Charles Blow: We Need A Second Great Migration

Poor white trash can’t buy or rent duplexes or new apartments in the suburbs. It’s funny, you have those who claim Republicans should be more focused on the working man and working class and here you are saying the working man isn’t worthy of living in the elites neighborhood and we should protect the elites property values

Question .. What if they don’t want to live in “elite” neighborhoods? .. next to someone who considers themselves “elite?”

What if they want their kids to go to schools where the teachers look Like them?

What if they don’t want to live in the suburbs and deal with the traffic?

Before one can claim to help people, you should first get to know them and not assume they want to be you. No disrespect intended brother.
 
Question .. What if they don’t want to live in “elite” neighborhoods? .. next to someone who considers themselves “elite?”

What if they want their kids to go to schools where the teachers look Like them?

What if they don’t want to live in the suburbs and deal with the traffic?

Before one can claim to help people, you should first get to know them and not assume they want to be you. No disrespect intended brother.

People can live where ever they want to live. This isn't about forcing anyone to live where they don't want to. This is about allowing access for working/middle class people into nicer neighborhoods if they so desire.

The argument against what I'm saying is if upper middle class and rich people want to live around only other upper middle class and rich people then they should be able to do so. And thus, there is nothing wrong with them fighting to keep out housing which would allow working or middle class people into their neighborhood.
 
People can live where ever they want to live. This isn't about forcing anyone to live where they don't want to. This is about allowing access for working/middle class people into nicer neighborhoods if they so desire.

The argument against what I'm saying is if upper middle class and rich people want to live around only other upper middle class and rich people then they should be able to do so. And thus, there is nothing wrong with them fighting to keep out housing which would allow working or middle class people into their neighborhood.

I don’t see that as racist either.
 
I don’t see that as racist either.

If people want to live around only people that look like them, or share the same religion as them or share the same politics etc. they should be able to as long as there is no discrimination preventing someone else from moving into that neighborhood. (people may argue the lack of different type of diversity is a bad thing but that's a separate argument)

Along that line one can argue rich people should be able to live in gated communities among other rich people and prevent housing in their neighborhood that would allow non rich people to move in. If I'm being consistent then I should probably say that's ok, but there are areas where I have problems with that.

This is also being in a colorblind way and we know we don't the view that world that way. So in a time where we argue that there is systemic racism and a lack of equity then many of the arguments above lose power. Many older white people bought homes at a time when they were affordable and today are sitting on a gold mine. Black people, for example, often weren’t allowed to purchase homes in some of these neighborhoods back when and don't have the same economic benefit as a result. So therefore, this idea that well to do (often largely white) suburbs should be able to prevent development and allow more working class and middle class (read: minorities) into their neighborhood and allow them access to the better schools looks different when not argued from a colorblind perspective.
 
Last edited:
HUD under Biden will be forcing Section 8 into middle/upper class neighborhood

Is that factual? I've heard it claimed but ever actually seen it stated. Most housing legislation is done at the local level. And the fight is over multi-family development in nicer neighborhoods. (nice apartments, not section 8)

It's the ultimate NIMBY battle. People like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change or have anything that can happen that might affect their property values. On one hand its understandable but on the other it's the ultimate fvck you I've got mine.

But I've seen first hand people telling their neighbors section 8 housing is going to built in their neighborhood when in reality it was luxury apartments. But if you're trying to get someone to fight new development telling them Section 8 housing types will be your neighbor, even if it's a lie, is a great way to get them to mobilize against something.

Edit: I should say as much as I argue for new development and for reducing zoning that allows for single family housing only, I wouldn't want to buy a $2 million home and have a Section 8 development go up next door to me. I don't think that's happening anywhere or being proposed but I would be against that. (New market rate multi-family I wouldn't argue against). But the multi-family development I see being proposed in nice areas is near public transit. They aren't taking a street of single family homes and just putting an apartment complex up.
 
Last edited:
Interesting column from Charles Blow (a progressive black writer for the NY Times). It's really long so I just posted the link. Basic premise is black people in Northern Cities should move back to the South where they will have large numbers and be able to have far more political power.

People of all stripes have been moving to the South for years because of jobs, affordable housing and lower cost of living. I question the idea that black power and advancement comes from having more black politicians but it's a big part of what's being argued here.

(I did include one portion of the column below where he responds to the question of isn't the South more racist than the North. His answer is that its not.)






We Need a Second Great Migration

Georgia illuminates the path to Black power. It lies in the South. Follow me there.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/opinion/georgia-black-political-power.html?smid=tw-share




Others have objected: Isn’t the North just better for Black people than the South?

Many Black people are leery of the South, if not afraid of it. They still have in their minds a retrograde South: dirty and dusty, overgrown and underdeveloped, a third-world region in a first-world country. They see a region that is unenlightened and repressive, overrun by religious zealots and open racists. The caricatures have calcified: hillbillies and banjos, Confederate flags and the Ku Klux Klan.

To be sure, all of that is here. But racism is more evenly distributed across the country than we are willing to admit.

It is true that in surveys, people in the North express support for fewer racially biased ideas than those in the South, but such surveys reveal only which biases people confess to, not the ones they subconsciously possess. So I asked the researchers at Project Implicit to run an analysis of their massive data set to see if there were regional differences in pro-white or anti-Black prejudice. The result, which one of the researchers described as “slightly surprising,” was that there was almost no difference in the level of bias between white people in the South and those in the Northeast or Midwest. (The bias of white people in the West was slightly lower.)

White people outside the South are more likely to say the right words, but many possess the same bigotry. Racism is everywhere. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you rather have some real political power to address that racism? And a yard!

For decades Northern liberals have maintained the illusion of their moral superiority to justify their lack of progress in terms of racial equality. The North’s arrogant insistence that it had no race problem, or at least a minimal one, allowed a racialized police militarism to take root. It allowed housing and education segregation to flourish in supposedly “diverse” cities. It allowed for the rise of Black ghettos and concentrated poverty as well as white flight and urban disinvestment.

The supposed egalitarianism of Northern cities is a flimsy disguise for a white supremacy that diverges from its Southern counterpart only in style, not substance.

And, while the North has been stuck in its self-righteous stasis, the savagery of the South has in some ways softened, or morphed. I am careful not to position this progress as fully redemptive or restorative. White supremacy clearly still exists here, corrupting everything from criminal justice to electoral access. The “New South” — with its thriving Black middle class and increasing political power — is still more aspiration than reality.

But the wishful idealizing of a New South is no more naïve than a willful blindness to the transgressions of the Now North. As the author Jesmyn Ward wrote in 2018 in Time about her decision to leave Stanford and move back to Mississippi, American racism is an “infinite room”: “It is the bedrock beneath the soil. Racial violence and subjugation happen on the streets of St. Louis, on the sidewalks of New York City and in the BART stations of Oakland.”

Black people have traversed this country in search of a place where the hand of oppression was lightest and the spirit of prosperity was greatest, but have had to learn a bitter lesson: Racism is everywhere.

It is hardly a new idea...........

But perhaps it's time has come??

The Quakers & several other European refuse left & set up shop where they were the boss...

The Mormons left & set up shop in Utah......

???
 
If people want to live around only people that look like them, or share the same religion as them or share the same politics etc. they should be able to as long as there is no discrimination preventing someone else from moving into that neighborhood. (people may argue the lack of different type of diversity is a bad thing but that's a separate argument)

Along that line one can argue rich people should be able to live in gated communities among other rich people and prevent housing in their neighborhood that would allow non rich people to move in. If I'm being consistent then I should probably say that's ok, but there are areas where I have problems with that.

This is also being in a colorblind way and we know we don't the view that world that way. So in a time where we argue that there is systemic racism and a lack of equity then many of the arguments above lose power. Many older white people bought homes at a time when they were affordable and today are sitting on a gold mine. Black people, for example, often were allowed to purchase homes in some of these neighborhoods back when and don't have the same economic benefit as a result. So therefore, this idea that well to do (often largely white) suburbs should be able to prevent development and allow more working class and middle class (read: minorities) into their neighborhood and allow them access to the better schools looks different when not argued from a colorblind perspective.

No such thing as colorblind, but for the most part, I agree with you.
 
Is that factual? I've heard it claimed but ever actually seen it stated. Most housing legislation is done at the local level. And the fight is over multi-family development in nicer neighborhoods. (nice apartments, not section 8)
Section 8 is used to bring in minorities to count as numbers toward "equalization"
~~
https://apnews.com/article/817ea7636a27a2c7c594e475e283ab31
HUD revokes Obama-era rule designed to diversify the suburbs
The initiative, known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing or AFFH, is a provision of the Fair Housing Act that requires local governments and zoning boards to submit detailed plans on how they intend to address racial disparities in order to obtain funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

An explainer on the HUD website says the program’s goal is “replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”

It's the ultimate NIMBY battle. People like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change or have anything that can happen that might affect their property values. On one hand its understandable but on the other it's the ultimate fvck you I've got mine.
preserving property values is not NIMBY - low income housing in middle class neighborhoods does not help the lower class - it only "brings down the neighborhood" values instead
 
Question .. What if they don’t want to live in “elite” neighborhoods? .. next to someone who considers themselves “elite?”

What if they want their kids to go to schools where the teachers look Like them?

What if they don’t want to live in the suburbs and deal with the traffic?

Before one can claim to help people, you should first get to know them and not assume they want to be you. No disrespect intended brother.

You say you live in Atlanta.
Do you notice Blacks stratifying by 'class' ... and on top of that, preferring to live in Communities that are predominately Black?

In other words, say you have Middle Class Blacks that are fairly well-off and can live anywhere they want. Do you notice a tendency for them to pick Neighborhoods that are predominately Black?
Poor Blacks and Whites are stuck in poorer Neighborhoods and don't have much of a choice, so they can't 'vote with their feet'.
Once you reach a certain economic level, you can live where you want.
 
Section 8 is used to bring in minorities to count as numbers toward "equalization"
~~
https://apnews.com/article/817ea7636a27a2c7c594e475e283ab31
HUD revokes Obama-era rule designed to diversify the suburbs
The initiative, known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing or AFFH, is a provision of the Fair Housing Act that requires local governments and zoning boards to submit detailed plans on how they intend to address racial disparities in order to obtain funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

An explainer on the HUD website says the program’s goal is “replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”

preserving property values is not NIMBY - low income housing in middle class neighborhoods does not help the lower class - it only "brings down the neighborhood" values instead

To my knowledge the suburbs have been diversifying for awhile. Back in the day you have flight out of the cities from monied people and the suburbs were born. Over the past few decades however many of these monied folks have moved back into the urban centers and poverty has been pushed out to the suburbs.

As I understand it Section 8 vouchers help a family rent but its not enough money to allow anyone to move into a nice neighborhood. And the chances of properties in really nice suburbs having apartment complexes that accept Section 8 vouchers can't be high (although I could be wrong but I don't see it where I live).

People talk about the American dream is dying, I'd argue this is one way that occurs. My family is a perfect example, a college professor and his family moving to California in 1981 and able to buy a home. Today no way that happens. In the name of preserving property values we'd made the cities where the top jobs are off limits to so many people because of cost. And that has a negative effect on economic growth for all of us.
 
e117e229e10a40818ba98684e289a5c3.jpg

Wtf is this?

Sounds like you're a racist asshole?
 
Good.

It's good for wealthier Americans to be confronted with other classes living among them, so they stop viewing them as "others".
"confronted" what do you want to do -rub their noses in it like a bad dog that wets the floor?
Dems are such moralistic dullards.

Do you have any idea what happens when Section 8 is forced into a working class neighborhood?
Of course not they didn't teach you that at Fascist University did they?
 
To my knowledge the suburbs have been diversifying for awhile. Back in the day you have flight out of the cities from monied people and the suburbs were born. Over the past few decades however many of these monied folks have moved back into the urban centers and poverty has been pushed out to the suburbs.

As I understand it Section 8 vouchers help a family rent but its not enough money to allow anyone to move into a nice neighborhood. And the chances of properties in really nice suburbs having apartment complexes that accept Section 8 vouchers can't be high (although I could be wrong but I don't see it where I live).

People talk about the American dream is dying, I'd argue this is one way that occurs. My family is a perfect example, a college professor and his family moving to California in 1981 and able to buy a home. Today no way that happens. In the name of preserving property values we'd made the cities where the top jobs are off limits to so many people because of cost. And that has a negative effect on economic growth for all of us.
this has nothing to do with rents in the cities..start here,,wade thru the mubo-jumbo

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/trump-misrepresents-obama-era-fair-housing-rule/
In response to public comments that claimed the new rule would allow the federal government to dictate zoning, rents and the placement of infrastructure to local governments, HUD also wrote: “This rule does not impose any land use decisions or zoning laws on any local government. Rather, the rule requires HUD program participants to perform an assessment of land use decisions and zoning to evaluate their possible impact on fair housing choice. This assessment must be consistent with fair housing and civil rights requirements, which do apply nondiscrimination requirements to the land use and zoning process. However, this rule does not change those existing requirements under fair housing and civil rights law.”

It is true that some “jurisdictions might identify” low-income housing or zoning reform “as remedies,” Robert Silverman, a professor in the University at Buffalo’s urban and regional planning department, told us in an email. But there could be many methods used to address fair housing issues, he said.

“It would depend on the nature of an impediment,” Silverman explained. “For instance, if an impediment involved discrimination in the mortgage process or landlord discrimination, different remedies would be involved, etc.”
 
IOWs rents can be lowered, but that brings down housing prices..and landlords need to make money

So the "go to" is Section 8 - which damages the neighborhood.
 
True. And white people who think America is too diverse can move to Croatia.

It's not a matter of being too diverse shit stain. And if the queers think it's not diverse enough here they should move to Iran and try their schtick there. You're a fucking moron.
 
this has nothing to do with rents in the cities..start here,,wade thru the mubo-jumbo

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/trump-misrepresents-obama-era-fair-housing-rule/
In response to public comments that claimed the new rule would allow the federal government to dictate zoning, rents and the placement of infrastructure to local governments, HUD also wrote: “This rule does not impose any land use decisions or zoning laws on any local government. Rather, the rule requires HUD program participants to perform an assessment of land use decisions and zoning to evaluate their possible impact on fair housing choice. This assessment must be consistent with fair housing and civil rights requirements, which do apply nondiscrimination requirements to the land use and zoning process. However, this rule does not change those existing requirements under fair housing and civil rights law.”

It is true that some “jurisdictions might identify” low-income housing or zoning reform “as remedies,” Robert Silverman, a professor in the University at Buffalo’s urban and regional planning department, told us in an email. But there could be many methods used to address fair housing issues, he said.

“It would depend on the nature of an impediment,” Silverman explained. “For instance, if an impediment involved discrimination in the mortgage process or landlord discrimination, different remedies would be involved, etc.”

My apologies if we're talking past each other here and I have something different in my head. I feel like someone of Trump's age grew up with a very different version of the suburbs than what we see today. Back in the day the suburbs were largely white and middle/upper middle class and rich. Today the suburbs are far more diverse, both racially and economically. Many suburbs are more blue collar or even low income. And this happened organically as people with money moved back into the Cities and poverty moved to the 'burbs.

So this idea of 'protecting the suburbs' seems to refer to a time that has passed. There's already low income and cheap housing in suburbia.
 
Back
Top