#BLMers now demanding that white people give up our homes!

[Loren Pechtel]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

In other words, we shouldn't try to improve bad neighborhoods.

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by 'improve?'

I'm not saying this is you, but for a lot of white people, 'improving' means making more appealing to white people--especially the kind of white people who like their chains and big boxes and have no ties to the local small businesses or the restaurants and shops that give the neighborhoods their lifeblood, their unique character that keeps people there for generations and helps draw the new people.

So there are ways to improve a neighborhood that appeal to non-whites but not to whites? Sounds awfully racist to me--people are people, they want pretty much the same things!

Besides, the improvements are to a large degree fixing up places and driving out crime. Everyone wants that.

Even if it is less bigoted or intentionally malevolent, dramatically improving a property on a block can have the ripple effect of causing enough of an increase in property values that the increased property taxes make older adults or younger families priced out of the neighborhood where they've lived their entire lives. Driving out the bodega that caters to the needs of the preimproved neighborhood and gives credit or donations to local customers or schools, etc. get replaced by big boxes who don't because of corporate policy. Hey, when my kids were in school and I had to do fundraising for the public schools, I know there was a HUGE difference between local businesses and national changes in terms of how much they actually supported the local community.

So nothing should be done to improve neighborhoods. Let the gangs rule the inner cities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again, improved neighborhoods have local businesses. Bad neighborhoods have chains.

I think she has something of a point on this part of it, but it's not that good a point.

Good neighborhoods have chains because they're willing to operate there. Bad neighborhoods have whatever businesses haven't failed yet, most chains aren't interested in moving in because of crime problems. Those small businesses die when the neighborhood improves because they aren't competitive.

 

[Metaphor]

In my town, which is well over 90 percent white, we have chains like Walmart and Starbucks and Family Dollar--and lost a lot of nice local stores, like the hardware store where you could purchase just one screw to replace the one that was missing instead of a whole package.

I'm really not much of a fan of chains.

Well, congratulations on not liking chains, though apparently you stereotype white people as liking them.

The difference is that black people moving into a town or a neighborhood doesn't cause property taxes to go up so that the people already living there can no longer afford their homes. Look at all the cities with a giant tech explosion: Lots of neighborhoods are being dramatically changed as long time residents can no longer afford the homes they've lived in for 20 years or more--and nothing affordable is near by.

"White people" don't cause property values to go up, unless they cause property values to go up by being better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighbourhoods. Is that what you are proposing?

Nobody is entitled to live in a certain neighbourhood, even if they've lived there their entire life. Nobody is entitled to kvetch about other people moving in, if the other people have acquired their patch of earth legally.

I'd love to live in a bigger and better place more central to where I work. I can't afford it. Nobody owes it to me.

 

[laughing dog]

"White people" don't cause property values to go up, unless they cause property values to go up by being better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighbourhoods. Is that what you are proposing?

Property values are driven by many variables, one of which is expectations. Apparently you are proposing that markets expect that white people are people who are better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighborhoods. Which would mean that property markets are racist. Is that what you are proposing?

 

[Metaphor]

"White people" don't cause property values to go up, unless they cause property values to go up by being better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighbourhoods. Is that what you are proposing?

Property values are driven by many variables, one of which is expectations. Apparently you are proposing that markets expect that white people are people who are better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighborhoods. Which would mean that property markets are racist. Is that what you are proposing?

Of course property markets are racist. The question is not did racism take place? but rather how did racism manifest in that situation? Clearly white people are doubly racist in the property market. When they move to suburbs that suit them, they are white flight racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable their preference by fleeing. If they instead live where black people are, they are gentrifying racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable that by magickally improving neighbourhoods and pricing black people out.

 

[laughing dog]

"White people" don't cause property values to go up, unless they cause property values to go up by being better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighbourhoods. Is that what you are proposing?

Property values are driven by many variables, one of which is expectations. Apparently you are proposing that markets expect that white people are people who are better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighborhoods. Which would mean that property markets are racist. Is that what you are proposing?

Of course property markets are racist. The question is not did racism take place? but rather how did racism manifest in that situation? Clearly white people are doubly racist in the property market. When they move to suburbs that suit them, they are white flight racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable their preference by fleeing. If they instead live where black people are, they are gentrifying racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable that by magickally improving neighbourhoods and pricing black people out.

If you are being sincere (which I doubt) then your original comment was pointless. If you are being insincere, then your response is pointless.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The racist #BLMers are getting more and more brazen and more and more openly racist.

Seattle BLM protesters demand white people ‘give up’ their homes

Another source for the video:

No, they don't. Their demands is on their website.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

BLM wants nothing. It's a platform from which to shout slogans that will do nothing and change nothing. It's nothing but talk.

You can go back to sleep. The movement is much too disorganised to want anything. The money the gathered goes to the democrats reelection campaign.

I think it's the same shit as Occupy. It's a vehicle to make woke selfies and woke posts on Instagram. I get a feeling that none of the supporters of BLM want to change anything. It looks like performative rage. People want to be seen supporting black rights while not wanting anything to actually change. It's my impression of BLM so far.

 

[Bomb#20]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

In other words, we shouldn't try to improve bad neighborhoods.

...
Even if it is less bigoted or intentionally malevolent, dramatically improving a property on a block can have the ripple effect of causing enough of an increase in property values that the increased property taxes make older adults or younger families priced out of the neighborhood where they've lived their entire lives. ...

No it can't. You wanting something so much you're willing to pay more for it than its current owner could pay does not cause her to be "priced out". Maybe she bought it for a thousand dollars forty years ago, and maybe that's still all she can afford, and you can try to get her to sell by waving a million dollars in front of her, and she can still tell you and your money to get stuffed. This is called "property rights".

What causes people to be priced out is not the increase in property values, but the politically-motivated policy of a democratically elected government to base property taxes on "assessments" -- opinions -- rather than on purchase price. This is not a law of nature; it's a social choice. We used to price people out of their own homes that they'd lived in all their lives in California too, but we stopped doing that: we passed Proposition 13. Now our property taxes are based on purchase price. If you have referendums in your state, you need to pass a Proposition 13 of your own. If you don't have referendums in your state, you need to get referendums.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"White people" don't cause property values to go up, unless they cause property values to go up by being better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighbourhoods. Is that what you are proposing?

Property values are driven by many variables, one of which is expectations. Apparently you are proposing that markets expect that white people are people who are better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighborhoods. Which would mean that property markets are racist. Is that what you are proposing?

You're the one being racist here.

What's going on is that as the neighborhood gets cleaned up higher class people move in. White doesn't make them higher class--the worst house on this street is white-occupied. Caring about the neighborhood they live in makes them higher class.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course property markets are racist. The question is not did racism take place? but rather how did racism manifest in that situation? Clearly white people are doubly racist in the property market. When they move to suburbs that suit them, they are white flight racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable their preference by fleeing. If they instead live where black people are, they are gentrifying racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable that by magickally improving neighbourhoods and pricing black people out.

If you are being sincere (which I doubt) then your original comment was pointless. If you are being insincere, then your response is pointless.

He's showing a problem with the leftist position here--when you call every option improper it ceases to have meaning.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course property markets are racist. The question is not did racism take place? but rather how did racism manifest in that situation? Clearly white people are doubly racist in the property market. When they move to suburbs that suit them, they are white flight racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable their preference by fleeing. If they instead live where black people are, they are gentrifying racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable that by magickally improving neighbourhoods and pricing black people out.

If you are being sincere (which I doubt) then your original comment was pointless. If you are being insincere, then your response is pointless.

I can see why you had so much trouble understanding your own sarcastic response in the other thread.

As for 'sincere', I'm certainly expressing my innermost thoughts on the matter, but I'm doing it by making counterfactual statements. That what I wrote could be the genuine output of "anti-racist" racists like Robin DiAngelo is sad but not surprising.

As for the OP: the people making the demands are immoral and deluded, no individual or race is entitled to a particular neighbourhood.

 

[Metaphor]

...
Even if it is less bigoted or intentionally malevolent, dramatically improving a property on a block can have the ripple effect of causing enough of an increase in property values that the increased property taxes make older adults or younger families priced out of the neighborhood where they've lived their entire lives. ...

No it can't. You wanting something so much you're willing to pay more for it than its current owner could pay does not cause her to be "priced out". Maybe she bought it for a thousand dollars forty years ago, and maybe that's still all she can afford, and you can try to get her to sell by waving a million dollars in front of her, and she can still tell you and your money to get stuffed. This is called "property rights".

What causes people to be priced out is not the increase in property values, but the politically-motivated policy of a democratically elected government to base property taxes on "assessments" -- opinions -- rather than on purchase price. This is not a law of nature; it's a social choice. We used to price people out of their own homes that they'd lived in all their lives in California too, but we stopped doing that: we passed Proposition 13. Now our property taxes are based on purchase price. If you have referendums in your state, you need to pass a Proposition 13 of your own. If you don't have referendums in your state, you need to get referendums.

Purchase price without any inflationary compensation doesn't seem fair either? In a generally increasing property market, it would discourage buying and selling lest a higher tax base is established. What's the specific mechanism?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course property markets are racist. The question is not did racism take place? but rather how did racism manifest in that situation? Clearly white people are doubly racist in the property market. When they move to suburbs that suit them, they are white flight racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable their preference by fleeing. If they instead live where black people are, they are gentrifying racists who don't want to be around black people, and enable that by magickally improving neighbourhoods and pricing black people out.

If you are being sincere (which I doubt) then your original comment was pointless. If you are being insincere, then your response is pointless.

I can see why you had so much trouble understanding your own sarcastic response in the other thread.

As for 'sincere', I'm certainly expressing my innermost thoughts on the matter, but I'm doing it by making counterfactual statements. That what I wrote could be the genuine output of "anti-racist" racists like Robin DiAngelo is sad but not surprising.

No need to increase your count of pointless statements in this thread.

As for the OP: the people making the demands are immoral and deluded, no individual or race is entitled to a particular neighbourhood.

So people making demands which conflict your moral views are immoral and deluded.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, that's a lie.

No, not a lie. Just a simplification. The reality is that the reason that paper was worthless was because so many people took mortgages that they could not pay back.

No derec, it wasn’t that. J842P is closer to the mark. The problem was really bad, and went global, because of dishonest trading in subsequently packaged commodities that those trading already knew were worthless, partly because of the mortgage component. As J842P says, but for that, the consequences would have been much more limited. The recession in Iceland for example resulted from them buying such commodities heavily, on the basis of dishonest triple A ratings from the US commodity rating agencies involved. The USA financiers knowingly exported their domestic problems, which were themselves partly caused by the mortgage sellers, many of whom knew exactly how risky what they were doing was.

Also, there were some shady practices going on when the mortgages themselves were first sold. There is evidence that for example black purchasers were directed to unnecessarily expensive products (because this earned the mortgage advisors higher fees). The whole thing was way under-regulated for starters, and is an indictment of unregulated free marketeering.

 

[Toni]

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by 'improve?'

I'm not saying this is you, but for a lot of white people, 'improving' means making more appealing to white people--especially the kind of white people who like their chains and big boxes and have no ties to the local small businesses or the restaurants and shops that give the neighborhoods their lifeblood, their unique character that keeps people there for generations and helps draw the new people.

So there are ways to improve a neighborhood that appeal to non-whites but not to whites? Sounds awfully racist to me--people are people, they want pretty much the same things!

White people move into China town and want more Starbucks and Whole foods.

Besides, the improvements are to a large degree fixing up places and driving out crime. Everyone wants that.

Again, depends on what you think of as 'fixing up places' and 'driving out crime.'

What it really is is people moving in and wanting to remake their new neighborhood into a replica of their old one. I've seen that over and over again. Hell, I've been that--moving to a city too small to have an actual mall or decent downtown and really, really missing the amenities I had in my outskirts of a large city home. Before internet shopping, btw.

And I've also seen the entire county where I grew up be changed from a collection of small towns with not a lot but what was there was quaint and original and it was all surrounded by farmlands to.....lots and lots and lots of strip malls, all selling exactly the same crap. My nieces who live there always appreciated when I sent birthday or Christmas gifts because I found things that weren't exactly like what they'd find at whatever strip mall, etc. they were used to.

Even if it is less bigoted or intentionally malevolent, dramatically improving a property on a block can have the ripple effect of causing enough of an increase in property values that the increased property taxes make older adults or younger families priced out of the neighborhood where they've lived their entire lives. Driving out the bodega that caters to the needs of the preimproved neighborhood and gives credit or donations to local customers or schools, etc. get replaced by big boxes who don't because of corporate policy. Hey, when my kids were in school and I had to do fundraising for the public schools, I know there was a HUGE difference between local businesses and national changes in terms of how much they actually supported the local community.

So nothing should be done to improve neighborhoods. Let the gangs rule the inner cities.

How about cranky old white bigots stay out of large cities. Personally, I've lived/worked in a couple. My kids do now. They are not run by gangs. Jeeze, Loren. Sometimes I think you have never gone anywhere or done anything for the past 40 years.

 

[Metaphor]

So people making demands which conflict your moral views are immoral and deluded.

People making immoral demands are immoral. People thinking delusional things are delusional.

But, perhaps that's going too far to call somebody who does an immoral thing an immoral person.Yet, demanding a white person leave their home because they are white and you are black is an immoral demand, and it seems to me that it can only come from an immoral mind.

Thinking that normies will support you and that white people will actually do as you say is delusional. But perhaps it isn't delusional. Perhaps some white people will actually up and leave, handing over the title deeds and keys for free to the biggest and loudest bully, and start a new life and mortgage somewhere else, away from the madding crowd.

 

[Metaphor]

White people move into China town and want more Starbucks and Whole foods.

Although you are lazily and predictably racist as always, if white people wanted to do exactly as you imagine, so what? Why are you so selectively conservative? Why do you think that somebody who lives in a place shoudn't have their say in what the neighbourhood should look like?

 

[Toni]

In my town, which is well over 90 percent white, we have chains like Walmart and Starbucks and Family Dollar--and lost a lot of nice local stores, like the hardware store where you could purchase just one screw to replace the one that was missing instead of a whole package.

I'm really not much of a fan of chains.

Well, congratulations on not liking chains, though apparently you stereotype white people as liking them.

No, I recognize quite well the power of marketing and the feelings of inadequacy by the working class people in my town. I was at meetings where Walmart was making lots of pretty promises. Guess where most of the crime in my town happens? Keep in mind that it's a college town and a working class town, so there are LOTS of bars. Yet most of the arrests for petty crime and possession of (fill in the blank) and shoplifting and the like happen at Walmart. 3 of my favorite local businesses folded because of Walmart. I have fewer choices because of Walmart. Walmart won't donate anything to local schools or other organizations. All the profits go to Bentonville.

The difference is that black people moving into a town or a neighborhood doesn't cause property taxes to go up so that the people already living there can no longer afford their homes. Look at all the cities with a giant tech explosion: Lots of neighborhoods are being dramatically changed as long time residents can no longer afford the homes they've lived in for 20 years or more--and nothing affordable is near by.

"White people" don't cause property values to go up, unless they cause property values to go up by being better citizens who take greater pride in their homes and neighbourhoods. Is that what you are proposing?

New people from out of town/out of the neighborhood, especially if they are looking for a bargain with charm, that they can improve and make their own, buy properties and turn them into mcmansions and lead the drive to make the neighborhood look like the one they left. They come in and do not value the mom and pop stores, the local Chinese grocers or the bodegas. More people come and they displace families that used to live there. As they improve properties--install new kitchens, etc. with fancy stuff, their property values go up--and so do their neighbors. With the increase in property value comes an increase in property taxes but not an increase in income. The new people have a bargain. The established people are being priced out of their homes as their property taxes go up or their landlords' property taxes go up. Or the land value goes up enough that landlords simply sell and the new owner wants to demolish or squeeze out more profit. One of my kids is in the situation where his building has had a new owner every year for the past 3 years, along with a large increase in rent. Development is happening near by and he expects that by this time next year, he won't be able to afford his apartment or the town where he lives, which has a genuine downtown, some nice parks and some decent shopping, and all the amenities he wants--within close driving distance to his work and also to a major city. He's been looking for his next place for a year....His place is far from luxury---it's pretty anonymous and nondescript, no-frills. But it's kept up reasonably well. The last 3 owners have been from out of state and possibly from out of the country. They are only looking for their own pocketbooks. When he moved in, the building manager lived on site and did an excellent job. Now....he's not sure what state the manager lives in but it's not his. The building has not improved. It's just a lot more expensive. Despite a couple of promotions, his wages have not kept pace. He needs to replace his old car but he'll have to wait until he finds a new place and in the meantime, hope his car holds out. But he's lucky: he isn't supporting a family. His family can help him if he ends up needing help.

Nobody is entitled to live in a certain neighbourhood, even if they've lived there their entire life. Nobody is entitled to kvetch about other people moving in, if the other people have acquired their patch of earth legally.

I'd love to live in a bigger and better place more central to where I work. I can't afford it. Nobody owes it to me.

People need and deserve stability. It's rough having yourself priced out of your family business, your family home. Especially by absentee landlords and developers who give a fuck all for anything other than their profits.

It's devastating for people who are already struggling to make ends meet, who don't have the luxury of just finding a different place a little further away. Moving is expensive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What causes people to be priced out is not the increase in property values, but the politically-motivated policy of a democratically elected government to base property taxes on "assessments" -- opinions -- rather than on purchase price. This is not a law of nature; it's a social choice. We used to price people out of their own homes that they'd lived in all their lives in California too, but we stopped doing that: we passed Proposition 13. Now our property taxes are based on purchase price. If you have referendums in your state, you need to pass a Proposition 13 of your own. If you don't have referendums in your state, you need to get referendums.

Prop 13 is a bad thing as it limits property taxes too much. The reality is inflation exists, values go up. 13 decrees a rate below the inflation rate.

What I would like to see is when dealing with owner-occupied or business-owner-occupied (the owner actively runs a business in the property) one may elect to freeze one's property tax payment. The property tax itself is based on market values, if you pay less than what you "owe" the shortfall becomes a high-priority lien on the property that charges interest at the federal funds rate. This is not a delinquency, it can't be seized for a tax sale, it just builds up the lien. When the property transfers other than to a spouse the lien must be settled.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I recognize quite well the power of marketing and the feelings of inadequacy by the working class people in my town. I was at meetings where Walmart was making lots of pretty promises. Guess where most of the crime in my town happens? Keep in mind that it's a college town and a working class town, so there are LOTS of bars. Yet most of the arrests for petty crime and possession of (fill in the blank) and shoplifting and the like happen at Walmart. 3 of my favorite local businesses folded because of Walmart.

Those businesses failed because the majority of people preferred the variety and prices of Walmart to whatever businesses failed near it.

I have fewer choices because of Walmart.

Non. You have 'fewer choices' because the people preferred Walmart to whatever businesses you used to go to.

Nobody is entitled to a specific business. You are not entitled to keep businesses afloat that you like and prevent businesses you don't like from opening up. You are not more important than everyone else. And everyone else made their choice.

Walmart won't donate anything to local schools or other organizations. All the profits go to Bentonville.

So what? Why do you think people are shopping at Walmart? It's because they like the goods and prices that Walmart offers. They have more money in their pocket because what they need and want to buy is cheaper.

New people from out of town/out of the neighborhood, especially if they are looking for a bargain with charm, that they can improve and make their own, buy properties and turn them into mcmansions and lead the drive to make the neighborhood look like the one they left.

Everybody has every right to do that. You don't get a say in what other people do with their private property. You don't get a say in how I decorate my bedroom.

They come in and do not value the mom and pop stores,

It has been my experience that middle-class (white) people love that shit. They love the family-owned deli and the delightful immigrant-run takeaway. But even if they didn't, so what? Stores are not entitled to business.

the local Chinese grocers or the bodegas. More people come and they displace families that used to live there.

Non. They displace nobody. Anybody moving in is moving in because they legally acquired a property there.

As they improve properties--install new kitchens, etc. with fancy stuff, their property values go up--and so do their neighbors.

Okay, that's a cloud cuckoo land model of real estate. My property value does not go up because my neighbour renovated her kitchen. And if it did go up, fuck yeah! What an excellent positive externality for me.

With the increase in property value comes an increase in property taxes but not an increase in income.
The new people have a bargain.

So, the "new people" improved their own property but it's the neighbours getting an increase in value, and the "new people" don't pay the price themselves? They are exempt from higher property taxes?

How the fuck do property taxes work in America?

The established people

You have no idea how condescendingly and smugly conservative you are, do you? You're like people in English villages who refer to the "new family" that moved in 15 years ago.

are being priced out of their homes as their property taxes go up or their landlords' property taxes go up. Or the land value goes up enough that landlords simply sell and the new owner wants to demolish or squeeze out more profit. One of my kids is in the situation where his building has had a new owner every year for the past 3 years, along with a large increase in rent.

That's a sign they are living in a neighbourhood with increasing property values, which means other people find value where they are living. Your child is not entitled to live in any particular building or place.

Development is happening near by and he expects that by this time next year, he won't be able to afford his apartment or the town where he lives, which has a genuine downtown, some nice parks and some decent shopping, and all the amenities he wants--within close driving distance to his work and also to a major city. He's been looking for his next place for a year....His place is far from luxury---it's pretty anonymous and nondescript, no-frills. But it's kept up reasonably well. The last 3 owners have been from out of state and possibly from out of the country. They are only looking for their own pocketbooks. When he moved in, the building manager lived on site and did an excellent job. Now....he's not sure what state the manager lives in but it's not his. The building has not improved. It's just a lot more expensive. Despite a couple of promotions, his wages have not kept pace. He needs to replace his old car but he'll have to wait until he finds a new place and in the meantime, hope his car holds out. But he's lucky: he isn't supporting a family. His family can help him if he ends up needing help.

That's a great story and all, but, so what? Your child is not entitled to live in one particular building or neighbourhood. He is not entitled to obtain a benefit from somebody else (the benefit of housing) but pay less than market value to the provider of that benefit.

People need and deserve stability.

No, they don't. Nobody 'deserves' stability. Nobody deserves to have their rent frozen at below-market rates because they really like the place they're in and don't want to pay more.

It's rough having yourself priced out of your family business, your family home. Especially by absentee landlords and developers who give a fuck all for anything other than their profits.

I've moved around more times than I've cared to, because the rent went up more than I was willing to pay, or my job changed cities, or whatever. It isn't great but it's also not my landlord's responsibility to provide housing for me at below market rates.

It's devastating for people who are already struggling to make ends meet, who don't have the luxury of just finding a different place a little further away. Moving is expensive.

Irrelevant. You have no right to kvetch about people moving legally into your street, your neighbourhood, or your town. The people moving in have every right to be there.