Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright
Yes, this.
I've realized I was doing it myself, noticing that every conversation about Garfield Park or Lawndale or any other beautiful, but stereotypically "crime ridden" area always began with accolades about the location or housing stock or transit access and ended with some form of "too bad the wrong people live there". Of course no one ever says it so directly, it's always couched in terms of poverty or crime, but that's the f-ing point.
The entire history of real estate in this country is just one race baiting dog whistle replacing the last until it became a self fulfilling prophecy where no shit you didn't want to invest there "because poors" or "because crime". That doesn't change the fact that it very much was openly about race in the beginning and now crime and poverty is so racially segregated that we can be totally racist without even bringing up the concept.
In my opinion it is racist to make investment decisions based on "crime" or "disinvestment", that's the whole damn point. If you continue to perpetuate racial and income segregation then you are the problem. Period. There is no excuse aside from "I don't have the means to actively participate in revitalizing this area". Frankly, given how low real estate prices are, that basically applies to no one in the middle class and up.
PS: perpetuating income and racial segregation also applies to the "anti gentrifiers" unless they are only resisting late stage gentrification that results in a mostly rich and white community. Anyone claiming no one should be able to move into Pilsen or Little Village if they aren't Latino is a segregationist just as much as the guy refusing to invest in Black areas. The conversation should be exclusively about "how do we enable as many people to move in as possible while allowing as many existing residents to remain and enjoy the benefits of reinvestment as possible". Any time it becomes about a place being "our neighborhood" youve gone beyond the pale and are openly advocating racial segregation.
|
BOOM. Well said. And I love your personal mission. I also certainly hope that if TUP's assumption is true, where you don't live anywhere near the place you're investing in, that you reconsider the location of your own home very soon.
As a white guy who lived in Garfield Park for 9 years and now Bronzeville for the last 2.5 years, it's just laughable to me when I hear people justify not going to certain parts of the city (or paying twice as much for housing to live in certain neighborhoods) because of the crime stats. I'm privileged and unlikely to be involved in a random act of crime, but the biggest frustration of my neighborhood is when litter gets out of control -- seriously that is the worst part of living in the less affluent parts of the city imo. (Recognizing that even the wealthy parts of a dense city often get badly littered, but it's usually taken care of quicker.) That's been my focus of neighborhood initiatives because most places stop looking scary when the trash is cleaned up and the grass/foliage is trimmed... even if the area has some empty lots with old foundations and crumbling sidewalks. If the city wants the south and west sides to continue attracting investment and filling in, it's essential to keep them clean. It should be a low-cost, high-return investment. This *especially* includes the neighborhood parks.