Jane Jacobs

ishtar

catwalkertexasranger wrote: You should probably look a little closer at some of the newer black families that have moved to the area .

Yup.

What you will find are middle class blacks, who actually have far more in common with their white counterparts than lower income blacks. They are part of the overall group, which is more class based than color based, demanding better services in the area.

Some people like to discount the role income plays in ones life. While no amount of money can eliminate structural and institutional racism, income goes a long way when it comes to removing some barriers.

vaportrail

MHA,
When you moved in three years ago, you probably displaced a black renter. You are doing the same thing that you accuse newer whites of doing.
How is the fact that you're are black and they are white make what you did better than people you criticize?

chekhovian

One point MHA makes that this board certainly confirms is that people are very sensitive to the idea of discussing gentrification.

To bring it back to the topic's namesake, doesn't Jane Jacobs go to great lengths to describe the phenomenon of unslumming? I think her stalwart example is the North End in Boston. I'm not being fecateous, but when Death and Life of American Cities was published, she did not have any examples of urban unslumming in Brooklyn, did she? I think one of the reasons I wasn't fully supportive of her theories was she had rather condescending things to say about Brooklyn in particular. If she were writing today, I think she would write about areas of Brooklyn that have unslummed themselves.

There won't be a specific day when Crown Heights is upgraded from ghetto to good, but I think a good many of us living here would say that day has arrived. And a big reason is for the long-time residents improving this neighbohood. I'm not saying CH doesn't have its problems, but there is a difference between CH and East NY or Brownsville or some other hood with much higher violent crime rates.

cool the kid

I wonder if MHA would be as miffed if the gentrifiers were black professionals, driving up the rent just the same but not changing the color of the neighborhood

What is his/her core issue with the new people moving in? Is it their lack of involvement in the neighborhood? They're no less involved in community affairs than most people who live here.

Is it the rent going up? There is def a higher proportion of people in the neighborhood with gov't assistance for housing, and even with the "hikes" rents here are still low for the space and proximity to the city.

Is it just the color these new peoples' skin and a feeling of territory being encroached upon? I mean MHA posts like these people conspired and are blocking blacks out of moving into apartments. These people just want a place to live. His beef should really be with the landlords if anything. My landlord is a young black woman.... aside from me everyone else in our 3 unit brownstone is white. Why? Probably for no other reason than they could afford the rent and had the credit/rental history she required to take them on as tenants. At the end of the day money talks.

Landlords can't discriminate who they rent to, especially in these economic times. MHA really needs to look beyond his/herself and see the bigger picture.

travelriter

Wow; I wish we could see pics of people posting. Just curious to see the faces behind the predjudice (on both sides).
(Since we should all be greeting our neighbors.)

BTW, Just want to point out that some white people moved to CH years ago, and choose not to live in Park Slope/Soho because not only did we want to move to a community (not an address, )
but because we're broke m-fers who wanted to live in a neihborhood that has stores that takes food stamps.
I'm just sayin'...

ps as a female i usually smile or greet women, kids and old men, but not guys who yell out "hey, baby ' when I walk down the street.

And you will be shocked to know that there are actually black people around here who listen to ipods as they walk down the street. And look the other way when people are walking toward them. Maybe this is a new phenomenon that occured only since those evil white people moved in. (A few of them even own laptops and frequent cafes!)

And I shop at whichever corner deli sells the yellow bananas not the brown ones.
And if they don't call me "mama" while looking at my chichis.
And if they take food stamps.

I VOTED FOR OBAMA!!!!

travelriter

Any suggestions for neighborhoods poor white folk should leave CH to move to?

Maybe we should all stop fighting and have make-up sex.
And make interracial babies.
(ooh sh*t am i going to get slammed for that comment.But still its a lovely idea.)

clayfilms

LOL @ travelriter

cool the kid

travelriter wrote:
I VOTED FOR OBAMA!!!!

As a black Republican I resent that weak olive branch you presented.

However I may be interested in said chichis.

travelriter

um, Cool Kid, I was joking (in response to MHA's post);

"And that's why I can't stand most of you. Not because you're white, but because most of you are hypocrites, and you express your white progressive spiel for the same reason women wear makeup: to cover flaws and enhance your look. You probably voted for Obama and you let everyone know that you did."

And Cool Kid, thank you for your romantic offer to consider my chichis. Although I am flattered, (and momentarily tempted,) after much consideration I have decided to save my Bush for a democrat.

catwalkertexasranger

When you open this thread and see the photo that clayfilms has included I always smile. I have a friend that is a PA and part time art director for a TV show that is shot primarily in NYC. I remember hearing from her and others how hard it was getting to find "dirty/urban/ghetto" looking places in NYC. Stories told about the the LES/Bowery/Brooklyn about things soiled and painted were common place. Locations that were used would be returned to months later to find that they are cleaned up. Indie/student types used to be able to get canned footage of city grit just by walking down streets with a handheld. Now if you want a clayfilms looking scene you need to hire a location scout that can bring you to the ever dwindling pool of non rehabed urban grime.Thank god the "Gentrifires" did get to Harlem before Precious was done filming. I wish they would have keep the scene where Monique drives Precious to charm school in a new white Range Rover while they sip soy lattes.

ishtar

travelriter wrote:
And you will be shocked to know that there are actually black people around here who listen to ipods as they walk down the street. And look the other way when people are walking toward them. Maybe this is a new phenomenon that occured only since those evil white people moved in. (A few of them even own laptops and frequent cafes!)

You must be seeing the mythical educated middle income black person who doesn't collect food stamps.

carnivore

Ishtar wrote: [quote=travelriter]
And you will be shocked to know that there are actually black people around here who listen to ipods as they walk down the street. And look the other way when people are walking toward them. Maybe this is a new phenomenon that occured only since those evil white people moved in. (A few of them even own laptops and frequent cafes!)

You must be seeing the mythical educated middle income black person who doesn't collect food stamps.
You are either kidding, or are the biggest racist in this entire thread.

ishtar

Carnivore wrote:
You are either kidding, or are the biggest racist in this entire thread.

I voted for Obama.

holla peno

thread shark jumped.

pwaltman_1972

Subject: Re: MHA is a Racist?

MHA wrote: So, call me a racist, call me hateful all you want. It's easier to call me a racist but not to illustrate my racism. It's easier to say I'm hateful, but not to show me the hate. Notice, I have not done that to the naysayers here. And trust me whitefolks, when you walk down the streets, take great comfort in the notion that when we Black-volk see you, the general feeling about our perceptions of the conglomerated 'you' are in my words. They are; I've taken a poll.
As the great Bob Marley said, "The truth is an offense, but not a sin."

To paraphrase the crux of your original argument, you argued "I'm not racist, but you [white] people should stay where you belong." Specifically, you asked both "Why can't you white progressive types keep your lily asses in Manhattan?" and "You guys have Park Slope now; why not stay there?"

How would you react to a white person telling a black person that they can't or shouldn't move south of 125th street in Manhattan, Westchester, Brooklyn Heights, or as you argue, Park Slope?

Before you answer, I don't deny that there's a long history of institutional racism, and while I don't know for certain, I have little doubt that Crown Heights (along with Bed-Stuy) was redlined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining) during the 60's, 70s and 80s, and likely continues (or the effects of which continue) to this day.

However, I take serious exception to the argument that "black people can't be racist" as it defines racism as being racial intolerance which is institutionally supported. First, that definition is a fairly technical and more importantly, academic one which has only recently been in vogue in academia w/in the last 15-20 years. In essence, it's an attempt to redefine a word, that has been used colloquially for far longer, and I would argue continues to be used by the overwhelming majority of the population to mean bigotry or bias motivated by race. If it wasn't, then why did both parkplace and Holla Peno need to (re-)define it? I also didn't see MHA arguing he wasn't "prejudiced" in his second post - he explicitly stated "I'm not racist." Interestingly - and tellingly - neither parkplace, nor Holla Peno chose to correct him (i.e. "Well, actually, because you're black, you can't be racist but only prejudiced but evidently, you're not that either").

For that reason, I think it's a pretty dangerous re-definition b/c without it or without a clear understanding of the definition, it can easily be misinterpreted to excuse biases w/in the black community.

And, yes, MHA, to behave in a manner or make statements that you would consider racist, if committed or stated by someone who was white, is, yes, racist even when that person is black.

And, just because there are a bunch of folks who might agree with you, that doesn't change that fact. If it did, by similar logic, you're arguing that racist sentiments held by white Teabaggers are valid just because there are a lot of them as well.

That said, MHA, your stories of the institutional disregard for this neighborhood and your attempts to improve it disgust me. There's no way that should be happening. Perhaps you can join the crowhill community group that Capt. planet mentioned, since there is strength in numbers. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to get involved, and as a PhD student about to finish, I may not be staying in the city much past a year either way.

One last question, though, why is so much of your anger focused on the white residents (newcomers or old) who you feel disrespect their neighbors, and not on black residents who behave similarly, i.e. like those you mentioned who throw their diapers out the window (also f'ing disgusting)?

mha

Subject: The Genry, The Sundry and the Kneejerkers

This is a conversation that could never end, and I am reluctant to proceed. For one thing, I never said that it was impossible for Black people to be racist. I said I wasn't a racist. If by racist you mean a hatred for people based upon the color of their skin, then I would vociferously disagree with any who call me a racist. In my initial statement I made reference to the white people moving in; I did so to 'cut to the chase.' The bottomline is that the folks who are leaving the neighborhood are predominantly Black, and the folks moving in are predominantly white. When ALL of you proclaim that the neighborhood is 'being gentrified' the ostensible argument here is that there is a class change occurring, but what has always been a persistent element in that class change is a racial change as well. We might all ignore this fact, but be that as it may, when I speak to the folks who have been living here for quite some time, they don't say the gentry are moving in, they say the White folks are moving it. And if you want to dot i's and cross t's and say, 'well, we need to look at it from a socioeconomic perspective,' the response you get will be the colloquial equivalent to 'balderdash!'.
As far as Black people being racist, white folks let me tell you something: nobody hates Black people more than Black people. It's a sad truth.
That being said, I will -- and I think I have -- admit to prejudice here. I did 'pre-judge' in the strict meaning of the word, and yeah, there is a great deal of contempt when I talk about two-faced obama voting whitevolk who croon about saving the planet with green-speak, but not wanting to do the colored folk the favor of keeping the neighborhood Black by not moving in. This was an attempt at humor that fell flat; these are words better spoken than written, I suppose. And yeah, it frustrates tme to no end to see cops walking up and down Franklin Avenue ensuring the safety of the 'gentry' while all of my 311 calls to the cops about the weedspot on my block go unheeded; and now that the bohemian 'gentry' who love to say 'hey bro' to me are frequenting the weed spot on my block, I am sure that absolutely nothing will be done about it.

There is this sense that it's this new breed of folk who have impelled the market change in the neighborhood, and I am positive that there is some truth to that, but I am telling you my white - uh -gentry brothers and sisters, that having lived in neighborhoods that have been predominantly black -- uh -- non-gentrified -- before, there is a distinct relationship between the value accorded to the people living there, and what services make their way in. I don't expect any of you to understand. I mentioned in an earlier text that there was bias accorded to the proprietors who owned the bar on Franklin Avenue that has been subject to police intervention, yet when the tenants of the brownstone that abuts Franklin Park have complained about the noise and pollution created by the patrons, their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. So, here is an instance when the gentry are guilty of public nuisance but are treated with kid gloves, while the Black people who frequent the bar on Franklin are given hell all the time.

Tell me oh wonderful members of Crow Hill, have any of you ever gone into that bar to solicit their assistance for neighborhood activity? Have any of you gone into the barber shop and put up posters for Crow Hill meetings? Have any of you gone into the clothing store at the corner of St. John's and Franklin and said, 'hey, we are trying to revitalize our neighborhood...'?
Oh tell me 'gentry', have any of you gone into 95 South on Franklin Avenue? Why not? Pray tell...

sweet tea

as someone who was very excited when 95 south was opening -- i heard there'd be chicken! -- i'll answer the last question:

yes, i have been in. didn't stay or go back for 3 reasons:

1. it's very, very loud, which isn't my style. nothing against it, just not my thing. i don't hang out in the loud half of FP, either. this is the biggest reason we didn't stay/return.

2. got a distinctly weird vibe from the staff. like, being openly stared at. i do think it's because we are white, although whether the staring was shock or hostility, i don't know. granted, this was when they had first opened, and who knows if any of those people even work there anymore?

the owner(?) was very nice when he came to talk to us about why we were leaving (noise, see above). so 50/50 on that one.

3. reports from people i trust that being white was likely to mean getting bad or no service there. can't back that up from personal experience, but i heard this more than once, and not from strangers. it's been a while since i've heard anything about that, so maybe it's all different now.

i'm guessing point #3 will piss you off, but there it is. as i said, point #1 is the main reason.

to your larger point:

i do think you're dodging the question of where those of us who've moved here recently -- which includes you, as i understand it -- are supposed to have gone instead. i like living here, but i moved here 5 years ago because the apartment was the closest to our price range while being in a place convenient to transit, feeling relatively safe, and smelling less like pee than other places we'd looked.

did you consider moving elsewhere so as not to risk displacing the existing community?

cool the kid

Yes MHA, what of the black gentrifiers?

ANY black people who live in the Alma Realty complexes are gentrifiers. Any black people who have moved into the neighborhood in the past couple of years are gentrifiers. And there are a LOT of them. I know many of them. My landlord is a young black lady who bought our building within the past 2-3 years, and besides me, all the tenants are white, and all the tenants, including me, have obviously moved in relatively recently. So why not beef with the enabling landlords? A black family bought the brownstone next to us and I'm certain the rents they're charging would only be attainable to the demographic you take issue with...

As others said, your attitude is no different from racist white people who tell minorities to "go back to where they came from". Yet you yourself have added to the problem you speak out against. What part of that makes any sense?

Why are black gentrifiers (like yourself) OK, but whites not OK?

karl the druid

Cool The Kid wrote: Yes MHA, what of the black gentrifiers?

blipster americans?

whynot_31

buppies?

bklyn50

Interesting. Seeing as how clayfilms is my dauthter, I can speak to the "Sesame Street" characterization.
She was raised by parents who grew up in Crown Heights/BedStuy and had a sense of community. Adults spoke to youth (back in the day) w/o fear of retribution. That was because adults hadn't bought into a sense of anomie. Respect was something that adults commanded. As a child, she and her siblings would question whether I or her mother were doing the right thing (read that safe) when we addressed obnoxious, rude, or destructive youth. I am glad that she and her siblings have reached adulthood and are carrying on with a sense of common respect for their community. They give and love their fellow human beings.

They are also involved in sharing their talents with youth; they are not afraid, they just know that some of those young people are incredibly damaged.

The phrase goes, "If I can help somebody on my way, then my living will not be in vain".

Kudos, also, to Captain Planet, He is a very involved community person.

I hope all of you who took the time to write are just as involved with (y)our community board, or precinct council meetings, or religious organization, or that you coach or mentor young people.
Not every young person has picked a responsible parent to be born to.
Yeah, I know it is not your fault.

whynot_31

One's upbringing can only be blamed (or credited) for so long. But, yea, some never overcome it

whatchuwant

sweet tea wrote:
3. reports from people i trust that being white was likely to mean getting bad or no service there. can't back that up from personal experience, but i heard this more than once, and not from strangers. it's been a while since i've heard anything about that, so maybe it's all different now.

i'm guessing point #3 will piss you off, but there it is. as i said, point #1 is the main reason.

#3 happened to me and Alafairnadia. It was pretty bad getting ignored for 15 minutes, our money in hand, only to have the bartender look right over our heads to help the black dude behind us who hadn't even been there for a minute. HOWEVER- I can't fully say that it was ONLY because we were white. The two bartenders were young ladies who had their ta ta's hanging out, so I think we were partially ignored because we weren't the kind to appreciate said ta ta's. We wanted booze, not boobs.

mha

Oy!

park place

Subject: Re: Jane Jacobs

CLAYFILMS wrote: ON BAD BEHIND KIDS IN THE HOOD
“Impersonal city streets make anonymous people, and this is not a matter of aesthetic quality nor of a mystical emotional effect in architectural scale.”

ON TRANSIENT GENTRIFIERS
"High rent tenants most of whom are so transient we cannot even keep track of tier faces, have not the remotest idea of who takes care of their street, or how. A city neighborhood can absorb and protest a substantial number oif these birds of passage as our neighborhood does. But if and when a neighborhood finally becomes them, they will gradually find he streets less secure, they will be vaguely mystified about it, and if things get bad enough they will drift away to another neighborhood which is mysteriously safer."

-The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

This lady is a genius. I so wish she was the mayor of NYC right now.
Anyone else on here read her stuff?

“Impersonal city streets make anonymous people, and this is not a matter of aesthetic quality nor of a mystical emotional effect in architectural scale.”

What on earth does that mean???

I hate to disagree but if this person was a genius, she would write in a manner that is absolutely clear and specific. I have NO IDEA what that means!

park place

Subject: Re: Jane Jacobs

CLAYFILMS wrote: ON BAD BEHIND KIDS IN THE HOOD
“Impersonal city streets make anonymous people, and this is not a matter of aesthetic quality nor of a mystical emotional effect in architectural scale.”

ON TRANSIENT GENTRIFIERS
"High rent tenants most of whom are so transient we cannot even keep track of tier faces, have not the remotest idea of who takes care of their street, or how. A city neighborhood can absorb and protest a substantial number oif these birds of passage as our neighborhood does. But if and when a neighborhood finally becomes them, they will gradually find he streets less secure, they will be vaguely mystified about it, and if things get bad enough they will drift away to another neighborhood which is mysteriously safer."

-The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

This lady is a genius. I so wish she was the mayor of NYC right now.
Anyone else on here read her stuff?

“Impersonal city streets make anonymous people, and this is not a matter of aesthetic quality nor of a mystical emotional effect in architectural scale.”

What on earth does that mean???

I hate to disagree but if this person was a genius, she would write in a manner that is absolutely clear and specific. I have NO IDEA what that means!

park place

Subject: Re: Gentrification, the 'Gentry', and the Lay-Folk They Supp

MHA wrote: I've been living on Sterling Place for nearly three years and in that time I've seen a marked change in the neighborhood. Namely, there are more white people. Also, some things have remained the same, like the dudes who sell marijuana nearby, and the police's obvious awareness of it, but either tolerance or indifference towards the selling. I've thought long and hard about these changes, and lack thereof. For instance, there are more services nearby - a 24 hour grocery store on Franklin and St. John's, but the prices for that convenience rival anything you will find in Manhattan. The folk who have been living in the neighborhood longer than I rarely frequent that store. There's also Bristen's on Franklin, and again, here is another place that the folk who have been living around the neighborhood almost never go to. A recent addition has been two new coffee shops on Franklin Avenue, and again, what you find are the young white bohemian-types going there with nifty thin laptops and their expensive grunge looks sitting, and sipping coffee. You almost never see any Black people in these places. I wonder why? Let me add one more place to the mix: Franklin Park -- a twin bar lounge on St. John's. It's disproportionately white.
I have to admit I get really angry when I see this. There is a great sense of frustration because Black people are yet again being pushed out by other folk (the gentry) who can afford to pay higher prices. Now, I assume that these younger folk with fatter pockets are the 'progressive' types. But here is the irony: White progressives who have access to better jobs in the marketplace because of white privilege are doing more harm to Black people than any conservative ever will. Why can't you white progressive types keep your lily asses in Manhattan? Your progressive rhetoric sounds so hollow given the effect on the realty marketplace your economic choices have. If you sense an antagonism from the Black people who live around here it's because of this. You come in here with your smiles and your well-meaning attitudes about saving the planet, making it green, and all of that ego-fodder, but in reality you are making the world worse for most people. You truly are. If you want to make a better world, in addition to reducing your carbon-footprint, why not reduce your gentry-footprint as well? Realise that you got your job because of your connections, and be 'historically responsible'. Make a commitment not to despoil the Black ecosystem with your fat pocket. You guys have Park Slope now; why not stay there? Do you realize the damage you cause with every apartment you take in Brooklyn? Where are Black pelople going to go? You ever think about that? No, you don't. And that's why I can't stand most of you. Not because you're white, but because most of you are hypocrites, and you express your white progressive spiel for the same reason women wear makeup: to cover flaws and enhance your look. You probably voted for Obama and you let everyone know that you did.

MHA, interesting perspective but that is not how things operate in a society that is self leveling, free market based and capitalistic in nature. Never did, never will.

Also, please consider another viewpoint; in the early 1970's, the whites left in what was called the "white flight." The black who moved into the neighborhood destroyed it. They absolutely crushed it and it is just beginning to return to a desirable condition. You might not like that fact but it is the reality of the situation.

park place

Subject: Re: Gentrification, the 'Gentry', and the Lay-Folk They Supp

MHA wrote: I've been living on Sterling Place for nearly three years and in that time I've seen a marked change in the neighborhood. Namely, there are more white people. Also, some things have remained the same, like the dudes who sell marijuana nearby, and the police's obvious awareness of it, but either tolerance or indifference towards the selling. I've thought long and hard about these changes, and lack thereof. For instance, there are more services nearby - a 24 hour grocery store on Franklin and St. John's, but the prices for that convenience rival anything you will find in Manhattan. The folk who have been living in the neighborhood longer than I rarely frequent that store. There's also Bristen's on Franklin, and again, here is another place that the folk who have been living around the neighborhood almost never go to. A recent addition has been two new coffee shops on Franklin Avenue, and again, what you find are the young white bohemian-types going there with nifty thin laptops and their expensive grunge looks sitting, and sipping coffee. You almost never see any Black people in these places. I wonder why? Let me add one more place to the mix: Franklin Park -- a twin bar lounge on St. John's. It's disproportionately white.
I have to admit I get really angry when I see this. There is a great sense of frustration because Black people are yet again being pushed out by other folk (the gentry) who can afford to pay higher prices. Now, I assume that these younger folk with fatter pockets are the 'progressive' types. But here is the irony: White progressives who have access to better jobs in the marketplace because of white privilege are doing more harm to Black people than any conservative ever will. Why can't you white progressive types keep your lily asses in Manhattan? Your progressive rhetoric sounds so hollow given the effect on the realty marketplace your economic choices have. If you sense an antagonism from the Black people who live around here it's because of this. You come in here with your smiles and your well-meaning attitudes about saving the planet, making it green, and all of that ego-fodder, but in reality you are making the world worse for most people. You truly are. If you want to make a better world, in addition to reducing your carbon-footprint, why not reduce your gentry-footprint as well? Realise that you got your job because of your connections, and be 'historically responsible'. Make a commitment not to despoil the Black ecosystem with your fat pocket. You guys have Park Slope now; why not stay there? Do you realize the damage you cause with every apartment you take in Brooklyn? Where are Black pelople going to go? You ever think about that? No, you don't. And that's why I can't stand most of you. Not because you're white, but because most of you are hypocrites, and you express your white progressive spiel for the same reason women wear makeup: to cover flaws and enhance your look. You probably voted for Obama and you let everyone know that you did.

MHA, interesting perspective but that is not how things operate in a society that is self leveling, free market based and capitalistic in nature. Never did, never will.

Also, please consider another viewpoint; in the early 1970's, the whites left in what was called the "white flight." The black who moved into the neighborhood destroyed it. They absolutely crushed it and it is just beginning to return to a desirable condition. You might not like that fact but it is the reality of the situation.

clayfilms

Subject:

Park Place wrote: Also, please consider another viewpoint; in the early 1970's, the whites left in what was called the "white flight." The black who moved into the neighborhood destroyed it. They absolutely crushed it and it is just beginning to return to a desirable condition. You might not like that fact but it is the reality of the situation.

hey park place,

i must humbly disagree...and apologize in advance for the horrible grammar that is about to follow.

black people lived, raised families and worked in nyc before the 1970's..my grandparents (and many other african americans and caribbean americans came to crown heights after WWII..back when you could buy a mink coat on nostrand ave..lol).

also white flight in NYC started in the 1950's (not the 1970's) and was a result of racist policies born out the federal housing administration that offered subsidized mortgages that enabled millions of white nyc residents (of all classes) to purchase homes in the surrounding suburbs (peep long island) and flee the inner cities. these mortgages weren't offered to working class or poor black or hispanic NYC residents..lol

ironically, just a decade or so later, advances in the civil rights movement reduced suburban housing discrimination, allowing middle and upper class african americans (they did exist) to relocate to the suburbs as well.

as a result of this suburban flight, the remaining inner city-african american & hispanic communities lost a solid economic base...

now add to that the reality that between 1970-1985 tens of thousands of manufacturing (blue collar) jobs leaving NYC causing unemployment among the same working class communities to skyrocket (ex: restoration plaza on fulton st. used to be a milk factory..now you have a bunch of businesses that don't pay their employees a living wage)

then add to that welfare (which penalized people for working and rewarded them for having babies out of wedlock) and the advent of crack cocaine in the 1980's..and you have the perfect recipe for a economically, underemployed brooklyn neighborhood.

now i'm not making excuses for the bad decisions of (black) individuals who live in crown heights but what happens when you cram historically oppressed m uneducated, unemployed, relatively young human beings into housing project (built by robert moses and protested by my homie jane jacobs), take away the economic tax base, provide them with inferior education, health care and then pay them not to work? are you really surprised that we see violent crime, broken families, and drug trafficking?

worse yet, we end up with nihilism (which affects the wealthy and poor) because the broken social systems (racism, classism, sexism etc..) in inner cities do serious damage to people's worldviews. the nihilistic worldviews that you see in crown heights coupled with the broken systems that you see at work affect each other.

the answer? well i believe it's in my avatar..but that's another thread..

for a variety of historic and contemporary reasons , ghetto residents are embedded in system that are distinctly different from that of mainstream society. some of the systems are of their own making (out of wedlock children, substance abuse) but many of them are not. the irony of this entire thread is that b/c of the state of the economy that members of mainstream society are forced to live with ghetto residents even though they deal with different sets of societal systems.

i think a healthy starting point is to address the broken people and the broken systems and not just blame one or the other.

whatchuwant

Very well said, Clay.