A recent article in The Atlantic indirectly sheds some light on Portland’s light-rail crime wave. The article notes several research studies have shown that demolition of major housing projects, such as Chicago’s Cabrini Green, was soon followed by suburban crime waves. Residents of the housing projects used section 8 vouchers to move to lower-middle-class suburbs and, in some cases, brought the crime with them.
Moving poor people from public housing to private rental housing was supposed to help them get out of poverty, meaning children would be more likely to graduate from high school and adults more likely to get a job. But a reanalysis of the research on which this claim was based found that the sample size was small and that people who moved actually worked less in their new homes than when they lived in the projects.
Portland did not have high-rise public housing projects, but it did have a concentration of low-income people who were pushed out of their neighborhoods by urban-growth-boundary-induced gentrification. Portland planner John Fregonese puts a positive spin on this, saying that “segregation is breaking down in Portland.” While it is soothing to think that Portland is getting more integrated, it does not necessarily mean the lives of the people forced out by gentrification have improved.
In fact, The Atlantic suggests, the quality of life for many may have declined. In their previous neighborhoods, whether public housing or rental housing in “the ghetto,” they had a sense of community, social networks, and a “public-support system — health clinics, child care, job training.” Many people lost those things when they moved.
Portland’s crime problem centers around the light rail for two reasons. First, planners subsidized high-density housing on the rail line that has proven more attractive to section 8 families than to yuppies (and those housing projects are probably more criminogenic than the rental homes those families previously lived in). Second, the light rail itself is criminogenic because the lack of on-board supervision allows people to commit crimes without fear of getting caught.
It is a drug that is prescribed by the doctors and scientists at research and development center of VigRX Plus recommended the buy cialis browse that same for overall sexual health enhancement including bigger penis size, bigger erection size, harder and longer erections, and increment in sexual desire. Female smokers are 13 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who viagra prescription frankkrauseautomotive.com have never smoked. This prescription is a order cheap levitra phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitor and will increase the authenticity of website A in the eyes of Google search bots. Too much stress can like this sildenafil prescription lead to fatigue and stress. The Atlantic tells of a criminologist who discovered that a high percentage of sexual assaults in Memphis took place at phone booths outside of convenience stores. He recommended moving the phone booths inside “and the number of assaults fell significantly.” Unsupervised transit vehicles are as susceptible to crime as unsupervised phone booths.
The hard part in all of this is the issue of race. Many people don’t like to bring up the issue of crime in connection with light rail because “crime” is presumed to be a code word for “black,” and no responsible person wants to be labeled a racist. Yet here we are, 45 years after Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream, and large numbers of black families are still in poverty, and no one has figured out how to get them out.
Every group of people who voluntarily migrated to the U.S., including Irish, Italians, Asians, and Hispanics, became solid members of the middle class within two or three generations of their arrival. While there is a growing black middle class, the descendants of black slaves are far less likely to own their own homes, own their own cars, have graduated from high school, and be pushing their kids to go to college than more recent immigrants of other races.
There are many reasons for this, but one major one is that too many people think that the civil rights battles are over. Politically, that seems true. Blacks have the vote and Americans have elected thousands of blacks to public office.
But economically, the battle is far from over. In 1963, black per-capita income was 57 percent of white’s. Today it is 59 percent. Instead of trying to win this battle, too many people have turned to other issues, such as building rail transit, densifying cities, and protecting open space. Unfortunately, their efforts on these fronts often make it more difficult for people to get out of a cycle of poverty.
Maybe electing a black president will help, if only to send low-income blacks a message that they can get out of poverty. Real change doesn’t come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up. We can only hope that, if elected, Obama understands this.
The lives of black families will improve significantly when their range of mobility – what Reason Foundation calls the “opportunity circle” – reaches the same level as whites.
Does anyone know what percent of blacks own automobiles compared to the percent of whites? I would bet the difference is stark.
Transportation “choice” – one of the catch phrases of Smart Growth – doesn’t really offer helpful choices. But Smart Growth is about social equity – light rail lines effectively and evenly redistribute thugs and panhandlers all around the city instead of concentrating them in downtowns by the Greyhound and government buildings.
“While there is a growing black middle class, the descendants of black slaves are far less likely to own their own homes, own their own cars, have graduated from high school, and be pushing their kids to go to college than more recent immigrants of other races.”
As Thomas Sowell has shown over the past three decades, it has little to do with skin color or genetics. Descendants of West Indies immigrants – and immigrants from Africa – are much more likely to achieve economic success than are descendants of American slaves.
Culture more than anything else determines economic success. As long as the American black culture embraces economic dependency, American blacks will remain economically dependent.
Sowell also fixed the blame squarely on black fathers who abandoned their children, or who never even once took responsibility for them. Like other researchers, he showed that blacks raised in two-parent families are much more likely to escape poverty.
One important message from Sowell was about crimes by blacks. He showed that crime rates among the black population was steadily decreasing until the 1960’s. What happened in the 1960’s to cause the increase in black crime?
“Simple” says Sowell: “They stopped punishing criminals.â€Â
Thomas Sowell: Economic Facts and Fallacies
Boy, you would think that there are no more ghettos after reading this article. I think that it is completely insane to attribute the rise in suburban crime to the closing of project housing in the ghettos. Crime is suburbia has been on this rise for some time now. Could it be that living in a residential wasteland is boring for the youth? If you live in a house farm and don’t have access to a personal car (i.e. under 16 or parents didn’t buy you one) there is nothing to do except sit around, watch TV, play xbox, get fat or… get high and smash mail boxes. My feeling is that the correlation between the built environment and crime in suburbia is stronger than the correlation of housing problems in the ghetto and suburban crime.
As for crime on the light rail… I agree with the A.P on this one. I grew up in Denver and used the first RTD line often to get from my mom’s office downtown to my school near the Gates rubber plant. I was often nervous because of the sketchy characters on board and the lack of supervision. Why are LR trains not designed like busses with an open cockpit? Could this be the answer to the problem?
Finally:
“As long as the American black culture embraces economic dependency, American blacks will remain economically dependent.”
Ouch! The old boot strap American dream argument. Just a bit of irony, but have you ever literally tried to pull yourself up by your boot straps. It’s impossible. I think it is wrong to blame American black culture for economic dependency. I guess the deeper question is, if American black culture is to blame for economically dependent blacks, what can we blame American black culture on. Is this the question Dewy is trying to get to? I think the answer is historically a bit more complex than he acknowledges.
Close Observer,
Maybe I’m reading between the lines too much, but it seems that you are saying in the same breath (or at least seperated by 2 hard returns) that: 1. Black americans will finnaly attain the “white ” social status when black americans all have cars, & 2. That increasing black americans mobility choices is undesirable becuase distrubting the “undesirables” is worse then concentrating them in one locatation. Wow! I hope I’m getting this all wrong.
p.s. thugs have cars too.
“Have you ever literally tried to pull yourself up by your boot straps? It’s impossible.”
Many millions of humans have risen from poverty into the middle and upper classes. It’s not impossible at all.
if American black culture is to blame for economically dependent blacks, what can we blame American black culture on. …I think the answer is historically a bit more complex than he acknowledges.
In one book, perhaps Race and Economics, Sowell suggested that one lingering effect of American slavery may have inhibited the economic rise of blacks. He said that low-skilled American blacks have been less willing to accept personal service jobs which seemed too similar to antebellum servitude. But Sowell also argued that white guilt is a major cause for blacks remaining impoverished. It is not only that blacks have embraced economic dependency, but that whites have promoted it.
“Many millions of humans have risen from poverty into the middle and upper classes. It’s not impossible at all.”
I know, I know. My point about irony is this. Lay down on your back, grab the back of your boot and pull yourself up. That is impossible. I was trying to be cute. My less cute point is that, while upward mobility is not exactly the american myth, they don’t call it a cinderlla story for nothing. Downward mobility is much more common these days.
Yes, bennett, you’ve clearly misread it. 1) Blacks will begin to achieve an economic status similar to whites once automobile ownership rates become similar simply because their opportunity circle will expand dynamically. I am not discounting other, historical barriers, but I think it’s pretty much undeniable that the difference in mobility explains a lot (but not all) of the differences in ECONOMIC status. Planners think expanding “choice” is the same as expanding “opportunity.” That’s simply wrong.
2) You, bennett, are the one who has associated “black” with “thugs and panhandlers.” I didn’t. In my community, I’d wager that most panhandlers are white. Why did you immediately make the assumption that “thugs and panhandlers” equals “blacks”? Have you ever heard of “projection”?
CO,
Thanks for the clarification. As for my projection, you right, you never overtly made the association, but the change in topic on the origional post was seemless. That is why is stated “Maybe I’m reading between the lines too much.” But I can tell you this. The topic of race is on thin ice and one has to be careful when mentioning thugs, panhandlers, and black americans in the same post, even if there is no overt association intended.
“Downward mobility is much more common these days.”
This sentence makes no sense to me, so I must not understand what you mean by “downward mobility”.
Most Americans realize increasing income throughout their working lives. A 45 year old worker will generally earn more than a 25 year old worker in the same profession, though not always. The 25 year old worker will usually start in one income quintile and rise into the next as he gains experience and as his value increases.
Are you referring to the “downward mobility” of workers who retire? There’s no question that whena worker stops working, his income generally falls.
Downward mobility = A person born into the upper socio-economic class ending up in a lower one.
It’s eayser for a rich kid to end up poor than it is for a poor kid to end up rich.
They have cars to escape in, and a landscape to blend into. Shrubbery is a constant headache for the police; they’ve taken to asking that bushes be cut down so suspects can’t duck behind them.
From the Atlantic article
The Antiplanner doesn’t make it clear the alleged connection between the poverty problem and transit; based on this comment I’d say automobiles are more facilitating to crime, urban or otherwise, than transit per se.
In case anyone hadn’t noticed, Obama has recently been channeling Bill Cosby, in his exhortations for black fathers to take more responsibility for their progeny. It was enough to set off remarks critical of Obama in this regard from Jesse Jackson in private, for which Jackson quickly backtracked when caught.
I note this because of silly remarks that I was the recipient of from a WHITE Berkeley type a few months ago, to the effect that Obama wasn’t nearly “black enough” to be “authentic” and as a result is palatable to white people, e.g., Obama believes in allegedly “white” concepts such as taking responsibility for one’s offspring, getting an education, etc., I suppose…
bennett: “Downward mobility = A person born into the upper socio-economic class ending up in a lower one. …It’s eayser for a rich kid to end up poor than it is for a poor kid to end up rich.”
How does one define socio-economic class?
It is very easy for a 25 year old in the lower quintile of household incomes to move into the second or third quintiles. Some even move into the fourth and fifth quintiles. It happens all the time.
Bennett, how many rich men have you ever met? How many corporate executives do you know? How would you know if any specific corporate executive started life in poor families? They don’t write such information on executive bios, so how would you know?
bennett,
Here’s some real facts about income mobility, from the Treasury Department’s “Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005”:
“Nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.”
“Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down.”
“This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years.”
The truth about income mobility
That’s just 10 years, bennett. Over a 30 year time period, even more of those initially in the poorest group will have moved up. The number who make it to the top quintile will continue to grow.
John Dewey, Downward mobility is an easy concept to understand if you know what a quintile is.
When an upwardly mobile individual moves to a higher quintile another person is dsplaced from that quintile to the lower quintile. Thus for every upwardly mobile person there is a downwardly mobile person. Quintiles naturally result in every action having an equal and opposite reaction.
For the argument you are making to be true, the quintile bands would all have to increasing over time. And therein lies the weakness in American capitalism. The gap between the highest and lowest quintiles keeps growing.
I don’t agree that “low-income people who were pushed out of their neighborhoods by urban-growth-boundary-induced gentrification”.
Gentrification in Portland was caused when a critical mass of people began wanting to live closer to downtown, and so moved into the so-called ‘close-in” neighborhoods.
Not all people, and probably not even a majority of people want to live in close-in neighborhoods. But enough people, over time, chose to live there. Prices were bid UP because, there is a finite supply of close-in houses, and a finite supply of degrees of “closeness” to downtown. There is also a finite supply of hours in a day to go from point A to point B. (Conversely, there is no finite supply of “farness” from any given urban center.) Yet another (how many do we need?) example of supply/demand free market principle at work.
With gas prices rising, I predict prices will be bid up even moreso in close-in neighborhoods all over.
One thing that could change this dynamic is telecommuting etc. Also, as the population ages but works until their later years, I predict more people will be working from home. When that reaches a critical mass, outlying areas may become more desirable and they will, in turn, be bid up in price.
Kevyn Miller: “John Dewey, Downward mobility is an easy concept to understand if you know what a quintile is. “
What an arrogant remark!
It was Bennett who argued that “downward mobility is much more common these days”, which is why I asked for his definition of downward mobility.
Kevyn, I have a degree in mathematics and an Ivy League MBA. I very much understand what a quintile is, but thanks for trying to clarify that for me.
Kevyn Miller: “Thus for every upwardly mobile person there is a downwardly mobile person.”
That’s not exactly true. If a person moves from the lowest quintile directly to the top quintile, as many as four persons could move to lower quintiles as a result. If a person moves from the top quintile directly to the lowest quintile – which can also happen – as many as four persons could move up.
Kevyn Miller: “For the argument you are making to be true, the quintile bands would all have to increasing over time.”
I’m not sure which argument you are referring to, Kevyn.
Young people and immigrants enter the American workforce every year. Generally they start in one of the two lower quintiles. As they gain experience, their value to employers increases, they get raises and promotions, and eventually move up to higher quintiles. That’s why, for example, median income for two worker households of 50-54 years of age is almost twice that of two worker households at age 25-29.
kevyn miller: “therein lies the weakness in American capitalism. The gap between the highest and lowest quintiles keeps growing.”
You cannot believe how tiring this claim gets to be.
Kevyn, the same people who are in the top quintile today are not the same people who were in that quintile 20 years ago. That top quintile will have different people in 2028. There is tremendous mobility in America, as new fortunes continue to be built. The fact that America enables so many to move up is exactly our strength. The very high incentives to achieve is what motivates entrepreneurs to work so damned hard in this country. And it is their hard work – motivated by spectacular rewards – which has made our economy the strongest today and the strongest the world has ever seen.
I completely disagree, Kevyn. The gap between lower and top quintiles – coupled with the opportunity to move up which is unsurpassed in the world – is the strength of American capitalism.
kevyn miller: “therein lies the weakness in American capitalism. The gap between the highest and lowest quintiles keeps growing.â€Â
As opposed to, say, socialism . . . where everyone is in the bottom quintile! (And I, too, understand quintiles. Just having a little fun!)
Bennett –> Are you still in Denver? Have you had a chance to ride light rail lately? I never noticed a lot of “characters” even when taking the train on Friday nights. But maybe that’s because the Baker Neighborhood turned the corner 5 years ago?
The Atlantic Article is interesting. Maybe I missed it but I wouldn’t finger the loss of projects in and of itself as the only problem. Sure, we’ve seen it happen in plenty of places. A lot of “characters” that lived in the projects in Near North ended up in Como and changed it. But Como already had it problems. The same with old inner-ring suburbs like Brooklyn Center or Richfield. Those areas were already declining and already had problems. I’m don’t see this as something where it’s just the breaking up of the projects alone that causes the issues. That is, I would question how “middle-class” those places were in the first place. Everyone seems to call themselves middle class. I suspect many of these places were already on the edge. There are still issues but I think that’s a different situation than the idea that I think the Atlantic would like us to have that these are just normal middle class neghborhoods that were solely changed by this.
As for light rail, I’m not sure what to make of it. We know “characters” like to travel. For example, the old Broadway bridge in Minneapolis being closed again correlates with a drop in crime in Sheridan and St. Anthony. Seems like the “characters” aren’t coming over from Jordan and Hawthorne. I can see how having less living right on the line would reduce the likelihood they’d be riding it. But if the main reason we have transit is to ensure those who don’t have a lot of money to spend on transportation can get around, I don’t see the solution being to not build low-income units near stations. Maybe it’s to have more patrols that ride the trains? After all, what’s the difference between cops on the trains and patrolling the streets other than a bureaucratic issue of jurisdiction and who is responsible for the cost?
prk,
I haven’t lived in Denver nor rode the lightrail in 10 years. Most of the characters I saw were highschooler ditching school and looking for trouble. Nothing too scary to say the least.
John Dewey, My apologies for attributing the wrong argument to you. It was the Treasury quote describing these movements between quintiles as “jumps” and “stunning” that actually got my goat. It also has the flavour of the argument that the average American is much wealthier than they were 10 years ago. It is the combination of emotive language and ommitted data that creates that impression. The ommitted data of course being real quintile income ranges for the years that the percentages refer to. Also, without knowing the quintile ranges we don’t whether moving between quintiles is a jump or merely a hop or a skip. If we had the extreme situation of each quintile’s median income being an order of magnitude greater than the one below it then you could have the extreme situation whereby a $100 increase in annual income will get people out of the lowest quintile without appreciably increasing their standard of living. Statistically significant but practically insignificant.
In the same vein, when one person jumps from the bottom quintile to the top, do the people who get moved down one quintile notice that they are worse off? Or do those workers who get shuffled up one quintile when the a boss retires notice they’ve become better off?
I am equally sceptical of arguments that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That argument frequently ignores quintiles entirely and uses variation from the mean or median instead. The median is too sensitive to outlyers like Bill Gates.
The fundamental problem with economics is that most economic models and theories assume that the world is people with economists. Since economiss are in fact a rare breed the models and theories rarely work well in the real world. Fun to play with but not much practical use.
We have a similar problem here in the UK. It is called ‘affordable housing’, which surely nobody can disagree with – after all, are you saying that poorer people shouldn’t live in a nice neighbourhood? Expensive houses are interspersed with subsidised housing.
When I bought my flat, I bought it in an area of town which was a bit rough. I then sold the flat and bought a house in a nice part of town. My standard of living went up accordingly.
Recently, a company tried to built subsidised housing on an adjacent piece of land. We fought them off on issues such as nature conservation, transport, drainage – but the real issue was that we didn’t want the rough areas to follow us to our new addresses.
It’s not a truism that poor people are less genteel – in many cases, quite the opposite. But, poor neighbourhoods have a well-deserved reputation since this is where the criminal and anti-social elements tend to live.
I don’t like the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ for two reasons, although we don’t seem to have better terms to use.
Firstly, the term ‘black’ covers a wide variety of skin colours. Most successful black people in a largely white country have paler skins. This then distorts the statistics and make it look as if black people with darker skins are doing better than they are.
Secondly, the terms black and white suggest much larger differences than are really there. I’m ‘white’, but I wouldn’t say that this is my defining characteristic – quite the opposite in fact.