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.
Maybe this explains a good amount of the problems we see in many Black areas?
Quote:
The decay of minority inner city neighborhoods from withheld mortgage capital and difficulty for neighborhoods to attract and retain families able to purchase homes was aggravated by the implementation of this federal policy.
I was wondering if redlining played a role in reducing the numbers of Black owned businesses? I've heard for years that access to capital was a big obstacle for Black entrepreneurs.
Of COURSE redlining was racist. Neighborhoods were rated A B C or D and usually got a D if there "was a presence of negroes" or "infiltration of jews on the Eastern edge of the area". These are actually ways that neighborhoods were rated and described.
This, along with the real estate practice of "blockbusting" made it nearly impossible for many blacks to grow equity or obtain loans.
I think the lack of good schools and economic opportunities in the area caused many to turn to crime and poverty.
If liberals would give them school vouchers, and cut taxes so businesses can come into those areas, you would see the black areas improve. This goes for any rough area, black, white, etc...
Of COURSE redlining was racist. Neighborhoods were rated A B C or D and usually got a D if there "was a presence of negroes" or "infiltration of jews on the Eastern edge of the area". These are actually ways that neighborhoods were rated and described.
This, along with the real estate practice of "blockbusting" made it nearly impossible for many blacks to grow equity or obtain loans.
I thought it was for people who couldn't pay the bills.
In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens.
The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor, unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in.
It's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Bush for this crisis. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than Barak Hussein Obama.
Obama: Who cares if they can't pay the borrowed money back.
There has been a long debate about this among economists. There was a famous study done at the Boston Fed in 1992, done after a 1989 law required lenders to record the race of home loan applicants.
This study was widely circulated in the press, and was used by James Johnson, then Fannie Mae CEO to relax lending requirements in the name of fighting racism. This was an important factor in the housing bubble and economic catastrophe of 2008.
The study was widely criticized as flawed, and IIRC even the lead author later backed off from the notion that she had demonstrated conclusive evidence of discrimination in the mortgage industry. And she certainly disavowed the way it was used by Clinton's buddy Johnson.
I think the lack of good schools and economic opportunities in the area caused many to turn to crime and poverty.
If liberals would give them school vouchers, and cut taxes so businesses can come into those areas, you would see the black areas improve. This goes for any rough area, black, white, etc...
Vouchers don't improve schools; they just make the "bad" schools worse, by pulling away more students and funding.
Taxes are sort of a "chicken and egg" thing. Taxes are high in impoverished areas because the tax base is small. So, to cut taxes, would necessarily require cutting services. (and, by services, I'm not talking about welfare, as that comes from different sources)
(and, by services, I'm not talking about welfare, as that comes from different sources)
NOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOO Don't cut welfare!!!!
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.
