Why Democrats Are the Party of Inequality

[Redress]

Oh really? Some liberals do do it? How absolutely strange, because earlier you pointed it out as if it was just conservatives that were doing it. And hmm, odd...I point out that it crosses party lines, unlike your partisan presentation of it, and for some reason you think agreeing with me but saying "but we don't do it as much!" somehow counters my point?

You know, my post did not contain the word "Just"...

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

What mixed income housing looks like?

"Mold-ridden, dripping with sewage, and isolated at the top of a hill, the notorious Hunters View projects used to be the poster child for how not to design public housing. But this January, at last, new digs for the long-beleaguered occupants opened their doors. The first of three construction phases, the 107 LEED-certified, neo-Victorian units face a tree- and garden-lined avenue. There’s also a community room, a playground, and a terraced park that offers views rivaling those from Millennium Tower." - See more at: San Francisco Magazine | Modern Luxury | Best of the Bay 2013: Bayview Fix-ups

uhm..... thanks for helping my position.

Bayview revitalization comes with huge price to black residents - SFGate

"Bayview revitalization comes with huge price to black residents
As neighborhood revitalizes itself with light-rail line, condos and sweeping redevelopment plan, many longtime residents of historic African American district can no longer afford to live there"

Forward!



edit to add:

Regional exodus

"It's a story that is being repeated throughout the Bay Area. Since 1990, census estimates suggest the region has lost at least 40,000 African Americans, or 8 percent of its black population, even while the region's overall population increased by 15 percent"


I guess they aren't welcoming thier new hipster overlords.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The essence of debate is to support your opinions. Something you have failed to do.

I am, despite your vapid claims otherwise.

 

[matchlight]

uhm..... thanks for helping my position.

Bayview revitalization comes with huge price to black residents - SFGate

"Bayview revitalization comes with huge price to black residents
As neighborhood revitalizes itself with light-rail line, condos and sweeping redevelopment plan, many longtime residents of historic African American district can no longer afford to live there"

Forward!

Reminds me of "urban renewal," which became such a big thing in the 1950's. The joke among the blacks who got priced out of the old neighborhoods they'd lived in was that it really should have been called "Negro removal."

 

[Hard Truth]

I find this method of debate dull. I never claimed that liberals didn't want to live in nice places, I pointed out, that in some places liberals go out of their way to keep "undesirables out". ....

It is only liberals, not conservatives, who pressure local politicians to maintain economically diverse cities and have protested measures that drive out minorities and the poor. Examples of liberal efforts to keep cities diverse include raising the minimum wage, encouraging purchase of SRO by non-profit groups, requiring inclusionary housing for large residential projects, protective zoning for blue collar jobs, protesting the building of high-end housing, establishing limits on condo conversions, protecting rent control etc.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

It is only liberals, not conservatives, who pressure local politicians to maintain economically diverse cities and have protested measures that drive out minorities and the poor. Examples of liberal efforts to keep cities diverse include raising the minimum wage, encouraging purchase of SRO by non-profit groups, requiring inclusionary housing for large residential projects, protective zoning for blue collar jobs, protesting the building of high-end housing, establishing limits on condo conversions, protecting rent control etc.

They do that, as they line up to be the first to buy the new luxury housing around the barclay's center in brooklyn (note they used eminent domain to get rid of the "undesirables"). It's lipservice, come on. there is a mass exodus of black people in San Fran, because they can't afford what thier rich white, mostly liberal overlords can. lol

 

[Zyphlin]

You know, my post did not contain the word "Just"...

That's why you missed my edit where I better clarified what I was trying to say

It didn't include "just", but it absolutely ONLY pointed out and called out conservatives. If you were meaning, thinking, or suggesting that anyone other than them were guilty of doing such a thing then the only way we could've known such is if we were mind readers. Unfortunately I've not developed that mutant power at this time.

**** like that post I can expect from a number of posters, but was rather shocking coming from you.

 

[Visbek]

Why is this? and how is it reconciled with the claim that republicans are the only party for the rich?

OK, I guess you didn't actually read the article. Despite its blatant partisan bias, it does point out how zoning laws in dense urban cities wind up reducing available housing, which drives up prices.

We should note that stiff competition for specific geographic areas is not what ultimately causes income inequality. Claiming so ignores factors like:
• Globalization and automating the union manufacturing jobs that used to provide a middle-class living to people with high-school educations
• Changes to the tax code which allow the wealthy to keep more of their income/wealth, and build dynasties
• Increasing demands on public schools, notably mainstreaming children with learning disabilities, without sufficient resources to keep up
• CEOs collecting 4-5 times more pay, compared to other employees, than in the 1970s
• Cuts to higher education, which makes college outpace inflation, and thus makes the "ticket to the middle class" harder to get

Meanwhile, the reason why the Republicans are caricatured as a "party for the rich" is because many of their policies -- wait for it -- favor the wealthy. Many Democratic policies and enacted laws have similar effects, of course, but at least they want things like progressive taxes, safety nets, and to keep the poor enfranchised. They also don't blame the poor for being poor. Go figure.

 

[Redress]

That's why you missed my edit where I better clarified what I was trying to say

It didn't include "just", but it absolutely ONLY pointed out and called out conservatives. If you were meaning, thinking, or suggesting that anyone other than them were guilty of doing such a thing then the only way we could've known such is if we were mind readers. Unfortunately I've not developed that mutant power at this time.

**** like that post I can expect from a number of posters, but was rather shocking coming from you.

That might be because this was posted by a conservative, and this section is filled with conservatives doing that. However, I disparage opinion sources by all groups, and have done so on this board. You could for an easy example do a search for my posts containing the phrase "media matters" for examples.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

That might be because this was posted by a conservative, and this section is filled with conservatives doing that. However, I disparage opinion sources by all groups, and have done so on this board. You could for an easy example do a search for my posts containing the phrase "media matters" for examples.

I find my positions in contrast with conservatives on many levels. If you want to call me that I am not, It simply makes you look ignorant. If that is how you wish to portray yourself, I won't stop you.


Unlike a conservative, I don't care who you ****, who you marry, what drugs you do. I also don't believe we need to be the worlds police and would do wonders in this economy if we downsized to a more reasonable defensive force. I am against corporate welfare and crony capitalism. I could probably go on. But I am well aware you are fishing for a reaction.

 

[matchlight]

It is only liberals, not conservatives, who pressure local politicians to maintain economically diverse cities and have protested measures that drive out minorities and the poor. Examples of liberal efforts to keep cities diverse include raising the minimum wage, encouraging purchase of SRO by non-profit groups, requiring inclusionary housing for large residential projects, protective zoning for blue collar jobs, protesting the building of high-end housing, establishing limits on condo conversions, protecting rent control etc.

What is an "economically diverse city?" The latest planning jargon?

Nothing could hurt black teenagers' job prospects more than minimum wage laws.

Where and when have conservatives done anything to discourage non-profit organizations from buying housing for the poor? They can buy whatever they want.

What is "inclusionary housing for large residential projects?" Do you mean forcing private developers by law to build housing there is no demand for in a given area, and eat the loss?

What is "protective zoning for blue-collar jobs?"

I don't know why a landowner should not have the right to build expensive houses in a single-family residential zone, if he thinks he can sell them. Ever hear of the constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process of law?

Rent control is a great way to discourage both new housing stock and the maintenance of what is already there. It is just another market distortion, and it encourages property owners to find ways to make up the rent it causes them to lose.

 

[US Conservative]

This is an interesting observation. Often we hear about how the republicans are "the party of the rich", and of "income inequality", however if you are to look at places like Manhattan, San Francisco and the like, liberal strongholds. affordable housing is a near impossibility for most of the middle class in these left wing cities.

Why is this? and how is it reconciled with the claim that republicans are the only party for the rich?

The issue here is liberal spin. Saying republicans are the party of the rich when the data suggests otherwise (rather they are working poor and middle class largely) is just a liberal spin tactic.

Blacks have done worse under democrats. Women have done worse. More people are dependent (which benefits the democrat party). Crime is worse and schools are worse under dems.

So when the spin is removed, we can get a better idea of whats going on. Im reminded of the long and unending string of failures of Marxism, and how it had to move from being champions of the poor to "champions" of the middle class-because there was no question capitalism and the free market outperformed Marxism and it looked silly to suggest otherwise.

 

[Hard Truth]

They do that, as they line up to be the first to buy the new luxury housing around the barclay's center in brooklyn (note they used eminent domain to get rid of the "undesirables"). It's lipservice, come on. there is a mass exodus of black people in San Fran, because they can't afford what thier rich white, mostly liberal overlords can. lol

1. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, not a political philosophy.
2. These cities also have plenty of moderates.
3. Just because someone acquired luxury housing doesn't mean that they supported the past use of eminent domain.

 

[Hard Truth]

uhm..... thanks for helping my position.

Bayview revitalization comes with huge price to black residents - SFGate

"Bayview revitalization comes with huge price to black residents
As neighborhood revitalizes itself with light-rail line, condos and sweeping redevelopment plan, many longtime residents of historic African American district can no longer afford to live there"

Forward!



edit to add:

Regional exodus

"It's a story that is being repeated throughout the Bay Area. Since 1990, census estimates suggest the region has lost at least 40,000 African Americans, or 8 percent of its black population, even while the region's overall population increased by 15 percent"


I guess they aren't welcoming thier new hipster overlords.

That article is correct, but it does not refer to the particular housing development I mentioned. The pressures that are displacing African Americans in SF is coming from the redevelopment agency*, newly arrived workers in the tech boom and developers, not from liberals. Some measures are two-edged swords. The light rail line greatly improved the transportation situation for the neighborhood, but it also made the area more attractive to more prosperous people. The same is true of environmental clean-up, better law enforcement, removal of blighted properties etc.

*Redevelopment Agencies have a very checkered history and have been used by business interests, moderates and conservatives to drive out minorities and poor people from areas with good development potential in the past. Pressure from the poor, minorities and liberals have mostly ended the worst of those practices, but there are still some powerful business interests influencing redevelopment plans behind the scenes.

 

[poweRob]

Thanks man. Hoping for the best, btw, did I post this in the wrong section?

Yes. There is a section specifically for ReverendHellh0und called "anywhere else on the interwebz". j/k

It's been a while.

 

[TeleKat]

This is an interesting observation. Often we hear about how the republicans are "the party of the rich", and of "income inequality", however if you are to look at places like Manhattan, San Francisco and the like, liberal strongholds. affordable housing is a near impossibility for most of the middle class in these left wing cities.

Why is this? and how is it reconciled with the claim that republicans are the only party for the rich?

There's alot more at play with big cities and poverty than simple party politics. :roll:

 

[Hard Truth]

1 What is an "economically diverse city?" The latest planning jargon?

2 Nothing could hurt black teenagers' job prospects more than minimum wage laws.

3 Where and when have conservatives done anything to discourage non-profit organizations from buying housing for the poor? They can buy whatever they want.

4 What is "inclusionary housing for large residential projects?" Do you mean forcing private developers by law to build housing there is no demand for in a given area, and eat the loss?

5 What is "protective zoning for blue-collar jobs?"

6 I don't know why a landowner should not have the right to build expensive houses in a single-family residential zone, if he thinks he can sell them. Ever hear of the constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process of law?

7 Rent control is a great way to discourage both new housing stock and the maintenance of what is already there. It is just another market distortion, and it encourages property owners to find ways to make up the rent it causes them to lose.

1 An economically diverse city is one that has people at all levels of prosperity as opposed to a city that is all rich or all poor.

2 I disagree about minimum wage. Many people without a lot of marketable skills still need to support themselves and their families.

3 Those non-profits buying or managing SROs are subsidized with City funds, something many conservatives would oppose.

4 Inclusionary housing for large residential projects is a requirement that developers make a portion of the building affordable to people earning less than the median income for the region.

5 Protective zoning for blue-collar jobs is the use of zoning laws to reserve certain areas for industrial uses including production (factories), distribution (warehouses and trucking) and repair. Without it, many of these businesses and the blue collar jobs they support would be displaced by the development of offices or expensive housing that can pay more for the real estate. Due to their nature, these businesses can not relocate to many other parts of town.

6 Zoning protects the property values and quality of life for people in residential areas. Would you want a slaughterhouse located next door to you home? It does not control how expensive a home is, only the size and appearance of the building. The legal power of the public to oppose high-end housing is very limited, which is why there is too much in SF, despite widespread opposition. The problem with high-end housing is that it does nothing to help people seeking an affordable home, it just attracts more rich people to the city.

7 Rent control protects renters who have affordable housing from losing it at the whim of the landlord and the marketplace. It also reduces the supply of lower cost housing subject to rent control. In SF newer building are not subject to rent control. Overall, rent control does more good than harm.

 

[US Conservative]

There's alot more at play with big cities and poverty than simple party politics. :roll:

Thats true, but cities nearly completely run by dems that are in shambles like detroit and chicago certainly dont lend them any credibility, do they?

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

This is an interesting observation. Often we hear about how the republicans are "the party of the rich", and of "income inequality", however if you are to look at places like Manhattan, San Francisco and the like, liberal strongholds. affordable housing is a near impossibility for most of the middle class in these left wing cities.

Why is this? and how is it reconciled with the claim that republicans are the only party for the rich?

With regard to cities like New York City and San Francisco there is a high demand to live there that pushes up the prices of housing naturally as increases in demand tend to do. Other cities like Boston and, again, San Francisco have issues with limited land to build on that most cities in the Sunbelt do not have to deal with.

With that said, you will probably agree with me that the greater issue with most really liberal cities is regulation. Whether it is zoning that limits the height of buildings, rent control, or any other assortment of building regulation that architects and developers have to deal with, will only cause the price of housing to increase.

One of the most glaring examples I can think where housing prices are out of control is San Francisco. There you have a very limited amount of space to build, and thus the only option they have is to build up. Just looking at pictures of their skyline one can see there are huge amounts of areas where there are three or four story buildings, but could easily have thirty or forty story buildings to help meet the demand for housing. Instead you have a confluence of minority rights groups that complain about any gentrification and NIMBYs that oppose any and all building that will modernize the skyline of San Francisco. In attempts to keep San Francisco in some sort of bubble from the 1960s the unfortunate outcome is buildings that are fantastically overpriced, falling apart, and unaffordable to only the most wealthy of citizens.

Just yesterday on their ballot was a proposition (Prop G specifically) that would have taxed building owners at 25% if they sold apartment buildings within one year of purchase that would phase out once the property was owned for five years. Although it did not pass it is regulations like that that would only make San Francisco's problems worse because I could easily see developers refusing to renovate new buildings or they would price the potential cost of the tax into a tenant's rent.

As I finish let me say that not all liberal cities are like this. I live outside Chicago and here there are fewer problems that people have with development. In turn, for a city so large housing and rental costs are both fairly affordable. Things could be better, but compared to some cities things here could be much worse.

By the way, welcome back!

 

[matchlight]

1 An economically diverse city is one that has people at all levels of prosperity as opposed to a city that is all rich or all poor.

2 I disagree about minimum wage. Many people without a lot of marketable skills still need to support themselves and their families.

3 Those non-profits buying or managing SROs are subsidized with City funds, something many conservatives would oppose.

4 Inclusionary housing for large residential projects is a requirement that developers make a portion of the building affordable to people earning less than the median income for the region.

5 Protective zoning for blue-collar jobs is the use of zoning laws to reserve certain areas for industrial uses including production (factories), distribution (warehouses and trucking) and repair. Without it, many of these businesses and the blue collar jobs they support would be displaced by the development of offices or expensive housing that can pay more for the real estate. Due to their nature, these businesses can not relocate to many other parts of town.

6 Zoning protects the property values and quality of life for people in residential areas. Would you want a slaughterhouse located next door to you home? It does not control how expensive a home is, only the size and appearance of the building. The legal power of the public to oppose high-end housing is very limited, which is why there is too much in SF, despite widespread opposition. The problem with high-end housing is that it does nothing to help people seeking an affordable home, it just attracts more rich people to the city.

7 Rent control protects renters who have affordable housing from losing it at the whim of the landlord and the marketplace. It also reduces the supply of lower cost housing subject to rent control. In SF newer building are not subject to rent control. Overall, rent control does more good than harm.

Why not just admit that what you would really like to see is Soviet-style centralized planning, where the rights of private property owners mean next to nothing? Urban planning is an inherently pink endeavor. Its purpose is to force people to make economic decisions that someone else has decided serve some collective good, rather than ones they would make if it were up to them.

 

[Visbek]

The issue here is liberal spin. Saying republicans are the party of the rich when the data suggests otherwise (rather they are working poor and middle class largely) is just a liberal spin tactic.

Uh, no... it's kind of a fact. It's not as simple as anyone depicts it, but party affiliation does actually track fairly well to income, and that trend appears to have increased in recent years. (The top 1%, by the way, has a slight Republican lean, but is equally conservative as the rest of the country.)

Blacks have done worse under democrats. Women have done worse. More people are dependent (which benefits the democrat party). Crime is worse and schools are worse under dems.

Blacks have done worse not because of Democratic policies. It's mostly due to:
• Globalization and automating the union manufacturing jobs that used to provide a middle-class living to people with high-school educations.
• Increasing demands on public schools, notably mainstreaming children with learning disabilities, without sufficient resources to keep up.
• Cuts to higher education, which makes college outpace inflation, and thus makes the "ticket to the middle class" harder to get.
• Increasingly draconian policies on crime, responsibility for which is pretty much 50/50 Dem/Repub.
• Continuing racial discrimination. Nowhere near as bad as before the Civil Rights era, occasionally overplayed, but still not particularly good.

Women have actually done better in many respects for decades, regardless of which party holds Congress and/or the Presidency. They steadily joined the workforce from roughly 1960 to 2000, and only gradually started leaving the workforce around 2001. There should be no question that many Democratic policies have improved the political status of women, including advocating for women to be in the workplace, a growing awareness of domestic violence, promotion of birth control, anti-discrimination laws, anti-harassment laws. Many conservatives still dump on many of these changes, and routinely deride the very idea that women are not paid equally as men, even when factors are equal.

The increase in dependency is mostly due to people aging, and collecting Social Security. Good luck finding anyone from any party who wants to cut SS eligibility.

Crime is, in fact, down dramatically since 1991.

Schools are worse because, as noted, we're now mainstreaming kids who would never have gotten near a normal public school. Those kids are included in test scores, services for them are underfunded.

Meanwhile, what do Republicans typically advocate? Tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, regardless of the economic or fiscal conditions. Cutting every safety net possible. Spending more on the military (most of which goes to contractors and companies like Halliburton and Boeing), even when we don't need it.

Im reminded of the long and unending string of failures of Marxism....

What doesn't remind you of Marxism? Craisins, perhaps? Oh wait, they're red. Never mind. :mrgreen:

Oh, by the way and a minor point.... You're actually thinking of Communism. Marx never specified anything about the structure of the post-Revolutionary/post-Capitalist state, those systems were created by Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. Communism ≠ Marxism.

 

[US Conservative]

Uh, no... it's kind of a fact. It's not as simple as anyone depicts it, but party affiliation does actually track fairly well to income, and that trend appears to have increased in recent years. (The top 1%, by the way, has a slight Republican lean, but is equally conservative as the rest of the country.)

Blacks have done worse not because of Democratic policies. It's mostly due to:
• Globalization and automating the union manufacturing jobs that used to provide a middle-class living to people with high-school educations.
• Increasing demands on public schools, notably mainstreaming children with learning disabilities, without sufficient resources to keep up.
• Cuts to higher education, which makes college outpace inflation, and thus makes the "ticket to the middle class" harder to get.
• Increasingly draconian policies on crime, responsibility for which is pretty much 50/50 Dem/Repub.
• Continuing racial discrimination. Nowhere near as bad as before the Civil Rights era, occasionally overplayed, but still not particularly good.

Women have actually done better in many respects for decades, regardless of which party holds Congress and/or the Presidency. They steadily joined the workforce from roughly 1960 to 2000, and only gradually started leaving the workforce around 2001. There should be no question that many Democratic policies have improved the political status of women, including advocating for women to be in the workplace, a growing awareness of domestic violence, promotion of birth control, anti-discrimination laws, anti-harassment laws. Many conservatives still dump on many of these changes, and routinely deride the very idea that women are not paid equally as men, even when factors are equal.

The increase in dependency is mostly due to people aging, and collecting Social Security. Good luck finding anyone from any party who wants to cut SS eligibility.

Crime is, in fact, down dramatically since 1991.

Schools are worse because, as noted, we're now mainstreaming kids who would never have gotten near a normal public school. Those kids are included in test scores, services for them are underfunded.

Meanwhile, what do Republicans typically advocate? Tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, regardless of the economic or fiscal conditions. Cutting every safety net possible. Spending more on the military (most of which goes to contractors and companies like Halliburton and Boeing), even when we don't need it.



What doesn't remind you of Marxism? Craisins, perhaps? Oh wait, they're red. Never mind. :mrgreen:

Oh, by the way and a minor point.... You're actually thinking of Communism. Marx never specified anything about the structure of the post-Revolutionary/post-Capitalist state, those systems were created by Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. Communism ≠ Marxism.

Lots of fail in your post, from your marxist "quintiles" which segregate based on income and not population to your dismissal of the issues amongst minorities.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The good reverend returns...

 

[Visbek]

Lots of fail in your post, from your marxist "quintiles"

"Marxist quintiles?" Seriously? :lamo

Income quintiles are the standard way of determining income inequality... which is what this thread is about.

to your dismissal of the issues amongst minorities.

How is explicitly referring to discrimination, loss of jobs, and problems with the criminal justice system a "dismissal of the issues amongst minorities"?

I have to ask, did you even bother to read my post? Or did you just figure that incorrectly calling me a "Marxist" you could ignore what I'm writing?

 

[Kobie]

Here is a better article, From the Atlantic, highlighting the liberal inequality.


Why Middle-Class Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Cities - The Atlantic

"Among the 100 largest U.S. metros, 63 percent of homes are "within reach" for a middle-class family, according to Trulia. But among the 20 richest U.S. metros, just 47 percent of homes are affordable, including a national low of 14 percent in San Francisco. The firm defined "within reach" as a for-sale home with a total monthly payment (including mortgage and taxes) less than 31 percent of the metro's median household income.

If you line up the country's 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle class families in richer cities have more income. [The graph below considers only the 25 richest US metros to keep city names moderately legible within the computer screen.]"

Wow, housing is more expensive in more affluent cities. Who'da thunk it.