Gentrification

Gentrify!

No matter what you do, modern liberals will tell you you're wrong.

|

For decades, liberals complained that American society is segregated because rich, white people don't want to live in ethnically-mixed neighborhoods. Sometimes, liberals had a point. 

From the 1930s to 1960s, as rich white people moved into New York City, urban planner Robert Moses got city bureaucrats to condemn and destroy busy black neighborhoods. The city called the neighborhoods "blighted" and moved many of the poor into rent-subsidized apartment complexes called "projects." Many quickly became slums.

Now times have changed. Some rich, white people want to move into poorer, non-white neighborhoods because they like diversity (and cheaper real estate). So today the newcomers are attacked by liberals because they cause "gentrification." 

Movie director Spike Lee, who lives in Brooklyn, said gentrifiers behave almost like "Columbus and kill off the Native Americans." Of course, the new gentrifiers don't actually kill anyone, but because their arrival often leads to rising real estate values, critics complain that they drive poor people out of the neighborhood.

Two women in Brooklyn got so angry about it, they pulled out a gun, forced two white people out of an apartment and moved in (they were later arrested). 

Columbia urban planning professor Stacey Sutton calls gentrification a "manifestation of inequality" that may "fundamentally alter the culture and character of the neighborhood" in ways that hurt the poor. 

Yet her own school did something worse. Columbia colluded with politicians to use eminent domain law to take pieces of the Harlem neighborhood that surrounds Columbia. In court, the school argued that it had the right to take neighbors' land because it would "benefit West Harlem." 

Who owns the land is something that ought to be decided not by government but by free people making their own decisions about where they wish to live. When gentrification happens that way, spontaneously, price rises are often accompanied by drops in crime, new job opportunities and better connections to the rest of the culture. What the left calls "gentrification" is often called "improvement" by people who live there.

Another Columbia urban planning professor, Lance Freeman, found to his surprise that gentrification didn't even mean significant displacement of the previous population. In his book "There Goes the 'Hood," Freeman writes, "poor residents and those without a college education were actually less likely to move if they resided in gentrifying neighborhoods." 

That's because gentrification often means the neighborhood gets safer and more interesting. That's something the old residents enjoy as much as new ones. 

The Economist reports that a 2008 study of census data found "no evidence of displacement of low-income non-white households in gentrifying neighborhoods" and found that black incomes "soared" in gentrifying neighborhoods. 

That doesn't stop some people—often rich, white liberals—from complaining that gentrification destroys the quaintness of the neighborhood. They sound almost like the people who think that the developing world should never be sullied by modern technology. Actually, sometimes the same people make both arguments. 

In San Francisco, some longtime residents got so angry about Google employees moving in that they surrounded Google employee shuttle buses, waving protest signs. 

It's a fight between hippies and tech geeks, with the hippies calling for regulations to prevent change. Such regulations have perverse effects, however. They lead to long waits for building permits and subsidies for housing that end up getting used by the well-connected and rich. 

When regulation makes it harder to build or to alter old buildings, the effect is higher costs and reduced choices, which only makes things harder for the poor. Regulation saves some old things people like, but those people will never even know what new things they missed out on. 

If nothing like gentrification ever happened in the world, we all still would be living in the same caves our ancestors lived in thousands of years ago. I say, let free people keep transforming the neighborhood. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Ben Carson Loses Murdoch Primary; Says Favorite Treasury Secretary Was 'Andrea Mitchell's husband'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This wouldn’t help renters, but if you improve the real estate value of your neighborhood, how is that hurting the natives?

    Again, I get that it makes rent a lot more expensive, which doesn’t help the poor who don’t own homes. But are renters “natives?”

    1. Well, at a minimum, people are going to see their property taxes go up. Even if you don’t fix up your own home, the value of the lot will increase anyway.

      So, if you’re on a fixed income say and your property tax doubles, that can make it too expensive to live in your own home.

      1. Except in California where we voted prop 13 in that prevents the state from raising property taxes in order to steal the property from the owner.

        1. Property taxes are calculated based on a percentage of the the value of the property. So, it doesn’t matter if California voted in prop 13. When the value goes of the property goes up, the taxes go up.

          1. Yes, but under prop 13 they are capped to rise only so much…until the property sells. Prop 13 is most beneficial to people who have owned their house for a long time, as the amount the locality can raise their property taxes is very limited. So what you’ll see is an area where the older couple who have owned their house for 20 years have a surprisingly low property tax bill, but the young couple who just bought there have a correspondingly much higher assessment. It’s typical for assessors to assess newly sold houses for a way the fuck more than they were before they were sold to try and make up for the “lost” revenue from the prop 13 houses.

            Basically, one of the effects of prop 13 is to, once again, like social security, transfer money from the young to the old. Don’t get me wrong–at least prop 13 slows the government down a little in terms of property tax rape–but it tends to benefit the older and more well established over the young, as is so often the case.

            1. FYI, Florida has the same thing. AND, a few years ago, it became “portable.” You can carry your cap with you if you buy another house within a certain timeframe (primary residence only).

            2. Yes to all of this. Prop. 13 also allows an exemption when property is transferred from parent to child (or grandparent to grandchild), so you see a tendency for people to keep inherited houses and rent them rather than sell.

            3. Is the dollar amount it can go up capped, or is it the percentage? The politicians can probably find a way around it If it’s the percentage that’s capped. The Texas State legislature passed some property tax relief measures a few years ago. Then a year or two later, localities started upping their property valuations to make up the difference. Maybe California’s is different though since it was a ballot initiative.

              Beyond the pols figuring a way around it, I would be concerned with the distortion of the market that has/will come about because of such a policy. Like @The Heresiarch| said. People are going to hold onto their property, which will decrease the supply and cause the value to go up even more (Lather, rinse, repeat).

              1. Dude, give it up: You don’t know CA tax laws. Just google prop 13 and you’ll see what it allows. It’s very simple: the tax is 1% off the sales price and can only increase 2% per year. It’s only reassessed when it gets sold. And no, they can’t find ways around it because it’s in the state constitution. It’ll be a cold day in hell when voters overturn it…or at least long after I’m gone.
                Can CA fuck me in other ways? Of course! Which is why I’ll be leaving CA as soon as my kids complete college.

                1. Oh shit. In case I’m not clear. If the property sold for $1 million, the tax is $10,000 per year. The $10k can only increase by 2% per year.

                  1. @Jimbo:

                    Don’t forget, that’s for the general, ad volorem rate. There can be additional ad volorem and fixed amounts of assessments that were passed by 2/3rds of the voters.

                    My CA property taxes have never been just 1%. Parks, sewers and some other voter approved, bonded indebtedness have been added on top. Albeit those are much less than 1%.

                    I’d paste a sample here – a picture is worth 1,000 words – but Reason won’t let me. 🙂

                    So, I’ll summarize:

                    My 1%, statewide ad volorem tax is $2,032.21. That’s based on a purchase price from 1982, accelerated by 2% per year since purchase and no additions added.

                    To that 1%, another 0.1146% is added for various additional assessments: School district, parks, BART.

                    There is another $343.47 in special taxes and assessments for things like trails and parks and some sewer bond charges.

                    Those last two items are for things passed by the voters. They are to self assess. You know? For the public good and all.

                    In the end, my Prop 13 limited taxes are $2,032.21 on this particular property. To that, another $576.65 have been added outside of the state, general rate.

                2. Come to Nevada! No income tax…. But you do occasionally have to put up with the fact that this state is directly responsible for allowing Harry Fucking Reid to wander the halls of congress…

      2. That’s happening to my neighbors, who own, whereas I, a renter, am getting kicked out by my landlord. At least they will get a couple of million; I’m just going to get the boot. So there is a certain amount of self-interest in my aversion to gentrification. Outside of that, though, I don’t like the aesthetics much. You’ve seen one hipster, you’ve seen them all.

      3. And property taxes are imposed by the local governments… So really, it’s the government demanding money from the poor, not “rich honkeys” who just moved in next door.

    2. But are renters “natives?”

      Why wouldn’t they be?

      1. By it’s very nature, renters are usually short term occupiers.

        “Natives” as applied to neighborhoods is quite the joke.

        There are blacks in Oakland complaining about gentrification and claiming native status as well. Only 40 years ago, the very neighborhood they’re claiming to be natives of, weren’t black.

        We just left our “native” town of Antioch after more than 30 years there. You see, all that gentrification in SF and Oakland combined with Section 8 housing vouchers caused a reverse gentrification. What was once a pretty white, calm and peaceful suburb became ghetto low life by the “people of color” being gentrified out of those inner cities. I guess we had “ghettoization”. It’s pretty damn sad when you can’t let your kids go to school locally anymore because the thugs are engaging in drive by shootings. Something you once only read about in the paper that happened in the ghettos of the nearby big cities and made you glad you didn’t live there. 🙁 Now, it’s just outside your own doorstep.

        The “natives” in East Contra Costa County would gladly send the poor, gentrified out residents back to where they came from.

        This whole thing with “gentrification” is such a joke.

    3. I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link……… Try it, you won’t regret it!… http://www.wixjob.com

  2. This should go without saying, but eminent domain can suck it. That’s actually much closer to Columbus or colonialism or imperialism. The sub-sub-market value they pay is fairly comparable to glass beads. And if you say no to their “offer,” guns will be involved. So, yeah, basically the same thing.

    So if Spike Lee was referring to that (and I doubt he was) he would have been correct-ish.

    1. In order for eminent domain to exist at all, there has to be a thinking that “our ideas about our city are better than yours, and if you don’t agree with us, we can take your property away from you at the financial terms that we deem worthy.” When framed in this light, I don’t understand how the Kelo v. New London ruling caused such little backlash among the general public.

    2. There are obvious problems with eminent domain from a libertarian perspective. But it is in the constitution. The big problem is it being used for things that are definitely not legitimate public uses like condemning “blighted” properties and selling the land to private institutions and developers. It’s supposed to be for roads and stuff like that with actual public uses.

      1. Eminent domain can really only exist in the Constitution if it is believed that the government is capable of negotiating “just compensation”. For libertarians like myself, that’s a difficult belief to actually hold considering that government can use legal force if you don’t agree to their offer.

      2. It was way back in Berman v. Parker (1954) where SCOTUS decided that “public use” simply means “public purpose.” This lead to Midkiff where good ‘ol Sandra Day O’Connor claimed that all the state needed was a rational, conceivable public purpose for the taking. Kelo was just the icing on the shit cake, holding that “economic development” was a rational public purpose.

        As libertarians fear, “public use” means pretty much whatever your petty local government wants it to mean, at least under the federal Constitution.

        Thankfully, a lot of state constitutions have narrowed the definition of what constitutes “public use,” so the fight isn’t lost.

        1. *when

          *led

        2. Tell that to my farming friends in the San Joaquin Valley whose land is being divided by the high speed rail line. Of course, the state is taking their land using eminent domain.

          The worst part is, it is a partial take. The rail line will effective divide their land in two and prevent access from on new parcel to the other.

          Oh joy. Farming is so damn easy in the first place.

  3. Gentrify, defy, Stosselz a brother with a furious mind. Action must be taken, he don’t need no key, he’ll break in.

    1. Something must be done about vengeance, a badge, and a gun. Because I’ll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system.

  4. I believe that one reason why many modern progressives have issues about “gentrification” is because the very idea of subsidized public housing came directly from their ideological predesessors. I think that the consequences of that central planning create much guilt for many of them. “If only the right urban planners were in place, like us, we could’ve created harmony with the ‘underprivileged’ instead of what we see right now!” In my admittedly tiny world perspective, it seems rare for idealistics to even try to learn from past history, because if they did, the light bulb would’ve gone off a couple of decades ago. Central planning is not the end for these types IMO, it is a mean towards the end of being “the people’s hero”. That worldview needs to change for the light bulb to click.

    1. Yeah, except they don’t feel guilty about it. They just move from one failed idea to a new, soon-to-fail idea, and sometimes they even use the former to justify the latter.

      1. There is that. But while I think the resistance to both white-flight and gentrification is probably just the left’s way to neatly segregate and keep people in their assigned identity boxes, a more conspiratorial person might conclude that it’s also an effective way to gerrymander a voting district without direct legislative action.

    2. They have issues about gentrification because it’s literally their entire shtick to get outraged/”concerned”/whatever about anything they can. They live–literally–for that shit. They are always actively seeking something they can complain about and pretend to “care” about “the downtrodden” or whatever bullshit descriptors they want to use. That’s it. They’ll always find something to bitch about that concerns race, corporations, wealth, the rich, etc.

      It’s how they pretend to themselves that they’re some sort of activist, seeking positive change, while they actually do nothing whatsoever for anyone but themselves.

      1. I always like to mention to people close to me that if your goal is really to be an “activist”, you probably won’t try to yell and scream at every injustice you vaguely hear about. That’s my justification for using the term “SJW” so often to describe these lunch-table progs. Half of the time they have no idea what exactly they’re “angry” about, they just parrot the emotions that their inner circle requires them to do. I generally want to ask if they have opinions of their own, but I know it’s easier not to.

        1. I still dont see how called them Single Jewish Wombats helps anything.

          1. And all this time I was under the delusion it was Silly Jackass Worm. If only I could unseen your comment.

            1. I thought it stood for Secular Jehovah’s Witness.

      2. Hi, I’m Susie. I’m having a poor people awareness party. I just want people to be aware that others out there have it worse than them. You can make a donation to the poor people awareness fund, but it’s totally cool if you can’t.

        1. Susie Creamcheese, honey, what’s got into you?

        2. Hey! You stole SusanM’s line!

      3. Yet another fresh example of this. The bleeding hearts in Unit 7 didn’t want to, oh gosh, give some benefit-sucking deer tick named Bill a room in their new place. No, that’s the heartless, cruel new landlord’s job!

        See, we care so much about the downtrodden that we’re gonna call out someone whose job we think it is to write a check to fix their problems. And if that delegate doesn’t step up and write the check, why, then, the delegate is evil!

        The clue train just never quite pulls into the station for bleeding-heart liberals: if you feel entitled to live in a gentrified area, buy property there. Either your living arrangement is permanent or it’s not. The only way to make it permanent is to buy property where you want to live.

    3. Central planning is not the end for these types IMO,

      I think you are mistaken. It’s ALL about control and any means that can be used will somehow justify the end, no matter how crappy the end is.

      1. In regards to the Top Men of the movement, I agree 100% With you The little SJWs on the Internet are too idealistic IMO to understand the power game, and they likely buy into the “people’s hero” fallacy.

        1. fair enough

    4. the light bulb would’ve gone off a couple of decades ago

      Jane Jacobs, whom most of these types will claim to revere, pointed out exactly what public housing was all about more than 50 years ago. It’s almost like they didn’t actually read the words she wrote.

    5. Well, there’s that. And there is also the fact that those progressives have already moved from their suburban homes into the neighborhood. But, when they do that, they are being very hip and trendy and ironic. It isn’t until the conservatives start moving to the neighborhood that they consider it “gentrification”. Your neighborhood just isn’t cool anymore when the guy with an SUV moves in.

      “Oh, shit. There goes the planet.”

      1. Wait, how is moving into a neighborhood you want to be in “ironic”? Isn’t the whole point of irony is to specifically choose a place that no other hipster would choose to settle in, like say the South Bronx, the NJ suburbs, or Westchester County? Besides that, I completely agree with your assessment.

        1. It’s “ironic” when a Progressive does it.

        2. A hipster moving to a hipster neighborhood in a hipster city isn’t ironic, it’s predictable. Ironic would be moving to Birmingham, Alabama or Plano, Texas or Naples, Florida.

          1. Or Boise, Idaho. Oh wait. Shit. They’re already here! Run away!

            1. It’s only ironic until a certain critical mass moves in. Then it moves into the “predictable” category. One has to be an early-adopter to tick that box.

    6. I don’t think gentrification is much more complicated than the “cool” people wanting something to ridicule. Some New Yorkers claim that they long for the good old days when Times Square was more dangerous.

      I would say that only in America would gentrification (the financial improvement of a neighborhood) be considered a negative, but I’ve read too many articles in the Guardian where gentrification in London is also bemoaned.

  5. No one is more upset about Gentrification than the 20-something Millenial from Wisconsin living in Bushwick.

    Because they’d rather be living in Williamsburg/Greenpoint.

    “We’re not evicting black people *there*!

    they were Polish! And puerto ricans. And probably illegal. Totally different. Also some of them were like, dicks”

    Instead, they live in Bushwick, and they gather together in their $5 cup-of-coffeeshop, and moan about the horrors of Gentrification and the horrible people that are probably coming after they move out.

    1. Even funnier is how the NYT documented the process

    2. While it is utterly evil for too many white people to overrun a black neighborhood, it is both right and proper when Hispanic immigrants do the same thing.

      http://www.city-journal.org/20…..ation.html

      1. it is both right and proper when Hispanic immigrants do the same thing.

        The entire article refutes this statement. Unless that is sarc, then you did good.

        1. I forgot the sarc tags. My point was that no one ever talks about it when black neighborhoods turn over into Hispanic ones. The loss of a black neighborhood only seems to be an issue when evil white people move in.

          1. It’s certainly not an issue when a black neighborhood is eminent domained and destroyed to make room for a stadium or something like that.

            1. Hell no. That is just good government.

            2. This, to me, is one of the biggest errors Milton Freidman ever made, i.e. he called the Interstate highway system a rare government success. But, in my opinion, he failed to consider the hidden costs. I’m familiar with Tampa, but look at a lot of other cities where an interstate highway cuts right through a black neighborhood, not only splitting it in two and thus disrupting local transportation, but adding an incredible amount of noise, etc. which further hurts property values.

              1. In my hometown the Interstate is a ring that was plowed all the way around the downtown – destroying large parts of it and turning half of the rest into parking lots. The only thing left is government offices, some cultural stuff, and a few straggling corporate headquarters.

          2. White people moving out = bad
            White people moving in = bad
            White people = BAD

            Any questions?

            1. Is that a Common Core question?

              1. Yes. Now explain the minimum number of 3/5 person which are required to have only whole persons, using friendly numbers.

                1. I refuse to answer this question because fractions make me feel sad.

                2. 3/5, dude? Way to trigger ALL the black people.

              2. It’s a math problem.

                1. It’s a mathematical aggression.

            2. So, White people staying put = good ?

          3. John, that depends on who is “taking issue.” If you’re saying no one within the white, liberal community talks about this you’d be correct. Within the black community there is significant issue taken with neighborhoods becoming more “brown.”

            1. I mean white liberals who constantly bitch about gentrification when it involves white people. Yes, black people are not happy about it. But that doesn’t matter since their white overseers on the Prog plantation don’t see it as a problem.

              1. *nodding aggressively*

          4. Well it only seems to be a problem to white liberals. There definitely is tension here in Houston as the Hispanic community has grown and the black community has remained the same. The black Dem politicians care as well. Despite what she might say otherwise, Sheila Jackson-Lee and her allies work with Republicans on gerrymandering to make her district as black as possible at the expense of hispanics. It certainly isn’t a coincidence that of the three Dem congresspeople in Houston two are black and none are hispanic despite the demographics suggesting otherwise.

            1. Yeah, I looked at our demographic statistics (probably in a Chronicle article) the other month and thought the same thing. Even accounting for the fact that we are the number one destination for illegal immigrants from Central America it strikes me as odd that there are so few Hispanics in the political establishment. I haven’t been here that long though so I may be wrong.

            2. The Hispanic liberals in LA consider gentrification to be a problem.

          5. I forgot the sarc tags.

            I thought that was the case. See what happens when I actually work, my sarc meter needs recalibrated.

          6. In Oakland they do. And, visa versa.

            Keeping areas “racially pure” is important.

            Whereas we once called this segregation, now it’s anti-gentrification.

            You can’t win!

      2. Can’t wait for the gentrification of Ferguson…(it’s going to be a looooong wait)

        1. It wont happen, it was designed wrong.

          The neighborhoods that gentrify are the ones that have a good backbone and the ability to be modified to the next step in development.

          1. Ferguson was built due to ‘white flight” during the 70’s from STL as a white middle class suburb. STL got so bad in the 70’s that everyone left the city and many of these white middle-class neighborhoods turned into poor black neighborhoods, and the white middle class moved further west.

            Downtown STL has previously/is experiencing some gentrification. In some cases, those gentrified areas are already going back into the shitter. I could eventually see a smaller wave of getrification and poverty cycle back through within a generation.

            It will definitely be a long wait, though.

            1. One could insert the name of many large cities and a nearby minor city in place of STL and Ferguson here and the rest of the statement remains true.

  6. Reminded me of the story in Portland recently about the Trader Joes (ermagerd, white people groceries!!) that was blocked due to the waving of the gentrification flag. Welp, I checked back and discovered this grade A derp:

    Portland is spending $20M of taxpayers money to fight it

    The comments at least restored some of my hope for that liberal enclave…

    1. The North/Northeast Neighborhood Housing Strategy was drafted by the Portland Housing Bureau after Mayor Charlie Hales committed the money during the fight over redeveloping a vacant block at the corner of Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Alberta Street.

      Vacant lots must remain vacant!

      1. Holding back the white horde don’t come cheap!

      2. Block E in Minneapolis would have been better left vacant. Instead we got years of city council shenanigans as they tried to develop it. Ever since they built the place, it has been a giant tax suck on the city and surrounding businesses.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_E_(Minneapolis)

        1. Private Vacant Public.

          In most cases.

          1. Pretend there are greater than signs in that first line.

            I understand why a less than sign causes problems, but an unmatched greater than shouldnt.

            1. alt 242 is ?

              alt 243 is ?

              alt 62 is

              alt 60 is

              1. So those (60 and 62) don’t work…

                I thought I got them to work before.

        2. Even in my small town of St Augustine, you can see how the govt is screwing up things. Many years ago, they prohibited a guy from improving and expanding his property because it didn’t fit the “historical” goals of the city. Then the buildings were torn down and there’s been a vacant lot of weeds for years and years. Needless to say, a vibrant business would have generated a lot more tax dollars. Now they’re trying to block a 7-11 from moving in. And then there’s the boondoggle of acres on a waterway that the city owns and had numberless council hearings on, trying to find a developer who would make it into a marina/condo complex suitable to the city fathers. Again, decades of weeds and decades of lost tax revenue.

          (by the way, Decades of Weeds would make a great name for an ALBUM)

      3. I really don’t get this central planning BS. When politicians madly scrambling to regulate businesses based on the irrational fears of the neighborhood dwellers rises to the level of “planning”, then I think we’re abusing the English language.

    2. Ironic.

      I’m not a big Trader Joes shopper. I am a serious price shopper though.

      Where I lived there was a WINCO. A much cheaper alternative to grocery stores like Safeway, And, way cheaper than Whole Foods. Nearby, there was a Trader Joes.

      One day, I hit WINCO for my staples and stopped by the TJ for something specific. What I found that most differentiated the two was the people shopping there!

      True to stereotype, WINCO was filled with blacks and Hispanics Whereas TJ was full of young, better off whites pushing strollers.

      I always find it a bit weird when stereotypes like that play out exactly as presented in the media. That only goes to show that stereotypes are common because frankly, it’s not as wrong as so many try to make it out to be. It’s just not politically correct to mention this.

  7. One of the biggest reasons socialism appeals to so many people is that it offers to promise of status based on politics rather than wealth. In a capitalist society, it doesn’t matter if you are an oaf or hold all sorts of objectionable views. If you are smart enough and enterprising enough to produce something of value, you can get rich and by virtue of your wealth be a very important person. This drives some people nuts.

    A few years ago someone posted on here some hipster asshole living in Brooklyn bitching about how her rent was going up and she was soon going to have to leave her apartment so it can be rented by some asshole working at investment bank. To her she was entitled to live in what she considered to be the coolest neighborhood on earth and some investment bank asshole wasn’t. That pathetic childish sense of entitlement is the heart of why socialism appeals to so many people.

    Gentrification is just an expression of that. Only people of the right social status and politics, which our society calls “coolness” should be allowed to live in these neighborhoods. The fact that someone else works hard and has the money to buy a home there too is utterly objectionable. You shouldn’t get into these neighborhoods based on how much money you have. It should be based on how cool you are and the neighborhood should necessarily include poor “cool” people and not include “uncool” people who just think their dirty money can buy their way in.

    1. And a socialist society where status is based on coolness or correct politics would be far more oppressive.

      The fact that in a capitalist society all anyone needs is a little money and they can have whatever they want should be regarded as a GOOD thing. The alternative is that your status ends up being dependent on everyone else’s petty prejudices. Fucking high school status cometition writ large. it’s awesome that the nerds and the geeks can get rich and tell the cool beautiful people to go fuck themselves.

      1. Yes Hazel. You are exactly right. But these assholes consider themselves the arbiters of all things, so they think they will be the ones doing the oppressing. So they are fine with it making a more oppressive society.

      2. Dude, most of the socialists and people who end up hating capitalism aren’t the cool beautiful people. Beautiful people have something–beauty–which they can actually sell and leverage in a capitalist manner (become a model or actor, etc) and make a lot of money.

        It’s never the people with natural talents and advantages that become socialists/communists/whatever envy-based bullshit is popular. It’s the ones without any that do, because they are envious of those that can make it in a tough world with just their own skills/looks/drive.

        1. I don’t know. A lot of those beautiful people made rich by capitalism have no problem agitating for socialism. I realize they’re not the most self-aware bunch going but it is what it is.

          1. The last thing in the world these people want is socialism. It’s a fashion statement to them. They absolutely want their million dollar fees for roles, and their mansion, and their gated property, and their exclusive neighborhood, etc. They’ve hit the jackpot in a capitalist way. Don’t look at their words, look at their actions. Look at when they start clothing lines and perfumes or buy a shit-ton of property. Action-wise, they are capitalists to the core.

            1. Of course the top entertainers all made it big in the most capitalist ways, but their job is also to be relatable to their followers. I guarantee you that if it is cool to be a libertarian, a SoCon, a carnivore, etc. on social media, that they will all market themselves to be that way. Right now the SJWs make the most amount of noise on Twitter and FB, so guess how they respond to that? Exactly.

            2. What they really want is to be a true aristocracy.

        2. Respectfully, that’s not what she said.

          She said socialism/progressivism rewards popularity (political correctness). You think like me, you are deserving of the booty. I’ll reward you for being right-thinking. Just like high school. You have the right beliefs/looks (ours) so you can come to the party.

          Capitalism rewards based upon supplying people with what they desire in exchange for compensation. Otherwise known as work. You don’t need to have the correct political beliefs/looks/popularity to be successful. You can be successful based upon your own merits, regardless of looks, holding popular beliefs, social graces or being born to the right family.

          1. “Popularity” in that sense has nothing to do with the people who are the “cool beautiful” people (to use Hazel’s own words). The “cool beautiful” people are “cool” because 1) they’re physically attractive to others, and 2) because they are often good at leveraging those looks in combination with a friendly or aloof or stylish personalty that people just find attractive. The people who actually do the socialist envy thing are the exact opposite; they are the ones who do not have the natural ability to get people to like them just for who they are. That’s why they resort to using proper opinions and thoughts to define popularity instead. And that is why they are so envious of anyone who has more than them, whether it be money, looks, charm, whatever.

            Capitalism (or: the normal state of human beings) is a great place to be if you’re naturally cool/beautiful/ popular. The people who want to destroy it are the ones who aren’t; that’s partly why they want to destroy it.

            1. I take it you were the captain of the football team. 😉

              A. That’s not what HM said.
              B. I completely disagree with what you are saying.

              The nerds work their asses off because they’ve got something to prove, as they weren’t blessed with the birthright of their tormentors. The beautiful people have gotten by on nothing but their good looks/popularity and have no incentive to actually produce anything.

              Nerds attribute their eventual success to their hard work (which is true) and the beautiful people wonder why their glory days were when they were captains of the cheerleading squad or the football team. They’ve been handed everything on a silver platter based, literally, on their good looks and never actually needed to work for it. (Not all, certainly.)

              Notionally speaking, with very few exceptions, those from my HS that I would consider successful (wealthy, Drs, Lawyers, businessmen…) were the nerds. Our two “most likely to succeeds” (beautiful people) are currently a chauffeur and the wife of a Dairy Farmer.

              1. I’m with Francisco on this. if you are talking about movies stars that a tiny fraction of society. In my experience, the “cool beautiful” people are (in general) less skilled and less talented, because other people have basically given them a free pass. They were popular in high school without trying and that social acceptance made them less likely to work hard in school, because they didn’t have anything to prove.

                Of course, looks can change and some high school nerds eventually become beautiful adults.

                My point is that in a socialist society rewards would be based on how much other people liked you, which would be biased towards also sorts of factors like political conformity, beauty, and the ever-present moral status signalling.

                The reason lots of progressives do so much moral preening is because their social standing has ALWAYS been dependent on other people’s approval, starting from high school. They never got anywhere based on work or skill. They got what they had because other people liked them.

                1. Continued:

                  Which is another reason they are SO afraid of saying anything that is not in conformity with the hive mind. Because their self-worth is totally dependent on social approval, they cannot risk the disapproval of the mob. They can’t afford to go it alone and have never developed the skills to survive (emotionally or economically) without it.

                  1. “Second-handers” +1

          2. ^^^^ Exactly!

            Most socialists, just don’t want to work for a living. It’s easier to live off the productivity of others.

            It’s the ants and grasshoppers folks. But those damn grasshoppers are winning right now. And, they’re eyeballing the ant’s pantries.

            Better get out the bug spray!

      3. AMEN!

        An epiphany. Progressivism is high school.

        Well said.

        1. I’m the quarterback, I’m popular.
          My mom thinks I’m a catch, I’m popular.
          I’m never last picked, I date a cheer leading chick.

      4. There was a piece in the Seattle alt-rag lately (warning, NSFW photo of him) by just such a self-appointed sergeant of the Authenticity Police. He’s a graffiti artist who has determined, by virtue of his four years in Seattle’s hipster-infested Capitol Hill neighborhood, that he can tell who’s cool enough/belongs there and who isn’t/doesn’t.

        Imagine having this jizzstain on some “community board” that gets to tell you whether you’re cool enough to buy property, own a business, or live in their neighborhood.

        1. When are we going to declare open season on taggers?

          I could use the target practice.

    2. From my distant POV, many hipsters (and other left wing subcultures of the past) view living in a specific neighborhood as nothing more than a place where they can brag about to enhance their social status. An investment banker or another “corporate shill” is probably one level down from “gun-loving hillbilly” on the scale of biggest buzzkills to that particular illusion.

    3. It’s often literally there first real life lesson in economics. If they spent a moment thinking about it they would be forced to accept the principles at play. But that goes against their preferred worldview so they 1) reject the system in its entirety, and 2) engage in pejoratives to describe anyone that abides by the principles.

    4. Imagine an all-white community today objecting to other races moving in. The horror! SJW would raze the place.

      1. Nah. The non-whites would burn it down. Then, with government help, the SJWs would rebuild it and dedicate the their fallen heroes. Probably even name streets after them and have ceremonies and stuff.

  8. What can men do against such reckless hate?

    1. Move in with me. Move in and displace them.

      1. For wealth and progress.

      2. For shops and lattes!

        1. The Horn of Capitalism will sound in the streets, one last time!

          1. The drinking horn. Bavarian style. From the local microbrewery.

  9. The gay community really pioneered this.

    The gay community moved into various places that really were blighted and left for dead during the era of white flight. I can think of a number of metropolitan areas that are considered hip now but were areas that gay people moved into back when they were no-go.

    Dupont Circle in DC used to be an abandoned, burned out hell-hole. Hillcrest in San Diego, likewise, was somewhere nobody wanted to go. West Hollywood, Long Beach…

    Somehow, when gay people do it, I guess it isn’t considered gentrification. Honky-ass breeders show up with their kids, and all of a sudden, it’s a problem?

    At one point during the boom in downtown LA, the city council was trying to stop developers from tearing down the flop houses and building lofts. Holy shit! They’d been begging for development downtown for decades–built Staples Center and all the stuff around it to attract residential development downtown. And when it finally came, what did they do?

    They stood firmly on the side of permanent despair.

    1. Gays are “underprivileged” enough for true leftists to not feel threatened by their choice of settlement. See, without prejudicial mechanisms, the Prog agenda would have no logical sense, which makes me wonder why systems like Apartheid or Jim Crow have never been viewed as the Socialist ideals that they truly stood for.

      1. And since most of them were white, it was easy to play the race card.

      2. The Prog elites also love all of the immaculate trendy shops and restaurants that the gays open when they move into a neighborhood.

    2. Yeah, the same thing happened in Boston too. The neighborhoods around Tremont St. near the South End used to be crime ridden dumps, and then the gays moved in and it started to turn around. Now it’s impossible to buy a 1200 SF in the neighborhood for under $700K.

    3. Teh gayz are in the process of transforming Hell’s Kitchen and Spanish Harlem in NYC. Good for them. I’d just like to know where they move into next so I can get in on the ground floor.

      1. “…get in on the ground floor.”

        Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

      2. Just follow Starbucks. It’s all their fault anyway.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..03060.html

    4. There was documentary I saw a bunch of years back… it was basically gays vs. blacks in Columbus OH.

      Ah, found it:

      http://www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/

      1. the gays have Katzingers , so they win.

    5. “Somehow, when gay people do it, I guess it isn’t considered gentrification.”

      Not always true. The “poor” folk think they are better than gays. The local paper ran a front page article about a couple of gay guys that bought and rehabbed a place in Oakland and how much the neighborhood resented them. Of course the neighbors all used the code word “gentrification”. But, based on the backlash, it’s easy to wonder if it wasn’t as much sexual orientation as it was about gentrification.

      You know, the boys in the hood go on the down low. They’d never openly admit to being gay.

  10. I don’t want to live in places that have an active (progressive) political class because taxes are higher, there is more of a police presence, crime is higher, pollution is higher, there seem to be more busy-bodies, and I find more of my freedoms are codified as “illegal.”

    1. “New york’s the greatest if you get someone to pay the rent
      Wahoo north america
      And it’s the furthest you can live from the government un huh huh
      Some proud american christians might disagree
      Here in north america
      But new york’s the only place we’re keepin them off the street”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ2np7R-Uwg

      You’re talking about different qualitative preferences.

      I think downtown is a nice place to visit. Walk to see the Kings play? Lots of opportunities for female companionship? Awesomest restaurants? I’m up for that! But I’d hate to have to live there.

      1. I suppose differences between socialism and and libertarianism could broadly categorized as (only) qualitative.

        1. It isn’t that simple.

          More chicks, more restaurants, walk to the hockey arena, the bar, and the movies + no commute anymore?

          None of that is about politics, but even if it were?

          Some people care more about some rights than others. We all care about some things more than others. Some people don’t care as much about their Second Amendment rights as they do about being able to walk to the “medical” dispensary down the block–in a state where anybody with a headache can qualify for a medical marijuana card. Yeah, in downtown LA, if they pull you over and find a gun in your car, they’ll treat you like a terrorist for exercising your Second Amendment rights.

          But then there are places in Georgia, I’m sure, where if they pull you over and find a blunt in your car, they’ll treat you like a terrorist for doing something that the cops in downtown LA would just write you a ticket for (if they didn’t feel like just giving you a warning).

          1. If someplace in a non-urban area happens to be too far to walk it is not a loss of freedom that prevents you from doing so.

            You’re stating one of the big allure’s for successful people to live in urban areas: convenience and a concentration of entertainment. Though the Soviet Union had a hockey league to which residents living near to the arena could walk.

            We have medicinal marijuana. My wife knows two caregivers. We looked at becoming growers. There are two towns that have decriminalized it here and we will likely have it as a statewide ballot measure in 2016 (won’t pass first time but likely will tries two or three).

            The right to self-defense is huge. In my opinion, it allows for the other individual rights. We have “shall issue” and will likely pass constitutional carry this year. Other than the federal NFA and related laws, we have no additional restrictions, bans, hoops, fees, registrations, limits, etc. we have a version of the castle law. I hunt on the land where I live. I purchase a license because I agree with the use of funds for wildlife management but I am not legally obligated to get one (for deer). I can and do shoot on the property without breaking any laws.

    2. You just perfectly described California!

  11. http://articles.latimes.com/20…..me-lofts11

    Imagine all the housing that could have been built downtown–and how affordable it might have become after the housing meltdown.

    I’ve got friends and family in Las Vegas. They bought new homes back during the building boom.

    The lily-white communities they bought into are now fully integrated after the crash. Landlords and sellers are a lot less likely to discriminate based on race when there are fewer buyers around.

    I bet the housing bubble (and burst) after 2008 did more to integrate the suburbs than anything else has since the end of Jim Crow. I bet housing opportunities for urban African-Americans are better now than they’ve ever been before–and I suspect “gentrification” is a big part of the reason for that.

    1. Gee, not artificially pumping up the price of housing makes housing more affordable to more people. Who could have seen that coming?

      1. The other problem with railing against gentrification is that…you’re talking about denying a blighted area a tremendous amount of money in development fees and increased property tax revenue. A lot of that money would go straight to the local school district!

        I mean–railing against gentrification from a progressive standpoint is Tony-level stupid.

        If you’re a progressive that wants wealthy white people to subsidize programs for the urban poor, then why would you try to stop wealthy white people from moving into blighted urban neighborhoods?!

        It doesn’t make any sense.

        1. It. Just. Doesn’t. FEEL. Right. Ken!

        2. I think the progs are scared to death that poor black home owners might sell their house in an up and coming neighborhood and move to the suburbs.

          1. Oakland an SF to Eastern Contra Costa County – Antioch, Pittsurg, Brentwood and Oakley.

            BTDT.

            It’s not so pleasant in the long run.

            I guess that makes me a racist?

        3. Lots of progressives reject local government in favor of a centralized government.

          Once you can take money from a rich person in Georgia, and give it to a poor person in New York, you can have your segregationist cake and eat it too.

  12. Wednesday again already?

    Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. Sounds like someone wants to go for a mustache ride.

    2. He’s alright, if you are into mustaches…

  13. “poor residents and those without a college education were actually less likely to move if they resided in gentrifying neighborhoods.”

    Increasing property values. That is all.

    That doesn’t stop some people?often rich, white liberals?from complaining that gentrification destroys the quaintness of the neighborhood.

    The notion that a good prog would want any lower-income earner to escape poverty/near poverty by any means is rather quaint. They would have no one to lord over while they pretend pity.

    1. One of the things I’ve noticed about progs/liberals in this manner is that they are disturbingly conservative, in the “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change” sense. They believe in what I call the Stasis Fallacy, which is that somehow, the way things are RIGHT NOW is the way they are supposed to be. The current global temperatures? That’s the “correct” temperature. The mom and pop shops that could be replaced by a WalMart? That’s the correct makeup for Main Street. The way their neighborhood is now? It should never change. And so on.

      I pointed this out to my hippie liberal aunt and uncle one time when they were complaining about WalMart ruining mom and pop stores. They were very, very unamused.

      1. My response to that sort of thing is mostly “complain all you want, but it’s not going to change”. And a bit of pointing out that it is nice that poor people can afford to buy new clothes and consumer electronics and everything too.

      2. They were very, very unamused.

        The truth hurts.

      3. And to further your point, nothing can ever be better than it is right now (or was). There is a “correct” that can never be improved upon.

        Global warming is such an example. Even if they are correct, why is the assumption that a few degrees warmer is a net negative? Despite a shit-ton of evidence that humans do much better when the climate has been warmer.

        And you are right. Calling them “progressives” is a joke wrt these topics. They yearn for the status quo, regardless of whether the new paradigm is actually better than the old or not.

        1. I think it’s more of a “was” than a “now.” The “was” better (at least economically) always seems to be pinned to a post-WW2 ideal (all thanks to the culmination of New Deal policies, natch). “Now” always seems to be a weird confluence of nonsensical “return to the ideal” and “progress forever!”

      4. No Epi, what they hate is the lack of control. They hate the fact that people are changing neighborhoods without being ordered to do so by the neighborhood czar who plans the makeup of every block. They’re perfectly fine with change as long as some TOP MAN plans it first.

        I can’t remember who said it but above Dante’s hell was a sign that said “Abandon all hope Ye who enter.” Above prog hell the sign reads “No one in charge.”

    2. We must not try to modernize the reclusive cannibal tribe living in mud huts in the rain forest because CULTURE!

      1. The biggest reason is probably disease. Half of them are likely just to die.

    3. “They would have no one to lord over while they pretend pity.”

      More than you know. Progs frequently work in government. Where their whole existence can be brought to bare on their casus belli

  14. This fuckin’ Stossel guy…

    I like him.

    1. Italian American goes to England and sees a straw man burning in effigy. Asks a local, “Do you know that Fawkin’ Guy?” *Homemade joke when drunk. Apologies*

    2. Me and Stossel? We’re totally bros.

  15. after the massive campaign made by NYWC and Slate…. a breath of fresh air… thanks

  16. The debate over gentrifying neighborhoods is retarded.

    Neighborhoods change over time. Get over it.

    I used to live in the Mission District of SF. The levels of retard were unimaginable. People claiming that the Hispanic nature of the district was being overrun by techies? Give me a break! Yeah, the techie culture is annoying. But the Mission was Irish for decades before the 1970s (indeed, you can still find Irish families and businesses who have been there since the late 1800s).

    The Mission is a desirable area: on the BART line, the best weather in SF, etc. The only reason it was rundown for so long is because of Bart’s disruptive construction in the 1970s that ruined Mission Street’s economy, the heart of the district.

    Yeah, it sucks that working class people can’t afford SF anymore. But waging a war against the natural changing of neighborhoods is an utter waste. Get the city to reform zoning laws instead to make it worthwhile for developers to actually build housing people can afford to live in (and I don’t mean the BS “affordable housing” requirements for new developments).

    1. In San Francisco, gentrification is a scapegoat.

      If San Francisco wants to make housing more affordable, they should first get rid of their rent control and other rules and regulations that are hostile to development.

      1. Cities are dying left and right but the proggies still believe more gov/regulation will fix it…or is it part of the “Master Evil Doer Global Overthrow Occupation Plan?” (madgoop for short, the same thing they do in their pants when talking about taxing more evil capitalists)

        1. Well, they think pricing development out of the city is a good thing, too.

          Especially if you’re talking about the environment.

          Their predominate position just changes depending on the subject.

          Gentrification pricing the poor out of their own communities? Well that’s awful.

          But let’s not do anything that would encourage development, ’cause environment, m-kay?

      2. All they need to do is allow more high rise residential construction.

      3. In my real estate investment world we have a saying about SF rent controls – which are so far out of whack as to be unbelievable:

        “Friends don’t let friends buy rental properties in SF”.

    2. Neighborhoods change over time. Get over it.

      I kind of get the feeling that these proggie idiots would have tried to preserve the “authenticity” of the old Five Points slum in lower Manhattan.

      1. They would.

        When wealthy white folk leave their protected neighborhoods to take an excursion uptown to say, Harlem or, a gritty bar in the SF Mission, it makes them feel better about their “liberal” focus and agenda.

        Then they head back to their homes in their protected enclaves and declare themselves worthy of sainthood.

  17. Cities are dying left and right but the proggies still believe more gov/regulation will fix it…or is it part of the “Master Evil Doer Global Overthrow Occupation Plan?” (madgoop for short, the same thing they do in their pants when talking about taxing more evil capitalists)
    *posted twice cuz’ it made me giggle

    1. Ok the short didn’t work…foiled again. medgoop? medicine prescribed by gynecologist?

  18. Yeah, because rising property values keep me up at night. Oh no! I will sell my house for more than what I paid for it!

    1. Well, that goes both ways. If property values go up, so can taxes. Especially if it happens to a particular neighborhood and not a whole city or town.

  19. Why the puzzlement? The core value of all Liberal political theory is “Whatever people are willing to do on their own is wrong”. No matter WHAT the Great Unwashed – or even another bunch of Liberals – may choose to do, they need to be admonished and “guided” (herded at gunpoint) to do what Their Betters? decide they should do.

    It isn’t that Liberals are misguided. It isn’t that they emote rather than reason. It isn’t some correctable flaw in their Political Theory. It’s plain old simple thirst for power. Even if their goals were fixed and reasonable, that alone would be enough to disqualify them for the positions in society they want to hold. Since their goals are ever-chafing and inherently absurd, they are nothing but guillotine bait.

  20. Holy Moley, people! Threads like this are why I waste so much time at Hit and Run. What a plethora of great, intelligent posts! And that Stossel is pointing out such hypocrisy is great as well. It’s corny as hell, but I want to thank the posters here. It may be that I’m about to have my second whiskey and soda, but Reason commenters — generally — are the smartest and funniest commenters on the intertubes.

    1. Yup! This is a timesuck for sure, but it feels valuable to read a thread like this one. NPR had a longer piece on gentrification a few months back. They had taken three stories from the same neighborhood. They had a longtime resident, a new resident, and a developer. Long story short, the story seemed even handed and made the gentrification seem good. It was clear that the producers of the story weren’t seeking to show all the positive effects, but the finished product certainly came out that way.

      Umm….here it is!

    2. Only your second?

  21. I hate seeing Reason.com doing the “liberal vs conservative” thing. This aint FOX, and that perspective is intellectually absurd. If you have hippies wanting legislation to prevent change, those hippies are conservatives.
    In a country where pseudo partisanship is an important tool for political fundraising, where the big government conservatives argue with big government liberals about how to grow government… I would just as soon not align myself with these “two camps”.

    I don’t see two camps at all.

    1. But there ARE two camps, the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive camp that is slowly sinking into a mire of its own failed policies, and on the other “side” everybody who has wised up.

    2. But it’s the “liberals” who keep demanding that “natural wilderness” be forever locked and frozen in its “natural state”, prevented from ever changing.

  22. “It’s a fight between hippies and tech geeks, with the hippies calling for regulations to prevent change. ”

    Conservatism: It’s no longer just for conservatives!

    1. Because for some reason, when it comes to ethnic minority cultures, leftists want to turn everything into a giant fucking museum, where no one outside is allowed to so much as tough anything. Ironically, this whole concern over ‘gentrification’ is tantamount to treating minorities like they’re exhibits at the zoo. “Look how cute they are! Shhh, don’t get too close or they’ll run away.”

      1. “Shhh, don’t get too close or they’ll run away.”

        That wouldn’t be so bad. But, where I come from, they are more likely to get in your face and maybe even shoot you. Their tigers not deer.

  23. So today the newcomers are attacked by liberals because they cause “gentrification.”

    I had a recent epiphany about minimum wage laws in this regard. Obama is gnashing his teeth to keep ‘American jobs in America’ and I thought to myself, “Whatever happened to the notion of soft/cultural imperialism as an inherent evil?”

    But that thread leads into the tangled left-wing economic ball of yarn.

  24. “Two women in Brooklyn got so angry about it, they pulled out a gun, forced two white people out of an apartment and moved in (they were later arrested). ”

    LOL…try that shit in Texas. Here it’s not just the thugs who have guns.

  25. So Latinos who are settling into poorer, black neighborhoods are also gentrifiers? Because for all intents and purposes, they’re occupying those areas much more than rich, white hipsters looking for cheap housing. Most poor minorities can’t afford to own a home anyways.

  26. “No matter what you do, modern liberals will tell you you’re wrong.”

    It’s much easier to control you if you’re first convinced that you’re Guilty Guilty Guilty.

  27. In other news, studies find that white people buying food to eat drives up food prices for minorities. White people, stop buying food or you’re racist.

  28. Generally speaking, the areas of Phila. that gentrified vote just as Democratic as the folks they replaced. Typically, the gentrified and gentrifying areas had lower middle class white folks.
    Then proggies who couldn’t afford downtown started moving in. Rents went up and some of
    the white folks too advantage of it. Now more affluent proggies are moving in and as rents go up the “creative” proggie class doesn’t make enough to afford the rent. Meanwhile, the lower middle class white folks who owned their homes are cleaning up…finally making enough on selling to provide for retirement. Those who rent are pissed at the gentrifiers. It might be class warfare, but it isn’t liberal vs. conservative warfare.

  29. Most liberals, Spike Lee included, want these neighborhoods to remain black for the sake of remaining black. If those black residents have to be raped, robbed and killed, so be it.

  30. Two words: Pruitt Igoe

  31. Wasn’t there a King of the Hill gentrification episode?

  32. Much of the problem with the public housing projects was the lefties pushing it expected that people living in rundown and dirty neighborhoods would magically become neat freaks who cared about where they lived instead of trashing the place like they did the places they were moved from.

    Some of those buildings have been bought by residents who enacted and enforce rules about causing damage to the building. You break it and you no longer live there!

    1. Yes but, that problem migrated to the suburbs with the advent of the new liberal policy on housing – Section 8 housing vouchers. Now, we don’t have to go to the “projects” to see how the other half lives. They’ve moved in right next door to us in suburban America.

      We get along so well because their gang banger kids are beating the crap out of our efite, suburban neophyte children at school. And of course, the school can’t do anything about it because well, you know, that would be inheretently racist and all that kind of stuff.

      http://www.youthlaw.org/press_…..aboration/

      Thank you federal government!

  33. It is bad for the establishment in both parties if the poor people of any race benefit from gentrifying neighborhoods. The less dependent they are on the government the more freedoms they can exercise. In this case it is even worse for the liberals because when people realize they do not need government handouts liberals loose votes. Another contributing factor is that people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson profit from racial tensions, if whites and blacks start living next to each other they may realize that we all have value. Imagine if white and black racists were able to put their differences aside and stand together for everyone’e rights and worked at empowering each other for the good of all then we would not need big government. Politicians would have stop marginalizing black voters because their vote would no longer be guaranteed. For instance most poor blacks (I bet poor whites and hispanics) would agree that amnesty is bad for them, but most of them still support Obama who champions amnesty. Imagine what would happen if everyone would stop bickering with each other and take a stand against big government policies that we all agree are bad for this country.

  34. Thank you Mr. Stossel! It’s funny that progressives have taken both sides of this issue. But the one thing that applies in both cases, is that they don’t want to allow people to have freedom. You can’t have freedom, unless you are first willing to give it to others. Progressives, statists, liberals, Democrats, and social conservatives aren’t willing to give it to others.

    Unfortunately those of us who love freedom, are collaterally damaged by their war on freedom.

  35. Thank you Mr. Stossel! It’s funny that progressives have taken both sides of this issue. But the one thing that applies in both cases, is that they don’t want to allow people to have freedom. You can’t have freedom, unless you are first willing to give it to others. Progressives, statists, liberals, Democrats, and social conservatives aren’t willing to give it to others.

    Unfortunately those of us who love freedom, are collaterally damaged by their war on freedom.????? ???
    ???????

  36. Thank you Mr. Stossel! It’s funny that progressives have taken both sides of this issue. But the one thing that applies in both cases, is that they don’t want to allow people to have freedom. You can’t have freedom, unless you are first willing to give it to others. Progressives, statists, liberals, Democrats, and social conservatives aren’t willing to give it to others.

    Unfortunately those of us who love freedom, are collaterally damaged by their war on freedom.????? 2017 ????? ???????.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.