[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’d be stoked if a company were to come into my neighborhood with the side effect of eradicating gang activity and dope deals. Raising my rent seems like a pretty fair trade.[/quote]
LOL!
How is building a Trader Joes going to have ANY effect at all on gangs and drug sales?
WTF?
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, this was the whole statement.
[quote]The Portland African American Leadership Forum, along with the Mayor Charlie Hales, sent letters to Portland Development Commission citing that they were “contributing to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement of the African American community.” They also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesn?t solely benefit African Americans.
r[/quote]
You focused on race alone…as if the gentrification issue wasn’t the main focus or concern.[/quote]
The “solely benefit African Americans” line used by the town counsel, regardless of intent, is what makes it blatantly racist. No matter what there reasons are for saying it, that is a racist statement. That simply cannot be denied. If it was the other way around it would be hailed as a wish to return to Jim Crow laws.
[/quote]
It may be a racist statement but it sure isn’t an empowered statement. That difference exists…and in my opinion shouldn’t be overlooked just to cry “racist” and turn your ears off to the issue at hand.[/quote]
How is it not an “empowered statement” on their part? The race card, no matter how ridiculous the situation that it is played in, has become a trump card for all the NAACP and like organizations whenever they really want to get their way. It was empowered enough to get a corporation to back off a sweetheart land deal. It is far more empowered when a black person says it in today’s culture than when a white does. If a white said that it would only serve to further along the cause he was speaking against, as whatever it was he opposed to would be surrendered in an effort to apologize for his misstep.
[/quote]
The double standard is there for sure, but I don’t know if this is really “racist” at its core.
I mean, a white person said that about white men, and all hell would break loose. He’d be branded a republican, which is like social suicide today. However the statement was made for white women, or any other ethic background, and there isn’t a lot of back lash. And I don’t think their should be.
IDK, maybe I’m being dense, but if the group’s goal is the make sure Black people are getting good deals, well, then they are just doing their job, not being racists.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The double standard is there for sure, but I don’t know if this is really “racist” at its core.
I mean, a white person said that about white men, and all hell would break loose. He’d be branded a republican, which is like social suicide today. However the statement was made for white women, or any other ethic background, and there isn’t a lot of back lash. And I don’t think their should be.
IDK, maybe I’m being dense, but if the group’s goal is the make sure Black people are getting good deals, well, then they are just doing their job, not being racists. [/quote]
Well said. Let’s not pretend that double standard doesn’t exist for a reason…and empowerment makes all the difference in the true damage of “racism”. Culturalism seems to be the more appropriate term to use today.
It gets rid of “I’m putting my fingers in my ears because those minorities mentioned race”.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Also, anyone arguing that this isn’t blatant racism is either a moron or also racist, or both. [/quote]
I don’t know.
If it were the NRA, would you look at it the same way, if they were doing whatever the equivalent was to ensure gun owner’s rights weren’t trampled?
A couple of quotes from the linked source article…
“The lot is at Northeast Alberta Street and Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and has been vacant for years.”
“People who live near Northeast Martin Luther King Boulevard and Alberta Street say the grocer would have brought life to a lot thatâ??s been vacant for 20 years.”
“As of 2010, only a quarter of the areaâ??s residents were African-American.”
"Residents rushed to correct the record: the neighborhood does want Trader Joeâ??s, they said.
“Was there a vote? This should be reevaluated,” said Kymberly Jeka, an artist who lives a few blocks away. “This is not what the neighborhood people want. This is terrible.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The double standard is there for sure, but I don’t know if this is really “racist” at its core.
I mean, a white person said that about white men, and all hell would break loose. He’d be branded a republican, which is like social suicide today. However the statement was made for white women, or any other ethic background, and there isn’t a lot of back lash. And I don’t think their should be.
IDK, maybe I’m being dense, but if the group’s goal is the make sure Black people are getting good deals, well, then they are just doing their job, not being racists. [/quote]
Well said. Let’s not pretend that double standard doesn’t exist for a reason…and empowerment makes all the difference in the true damage of “racism”. Culturalism seems to be the more appropriate term to use today.
It gets rid of “I’m putting my fingers in my ears because those minorities mentioned race”.[/quote]
I could honestly care less about Trader Joes or this whole situation. As you mentioned earlier, most of my grocery shopping is done at Wal-Mart or Kroger.
So you are saying that the words “looking out sole for (insert race)” holds more power to effect social change in todays culture when said by a white man?? And yes, you can forget history happened when that history you are referring to has zero bearing on the situation being discussed. It is a dark point in our history yes, however, the current cultural climate has been flipped on its head since the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s.
Maybe I misunderstood CB, but I am pretty sure he is saying that there is a double standard for white males, but I am pretty sure he wasn’t suggesting that there should be a double standard
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’d be stoked if a company were to come into my neighborhood with the side effect of eradicating gang activity and dope deals. Raising my rent seems like a pretty fair trade.[/quote]
LOL!
How is building a Trader Joes going to have ANY effect at all on gangs and drug sales?
WTF?[/quote]
Everyone here saw the post by Maximus. You quoted the part that fit your view while completely ignoring his point and the bigger picture. None of us saw that coming.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A couple of quotes from the linked source article…
“The lot is at Northeast Alberta Street and Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and has been vacant for years.”
“People who live near Northeast Martin Luther King Boulevard and Alberta Street say the grocer would have brought life to a lot thatâ??s been vacant for 20 years.”
“As of 2010, only a quarter of the areaâ??s residents were African-American.”
"Residents rushed to correct the record: the neighborhood does want Trader Joeâ??s, they said.
“Was there a vote? This should be reevaluated,” said Kymberly Jeka, an artist who lives a few blocks away. “This is not what the neighborhood people want. This is terrible.”
[/quote]
lol, I’m not saying it isn’t a dumb move, I just don’t know if it is racist or not.
I would argue the same thing if Whitey McWhiteperson said the same thing, and I would have a whole bunch of people calling me a racist for saying that though. lol.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Also, anyone arguing that this isn’t blatant racism is either a moron or also racist, or both. [/quote]
I don’t know.
If it were the NRA, would you look at it the same way, if they were doing whatever the equivalent was to ensure gun owner’s rights weren’t trampled?
[/quote]
If the NRA said, we are looking out for the whites and what will be solely beneficial to them then yeah, that would be racist. If there is an organization who’s sole purpose is to look out for the benefit of one race and only pushes for things if they will solely benefit that race then they are racist. Whether that be the KKK or the Black Panthers, the race of the racist should not matter in today’s day and time. And anyone suggesting that the race of the racist should matter needs to really brush up on their MLK.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
“Gentrification” is such a bullshit term. I mean, if a neighborhood (or a ghetto) with high crime, high substance abuse, etc… IMPROVES, “what’s the problem”, you say? It’s not reactionary, class warfare, “reverse” racist, entitlement bullshit. It’s a talking point of a SYMPTOM, not a PROBLEM. The problem is that there are millions of minorities in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools and shitty teachers and shitty police that perpetuate a shitty situation (I do realize that the legacy of slavery and segregation is far more complex than just labeling it as a “shitty situation”). Instead of “healing” the issue at a fundamental level, it’s been a cascade of band aid superficial “fixes” over the years that have proven to be ineffective. That’s what this is about. It’s not that “black people don’t want good jobs or good food”. They want the American Dream.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been pretty lucky with real estate. I bought a condo back in '04 just south of Logan Circle in DC. Back then, it was on the “wrong side” of 16th street. But it was walking distance to the U st corridor, Adams Morgan, K st and Dupont - all my favorite night spots back in the day. So I bought this shitty little 700 sqft condo for 125K - it was more of a “smash pad” than anything, the mortgage was cheaper than all the cab fare I would spend a month cabbing it to DC / getting a hotel room.
Then they built a Whole Foods two blocks away. Then came the Yoga studios, the salons, the music stores, the trendy bars, THREE coffee shops (not Starbucks - that was so last decade! lol), the bars and restaurants with bloody mary menus for Sunday brunches and a felafel shop. Don’t forget the yogurt shop! So it “gentrified” and completely transformed the neighborhood in just a couple of years. I sold that condo for 350K cuz it was now on the “right side” of 12th street.
I did not see a lot of locals benefiting from the “affluence”. There were not many “lower class” minorities working the registers at the Whole Foods. Certainly not teaching in the Yoga studios. Pretty much didn’t see a whole lot of that “benefit” going to those who were there in the neighborhood before it was “cool”. You can call that racism. You can call it class warfare. But you can’t call it FAIR to those who lived there “before the white man came and took their land”…[/quote]
Interesting story, and yes, I see your point. Still, if creating better opportunities and more businesses in a ‘bad’ or, let’s say “less than great” neighborhood isn’t the way to improve things for those who live there, then what’s the alternative? Is there a way to improve conditions, or do the great locales only exist because we maintain the crummier ones to balance things out?
S[/quote]
There is no “quick fix”, or else this problem would have been solved decades ago. In MY opinion, the root of any successful community is the families, the schools and LOCALLY owned and operated small businesses. If I were king for a day, I would get rid of the teacher’s unions, fire all the shitty teachers, invest two hundred or three hundred percent more in education, early childhood development, and increasing the number of social workers available to help families and WORK WITH the community. I would create incentives for teacher performance which was ACTIVITY driven, not “RESULTS” driven (when you manage your activities properly, the results take care of themselves).
I would ensure that FREE reliable safe child care was available for people who needed it for work or for school (preferably both) and I would ensure that people received help, support and grant money (not loans) that would empower them to achieve higher and higher levels of success through better education. For those not ready for college, the same opportunity would exist for remedial education. I would create tax incentives (some form of tax credit) for people with both a job AND going to school - yes, I would give them money for that.
I would also make small business loans readily available to LOCAL entrepreneurs who wished to start businesses and would ensure that the bullshit red tape with most zoning departments was streamlined. I would get the fucking regulations out of the way and allow small business to flourish.
I would legalize marijuana up to an Oz.
In dangerous neighborhoods I would implement FIRST a community outreach program that would allow a peaceful mediation between gangs and provide an opportunity for gang members to have a second chance to do something positive. Once they have been given a second chance, if they continue to behave in a criminal manner, I would come down with an iron fist and purge the community of violence.
The best part about it is that I wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone, I would pay for this by eliminating all the money we give to other countries and ending corporate tax breaks. If company “A” wants to build a plant somewhere, it would be a level playing field - they would pay the same taxes no matter where they went. I would trim all the pork and instal term limits and end the ability for special interest groups to hijack our political process.
My .02
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A couple of quotes from the linked source article…
“The lot is at Northeast Alberta Street and Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and has been vacant for years.”
“People who live near Northeast Martin Luther King Boulevard and Alberta Street say the grocer would have brought life to a lot thatÃ?¢??s been vacant for 20 years.”
“As of 2010, only a quarter of the areaÃ?¢??s residents were African-American.”
"Residents rushed to correct the record: the neighborhood does want Trader Joe�¢??s, they said.
“Was there a vote? This should be reevaluated,” said Kymberly Jeka, an artist who lives a few blocks away. “This is not what the neighborhood people want. This is terrible.”
[/quote]
lol, I’m not saying it isn’t a dumb move, I just don’t know if it is racist or not.
I would argue the same thing if Whitey McWhiteperson said the same thing, and I would have a whole bunch of people calling me a racist for saying that though. lol.
[/quote]
The part that got me was the fact that 25% of the neighborhood is black, but the lobby group is not letting anything in that does not benefit black folk?
Is that not like a white lobby group saying nothing is coming into Harlem that does not benefit whitey…sounds a little strange no?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Also, anyone arguing that this isn’t blatant racism is either a moron or also racist, or both. [/quote]
I don’t know.
If it were the NRA, would you look at it the same way, if they were doing whatever the equivalent was to ensure gun owner’s rights weren’t trampled?
[/quote]
C’mon Beans. Those couldn’t be two more differing scenarios. I didn’t see anyone’s rights here being trampled. I saw a company (a reputable company with an outstanding infrastructure and track record) trying to help everyone’s situation and being immediately shit on 'cause the local black shiseters weren’t having it.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood CB, but I am pretty sure he is saying that there is a double standard for white males, but I am pretty sure he wasn’t suggesting that there should be a double standard[/quote]
In today’s world, no there shouldn’t be.
By the time my daughter is my age I think it will be vastly different though.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Also, anyone arguing that this isn’t blatant racism is either a moron or also racist, or both. [/quote]
I don’t know.
If it were the NRA, would you look at it the same way, if they were doing whatever the equivalent was to ensure gun owner’s rights weren’t trampled?
[/quote]
If the NRA said, we are looking out for the whites and what will be solely beneficial to them then yeah, that would be racist. If there is an organization who’s sole purpose is to look out for the benefit of one race and only pushes for things if they will solely benefit that race then they are racist. Whether that be the KKK or the Black Panthers, the race of the racist should not matter in today’s day and time. And anyone suggesting that the race of the racist should matter needs to really brush up on their MLK.[/quote]
Eh good point.
The group shouldn’t be able to exist at all then.
Just like they have to let ugly flat women work at hooters.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Is that not like a white lobby group saying nothing is coming into Harlem that does not benefit whitey…sounds a little strange no?[/quote]
It is fucking stupid, period. Loss of jobs, loss of tax revenue and loss of curbside appeal.
Whole lot of money left on the table here. For an empty lot.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Is that not like a white lobby group saying nothing is coming into Harlem that does not benefit whitey…sounds a little strange no?[/quote]
It is fucking stupid, period. Loss of jobs, loss of tax revenue and loss of curbside appeal.
Whole lot of money left on the table here. For an empty lot.
[/quote]
Maybe it was not so stupid. Maybe it was a calculated move by a few under the guise of standing up for their race and against gentrification but in reality they were trying to land a sweet deal for themselves to make a lot of money.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Those couldn’t be two more differing scenarios.[/quote]
For sure, and that is why I presented it really. I was trying to look at the situation if race were removed, and see if I thought there was undue discrimination…
[quote] I saw a company (a reputable company with an outstanding infrastructure and track record) trying to help everyone’s situation
[/quote]
This is really what it comes down to in the end for me to be honest. White, Black or in between, whole lot of money left on the table here.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Is that not like a white lobby group saying nothing is coming into Harlem that does not benefit whitey…sounds a little strange no?[/quote]
It is fucking stupid, period. Loss of jobs, loss of tax revenue and loss of curbside appeal.
Whole lot of money left on the table here. For an empty lot.
[/quote]
Maybe it was not so stupid. Maybe it was a calculated move by a few under the guise of standing up for their race and against gentrification but in reality they were trying to land a sweet deal for themselves to make a lot of money.
[/quote]
“It would be mixed use with affordable housing and it would be black owned.”
Well that sounds a bit racist.
If the best owner is Asian or Latino or GASP white they just get the finger?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
"It would be mixed use with affordable housing [/quote]
That is gentrification, the start of it, right there.
Government mandated and controlled rents…
I am seeing a misuse of wording here.
By phrasing it as to whether it will solely benefit African-Americans (or not), The African-American Leadership Forum made it sound like it was based on race.
Had they said something like, “we feel that the potential move of TJ to this area would make it more difficult for those with low-income to maintain their livelihood because of probable increased prices and cost of living, so we are voicing our concerns.” Then it becomes about money.
Truth is, increased prices will harm anyone who cannot afford it, no matter the race.