#BLMers now demanding that white people give up our homes!

[Derec]

The racist #BLMers are getting more and more brazen and more and more openly racist.

Seattle BLM protesters demand white people ‘give up’ their homes

Another source for the video:

 

[Toni]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

 

[laughing dog]

The racist #BLMers are getting more and more brazen and more and more openly racist.

Seattle BLM protesters demand white people ‘give up’ their homes

Another source for the video:

Is there a point to the OP?

Do you really think there will be a push to take homes away from white people who live in neighborhoods that were previously inhabited by mostly black people?

 

[Derec]

Is there a point to the OP?

Yes, it is further evidence against the common claim that #BLM is a positive movement. In reality, they are a bunch of racist extremists.

Do you really think there will be a push to take homes away from white people who live in neighborhoods that were previously inhabited by mostly black people?

Who knows any more with these leftist-run cities. Last year I would not have guessed that the mayor of Seattle would express support for a band on extremists taking over a neighborhood of her city.

 

[Derec]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

You know, Hooper X was supposed to be a caricature even in-universe.

Gentrification just means that the neighborhood is becoming better and more desirable. Increasing property values are a good thing. Declining property values are a bad thing.

And even if you (and the #BLMers) are opposed to gentrification, an angry mob going around harassing residents is definitely not a proper way to go about things. Can't we agree on that? Especially when the mob is yelling that the residents are the wrong skin color to be living in that neighborhood. Doesn't that remind you of something?

 

[ruby sparks]

If those whites moving in "bought all the land from the black people for less than what it was worth and kicked them out" then the protesters have a point. However, gentrification does not necessarily, or in my experience usually, involve this, so I don't know if they actually do have a point, and I would be sceptical and would not tend to support such demands. Gentrifiers usually buy in at the initially low but at the time going rate. In other words, they pay what the properties are worth at the time and what anyone would pay at the time regardless of race. And as prices go up during the gentrification, those selling up get a better price as the process goes on. And if they choose to relocate to an alternative ungentrified area, they profit, because they can still get the new home at a lower price. The situation for tenants might be different.

Obviously, in the USA, given the patterns of racial segregation and economic disparity that occurred over time, sometimes for dubious reasons, it's a bit more historically complicated and nuanced than that.

 

[laughing dog]

Is there a point to the OP?

Yes, it is further evidence against the common claim that #BLM is a positive movement. In reality, they are a bunch of racist extremists.

Some people say something stupid and you generalize about an entire international movement?

Do you really think there will be a push to take homes away from white people who live in neighborhoods that were previously inhabited by mostly black people?

Who knows any more with these leftist-run cities. Last year I would not have guessed that the mayor of Seattle would express support for a band on extremists taking over a neighborhood of her city.

I think you really need to take a chill pill.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wouldn't begin to demand white people give up their homes. I would demand that rent seekers who are almost universally white (but in reality, regardless of race) be forced to sell their rental properties to lower income locals at price points commensurate with the rent paid over the previous years (to prevent rate hike inflation).

This would in effect be forcing "people who are mostly white", to sell the homes they don't live in to "people who are largely/mostly black".

Because really, what purpose do those people serve other than profiting on "being there first"?

 

[Toni]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

You know, Hooper X was supposed to be a caricature even in-universe.
View attachment 28945
Gentrification just means that the neighborhood is becoming better and more desirable. Increasing property values are a good thing. Declining property values are a bad thing.

And even if you (and the #BLMers) are opposed to gentrification, an angry mob going around harassing residents is definitely not a proper way to go about things. Can't we agree on that? Especially when the mob is yelling that the residents are the wrong skin color to be living in that neighborhood. Doesn't that remind you of something?

Actually, you're wrong. It is similar to what happens--what I saw happen where I grew up-- to farmland: Someone wants to 'improve' the land and change the purpose. They buy up some acres from an aging farmer or his estate and put up some homes. Taxed at a higher rate, the county is happy and farmers nearby see an increase in their property values. And an increase in their taxes. New neighbors who moved for the 'serenity of country life' are offended by the smell of manure spread on fields and disturbed by the normal smells and dirt associated with farming. They complain. It gets worse as farmers try to keep up with the times and increase their modest hog operation to one that will be profitable--but requires a manure lagoon. No one wants to live downwind. Or something else, depending on operation. Or they can't afford to 'modernize' or they're getting older or whatever. Repeat the process long enough and pretty soon, the few farmers that have managed to hold on to their land are hanging by a thread. Another generation and that thread is gone and forgotten.

When neighborhoods are gentrified, what happens is that local small businesses are pushed out. People, at least most Americans, are comforted by name brands so when that bodega that has served the neighborhood for 40 years is bought by a Starbucks, then the new neighbors are delighted. They didn't use the bodega anyways. Big boxes come in, small family owned restaurants are bought up and everything becomes a chain. Property taxes rise steadily as the neighborhood is improved and property owners--who may or may not live there--cash out if they are lucky and sometimes are forced out as rising property values increase their property taxes. Any increase in property tax is passed along to tenants--businesses and families and both get priced out of the neighborhood where they grew up and raised their kids. It's not possible to move en masse and often moving, means moving down, not up. Communities and community structure and cohesion break apart. Families that used to rely on one another are the new people in a neighborhood that may simply be another faceless anonymous bland development owned by people far away who do not give a tinker's damn about maintaining the buildings, or anything else.

Moving is expensive, especially if you are not particularly wealthy and very, very expensive if you are hanging by a thread. Currently have a family member who has been looking for their next place to live as their rent goes up and up. Buying would be cheaper but it's hard to save up the 20% when rent consumes such a huge portion of your income.....

A year or so back, our relatively new next door neighbor started complaining about the people living in the rental home around the corner. Kept saying something about how he didn't like what he saw going on. I asked other neighbors if they had noticed anything weird or bad going on. It's a rental property and usually rented to college students so everyone is used to watching out for bad stuff--usually out of control parties, although that has largely been stopped by working with the landlord. Nobody saw a thing. Oh, the new kids living in that house--the ones who have been probably the quietest neighbors since the house became a rental? They're black. My neighbor sold his house to a nice couple. I want to think that what he saw going on was not 'black people.' But....

 

[ruby sparks]

Because really, what purpose do those people serve other than profiting on "being there first"?

Who do you mean by 'those people'? Landlords?

If so, then, how do you think many of them got there first? Often, buying a residential property to rent out is a venture involving initiative, financial risk and often hard work (not least collecting rent and dealing with tenants who don't look after the property and sometimes trash it) and a route which some might take as a proactive way to essentially try to provide a pension for themselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because really, what purpose do those people serve other than profiting on "being there first"?

Who do you mean by 'those people'? Landlords?

Often, buying a property to let out is a venture involving risk and often hard work, and a route which some might take as a proactive way to essentially provide a pension for themselves?

And they're doing it by parasitizing and sitting on limited resources while inflating their value.

Some rental situations are absolutely OK, particularly when the owners WANT to rent rather than own. Most others are not.

Rent is effectively charging someone a premium to give you equity.

It is a product of our faulty system of "ownership", and it is fucking evil.

At any rate, I've looked at the ridiculous hyperbole of the OP and debugged the (probably straw man claim) demand, to find a reasonable position (or at least a position I find reasonable).

 

[ruby sparks]

Because really, what purpose do those people serve other than profiting on "being there first"?

Who do you mean by 'those people'? Landlords?

Often, buying a property to let out is a venture involving risk and often hard work, and a route which some might take as a proactive way to essentially provide a pension for themselves?

And they're doing it by parasitizing and sitting on limited resources while inflating their value.

Hm. Maybe. For example, I'm temporarily living in one right now which I hope is going to provide a modest pension for me, because my private pension tanked, partly because I had to stop paying into it in 2007 because I took a 50% pay cut in the recession, and have since lost that job when the firm closed. I bought the house (on an interest-only mortgage, which together with other on-costs, including rates and insurances, the rent does more than cover, but not by much, and that's when it is let out which it currently isn't) about 2 years ago, from someone who had bought it for similar reasons 10 years before that at double the price I paid for it, so despite the trouble of maintaining and renting it out for 10 years, he lost a lot of money, as did others like him.

Currently, I am dealing with a couple of major issues to do with very unexpected but necessary repairs (for example there was an oil leak from the boiler last year which meant that the floor had to be dug up to treat the contamination) not to mention problems renting during Covid19, coupled with the introduction this year of a draconian local council initiative to try to remove renting licences in this area for dubious political reasons, so in the short to medium term I am not going to see a profit, and with the talked-about 'largest recession in living memory' potentially looming, I might never make that much (I hope to retire in 7 years aged 67).

Now I'm not asking for sympathy. I made my own speculative decision and I'll do my best to find a way to make it work out for me and hopefully it will. But at least spare me the 'parasite landlords do nothing except just sit around raking it in' spiel.

Sure, there are probably better ways, some of them socialist hypotheticals, and in many cases there's excessive profiteering at the expense of those who rent, but at the same time the anti-landlord sentiment needs to be tempered by reality imo. Ditto by the way for the anti-business owners/employers sentiment which breaks the surface here quite a lot. And I bet that at least some and possibly most of the white householders in the OP don't deserve to be asked to give up what they've got either. Everyone with half a brain and an education knows that capitalism and the self-initiative that goes along with it brought and brings many significant benefits. When it goes too far, or is additionally fuelled by unfair practices, it's a problem, yes.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I wouldn't begin to demand white people give up their homes. I would demand that rent seekers who are almost universally white (but in reality, regardless of race) be forced to sell their rental properties to lower income locals at price points commensurate with the rent paid over the previous years (to prevent rate hike inflation).

This would in effect be forcing "people who are mostly white", to sell the homes they don't live in to "people who are largely/mostly black".

Because really, what purpose do those people serve other than profiting on "being there first"?

I'm a rent seeker, but I'm not white! But there are a lot of reasons why some people need to rent. For one, many people move around a lot due to their jobs. If you're going to live in an area less than 10 years, you're better off renting. I've also always believed in "leasing fun". So, I like to rent homes for a week at a ski mountain or when we're on vacation. Many people can't afford to buy because they don't have the down payment. Rent and save; then buy. Many people want flexibility. Many people have poor credit for a non-recurring problem. Rent until your credit improves, then buy. There's nothing to be ashamed for when you're a renter.

 

[Jarhyn]

And they're doing it by parasitizing and sitting on limited resources while inflating their value.

Hm. Maybe. For example, I'm temporarily living in one right now which I hope is going to provide a modest pension for myself, because my private pension tanked, partly because I had to stop paying into it in 2007 because I took a 50% pay cut in the recession, and have since lost that job when the firm closed. I bought the house (on an interest-only mortgage, which together with other on-costs, including rates and insurances, the rent does more than cover, but not by much, and that's when it is let out which it currently isn't) about 2 years ago, from someone who had bought it for similar reasons 10 years before that at double the price I paid for it, so despite the trouble of maintaining and renting it out for 10 years, he lost a lot of money, as did others like him.

Currently, I am dealing with a couple of major issues to do with very unexpected but necessary repairs (for example there was an oil leak from the boiler last year which meant that the floor had to be dug up to treat the contamination) not to mention problems renting during Covid19, coupled with the introduction this year of a draconian local council initiative to try to remove renting licences in this area for dubious political reasons, so in the short to medium term I am not going to see a profit, and with the talked-about 'largest recession in living memory' potentially looming, I might never make that much (I hope to retire in 7 years aged 67).

Now I'm mot asking for sympathy. I made my own speculative decision and I'll do my best to find a way to make it work out for me and hopefully it will. But at least spare me the 'parasite landlords do nothing except just sit around raking it in' spiel.

Sure, there are probably better ways, some of them socialist hypotheticals, and in many cases there's excessive profiteering at the expense of those who rent, but at the same time the anti-landlord sentiment needs to be tempered. Ditto by the way for the anti-business owners/employers sentiment which breaks the surface here quite a lot. And I bet that at least some and possibly most of the white householders in the OP don't deserve to be asked to give up what they've got either. Everyone with half a brain and an education knows that capitalism and the self-initiative that goes along with it brought and brings many benefits. When it goes too far, it's a problem, yes.

See, one thing the rent seeking industry could do to "go ethical", would be to extend property management services , potentially services that would be added to escrow. But that property management is not worth 100% of the equity of the property either.

The problem is a continued reliance on the fundamentally BROKEN model of ownership that lives in the world today, mostly with the fact that it does not leak to those who are paying the money.

Even partial equity for renters would be an amazing advancement towards equality. It could be just another rate defined within the social contract, and would go a long way towards establishing generational wealth in communities of color.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

In other words, we shouldn't try to improve bad neighborhoods.

 

[SimpleDon]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

You know, Hooper X was supposed to be a caricature even in-universe.
View attachment 28945
Gentrification just means that the neighborhood is becoming better and more desirable. Increasing property values are a good thing. Declining property values are a bad thing.

And even if you (and the #BLMers) are opposed to gentrification, an angry mob going around harassing residents is definitely not a proper way to go about things. Can't we agree on that? Especially when the mob is yelling that the residents are the wrong skin color to be living in that neighborhood. Doesn't that remind you of something?

Why do you believe that property values increasing is a good thing? It isn't. Increasing property values is very bad for the economy as a whole, the overall economy. Increasing property values increases housing costs which increases inflation.

Do you believe that inflation is good for the economy?

The inflation in property values in the housing market is what, in conjunction with the absolutely insane belief that Wall Street doesn't need to be regulated by the government, that caused the Great Recession of 2007, the third worse depression in the last 100 years after the Trump ineptitude Greater Great Depression that we are in right now and the now Lesser Great Depression of the 1930s.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

In other words, we shouldn't try to improve bad neighborhoods.

One approach may be to systemically improve the lifestyles of those already living there rather than just replacing them with richer folk.

 

[laughing dog]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

In other words, we shouldn't try to improve bad neighborhoods.

Why would you assume that a low income neighborhood is bad?

 

[SimpleDon]

Gentrification does force low income people out of their neighborhoods and cause greater instability in the lives of all of those forced to relocate because they are priced out of their neighborhood.

In other words, we shouldn't try to improve bad neighborhoods.

What we should do is to give people the means and to encourage them to improve their own homes and in this way to improve their neighborhoods. And by "means," I am not saying to give them grants to improve their homes, I am saying to increase their wages to where they can buy a home or move out of a poorly maintained rental.

Unfortunately, higher real estate values and higher housing and real estate costs to businesses are a direct result of neoliberalism and supply-side economics. The economy-killing income inequality that is the goal of neoliberalism provides the already rich with much more money than is needed for investment that builds the economy so that they are left with limited places they can put their money where it can earn a return. One of the few remaining places is into real estate, which drives up real estate valuations, housing costs, and rents.

We could use less restrictive zoning regulations. These are used to artificially increase real estate valuations. For some reason, the very same people who preach deregulation and free markets are reluctant to take this step.

Probably the most regulated society in Europe, Germany, has almost no zoning, restricting land use only around airports, military installations, and to protect some farmland.

We could go to the model of local government that prevents the major cities from being choked off from property tax revenue by the formation of many small suburban cities, towns, and villages like we have in the US. These small governments are created to provide lower property taxes to the residents, to give them the advantages of living in a large city without having to pay for them. This increases the property taxes that the city residents have to pay too. This should be but isn't a target for those who believe that we have too much government. Perhaps you know why this is?

 

[ruby sparks]

I wouldn't begin to demand white people give up their homes. I would demand that rent seekers who are almost universally white (but in reality, regardless of race) be forced to sell their rental properties to lower income locals at price points commensurate with the rent paid over the previous years (to prevent rate hike inflation).

This would in effect be forcing "people who are mostly white", to sell the homes they don't live in to "people who are largely/mostly black".

Because really, what purpose do those people serve other than profiting on "being there first"?

I'm a rent seeker, but I'm not white! But there are a lot of reasons why some people need to rent. For one, many people move around a lot due to their jobs. If you're going to live in an area less than 10 years, you're better off renting. I've also always believed in "leasing fun". So, I like to rent homes for a week at a ski mountain or when we're on vacation. Many people can't afford to buy because they don't have the down payment. Rent and save; then buy. Many people want flexibility. Many people have poor credit for a non-recurring problem. Rent until your credit improves, then buy. There's nothing to be ashamed for when you're a renter.

It's not a term I'm familiar with, but I took 'rent seeker' to be a landlord?