Who Not What

28 04 2016

Baltimore

Wanna know why lamestream conservatives mostly lose?

Because they analyze the left’s tribal identity politics in terms of universalist abstractions, mainly because they take the left’s universalist pretenses at face value, and conclude that since the left’s tribal identity based effort du jour does not meet whatever universalist abstraction is supposedly the matter at hand, that just saying that and writing that will carry the day and make the left back down.

Repeating just in case you’ve been in Antarctica for the last few years:  AFFH is all about urban white liberals unloading urban ghetto underclass blacks on suburbs, especially peaked or past peak older inner suburbs, so that the cities are safe for urban white liberal gentrification.  It’s not about someone pursuing “justice,” or someone falling short of that goal, it’s pure it’s pure identity politics, Who-Whom.

Beating AFFH will happen when its white victims either self-organize or are externally organized around their tribal concerns and their race-based opposition to moving ghetto blacks from the city next door to them.  Even if they have to do it on the sly; just as the left is cloaking a tribal agenda under universalist garb in their support of AFFH, if we were on our game, we could easily find a way to do the same in our opposition, to find some sort of universalist excuse to couch what we all know is our race-based agenda.

Just don’t expect abstraction-obsessed lamestream conservatives to do it.

As an aside, this article muddies the issue by bringing up Julian Castro and La Raza Unida.  That is definitely worth knowing, but not relevant to the pregnant politics of AFFH.  It is only brought up because Castro just so happens to be the HUD Secretary of a White House that would be pursuing AFFH no matter who Obama appointed to lead HUD.  If Obama appointed Mickey Mouse to lead HUD, it wouldn’t make much sense to talk about mouse-born rabies in an article about AFFH, but the author of this article would find a way.





Less is Mo’

3 04 2016

Washington, D.C.

Absence of warm bodies is not evidence of absence.

Let me spell it out for you, by giving you a local example that is both hypothetical and hyperbolic.

L’Booshondria used to live in a hovel in Shaw with her eight kids by seven different men, four of those men are currently in prison.  But she got an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing voucher to move her and all her kids into the Canfield Green housing project in Ferguson, where she can teach her sons how to be gentle giants and swipe cigarillos.  Once she moved out, domestic partners Adam and Steve buy the Shaw hovel and renovate it and live there themselves.  This means that in the context of that one residential parcel, the population has decreased from nine to two.  Lather rinse repeat, and it’s easy to see why the population of the City of St. Louis is both declining and the city’s overall condition is getting better.  Adam and Steve living in that parcel means that the actual land and the house are worth a lot more, a lot more taxes are being collected from it, and also Adam and Steve are generating income and spending money which generates even more tax revenue, and on top of that, the cops aren’t being called on them every other day.  The city earnings tax never applied to L’Booshondria’s crazy checks for all her kids, and the city’s sales tax on food never applied to the EBT card.  Also, when L’Booshondria was living in the hovel, the hovel wasn’t worth that much, therefore, not much in the way of property taxes could be collected from it.

Otherwise known as addition by subtraction.

This is why you can’t use simple raw population numbers of urban areas, see a decline, and therefore conclude that gentrification isn’t happening.  The number cruncher sees nine people before and two people now and figures that a disaster must have happened, because that’s all the number cruncher knows.

Other factors that this writer seem to miss are:  Immigration (growth of sunbelt metros), whites moving out of older inner suburbs to move to newer outer suburbs and exurbs (getting away from their new AFFH voucher L’Booshondria neighbors), and that it makes a lot of sense to live in close proximity to an institution that spends $4 trillion a year (Washington D.C.’s true population growth bucking the national trend).





Four Kinds

1 12 2015

Washington, D.C.

Forget that.

There are only four kinds of people who think that any of this has to do with shooing blacks out of the capital of a $4 trillion seat of government that presides over a global empire so that those houses can be renovated and then sold for big money, and that it’s all skid-greasing for gentrification:

1. Bigots
2. Cynics
3. Cynical bigots
4. Bigoted cynics.

Enlightened and important people know that, because of affirmatively furthering fair housing and Raj Chetty, all that is happening here is that marginalized victims of society are being liberated from tragic dirt and being moved to safe spaces in magic dirt, where they’ll instantly be transformed into first world people.

 





The Answer Is Yes

12 11 2015

USA

Joel Kotkin wonders:  How can exurbs be booming when they keep telling us that core cities are booming and that the suburbs are done for?

The answer is yes.

That’s because it’s not a contradiction.

That’s because Kotkin, whether he knows it or not, is fumbling and bumbling with the definitions of words.

Exurbs (outer suburbs) are booming because white people of the traditional nuclear family red team voting mold are white flighting away from older inner suburbs, because older inner suburbs are largely the AFFH dumping grounds for formerly urban ghetto blacks so that progressive blue team voting white people can gentrify the central cities.





They Don’t Seem to Be In Much Danger

11 08 2015

San Francisco

RCP:

The Peril to Democrats of Left-Leaning Urban Centers

Twenty years ago, America’s cities were making their initial move to regain some of their luster. This was largely due to the work of mayors who were middle-of-the-road pragmatists. Their ranks included Rudy Giuliani in New York, Richard Riordan in Los Angeles, and, perhaps the best of the bunch, Houston’s Bob Lanier. Even liberal San Franciscans elected Frank Jordan, a moderate former police chief who was succeeded by the decidedly pragmatic Willie Brown.

Actually the biggest share of the credit can go to Daley II of Chicago, who came back from Paris and wondered why American cities conceded prime urban core territory to problematic racial minorities.  That started the trend of Parisifiying American cities, unloading blacks out of the cores and onto middle suburbs, leaving the cores for hipster liberal whites and the more distant suburbs for conservative family oriented whites.

In contrast, a cadre of modern mayors is minting a host of ideologically new urban politics that put cities at odds with millions of traditional urban Democrats. This trend is strongest on the coasts, but is also taking place in many heartland cities. Bill de Blasio is currently its most prominent practitioner, but left-wing pundit Harold Meyerson says approvingly that many cities are busily mapping “the future of liberalism” with such policies as  the $15-an-hour minimum wage, stricter EPA greenhouse gas regulations, and housing policies intended to force people out of lower density suburbs and into cities.

Other than the mollycoddling of violent criminals, which will be what undoes this political second wave of gentrificationist politics if left unchecked, and in case negro removal doesn’t happen fast enough, none of the things listed here are at all inconsistent with urban gentrification.  Like I have written here, high minimum wages are essentially negro removal, environmental regulations are how unattractive industries are driven out of cities, and the housing policies to “force people out of lower density suburbs” is meant to prepare those “lower density suburbs” to be the new apartment farm dumping grounds for blacks.

For the Democrats, this urban ascendency holds some dangers. Despite all the constant claims of a massive “return to the city,” urban populations are growing no faster than those in suburbs, and, in the past few years, far slower than those of the hated exurbs.

Again, that’s a feature, not a bug.  Think it through.

If you run welfare Shaniqua and her five kids by four men out of the city and into the Ferguson analogue of your given metropolitian area, renovate the house Shaniqua used to live in, and then two lesbian white women who both work for a living move into the house, the population of the hosue has decreased from six to two, but the block just got a lot better and tax revenues to city coffers just increased.  This is sorta what’s happening in St. Louis City, in a way, population decline, but a better population.

Exurban growth is where conservative suburban family oriented whites are moving as their former older inner suburbs become Fergusonized.

This leftward shift is marked, but it’s not indicative of any tide of public enthusiasm. One-party rule, as one might expect, does not galvanize voters. The turnout in recent city elections has plummeted across the country, with turnouts 25 percent or even lower. In Los Angeles, the 2013 turnout that elected progressive Eric Garcetti was roughly one-third that in the city’s 1970 mayoral election.

And that doesn’t matter to the people who win elections in low turnout elections.  Because they won, and therefore, have the political power that comes of winning.  I happen to think that low turnout is more of a feature than a bug in many cases.  And in the case of L.A., it blows ZOMG GREAT HISPANIC VOTER TIDAL WAVE LOL~!!!!!1 out of the water.

City dwellers have historically voted more liberally than their country or suburban cousins, but demographic trends are exacerbating this polarizing impulse. Simply put, the cities that could elect a Giuliani or a Riordan no longer exist. The centrist urban surge of the 1990s was both a reaction to the perceived failures of Democratic “blue” policies as well a reflection of the makeup of white-majority, middle-class neighborhoods in places like Brooklyn, Queens and the San Fernando Valley that featured healthy numbers of politically moderate “Reagan Democrats”—or Bill Clinton Democrats, circa 1992

Since then, these communities have been largely supplanted by groups far more likely to embrace a more progressive political stance: racial minorities, hipsters, and upper-class sophisticates. These groups have swelled, and gotten much richer, in places like brownstone Brooklyn  or lakeside Chicago, while the number of inner city middle-class neighborhoods, as Brookings  has demonstrated, have declined, to 23 percent of the central city—half the level in 1970.

I don’t think white hipsters wouldn’t vote for a Giuliani.  It’s just that Giuliani helped fix so many problems that the problems weren’t problems for such a long time that a lot of people either forgot about the problems or never has any conscience memory of these problems actually existing, so they had no internal defense mechanism against a De Blasio snake oil salesman. This is why De Blasio wants negro removal, because the antics of the black undertow politically undermine his own modern day urban liberalism.

This new urban configuration, notes the University of Chicago’s Terry Nichols Clark, tend to have different needs, and values, than the traditional middle class. Since their denizens are heavily single and childless, the poor state of city schools does not hold priority over the political power of the teachers unions.

As Chicago proved earlier this year, the CTU is losing control even within the context of city Democrat politics.

These social and economic changes inform the new politics of the Democratic Party. On social policy, the strong pro-gay marriage and abortion positions of the Democrats makes sense as cities have the largest percentages of both homosexuals and single, childless women. When the party had to worry about rural voters in South Dakota or West Virginia, this shift would have been more nuanced, and less rapid.

A better way to put it is the way Steve Sailer put it — In urban areas, people are competing against other people, and therefore, there is a status arms race to be holier than thou, or more accurately, more progressive than thou.

These radicalizing trends are likely to be seen as a threat to Democratic prospects next year, but instead will meet with broad acclaim among city-dominated progressive media. Then again, the columnists, reporters and academics who embrace the new urban politics have little sympathy or interest in preserving middle-class suburbs, much less vital small towns. If the Republicans possess the intelligence—always an open question—to realize that their opponents are actively trying to undermine how most Americans prefer to live, they might find an opportunity far greater than many suspect.

Also straight out of Sailer.  Now you know why the NYT has made and now again is making Ferguson the most important place in the world.





Park Slope vs Lafayette Square

5 08 2015

Brooklyn

Steve Sailer’s latest Taki column about Colin Quinn brings up the Brooklyn neighborhood of Park Slope.

Park Slope seems to be very comparable to Lafayette Square in several ways.  They both were born for the same reason, rose for the same reason, fell for the same reason, then were reborn and gentrified for the same reason.  Both are situated adjacent to relatively large public parks, in the case of PS, Prospect Park, which also has some notable Brooklyn cultural attractions, in the case of LS, Lafayette Park, which was St. Louis’s very first public park.  At their first wave peaks, PS was the richest neighborhood in the country, LS was St. Louis’s no doubt about it uptown, where any St. Louisan who was truly anybody had to live.  The opening of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883 fueled the first wave growth of PS, while the general overall growth of St. Louis after the WBTS and the growing fortunes from St. Louis-based industrial and commercial interests, and the extension of horse drawn streetcars to the area around the city’s first park, fueled LS.

From there, that’s where the differences start to present.

LS’s decline was precipitated by an event that only lasted a few minutes, the May 27, 1896 tornado.  A good chunk of LS houses were either total losses or greatly damaged.  Most of them were rebuilt exactly or almost exactly the same as they were before the tornado, but almost to no avail — It was close to the dawn of the twentieth century, and horse drawn street cars were about to become electric street cars, and horses were about to become horseless carriages.  After the tornado year, “uptown” moved west, 1904 drew the attention of St. Louisans to Forest Park, and by the 1920s, uptown was north of Forest Park, not around Lafayette Park.

PS’s decline seemed to be the general suburbanization of cities and metropolitan areas after WWII.  The decline of PS was very fast and and very severe.  First, the people that made PS the richest neighborhood in the country left, leaving the area for rough working class ethnic whites, mainly Irish and Italian.  Then as quick as you could blink your eye, blacks and Puerto Ricans drove out the working class white ethnics.  And PS would be a ghetto and barrio from about the time of JFK’s assassination on through to the David Dinkins years.  In contrast, LS’s decline was slow and gentle, starting at the tornado year through the start of WWII.  LS never fell as far as PS, it never fell to the black undertow, at worst, LS was a hoosiery neighborhood from around WWII to about 1970.  Low and working class white, but not really ethnospecific.  That LS’s nadir was hoosiery and not the ghetto would be what would save it in the long term, because almost all St. Louis City gentrification has happened in neighborhoods that never went any lower than the hoosiers; there has been very little success in trying to gentrify ghetto neighborhoods.  Meanwhile, in Brooklyn and New York in general, because of the city’s importance, there actually has been the reversal of ghettos, Park Slope included.

The rebirth of LS was around 1970, and fueled by middle aged white people who liked old big historically significant houses.  By 1990, LS was back on solid ground as a livable neighborhood, though it had some peripheral work to do which it got done in the 1990s, and it was helped greatly by the abandonment and the eventual tearing down of the Darst-Webbe high rise housing projects one neighborhood, and a very short walk, to the east, in the ’90s, and its replacement with far less problematic mixed used low rise projects, the King Louis Square, in the late ’90s and early aughts.  The Clinton-Peabody projects, in the same neighborhood as the old Darst-Webbe and the current King Louis Square, and again, in very short walking distance of LS, low rise projects, is still there, and still shows up in the local crime blotter from time to time, and really still needs to go, but it’s far less of a problem now than it was when C-P residents had D-W residents to help them turbocharge their thuggery.

The rebirth of PS was a 1980s-1990s thing, as New York became the media and financial and banking center of the country, demonstrated by the beginning of the very long DJIA surge starting in 1982, and helped greatly by Giuliani’s unleashing of the NYPD on the vibrant class, and the overall reduction of crime rates due to longer prison sentences and the winding down of the 1980s crack cocaine epidemic.

Today, a typical resident of gentrified Lafayette Square is a white middle aged, 40s/50s, professional small to medium sized business owner in pre-internet sorts of businesses, mixed between intact nuclear families, empty nesters, divorce/es, and a few LGBTQetc.  Park Slope is mainly thirtysomething creative class types, dotcommers, internet startups, trust fund brats, mainly singles and cohabitators.

Architecturally, PS is mostly conjoined row houses made of brownstone, while LS is majority standalone brick row houses with various materials used as front facades, generally of Franco-Anglo-Germanic inspiration, in contrast to the more purely Germanic styles of St. Louis’s other oldest neighborhoods.

Another huge difference: Park Slope, five long blocks wide by 20-30 blocks tall varying. About one square mile, population 65,000. Lafayette Square, about two-tenths of a square mile, population 2,100.





We Hear You

22 06 2015

Baltimore

Of course, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has made Stephanie Rawlings-Blake their new leader.

She says she “wants mayors to be heard in the next election.”  Indeedy, we need to hear them say such genius things as rioters need safe spaces to loot and smash and burn.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,850 other followers