Gentrification

[FISHMANPET]

It's hard to say exactly. There were certainly quite a few white people, though I wouldn't say a majority. It's also difficult from a distance to tell apart someone who is Hispanic or Native or light skinned black or just a tan white person from across a crowd. So I guess I would say it was a pretty diverse group.

One thing that kind of occurred to me this morning though. At least of the audience members who spoke, most of them people of color, but they were using what I think are very "academic" terms to describe things and conditions. And when they start talking about apartments (of any kind, not just "luxury") tearing communities apart, and I think about the apartment across the street from me, which is mostly hispanic renters, very likely first generation immigrants, and the problems in general that hispanic tenants in my neighborhood are having affording their apartments, and I have to wonder who these "activists" are really speaking for.

[amiller92]

Along with a broken law and judicial system that works against the poor.

Not to actually disagree with you at all, but it's a legal system that (arguably intentionally) disproportionately effects people of color. Not just the poor.

[kirby96]

Along with a broken law and judicial system that works against the poor.

Not to actually disagree with you at all, but it's a legal system that (arguably intentionally) disproportionately effects people of color. Not just the poor.

Is there hard evidence of this?

Not a rhetorical argumentative question, I'm actually curious if such data controlling for economic status exists showing our justice system disproportionately affects minorities. I've been wondering this since the Ferguson study came out, and purported to show blacks disproportionately criminalized. There were stats such as '85% of arrests are black while only 65% of Ferguson is black', and so forth.

But without some pretty solid statistical analysis this doesn't strike me as necessarily out of line if it is also true that the blacks in Ferguson are less well off economically (i.e. if 65% of Ferguson is black, but also predominately poor, I would expect the arrests in Ferguson to be significantly more than 65% black).

[amiller92]

Is there hard evidence of this?

I don't have numbers directly at hand, but my understanding is yes.

On a related note, I'd especially point to parts IV an V of this article from TNC: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ter%20VIII

[kirby96]

Thanks. The article refers to a report by Jeffrey Fagan that's that supposedly covers some of that at least with regard to stop-and-frisk. Might try to read that.

[WHS]

If nothing else, it should be obvious the tremendous disparities in the incarceration rate can't be explained by simply controlling for socioeconomic status.

EDIT: welp, should have clicked the link. What amiller92 said.

[LakeCharles]

Along with a broken law and judicial system that works against the poor.

Not to actually disagree with you at all, but it's a legal system that (arguably intentionally) disproportionately effects people of color. Not just the poor.

Is there hard evidence of this?

Not a rhetorical argumentative question, I'm actually curious if such data controlling for economic status exists showing our justice system disproportionately affects minorities. I've been wondering this since the Ferguson study came out, and purported to show blacks disproportionately criminalized. There were stats such as '85% of arrests are black while only 65% of Ferguson is black', and so forth.

But without some pretty solid statistical analysis this doesn't strike me as necessarily out of line if it is also true that the blacks in Ferguson are less well off economically (i.e. if 65% of Ferguson is black, but also predominately poor, I would expect the arrests in Ferguson to be significantly more than 65% black).

There is lots of evidence, yes. Here is one report: http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default ... -equal.pdf

I'm mashing together a few sources I was just reading, but it boils down to the fact that even controlling for economic status, African-Americans compared to Whites are:
*More likely to be surveilled
*More likely to be arrested (though not more likely to commit crime)
*More likely to be tried (for similar crimes)
*More likely to be sentenced (for similar crimes)
*Subject to harsher sentences (for similar crimes)
*Less likely to be paroled

[VAStationDude]

https://twitter.com/People4Alondra/stat ... 57696?s=09

Cano keeps shilling on behalf of those who benefit financially from our region's current affordable housing policies

[FISHMANPET]

Are you (or anyone else) actually there? Nobody's really tweeting about it so who knows what's going on.

[EOst]

Cano keeps shilling on behalf of those who benefit financially from our region's current affordable housing policies

That's a pretty big leap.

[VAStationDude]

See WHS's comment on the previous page. Last month's ridiculous housing forum was more or less sponsored by "non profit" affordable housing developers. Read between lines on her tweet. We should keep building new affordable housing in poor neighborhoods and reject the conclusions reached in the hud complaint. That's the message.

[EOst]

Sure, but "shilling"? Even if you agree with the HUD complaint and think that racially concentrated poverty is a serious problem (and I do!), I don't think the arguments of the other side are as trivial as people dismiss them as. Would the East African community (or the Latino community, for that matter) be as well-represented politically if their communities weren't geographically concentrated? Would cultural and economic institutions (restaurants, small grocery stores, butcher shops, foreign-language churches, etc.) have as much success with more dispersed populations?

Of course Edina and Woodbury (and southwest Minneapolis!) should have more affordable housing. But if this complaint went through, would something like South Quarter at Franklin and Portland have been possible? That's a lot of affordable housing plopped in an RCAP, but I think its benefits outweigh that.

It's not a coincidence that the Whittier Alliance is joining this suit either.

[FISHMANPET]

I don't really know exactly what Alondro specifically thinks, but I can get a good sense from the event she hosted last month. And whether it's intentional or not, she seems to be supporting policies of exclusion. Except instead of excluding the poor and minorities, she wants to exclude the white and wealthy. And I don't mean that in the "oh boy won't someone think of the poor middle class whites when will they catch a break" way, but if you're going to ask the question "who gets to live in the city" the answer pretty much has to be "everybody that wants to," not "an arbitrary group of people that is approved by this existing arbitrary group of people." A lot of the discussion about fighting "gentrification" seemed to be focused on keeping people out.

So I guess my point is that I believe the research that says concentration of poverty is bad. But I can also see the positive impacts of concentrations of a particular ethnic group. So I don't see the problem with allowing more well off people (and oh no maybe they'll be white, the dreaded white man is coming to colonize our homes!) to mix in with existing communities, because that seems to be the best of both worlds, as long as its done without displacing people (but what even is gentrification or displacement)

[EOst]

Okay, but what does that have to do with the HUD complaint? The outcome of that has nothing to do with whether or not we allow "more well off people... to mix in", but in fact the opposite, whether affordable housing should be more heavily built in expensive areas (necessarily reducing the amount built in poorer areas).

[FISHMANPET]

Well the speakers she chose to be on the panel (and by their choosing I can assume some kind of endorsement by Alandro) were very much against the idea of building more affordable housing in the suburbs (someone from CURA on the panel actually said there's no evidence that a black child rubbing shoulders with white kids helps the black child). To them it was tantamount to having their communities broken up and spread out so they could more easily be silenced. And many of the supporters in the audience were very much against the idea of pretty much anybody building new anything. But there wasn't much of a statement on that either way from the panelists or her on that specific topic, but maybe the lack of any statement is telling in and of itself.

So I don't want to attribute every person that spoke's opinion to Alandro, but I very much get the idea that the communities she chooses to represent deserve all the affordable housing they want and to build it anywhere else is tantamount to a forced removal. And no private developers ever. Because the private sector can do no good, and the public sector can do no wrong. Except here, they might do wrong. I don't know. I don't really see a coherent vision.

[EOst]

I very much get the idea that [she/who she represents believe that(ed: ?)] the communities she chooses to represent deserve all the affordable housing they want and to build it anywhere else is tantamount to a forced removal.

Even this, though, is pretty far from saying that she is "shilling on behalf of those who benefit financially from our region's current affordable housing policies" (I know VAStationDude's words, not yours). For reference:

shill n. 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.; 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

That's a really irresponsible thing to say about someone who represents a community that feels the way FMP described.

[FISHMANPET]

Well first, I'm not the one that says she's "shilling" nor have I defended the use of that specific word. I don't think she has an ulterior motives, I believe she thinks she is doing what's right.

But the part of my quote that you edited, you actually took out the subtle meaning I intended. I said the communities she chooses to represent. She is the elected representative of the 9th Ward, where I live. But much like Lisa Bender has positioned herself as the transportation and land use candidate, Cano has tried to position herself as the equity councilmember. Which is fine, that's an important thing. But I get the feeling that she spends more time focusing on those areas that specifically need an "equity" candidate, a little bit to the expense of the rest of the ward. But honestly, I'm at like 1% on that view. I'm a college educated cis gendered hetero male with a professional career. I'm quite a ways from being a disenfranchised citizen.

[VAStationDude]

The policies being defended are very harmful to low income minority communities. We have extremely isolated poor communities and shameful education and employment disparities in our region, thanks, in large part to our housing policies. Draw your own conclusions when entities who have much to lose if the hud complaint is successful defend the status quo.

[EOst]

Well first, I'm not the one that says she's "shilling" nor have I defended the use of that specific word. I don't think she has an ulterior motives, I believe she thinks she is doing what's right.

I know, and I tried to acknowledge that in my post. I'm just underlining what I actually found objectionable (his choice of words) and not so much your argument, which I actually agree with in many respects.

But the part of my quote that you edited, you actually took out the subtle meaning I intended. I said the communities she chooses to represent.

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to misrepresent you. I was just trying to sort out the exact meaning; on its face, "I... get the idea that the communities she chooses to represent deserve... [etc]" sounds like you actually agree that those communities "deserve" affordable housing and the rest, which I assumed wasn't your intention.

She is the elected representative of the 9th Ward, where I live. But much like Lisa Bender has positioned herself as the transportation and land use candidate, Cano has tried to position herself as the equity councilmember. Which is fine, that's an important thing. But I get the feeling that she spends more time focusing on those areas that specifically need an "equity" candidate, a little bit to the expense of the rest of the ward. But honestly, I'm at like 1% on that view. I'm a college educated cis gendered hetero male with a professional career. I'm quite a ways from being a disenfranchised citizen.

I appreciate the perspective, both as a resident of the Ward and as someone aware of your own position. But I think your wording is a little bit leading; shouldn't she be representing (in your own estimation) the views of the great majority of her constituents? Not just as a general democratic principle, but also as someone who wants to be reelected?

The policies being defended are very harmful to low income minority communities. We have extremely isolated poor communities and shameful education and employment disparities in our region, thanks, in large part to our housing policies. Draw your own conclusions when entities who have much to lose if the hud complaint is successful defend the status quo.

You've essentially accused her of selling out her constituents for favors or money. You can have a legitimate disagreement with someone (even in areas like this) without impugning their character or integrity.

[MNdible]

Only somewhat related:

I heard an anecdote regarding the old Hollman Decree (that led to the demolition and reconstruction of the near north housing projects). The story was that the original lawsuit was filed by African American activists to fight against the segregation that was happening in these projects. It took a while for the case to work its way through the courts, but eventually the courts agreed with them and issued the decree.

In the mean time, though, many of the African American residents had been displaced by Hmong immigrants who appreciated the ability to have their extended families living in close proximity to each other in the projects. The demolition of the projects and the requisite move to scattered-site housing was very disruptive for them.