Intown Atlanta Demographic Hypothesis (Sandy Springs, Roswell: section 8, apartments, lofts)
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.
AGREED! "Exponentially inflated prices" is a reflection of the OP's complete misunderstanding of what white flight is. It's absolutely 100 percent the opposite. I'd still like to hear why he thought otherwise though?
Hopefully I covered this in other posts.
In the meantime, I'll point out that while many "affluent white" neighborhoods intown do indeed abut neighborhoods of "poor minorities"...
True many abut, but I am more talking about within the same community. Let's use Kirkwood or East lake for example.
...the opposite is also true for numerous suburban neighborhoods that have experienced white flight in recent years, with blacks becoming the majority in nice middle-class neighborhoods where a smattering of poor WHITES -- for whatever reason (ancestry, age, poverty) --didn't leave and remain.
In Kirkwood, it is possible to see a man who makes $120k leave a $500k house and go to work. Before leaving his neighborhood, he may pass the occasional jogger, a person walking a child in a stroller, and a few bums or indigent people. Or a dilapidated house with several black people of all ages chilling on the porch. All on one street, within a quarter of a mile. Is this the case in the neighborhoods that you are referring to (except opposite races)?
Forest Park is probably the best example of this I know of in the Metro -- an old money "white" suburb that is now majority minority, but still inhabited by pockets of poor (mostly elderly) whites who never left. So it goes both ways. I think you'd find the same phenomenon in Doraville, Lithonia, parts of South Cobb, College Park, etc.
Well, i don't know. I live in Lithonia. And there are a few pockets of white people who live in my neighborhood. But they are of the same socioeconomic status as everybody else. I also know of very affluent areas of Lithonia and College Park that have pockets of whites. But they are the same class as the blacks. There aren't super rich blacks next door to poor whites (as far as I know). Remember, I'm talking about neighborhoods and communities within the City of Atlanta. You are talking about entire cities and portions of counties...
PS -- It's an interesting fact that as a demographic, BLACKS in Fayette County are wealthier than WHITES by a significant margin ~~ they earn more and the median value of black-owned homes is greater.
So it's like homeless and poor white people living in and walking around wealthy black neighborhoods?
The census district that covers North Fayette (where Evander Holyfield and countless black celebs live) is the wealthiest African-American neighborhood in the nation. And it borders both College Park and Riverdale, two of the least desirable areas of the metro for anybody -- blacks included.
I didn't know College Park was one of the least desirable areas of the metro for anybody -- blacks included. Many people on this forum speak highly of College Park... and there are certainly wealthy people there.
I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that it was one big mass white exodus. It was a neighborhood by neighborhood thing. And you are right that other factors played a role. But I kinda think racism was the largest. While not every single community met and planned to sell, and not every house was over priced, many were.
Even if the sellers didn't hike the prices, the realtor and banks certainly added "colored taxes" along every step of the way. Thus making the African-American family's experience of home ownership far more expensive than a white American family's in Atlanta, in the 1960s...
Regardless of the intentions (and I'm not inferring that every single white person in Atlanta in the 1960's had nefarious intentions), the fact is that most blacks paid way more than whites to own a comparable home during the 1960s.
Race was clearly the driving factor in white flight. And there's no doubt that many realtors, black and white, eventually profited from the transition of neighborhoods throughout the city.
But it's WAY off base to claim that white flight was a plan by whites to make money by selling their homes to blacks. As you know, if you lived here in those days, or if you're read the newspapers from that era or the many books on the subject (of which Dr. Kruse's is one), white neighborhoods vigorously resisted racial transition for years and fought it with every means at their disposal. Sadly, they even employed violence and threats on occasion. And that included threats against other white homeowners who were thinking about selling to blacks.
One of their biggest fears -- see the quote from Kruse's book that I included above -- was that if blacks began to move into a neighborhood it would destroy their property values.
I'll say the same thing to you that I did to aries -- if you know of any instances where white flight was driven by whites inflating the price of their houses in order to sell to blacks, just tell us where they are. There are no such instances mentioned in Kruse's book and you just might turn history on its ear.
I suppose you also believe that HIV/AIDS was a government plot as well? Your credibility is shot my friend. This whole discussion thread is moot.
As I said... I'll gladly retract the statement if you answer the questions... Plus it seems like a cop out when you dismiss a big long post covering several points over one comment.
For example, King discussed tenets of socialism (which I know many people disagree with) but because of that, you would dismiss everything King was about. I think that is a little small minded of you. You shut down the entire post over a sentence. That's sad.
I guess it's an all or nothing deal with you. You have to buy it all, or you buy nothing. Why didn't you shut me down on that point when you first read it. We were kinda on topic, but I think that you're using my reply to someone else about the most minuscule point as an escape clause... It's cool.
Would anyone like to answer the questions in the original post?
Meth is predominantly a white/rural drug. Is the gubment out to get rednecks too?
If you can answer these questions Ill retract:
1. How does the US benefit from having a segemnt of society that is unproductive, prone to criminal activity and doing nothing but consuming resources of law enforcement?
2. Who made the residents of these communities buy and use the crack cocaine?
3. Why is it always someone else's fault?
Here are the answers to your 2 questions, posted previously, along with some questions for you.
Actually, you are dead wrong and the OP is 100% correct.
As I said earlier, the OP gets some things right. If you're interested in this subject, you might want to take a look at Lisa McGirr’s Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right; Larry Keating's Race, Class and Urban Expansion, Matthew Lassiter's Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South: The Silent Majority; Ronald Bayor's Race & The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Atlanta, Richard Bernard's Sunbelt Cities: Politics and Growth Since World War II, and Clarence Stone's Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 1946-88.
Wow, it appears that you haven't read the same book I have.
What Kruse wrote is in keeping with what other scholars have written about white flight, and that is that neighborhood transition was vigorously resisted by whites -- often with violence. It was never a money making scheme for white neighborhoods. To claim it was a plan by whites to sell in droves so that they could make money selling to blacks is way off base and not grounded in historical reality.
If you can actually cite to anything in Kruse's book (or anyone else's, for that matter) that supports that claim I'd gladly reconsider my views, but I don't believe you can find anything like that.
You are correct. I think you are reading a different book. Blue collar whites sold their homes at a profit to blacks. In Kruze's research he found that the whites sold their homes to blacks because blacks would pay a premiumfor these homes to get out of crowded slums and other whites would not buy these homes if their was even the perception that the neighborhood would undergo racial transition due to an adjacent black neighborhood. In the Kruze text, the aspect of racial violence was counteracted by whites selling their homes en masse but black realtists (they couldn't use the trademarked term "realtor") organized the black buyers to delay moving in and then all of the black buyers moved in on one massive "Moving Day" making sure the neighborhood never actually integrated, it just transitioned from "white" to "black" in one day. If whites did not sell "in droves" then these transitions would have never occurred. The onus is not on us to find information that you missed! If a professor presents you with material and you miss the coinciding question on the exam it is not up to the professor to explain why you missed the question! Why don't you find information in Kruze's book that refutes the assertions that whites sold "in droves" and entire schools and community centers where transitioned to blacks. Once again, I think a more thorough reading of the Kruze text is in order.
You are correct. I think you are reading a different book. Blue collar whites sold their homes at a profit to blacks. In Kruze's research he found that the whites sold their homes to blacks because blacks would pay a premiumfor these homes to get out of crowded slums and other whites would not buy these homes if their was even the perception that the neighborhood would undergo racial transition due to an adjacent black neighborhood. In the Kruze text, the aspect of racial violence was counteracted by whites selling their homes en masse but black realtists (they couldn't use the trademarked term "realtor") organized the black buyers to delay moving in and then all of the black buyers moved in on one massive "Moving Day" making sure the neighborhood never actually integrated, it just transitioned from "white" to "black" in one day. If whites did not sell "in droves" then these transitions would have never occurred. The onus is not on us to find information that you missed! If a professor presents you with material and you miss the coinciding question on the exam it is not up to the professor to explain why you missed the question! Why don't you find information in Kruze's book that refutes the assertions that whites sold "in droves" and entire schools and community centers where transitioned to blacks. Once again, I think a more thorough reading of the Kruze text is in order.
Okay, I keep posting quotes from Kruse's actual text and y'all keep telling me you can't put your finger on it but you think he's saying something different.
The reality is that whites vigorously resisted desegregation for years, with every tool at their disposal. Including violence, intimidation and organized political pressure. That's simply historical fact and Kruse and others have documented in detail. A lot of us lived through it ourselves and have firsthand knowledge of what happened.
It is certainly true that many neighborhoods transitioned very rapidly when white resistance finally crumbled. And there's no doubt that there was a lot of manipulation by realtors (and realtists) to maximize their profits. "Blockbusting" -- instilling the fear in white neighborhoods that blacks were about to move in and that property values would plummet -- was a very common practice. Whites struggled to draw artificial boundaries and even created physical barriers to blacks moving into their communities. (Freeways are pretty handy for that).
But the suggestion that white flight was driven by the desire of whites to vastly inflate home prices in order to sell to blacks is, frankly, nonsense. To the contrary, whites fought tooth and nail to "defend" and "protect" their neighborhoods from what they felt was an invasion by blacks. That's what Kevin Kruse documented.
I'll post a few more quotes to verify that. If any of you have quotes to the contrary by all means put them up, but until you back it up, the claim that Kruse is actually saying something else is pretty hollow.
From the actual Kruse text:
Quote:
In late 1959 whites discovered a new "threat" on Holly Street to
the southeast. Blacks had bought two homes there; more problematic,
however, a 112-unit apartment complex for blacks was underway,
too. Representatives of Grove Park and Center Hill begged the developer
to restrict the project to whites only. "Your decision is so crucial to
the welfare of our community, that we refrain from contemplating the
disastrous effects of an adverse report," the Grove Park Civic League
wrote the builder. "The rental of these apartments to colored would cause
an immediate break-through and loss of our community with hardship,
financial and personal loss of immeasurable proportions." The residents
even enlisted the mayor's help but to no avail. The developer sympathized
with their plight but refused to budge. "We certainly have no desire to
upset the neighborhood," he wrote Hartsfield, "and we would be glad to
rent the apartments to white tenants if it could be done successfully. However,
due to the proximity of negro dwellings and negro owned property,
it is very doubtful." It was a lost cause, he said, because "the Grove Park
Civic League has already let the area go colored." Despite years of cooperation
between the two white neighborhoods, accompanied by hard work
and financial strain, their successful defense meant nothing. Surrounding
areas had given up, and that had crippled them
Quote:
Neighborhoods with a cohesive identity
and strong local institutions (such as Adamsville and Kirkwood) were
able to hold back residential desegregation, for a few years at least, while
a place without such identity and institutions (Adair Park) underwent
swift racial transition. By the early 1960s, however, with the advent of
the civil rights movement and the continued pressure on the part of blacks
seeking homes, all of these "white communities" underwent racial transition,
regardless of their "integrity."
Quote:
Even if a "community" were successfully defined, keeping it successfully
defended was another matter. A key problem here was the lack of
white solidarity. Too often, the threat of "Negro invaders" created cracks
in the wall of white solidarity. In places without "integrity," such as Adair
Park, these cracks widened rather quickly. But even in areas with supposedly
strong institutions and a solid sense of "community," these splits
appeared as well. The white residents of Kirkwood, for instance, presented
a united front for segregation at first but soon succumbed to bitter
internal squabbling. Divided against itself, a "white community" quickly
disintegrated. Furthermore, as the example of the Grove Park, Center
Hill, and Collier Heights area shows, fissures in white solidarity could
appear on a much larger scale, with larger repercussions. The combination
of these internal flaws and the constant external pressure for black
residential expansion meant that even the strongest defense was eventually
overcome. Ultimately, neighborhoods with a demonstrably high level
of "community integrity"-Adamsville, Kirkwood, and Grove Park-underwent
the same racial transition that consumed more obviously divided
areas like Adair Park. The intense planning of and financial strain on
whites there did not stop the process but only delayed the inevitable.
Not quite my friend. I said "initially". Crack didn't even come out in America until the eighties. Who are the criminals? At what level? How did it get to your local drug dealer? Ralph from Simpson Rd. didn't just hop on a plane to Columbia and bring it back to the 'hood.
There. Please retract.
As soon as we touch up question #2.
Meth is predominantly a white/rural drug. Is the gubment out to get rednecks too?
No. Meth can be made at your house. You can't just make cocaine in your kitchen. It has to come from somewhere. I'm not saying the gov't is spearheading the drug trade right now... But they definitely introduced it in the 1980's. Every single link I put up here seems fraudulent to you? Every single one?
If you can answer these questions Ill retract:
1. How does the US benefit from having a segemnt of society that is unproductive, prone to criminal activity and doing nothing but consuming resources of law enforcement?
It doesn't. I know I'll catch a lot of heat for this, but here goes: You had the civil rights movement in the 1960s which pressured legislation to do many things that they really did not want to do. Then you had Malcolm X and the black power movement in which young militant blacks were becoming organized and politically active. I think the "gov't" felt that too much was happening too soon and that this would upset the status quot. Look up "Cointelpro." Who do you think was behind King's death? You think James Earl Ray was a lone gunman? After systematically murdering or jailing most of the black leaders, cocaine emerged in affluent communities. Coincidentally, crack emerged in the poor black communities and devastated it. Look up Rick Ross. Then you have the "war on drugs" (in which crack possession results in "exponetially higher" jail sentences...)
I think certain powers were afraid of the power that black Americans would hold if they were unified and not fragmented and marginalized... After all, the Black Panthers were considered terrorists. According to the CIA, Dr. King was called "the most dangerous man in America."
Remember, during Reconstruction, one of the arguments for the continued oppression of blacks was that they would unify, gain power, overpower the white establishment, and then vie for revenge for slavery. This is one of the reasons that many southern whites during this time consisently oppressed and marginalized blacks after slavery.
2. Who made the residents of these communities buy and use the crack cocaine?
Themselves. 1st. Curiosity/Peer Pressure/Societal Pressure (Just like many whites with cocaine) 2nd. Addiction.
Another good question is "who made the residents of these communities sell the crack cocaine?" The answer is: Their own Poverty, Greed, Ignorance, Disunity, and lack of Leadership.
3. Why is it always someone else's fault?
It's not. If someone sets a trap. I guess it's the person's fault for falling into it. The sad thing is that many blacks don't even know they are being exploited... and more often than not, they are exploiting themselves.
[Some people on this forum have heard this before, but] there is an old story about how indigenous people in the Arctic would hunt for wolves. They would stick the butt of a knife in the ice/ground and cover it with blood. A wolf would come by and lick the blade and cut it's tongue, but it would continue to lick the blade because it thinks that it is being fed, but really it is drinking its own blood and bleeds to death. This is an analogy of what the selling of crack does to impoverished kids/communities. I know it is the wolf's fault for licking the blade... and only the victim can do something about it. Nobody's asking for handouts. But we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge who put the knife in the ice in the first place...
Last edited by equinox63; 07-21-2010 at 04:03 PM..
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.
Please re-read
