Quote Originally Posted by swingline View Post
...snip...

Obviously another potential problem with the changes coming to these neighborhoods occurs when the existing history and culture is ignored and/or disrespected by new residents. Avoiding this is 100% within control of the new residents and shame on them if they can't or don't see this. But neighborhoods change racially and demographically all the time so there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with the trend discussed in the NYT article.
The 'trend' seems like success. Back in the day, the goal was 'integration'.

Isn't this what we wanted? A community with diversity? But I guess being the poster-child for attribute-based privilege, I can't see the concern that black residents have towards a re-taking of their neighborhood by people who are more privileged than they are. This privilege counting is tiring.

But let's accept it here. What's the fear? That schools will starting being named after Europeans again. Out with MLK school. In with Jeremy Corbin school? History being erased doesn't stop. Once we accept that a neighborhood can erase white history, you have to accept that black history will get erased another day. [[Which is why we should not erase history.). If the incoming residents are purchasers, and the existing residents are renters, this is a concern. But we know that the gov't solutions to this kind of problem are worse than the disease. I would hope that current community groups are working hard to get black buyers into the market. That's the only solution. Use the system against itself, if you will.

Quote Originally Posted by swingline View Post
One interesting question left unexplored is whether middle and upper-middle African American families are seeking out these new "bargain" neighborhoods close to city centers. If not, why?
Same as my last point above. Are they? If not, why not. If we are not to have a racial/owner-renter divide, we need to do something now while the 'hood is still a 'bargain'.