I came across this article in NYT and found it relevant of discussion for 2 reasons;

1. Increasingly in urbanized population centers private / public partnerships are becoming more common as developers take public money and crowd out purely private speculators, although this case is about the stigma of a segregation trial it still shows the intent of Federal Housing Laws are conducted through the prism of racial politics.

2. There a new "great society" type housing movement underway albeit much less publicized than the original. In my area the section 8 program is being expanded into areas that previously had no state assisted living as bankrupt developers are being led by the courts, to the government's section 8 program for renters.


Can and should the reverse be allowed? Should the wealthy citizens of Westchester be given land plots in the Bronx to redevelop? Theres a lack of wealthy white people there, maybe an infusion of blue bloods would could turn it around?

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/nyregion/23housing.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
]nyt[/url]

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/nyregion/23housing.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
]link[/url]

this is an interesting article...thanks for posting it

Jack I think your point is really what is driving this move, in that no developer out there right now wants to put there neck on the line with their own money and if they can get government funding what do they care who lives there. Many developers I know had buildings go from condos to rentals and the logical next step is section 8...

There are nice areas in the bronx, especially Riverdale where homes can be in the millions.

Desegregation inadvertently always backfires. This instance is absurd, they will be attracting minorities that are not wealthy enough to be put in rich neighborhoods, and therefore creating poor neighborhoods in a rich county, and you will know you are in poor neighborhood when you don't see any white people. The wealthy will then bus there kids to private schools as the schools fill up with poor kids who just happen to be minorties because this is how it was planned. The bronx used to be mainly irish, jewish, italian middle class in the 50s, there are some pockets that still exist, and if you want to goto real little italy goto the bronx, but as always people will migrate away if they are forced to live with people they never wanted to live with because they do not share the same community ideals.

I have never understood how desegregation helps a minority, too me it just puts them in a shitty position - they are only here because someone wants the government to look good and they know those already there don't want them because if they did they wouldve been neighbors to begin with...

I think there is a huge misunderstanding here. Are there any minorities in this discussion? Or anyone that grew up without money?

First. Developers and city governments do not design or plan for low income neighborhoods. The only reason developers build "mixed income" housing is to get funding for their projects.....aka it saves them money. If you look at the cycle of urban development, poor or minority neighborhoods are created by neglect and aging housing stock, which drives down the price. New developments will always ask for top dollar, because that is how developers make their money. Developments that include low or "mixed income" housing do nothing to decentralize poverty in reality. It's a superficial action to remedy something that the government and developers have no interest in ending (poverty). If poor neighborhoods did not exist, developers would have no future construction sites. Developers don't care and the government just wants to make things "look" better.

Second. The government gets involved because of our history of housing discrimination based on race. If there were no laws stating that it was illegal to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc, the housing market would still operate like it did before the Fair Housing Act. The whole reason that "villages" or gated communities exist is so a legal entity, created by the locals, can create regulations, control who can move into their neighborhood and what their neighborhood looks like. Minorities are kept out based on traditional racism and regulations that provide the legal wiggle room to maneuver around this issue.

Desegregation does not help minorities. The attraction is improved living conditions provided by new construction. We live in a capitalist society. Help is not given....only hand outs. To help the poor, they could lower income taxes, re-organize school funding, protect housing, make imminent domain illegal, provide health care for everyone, lower college tuition and sales taxes.

21ronin I think the few in this discussion actually agree one way or another.

You could almost call desegregation as a method of the powerful to break up and break down segregated but strong and unified minority communities. I remember reading an essay years ago in english class about how the black community boasted the first female american millionaire ever and had a strong economical infrastructure before desegregation.

I have also always viewed minorty based hand outs as counter productive in the sense that it does not breed the attitude to fight for what is yours but rather makes someone fell they are entitle to something because their forefathers fought.

I guess, welcome to america...

While people may agree, the attitude toward it seeps out through the words. Just because there are efforts to provide new housing stock to those that would be excluded otherwise does not mean that they are desegregating or excluding the middle to upper class. Its a ridiculous idea. It just shows how out of whack the whole country is. There will still be these minority neighborhoods. There is by no means enough of this housing to break up minority neighborhoods. And I can assure you that developments like the one above are not attractive to all minorities. There still is the portion of minorities that would rather live in their own neighborhood.

I think one huge idea that is always overlooked is property ownership. Too many people point to the physical condition of minority neighborhoods and blame it on the minorities as a result. The fact that a overwhelming number of minorities rent (or do not own) means that they cannot control what their environment looks like. So, the blame is wrongfully placed on the tenants rather than the property owners. If there was a minimum standard of care for rental properties, this wouldn't be an issue.

Many minorities want to have their own neighborhood. Attempts to break up these neighborhoods destroys the only positive aspect of there being minority neighborhoods (identity and a drive improve and succeed). Regardless of the visual condition of Harlem, the people in Harlem and black people across the country know that it is a sad day when Harlem is driving out the people that created its history. What was Harlem before African Americans arrived?

If you look at the cycle of urban development, poor or minority neighborhoods are created by neglect and aging housing stock, which drives down the price.

I think it's the other way around - the neglect starts as a result of declining fortunes in a neighborhood and the two problems feed off each other in a downward spiral. Also, age of buildings is not as big of a factor as maintenance.

The fact that a overwhelming number of minorities rent (or do not own) means that they cannot control what their environment looks like. So, the blame is wrongfully placed on the tenants rather than the property owners. If there was a minimum standard of care for rental properties, this wouldn't be an issue.


This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Have you ever heard of a building code? Of course there is a minimum standard of care and there are tons of methods of enforcement. Most states have become so pro tenant that the landlord is putting his property on the line if he doesn't comply with a "Warranty of Habitability".

Have you ever walked in a poor neighborhood? Please explain to me why there is always trash littered everywhere and the lawns are never cut. I see that as a blatant statement of a community having no self respect. If you have no ambition to even clean up after yourself and trash your home, rent or own, what hope is there for you in life. Why don't the poor help themselves?

Everybody wants a fuckin' handout. You cannot get something without giving first and pretty soon the trough is gonna be empty. Everyone will be standing around with their thumbs up their butts wondering why.

....Have you ever walked in a poor neighborhood? Please explain to me why there is always trash littered everywhere and the lawns are never cut......

Have you ever lived in a poor neighborhood? Have you ever been poor? Have you ever known what it is like to have absolutely no option to change your surroundings until you get enough money to escape?

All of my points are because I have been poor. I paid my own way through school, I have seen it and lived it. I still struggle with all of my loans that I have to pay off. What about you? I will do whatever I can to change things, but you come from this situation as an outsider. That is why you talk the way you do. You blame the poor for not spending their own money on someone else's property when they can't even afford to pay for school or health care.

If you look closely at poor neighborhoods, you see trash everywhere. A big reason for that is because there are a lot of abandoned buildings and nobody to clean it up. Also, there are far fewer trash cans along the main streets to keep it clean. Services are seriously lacking. On top of that, the trash collection is on the curb, so there is always trash left on the side walk. When you add in homeless people searching for food, then you have a messy situation. But I guess its just easier to blame the people that walk on those sidewalks or live two blocks away. I live in Bed-Stuy, so I know what poor neighborhoods are like. Property owners and store owners alike do not care about the people that live there or how the neighborhood looks.


.......I think it's the other way around - the neglect starts as a result of declining fortunes in a neighborhood and the two problems feed off each other in a downward spiral. Also, age of buildings is not as big of a factor as maintenance...........

Age of the building hugely impacts the amount of maintenance required for upkeep. They are intertwined. Newer buildings will not require the same amount of money to maintain.

When i posted this I was more upset that the government thinks they have to force blacks and hispanics to live among the wealthiest people in the country in Weschester - but they dont say why. Is the position that "they" need some whitening up? Or that the whites need more exposure? What is the point of this social experiment?

As for trash everywhere in poor areas; thats not always true. Theres plenty of nicely kept streets on the southside of Chicago, lined with well kept bungalows where many of the people live near the poverty line. But those neighborhoods have pride and respect for themselves, often because of a local focus like a large factory, or employer like an airport. Other areas have no pride or respect and I think thats why the trash. Poor and proud is not the same as poor and ashamed.

You're right. There is a distinction. But who is to say why it is the way it is?

These type of regulations are typically enforced to provide housing to people displaced by other developments. For the people of Westchester, it is unfortunately being forced on them. Often, villages or towns have community boards like I spoke of before enforcing and maintaining segregated neighborhoods. In the article, it says,

"While the settlement sets no racial quotas, it requires the county to market the homes aggressively to black and Hispanic residents of the New York City area."

and

"The Anti-Discrimination Center, a nonprofit advocacy and litigation group in New York City, laid the groundwork for the settlement when it filed a lawsuit three years ago accusing the county of making false statements on federal applications about its efforts to integrate housing."

I am not sure if you are aware of the constant raise in cost of NYC living, but it constantly forces minorities in or out (about every 50 years). Apparently, there is some grand scheme for where these people will be able to move.

ronin your situation is your problem...try a father refusing food stamps because he was too proud to be determined poor, school loans out my ass, and now I live in a affluent NY suburb, whatever...there's plenty of oppurtunity in this country...

i lived in the Upper Upper West Side, by standards poor, the supers of every building on my street washed the streets every morning and the drug dealers kept the homeless and unwanted off my street. kids played baseball in the streets, etc...

maintanence - old buildings need less in this city, trust me, this recent Brooklyn cheap new construction boom is already having to be fixed.

Jack your point is taken, this is classic political correctness working backwards - it's like saying well you're a minority and you still don't get it so live among the affluent and maybe you'll get...see my first point. 21Ronin is still living in Bed-Stuy - not society's problem, or is it?

First of all metababble, let me say fuck you! Me "still living in Bed-Stuy-not society's problem, or is it?" has nothing to do with my situation. If you must know, you asshole, I moved across the country to NYC, chasing my dreams. So you should shut the fuck up. That's one thing I didn't mention. I grew up poor and moved across the country to NYC. The cheapest rent was in Brooklyn, so that's where I live. That is the situation for a lot of people. Just because I give a bit of personal information, don't think you can label me. You don't know me.

I remember watching my mother not able to buy herself tampons because she needs to feed us. We never had any hand outs, food stamps or anything like that. My mother worked her ass off and we still weren't able to make it out of the rut that we were in. Your parents financial situation create your financial situation and if you have never been in a hole, then you don't know what it looks like down there. I have lived among the poor and I have lived among the rich, so I can talk about it from both sides.

Upper Upper West side? Harlem or Washington Heights?

and one important thing metababble......just because you live among the wealthy doesn't mean anything about you. And just because you "made it out" doesn't mean that you should blame everyone from your old neighborhood that didn't. It's a classic case of self hatred and the core of the Republican "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" ideals. You and a lot of people equate living in the suburbs with being successful. This is the framework and slogan attracive to the wealthy first, middle income second and now the poor. Since the trend now is to move back into the city, the middle class and poor will have to move somewhere else. This would explain why Westchester is having this problem. So I don't consider you successful because you live in an affluent suburb. I consider you a sheep.

I think we should make this a competition of who struggled more, not about the actual issues that were originally being discussed. Bring it back to the discussion.

We have come to a chicken or the egg discussion. Does poverty create poor housing stock or do the poor seek cheap living? The need to survive (based on rental rates or property taxes) is what forces the poor to move. Middle and upper class income have the ability to chose where they live. Its true that a person has to pull themselves out of poverty. I am not for handouts and I have never said anything otherwise. But at the same time, history shows that discrimination, racism and segregation have shaped the face of our country. That is why we have the Fair Housing Act. But, the problem is, how do you prove it? And in this case, Westchester had obviously been under scrutiny based on its federal applications.

"and litigation group in New York City, laid the groundwork for the settlement when it filed a lawsuit three years ago accusing the county of making false statements on federal applications about its efforts to integrate housing."

It sounds like Westchester created its own problem by lying on federal a forms.

"Can and should the reverse be allowed? Should the wealthy citizens of Westchester be given land plots in the Bronx to redevelop? Theres a lack of wealthy white people there, maybe an infusion of blue bloods would could turn it around?"

You don't need laws to do this. It's called eminent domain aka business as usual. Harlem is a perfect example.

I woulld tend to think poor people seek cheap housing. Some of Connecticuts wealthy Cities during the last ten years spent alot of money tearing down housing stock which was rented by the lower income. In its place they put up office buildings so the poor moved on and they came to communities like the one where I live where we have alot of three family houses which date from the turn of the century. This housing stock was orignially built for the immigrantes who worked in the factories. When they found themselves in a position to better their lives they moved on to the single family house. Then people bought up these triple deckers, and for the most part do no live here so they are held by llc companies. They are held for two reasons. One is to make a short term profit and a for a long term for the increase in land value. Note I say land value, not building value. There is a limited amount of land which is available for development do to enviromental reasons. They don't put a dime into improvements of their building and the tenants really could careless because their is no ownership on their part. When the economy goes in the bucket, everything is made worse, because people who once had jobs are without jobs and people are behaving like bed bugs. Moving from one place to another just trying to keep a head of the bills. I wish there were a solution, but I do not have high hopes. The cycle of life carries on.

21ronin...i avoided your responeses which I knew were to come as they would surely be filled with hate. your hate is so deep it makes the rich racists bastards of westchester look like friendly old white folk.

your thoughts are of consipiracy theories and constant defense in a round about way of your short comings, my friend you suck, because with all you energy you still direct it backwards, inwards, and then outwards and your mother couldn't even by tampons, you're an ASSHOLE!. i too was this hateful once...

here's the thing buddy, i'm not a sheep, i'm a fuckin' shepard and you're a pussy. you're that fuckin' lamb stuck between a fence and a cowboy. you are getting fucked up the ass by republican cowboys, because they can.

i only moved half way across the country...so man i am so short of understanding where you are coming from.

what you don't understand, the game is the only game, denying the game is an excuse for not being good at the game, and playing the game to destroy the game is just retarded...so join the fucking game man.

punch your fuckin' screen, monkey are emotional! now suck it up and make something of yourself you overly educated pussy (architecture degree I assume, which def. classifies you as overly educated and stupid for being so poor)

21ronin just to further prove your insignificance as a human being...my father (the guy who wouldn't take food stamps) when he was a teenager worked his balls off with his sisters to buy his mother furniture, see in the 50's and 60's out west in christian country being a single mother wasn't a respectable thing...

so what the hell were you doing when your mother couldn't by a tampon?

ok, you were 6 years old, well if you had balls you would of found the money for her...

figure it out buddy.

Wow. I didn't even see that you (metababble) wrote this until now. My words were filled with hate? Have you read what you wrote? I suggest you do and take a good look in the mirror. I don't know about you, but I was speaking about the issues and that's where I was trying to keep it. Its fine if you want to take it there, but I guess you can't handle being wrong.

As for being an "overly educated pussy", I guarantee that I COULD hand you your ass or I COULD just squeeze the air right out of you. I can handle myself in an discussion or in the real world. I played football in college before I decided to do something with my mind; so as for being a "pussy" I would like to see ANYONE say that to my face. Dear Wizard of Oz (metababble), you talk a big game behind the vail of the internet, but I bet you don't act like that in the real world. Let me set it straight. Just because I can back up my argument with points, doesn't mean that I can't handle myself physically. I'm versatile like that.

I am an asshole because I will put myself out there and contradict the popular opinion if I disagree. I will call it what it is, even if it is only in my eyes. That requires integrity and courage. A lot of people, just like metababble, can't express themselves so they lash out, make personal attacks and swear. Maybe you need some therapy so you can express what you really think. Or they just superficially study the development process and don't fully understand the implications of the business that they are involved in.

The only reason I said anything about my mother was to point out that being poor doesn't mean that you have to receive help or handouts from the government. Also, working hard doesn't always bring people out of poverty. It has never been "respectable" to be a single mother, so my worked her ass off and made my life better for it. Why didn't I work at 10 years old? Well, I guess I would have to live in India, Mexico, China or Thailand for that to happen. The money would have helped, but that's what people in 3rd world countries do. It just points out the desperation of the working poor. So thank you for making my point for me.

The rest of what you said is garbage and did not add anything to this discussion about this article. Thanks for nothing.