Elmwood park , What is happing to it? (Chicago, Naperville: rental, crime)

[ndfmnlf]

How about Englewood, Garfield Park, Lawndale, Austin, Auburn-Gresham, West Pullman and the South Shore? I totally agree with most of what you're saying, but I bet if we listed all of the "white flight" cities/neighborhoods in the country, ones that declined would outnumber the success stories by an eye-popping margin. I hate bigotry too but if we ignore the other side of the coin, we won't make progress towards getting rid of it.

Indeed, why don't you present such data? I'd be interested to see your tabulation of cities around the country that deteriorated after white flight as opposed to cities that improved after white flight.

Also, you need to demonstrate causality, since these cases tend to be a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Did the decline in these areas happen as a result of white flight? Or did white flight result from the decline in these areas? I suspect the former. As you yourself said, whites overreact at the sight of minority influx. They pull up their stakes and leave for racially purer areas. The minorities who historically have limited investment capital are left behind with limited infrastructure to cope with. This leads to a downward spiral of decline.

Had the whites remained in those areas, the minority influx would have been contained. It's common sense: there's only so much physical space you can occupy, so if you don't abandon your house, no one will take it away from you short of someone physically kicking you out of your house.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Indeed, why don't you present such data? I'd be interested to see your tabulation of cities around the country that deteriorated after white flight as opposed to cities that improved after white flight.

Also, you need to demonstrate causality, since these cases tend to be a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Did the decline in these areas happen as a result of white flight? Or did white flight result from the decline in these areas? I suspect the former. As you yourself said, whites overreact at the sight of minority influx. They pull up their stakes and leave for racially purer areas. The minorities who historically have limited investment capital are left behind with limited infrastructure to cope with. This leads to a downward spiral of decline.

Had the whites remained in those areas, the minority influx would have been contained. It's common sense: there's only so much physical space you can occupy, so if you don't abandon your house, no one will take it away from you short of someone physically kicking you out of your house.

Again, the problem isn't necessarily what you, the homeowner does, its what your neighbors do. If your neighbors all flee and the economic profile of the neighborhood declines, you will suffer financially even if (especially if) you stay put. Your house which you worked all your life to pay off has suddenly become half a valuable as it was before. Good-bye retirement.

I agree, if there is a concerted effort to keep middle-class whites in the neighborhood (see Oak Park), it can work. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to achieve in real life (see every other neighborhood besides Oak Park.) I'm not going to blame a individual family for making a decision in their financial best interests. You can't expect individuals to fight broad economic trends.

[ndfmnlf]

Again, the problem isn't necessarily what you, the homeowner does, its what your neighbors do. If your neighbors all flee and the economic profile of the neighborhood declines, you will suffer financially even if (especially if) you stay put. Your house which you worked all your life to pay off has suddenly become half a valuable as it was before. Good-bye retirement.

What causes people to live in an area anyway? Isn't it the presence of jobs? Or proximity to cities with tons of job opportunities? If people flee an area because there are no jobs for them there, then that makes economic sense. But if people flee an area because they see people coming in who look different from them, then that's irrational.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

What causes people to live in an area anyway? Isn't it the presence of jobs? Or proximity to cities with tons of job opportunities? If people flee an area because there are no jobs for them there, then that makes economic sense. But if people flee an area because they see people coming in who look different from them, then that's irrational.

Well, from a practical perspective, it doesn't really matter why your neighbors flee. Its unlikely that there is anything you (as an individual) can do to change their behavior. Its a depressing reality, unfortunately. You can try to rally and organize your community to fight white flight. Sometimes it works, (see Oak Park), most of the time it doesn't (see Austin neighborhood). It helps to have big institutions in the neighborhood (see Hyde Park) because they have the financial and political resources to provide stability that individuals typically do not.

The fact is, urban neighborhoods are constantly in flux. The history of Chicago consists of newcomers moving in and taking over neighborhoods. It happened with the Italians, the Germans, the Poles, and now with African-Americans and Mexicans. The problem now is that there no longer exists the vast supply of low-skilled jobs to allow the newcomers their first steps on the ladder of prosperity. That is another big problem beyond the scope of the individual to fix.

[Humboldt1]

Ndf,

I have never heard of an area declining as whites leave and Asians come in. It should be noted that those Asians who are generally replacing the whites are typically fairly affluent vs. other minorities such as Hispanics and particularly Blacks, though there are obviously exceptions such as Olympia Fields.

I blame those coming into the neighborhood for making it bad, not those leaving, just as I blame those coming in gentrifying area to blame for improving an area, not those leaving.

[ndfmnlf]

The fact is, urban neighborhoods are constantly in flux. The history of Chicago consists of newcomers moving in and taking over neighborhoods. It happened with the Italians, the Germans, the Poles, and now with African-Americans and Mexicans. The problem now is that there no longer exists the vast supply of low-skilled jobs to allow the newcomers their first steps on the ladder of prosperity. That is another big problem beyond the scope of the individual to fix.

You are correct. Urban areas have always seen the ebb and flow of demographic change more rapidly than rural areas. This is nothing new.

But going back to the topic of this thread: EP. The bone of contention is whether Elmwood Park is deteriorating as a result of minority influx. The original poster has not established that this is the case. The objective data shows that 1) the crime rate in EP has actually dropped to half compared to what it was 10 years ago, and 2) whites are still the dominant ethnic group (85%) in Elmwood Park. If anything, the surge in the crime rate (if indeed statistically significant) can be blamed on the white establishment of Elmwood Park who control law enforcement and other levers of power.

The other beef I have is the blame being placed on section 8 housing. Did section 8 housing in EP not exist 10 years ago? If it did, how come it is only now that people are perceiving more crime in the area? Is there any demonstrable causal link between section 8 and the alleged surge in crime? Who owns section 8 apartments anyway? Is it safe to assume that these are owned by Elmwood Park landlords themselves who in all likelihood are white? Are they blameworthy as well? Questions, questions.......

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Indeed, why don't you present such data? I'd be interested to see your tabulation of cities around the country that deteriorated after white flight as opposed to cities that improved after white flight.

Also, you need to demonstrate causality, since these cases tend to be a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Did the decline in these areas happen as a result of white flight? Or did white flight result from the decline in these areas? I suspect the former. As you yourself said, whites overreact at the sight of minority influx. They pull up their stakes and leave for racially purer areas. The minorities who historically have limited investment capital are left behind with limited infrastructure to cope with. This leads to a downward spiral of decline.

Had the whites remained in those areas, the minority influx would have been contained. It's common sense: there's only so much physical space you can occupy, so if you don't abandon your house, no one will take it away from you short of someone physically kicking you out of your house.

Indeed, why don't you present such data? I'd be interested to see your tabulation of cities around the country that deteriorated after white flight as opposed to cities that improved after white flight.

I could easily do that with Census data and crime rates from 1960 when the 7 examples I cited were almost 100% white to 2000 when they were almost 100% black. Don’t have time though. I almost guarantee that if you do this you’ll find household and per capita income substantially lower, and crime substantially higher.

Also, you need to demonstrate causality, since these cases tend to be a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Did the decline in these areas happen as a result of white flight? Or did white flight result from the decline in these areas? I suspect the former.

I suspect it's a combination of both. As whites started leaving and minorities started replacing them, crime in our seven samples likely went up and quality of life went down, accelerating white flight. Causality for this might be demonstrated by increasing crime rates and decreasing capita/household income as a correlating % of whites decreased.

As you yourself said, whites overreact at the sight of minority influx. They pull up their stakes and leave for racially purer areas.

Some overreact, yes, and some react rationally out of (justifiable) fear for their property values, and some react to poor quality of life and crime in the later stages.

The minorities who historically have limited investment capital are left behind with limited infrastructure to cope with. This leads to a downward spiral of decline.

Why is it always assumed that whites the only people who can invest in a community? Why must communities automatically fall to pieces once whites leave? Aren’t those assumptions racist in and of themselves? Why have the groups who replaced whites in some of these communities been unable to attain an education and/or open businesses after all this time? Or at the very least involve themselves in the community and keep it clean and safe?

Maybe back in the day when those bankers from the WaMu commercials controlled the banks and universities the “lack of access” excuse arguably had some merit, or at least wasn’t as easily refuted as it is now. Today, there’s plenty of capital and other incentives available for minority-owned businesses, not to mention educational opportunities and scholarships, but not plenty of people taking advantage of them.

African-Americans and Latinos continue to be underrepresented in colleges and universities, and too many majority/minority communities are plagued by a persistent lack of viable businesses. There’s something fundamentally wrong in many white flight communities, and all signs point to within.

Had the whites remained in those areas, the minority influx would have been contained. It's common sense: there's only so much physical space you can occupy, so if you don't abandon your house, no one will take it away from you short of someone physically kicking you out of your house.

It also will be contained if minorities prove that they can build and/or sustain viable neighborhoods with good schools and high quality of life. No one should have to tolerate miserable conditions just because someone (who probably doesn’t live in them) says you’re racist if you don’t. That's not a solution.

[ndfmnlf]

I could easily do that with Census data and crime rates from 1960 when the 7 examples I cited were almost 100% white to 2000 when they were almost 100% black. Don’t have time though. I almost guarantee that if you do this you’ll find household and per capita income substantially lower, and crime substantially higher.

Citations please. I could take your word for it. But then again, that would be hearsay. Where is this census data you allude to?

I suspect it's a combination of both. As whites started leaving and minorities started replacing them, crime in our seven samples likely went up and quality of life went down, accelerating white flight. Causality for this might be demonstrated by increasing crime rates and decreasing capita/household income as a correlating % of whites decreased.

This doesn't prove causality, at least as far as race is concerned. For you to establish causality, you'd have to show us a control sample: that of white populations whose crime rates stayed the same as income went down despite no white flight. That would eliminate the influence of income and isolate the effect of race on crime rates. The flipside is if you can cite affluent black communities where the crime rates actually went down as the number of affluent blacks joining the community increased. You need to separate the effect of race from the effect of income on crime rates.

Why is it always assumed that whites the only people who can invest in a community? Why must communities automatically fall to pieces once whites leave? Aren’t those assumptions racist in and of themselves? Why have the groups who replaced whites in some of these communities been unable to attain an education and/or open businesses after all this time? Or at the very least involve themselves in the community and keep it clean and safe?

No assumptions here. I cited the historical fact that minorities (at least blacks and hispanics) have historically low investment capital at their disposal relative to whites. Capital doesn't fall out of the sky. It comes from somewhere. Traditionally, it has been passed from generation to generation. Whites have had the headstart in this arena. When did blacks start to have property rights?

You are also mistaken in your assumption that I assumed communities inevitably fall into pieces with white departure. I have cited the example of Bay Area cities that have been taken over by Asians that have markedly improved since white departure.

Maybe back in the day when those bankers from the WaMu commercials controlled the banks and universities the “lack of access” excuse arguably had some merit, or at least wasn’t as easily refuted as it is now. Today, there’s plenty of capital and other incentives available for minority-owned businesses, not to mention educational opportunities and scholarships, but not plenty of people taking advantage of them.

Sure, and the minorities are taking advantage of them. Unfortunately, when there's a proliferation of minority businesses in a locale, some whites interpret it as "ghettoization" and they flee the area. Example: whites in Chino Hills California opposed the entry of Oriental grocery store Ranch 99.

It also will be contained if minorities prove that they can build and/or sustain viable neighborhoods with good schools and high quality of life. No one should have to tolerate miserable conditions just because someone (who probably doesn’t live in them) says you’re racist if you don’t. That's not a solution.

There's plenty of proof that minorities are capable of building communties that you describe. Some south Chicago suburbs are in this league. The problem is when whites prejudge minorities and conclude that their influx will inevitably lead to decline of communities. That prejudgement seems to happen more often than not. You yourself said it: no amount of statistics will persuade people to get rid of their bigoted attitudes.

[ndfmnlf]

Here's an example of a minority group trying to invest in their community, but their effort was being blocked by whites:

California International Business Report

the demographic shift has proved unsettling for some in this upscale San Bernardino County town, and that tension surfaced when a major Asian grocery chain, 99 Ranch Market, announced plans for a Chino Hills store. The Chino Hills City Council heard an outcry from a small group of residents, including one who wrote that he didn’t want to see “little Chinatowns all over the Hills” filled with Asian signs he can’t read.

The skirmish mirrors clashes in the San Gabriel Valley in the 1980s when Asian immigrants moved into the traditionally white and Latino suburbs. When a wave of Asian businesses followed, city officials in Monterey Park tried unsuccessfully to pass English-only ordinances, arguing that Chinese-language business signs would confuse firefighters and emergency workers.

Larry Blugrind of Chino Hills told the City Council in a letter that the store would ‘result in a run-down center that is the equivalent of a Chinese Pic ‘N’ Save less than a mile from the kind of high-quality shops our city has been trying to attract to this area.’ Reached by telephone, Blugrind explained that he enjoyed having a diverse community — his daughter-in-law is Japanese.

“My worry is that 99 Ranch could be a steppingstone for it to become all Asian,” he said. “I don’t want another Hacienda Heights.”

In Chino Hills, the City Council has no say in whether Tawa Supermarkets Inc. can open a 99 Ranch Market. The store is moving into a space formerly occupied by a Ralphs supermarket. It’s a simple case of one grocery store taking over for another, said Mayor Gwenn Norton-Perry. ‘It’s an approved use, and we as a city have no purview over this. That’s the bottom line’” Norton-Perry said….

From 2000 to 2005, the city of 81,000 saw its Asian population jump from 22% to 39%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent survey. Of those, 10,316 were Filipino and 7,752 were Chinese. Asian Indians, Koreans, Vietnamese and Japanese constitute most of the remaining Asian Americans. The Asian influx has already had an effect on some public services: The Chino Hills library stocks books written in Chinese, Korean and Japanese…

As for the sign, ‘We can tell them we prefer signs to be in English only, but we can’t require it,’ Norton-Perry said. Still, some say the spat is much ado about nothing. ‘Last I remember, the words ‘99 Ranch’ were in English,’ said Don Nakanishi, director of UCLA’s Asian American Studies Center. ‘You have El Pollo Loco,’ he said, referring to the popular Mexican restaurant chain. ‘Nobody’s telling them to translate that.’

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Ndf,

I have never heard of an area declining as whites leave and Asians come in...

It depends what sort of Asians you are speaking of of course.