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.
The education lottery money. A massive chunk of it goes to "at risk" four year olds. AT RISK FOUR YEAR OLDS???? What the hell is an at risk 4 y/o???? .
Tell me about it! When we moved, my daughter was 3 and a half. We put her in a preschool at a local church from Feb-May. Then I started receiving mail (I am a stay at home mom!) and hearing radio ads for "Smart Start at 4".....well, it sounded so good- state funded (shoulda clued me in right away), give your child a head start on skills for kindergarten, it's a Pre-K program, all day same as Kindergarten, to get your child ready. I called and asked for some info and they made it sound like, quite honestly, some kind of beneficial thing for every child. They talked it up, said they were happy for my interest as they needed to fill some slots....I was looking for a different preschool for my daughter that was more learning oriented.
I thought it was kind of suspicious--why would people put their kids in DAYCARE all day when they could go to SMART START AT 4??? For free! Hmmmm.......they encouraged me to "apply" and mentioned an income restriction. Oh snap. They asked for my family (there's my husband, and my 2 girls) income before taxes, and almost choked. We are NOT wealthy by any means, we live on one income so I can stay home with the girls, I didn't want them in daycare. The lady literally coughed and told me "Sure send that application back but, uh, I should tell you that this program is geared toward at-risk 4 year olds..." I said "What is an at risk 4 year old?" She said "Well, special needs, maybe their parents are low income and can't afford daycare, and don't have time to spend with them reading books and they are in danger of not having kindergarten readiness."
:Blink: Oh..........
Well I sent the application in per her request, and she called me immediately and turned me down, saying they DO have parents with our income, but they usually have 6 or 7 kids. !!!!!!!!!!!!
It turns out it's my tax dollars, but it's NOT a Smart Start for every kid....just free daycare for parents with problems, as this lady actually told me a lot of the kids come from broken homes, have parents in jail, or are raised by grandparents or have teen parents , parents who don't speak English, etc.
Not that these kids don't deserve a step up in life.........but it sort of ticked me off. This program is ONLY for deadbeat parents. Heck they could have saved me the bother of applying, I had no idea what it was...some of it was a class at a local elementary school and some of it is just vouchers for a free full day daycare. I should have known, no freebies for working class parents!
White flight? Ain't nobody fleeing anything - unless it would be crime. And once again I must ask - only white folk know how to load up the truck and move? Only black people want to be in the middle of crime-infested areas? Come on. You are beating a very very dead ole horse here.
If you want to talk about the historic origins of white flight, then no, not everyone had the same opportunities to move. There were restrictions, de facto (red-lining) and on the books, about who could live where. Heck, in the neighborhood where I grew up, which was made up of post-war ranches, there was a covenant on the books prohibiting blacks from living in the neighborhood. We discovered this when my parents sold the house - ironically to a black couple.
Today, the dynamics have changed somewhat from race to class - but the race factor is not completely gone.
There is also a "reverse" flight thing going on as middle and upper class whites move into neighborhoods like Wilmore and NoDA which used to be predominantly black and poorer. This influx has brought a lot of redevelopment, but also some issues...
If you want to talk about the historic origins of white flight, then no, not everyone had the same opportunities to move. There were restrictions, de facto (red-lining) and on the books, about who could live where. Heck, in the neighborhood where I grew up, which was made up of post-war ranches, there was a covenant on the books prohibiting blacks from living in the neighborhood. We discovered this when my parents sold the house - ironically to a black couple.
Today, the dynamics have changed somewhat from race to class - but the race factor is not completely gone.
There is also a "reverse" flight thing going on as middle and upper class whites move into neighborhoods like Wilmore and NoDA which used to be predominantly black and poorer. This influx has brought a lot of redevelopment, but also some issues...
Yes, there are historical implications - but we are talking forty years ago. And Charlotte has never had the problems that other larger cities did w/ redlining. Why? Black communities basically wished to stay intact and black families did not wish to leave those communities for the burbs. The ones who did want to leave often moved completely out of the area - to other states. Now one must remember: most people (white or black) could not afford to live in many areas of Charlotte, so who needed redlining?
Also, there were what I would describe as near shanties in parts of Charlotte that were torn down w/ street development. I don't think anyone has missed those blocks of bombed out houses . . . and I am supposing a lot of that was cleared out by eminent domain.
I would point to statistics on poverty in NC for those of you who may think that only black folks are poor here. Statistics (wh/ I have cited and given links for on other threads) show that actually, there are about as many white folks as black folks living in poverty in this state.
So I find this whole discussion based on a lot of misinformation.
I do agree that "white flight" may have occurred in other cities across the country, but here in Charlotte, white people and black people had distinct communities established after Reconstruction . . . and it should be mentioned that from the end of the 19th Century thru/ mid 20th Century, there was a lot of outmigration in our black community - w/ people leaving the South once graduating from high school or college, to work in other cities, w/ some of the most popular cities being DC, Baltimore, Chicago and Atlanta.
You're off base here and I'm wondering where you got this bit of information. Your statement is implying that Charlotte's Black community "liked" a two tier living struture. ie: given the choice, Blacks would have choosen to live amongst their own.
Wrong. There is a reason people choose to move out of the area for to pursue better lives for themselves. It may not have been called redlining, but we know their were neighborhoods where certain people were not allowed to live. Period. And that happened at all economic levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
And Charlotte has never had the problems that other larger cities did w/ redlining. Why? Black communities basically wished to stay intact and black families did not wish to leave those communities for the burbs. The ones who did want to leave often moved completely out of the area - to other states.
I do agree that "white flight" may have occurred in other cities across the country, but here in Charlotte, white people and black people had distinct communities established after Reconstruction .
You're off base here and I'm wondering where you got this bit of information. Your statement is implying that Charlotte's Black community "liked" a two tier living struture. ie: given the choice, Blacks would have choosen to live amongst their own.
Wrong. There is a reason people choose to move out of the area for to pursue better lives for themselves. It may not have been called redlining, but we know their were neighborhoods where certain people were not allowed to live. Period. And that happened at all economic levels.
Non-black liberals do not understand blacks.
Example. Why did blacks overwhemlingly vote againts gay marriage. The liberals went nuts.
You're off base here and I'm wondering where you got this bit of information. Your statement is implying that Charlotte's Black community "liked" a two tier living struture. ie: given the choice, Blacks would have choosen to live amongst their own.
Wrong. There is a reason people choose to move out of the area for to pursue better lives for themselves. It may not have been called redlining, but we know their were neighborhoods where certain people were not allowed to live. Period. And that happened at all economic levels.
1. Where is it that Charlotte's black community has a two tier living structure? First of all, you refer to a "community" - people choosing to live together. Secondly, what is any more two-tier about where black folk live than where white folk live? People of all colors live where they can afford to live. This includes rural vs. urban and rural vs. suburban, and urban vs. suburban. There are also rural black communities, usually built up around churches wh/ were established post-Reconstruction. And yes, you are making my point when you say black folk have chosen to live where they live. They preferred keeping those black communities intact. But that was their choice. If they wanted to go live elsewhere, they could have - just like the rest of us choose where we wish to live. What is your point?
As I have stated earlier, where one lives is more based on what one can afford than any other factor. If you look at subsidized housing, for ex., you will find all races there. Even if people would prefer living in communities, if all they can afford is a subsidized apartment, they just have to settle for a Sec. 8 in whatever area has that available. This is not rocket science.
2. Uh, yeah. People choose to move out of the area to pursue a better life for themselves. That is something only black folks do? You mean, only black folks leave NC for somewhere else? Of course people leave for better jobs elsewhere! That was my point! And that is not limited to one race.
No, you said Charlotte did not have a problem with Redlining because
"Black communities basically wished to stay intact and black families did not wish to leave those communities for the burbs."
and I asked where you got your information. Your statement sounds like you are saying that Blacks liked NOT having the CHOICE to live in any neighborhood. That they LIKED not being allowed to live in whatever neighborhood they could afford. When you do not have a CHOICE and your are forced to create our OWN institution b/c you are not allowed in other's, that creates a 2-tiered system.
I am telling you that you are wrong. There was NO CHOICE and I'm not sure why you think there was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
If they wanted to go live elsewhere, they could have - just like the rest of us choose where we wish to live. What is your point?
Again, you are plain wrong. I am pulling directly from your statement. If you think Blacks were able to live ANYWHERE they wanted in Charlotte or any of the surounding areas, you need to do a little research. Take a visit to the Museaum of the South or pull out some history texts. That was absolutly NOT the case in the 1960s.
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.
