August 7, 2020


Trump Supports Housing Segregation--and So Do a Lot of White Liberals: The vast Black-white disparities in housing are the foundation of America's systemic racial inequalities, and white folks of all political stripes are loath to upset the status quo. (Kali Holloway, 8/07/20, The Nation)

"People have gone to the suburbs. They want the beautiful homes. They don't have to have a low-income housing development built in their community...which has reduced the prices of their homes and also increased crime substantially," Trump stated during a virtual rally with supporters. A day later in Texas, he picked up right where he left off. "I've seen conflict for years. It's been hell for suburbia. We rescinded the rule three days ago. So enjoy your life, ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy your life." The rule Trump rescinded was issued by the Obama administration in 2015 and required localities to track recurring issues around housing discrimination and create detailed plans for how to fix those problems. It aimed to strengthen the Fair Housing Act, the same anti-discrimination legislation the Justice Department sued Trump for violating in 1973. Almost 50 years after losing that case, he is still suggesting that whiteness should be the default measure of safety and affluence of a neighborhood while the mere presence of Blackness threatens both. The president says these kinds of overtly racist things partly because he believes them but also because--particularly when an election is on the line--they almost always work.

Even as the suburbs lean more Democratic than in the past, recent examples of white liberal NIMBYism prove that Trump knows precisely which anti-Black buttons to push. In Silver Spring, Md., as local officials consider proposals to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies that prevent more affordable housing from being built, residents have staged protests and taken to social media to register bitter complaints. ("I doubt that any of my neighbors want to stop living in their single family homes because an academic has told them it's racist to own a house with a large yard," one poster wrote.) Last year a group of wealthy homeowners in San Francisco launched a GoFundMe campaign to pay the costs of waging a court battle against a homeless services center slated to be built in their neighborhood. In Maplewood, N.J.--where, according to The New York Times, Black Lives Matter signs are a common lawn adornment--a group of Black parents had to file a lawsuit in 2018 to force the desegregation of district public schools. And in New York City, after learning their children would be rezoned to a majority African American school, white parents publicly worried about the danger posed by Black elementary schoolkids. The rezoning went forward as planned, but most of the white kids never made the transfer, presumably because their parents sought whiter learning environs.

These examples of liberal white racism are further borne out by data. In a 2009 study, researchers found white people indicated that, compared with integrated and all-Black neighborhoods, "all-white neighborhoods were most desirable." A report from Harvard published this January noted, "Despite parents' espoused support for integration, in districts where parents are actually given greater opportunities to choose schools, schools appear to become more segregated." The authors concluded that "many White, advantaged parents appear to determine school quality by how many other White, advantaged parents send their child to a school, without doing the legwork to determine what schools in a district are actually high-quality and a good fit for their child." Another report released early this year determined that "the 12 most politically progressive cities in the U.S. have significantly larger achievement gaps [between Black and white students] in reading, math and high school graduation than the 12 most politically conservative cities." Among those deeply blue places with the highest Black-white proficiency gaps are San Francisco, Seattle, Oakland, Portland, and Washington.

Left-Wing UC Berkeley Professor Doesn't Want Poor People Moving Into His Posh Neighborhood (Andrew Stiles, AUGUST 5, 2020, Free Beacon)

Robert Reich, a left-wing professor at the University of California Berkeley who served as labor secretary during the Clinton administration, is very concerned about income inequality. He urged Wall Street executives to "invest" in cities by funding low-income housing projects. He also praised a "promising initiative" to promote the construction of affordable housing units in San Francisco.

Reich is not so keen, however, on a proposal to tear down a dilapidated building in his Berkeley neighborhood and replace it with a 10-unit development that would include low-income housing.

Reich and some of his wealthy neighbors are imploring the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate the dilapidated structure, known as the Payson House, as a Berkeley landmark in order to stop the proposed development. In a letter to the commission, Reich said the proposed housing units would destroy the "charm of an older era of Berkeley" and likened the developers' actions to "the illegal practices and corrupt politics of the late nineteenth century."

"If historic preservation means anything, it means maintaining enough of the character of an older neighborhood to remind people of its history and provide continuity with the present," Reich wrote. "Development for the sake of development makes no sense when it imposes social costs like this."

The cost being black neighbors.

Posted by at August 7, 2020 8:15 AM