Mar
10
Red-lining, by all other names, is still Red-lining
March 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment
I found all of the four reading interesting for this class. I read the Daily News article first, which I had to grit my teeth through, but there were certain interesting points raised. It was hard to read because there were so many grammar and spelling errors that I had to double check that this was a professional source. Aside from that, the article raised a good point, which was to say that inequality can be deceptive for two reasons: on a local level, many micro elements are involved that aren’t always possible to cope with and high-level success that is inherent in cities can skew the inequality. It is true that cities do attract the poor because of many of the welfare benefits and cheap transit options, which can lead to higher levels of the poor that only goes up as more and more help is given. It is also true that NYC is the financial capital of the country, which brings a significant wealthy population that is centered that that isn’t apparent throughout the country. It is also true that in general cities are broken into the rich and poor due to the benefits and structure of a city establishment. What isn’t true is that although all this has been inherent and is true, does not mean that it should be accepted as the status quo or that it is a good thing.
The American Enterprise Institution article was my favorite of the bunch. It brought about ideas and studies that are relevant to the current economic position of the cities and the country. The tech boom is undeniable, and isn’t necessarily bad. When these companies move into cities, they bring bright, young workers and the massive employment, even though a lot of it is recruited from outside the city, brings about even more employment to the city because of the new needs of the company and city. Strong mid-level jobs are offered at these companies and small businesses and general occupations are also increased in the surrounding area, bringing about progress on both sides and a ton of opportunity to bring about higher wages and more equal/livable occupations for residents. It is interesting to bring up the idea of mobility, which is often left undiscussed but is extremely relevant. When these “hubs” pop up, people come from all over as if it was the Gold Rush to fill the new jobs, but many people are living at such a low level that if these opportunities happen outside of their city, they are incapable of getting to that chance of a better job.
The CNN article was short, but hearing about that policy disgusted me. It is more than red-lining, it is truly segregation. Again like the charter schools, there is not only an obvious difference of quality between the schools, but it is shoved right in front of peoples’ faces. To restrict residents from facilities with in their building breeds social stratification and racial/ethnic segregation. To be so political in their reasoning only made it worse. To say, it is simply the difference of owners deserving more utilities than those who rent is simply giving a different name to the two groups. Those who rent do so because they aren’t financially capable of owning the apartments, not because they enjoy renting instead! It is a class based segregation. There needs to be more opportunities for affordable housing with fair and equal amenities for all residents throughout the city, in both high and low income areas.
The Washington Post article furthers this sentiment with regards to fair zoning and the injustice of the zoning practice in place. This article directly discusses the practice of red-lining, without using the term. The whole separation between cities and suburbs is a long discussed problem that still hasn’t changed. Those with the job and financial flexibility to move to destinations of higher income are going to do so, which only increases the income necessary to live in that area. That leaves those without that mobility to stay where they are, as the education and job opportunity continues to wain as those that can leave do. There are who towns especially in New York suburbs that are so segregated, based on zoning and housing inflation based on the moving around of the higher paid occupants, that it reminds you of the 1950/60s. This is a social injustice and only furthers income inequality, while pushing forward social prejudices and makes education equality and job opportunity stay stratified for many minority groups. They not only given less of an equal opportunity from the get-go, not only facing racism and stereotypes, but they are literally given a significantly lower chance of, even generationally, moving up the social stratum due to their location restrictions.
This issue always gets me irritated because of how deeply these practices have simply kept the civil rights injustices that were apparent in the country’s disgusting past and simply given them new names, fancier language, and equally detrimental. What is so bothersome about the practice is that it simply destroys human capital of the country by truly shackling a significant portion of the population to one place and one level in society, the bottom. The poor are being kept poor, it has nothing to do with their work ethic, ethnicity, or intelligence, it is the conscious effort of those in current and past power to limit the potential of certain groups of the population. What I find interesting is that especially in a city that prides itself in the ability of it’s residents to be “self-made” and being a cut throat competitive environment, there is only one reason for this shackling. Those who are currently in power are afraid of competition. They say the poor are the weak link and that certain ethnicities are lazy or don’t want to work, but the real case is that they have used their power to stunt the masses from the beginning because they know that with true equal opportunity, they would be fighting for their jobs from these equally capable residents. If these people truly find themselves superior, I challenge them to prove it! Take away the restrictions and see what happens in the next few generations. Then we will see just how average YOU are.
Jake Greenberg
