NY Times Is Very Concerned Over The Housing Apartheid In Big Cities

Interestingly, the NY Times Editorial Board forgets to mention which political Party is currently in charge of most Big Cities, and has been for most of the time since the 1960’s.

Housing Apartheid, American Style

The riots that erupted in Baltimore last month were reminiscent of those that consumed cities all over the country during the 1960s. This rage and unrest was thoroughly explained five decades ago by President Lyndon Johnson’s National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, also known as the Kerner Commission. The commission’s report was released in 1968 — the year that the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. touched off riots in 125 cities — and contains the most candid indictment of racism and segregation seen in such a document, before or since.

The commission told white Americans what black citizens already knew: that the country was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.” It linked the devastating riots that consumed Detroit and Newark in 1967 to residential segregation that had been sustained and made worse by federal policies that concentrated poor black citizens in ghettos. It also said that discrimination and segregation had become a threat to “the future of every American.”

Say, I wonder if anyone took photos of people looting toilet paper, feminine hygiene products, and sneakers back in those riots from the 60’s?

As part of the remedy, the commission called on the government to outlaw housing discrimination in both the sale and rental markets and to “reorient” federal policy so that housing for low- and moderate-income families would be built in integrated, mixed-income neighborhoods, where residents would have better access to jobs and decent schools.

They go on to point out that laws were passed, such as the Fair Housing Act, which outlawed any of those discrimination. Of course, history has shown that when The Government builds housing projects in “mixed-income” neighborhoods, they pretty much become low to virtually no income neighborhoods, with rising levels of crime, violence, drug use and drug dealing, urban blight sets in, housing values and education standards/achievement plummet, and those who can escape do. Witness “Detroit”. And “Baltimore”.

A growing body of evidence suggests that America would be a different country today had the government taken its responsibility seriously. For example, a Harvard study released earlier this month found that young children whose families had been given housing vouchers that allowed them to move to better neighborhoods were more likely to attend college — and to attend better colleges — than those whose families had not received the vouchers. The voucher group also had significantly higher incomes as adults.

I thought liberals hated vouchers? Oh, right, only when it comes to educational choice (see: Teacher’s unions). Of course, what we’ve often seen with the vouchers programs is that the users tend to bring the same crime, violence, poor educational standards, a failure to maintain the homes, etc, to the new neighborhoods (see: Atlanta).

Really, though, this is a big whine about things that happened decades ago, without mentioning who, exactly, has been in charge of these cities, in order to perpetuate a racial meme, whipping people up, rather than bringing people together. Also, as a way to Blamestorm current affairs on The Past, giving an excuse for the lawless and violent behavior.

Even so, this is no excuse to riot. Something we see all too often, and something that seems to be happening more and more. It’s the mob mentality, and the ultimate result of creating a moocher class. You may not like the term, but you can’t dispute it. It is what it is, and it is what we are seeing

The Obama administration has proposed new fair housing enforcement rules, which should be finalized soon, that make states, cities and housing agencies more accountable for furthering fair housing.

But for these rules to be meaningful, the federal government will have to restructure its own programs so that more affordable housing is built in low-poverty, high opportunity neighborhoods. Federal officials must also be willing to do what they have generally been afraid to do in the past — withhold money from communities that perpetuate housing apartheid.

Given what we now know about the pervasive harm that flows from segregation, the country needs to get on with this crucial mission.

So, Obama has failed? Huh.

Interestingly, when those whose ancestors fled the increasingly poor social values in (liberal) big cities move back and create pockets of increased social, economic, and housing capital, we hear about the evils of “gentrification” (see: downtown Detroit). Perhaps the NY Times can tell us why the existing low income housing areas are utter failures, with unbelievably low social, economic, and housing capital? What the Times, and Democrats in general, want to do is export those low values out to the suburbs (especially see: Atlanta, Detroit, which had riots over their voucher programs), rather than fixing the problems in these areas, creating social, economic, and housing capital. They tolerate, even create, the poor quality of life in these areas, and continue to perpetuate these poor conditions with more and more poorly designed programs.

And that’s how we end up with the Baltimore riots, where people loot drug and shoe stores, torch cars, homes, and community centers, throw rocks and stuff at police, drag people out to the street and beat them, and the government not only stands around, but actively encourages this behavior.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “NY Times Is Very Concerned Over The Housing Apartheid In Big Cities”

  1. […] Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: NY Times Is Very Concerned Over The Housing Apartheid In Big Cities We noted previously that ’twas The New York Times itself which pointed out that some areas of […]

  2. Blick says:

    Most federal poverty policy and programs are based on the false assumption that if the environment (housing, infrastructure, parks, etc) is changed, people will change. The truth being, change happens one individual at a time and only if they want to change. Creating programs to do that are expensive and time consuming. They have to be intensive one on one contact over a long time frame. Prisons prove the point. Even with a captive audience and all the training, education programs and health programs; most prisoners do not change their lives.

  3. John says:

    Teach of course this is a big problem
    So big that I am sure that the Dems would appreciate ideas and support from the party that controls Congress
    But
    That doesn’t seem to be about to happen now does it?
    Even though cities are the economic engines of our country one party just seems to use them as ATM machines
    Again please remember that red states receive more money than they pay in taxes to DC
    The red states are mockers

  4. Dana says:

    Outlawing discrimination in housing sales and rentals does not and cannot outlaw the choices taken by people as to whether they wish to buy or rent in a particular area. Your site liberal, Jeffrey, would probably say that the only solution is government-assigned housing, kind of like forced busing was the “solution” in education. After all, that worked so well.

    But that the editors of the Times are so very concerned is kind of laughable, considering that they just published an article telling us that housing prices were rising so fast in up-and-coming Brooklyn that there were parts of Manhattan which were now less expensive. As I noted here (and yes, that’s a shameless blog plug!), you can get a tremendous 375 ft² studio apartment in Gramercy Park for a mere $425,000!

  5. Dana says:

    It’s a “big problem” because people have taken free choices, and freedom always seems to be a problem for the left.

    Then, when you look at the opposite side, when some whites with a bit more money start reclaiming distressed urban neighborhoods, it’s combitched about as being “gentrification,” forcing poorer (read: black and Hispanic) residents out of the area.

    The only “solution” would be government-assigned housing, where all neighborhoods would be forcibly integrated. You up for that?

  6. jeffery says:

    what we’ve often seen with the vouchers programs is that the users tend to bring the same crime, violence, poor educational standards, a failure to maintain the homes, etc, to the new neighborhoods

    It’s the mob mentality, and the ultimate result of creating a moocher class.

    If it’s one thing we white conservatives know, but political correctness ignores, is that those people cause trouble no matter where we let them live. Those people won’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, even we give them the bootstraps!! The only logical solution is to cut the taxes of rich white people who will take the extra money and build factories and hire those people as janitors and food service.

  7. Dana says:

    Sarcasm certainly becomes you, but is what our esteemed host wrote untrue?

  8. Jeff can’t answer that, Dana, and, the funny part is that Jeff keeps telling us that he is a rich white person. What has he done personally to improve the lives of the poor? I bet he lives as far away from the ghettos as he possibly can.

  9. Dana says:

    In a way, a very politically incorrect way, The New York Times has a point: the segregation we see in neighborhoods has led to an inner-city black subculture which is harmful to the people living in it.

    The biggest part of the problem is the cultural meme that working hard and staying in school is somehow “acting white,” something that encourages black teenaged males to drop out of school at alarming rates. That, by itself, the aggregate of decisions being taken by minors, drives down aggregate black achievement. A smaller percentage of black males being graduated from high school means a smaller percentage of black men who can find decent jobs.

    You noted in another article that Harvard has imposed some sort of Affirmative Action program which makes it more difficult for Asian applicants to be accepted; that points out the success of Asian students, who are following their own cultural norms of working harder and getting better grades in school. (The same point can be made concerning American Jews.)

    Culture matters, in that it sets the expectations of behavior for the group, and while there are always outliers, the achievement of the cultural group rises, and falls, based upon how beneficial the cultural norms are. For so many black Americans, the cultural norms are not beneficial, but harmful.

    This was recognized in the sixties, with the push for enforced integration. No one was willing to say it, explicitly, but the underlying assumption was that common exposure of blacks to a more successful white culture would make black students more successful. Put in today’s terms, they wanted black students to “act white.” Of course, only a nobody but someone like me is willing to say that explicitly.

  10. A big problem is that Liberals have made it verboten to even discuss Black culture in even the most mild negative manners. They are untouchable. Hence, the problems in the Black community cannot be acknowledged, identified, and resolved.

    But, of course, it is perfectly allowable to slam, smear, disparage, etc, Whites and Christians.

  11. Jeffery says:

    A big problem is that Liberals have made it verboten to even discuss Black culture in even the most mild negative manners. They are untouchable. Hence, the problems in the Black community cannot be acknowledged, identified, and resolved.

    Who’s stopping you from discussing Black culture? As long as you are being factual no one is likely to criticize you. And if they do, so what? Are you afraid the Blacks will shut down your blog? Census data, FBI data, are all available to help you. Blacks are poorer, commit proportionately more crime, have less stable families etc. Most of us progressives are more than happy to discuss factual information.

    But, of course, it is perfectly allowable to slam, smear, disparage, etc, Whites and Christians.

    Do you really think whites and Christians are persecuted majorities in the US?

  12. Dana says:

    Jeffrey laughably wrote:

    Who’s stopping you from discussing Black culture? As long as you are being factual no one is likely to criticize you. And if they do, so what? Are you afraid the Blacks will shut down your blog? Census data, FBI data, are all available to help you. Blacks are poorer, commit proportionately more crime, have less stable families etc. Most of us progressives are more than happy to discuss factual information.

    Our host is younger than I am, and he has a real job in the real world; he can be accused of being a raaaaaacist and possibly lose his job and his career if he tells the truth.

    Me? Even though I am still working, I can retire anytime I wish, so I’ve a lot more protection than does Mr Teach.

    The problem is that when you say, “Most of us progressives are more than happy to discuss factual information,” you are saying something which might be true about you, but for the vast, vast majority of the left I’ve met, it isn’t true, because as soon as you say something that can be construed as saying that the problems of the black community are even slightly the fault of the black community, most of the left start screaming that you are just being a racist, trying to shut down the discussion. Why? Because — in my not-so-humble opinion — telling the truth shatters the liberal mindset about these things, and destroys the rationale for the liberal programs which have been used, spectacularly unsuccessfully, to combat the problems.

    The problems of the black community cannot be solved from outside of the black community. The problems are internal and fundamental, and, as I stated earlier, are primarily based on a hostility to education.

    The real solution for this? It’s politically very incorrect, but it’s the only workable solution: the solution is based on the behavior of black teenaged girls.

    Let’s be honest: the primary motivation for 99+% of teenaged boys, black and white alike, is sex. Once we hit puberty, getting laid is our primary concern! And too many black girls are rewarding the bad boys, the thug wannabes with sex! Black girls have to realize just how bad it is for them, personally, to screw the thugs and the gangstas and the other badly behaving black guys, and stop giving them pussy! They need to realize that if they are going to be sexually active — a problem in itself if they are too young and unmarried — that they should be so only with the black men who are solid and responsible and trying to make something of themselves.

    Do blacks “commit proportionately more crime?” Yup, sure do! And why? Because the black community enables that, by tolerating such behavior, and by the girls rewarding the thugs with sex. Stop that one bad part of the culture, and everything else would wind up getting solved along with it.

    But, naturally, I’m a horrible sexist for saying that, huh?

  13. Jeffery says:

    The biggest part of the problem is the cultural meme that working hard and staying in school is somehow “acting white,” something that encourages black teenaged males to drop out of school at alarming rates.

    Are you certain that the “biggest part of the problem” is fear of working hard or acting white?

    No one was willing to say it, explicitly, but the underlying assumption was that common exposure of blacks to a more successful white culture would make black students more successful.

    Alternatively, perhaps de facto segregation based on skin color is immoral, or perhaps allowing Blacks access to the same facilities and benefits afforded the dominant white culture was considered fair. Perhaps it was thought that being treated like equals would help their attitudes.

    Poverty stricken meth addicted Americans living in trailer parks across America are white. Would their superior culture rub off on Black kids? Or is it the middle classness of suburban whites you’re talking about? Might that be related to more than just pigment?

  14. Jeffery says:

    But, naturally, I’m a horrible sexist for saying that, huh?

    Yes. And a horrible racist to boot. But that’s the core of American conservatism, so it’s not surprising. At least white supremacists like you and dave are honest.

    Your hypothesis is intriguing: The “trouble” with Black culture is that Black girls are slutty.

    But no one is stopping you from typing your ignorance.

    And no one is stopping Teach. Companies in most states can fire employees for actions that they feel harm the company. Fairly or unfairly.

  15. Dana says:

    Well, that didn’t take long! Jeffrey completely ignored the argument, and simply snarked, “Your hypothesis is intriguing: The “trouble” with Black culture is that Black girls are slutty.” Were he to read more open-mindedly, he’d have noticed that I stated that the primary motivation for teenaged boys was getting laid; does he disagree?

    After all, he was once a teenaged boy; can’t he remember that?

    Nor does he choose to address the point that black girls rewarding the black guys with sex encourages bad behavior from black teenaged males; does he disagree?

    It’s easy to say that your opponents are racist and sexist . . . and then move on, without responding to the points made; that is what he left do, after all.

    The real intellectual challenge for Jeffrey would be to forego the characterizations and actually debate the points. The possibility exists that he’d provide us with a coherent argument; the fear is that actually looking at the facts would upset his entire world view.

  16. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    The biggest part of the problem is the cultural meme that working hard and staying in school is somehow “acting white,” something that encourages black teenaged males to drop out of school at alarming rates.

    Are you certain that the “biggest part of the problem” is fear of working hard or acting white?

    You mischaracterized: it is the combination of working hard to do well in school.

    But, yes, I am certain that that is the biggest part of the problem, because it is the first part of the problem. Once someone has dropped out of school, a bad decision taken when the dropouts are still minors, everything else follows. A couple generations ago, the high school dropout still had a fair chance to get a decent, blue collar job, but today, many jobs that shouldn’t really require a high school diploma nevertheless do, because employers are using that as a winnowing tool, one which automatically excludes those undisciplined enough to finish school. It’s a bit of a blunt tool, not discriminating the reasons for dropping out, but it’s still there, and still being used. Even the Army, which used to help recruits get their GEDs, no longer accepts GEDs, and requires real high school diplomas for new recruits.

  17. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    No one was willing to say it, explicitly, but the underlying assumption was that common exposure of blacks to a more successful white culture would make black students more successful.

    Alternatively, perhaps de facto segregation based on skin color is immoral, or perhaps allowing Blacks access to the same facilities and benefits afforded the dominant white culture was considered fair. Perhaps it was thought that being treated like equals would help their attitudes.

    Well, I’m certain that those would be the arguments most liberals would make in public, but I fail to see where we were treating blacks like equals. The very premise of Affirmative Action is that blacks are not up to the task of competing with whites on an equal basis, and the Supreme Court was willing to ignore the explicit language of the Fourteenth Amendment to allow it to continue.

    But, then the Court put a time limit on it: in Grutter v Bollinger, Associate Justice Sandra O’Connor concluded, in her majority opinion, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was on June 23, 2003; we are almost 12 years into the 25 year time limit that the majority used as an escape valve from the decision with which they were all uncomfortable. Do you believe that the situation of blacks in our economy and our society is now only half as bad as it was in 2003?

  18. Dana says:

    Jeffrey noted:

    Poverty stricken meth addicted Americans living in trailer parks across America are white. Would their superior culture rub off on Black kids? Or is it the middle classness of suburban whites you’re talking about? Might that be related to more than just pigment?

    The architects of forced busing never really took that into account, I don’t believe: whites in poverty certainly existed — and I’m from Kentucky, and grew up in poverty, though not quite as bad a poverty as some places in eastern Kentucky — but they were largely ignored in the calculations, if calculations they can be called. The architects of liberal policies have all been extremely ego-centric, been very much unable to understand the behavior of people who were not like them. They would never use welfare as a system to avoid work permanently, they would be continually looking to better themselves, because that was what they had been doing all along; the poor people were never part of government or the policy formulations. It never occurred to them that enabling people to survive not having work, in poverty but still surviving, would ever lead to a substantial number of people agreeing to the Faustian bargain of agreeing to remain in a survivable poverty in exchange for not having to work, but it did.

    Whites have been susceptible to that as well, but in practice, it has worked out that the black community has been more susceptible.

  19. Jeffery says:

    Dan,

    Debate what points? You’ve identified (1) Black girls who give up sex too readily to Black teens who have limited prospects and (2) school-age Blacks who don’t want to be seen as hard-working or “acting white” as the two most significant problems in Black communities.

    I suspect you are serious.

  20. Jeffery says:

    Maybe Dan and Teach are right. Just today there was a shootout in Waco TX where 5 different gangs and some 200 gangbanging thugs rioted. 9 were killed, dozens injured. Over 100 guns were recovered.

  21. Jeffery says:

    I just saw pictures from the riot in Waco, and it looks like almost all the rioters were white. Can that be true – in conservative Texas, which has been Republican for a long, long time. I guess conservative policies led to this murderous riot.

    I guess guns, whiskey, and white idiots don’t mix well.

  22. Monday morning links

    In a spa town in the Swiss Alps, you’ll find snow-capped mountains, chocolate, goats… and soon, the tallest hotel in the world. Insty likes the Audi Q7 The Future of Wind Turbines? No Blades Air Force general who spoke of God in talk should b

  23. Dana says:

    Duke University Professor Suspended for Writing Comment About Black People on NYT Article

    Duke University professor, Jerry Hough, is catching unholy hell for his opinion regarding what he thought was the underlying cause of the Baltimore riots. And for exercising his First Amendment rights, he’s been placed on leave while the university that employs him decides what to do.

    Hough responded to a New York Times editorial “How Racism Doomed Baltimore” and suggested that the editorial tenor condescendingly patronized blacks, and this attitude toward blacks is an underlying symptom of what continues to affect them.

    But in today’s age of hypersensitivity and superficial moral outrage, Hough was immediately and expectedly branded a racist. According to Hough, people didn’t respond to or necessarily challenge the veracity of his comments. The offended- and Duke University officials- simply called him a racist.

    From Rawstory

    According to WTVD, Duke University Professor Jerry Hough responded to a New York Times editorial titled “How Racism Doomed Baltimore” by suggesting that the author’s attitude was what was “wrong” with the black community.

    “[T]he blacks get symbolic recognition in an utterly incompetent mayor who handled this so badly from beginning to end that her resignation would be demanded if she were white,” he wrote. “The blacks get awful editorials like this that tell them to feel sorry for themselves.”

    Hough noted that “the Asians” faced discrimination throughout U.S. history: “They didn’t feel sorry for themselves, but worked doubly hard.”

    “I am a professor at Duke University,” he admitted. “Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration. Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration.”

    The rest at the link. The distinguished professor will almost certainly lose his job for telling the truth. He didn’t express himself as well as he should have, but he still told the truth.

  24. Jeffrey’s responses are exactly why we can’t have a real conversation on race.

    As for the biker gang brawl, yeah, they’re white. So what? No one is arguing that whites can’t be bad people. In fact, one of the gangs involced, the Bandidos, is a horribly violent, neo nazi, racist against all, out low group that is considered organized crime. The other groups involved are no darlings, either. Having all 5 at the same restaurant was a recipe for disaster.

    Regardless, it doesn’t invalidate the point that crime is proportionally much higher in majority minority neighborhoods.

  25. Jeffery says:

    from the article:

    And for exercising his First Amendment rights, he’s been placed on leave while the university that employs him decides what to do.

    The 80 yr old Professor Hough told WaPo he was already on leave, and expects to leave Duke in 2016 anyway. Duke did not place him on leave because of his comments.

    Since Duke University is a private school the article was wrong to suggest that the teacher’s 1st Amendment rights were somehow violated. Duke may conclude that the teacher harmed the university by his outbursts.

    Some of the more stupid comments from Hough (most of his entire rambling comment):

    Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration. Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration.

    The amount of Asian-white dating is enormous and so surely will be the intermarriage. Black-white dating is almost non-existent because of the ostracism by blacks of anyone who dates a white.

    In 1965 the Asians were discriminated against as least as badly as blacks. That was reflected in the word “colored.” The racism against what even Eleanor Roosevelt called the yellow races was at least as bad.

    But the blacks get symbolic recognition in an utterly incompetent mayor who handled this so badly from beginning to end that her resignation would be demanded if she were white.

    Between Daan and the Perfesser, the solution to the problem of “the blacks” is to 1) stop black girls from having sex with bad boys, 2) make blacks and whites date, 3) give blacks good white names, like Mitt, Reince, Newt, Jeb, Rush, Marco, Skip, Connie and Tiffany, but not weird names like Evander, Booker, Thurgood, Oprah, Lebron, Denzel or Barack, 4) stop stigmatizing hard work and success and 5) stop telling Blacks how bad they have it.

  26. Jeffery says:

    And here’s a Hamm-fisted attempt to get professors fired because their work doesn’t support one’s corporation:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-15/oil-tycoon-harold-hamm-wanted-scientists-dismissed-dean-s-e-mail-says

  27. Bob says:

    Thanks for your load of utter BS. I needed a good laugh today.

  28. Bob says:

    Thanks for your “It’s all Red staters fault” BS.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5581 access attempts in the last 7 days.