Why is it that cities that consider themselves most progressive also tend to have the most segregated schools and the greatest income inequality? UCLA economist Matthew Kahn offers one possible answer: “Educated liberals are tolerant people who are willing to live in racially integrated areas even if the minority neighbors are poor,” suggests Kahn. “Such liberals are more willing to vote for redistributionist policies and this may attract poor people to collect such transfers.”
This off-the-cuff answer sounds unlikely. The Antiplanner has a different suggestion. Progressives are more likely to give government power to try to control people’s lives. The planners who get that power are all middle-class people who use their power to try to design cities for middle-class people like them. This prices low-income people out of the market, putting them in inferior housing and neighborhoods with poorer schools.
Kahn’s own research finds that blacks are more likely to own their own homes in lower density urban areas (“sprawl”). Regions that try to control sprawl end up making housing unaffordable. In most of these regions, the liberals already own their own homes and don’t mind policies that keep others out of the housing market.
Another reason why erectile dysfunction is affecting so many lives and have ruined so steal here purchase cheap cialis many personal relationships. Use of a Penis Vitamin Cream A penile loved that india levitra cream containing a variety of nutrients should form part of a man’s regular penile health routine. icks.org viagra overnight In February, the new U. Erectile Dysfunction (ED) can happen to any man due to a more stable and longer effect, but be sure to seek help from an IVF spetadalafil online cheap t much sooner than the above listed timelines: If you are facing irregularities in your menstrual cycle or have been diagnosed with ovulation disorders like PCOS(Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome) If you are suffering from endometriosis and haven’t conceived a baby post six months.
The Progressive obsession with getting people out of their cars isn’t satisfied with improving bus service, which supposedly only poor people would use. Instead, they want a transit system for the middle class, and that means trains. This makes transportation expensive, keeping the poor immobilized.
Income inequality was at its lowest level in 1970. At that time, housing was cheap, auto ownership was rapidly growing, rail transit was at its nadir, and college was affordable. The four things America needs to do to reduce income inequality are to end housing and land-use regulation, stop penalizing auto driving, and improve secondary education (which probably means a voucher system), and make higher education more affordable. None of these are a part of the Progressive agenda.
“Educated liberals are tolerant people who are willing to live in racially integrated areas even if the minority neighbors are poor,”
That is only true if you mean that cities tend to have both educated liberals and minority people living in the city, but certainly not in the same neighborhoods. Washington DC is a shockingly segregated city with clear boundaries between whites and blacks in the city. Sure there are upper middle class blacks happily living among the whites, but essentially no whites live in the black neighborhoods or attend the black schools.
Well, if “Progressives” support abortion then they really promote inequality between the unborn and the born people.
I heard my home town of Santa Cruz in California used to be conservative, then the university was put in and changed the character. You dump thousands of brand new voters that have no clue and vote whatever their profs have filled their heads with that don’t stick around to see the consequences. Sounds like every liberal town.
In 1970 the top marginal income tax rate was 70% and the tax rate on capital gains was over 25%. This probably has more to do with inequality than land use regulation or penalizing auto driving. Even if these things are directly related to inequality, 1970 is a strange year to pick, because, as the Antiplanner likes to gleefully point out, transit’s urban mode share in 1970 was more than double what it is today.
““Educated liberals are tolerant people who are willing to live in racially integrated areas even if the minority neighbors are poor.”
And how on earth is that an explanation for why liberal areas are MORE segregated?
“Why is it that cities that consider themselves most progressive also tend to have the most segregated schools and the greatest income inequality?”
Because rich liberals pretend to be tolerant until ghetto folk move or are bused into their ‘hoods.
Seattle is no exception, with schools north of downtown (especially in Ballard, Queen Anne, Magnolia, Fremont, Wallingford, Madison Park, Ravenna, etc.) having lower percentages of “non-whites” than schools south of downtown. Are affluent white liberal teachers tolerant of “non-whites”? Apparently not in uber-liberal Seattle Public Schools.
Ohai, pointing out the facts you do will have no impact on most people commenting here. It’s like —-ing against the wind. The Antiplanner and his cohorts have consistently believed what they believe despite many facts that directly contradict much of their conclusions.
For example, I’ve pointed out numerous times to The Antiplanner and others that decades of downzoning (particularly in the 1950’s through 1970’s–has had far more of an impact creating Coastal California’s very high housing prices than urban growth boundaries, per se.
Most of the established Bay Area “urban growth boundaries” back up against mostly un-buildable, often geologically unstable mountains and watersheds. The notable exception is the North Bay, where prime agricultural land often used for wine grapes has proven to be much more valuable to local economies than the thousands of additional 5- or 10-acre “ranchettes” which would have resulted otherwise.
Marin County has zoned large tracts for agriculture which may be suitable for low density housing; however, this “fact” begs the question of where Marin could obtain the additional water and infrastructure funding that would be required (such as widening the current 8-10 lane US 101 freeway to 14-16 lanes plus feeder roads).
In Napa County, most new single family housing has been built in American Canyon during the last two decades, where a sufficient supply of single family residential-zoned land has been available. Ag zoning has had some impact on the price of high end housing, but probably nothing similar to places like San Mateo County that are essentially at “build out” except for multiple family, because Napa County still has 5,000+ rural parcels on which new houses can be built (though construction rates have been well below 100 units/year for the past twenty years…but I digress…)
BTW, I mention Bay Area land use policies because almost all have been implemented by self-styled “progressives” who are under often slanderous attack in this thread.
“often slanderous attack”
Feel free to: stop reading this blog; hire a lawyer for a frivolous lawsuit; or to grow up and STFU.
The Antiplanner wrote:
This off-the-cuff answer sounds unlikely. The Antiplanner has a different suggestion. Progressives are more likely to give government power to try to control people’s lives. The planners who get that power are all middle-class people who use their power to try to design cities for middle-class people like them. This prices low-income people out of the market, putting them in inferior housing and neighborhoods with poorer schools.
Agree in part and respectfully disagree in part.
Certain policies that the Antiplanner has written extensively about (and usually originate with elected officials that assert their progressive credentials) are really bad for middle-income people and families and lower-income people and families, such as urban growth boundaries and similar attempts to regulate “sprawl” at the local (county or municipal) level, and projects that aim to force people to park their private automobile and ride some form of public transportation.
But then there are “conservative” persons and groups that are every bit as eager to use government powers interfere in the private lives of citizens. Examples include efforts to ban marriage between persons of the same sex, efforts to outlaw or restrict access to abortion, discrimination against people on account of their religious beliefs (or lack of same), attempts to prevent the teaching of sex education and evolution in public schools, projects to limit or suppress voter turnout and well-meaning (but expensive) efforts to prevent people from using certain substances (in particular the so-called “War on Drugs,” which I absolutely hate with a passion, even though I am not interested in purchasing any of the substances which are outlawed).
Even though I consider myself a “progressive” (whatever that means), I assert that everything I enumerated above is offensive (at least to me) – regardless of its source – “conservative” or “progressive.”
Off topic, but since the prior commenter mentioned it, I’ll respond:
One at a time. Restrict same sex marriage? No – object to redefining legal marriage to what it has never been in all of history. This doesn’t prevent gays from living together or being “married’ in a ceremony.
Abortion: progressives always deny or ignore the fact that conservatives are seeking to protect an innocent life from being murdered. Yes, making murder illegal is a restriction on private behavior. Do you object to that? No, you just disagree on the definition.
Discrimination on religious beliefs: excuse me? Conservatives seek to preserve religious liberties. It is progressives who are on the march to force religion to be confined only to within churches, which was never the constitutional intent.
Sex education: most conservatives do not oppose it. Likewise, only a few of the far religious right oppose the teaching of evolution. This is no different from progressives trying to throttle climate skeptics.
War on Drugs is a bi-partisan effort and always has been. I don’t agree with all of it, but making it out to be a conservative only thing, in an effort to tar conservatives, is disingenuous.
In other words, when you paint with a broad stereotype brush, you show yourself to be lacking in critical thinking skills.