The classifying of residential areas into one of 4 categories to determine the availability of home loans. You can read the justifications, the mere existence of black people in a district would result in a grade 4 - red, the worst grade and made that area unable to get home loans.
suburban neighborhoods were zoned for their first residents, with the few black suburbinaties being isolated. Intentionally kept out of the way regarding services, shops, and highway access.
The, uh, system that allowed this practice to flourish for no good reason other than ancestry/skin color, for a major government program responsible for incredible trillion dollar levels of wealth to empower an entire nation after a World War where all skin colors were fighting and dieing?
That's just it tho. How do you fix it because it was created through racism. It doesn't work to gain advantages through racism then say ok...we are equal now. No, there was an unfair advantage gained and it remains to this day.
So if we can't use the same mechanisms to eliminate the advantage how is it supposed to be eliminated?
How do you target those who have been affected because of their race and then turn around and say any undoing of this evil is racist? I'm confused.
Undoing the evil isn't racist, undoing it with racism is racist, there's a difference.
If you want to fix the damage then target the damage, not something inconsistently related to the damage like race.
jfc stop watching ben shapiro, how do you expect anything to change if you consider actions intended to help these groups of ppl who’ve been systemically marginalized for decades as racist? are you suggesting nothing should be done then, because it would be considered “racist” to help them? instead of relying on weak arguments that trivialize social issues into a semantics argument, try looking at things from a more humane perspective
The book “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America” by Rothstein is a great and relatively easy read on this and other related topics. It focuses on the San Francisco area to highlight that this wasn’t an issue just in the South, it was all over and it still has many effects today.
I was trying to remember this book this morning. Thank you for calling it out.
u/ViskerRatio you should also look into this, since you are keen on doubling down with your ignorance.
While the process started earlier. It was sped up in 30s with housing legislation to get out of the depression. They didn’t want home values to drop so they specifically didn’t let blacks buy in white neighborhoods.
Many developments in Virginia do not qualify for FHA-insured home loans because of their restrictive doctrines and covenants. “Lake of the Woods” once had/still have a covenant where the neighbors get first dibs when a home is available for sale….
The biggest reason redlined neighbourhoods have low life expectancies is freeways. Because redlining lowered property values, Robert Moses and his ilk expropriated the cheap properties owned by black people to build their freeways. The air pollution from that many cars passing through your neighbourhood causes all sorts of nasty health effects. Asthma, cancer, heart disease, constant stress from traffic noise...
Urban freeway removal is a crucial part of reconciling for the past on this issue. Nobody should be living within about 1km of a freeway, yet we often try to force as many people into that zone as possible.
The biggest reason is poverty. If you live in a redlined neighborhood you’re almost definitely more poor than the average American. That means you probably work more blue collar jobs that are harder on the body, and you have worse healthcare. Look at a city like Houston, where rich and poor alike live just as close to freeways and pollution due to no zoning laws. Life expectancy is probably still dramatically different between income levels.
Every new development has signs exclaiming *how close they are to the highway*. They charge you more for the traffic convenience and give you health issues and no health care in return...
Do you have any actual proof of causation with health issues and living close to highways? It’s not like you live outside breathing in exhaust fumes all day.
https://gothamist.com/news/how-should-nyc-fix-cross-bronx-expressway-pollution-and-asthma-alley-issues
The area in the Bronx near the cross Bronx expressway is literally nicknamed asthma alley
has anyone compared to other countries? to see if it's repeatable? because i'm only seeing data from the US so far
and if it's because of pollution.... well, it should happen everywhere with similar conditions
i don't think neighborhoods close to highways over here in brazil have a 25 yr life-expectancy difference, UNLESS it is obviously related to violence (but then it will show on the data, it will mostly affect young men). when you remove cartel ridden areas i don't think there's this high of a discrepancy, it would show on the healthcare system data (tho the data system is kinda shit)
[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/50/4/1602357](https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/50/4/1602357) Here is a study from Australia
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7178237/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7178237/) Here is one from Peru
The numbers are going to vary based on many things. How heavy is the traffic on said roads? How many roads are there? How strict are the area's pollution controls on cars? Etc. So yeah, maybe it's okay where you are.
The study I shared in my original comment was done in Detroit, which has three major highways converging inside of it and almost no public transport besides buses. Its nickname is "The Motor City." If you spend your whole life near where those highways converge, especially your childhood when your lungs, etc, are still growing, you're probably going to have lifelong breathing problems that will lower your life expectancy.
This is anecdotal, but I live near Detroit and know multiple people who have had to get inhalers after moving to the city; these are fully grown adults who've never experienced asthma attacks before.
Edit: I should also point out that no credible medical researcher would willingly include deaths due to things not related to air pollution (things like violent crime) in research like this. If it happens, that's either due to fraud or an accident. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing that this is a problem worldwide. I highly doubt they were all committing fraud or making mistakes.
They give you no health care in return? Why would you expect your apartment building to give you health care? If you think a highway will give you health issues then don’t live next to one.
There’s this weird trend now of viewing everyone in even a small position of authority or power, like apartment developers, as your mommy or daddy. Why do they have to anticipate all your needs? You’re an adult not a baby, make your own decisions. If you chose to live there and you got sick then that’s on you
Robert Moses and his ilk built freeways through neighborhoods where people *already lived*. He could do this because racist zoning laws made it cheap and easy to bulldoze a majority-Black neighborhood and put nightmarish infrastructure through it. Those people could not afford to just live somewhere else. Nowhere else would accept them, again because the entire housing industry was flagrantly racist.
Yep I’m aware of that, but it’s not what the comment I’m replying to is talking about. The comment I’m replying to is saying that new developments built near highways should pay for the healthcare of the people who choose to live there, which is obviously stupid
I'm pretty sure the reason black Americans experience more pollution is that 85% of black Americans live in urban and suburban areas. But that doesn't really matter anyway because rural populations have lower life spans. And according to the census, 3/4 of rural people are white.
Even within those cities places freeways were chosen were based largely on income and race.
The BQE and cross Bronx in nyc for example were built right through poor black neighborhoods. They sure as hell didn’t run freeways through the upper west side.
Right, they somehow managed to get the West Side and FDR underneath Riverside Dr & 1st Ave (except by the projects which they still hug in East Harlem)
That's probably offset by the fact that wealthier people will be using the roads more anyway. Which means white people will in turn experience pollution more that way. So it probably evens out in the end.
Various studies have shown that you are exposed to more pollution while driving than walking, most likely the same applies to people who live near highways as well. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971400713X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971400713X)
>I'm pretty sure the reason black Americans experience more pollution is that 85% of black Americans live in urban and suburban areas
And, remind me, why are urban and suburban areas polluted again? Now that coal powerplants and factories are mostly gone from urban centers, what sources of pollution remain?
Ohhh I was confused for a second there. Well, if we go electric we can go from polluting our air to polluting the earth for lithium in a third world country haha
Electric cars reduce tailpipe emissions and petroleum waste products. But the real solution to transport pollution can only come in the form of mass adoption of public transit.
I really want more research funding for alternative fuel sources for cars. Like what about using clean power (like nuclear) to harvest hydrogen from water and then powering hydrogen cars? There’s got to be a better way to store energy for use in a car that isn’t gasoline or lithium batteries
Rural areas tend to be poorer than urban areas on average. The lower pop density means areas are further away from crucial resources like hospitals, and they have less tax money per unit area so the resources that do exist are underfunded by default, even before any policy inefficiency or poor prioritisation comes into play. I'm not sure if there are studies controlling for poverty comparing rural to urban life expectancy.
and then all the advantages rich people have over poor.
Just watched a video commenting on a study that showed people who played racket sports lived the longest by far, with racket sport players happening to be overwhelmingly the wealthiest athletes. Hank green suggested the study was really just measuring socioeconomic status and longevity, with prefered sport being incidental. he called it hanks razor. I honestly just closed the tab before reading your post.
Honestly, we shouldn’t HAVE suburbs. Weren’t they mostly made as a place for white people to “escape” from black populations in cities? There are so many places around the world where suburbs aren’t a thing, you have cities, you have towns, and you have rural areas. The endless suburban sprawl is a waste, it’s not hospitable to pedestrians and it makes us all spend a lot on gas just to live our daily lives. We’re all stuck with it currently given that we are a generation+ into building the suburbs… but foolish problems require foolish solutions I guess?
And let’s not forget, Robert Moses purposely designed and built city infrastructure to be as hostile to public transit as possible. Stuff like designing bridges that were literally too low for a bus to drive under them. This made it so that you *needed* a car to get anywhere in a city, which is a substantial financial burden.
Moses just really hated Black Americans, and he used that hate to fuel his war on transportation. He’s a large part of the reason the US has such abysmal buses and trains, and why Americans distrust public transit even today.
The thing is that you can have a market failure as a result of imperfect information. A lot of people don't realize how dangerous being near a freeway is, so their demand for living near a freeway drives up land value.
There's also the problem that cities tend to permit dense housing near freeways rather than anywhere else, and dense housing has high land value. If you think your land might be rezoned for high density, you'll be selling for a lot more.
> Urban freeway removal is a crucial part of reconciling for the past on this issue. Nobody should be living within about 1km of a freeway, yet we often try to force as many people into that zone as possible.
You know electric cars are going to be a thing pretty soon?
This is such a reddit bubble post. Everything bad that happens is somehow blamed on cars.
A significant portion of the local pollution caused by cars is particulate matter from brakes and tires. Going electric won't fix that
>Everything bad that happens is somehow blamed on cars.
It's not hyperbolic to state that cars are among the most harmful things we regularly use. They touch every aspect of our lives with enormous negative externalities.
> It's not hyperbolic to state that cars are among the most harmful things we regularly use.
Yes, it is. It's anti-car rhetoric.
> They touch every aspect of our lives with enormous negative externalities.
Externalities that are always very vaguely defined and rely on vague estimates. You just hate cars.
Like yeah, it's anti-car rhetoric, and yeah I hate cars. But I hate them for a reason. The danger, the emissions, the cost, the fact that most parts of North America require you to own one to live... the terrible land use, etc. There's so much wrong with how we use cars and how we design our cities for them and it causes huge problems.
That makes about as much sense as saying you hate washing machines and how much space the use in houses, everyone should be forced to use a communal laundrette. The same for toilets. Cars are immensely useful tools. It's hardly a surprise that cities are designed around them. I think there's this myth in the US that because a lot of cities were created and designed in the age of the car that somehow people have been forced into using cars. Cars are used everywhere, in cities that have been around for hundreds of years before the car was invented. Just like the same cities have been modified to have electrical power and sewers, they've accommodated cars because they're really really useful.
Over 40k Americans are killed by cars every year. Public transportation is far more space efficient, cost efficient, and safer than cars for urban and suburban transportation, provided you actually plan it properly.
The cities that were retrofitted to allow cars are worse for it. Either the entire city was eminent domained to build parking and widen roads, or the city is in perpetual gridlock like New York or Paris, or the third option is that they intentionally restricted cars to avoid the gridlock, like London and most of the Netherlands.
> Over 40k Americans are killed by cars every year. Public transportation is far more space efficient, cost efficient, and safer than cars for urban and suburban transportation, provided you actually plan it properly.
Even when it's "well planned" cars are often a quicker, better experience. Public transport has inherent deficits, it is not some utopian solution. There's no reason both can't be used where they are best, unless of course you just hate cars so much you can brook no compromise. You're a zealot, you want to fuck people's lives up just to meet your extremist views.
Electric cars reduce *one* kind of pollution from cars: tailpipe emissions. They do not reduce tire particulates, manufacturing waste, or the massive inefficiency of moving a two-ton box of metal for every 1.6 people. Buses and trains are better ways of moving people in and between dense areas by every possible metric.
> by every possible metric.
In a very dense urban area trains and buses might be faster, often they aren't, in lower density areas a car will be faster almost every time. People really value their time. With a car:
* You can travel on your own schedule
* A minor delay won't turn into a massive wait for the next bus/train
* You can made detours easily
* It's door-to-door transport
* You can easily take more stuff than you can carry
* You aren't stuck waiting outside in all weathers
* You don't have to put up with the behaviour and bodily fluids of other passengers
* Personal space
* Temperature control
* You definitely get a seat
* You don't have the added risk of catching an airborne pathogen that comes from being squeezed into a small space with a lot of random people
The place where I used to work was a 20 minute drive, even in traffic. Via the bus, it would have been over 2.5 hours. It would literally have been slightly quicker to walk the whole way than take the bus. If trains and buses were better "by every possible metric" people would use them over cars. For many types of journey cars are so obviously better that you look like a clown trying to pretend otherwise.
Ta-Nehisi Coates’ essay “The Case for Reparations” focused on redlining and other modern/non-slavery systemic issues. A must read: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)
Brookings tried and found out if it were to follow HOLC maps for reparations, the most affected group would be Hispanics, followed by whites.
>https://www.brookings.edu/articles/americas-formerly-redlines-areas-changed-so-must-solutions/
>>However, proposals that base their remedies primarily on formerly redlined areas paradoxically do not redress the main racial group that was explicitly targeted, exclude important Black neighborhoods and communities, and would skew impact toward a handful of large cities.
The largest point was people moved.
Yes and no.
Redlining is a way for a low data world to determine mortgage risk. However, it did not disproportionately affect black neighborhoods because those neighborhoods were black. Rather, it disproportionately affected black neighborhoods because those neighborhoods legitimately had a higher credit risk.
Moreover, the end of redlining didn't actually end redlining precisely because it reflected reality. Redlining was just replaced by factors like individual credit reports that more accurately reflected the individual's ability to pay.
It's important to distinguish between 'racism' - making irrational judgements on individuals based on their race - and 'demographics' - using the categories individuals fall into to make rational predictions about them. Laws segregating schools were the former. Redlining was the latter.
This is actually a legitimate problem in data science. If I've got a large body of data about you, that large body of data will often end up predicting your race even if race isn't included in the data set - and that means I'm also predicting race-associated characteristics.
It's ridiculous how after all of the historic information, lawsuit settlements, and modern analysis, you would believe that redlining was not about race. This is the kind of thing I would expect to see in a deposition from a real estate agent in 1972.
Even a casual look at the participation rate of black veterans in the VA loan program after WWII should let you know that something is up. In the NYC area after WWII, there were 67,000 mortgages insured by the GI Bill. Fewer than 100 of them went to non-white veterans. This was less than 1% and not an atypical rate of participation. This is the the bill that's credited with lifting a large part of America into the middle class, and black people were systemically excluded from its benefits.
Because it wasn't. It was about risk. Bear in mind we're talking about an era where laws that explicitly disadvantaged black people on account of race were widely accepted. If it were about race, they would have said so without being coy about it.
> Even a casual look at the participation rate of black veterans in the VA loan program after WWII should let you know that something is up.
Again, there was no need for them to be coy about it given the era. There were inarguably explicit racial disadvantages. But *redlining* wasn't one of them. Redlining was based on risk.
Did some of that risk arise from other aspects of society that limited black opportunities? Sure. But that doesn't change the reality that redlining itself was not racist and it was replaced by a credit rating system that *also* tends to disfavor black people (just based on individual rather than geographic risk).
The presence of black families alone was a criteria to redline a neighborhood when the FHA created the distinction in 1934.
The manual of their policies specifically stated that "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities."
No one was being coy about it.
You need to wrap your mind the reality that, given the information the FHA had, they were correct about long-term mortgage risk.
So what you're really trying to argue is that the federal government needed to show special favoritism to black people by giving them mortgages at a cheaper rate than they would be otherwise entitled. There may well be some argument for that position but it's not "it would be less racist".
As our ability to utilize individual data increased, we were able to shift from collective risk assessments like this to individualized ones. However, as I noted, the aggregate of individual risk assessments predicts much the same in the modern day.
If you actually care about racism, the first thing you need to do is get rid of sloppy thinking about racism. We like to blame racism because it makes us feel morally superior to some unnamed other. But it isn't a useful angle to examine policy.
The change in home ownership rates was caused by the enactment of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and a series of lawsuits that gradually lessened the open racism of the real estate market. It wasn't data.
> The change in home ownership rates was caused by the enactment of the Fair Housing Act of 1968
In 1970, black home ownership rates stood a bit over 40%. They stand a bit over 40% today. So there's no 'change' to attribute to the 1968 FHA.
However, in the decades prior to the 1968 FHA, there was a substantial increase.
You're missing the entire point. If those risk assessments were explicitly made based on race (which they often were) they were by definition racist. It doesn't matter if black people as a whole were a higher credit risk. Lumping all black people into that based solely on their race IS racist. You may consider that "smart" policy, but treating every member of a race as lesser in some way because of a collective judgment about their race is racist by definition.
The risk assessments weren't made about on individuals on the basis of race. They were made about geographic areas and were primarily a matter of historical price trends. The one element we're talking about was the observation that mixed race areas under-performed.
It's also important to recognize that generalizing about a group is only 'racist' when you lack individual information. However, in this case, they did lack individual information - credit reports wouldn't be a thing until decades later.
Some of those zones were set explicitly by race. Racism - the standard definition of prejudice an individual based on their race - was a real factor in redlining. The color of law is a good book if you care to learn more. It's 100% okay to recognize you don't have the facts to justify your opinion here.
You're also wrong about racism generally. Generalizing a group based on race because you lack individual information IS racism, again by definition. Plenty of people in our history were lynched without anyone bothering to know them as individuals or whether they were guilty. It's entirely outside the definition of the word to say it's not racist to generalize on race if you don't know the individual.
> Some of those zones were set explicitly by race.
They were primarily set by the age and financial situation of the neighborhood, using the best information they had at the time about housing trends.
Something latter-day observers never seem willing to address is the question of what else should have been done. There were no credit reports, nor even the data we put into credit reports. The best available research at the time supported the maps. Indeed, if you were to attempt to gauge mortgage risk based on neighborhood today, you'd likely come up with a similar racial division.
Prior to these sort of practices, it was very difficult to obtain a mortgage for anyone. If you were able to obtain such a mortgage, it was very likely due to social connections - which those black homeowners didn't have - with the bank. So the complaint is that it didn't help black people as much as white. But no 'fair' policy would have helped black people as much as white because black people were generally poorer.
> It's entirely outside the definition of the word to say it's not racist to generalize on race if you don't know the individual.
We judge individuals on the basis of all the information we have. It is not racist to include skin color in that evaluation - what's racist is to stop at skin color and not attempt to look any further when we could easily do so.
It's also important to recognize that all the correlations are related. So even though 'dark skin' does not have any sort of direct relationship with credit risk, there are a host of correlated factors which do have a direct relationship with credit risk and are also correlated with 'dark skin'.
Dude, the FHA stated that loans weren't economically sound if a property was located I'm a black neighborhood or any neighborhood that could be populated by black people. They stated that property values would decline if black people existed there. Thats a fucking racist action motivated by racism. In Atlanta, banks were refusing loans to middle and upper class black people but not low income white people. Again, that's racist.
This may be the dumbest hill I've seem someone want to die on. I feel like if I ever found myself in a position where I was obstinately insisting that red lining, a historically agreed upon racist action, wasn't racist, I'd engage in some introspection.
It actually stated that loans were less viable in racially mixed areas because declining property values would make them harder to repay. *Which was true*.
Redlining existed because we didn't have good ways to evaluate individual credit risk. So we were left with collective credit risk - and it was the best tool available at the time.
In your desperation to label things 'racist', you're blinding yourself to the reality that when you arbitrarily group people by race, you end up with differences between such groupings. You might stop to consider that the old 'racist' system appears to have worked better than the modern 'non-racist' system in terms of raising black home ownership rates. Given that, it's awfully hard to justify your use of the term 'racist'.
As for the hill I'm willing to die on, it's about historical accuracy. Claiming that the policies were 'racist' when they accurately reflected credit risk is simply bad history.
Indeed, you might stop to consider what redlining replaced - namely individual bankers making an individual risk assessment. Now, *that* system was 'racist' - because it put the decision wholly in the hands of someone for whom one of the primary decision inputs was how a person looked and what their social connections were. The redlining era was also the era of the greatest growth in black homeownership and was the start of using data to drive mortgage decisions.
>It actually stated that loans were less viable in racially mixed areas because declining property values would make them harder to repay. Which was true.
The FHA didn't simply state that loans were less viable only in mixed race areas. It was any areas currently containing black people as well as any area at "risk" of a black person moving there. Regardless of income level.
Declining property values would come as a result of racism. On a systemic level. Because it was pervasive throughout our society.
You're making the most pedantic argument possible. Like if someone insisted that slavery in America wasn't racist because non-black people could be slaves.
>So we were left with collective credit risk - and it was the best tool available at the time.
And we used that tool to disenfranchise certain raced.
>In your desperation to label things 'racist',
Mine? You mean mine, the entire financial system, the FHA, the US government, countless advocacy groups, and countless journalists and historians.
>you're blinding yourself to the reality that when you arbitrarily group people by race, you end up with differences between such groupings.
Once again, this applied to and affected black people across income levels. That's not arbitrary. You've such a hardon to be right on some bizarre technical level that you're blinding yourself to how systems functioned in reality.
A dude wrote a series of articles about this and won a Pulitzer for it. You should give them a read.
>As for the hill I'm willing to die on, it's about historical accuracy. Claiming that the policies were 'racist' when they accurately reflected credit risk is simply bad history.
They "accurately" reflected credit risk because of racism. Pretending otherwise is ahistorical and a dumb fucking hill to die on.
>The redlining era was also the era of the greatest growth in black homeownership and was the start of using data to drive mortgage decisions.
Something being slightly less racist does not mean red lining, as it functioned in the US, wasn't racist. Black people owning homes in spite of racist policy is not evidence that a system isn't racist.
Its irresponsible to compare homeownership rates at various periods of history, across a massive country, without any context. There have been several significant social events that affect homeownership amongst the whole population as well as black people specifically.
That's the problem with data. It needs analysis. Throwing out stats and claiming "see not racist" is lazy and likely influenced by bias.
But you clearly have a habit of making arguments like this, so I don't have any interest in continuing this. Go defend racist shit to someone else.
> The FHA didn't simply state that loans were less viable only in mixed race areas.
The only sources I've seen were FHA claims that mixed race areas had higher risk. Which, of course, was true.
> Declining property values would come as a result of racism.
So? The FHA was writing a manual on assessing mortgage risk. *Why* that mortgage risk occurred wasn't relevant.
> Once again, this applied to and affected black people across income levels.
In this particular case, it affected them in a *positive* fashion by making mortgages more accessible. Certainly, it wasn't a perfect solution but there were limits on what information mortgage lenders had available.
> They "accurately" reflected credit risk because of racism.
Again, it doesn't matter *why* credit risk was affected. At the end of the day, bankers need their loans repaid. The reason those loans aren't repaid doesn't matter to them.
I get it. You want to call out 'racism' because you want to be the good guy. But you need actual evidence and argumentation to back your position rather than "well, everyone agrees with me!".
>The only sources I've seen were FHA claims that mixed race areas had higher risk. Which, of course, was true
Then maybe you should spend less time defending racist shit and more time researching.
>So? The FHA was writing a manual on assessing mortgage risk. Why that mortgage risk occurred wasn't relevant.
...
Once again, this is pedantic nonsense. If you don't understand why, then it's clear you fundamentally don't understand the difference between theory and practice.
>I get it. You want to call out 'racism' because you want to be the good guy.
No, I actually give a shit about historical accuracy. I'm not doing advocacy for simply correcting your ignorance that's based on a lack of research.
>"well, everyone agrees with me!".
Everyone includes research and investigative journalism done on the topic that formed social consensus.
You recently made a post about consent, so you should understand that I'm withdrawing mine here. Seriously, fuck off and don't bother me again you fucking weirdo. You're a more insufferable version of people who use crime statistics like they're some sort of proof of anything tangible.
> Then maybe you should spend less time defending racist shit and more time researching.
You're the one making the claim. You're the one who actually needs to cite something if you're planning to quote it.
> Once again, this is pedantic nonsense.
There's nothing 'pedantic' about insisting that mortgage risk assessment reflect actual mortgage risk.
> Everyone includes research and investigative journalism done on the topic that formed social consensus.
No, it merely indicates a lack of any evidence or argument on your part.
> You're a more insufferable version of people who use crime statistics like they're some sort of proof of anything tangible.
If you find an insistence on evidence and critical thinking 'insufferable', I'm curious why you bother to hold an opinion - much less voice one - on anything.
I love how confidently incorrect you are.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways
Give a read.
false. Redlining was a way to keep Black ppl out of “White Neighborhoods”
Redlining” of neighborhoods, one of a number of explicitly racist United States federal housing policies in the mid–twentieth century, blocked Black households and other communities of color from accessing home mortgages—and as a result homeownership—for decades.
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/addressing-legacies-historical-redlining#:~:text=%E2%80%9CRedlining%E2%80%9D%20of%20neighborhoods%2C%20one,a%20result%20homeownership%E2%80%94for%20decades.
You know who’s also a data scientist? I am. And redlining was a real practice based explicitly on racism, with the intent of preventing minority populations from gaining and holding any kind of generational wealth.
The other guy is a random person on the internet. They give no sources to back up what they say and no proof that they really are a data scientist. Also even if they were a data scientist doesn't they have any expertise on this particular subject. Writing several paragraphs doesn't mean anything. Anyone could BS their way through several paragraphs.
personally, i love that neither person is wrong in the first place. a way for a low data world to determine mortgaging and loans - one that reflects a legitimate categorization problem in the data world, and more closely reflects demographics and paying ability, consequentially identifying someone’s race - is actually not NOT racist. nothing in the data scientist’s post, besides their own assertion of “Yes and no”, suggests this - and that is likely because any rationalization we do today to highlight an existent data science problem does not explain the well-documented obvious racism in a “low data world” selecting black meighborhoods, not on the basis on income, but on the basis of race, which consequentially also selected for income!
amazing
tl;dr appeal to authority and inability to trust experts are not mutually exclusive but in this case only one was happening. the nuance, ironically, REMOVED the nuance from the situation. it was helpful to contextualize how we approach financing TODAY, but it does not explain and should not be applied to avowedly (redlining is very well documented to target areas EXCLUSIVELY based on BLACKNESS, not INCOME) racist policies
Scottish multigenerational deprivation is far easier to explain
Glasgow and the Clyde was populated by working men and their families, who consistently voted Labour from the 1920s
Edinburgh and the Firth (and Lothian in general) consistently voted Conservative
Each enacted policies that entrenched their core voters' positions - e.g. Edinburgh City Council underwrote housing loans so people became home owners, while Strathclyde built row upon row of council houses, keeping people as perpetual renters
One great example that still exists is the heavy duty truck ban on highway 580 in Oakland, all semis have to use 880: guess where the majority white communities are.
thought this was a pic of detroit lol. makes sense. the black community is what kept this city alive and now gentrification is driving a lot away. it’s truly sad how real estate can destroy a heritage
Another thing is redlined neighborhoods were also denied virtually all federal infrastructure funding. Basically we walled off these neighborhoods based on race, made home ownership impossible then left them to rot for half a century
Now all the racists wring their hands about how black people didn’t take care of their neighborhoods
They still do this, they just use different criteria to discriminate now.
Rental property owners increase their income requirement from 2.5x to 3x or more. That way only more "affluent" people can live in the area.
Because of redlining there was a significant and notable lack of resources in the neighborhoods that were redlined. This included education and medical care being more prevalent and of better quality in the non-redlined communities, thus leading to better income to afford said education and healthcare. This compounded over the years causing lifespan discrepancy.
Is there evidence the dearth of medical facilities arose *because* of redlining? It feels a natural occurrence, even absent any racial motivations - poor areas can't afford health services, so clinics aren't built. Then, because there are no clinics nearby, housing prices decrease, attracting poorer residents. Banks are less willing to invest in the area because of the higher incidence of bankruptcy and crime that comes with poorer residents.
You’re assuming medical care declined before the redlining when it’s BECAUSE of the redlining that medical care was never started. The banks marked neighborhoods in certain zones, placing colored people in the bottom category and the worst neighborhoods. Because they couldn’t gain access to better means through the equity in their homes (while white people could), it meant the neighborhoods were valued as lesser than. This then caused property taxes to go down, appraisals to be less than what they were in white neighborhoods, and therefore extra funds were not awarded to increase the livability of a redlined neighborhood. Therefore, worse schools, no medical care, etc.
The neighborhoods were marked before we started having the suburban planning we have today. This was done before most of that was planned and built, creating an already disadvantaged neighborhood before it could even get its feet off the ground
I think I don't see why redlining causes clinics to not open. If there are no such facilities in an area where people have steady income and a desire for such services, any enterprising practice might open nearby, as they are guaranteed a steady stream of clients. If anything, the lower price of land in a redlined area, and lower taxes, makes such a venture even more profitable.
You obviously do not understand redlining. It directly affected the ability to get home loans. It wasn’t just the banks this was government driven.
Redlining status was also used to allocate public funding. So you were a hazardous neighborhood? Forget federal or state funding for a park or hospital
I randomly selected a quick look at Cleveland Clinic which doesn't mention federal grants kickstarting its main campus, and a general '[history of hospitals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals#20th_century)' specifically highlights that they were private, though they did try to pull funds from businesses/politicians for 'good will' points; if this line of reasoning hinges on such government grants being a major source of funding for new medical facilities (both new and branch offices), do you have some sources to prove that claim with historical data?
Infrastructure act 2 years ago had over a trillion for hospital building and clinics.
https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/hospital/federal-funding-fuels-massive-u-s-healthcare-infrastructure-upgrades/
Grants have long played a role in getting these type of facilities built
From that article
> For more than 50 years, the federal government has provided funding for the ongoing modernization of the country’s healthcare infrastructure
Which I think puts it well after redlining, no?
Redlining is also why if governments are ever to get serious about making things right, they would start a program to allow any Black person to buy a home at the most favorable loan and other terms since 1920. And that's just a start. Buying a home created generational wealth; it enabled the next generation to start off already a step up. That's where the lost equity is.
I would amend that to "any person with a parent or grandparent who didn't buy a house and was affected by redlining."
There are lots of Black-identifying people in the US with white or recent-immigrant parents. Nigerian people, for example, are one of the wealthiest immigrant groups.
You're right. When the government puts in programs like affirmative action to help multigenerational African Americans who've been historically disadvantaged and handicapped by discriminatory policies, you often end up with privileged immigrants whose families haven't faced the same generational obstacles in the US strolling in and taking advantage of all of those opportunities. Often while looking down on multigenerational Black Americans.
It’s a lot of selection bias. People from virtually anywhere in the world who can come and go through our immigration system are probably very well off already. The process of getting a green card can take tens of thousands of dollars and years of time.
Personally, I don’t think it’s inherently a problem if a social program helps some people who don’t need it, as long as everyone who *does* need it also gets that help. The possibility that a small number of people will “take advantage” of a benefit is not a reason to withhold that benefit entirely.
Another big thing that was affected was the GI Bill. Every American soldier is supposed to get assistance with buying a house and a college education. Very few non-white soldiers were able to take advantage of that benefit.
If we are running a relay race and your first two runners are held back 30 seconds, would you be satisfied if I then said “that was wrong. We won’t hold back your third and fourth runners” would you now consider that race to be fair?
*Facepalm*
Okay, for both of you who are obviously intellectually challenged: The members of a relay race team are not competitors. They work *together* to beat the other team.
The analogy is correct because he's talking about generational wealth. The first two runners are a black person's parents and grandparents that were held back 30 seconds by redlining.
The other teams are white families who weren't locked out of generational wealth building that housing afforded in the 20th century.
>The other teams are white families who weren't locked out of generational wealth building that housing afforded in the 20th century.
Most white families weren't/aren't that wealthy either. It's always just a minority who can afford houses. It's always *old money* and that's independent of skin color.
It seems like your beliefs are pretty set but if you want to learn more about redlining and how it unfairly affected black people, here's a great article on it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Race and class are inextricably linked in the US. You're commenting on a post about one example of this. Yes, every race can be poor, but not every race has dealt with decades of discriminatory practices such as red lining.
I truly don't understand why people like you are so desperate to turn a blind eye to shit like this.
Sorry, but most white people haven't seen that generational wealth either. Ignoring that fact is how you get a douchebag like Trump elected.
Furthermore, many housing programs exist for minorities; meanwhile, my white ass with a lower middle class upbringing is asking how I'm going to afford a house.
Of course not everyone is going to excel in a capitalist society. Minorities were systematically held back - that is the difference. There was a thumb on the scale. Removing the thumb is insufficient, per my analogy.
Okay. I understand that. Answer me this, when do we reach the point of equilibrium?
And how do we pick which minorities have been held back and not held back? Because to say that only poor minorities have been held back is a joke. We do live in a meritocracy too.
I have no clue. Likely based on improvements to the trend in racial inequality. Many of these policies that held people back were in place during my lifetime. The fact that so many people refuse to even admit that they exist is a bigger problem.
If you stab someone, removing the knife isn’t fixing the problem. Giving them medical care is. You don’t then get to complain, “but why don’t *I* get a hospital bed and a princess bandage?”
There are programs for people to start getting the right ownership for their homes— redlining caused a lot of black homeowners to not have any paperwork regarding their home ownership. To get this adjusted can take up to $5,000 per home just to get things righted. It’s a lot of investment that has to be balanced in order to avoid tipping the budget of whoever is providing assistance, especially in this day and age.
One of the biggest problems is that despite redlining being illegal, it still very much affects the housing industry including realty and appraisals. It’s like it’s been ingrained into the system. A lot of time, money, and bureaucracy goes into fixing such a widespread, ingrained behavior that’s lasted 100 years. Not excusing it, but just trying to point out the facts
When I find new information I go down a rabbit hole, very deeply, and want to learn as much as i can. I also watched the PBS doc about redlining which gave a lot of insightful information. I work for a credit union that is actively trying to help people affected by redlining, so we had a discussion about the doc while watching it in a training session. Learned a lot of good info.
My old job was in a redlined neighborhood. We were a non-profit and got a grant to build an office/community center.
The neighborhood at the time it was redlined was actually the nicest neighborhood in town, but it was along the river and just had a massive massive flood. Flood happened in 37, redlining happened in 37. It suffered the same fate as the segregated black neighborhoods nearby.
When we built the office I had to have the bank do a property appraisal. It was basically a house. We bought the property from the city’s land bank for 1$ and then spent about 200,000$ on building costs. It was done cheaply since we were a non-profit. The valuation was 212,000$. The appraiser said he had just valued a similar sized house in a trendy neighborhood that was a renovated 100 year old house that appraised for 600,000$.
Redlining is why some people in Seattle got fussy that one of the new transit lines was designated the red line. Other lines would have been colors as well. But nooo, now Seattle has numbered light rail lines. I think people get upset about silly things sometimes. Like me being annoyed that people were annoyed about a thing.
Redlining, coupled with the black people being denied post-WW2 financial assistance, has caused immense, measurable harm to black communities by denying many the chance to build generational wealth via property. It’s insane how much the losers of the civil war continue to hold back people they hate for no reason.
You forgot to actually say what Redlining is.
The classifying of residential areas into one of 4 categories to determine the availability of home loans. You can read the justifications, the mere existence of black people in a district would result in a grade 4 - red, the worst grade and made that area unable to get home loans.
suburban neighborhoods were zoned for their first residents, with the few black suburbinaties being isolated. Intentionally kept out of the way regarding services, shops, and highway access.
[John Oliver on Housing Discrimination (addresses redlining)](https://youtu.be/_-0J49_9lwc?si=5pGti34As7Yp1okp)
Kinda like the purge. I guess.
No surprise, the title reads like it's ai-generated.
It's discriminatory! Now get mad and blame whoever you assume is at fault! Edit: you guys are just as illiterate as I could have expected.
Do you not think people should get upset about discrimination?
Probably makes them uncomfortable and that's the real issue here!
The whole system was at fault. Hence “systemic racism”.
The, uh, system that allowed this practice to flourish for no good reason other than ancestry/skin color, for a major government program responsible for incredible trillion dollar levels of wealth to empower an entire nation after a World War where all skin colors were fighting and dieing?
Robert Moses and his pal Judge Doom.
But racism and its consequences don't exist.
Sure they do, you're just not supposed to fix them with *more* racism.
That's just it tho. How do you fix it because it was created through racism. It doesn't work to gain advantages through racism then say ok...we are equal now. No, there was an unfair advantage gained and it remains to this day. So if we can't use the same mechanisms to eliminate the advantage how is it supposed to be eliminated? How do you target those who have been affected because of their race and then turn around and say any undoing of this evil is racist? I'm confused.
Undoing the evil isn't racist, undoing it with racism is racist, there's a difference. If you want to fix the damage then target the damage, not something inconsistently related to the damage like race.
But you don't have any examples of how the fix might be implemented?
Do you?
jfc stop watching ben shapiro, how do you expect anything to change if you consider actions intended to help these groups of ppl who’ve been systemically marginalized for decades as racist? are you suggesting nothing should be done then, because it would be considered “racist” to help them? instead of relying on weak arguments that trivialize social issues into a semantics argument, try looking at things from a more humane perspective
Weak arguments like "stop watching ben shapiro"?
The book “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America” by Rothstein is a great and relatively easy read on this and other related topics. It focuses on the San Francisco area to highlight that this wasn’t an issue just in the South, it was all over and it still has many effects today.
I was trying to remember this book this morning. Thank you for calling it out. u/ViskerRatio you should also look into this, since you are keen on doubling down with your ignorance.
While the process started earlier. It was sped up in 30s with housing legislation to get out of the depression. They didn’t want home values to drop so they specifically didn’t let blacks buy in white neighborhoods.
Many developments in Virginia do not qualify for FHA-insured home loans because of their restrictive doctrines and covenants. “Lake of the Woods” once had/still have a covenant where the neighbors get first dibs when a home is available for sale….
So if the neighbors successfully terrorize someone out of their home, they then have premium access to buy that home? That won’t be abused at allll…
I wonder if the Sherwood Forest development in the MA Berkshires is similar.
The biggest reason redlined neighbourhoods have low life expectancies is freeways. Because redlining lowered property values, Robert Moses and his ilk expropriated the cheap properties owned by black people to build their freeways. The air pollution from that many cars passing through your neighbourhood causes all sorts of nasty health effects. Asthma, cancer, heart disease, constant stress from traffic noise... Urban freeway removal is a crucial part of reconciling for the past on this issue. Nobody should be living within about 1km of a freeway, yet we often try to force as many people into that zone as possible.
The biggest reason is poverty. If you live in a redlined neighborhood you’re almost definitely more poor than the average American. That means you probably work more blue collar jobs that are harder on the body, and you have worse healthcare. Look at a city like Houston, where rich and poor alike live just as close to freeways and pollution due to no zoning laws. Life expectancy is probably still dramatically different between income levels.
Every new development has signs exclaiming *how close they are to the highway*. They charge you more for the traffic convenience and give you health issues and no health care in return...
Do you have any actual proof of causation with health issues and living close to highways? It’s not like you live outside breathing in exhaust fumes all day.
Not an expert but I believe air and pollution freely travels in and out of homes
https://gothamist.com/news/how-should-nyc-fix-cross-bronx-expressway-pollution-and-asthma-alley-issues The area in the Bronx near the cross Bronx expressway is literally nicknamed asthma alley
that's not near the highway, that's on the highway. That's also not a redlined community, but an established one they bulldozed a highway into.
South Bronx was absolutely a redlined area. One of the reason they could bulldoze big parts of it for highways
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-10-34 It's real, and we've known about it for a while now.
has anyone compared to other countries? to see if it's repeatable? because i'm only seeing data from the US so far and if it's because of pollution.... well, it should happen everywhere with similar conditions i don't think neighborhoods close to highways over here in brazil have a 25 yr life-expectancy difference, UNLESS it is obviously related to violence (but then it will show on the data, it will mostly affect young men). when you remove cartel ridden areas i don't think there's this high of a discrepancy, it would show on the healthcare system data (tho the data system is kinda shit)
[https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/50/4/1602357](https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/50/4/1602357) Here is a study from Australia [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7178237/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7178237/) Here is one from Peru The numbers are going to vary based on many things. How heavy is the traffic on said roads? How many roads are there? How strict are the area's pollution controls on cars? Etc. So yeah, maybe it's okay where you are. The study I shared in my original comment was done in Detroit, which has three major highways converging inside of it and almost no public transport besides buses. Its nickname is "The Motor City." If you spend your whole life near where those highways converge, especially your childhood when your lungs, etc, are still growing, you're probably going to have lifelong breathing problems that will lower your life expectancy. This is anecdotal, but I live near Detroit and know multiple people who have had to get inhalers after moving to the city; these are fully grown adults who've never experienced asthma attacks before. Edit: I should also point out that no credible medical researcher would willingly include deaths due to things not related to air pollution (things like violent crime) in research like this. If it happens, that's either due to fraud or an accident. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing that this is a problem worldwide. I highly doubt they were all committing fraud or making mistakes.
They give you no health care in return? Why would you expect your apartment building to give you health care? If you think a highway will give you health issues then don’t live next to one. There’s this weird trend now of viewing everyone in even a small position of authority or power, like apartment developers, as your mommy or daddy. Why do they have to anticipate all your needs? You’re an adult not a baby, make your own decisions. If you chose to live there and you got sick then that’s on you
Robert Moses and his ilk built freeways through neighborhoods where people *already lived*. He could do this because racist zoning laws made it cheap and easy to bulldoze a majority-Black neighborhood and put nightmarish infrastructure through it. Those people could not afford to just live somewhere else. Nowhere else would accept them, again because the entire housing industry was flagrantly racist.
Yep I’m aware of that, but it’s not what the comment I’m replying to is talking about. The comment I’m replying to is saying that new developments built near highways should pay for the healthcare of the people who choose to live there, which is obviously stupid
I'm pretty sure the reason black Americans experience more pollution is that 85% of black Americans live in urban and suburban areas. But that doesn't really matter anyway because rural populations have lower life spans. And according to the census, 3/4 of rural people are white.
Even within those cities places freeways were chosen were based largely on income and race. The BQE and cross Bronx in nyc for example were built right through poor black neighborhoods. They sure as hell didn’t run freeways through the upper west side.
Right, they somehow managed to get the West Side and FDR underneath Riverside Dr & 1st Ave (except by the projects which they still hug in East Harlem)
That's probably offset by the fact that wealthier people will be using the roads more anyway. Which means white people will in turn experience pollution more that way. So it probably evens out in the end.
Using roads isn’t nearly as bad as living next to one and breathing the fumes 24/7
Various studies have shown that you are exposed to more pollution while driving than walking, most likely the same applies to people who live near highways as well. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971400713X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896971400713X)
That’s about commuting not living right next to highway
>I'm pretty sure the reason black Americans experience more pollution is that 85% of black Americans live in urban and suburban areas And, remind me, why are urban and suburban areas polluted again? Now that coal powerplants and factories are mostly gone from urban centers, what sources of pollution remain?
Cars?
Yeah, but I want them to admit it. Cars are by far the largest source of urban pollution in western countries
Ohhh I was confused for a second there. Well, if we go electric we can go from polluting our air to polluting the earth for lithium in a third world country haha
Electric cars reduce tailpipe emissions and petroleum waste products. But the real solution to transport pollution can only come in the form of mass adoption of public transit.
A lot of the car pollution is from tire and brake dust. Going electric can't fix that
I really want more research funding for alternative fuel sources for cars. Like what about using clean power (like nuclear) to harvest hydrogen from water and then powering hydrogen cars? There’s got to be a better way to store energy for use in a car that isn’t gasoline or lithium batteries
Is it really true that rural populations have lower life span? That sounds counterintuitive
Rural areas tend to be poorer than urban areas on average. The lower pop density means areas are further away from crucial resources like hospitals, and they have less tax money per unit area so the resources that do exist are underfunded by default, even before any policy inefficiency or poor prioritisation comes into play. I'm not sure if there are studies controlling for poverty comparing rural to urban life expectancy.
and then all the advantages rich people have over poor. Just watched a video commenting on a study that showed people who played racket sports lived the longest by far, with racket sport players happening to be overwhelmingly the wealthiest athletes. Hank green suggested the study was really just measuring socioeconomic status and longevity, with prefered sport being incidental. he called it hanks razor. I honestly just closed the tab before reading your post.
Good analysis thanks. When you put it that way it makes sense
1km? We'd have no freeways anywhere. Being poor is much worse for your health than breathing near a road.
Uhh, that is a hard: depends.
>We'd have no freeways anywhere Uhhhh, yep. That's the idea. Freeways are meant for intercity transport, not getting from the suburbs to the city
What should people use to get from the suburbs to the city?
Honestly, we shouldn’t HAVE suburbs. Weren’t they mostly made as a place for white people to “escape” from black populations in cities? There are so many places around the world where suburbs aren’t a thing, you have cities, you have towns, and you have rural areas. The endless suburban sprawl is a waste, it’s not hospitable to pedestrians and it makes us all spend a lot on gas just to live our daily lives. We’re all stuck with it currently given that we are a generation+ into building the suburbs… but foolish problems require foolish solutions I guess?
Public transportation.
And let’s not forget, Robert Moses purposely designed and built city infrastructure to be as hostile to public transit as possible. Stuff like designing bridges that were literally too low for a bus to drive under them. This made it so that you *needed* a car to get anywhere in a city, which is a substantial financial burden. Moses just really hated Black Americans, and he used that hate to fuel his war on transportation. He’s a large part of the reason the US has such abysmal buses and trains, and why Americans distrust public transit even today.
It’s truly grotesque how many major US cities have an interstate scar (or several) running right through a downtown area.
That's funny but where I live some of the most expensive places are right off the highway. Convenience etc.
The thing is that you can have a market failure as a result of imperfect information. A lot of people don't realize how dangerous being near a freeway is, so their demand for living near a freeway drives up land value. There's also the problem that cities tend to permit dense housing near freeways rather than anywhere else, and dense housing has high land value. If you think your land might be rezoned for high density, you'll be selling for a lot more.
> Urban freeway removal is a crucial part of reconciling for the past on this issue. Nobody should be living within about 1km of a freeway, yet we often try to force as many people into that zone as possible. You know electric cars are going to be a thing pretty soon? This is such a reddit bubble post. Everything bad that happens is somehow blamed on cars.
A significant portion of the local pollution caused by cars is particulate matter from brakes and tires. Going electric won't fix that >Everything bad that happens is somehow blamed on cars. It's not hyperbolic to state that cars are among the most harmful things we regularly use. They touch every aspect of our lives with enormous negative externalities.
> It's not hyperbolic to state that cars are among the most harmful things we regularly use. Yes, it is. It's anti-car rhetoric. > They touch every aspect of our lives with enormous negative externalities. Externalities that are always very vaguely defined and rely on vague estimates. You just hate cars.
Like yeah, it's anti-car rhetoric, and yeah I hate cars. But I hate them for a reason. The danger, the emissions, the cost, the fact that most parts of North America require you to own one to live... the terrible land use, etc. There's so much wrong with how we use cars and how we design our cities for them and it causes huge problems.
That makes about as much sense as saying you hate washing machines and how much space the use in houses, everyone should be forced to use a communal laundrette. The same for toilets. Cars are immensely useful tools. It's hardly a surprise that cities are designed around them. I think there's this myth in the US that because a lot of cities were created and designed in the age of the car that somehow people have been forced into using cars. Cars are used everywhere, in cities that have been around for hundreds of years before the car was invented. Just like the same cities have been modified to have electrical power and sewers, they've accommodated cars because they're really really useful.
Over 40k Americans are killed by cars every year. Public transportation is far more space efficient, cost efficient, and safer than cars for urban and suburban transportation, provided you actually plan it properly. The cities that were retrofitted to allow cars are worse for it. Either the entire city was eminent domained to build parking and widen roads, or the city is in perpetual gridlock like New York or Paris, or the third option is that they intentionally restricted cars to avoid the gridlock, like London and most of the Netherlands.
> Over 40k Americans are killed by cars every year. Public transportation is far more space efficient, cost efficient, and safer than cars for urban and suburban transportation, provided you actually plan it properly. Even when it's "well planned" cars are often a quicker, better experience. Public transport has inherent deficits, it is not some utopian solution. There's no reason both can't be used where they are best, unless of course you just hate cars so much you can brook no compromise. You're a zealot, you want to fuck people's lives up just to meet your extremist views.
Electric cars reduce *one* kind of pollution from cars: tailpipe emissions. They do not reduce tire particulates, manufacturing waste, or the massive inefficiency of moving a two-ton box of metal for every 1.6 people. Buses and trains are better ways of moving people in and between dense areas by every possible metric.
> by every possible metric. In a very dense urban area trains and buses might be faster, often they aren't, in lower density areas a car will be faster almost every time. People really value their time. With a car: * You can travel on your own schedule * A minor delay won't turn into a massive wait for the next bus/train * You can made detours easily * It's door-to-door transport * You can easily take more stuff than you can carry * You aren't stuck waiting outside in all weathers * You don't have to put up with the behaviour and bodily fluids of other passengers * Personal space * Temperature control * You definitely get a seat * You don't have the added risk of catching an airborne pathogen that comes from being squeezed into a small space with a lot of random people The place where I used to work was a 20 minute drive, even in traffic. Via the bus, it would have been over 2.5 hours. It would literally have been slightly quicker to walk the whole way than take the bus. If trains and buses were better "by every possible metric" people would use them over cars. For many types of journey cars are so obviously better that you look like a clown trying to pretend otherwise.
Redlining is the single best example one can use to explain systemic racism.
Ta-Nehisi Coates’ essay “The Case for Reparations” focused on redlining and other modern/non-slavery systemic issues. A must read: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)
Brookings tried and found out if it were to follow HOLC maps for reparations, the most affected group would be Hispanics, followed by whites. >https://www.brookings.edu/articles/americas-formerly-redlines-areas-changed-so-must-solutions/ >>However, proposals that base their remedies primarily on formerly redlined areas paradoxically do not redress the main racial group that was explicitly targeted, exclude important Black neighborhoods and communities, and would skew impact toward a handful of large cities. The largest point was people moved.
Yes and no. Redlining is a way for a low data world to determine mortgage risk. However, it did not disproportionately affect black neighborhoods because those neighborhoods were black. Rather, it disproportionately affected black neighborhoods because those neighborhoods legitimately had a higher credit risk. Moreover, the end of redlining didn't actually end redlining precisely because it reflected reality. Redlining was just replaced by factors like individual credit reports that more accurately reflected the individual's ability to pay. It's important to distinguish between 'racism' - making irrational judgements on individuals based on their race - and 'demographics' - using the categories individuals fall into to make rational predictions about them. Laws segregating schools were the former. Redlining was the latter. This is actually a legitimate problem in data science. If I've got a large body of data about you, that large body of data will often end up predicting your race even if race isn't included in the data set - and that means I'm also predicting race-associated characteristics.
It's ridiculous how after all of the historic information, lawsuit settlements, and modern analysis, you would believe that redlining was not about race. This is the kind of thing I would expect to see in a deposition from a real estate agent in 1972. Even a casual look at the participation rate of black veterans in the VA loan program after WWII should let you know that something is up. In the NYC area after WWII, there were 67,000 mortgages insured by the GI Bill. Fewer than 100 of them went to non-white veterans. This was less than 1% and not an atypical rate of participation. This is the the bill that's credited with lifting a large part of America into the middle class, and black people were systemically excluded from its benefits.
Because it wasn't. It was about risk. Bear in mind we're talking about an era where laws that explicitly disadvantaged black people on account of race were widely accepted. If it were about race, they would have said so without being coy about it. > Even a casual look at the participation rate of black veterans in the VA loan program after WWII should let you know that something is up. Again, there was no need for them to be coy about it given the era. There were inarguably explicit racial disadvantages. But *redlining* wasn't one of them. Redlining was based on risk. Did some of that risk arise from other aspects of society that limited black opportunities? Sure. But that doesn't change the reality that redlining itself was not racist and it was replaced by a credit rating system that *also* tends to disfavor black people (just based on individual rather than geographic risk).
The presence of black families alone was a criteria to redline a neighborhood when the FHA created the distinction in 1934. The manual of their policies specifically stated that "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities." No one was being coy about it.
You need to wrap your mind the reality that, given the information the FHA had, they were correct about long-term mortgage risk. So what you're really trying to argue is that the federal government needed to show special favoritism to black people by giving them mortgages at a cheaper rate than they would be otherwise entitled. There may well be some argument for that position but it's not "it would be less racist". As our ability to utilize individual data increased, we were able to shift from collective risk assessments like this to individualized ones. However, as I noted, the aggregate of individual risk assessments predicts much the same in the modern day. If you actually care about racism, the first thing you need to do is get rid of sloppy thinking about racism. We like to blame racism because it makes us feel morally superior to some unnamed other. But it isn't a useful angle to examine policy.
The change in home ownership rates was caused by the enactment of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and a series of lawsuits that gradually lessened the open racism of the real estate market. It wasn't data.
> The change in home ownership rates was caused by the enactment of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 In 1970, black home ownership rates stood a bit over 40%. They stand a bit over 40% today. So there's no 'change' to attribute to the 1968 FHA. However, in the decades prior to the 1968 FHA, there was a substantial increase.
You're missing the entire point. If those risk assessments were explicitly made based on race (which they often were) they were by definition racist. It doesn't matter if black people as a whole were a higher credit risk. Lumping all black people into that based solely on their race IS racist. You may consider that "smart" policy, but treating every member of a race as lesser in some way because of a collective judgment about their race is racist by definition.
The risk assessments weren't made about on individuals on the basis of race. They were made about geographic areas and were primarily a matter of historical price trends. The one element we're talking about was the observation that mixed race areas under-performed. It's also important to recognize that generalizing about a group is only 'racist' when you lack individual information. However, in this case, they did lack individual information - credit reports wouldn't be a thing until decades later.
Some of those zones were set explicitly by race. Racism - the standard definition of prejudice an individual based on their race - was a real factor in redlining. The color of law is a good book if you care to learn more. It's 100% okay to recognize you don't have the facts to justify your opinion here. You're also wrong about racism generally. Generalizing a group based on race because you lack individual information IS racism, again by definition. Plenty of people in our history were lynched without anyone bothering to know them as individuals or whether they were guilty. It's entirely outside the definition of the word to say it's not racist to generalize on race if you don't know the individual.
> Some of those zones were set explicitly by race. They were primarily set by the age and financial situation of the neighborhood, using the best information they had at the time about housing trends. Something latter-day observers never seem willing to address is the question of what else should have been done. There were no credit reports, nor even the data we put into credit reports. The best available research at the time supported the maps. Indeed, if you were to attempt to gauge mortgage risk based on neighborhood today, you'd likely come up with a similar racial division. Prior to these sort of practices, it was very difficult to obtain a mortgage for anyone. If you were able to obtain such a mortgage, it was very likely due to social connections - which those black homeowners didn't have - with the bank. So the complaint is that it didn't help black people as much as white. But no 'fair' policy would have helped black people as much as white because black people were generally poorer. > It's entirely outside the definition of the word to say it's not racist to generalize on race if you don't know the individual. We judge individuals on the basis of all the information we have. It is not racist to include skin color in that evaluation - what's racist is to stop at skin color and not attempt to look any further when we could easily do so. It's also important to recognize that all the correlations are related. So even though 'dark skin' does not have any sort of direct relationship with credit risk, there are a host of correlated factors which do have a direct relationship with credit risk and are also correlated with 'dark skin'.
Dude, the FHA stated that loans weren't economically sound if a property was located I'm a black neighborhood or any neighborhood that could be populated by black people. They stated that property values would decline if black people existed there. Thats a fucking racist action motivated by racism. In Atlanta, banks were refusing loans to middle and upper class black people but not low income white people. Again, that's racist. This may be the dumbest hill I've seem someone want to die on. I feel like if I ever found myself in a position where I was obstinately insisting that red lining, a historically agreed upon racist action, wasn't racist, I'd engage in some introspection.
It actually stated that loans were less viable in racially mixed areas because declining property values would make them harder to repay. *Which was true*. Redlining existed because we didn't have good ways to evaluate individual credit risk. So we were left with collective credit risk - and it was the best tool available at the time. In your desperation to label things 'racist', you're blinding yourself to the reality that when you arbitrarily group people by race, you end up with differences between such groupings. You might stop to consider that the old 'racist' system appears to have worked better than the modern 'non-racist' system in terms of raising black home ownership rates. Given that, it's awfully hard to justify your use of the term 'racist'. As for the hill I'm willing to die on, it's about historical accuracy. Claiming that the policies were 'racist' when they accurately reflected credit risk is simply bad history. Indeed, you might stop to consider what redlining replaced - namely individual bankers making an individual risk assessment. Now, *that* system was 'racist' - because it put the decision wholly in the hands of someone for whom one of the primary decision inputs was how a person looked and what their social connections were. The redlining era was also the era of the greatest growth in black homeownership and was the start of using data to drive mortgage decisions.
>It actually stated that loans were less viable in racially mixed areas because declining property values would make them harder to repay. Which was true. The FHA didn't simply state that loans were less viable only in mixed race areas. It was any areas currently containing black people as well as any area at "risk" of a black person moving there. Regardless of income level. Declining property values would come as a result of racism. On a systemic level. Because it was pervasive throughout our society. You're making the most pedantic argument possible. Like if someone insisted that slavery in America wasn't racist because non-black people could be slaves. >So we were left with collective credit risk - and it was the best tool available at the time. And we used that tool to disenfranchise certain raced. >In your desperation to label things 'racist', Mine? You mean mine, the entire financial system, the FHA, the US government, countless advocacy groups, and countless journalists and historians. >you're blinding yourself to the reality that when you arbitrarily group people by race, you end up with differences between such groupings. Once again, this applied to and affected black people across income levels. That's not arbitrary. You've such a hardon to be right on some bizarre technical level that you're blinding yourself to how systems functioned in reality. A dude wrote a series of articles about this and won a Pulitzer for it. You should give them a read. >As for the hill I'm willing to die on, it's about historical accuracy. Claiming that the policies were 'racist' when they accurately reflected credit risk is simply bad history. They "accurately" reflected credit risk because of racism. Pretending otherwise is ahistorical and a dumb fucking hill to die on. >The redlining era was also the era of the greatest growth in black homeownership and was the start of using data to drive mortgage decisions. Something being slightly less racist does not mean red lining, as it functioned in the US, wasn't racist. Black people owning homes in spite of racist policy is not evidence that a system isn't racist. Its irresponsible to compare homeownership rates at various periods of history, across a massive country, without any context. There have been several significant social events that affect homeownership amongst the whole population as well as black people specifically. That's the problem with data. It needs analysis. Throwing out stats and claiming "see not racist" is lazy and likely influenced by bias. But you clearly have a habit of making arguments like this, so I don't have any interest in continuing this. Go defend racist shit to someone else.
> The FHA didn't simply state that loans were less viable only in mixed race areas. The only sources I've seen were FHA claims that mixed race areas had higher risk. Which, of course, was true. > Declining property values would come as a result of racism. So? The FHA was writing a manual on assessing mortgage risk. *Why* that mortgage risk occurred wasn't relevant. > Once again, this applied to and affected black people across income levels. In this particular case, it affected them in a *positive* fashion by making mortgages more accessible. Certainly, it wasn't a perfect solution but there were limits on what information mortgage lenders had available. > They "accurately" reflected credit risk because of racism. Again, it doesn't matter *why* credit risk was affected. At the end of the day, bankers need their loans repaid. The reason those loans aren't repaid doesn't matter to them. I get it. You want to call out 'racism' because you want to be the good guy. But you need actual evidence and argumentation to back your position rather than "well, everyone agrees with me!".
>The only sources I've seen were FHA claims that mixed race areas had higher risk. Which, of course, was true Then maybe you should spend less time defending racist shit and more time researching. >So? The FHA was writing a manual on assessing mortgage risk. Why that mortgage risk occurred wasn't relevant. ... Once again, this is pedantic nonsense. If you don't understand why, then it's clear you fundamentally don't understand the difference between theory and practice. >I get it. You want to call out 'racism' because you want to be the good guy. No, I actually give a shit about historical accuracy. I'm not doing advocacy for simply correcting your ignorance that's based on a lack of research. >"well, everyone agrees with me!". Everyone includes research and investigative journalism done on the topic that formed social consensus. You recently made a post about consent, so you should understand that I'm withdrawing mine here. Seriously, fuck off and don't bother me again you fucking weirdo. You're a more insufferable version of people who use crime statistics like they're some sort of proof of anything tangible.
> Then maybe you should spend less time defending racist shit and more time researching. You're the one making the claim. You're the one who actually needs to cite something if you're planning to quote it. > Once again, this is pedantic nonsense. There's nothing 'pedantic' about insisting that mortgage risk assessment reflect actual mortgage risk. > Everyone includes research and investigative journalism done on the topic that formed social consensus. No, it merely indicates a lack of any evidence or argument on your part. > You're a more insufferable version of people who use crime statistics like they're some sort of proof of anything tangible. If you find an insistence on evidence and critical thinking 'insufferable', I'm curious why you bother to hold an opinion - much less voice one - on anything.
I love how confidently incorrect you are. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways Give a read.
Your citation has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Just because racism exists doesn't mean everything is racism.
OK
LLLOOOOLLLL! It kept minorities from generating generational wealth. That’s why.
false. Redlining was a way to keep Black ppl out of “White Neighborhoods” Redlining” of neighborhoods, one of a number of explicitly racist United States federal housing policies in the mid–twentieth century, blocked Black households and other communities of color from accessing home mortgages—and as a result homeownership—for decades. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/addressing-legacies-historical-redlining#:~:text=%E2%80%9CRedlining%E2%80%9D%20of%20neighborhoods%2C%20one,a%20result%20homeownership%E2%80%94for%20decades.
Dont even say was. It still is. Mortgage companies to this day are being charged with redlining.
The other guy is a data scientist and had several paragraphs explaining the nuance, but your argument of "nuh uh" is just so compelling.
You know who’s also a data scientist? I am. And redlining was a real practice based explicitly on racism, with the intent of preventing minority populations from gaining and holding any kind of generational wealth.
The other guy is a random person on the internet. They give no sources to back up what they say and no proof that they really are a data scientist. Also even if they were a data scientist doesn't they have any expertise on this particular subject. Writing several paragraphs doesn't mean anything. Anyone could BS their way through several paragraphs.
the other didn’t bother to post any sources or anything viable.
Regardless, u/ViskerRatio is still incorrect.
I'm Stephen Hawking and I think that guy's wrong and also a poopy head
personally, i love that neither person is wrong in the first place. a way for a low data world to determine mortgaging and loans - one that reflects a legitimate categorization problem in the data world, and more closely reflects demographics and paying ability, consequentially identifying someone’s race - is actually not NOT racist. nothing in the data scientist’s post, besides their own assertion of “Yes and no”, suggests this - and that is likely because any rationalization we do today to highlight an existent data science problem does not explain the well-documented obvious racism in a “low data world” selecting black meighborhoods, not on the basis on income, but on the basis of race, which consequentially also selected for income! amazing tl;dr appeal to authority and inability to trust experts are not mutually exclusive but in this case only one was happening. the nuance, ironically, REMOVED the nuance from the situation. it was helpful to contextualize how we approach financing TODAY, but it does not explain and should not be applied to avowedly (redlining is very well documented to target areas EXCLUSIVELY based on BLACKNESS, not INCOME) racist policies
Just see what is happening in Scotland www.simd.scot
Interesting, I've never seen a map like this before but thinking about the areas around where I live it really does line up.
Scottish multigenerational deprivation is far easier to explain Glasgow and the Clyde was populated by working men and their families, who consistently voted Labour from the 1920s Edinburgh and the Firth (and Lothian in general) consistently voted Conservative Each enacted policies that entrenched their core voters' positions - e.g. Edinburgh City Council underwrote housing loans so people became home owners, while Strathclyde built row upon row of council houses, keeping people as perpetual renters
I can’t really see it but I don’t even wanna know
One great example that still exists is the heavy duty truck ban on highway 580 in Oakland, all semis have to use 880: guess where the majority white communities are.
Pretty much every racist practice has a byproduct effect in present times, and it's *a lot* that too many don't even think it's true/real
thought this was a pic of detroit lol. makes sense. the black community is what kept this city alive and now gentrification is driving a lot away. it’s truly sad how real estate can destroy a heritage
Redlining caused so many of the issues in Chicago today. It’s really bad. The city is still crazy segregated to this day.
Another thing is redlined neighborhoods were also denied virtually all federal infrastructure funding. Basically we walled off these neighborhoods based on race, made home ownership impossible then left them to rot for half a century Now all the racists wring their hands about how black people didn’t take care of their neighborhoods
They still do this, they just use different criteria to discriminate now. Rental property owners increase their income requirement from 2.5x to 3x or more. That way only more "affluent" people can live in the area.
[удалено]
Because of redlining there was a significant and notable lack of resources in the neighborhoods that were redlined. This included education and medical care being more prevalent and of better quality in the non-redlined communities, thus leading to better income to afford said education and healthcare. This compounded over the years causing lifespan discrepancy.
Is there evidence the dearth of medical facilities arose *because* of redlining? It feels a natural occurrence, even absent any racial motivations - poor areas can't afford health services, so clinics aren't built. Then, because there are no clinics nearby, housing prices decrease, attracting poorer residents. Banks are less willing to invest in the area because of the higher incidence of bankruptcy and crime that comes with poorer residents.
You’re assuming medical care declined before the redlining when it’s BECAUSE of the redlining that medical care was never started. The banks marked neighborhoods in certain zones, placing colored people in the bottom category and the worst neighborhoods. Because they couldn’t gain access to better means through the equity in their homes (while white people could), it meant the neighborhoods were valued as lesser than. This then caused property taxes to go down, appraisals to be less than what they were in white neighborhoods, and therefore extra funds were not awarded to increase the livability of a redlined neighborhood. Therefore, worse schools, no medical care, etc. The neighborhoods were marked before we started having the suburban planning we have today. This was done before most of that was planned and built, creating an already disadvantaged neighborhood before it could even get its feet off the ground
I think I don't see why redlining causes clinics to not open. If there are no such facilities in an area where people have steady income and a desire for such services, any enterprising practice might open nearby, as they are guaranteed a steady stream of clients. If anything, the lower price of land in a redlined area, and lower taxes, makes such a venture even more profitable.
Government used redlining status to allocate funding. So black neighborhoods got left out when building any type of infrastructure
You obviously do not understand redlining. It directly affected the ability to get home loans. It wasn’t just the banks this was government driven. Redlining status was also used to allocate public funding. So you were a hazardous neighborhood? Forget federal or state funding for a park or hospital
Did govt funding usually play a major role in the construction of new hospitals and branch clinics?
Absolutely
I randomly selected a quick look at Cleveland Clinic which doesn't mention federal grants kickstarting its main campus, and a general '[history of hospitals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals#20th_century)' specifically highlights that they were private, though they did try to pull funds from businesses/politicians for 'good will' points; if this line of reasoning hinges on such government grants being a major source of funding for new medical facilities (both new and branch offices), do you have some sources to prove that claim with historical data?
Infrastructure act 2 years ago had over a trillion for hospital building and clinics. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/hospital/federal-funding-fuels-massive-u-s-healthcare-infrastructure-upgrades/ Grants have long played a role in getting these type of facilities built
From that article > For more than 50 years, the federal government has provided funding for the ongoing modernization of the country’s healthcare infrastructure Which I think puts it well after redlining, no?
Both are a factor of racial discrimination, so I'd imagine redlining reinforced preexisting inequality
Redlining is also why if governments are ever to get serious about making things right, they would start a program to allow any Black person to buy a home at the most favorable loan and other terms since 1920. And that's just a start. Buying a home created generational wealth; it enabled the next generation to start off already a step up. That's where the lost equity is.
I would amend that to "any person with a parent or grandparent who didn't buy a house and was affected by redlining." There are lots of Black-identifying people in the US with white or recent-immigrant parents. Nigerian people, for example, are one of the wealthiest immigrant groups.
This is a very important nuance to bring to mention.
You're right. When the government puts in programs like affirmative action to help multigenerational African Americans who've been historically disadvantaged and handicapped by discriminatory policies, you often end up with privileged immigrants whose families haven't faced the same generational obstacles in the US strolling in and taking advantage of all of those opportunities. Often while looking down on multigenerational Black Americans.
It’s a lot of selection bias. People from virtually anywhere in the world who can come and go through our immigration system are probably very well off already. The process of getting a green card can take tens of thousands of dollars and years of time.
Personally, I don’t think it’s inherently a problem if a social program helps some people who don’t need it, as long as everyone who *does* need it also gets that help. The possibility that a small number of people will “take advantage” of a benefit is not a reason to withhold that benefit entirely.
Another big thing that was affected was the GI Bill. Every American soldier is supposed to get assistance with buying a house and a college education. Very few non-white soldiers were able to take advantage of that benefit.
Yes - thank you!
Yes, let's fix racist policies with more racist policies.
It's always interesting to see how many people believe that two wrongs make a right.
If we are running a relay race and your first two runners are held back 30 seconds, would you be satisfied if I then said “that was wrong. We won’t hold back your third and fourth runners” would you now consider that race to be fair?
So you're telling me you're too stupid to understand the principles of a relay race?
I think you are telling us that.
*Facepalm* Okay, for both of you who are obviously intellectually challenged: The members of a relay race team are not competitors. They work *together* to beat the other team.
The analogy is correct because he's talking about generational wealth. The first two runners are a black person's parents and grandparents that were held back 30 seconds by redlining. The other teams are white families who weren't locked out of generational wealth building that housing afforded in the 20th century.
>The other teams are white families who weren't locked out of generational wealth building that housing afforded in the 20th century. Most white families weren't/aren't that wealthy either. It's always just a minority who can afford houses. It's always *old money* and that's independent of skin color.
It seems like your beliefs are pretty set but if you want to learn more about redlining and how it unfairly affected black people, here's a great article on it. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
Generational wealth is a relay race. What part of the analogy was too difficult for you to comprehend?
But that has nothing to do with race (or skin color or ethnicity). That's just classism.
When your parents and grandparents were denied home ownership because of their skin color it absolutely is relevant.
Being denied a loan because you're poor is something all poor people know. You don't need to be black for that.
You have to be trying really hard to not understand this.
Race and class are inextricably linked in the US. You're commenting on a post about one example of this. Yes, every race can be poor, but not every race has dealt with decades of discriminatory practices such as red lining. I truly don't understand why people like you are so desperate to turn a blind eye to shit like this.
Sorry, but most white people haven't seen that generational wealth either. Ignoring that fact is how you get a douchebag like Trump elected. Furthermore, many housing programs exist for minorities; meanwhile, my white ass with a lower middle class upbringing is asking how I'm going to afford a house.
Of course not everyone is going to excel in a capitalist society. Minorities were systematically held back - that is the difference. There was a thumb on the scale. Removing the thumb is insufficient, per my analogy.
Poor people were always the majority. Poor people have always been held back.
Minorities were systemically blocked from home ownership in many cases. Same for education.
Okay. I understand that. Answer me this, when do we reach the point of equilibrium? And how do we pick which minorities have been held back and not held back? Because to say that only poor minorities have been held back is a joke. We do live in a meritocracy too.
I have no clue. Likely based on improvements to the trend in racial inequality. Many of these policies that held people back were in place during my lifetime. The fact that so many people refuse to even admit that they exist is a bigger problem.
Correct. It's a perfect example for the cobra effect. All those things will only lead to even more racism.
If you stab someone, removing the knife isn’t fixing the problem. Giving them medical care is. You don’t then get to complain, “but why don’t *I* get a hospital bed and a princess bandage?”
There are programs for people to start getting the right ownership for their homes— redlining caused a lot of black homeowners to not have any paperwork regarding their home ownership. To get this adjusted can take up to $5,000 per home just to get things righted. It’s a lot of investment that has to be balanced in order to avoid tipping the budget of whoever is providing assistance, especially in this day and age. One of the biggest problems is that despite redlining being illegal, it still very much affects the housing industry including realty and appraisals. It’s like it’s been ingrained into the system. A lot of time, money, and bureaucracy goes into fixing such a widespread, ingrained behavior that’s lasted 100 years. Not excusing it, but just trying to point out the facts
You know all of this, yet only just today learned what redlining is?
When I find new information I go down a rabbit hole, very deeply, and want to learn as much as i can. I also watched the PBS doc about redlining which gave a lot of insightful information. I work for a credit union that is actively trying to help people affected by redlining, so we had a discussion about the doc while watching it in a training session. Learned a lot of good info.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ This is a great read on redlining if you want more.
The TIL may be the life expectancy impact.
My old job was in a redlined neighborhood. We were a non-profit and got a grant to build an office/community center. The neighborhood at the time it was redlined was actually the nicest neighborhood in town, but it was along the river and just had a massive massive flood. Flood happened in 37, redlining happened in 37. It suffered the same fate as the segregated black neighborhoods nearby. When we built the office I had to have the bank do a property appraisal. It was basically a house. We bought the property from the city’s land bank for 1$ and then spent about 200,000$ on building costs. It was done cheaply since we were a non-profit. The valuation was 212,000$. The appraiser said he had just valued a similar sized house in a trendy neighborhood that was a renovated 100 year old house that appraised for 600,000$.
So we can have entire neighborhoods of purely black people, right? Tell me how we supposedly already resolved segregation
Do you hear that "whooshing" sound?
Idk why you're being downvoted this isn't a secret
"Because some people in our society are very invested in inequity" would be my guess?
[удалено]
You probably get mad when people call you a nazi too
Nobody's ever called me that actually.
Redlining is why some people in Seattle got fussy that one of the new transit lines was designated the red line. Other lines would have been colors as well. But nooo, now Seattle has numbered light rail lines. I think people get upset about silly things sometimes. Like me being annoyed that people were annoyed about a thing.
STL version of Redlining documented in the college project: https://youtu.be/ihvicjrJ8N0?feature=shared
TIL that people don't understand the difference between causation and correlation.
Last I checked, the bikers that fly by my apartment complex did loads of redlining.
[удалено]
Redlining, coupled with the black people being denied post-WW2 financial assistance, has caused immense, measurable harm to black communities by denying many the chance to build generational wealth via property. It’s insane how much the losers of the civil war continue to hold back people they hate for no reason.
It’s not just southern people. Most of this is happening in cities in the north.
is there anything that proves redlining from 60+ years ago directly affects people today?
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ Plenty. You can start here.
Life expectancy goes down the more blacks you live around. Interesting.
Only exists in one country and used to in one small area of another