Here is something an alarming number of policymakers still do not understand:
Identifying the poorest, most economically depressed, and least white neighborhoods in a region, and cramming a bunch of subsidized housing into those neighborhoods - that’s racial segregation.
Identifying the poorest, most economically depressed, and least white neighborhoods in a region, and cramming a bunch of subsidized housing into those neighborhoods - that’s racial segregation.
Policymakers think this doesn’t count as a discriminatory, segregative practice if they do it while talking about “Helping cost-burdened families” instead of “Protecting white suburbs,” but they’re doing exactly the same thing either way.
American cities have a 70-year history of putting subsidized housing where poor and black people live, so it doesn’t trouble white, affluent residents.
They’re still doing it, they’ve just made up a bunch of progressive-sounding excuses these days.
They’re still doing it, they’ve just made up a bunch of progressive-sounding excuses these days.
Supposedly liberal scholars will say “We’re fighting gentrification!” - and then recommend the introduction of many new subsidized units to completely nonwhite neighborhoods with 100% segregated schools, the highest unemployment, and the most affordable housing in the region.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
