start citing for you...you have eyes, fingers, and a keyboard...but I will recommend that you read the book for a third time--especially the first third to two-thirds.
Remember, one of Kruse's main points was that Atlanta's white flight was very unique nationally. A large southern city, with some white flight patterns similar to northern cities. Also, a southern city with a large, robust, educated, and resourceful black population--this caused an atypical white flight.
Well, the example below doesn't imply "extremely inflated housing prices", but it does say that houses sold by whites - - to realtors using scare tactics - - for below market price, only to then be sold by realtors, NOT the white homeowners to blacks at "prime market value." (Which is not even close to the same as "extremely inflated, or "exponentially increased" prices.)
"Real-estate agents used white anxieties about having black neighbors to blockbust, convincing white families to sell their homes at below-market prices and then reselling these same homes to black families at prime market prices, pocketing the profits."
That's absolutely true. And both black and white realtors participated in that.
Where on earth did you get the idea that homes intown were sold for exponentially "INFLATED" prices? That is dead wrong. Homes were sold at UNDERVALUED prices because the whites wanted to get out at whatever cost and were willing to sell their shirts to do so. This happened in waves repeatedly starting in the 1960s in Atlanta neighborhoods like Grant Park and West End, then into the 1970s in East Point and College Park, then into the 1980s in Central and South DeKalb (Memorial Drive/St. Mt.) and in the 1990s in Clayton. In every wave of demographic shift, property values PLUMMETED because homes were sold below their worth and a new LOWER economic class moved in. THAT is the definition of white flight. Go back to the beginning and start all over. Then I might consider reading the rest of your diatribe.
Actually, you are dead wrong and the OP is 100% correct. As per the advice of other posters, you really should purchase a copy and read White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism for yourself. It is an amazing text and should be mandatory reading for every social science curriculum in an institution of higher learning located in metropolitan Atlanta. Upper middle class blacks absolutely paid inflated prices for bungalows originally purchased by blue collar whites. Then white dominated local governments altered the zoning laws when these neighborhoods became majority black to allow all types of random non-single family residential land uses into these communities which dramatically reduced the property values of these homes. Once again, the OP is 100% accurate. I don't see how individuals on this discussion board could claim to read Kruze's book twice but miss where blacks paid inflated housing prices. Maybe the book needs to be read completely and not skimmed.
I have noticed a trend in many of these Atlanta discussion boards of false retorts being made and metropolitan Atlanta being given credit and accolades for status it has never achieved. Yet, Atlanta is the blue print for contemporary sunbelt urban/suburban development and responsible for the reshaping of American conservative politics since the Nixon era but this is never mentioned. It is quite a shame that metro Atlanta residents know so little about the history of their city and its environs. I strongly encourage you all to take a visit to the Atlanta History Center or just flat out read SOMETHING that is beyond the espousal of your own opinions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know. 
While shacks on Hosea Williams (in Grandma's old 'hood... where your mom worked to get you out of) would sell for $200k+. Bitter irony indeed.
Are You Sure?
