- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mayors Discuss Ways to Stop Gentrification
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:12 pm to Scruffy
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:12 pm to Scruffy
quote:
In my personal opinion, the racial factor associated w/ economic advancement is a minority factor, or at least it has become one over time.
That depends a lot on where you live and what race you are.
quote:
The racial discrimination element has largely been subdued by our society. The
That's laughable.
1
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:13 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
But it's not the same as blacks being priced out of an area
So now market forces can be included as causing involuntary segregation?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:14 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Does society not attack racism with the fury of the gods?
That's laughable.
Even small instances of racial discrimination are crushed swiftly through mass media outcries and newscasts.
Being a racist nowadays has dire consequences.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:31 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Did the blacks cause the crime, did the crime cause the blacks, or is that just an irrelevant added fact?
My grandparents home in Shreveport near the Shreveport Country Club was a showpiece, just beautiful. Now you literally can not see the house because of growth of vegetation. Almost all the homes are in disrepair and the home is now worth less on the market than in the 1990's. The area is now mostly black and the stores that used to serve the community are gone. the homes have abandoned cars in the driveways, and it looks unlike the nice place of old.
Do blacks predominately live there now? Yes. Is Crime higher? Yes. Did the blacks cause the crime? I don't know draw your own hypothesis.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:35 pm to Scruffy
man i just read the full article. clown shoes as expected
yay. more government! this couldn't possibly lead to the non-poor just refusing to go there. NO WAY!
where did this exist?
quote:
Brown, who is a city planner by profession, said mayors need to remember to include restrictive covenants on such housing to ensure they remain inclusionary — that is, attracting a variety of economic classes — in the future.
yay. more government! this couldn't possibly lead to the non-poor just refusing to go there. NO WAY!
quote:
“Think about the communities that our parents grew up in,” she said. “You had a doctor living across the street from a teacher living across the street from the people who cleaned the houses. That was a diverse and strong community.”
where did this exist?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
where did this exist?
New Orleans. Still does in some neighborhoods.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:49 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
The fact is: Neighborhood used to be mostly white and fairly safe. Now it's mostly black and not safe.
See Istrouma and Standard Heights in Baton Rouge.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:51 pm to VOR
quote:
New Orleans.
are these black market doctors?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
New Orleans.
are these black market doctors?
Nope.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:56 pm to VOR
so there are neighborhoods where doctors live next door to low-rent housing with poor clientele?
where?
where?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote: “Think about the communities that our parents grew up in,” she said. “You had a doctor living across the street from a teacher living across the street from the people who cleaned the houses. That was a diverse and strong community.”
I asked this question in another thread and never got an answer, so I'll ask again.
quote:
If socioeconomic diversity is mutually beneficial to all parties, how will the rich benefit from living in the same area as the poor?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Horrible term. Absolutely horrible!
I first remember the term gentrification when Lawrence Fishburn was telling Trey and Ricky all about in Compton.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:12 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
In NYC, neighborhoods which were once unique cultural enclaves are being erased as people who have no ties to the neighborhood gobble up all the real estate and push out the old inhabitants. It represents a real cultural loss, which is a bad thing.
In New Orleans it means cleaning up former crap holes like Bywater down towards Poland Ave. where the culture was drugs and death.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:15 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
If socioeconomic diversity is mutually beneficial to all parties, how will the rich benefit from living in the same area as the poor?
The rich don't benefit from that. But the envious Left benefits by supposing that the rich will experience some of the negative that comes with living amongst the lower class. It's all about spreading a bit of misery to all.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:16 pm to The Third Leg
hearing people bitch about gentrification is awesome and basically shows you how SJWs have to ignore reality in their causes
gentrification is nothing more than an influx of money/investment in poor areas, which improves them and leads to more money/investment, which improves them further. a byproduct of this investment, obviously, is a higher value for land/housing (because not only has investment been laid, but also the area is nicer, safer, etc, so it's more desirable)
1. those mayors in the OP and/or SJWs who wish to combat gentrification are defending shitty areas (and indirectly calling them as much). they use non-defined terms like "culture" as the basis of their argument, which implies the cultures they wish to protect are shitty cultures (which is why the area is so poor). bravo, mates
2. the SJWs who attack gentrification also assume that only one culture can exist in an area and/or that those with money have no culture. this is slanted intellectual dishonesty at its finest while, at the same time, defends poverty and crime as a more noble cultural trait than wealth and safety. the "culture" argument is also bankrupt when you get into the secondary factors, like nicer stores, education, entertainment, etc.
3. then you have the libprogs who go to the "institution" arguments. what they fail to realize (and quite ironically, i may add), is that their defense of shitty culture is the very institution that maintains the poverty-crime cycle. they combine the issues of arguments 1 and 2 above to create/defend a shitty culture that leads to negative traits, while calling the institutions that come in and improve the area a bad thing that creates the culture they are defending.
if you want to see the pure hypocrisy and absurdity of the SJW/libprog argument on institutions, go look at their rants about gentrification. Spike Lee's is a great start. they see the world as a battle of institutions and not a competition of individuals. he bitches about the lack of markets, etc in "his" brooklyn and argues that racism/institutional blocks kept these amenities out. the simple question is this: if the culture/population that you value so much is so great, why didn't they invest/create these amenities that you're bitching about?
gentrification is nothing more than an influx of money/investment in poor areas, which improves them and leads to more money/investment, which improves them further. a byproduct of this investment, obviously, is a higher value for land/housing (because not only has investment been laid, but also the area is nicer, safer, etc, so it's more desirable)
1. those mayors in the OP and/or SJWs who wish to combat gentrification are defending shitty areas (and indirectly calling them as much). they use non-defined terms like "culture" as the basis of their argument, which implies the cultures they wish to protect are shitty cultures (which is why the area is so poor). bravo, mates
2. the SJWs who attack gentrification also assume that only one culture can exist in an area and/or that those with money have no culture. this is slanted intellectual dishonesty at its finest while, at the same time, defends poverty and crime as a more noble cultural trait than wealth and safety. the "culture" argument is also bankrupt when you get into the secondary factors, like nicer stores, education, entertainment, etc.
3. then you have the libprogs who go to the "institution" arguments. what they fail to realize (and quite ironically, i may add), is that their defense of shitty culture is the very institution that maintains the poverty-crime cycle. they combine the issues of arguments 1 and 2 above to create/defend a shitty culture that leads to negative traits, while calling the institutions that come in and improve the area a bad thing that creates the culture they are defending.
if you want to see the pure hypocrisy and absurdity of the SJW/libprog argument on institutions, go look at their rants about gentrification. Spike Lee's is a great start. they see the world as a battle of institutions and not a competition of individuals. he bitches about the lack of markets, etc in "his" brooklyn and argues that racism/institutional blocks kept these amenities out. the simple question is this: if the culture/population that you value so much is so great, why didn't they invest/create these amenities that you're bitching about?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:23 pm to Jake88
quote:
The rich don't benefit from that. But the envious Left benefits by supposing that the rich will experience some of the negative that comes with living amongst the lower class. It's all about spreading a bit of misery to all.
I'm well aware of the negatives. I just want to hear from the people who promote this nonsense as something that's good for all parties involved.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:37 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I'm well aware of the negatives. I just want to hear from the people who promote this nonsense as something that's good for all parties involved.
They won't admit that what I posted is their only reason. There are no benefits that are remotely plausible.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
The Atlantic had a pretty solid piece on the dark side of gentrification. It is what it is. This country was founded upon displacement.
When you rent forever, you have no skin in the game and that is who is really getting pushed out with nothing to show for it. Original landowners at least get the sale of the asset.
I've always had a real problem with people who lay claim on communities and neighborhoods, as if someone "not from here" , couldn't possibly add value. This is a macro problem in America, the mine/ours mentality, and it's not just a racial divide in poor black or Hispanic communities.
When you rent forever, you have no skin in the game and that is who is really getting pushed out with nothing to show for it. Original landowners at least get the sale of the asset.
I've always had a real problem with people who lay claim on communities and neighborhoods, as if someone "not from here" , couldn't possibly add value. This is a macro problem in America, the mine/ours mentality, and it's not just a racial divide in poor black or Hispanic communities.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 2:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Gentrification can occur without a significant shift in racial make-up. Its happening in my neighborhood right now.
I know you live in Mid city, I do also and I have to call bullshite on this. The areas that are being "gentrified" are definitely seeing a shift in racial make-up. It will be even more pronounced as time goes on and especially once the hospital is finished.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 5:51 pm to SpidermanTUba
Are these mayors willing to run their cities on reduced tax revenues when the values of properties are suppressed per their proposed policies?
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News