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.
Nobody moves somewhere with the intention of pricing out minorities. The landlords keep raising the rents as much as they can because they want to make as much money as they can, and as a neighborhood becomes more desirable, the landlords can get away with charging more.
And not all minorities are lifelong residents of a neighborhood, many are immigrants or came from somewhere else at some point.
Here in Baltimore I run into Black people who are adamantly opposed to any White people moving to mostly Black neighborhoods. The stated fear is eventual gentrification. The prospect of gentrification can't be totally discounted but, from the outside, this point of view can look like a rejection of the concept of fair housing. Rejecting white people from buying and renting may or may not be an actionable violation of fair housing law because whites are not specifically protected under those laws.
It would be interesting to see if a test case ever pops up. My guess is that an open no-whites policy would lose in court. At least in my brief research, I couldn't find any cases. None the less, I find the advocacy of such policies troubling.
Gentrification has definitely changed Prospect Heights for the better in my opinion, from increased amenities and safety to better overall quality of life. I do miss many of the businesses that left/got priced out (I have to consciously go outside of the neighborhood now to find certain favored food items), but the ones that replaced them, while generally more expensive, aren't too bad either. If you were fortunate enough to remain in the neighborhood after gentrification took hold (made more likely if you lived in a rent-controlled building or owned your home), you were able to benefit from the change, as my family has been able to do.
Yeah. Ever see "Hannah and her Sisters"? Recall the great used book store they went to? That was the old Pageant Book Store, where I once scored a book of Bertrand Russell essays for 25 cents. Gone now. It's a Starbucks. Just what the town needs.
All that's left is the Strand. Good bye, New York. Hello, trustfund hipsters.
I would think any use of race in the decision to rent or sell a property to particular people is actionable under the fair housing act.
From HUDs site
Quote:
2.)What Is Prohibited?
In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:
Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwduvall
Here in Baltimore I run into Black people who are adamantly opposed to any White people moving to mostly Black neighborhoods. The stated fear is eventual gentrification. The prospect of gentrification can't be totally discounted but, from the outside, this point of view can look like a rejection of the concept of fair housing. Rejecting white people from buying and renting may or may not be an actionable violation of fair housing law because whites are not specifically protected under those laws.
It would be interesting to see if a test case ever pops up. My guess is that an open no-whites policy would lose in court. At least in my brief research, I couldn't find any cases. None the less, I find the advocacy of such policies troubling.
I would think any use of race in the decision to rent or sell a property to particular people is actionable under the fair housing act.
From HUDs site
Sure, but you you would have to find a lawyer that would take the case and get past a lot of skepticism from everyone involved. But, you could get past any skepticism if you can produce absolutely iron clad evidence. Anyway, what bothers me is the open advocacy of policies aimed at keeping whites out of mostly black neighborhoods. Implementing those polices probably would probably be legally impossible.
Here in Baltimore I run into Black people who are adamantly opposed to any White people moving to mostly Black neighborhoods. The stated fear is eventual gentrification. The prospect of gentrification can't be totally discounted but, from the outside, this point of view can look like a rejection of the concept of fair housing. Rejecting white people from buying and renting may or may not be an actionable violation of fair housing law because whites are not specifically protected under those laws.
It would be interesting to see if a test case ever pops up. My guess is that an open no-whites policy would lose in court. At least in my brief research, I couldn't find any cases. None the less, I find the advocacy of such policies troubling.
It is illegal to discriminate in the housing market on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or religion, so anyone proven to discriminate against whites would lose, and these cases have been held up in court.
Chelsea fully gentrified, but this was made possible in part because it is between downtown and midtown, and it had few housing projects. Areas like LES and the East Village will likely never fully gentrify. LES has too many projects for starters. And NYU and other schools nearby means there's a surplus of loud, noisy kids that attract other loud noisy kids who aren't college students. The area is pretty transient between students, recent graduates, and the like and there is rapid turnover. NYU has grown in recent years (ditto New School and certain neighborhood schools) making the problems worse.
West Harlem is like that. You've got the Columbia people living off campus, and ditto City College people. More kids have moved in around all this, and Columbia has grown. Meanwhile there are massive projects that can't be moved. Of course some people do come and by co-ops and condos. It doesn't change the fact this is still a ****ty neighborhood and most of these young people will be long gone when it's time to start a family. The same is true of the East Village and LES. Chelsea on the other hand, has lots of families.
Btw go to any deli up in Harlem, and you'll be able to buy drugs. Drugs have not gone anywhere, as opposed to 20 years ago.
Wtf, bloodsucking parasites? So this is how it is going to be?
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.
