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.
ferguson and places like it will have a decrease in population. but not the consumers--- business will leave the area.
businesses will pull out, a common complaint of poor cities. when most people in a community accept theft and looting and robbery as normal--- they are going the road of detroit, business will leave and not come back. when business leaves so do jobs.
What?
The area has some things going in its way. Express Scripts is growing it's campus if it's not in Ferguson it's on the edge. I was listening to a out of town talk show where many calling in where very complimentary towards the people of Ferguson and how they where concerned about the situation but very optimistic about changes that could possibly come from this. The residents of Ferguson as a whole have had it with looting and the garbage that has made its way into their city. I don't know what you are looking at.
Why do the citizens of Furguson have to pay for damage that they had no control over? Honestly, I hope the citizens learned something from this and take control of their community. You can't just let people come in your house, and destroy the things you worked hard for.
I'm glad that the rioting idiots in ferguson don't reflect how most blacks feel, it would be impossible for them to feel oppressed they make up the majority, if you think I feel any sympathy for the black man killed your wrong, guess what if he wouldn't have been involved in thuggery, thievery, and a holst of everything else they wouldn't have been a killing would they? But he probably would have been killed by his own race if he would have tried this at a black business then the black business owner would have been honored as a outstanding member of society right? Sin sam
Probably the least intelligent post I have ever seen in this forum
This professor is full of race baiting nonsense. There were multi-family dwellings built in the county the same time single family homes were being built. Oh, and the large lots "to exclude lower income residents"?? Can he back that one up?
Large-lot zoning has often been cited as a tool of economic exclusion.
Try looking up "large lot zoning exclusion". (There's stuff I can't copy-and-paste otherwise I would have)
One of the biggest problems with the demographic changes is the new residents are not voting for people who represent their interest. I think many may be renters and not taking ownership of their new city.
Now you have the outrage and it's getting national attention. I can almost bet money on the police department will under go some major changes along with the city council and mayors office.
You can't complain about how things are done if you don't vote.
I heard some conservative radio guy - Roger Hedgecock I think - say earlier this week that a very low voter turnout rate (12% he said) is what keeps the political structure white.
Now this is complicated to try to break down the various factors or components, but an obvious question that comes to mind is, do poor/renters/blacks even have anyone to vote for who aligns with their interests? If so, do such candidates effectively reach their base or constituency? Renters are usually the LAST to be courted for votes; money and turnout are potential factors. For candidates or causes short on money, apartments are very easy to write off as not worth the time and effort and money. (And for those who would hit the pavement, apartment features such as security buildings (like buzzers to restrict access) are a substantial obstacle.) These potential voters are not plugged into local print media, so they're not going to read about the issues in the newspaper, and the STL media market is entirely too big (and thus too expensive) for candidates to reach these voters through radio or TV.
Minorities do self segregate as well. Like I said in another post, no one is forcing black people to live in North City/County. No one is forcing gay people to live in the Grove. No one is forcing Bosnians to live in South City/County. No one is forcing Italians to live on the HIll. It's not a heinous sin to want to live around people of one's own race, social class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, educational attainment, professional achievement, etc.
That's simplifying things a lot. Bosnians moved to the Gravois corridor as an acclimation point of entry. They are dispersing everywhere. South County predominantly (where they are a tiny minority), but throughout most of the metro too. The Hill is a tiny percentage of all Italians. Most of the younger and middle-aged people with Italian last names are dispersed throughout the burbs. The Grove (FPSE neighborhood) contains only 800 white adults, many (or even most) of whom aren't gay. Only a tiny percentage of the gay population lives in the Grove.
The problem with black-white segregation in this city isn't that it boils down to simply living among "ones own", but the problems it creates especially for the segment that is poor (one strike) and a visible minority (two strikes) of this group. Believe it or not, poor black people don't want to live where they do. They want to live in a place that is safe, with decent schools, and with decent access to jobs. The issue is that this checklist of needs is either unaffordable, lacks sufficient racial diversity, or both.
That's where the preference thing kicks in. Studies have been done that suggest that whites will generally live in an area that is 0-20% black with no reservation and 20-40% black with some reservation. After that, white acceptance becomes severely limited. Blacks will generally live in an area that is 50-100% black with no reservation and 25 or 30-40% black with reservations. Middle class blacks generally prefer not to live in an all black neighborhood and whites with higher incomes actually show more acceptance than more working class and poor white do. So the problem becomes that the most accepting whites live in areas that are cost prohibitive for most blacks and the idea of what an acceptable mix is for whites and blacks is different. This leads to tipping points and racial divides that run deeper than people's tolerance levels.
Ferguson is actually a classic example. 1970: 0% black. Middle class and above families develop a taste for larger homes that post war bungalows and split levels don't provide, so they begin to move west, leaving a more working class and older population behind. 1970s: some blacks who can afford Ferguson overlook the lack of diversity for safer areas with better schools and still strong job access. The area is 14% black by 1980. 1980s: the area is now relatively more attractive to blacks (with a non-negligible population established). More whites looking for alternatives to 1945-1965 housing styles leave. 1990: 25% black. Then you hit the inflection point where white people become concerned/scared and larger proportions of blacks find the area appealing, so the area becomes 52% black by 2000 and then it just continues.
It is entirely possible for middle class white (more tolerant) and middle class blacks (more tolerant) live at around a 70-30 to 50-50 white black mix. They're just never in the same phase of migration at the same time unfortunately. Think about what this pattern does to working class blacks who are reliant on transit to get to work. They can't afford more than their 80K-100K home and they can't make it work further out in the county. So they buy a house that increasingly becomes less attractive to the biggest pool of potential buyers (white), they don't accumulate wealth (in the form of home equity) and see declining schools (due to declines socioeconomic status in the community). The same thing happens to middle class blacks and working class whites stuck in the same cycle. it makes it very difficult for people to acquire the human capital (through education) and economic capital (through home appreciation) to move up the chain.
I don't think it's a heinous crime that middle class whites want to live in a home that suits their needs. I just think this is illustrative of the fact that households acting rationally on an individual basis can produce horrible collective outcomes.
I guess I don't understand the appeal of living around people who are the same. When looking at the areas of the city that are gentrified like downtown, central west end and areas of the Southside seem to be very well integrated between blacks and whites. 27% of the residents of the city of St. Louis reside on blocks with blacks and whites. I've also been surprised to see the club scene in the city is integrated. There does seem to be a lot of transplants in the trendy urban areas.
Why is it that suburban St. Louis can't be that way? Will trendy neighborhoods in the city continue to be integrated? I don't know.
I guess you can not force people to live with people they don't want to.
The difference between integrating the suburbs and the city is who was where first when neighborhood start to integrate, geographic job access, and housing characteristics.
In the newer burbs, transit is a problem, which keeps people without a certain level of comfort away. Black or white, people aren't likely to move where they area a tiny minority in the presence of other options. Housing characteristics are big too. Smaller inner suburb homes aren't going to be attractive to middle class residents (generally), which sends white middle class residents out to other white areas, making room for an influx of black residents. It's an area of the metro that has lost favor with white households with disposable income. In the city, housing choices are more diverse in a given block. You can buy a 2000+ sq foot home, a 1000-1500 square foot duplex, or live in an 600-1000 square foot apartment style unit. White middle class residents can move in and find their best option while blacks already in a neighborhood can find the same. Job access is good thanks to transit and proximity to Clayton, Medical district, DT, and industrial corridors. Suburban neighborhoods are generally bought and sold strictly on housing style/quality (and schools if people have kids), so if an area changes racially, there is less to keep someone there. City neighborhood homes are more differentiated: there is a limited supply of certain housing types (compared to suburban styles), and local amenities are more emphasized and there is more to anchor people to the local community.
And the biggest difference: who is "encroaching" upon whom. Given historical trends all over north county and city in particular, a white home owner is likely to pack up and leave an area as it becomes more black (the home value argument). A black homeowner in Shaw or TGE meanwhile is likely loving the fact that young white couples with higher incomes are moving into their areas. They might miss some neighbors and the general neighborhood character, but they are loving the home appreciation.
Re: the ability of the city to maintain its current level of integration. I doubt it will continue where things are integrated now. STL is a low demand housing market, so neighborhoods don't drastically change in a short period of time the way they do in established coastal cities or Chicago, but changes are occurring. Many historic neighborhoods today are so much more attractive to a largely white middle class compared to where they were 20 years ago. I'm thinking places like TGS, Shaw, the Grove, Benton Park, TGE that had a lot of disinvestment at that time. They're in better shape (and whiter) now. What formerly where enclaves are starting to melt together and they'll probably continue to melt into BPW and Fox Park more and more in the next 20 years. As those areas become more homogenous, I do expect other areas to integrate (Marine Villa, Gravois Park) some of SW city.
Let me get this straight; here we have a 6'3", 300 lb THUG (with a criminal record) who ROBBED a liquor store, brazenly shoves the store clerk, then waltzes out of the store, right down the middle of the street. A police officer confronts this THUG, who scuffles with the police officer (who was just DOING HIS JOB), and assaults him, severely injuring his orbital socket. Does anyone ever thing that Brown knew he may have been 'wanted' when the officer stopped him, which explains 'why' he got violent with the officer.
The officer then resorts to using lethal force, and he's now the bad guy? Then, Brown's THUG buddy who was part of the robbery steps up and regurgitates lie after lie about how Brown had his hands in the "er" (mispronunciation of the word "air") and how the cop shot Brown in the back 8 times like an animal. After further investigation, it turns out this 'buddy' has a criminal record too, and is wanted on other charges, and the autopsy clearly proves Brown was shot in the FRONT, NOT the back.
Plus, there were other eye-witnesses (on the scene in the black community), who have yet to step forward, be put in the limelight and interviewed by the liberal media. Then we have those 'race-baiting' so-called 'black leaders' like Al Sharpton (who's been involved in all sorts of other things like the Tawana Brawley incident etc.), and Jesse Jackson, (whose own IL legislator son is in prison for corruption), stepping in to stir more emotions by claiming 'racism' and continually use the term "dis-enfranchised" when referring to blacks who have been supposedly been 'wronged' by system and police who are DOING THEIR JOBS to stop the crime being committed by black and protecting the rest of us from their shenanigans.
When will the black community stop placating the thugs and criminals amongst them? When will they stop committing a disproportionate amount of crime in this country? When will they stop blaming everyone else for all the problems plaguing their community, including the gang violence, endemic poverty, the disproportionate drop-out and teen-aged pregnancy rates? When will the black community start holding themselves accountable, stop blaming others for the problems plaguing their community (gangs, drugs, welfare, etc.), get their young men to pull up their pants, get an education, and quit their buffoonery?
Does anyone ever think this Brown character may have been a bully who picked on the wrong guy; a police officer with a GUN who was doing his job? It's pretty clear; the black community thinks they can do no wrong, and anyone who disagrees is racist, when in fact they are the racist ones in this country and are a complete JOKE. They're NOT fooling me, nor plenty of other law-abiding American citizens, who have had enough of their (B)ovine (S)cat and it's time for everyone to call-them-out on this so we don't have to deal with stuff like this again.
Yikes! That's complicated. All that just to make sure the black guy lives next to the white guy. Can't the two of them just decide where they want to live?
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.
