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.
Did it ever occur to you that whites would not be welcome in these communities?
I live south of Atlanta in a very diverse neighborhood. What makes a neighborhood is economic ability to live somewhere, pride of place, near good schools and a semi-safe environment to raise children. I say semi-safe because crime occurs less often in such neighborhoods, but it does still occur.
Also true. There are racist black people out there just like racist white people. A white person in a racist black neighborhood can be dangerous, same goes for a black person in a racist white neighborhood.
The problem is people with similar mentalities like to live around each other. It's not really about race so much.
Like I said earlier, I used to live in an Asian area and it didn't bother me at all. Everyone got along just fine. I don't care what ethnicity the people are, just if it's safe, in my budget, closer to work etc...
If I moved into a cheaper area, it would not affect my taxes (I rent) or raise the rents of my neighbors. The thing it would affect is my bank by being able to save more money, and maybe my safety as some cheap areas are dangerous.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or intentionally ignorant about the topic at hand. This isn't just about moving to a cheaper area. If that were the case, folks would be scrambling to move to rural America.
BTW, white woman are the MAIN beneficiaries of affirmative action.
Wha game ? I'm not playing any games. I just find it stupid for people to complain about other people moving into an area, wether it be white or black. The hypocrisy is also stupid, if black people moved into a white area and the white people move it's racist. But if white people move into a black area and the black people leave it's '' the whites are driving up prices and forcing us out''.
What are some examples where wealthy white people have decided to move somewhere simply because there was white people around, and did not make tangible, beneficial changes to the area, its housing stock, and its commercial offerings?
Every wealthy white neighborhood....lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
You keep saying that black people don't want to change anything when they move in, but they do.
I grew up in what was a predominately white/Asian middle class area here in the Bay Area, the city was called Antioch. As the value of homes went up in the late 90's/early 2000's in the poorer areas of Oakland/Richmond etc the people who lived in those homes sold and moved to Antioch for a better life with little crime and good schools. Many times one member of the family was able to move to Antioch and everyone in the family would claim that as the residence so their kids could go to school their. I had one friend who lived with his uncle and with 9 other cousins in a 4/3 home of around 2k sq feet. Many of them would take Bart back to their parents house in Oakland on Friday and come in late to school on Monday. This was common, I personally knew 20-30 kids who did this while I was in high school. Crime started to rise while I lived their. The high school I went to became segregated during lunch/breaks by race.
When the housing market crashed it hit Antioch hard since it had a huge expansion in the 90's. The city started to fill the now foreclosed houses with section 8 to try and get any revenue they could. This brought even more from the inner cities and crime flourished. It went from a middle class neighborhood to being on the top 100 dangerous cities in the US in about 10 years, all thanks to the predominately black people who moved in, but as you say, black people don't change anything when they move in, they just want to live in harmony with white people.
You are probably going to claim I am racist, but the New York Times actually did a case study about how not to run a city, they chose Antioch and the issues that arose from section 8.
In won't go into depth in regards to the Section 8/HCV (housing choice voucher) program but I actually do work in the housing industry and am very knowledgeable about the program. From your links, I gather that Antioch is a suburban community of the San Francisco Bay area. The topic of this thread is gentrification - wealthier people (usually whites) moving from the burbs back to the city. The Bay area has experienced huge levels of gentrification. This will cause crime to increase in suburban communities due to displaced poverty stricken residents - it has increased here in Atlanta metro as well, so in essence, you should be against gentrification too. It will protect your suburban area from the ravages of inner city esque crime. When large swaths of poverty stricken people live together, crime follows. This is the reason why many localities are doing away with traditional public housing. Over half of the decreases in crime in my own neighborhood came as a result of the demolition of a public housing (aka the projects) location that bordered our neighborhood. As someone who works in the industry, I am well aware that local government housing authorities issue Section 8 vouchers to residents upon them being relocated. Many residents chose to move to the burbs because rents are cheaper and amenities better, which was evidenced in your first link where the woman got a house with a pool for $2200 a month. Being that I live in a neighborhood that the poverty stricken live in and us having programs and assistance in place to assist poverty stricken families with childcare needs, domestic violence issues, and job training, letting poor, but hardworking people stay in the city is better for all IMO and you should be on board against gentrification because that is what is forcing those lower income people to come to your area. We have many residents with issue in my neighborhood, but we want to keep them and not have them displaced and sent to suburban communities such as yours because they can no longer afford to live with us in our community.
But on the whole, your example is not what I am speaking of. Practically everything you mentioned is something that is related to your local government and the housing crisis - the housing authority in the Bay Area in regards to HCV, and the school system in not investigating where children live. Also, none of those low income black people actively sought to change your neighborhood or city. They liked your city and moved there to enjoy your amenities - good schools and homes with pools. They didn't set out to change the businesses in your area or to demolish parts of your neighborhood or to set up a separate neighborhood association in your neighborhood that lobbied for their particular interest so Antioch is not applicable to the conversation.
And FWIW, I don't think you are racist.
Also FWIW, many traditional black neighborhoods that are middle income and above have experienced similar declines recently due to the displacement of former public housing residents or low income people who were priced out of their areas due to gentrification. Chatham in Chicago is a neighborhood that has been experiencing this as a result of the demolition of public housing in Chicago and many parts of DeKalb County here in metro Atlanta have also experienced this.
Wha game ? I'm not playing any games. I just find it stupid for people to complain about other people moving into an area, wether it be white or black. The hypocrisy is also stupid, if black people moved into a white area and the white people move it's racist. But if white people move into a black area and the black people leave it's '' the whites are driving up prices and forcing us out''.
It's a double standard. And it's wrong.
It's not a double standard. It's reality.
And it's not just black people who suffer. All poor people feel the wrath of gentrifiers.
i hate white hipsters. they ruined uptown here in minneapolis. they took the soul and the heart of uptown away and replaced it with whole foods and trader joes.
when i think of the borg (a collective) white people fit that to a T.
What is with this mentality? Because white people move in all of a sudden it becomes a desirable area? There are some pretty dumpy white neighborhoods too. Whites are the most valued group? Lol what? I don't think anyone cares. And it's black people and other ethnic groups that get benefits such as Affirmitive Action.
It has nothing to do with white or black people moving into an area.
In major urban areas in this country, it is true.
And people do care and believe that whites are more valuable, even black people do. That is something that is a part of our society and even though it is not something we like to talk about or acknowledge it is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizjo
Did it ever occur to you that whites would not be welcome in these communities?
I live south of Atlanta in a very diverse neighborhood. What makes a neighborhood is economic ability to live somewhere, pride of place, near good schools and a semi-safe environment to raise children. I say semi-safe because crime occurs less often in such neighborhoods, but it does still occur.
What predominately black areas in Atlanta are whites not welcome??? It would be hard pressed to find a place like that. I live in the hood in Atlanta and we have whites in my own neighborhood and if anything, I find that black people in Atlanta bend over backwards to make whites less afraid of them and feel comfortable around black people.
And there are majority black, middle income, safe neighborhoods in the south Atlanta suburbs and in south Atlanta itself in the Cascade area, but you rarely find white people there. Maybe they feel they will be "unwelcome" like you. Thinking that you will be unwelcome is just another way of saying you are afraid to move there because there will be less people who look like you.
How would they make money, exactly? By selling? Again, some folks actually want to live in the neighborhoods that they help build rather than sell and move away.
They can sell or refinance to take out some cash. I'll ask my black neighbors if they would rather their house be worth 100k more with a 1-2k higher a year property bill or just keep things the same. Doesn't sound like a really tough decision.
They can sell or refinance to take out some cash. I'll ask my black neighbors if they would rather their house be worth 100k more with a 1-2k higher a year property bill or just keep things the same. Doesn't sound like a really tough decision.
Not everyone qualifies for refinancing, especially those on fixed incomes. And not everyone wants to move out of their neighborhoods.
In won't go into depth in regards to the Section 8/HCV (housing choice voucher) program but I actually do work in the housing industry and am very knowledgeable about the program. From your links, I gather that Antioch is a suburban community of the San Francisco Bay area. The topic of this thread is gentrification - wealthier people (usually whites) moving from the burbs back to the city. The Bay area has experienced huge levels of gentrification. This will cause crime to increase in suburban communities due to displaced poverty stricken residents - it has increased here in Atlanta metro as well, so in essence, you should be against gentrification too. It will protect your suburban area from the ravages of inner city esque crime. When large swaths of poverty stricken people live together, crime follows. This is the reason why many localities are doing away with traditional public housing. Over half of the decreases in crime in my own neighborhood came as a result of the demolition of a public housing (aka the projects) location that bordered our neighborhood. As someone who works in the industry, I am well aware that local government housing authorities issue Section 8 vouchers to residents upon them being relocated. Many residents chose to move to the burbs because rents are cheaper and amenities better, which was evidenced in your first link where the woman got a house with a pool for $2200 a month. Being that I live in a neighborhood that the poverty stricken live in and us having programs and assistance in place to assist poverty stricken families with childcare needs, domestic violence issues, and job training, letting poor, but hardworking people stay in the city is better for all IMO and you should be on board against gentrification because that is what is forcing those lower income people to come to your area. We have many residents with issue in my neighborhood, but we want to keep them and not have them displaced and sent to suburban communities such as yours because they can no longer afford to live with us in our community.
But on the whole, your example is not what I am speaking of. Practically everything you mentioned is something that is related to your local government and the housing crisis - the housing authority in the Bay Area in regards to HCV, and the school system in not investigating where children live. Also, none of those low income black people actively sought to change your neighborhood or city. They liked your city and moved there to enjoy your amenities - good schools and homes with pools. They didn't set out to change the businesses in your area or to demolish parts of your neighborhood or to set up a separate neighborhood association in your neighborhood that lobbied for their particular interest so Antioch is not applicable to the conversation.
And FWIW, I don't think you are racist.
Also FWIW, many traditional black neighborhoods that are middle income and above have experienced similar declines recently due to the displacement of former public housing residents or low income people who were priced out of their areas due to gentrification. Chatham in Chicago is a neighborhood that has been experiencing this as a result of the demolition of public housing in Chicago and many parts of DeKalb County here in metro Atlanta have also experienced this.
My example was to disprove your theory that black people do not change a neighborhood.
In the late 90's Oakland and other predominately black areas in the Bay Area were not gentrifying. It was people leaving a crappy area for a decent area, then they made the decent area crappy.
Gentrification hasn't really happened in the Bay Area in the last couple of decades outside of down town SJ and San Francisco proper. Oakland is just starting to have an influx over the last couple of years because of tech, but that is a very recent development that has nothing to do with the article/example I posted about.
Their is not a real difference between what your talking about (inner cities where white people are moving to) or my example of suburbia where black people moved to. It is a noticeable shift of cultures from one area to another, it is just that you think one is ok and the other is an issue because of the group affected.
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.
