[Off Topic] City Accused of Orchestrating Campaign, Using Police to Drive Out Black Renters

Sorry you won’t find me criticising the “progressives” for taking action to protect their neighborhood from crime. 

This has nothing to do with tolerance and diversity it has to do with the fact that when you move a criminal out of a high crime area blighted urban area he brings his criminal inclinations with him.  It does not get left behind with the tattered drapes.

The only difference is now the criminal is more likely to be commiting black on white crime instead of black on black crime.  It is unacceptable in this neighborhood should have been unacceptable in their former neighborhood.  Law abiding blacks should be insulted by the argument that it is racist to pursue and prosecute black criminals.

I have seen some studies that the section 8 tenants bring crime with them when they leave the projects. Here is a great Atlantic Monthly article on the phenomenon.

This seems to be more about social class than race, homeowners vs. not ordinary renters, but federally subsidized renters:

Longtime homeowners complained that the new arrivals brought crime and other troubles. In 2006, violent crime in Antioch shot up about 19 percent from the year before, while property crime went down slightly.

“In some neighborhoods, it was complete madness,” said longtime resident David Gilbert, a black retiree who organized the United Citizens of Better Neighborhoods watch group. “They were under siege.”

Aren’t the black neighborhoods in the Bay Area concentrated in the East Bay area already?

How odd that the inner city police didn’t form special units to deal with “those people.” Crime is crime and folks do have some good points, but having grown up in the Peoples Republic of Arlington, Virginia to move to a actually integrated neighborhood with actual integrated work environment, where folks are not dealing with race out of any feel-good-ism rather those issues compromise safety and production, I see what Greg is getting at. I’d have to agree, the uber-liberal are frequently the huge hypocrites when it comes to living it out. Sometimes I think their continued desire on government is so they don’t actually have to do the hard work. Oddly, the “redneck” around me are also hypocrites, in that they can say all sorts of things, but when it comes down to it, tend to treat other human beings of many different backgrounds with a measure of respect and look out for one another.

Paula, at first I was taken aback by your comments.  Shocked, almost.

But then, I reflected on the words.  As a middle aged white guy who grew up in the segregated south, I always assume my views are racist from the get go.  I guess that’s not always true.

I am uncomfortable talking about poverty in America, because the face of the low income person is usually black, at least in people’s minds.  But, I am also aware that there are a lot of poor white people.  I am particularly aware of Appalachia, where life is hard for everyone.

I guess the bottom line is that society should expect a certain level of civility, of lawfulness, in it’s citizens, and take appropriate action when that level is not reached, no matter whether the person is poor and black or white and a governor.

Paul B,  I am rather radical in my views as I believe law abiding persons who live in high crime areas (regardless of their race or the race of the criminals) should be able to have requests for gun permits expeditiated.  In certain areas you take your life in your hands every time you walk out your door and I don’t think you should have to wait 3 days to buy a gun for self defense. 

Blacks are usually the victims of Black criminals.  Getting the criminals off the street will do a lot to improve conditions in even the poorest of neighborhoods.  So again my issue is not that now these criminals are called to account but that somehow it is only now that their actions matter.

Just to be clear, Antioch is “Bay Area”, but not San Francisco proper. 

That said, this story doesn’t really surprise me.  Parts of Contra Costa Co. (Concord, Walnut Creek) were a stronghold of yuppiedom when we were looking for a home to rent back in 1987.  Rents were outrageous, and the price of groceries was much higher than in neighbouring Solano Co. (Vallejo), where we opted to live in WWII-vintage Navy housing.

If my husband had been an “O4” instead of an “E4” the real estate agents might have taken us seriously.  As it was, we were left with the feeling that we weren’t “their kind of people”.

The problem is that the criminals tend to be somebody’s son or boyfriend. So in a neighborhood where every family has one in the family, there is tremendous pressure not to report crime.

When these families move out of that environment, they find they have neighbors who do report crime and don’t tolerate criminals just because they are somebody’s son or boyfriend.

1928 PB is so correct.  The juries won’t convict “somebody’s son.”  And to top it all, when they are clustered together in an area, they elect crooked judges, officials and police chiefs.  The more affuent citizens are at fault for not enforcing the law and serving on juries.  Good people should run for office, and churches should be doing more in those poor communities than soup kitchen and social work without the life changing Gospel.  Crime is like an infection or cancer.  It spreads to other communities if not stopped.  IMHO

from First Things, regarding San Francisco’s tolerance of another group:

In San Francisco, the city and county board of supervisors unanimously declared January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, “Stand Up for Choice Day” and officially declared San Francisco a pro-choice city. Supervisor Bevan Duffy declared that pro-lifers were “not welcome in San Francisco.” Supervisor Tom Ammiano complained about the audacity of pro-life activists who “think that they can come to our fair city and demonstrate.” The head of the Golden Gate chapter of Planned Parenthood was outraged that activists “have been so emboldened that they believe that their message will be tolerated here.” The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in the mid-1960s has come to this.

#10 As much as I agree with you, I think your post is off topic unless the topic is San Francisco attitudes   Another thread for your topic would be welcome.

However I think the topic here is whether enforcing certain standards is racist when those committing the trespasses against the standards are mostly black. 

I remember when I had friends who belonged to a private swimming club and I went there as a guest.  One black family had been invited by other members to be members.  No one had every disturbed the peace of the place by playing a radio at their picnic table, or at least, not at a level to be heard at anyone else’s table.  The black family brought a radio and played it loudly.  People talked about it, but no one would speak to them about it.  They didn’t want to be perceived as racist.  But it wasn’t that the folks were black, it was that they were violating a community standard.  So in the next annual meeting, a rule was passed against radios in the swim or picnic areas, and the signs with the rules were redone.  The black family again brought their radio and played it loudly.  In fact, they had two radios, one for the picnic table, and one to play very loudly down by the water,  so they could hear it while they were swimming.  And still, no one wanted to talk to them about it.  Some people left the club and found a more exclusive one…not because they didn’t like black people qua black people, but because they didn’t want to listen to loud so called music.  Some people would say that this is still racist because “black culture” involves having loud music at all congenial gatherings, and objecting to this is objecting to “black culture” and therefore still racist.  Now someone on the board of this club should have spoken to these folks and enforced the rules. 
      When crime is involved, even more so.  And no one should have to endure being called racist because they want a quiet neighborhood,  because they want to be able to walk down the street without having rude comments made,  because they don’t want drug deals on the corner of their street,  or because they object to any other crime or uncivil behavior. 
Susan Peterson

#10, Let me say that I hope the prolifers show up in great numbers and demonstrate in San Francisco.  If I lived on that side of the country, I would.  As it is, I am going to DC on January 22. 
Susan Peterson

Thank you, Susan.  The point I was trying to make, but didn’t make very well, was that San Francisco can be intolerant, in certain circumstances, even to the point of discouraging the freedom of speech.  But my comment did seem to block the flow of the thread, and I see it was counterproductive.

Who knows, maybe it was my comment that interrupted the flow of comments.  I thought this one would generate many more posts.  Susan Peterson

If you are interested in continuing conversation on the phenomenon of crime following the renters as they move out of the projects with Section 8 vouchers, here is the link to the Atlantic Monthly article again.

Or is the real topic, see, see, people in California are really just as racist as people in Mississippi, or such?