Another Weekend In Chicago, 7 Dead, 40 Wounded

[Buster Bluth]

What are the codified racist banking policies?

Redlining. I'm on my phone and can't link my previous post relating to Baltimore, but it's all the same. In 1934 the federal government graded every neighborhood in the country based on the safety of investment, since they decided to back lending with the US Treasury in response to the great depression. Things like building quality, income levels, and race were taken into account. In short, they were openly racist, unapologetically grading black neighborhoods with the lowest possible grade and neighborhoods with just a handful of blacks as "at risk." They didn't back lending in these places until 1968.

Simultaneously they subsidized 91% of the freeway costs that allowed whites to move to the suburbs. Thus resulting in imploding cities and school systems for everyone who didnt get out. Those two policies destroyed every inner city in the country.

 

[wizards8507]

Redlining. I'm on my phone and can't link my previous post relating to Baltimore, but it's all the same. In 1934 the federal government graded every neighborhood in the country based on the safety of investment, since they decided to back lending with the US Treasury in response to the great depression. Things like building quality, income levels, and race were taken into account. In short, they were openly racist, unapologetically grading black neighborhoods with the lowest possible grade and neighborhoods with just a handful of blacks as "at risk." They didn't back lending in these places until 1968.

Solution: get the government out of the lending game and banks will lend based on actual, quantifiable risk. Lending models don't see race. This may seem like a nitpick, but it's important. What the feds did wan't anti-black as much as pro-white. It's not that they harmed blacks, but they unjustly enriched whites. It's equally wrong and equally racist, but it tells us that the solution is to STOP doing the unjust enrichment, not to START unjustly enriching everyone.

Simultaneously they subsidized 91% of the freeway costs that allowed whites to move to the suburbs. Thus resulting in imploding cities and school systems for everyone who didnt get out. Those two policies destroyed every inner city in the country.

That has nothing to do with race. Black people are just as free to use the interstate highway system to move out to the suburbs as white people are.

 

[Voltaire]

White Americans, why do you spend so much of your energy subjugating and impoverishing the African American community at large while simultaneously deciding to allow Asian Americans to have 24% higher average household income than your own white households?

 

[ACamp1900]

White Americans, why do you spend so much of your energy subjugating and impoverishing the African American community at large while simultaneously deciding to allow Asian Americans to have 24% higher average household income than your own white households?

Whites are just evil and dumb I guess...

 

[wizards8507]

White Americans, why do you spend so much of your energy subjugating and impoverishing the African American community at large while simultaneously deciding to allow Asian Americans to have 24% higher average household income than your own white households?

You know what's funny, I can't recall doing any subjugating in my time on Earth. I also can't recall voting for Asian Americans to make more money than me. But hey... I'm young yet!

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[pkt77242]

Solution: get the government out of the lending game and banks will lend based on actual, quantifiable risk. Lending models don't see race. This may seem like a nitpick, but it's important. What the feds did wan't anti-black as much as pro-white. It's not that they harmed blacks, but they unjustly enriched whites. It's equally wrong and equally racist, but it tells us that the solution is to STOP doing the unjust enrichment, not to START unjustly enriching everyone.


That has nothing to do with race. Black people are just as free to use the interstate highway system to move out to the suburbs as white people are.

You have seen how many large banks have been sued in recent years over discriminatory lending practices. Let's see off the top of my head, there is Wells Fargo, Bank of America (because of their purchase of Countrywide), and a few smaller banks (Deutche bank, Evans bank, M&T, etc). Also plenty of other large banks have been sued (JPMorganChase got their lawsuit thrown out, and I believe that Citibank was sued as well but I don't know how it turned it out). That is just ones of the top of my head.

The problem is that while risk models might not see race, the loan officers dealing with the clients do, and in the run-up to our economy imploding in 2008, banks were screwing minorities, sometimes by putting them in subprime loans when they qualified for a regular loan, sometimes by charging them more fees, etc.

 

[kmoose]

Redlining. I'm on my phone and can't link my previous post relating to Baltimore, but it's all the same. In 1934 the federal government graded every neighborhood in the country based on the safety of investment, since they decided to back lending with the US Treasury in response to the great depression. Things like building quality, income levels, and race were taken into account. In short, they were openly racist, unapologetically grading black neighborhoods with the lowest possible grade and neighborhoods with just a handful of blacks as "at risk." They didn't back lending in these places until 1968.

Simultaneously they subsidized 91% of the freeway costs that allowed whites to move to the suburbs. Thus resulting in imploding cities and school systems for everyone who didnt get out. Those two policies destroyed every inner city in the country.

Really? Portland, OR and Seattle, WA have vibrant inner cities. And, according to your own facts, the government has been backing lending in these areas for almost 50 years, so how long can people keep using lack of investment as an excuse?

 

[IrishLax]

Buster always on that Urbanism kick...

 

[Buster Bluth]

Solution: get the government out of the lending game and banks will lend based on actual, quantifiable risk. Lending models don't see race.

If you're okay with going back to 50% down mortgages. The government's involvement in mortgages lending has made it affordable for most, whether that's a good thing or not is an interesting discussion.

Lending models do see race when races are significantly poorer/richer than others. The federal government wasn't going out of its way to be racist, it was simply codifying the practices of the private sector.

This may seem like a nitpick, but it's important. What the feds did wasn't anti-black as much as pro-white. It's not that they harmed blacks, but they unjustly enriched whites. It's equally wrong and equally racist, but it tells us that the solution is to STOP doing the unjust enrichment, not to START unjustly enriching everyone.

I'm having a hard time seeing the policy of "Black people around? Yes? SHUT IT DOWN. LENDING OVER." as fitting in with your view.

I think you have a point though, that the government was trying to encourage as much suburban development as possible to create jobs and tax revenue, so they weren't racist in their intent. It was just the effect of the federal government stepping on its own dick.

That has nothing to do with race. Black people are just as free to use the interstate highway system to move out to the suburbs as white people are.

You're being too simplistic. For starters, the FHA refused to back mixed-race suburban subdivisions. So the only opportunity for blacks to move to the suburbs was in an all-black subdivision. Chances of developers borrowing money to make that happen: not good.

At the same time, this was perfectly legal until 1968, and practically ubiquitous in suburbia:

It wasn't even illegal to restrict homeowners from renting to blacks. You could own your own property and not be allowed to rent to blacks because of subdivision policy. That was common. You're position tells me blacks didn't move to the suburbs because...they didn't want to? There's a reason we have a term called "White Flight." To say it had nothing to do with race is kinda silly.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Really? Portland, OR and Seattle, WA have vibrant inner cities.

Good point. Five cities completely or partially defeated expressway construction: New York (Manhattan), San Fransisco, Portland, Seattle, and to a lesser extent Denver. You kinda proved my point. Pretty funny too considering modern planning can be summed up as "hey how do we be more like these places?" This is like having a conversation with an OSU fan and he says "The Big Ten sucks..." and you say "No, OSU is really good." haha

It's probably worth noting that if my position is redlining affecting blacks and you give me the two prominent cities closest to Alaska, well I just don't know what to say. A whopping 1% of Seattle's population was black in 1940, I imagine Portland was similar.

You you got me on "every," a few made it through alive and well.

And, according to your own facts, the government has been backing lending in these areas for almost 50 years, so how long can people keep using lack of investment as an excuse?

The difference between a reason and an excuse is your opinion of it. I can't change that. I'm just trying to get a more accurate discussion of how they got there, as an addendum to another post. I am not saying redlining is the reason ghettos continue to be awful. Of course that's not the case.

I don't think it's making excuses if I point out all of the things white America had going for it in the 20th century and ask if black America also got to enjoy those fruits. GI Bill (read: opportunity to join a nascent college-educated middle class)? Barely. Suburbanization (read: moving to a crime-free city with adequate schools and superior opportunity)? Barely. Dominating the world in manufacturing with blue collar jobs that could raise a family and send kids to college? Barely.

I mean, at what point has the field been equal in reality? The post I responded to already admitted that poverty was systemic. I guess I'm just elaborating on that system.

Let me guess, it boils down to personal responsibility instead? It's easily the worse card in the deck. You can use it on anything. It's a copout from thinking. Factory closed down and you lost your pension? Should have had some personal responsibility and gotten an education when you had the chance. Grew up the youngest of four to a mother who had you at 19 and lived in the ghetto where you went to a high school with an average ACT of 15 and didn't make it out? Personal responsibility, shoulda had it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Buster always on that Urbanism kick...

Let's just say I'm of the opinion that the country is only as strong as its states, which are only as strong as its cities, which are only as strong as its neighborhoods. I think every national issue can and should be viewed on human and neighborhood scales.

 

[kmoose]

Those two policies destroyed every inner city in the country.

Those are your words, right? I mean, that's a pretty demonstrative statement. All I did was point out two inner cities that have done, and are doing, quite well.

 

[Wild Bill]

the good guy with a gun... If only there were more guns.....whatever the framing is ...the use of guns in Self defense is so small as to be considered negligible compared to other uses of guns in crimes. It's literally less than 1 percent.

Yes, but how much crime would it deter? Not sure we can estimate that number. I'm not a gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. I grew up with them but I haven't had one in my house for the last decade. I've lived in a high rise and never felt threatened enough to jump through the hoops here to own one. My feelings would be completely different, however, if I lived in a walk up. I wouldn't feel safe without a gun. Hell, even with a gun I wouldn't feel very safe which is probably why I live in a high rise. There has been an increase in crime in the historically safe neighborhoods of the city. I think the criminals have figured it out - we're easy targets. Law abiding citizens are unarmed and the CPD does not immediately respond to emergency calls for robbery, burglary, etc. Criminals know, with relative certainty, they will face no resistance from unarmed citizens and CPD has no chance of catching them without immediately responding.

I don't want to be the good guy with a gun. I just want to protect myself and my home.

See I love this but it puzzles me why conservatives of all people leave out criticizing the federal government here too. They are the ones who codified racist banking policies that basically eliminated any sort of investment in these neighborhoods. They are the ones who refused to back mixed-race suburban developments, thus essentially locking blacks in imploding neighborhoods. And then when they predictably imploded and became fatherless drug havens, they didn't act to solve the problem but to create a drug war that guaranteed millions would be unemployable via felonies, not to mention the black market drug trade that serves to empower the very gangs they supposedly oppose. Where are those points?

I didn't leave them out b/c I felt their hands are clean.