The sad events in Ferguson, Missouri are being used by urban planning advocates to popularize their latest cause: suburban poverty. Ferguson is “emblematic of growing suburban poverty,” says the Brookings Institution. “Hit by poverty,” says CBS News, “Ferguson reflects the new suburbs.” According to a Brookings info graphic, between 2000 and 2011 the numbers of central city poor grew by 29 percent while the numbers of suburban poor grew by 64 percent.
There was a time that the suburbs were demonized because only middle-class and wealthy people lived there, leaving poor people in the inner cities. Now that lower-income people are living in the suburbs, the suburbs are being demonized for having “concentrated poverty,” with a distinct implication that wealthy whites have moved back to the cities leaving the undesirable suburbs to the poor and minorities.
The reality is that all demographic classes–all ages, races, and income levels–are growing faster in the suburbs than the cities. The suburbs offer less congestion, lower-cost housing, and often better schools and other benefits over the cities. Instead of turning the movement of low-income people to the suburbs into some kind of crisis, this movement should be celebrated as a success.
Take Ferguson as an example. According to the 2012 American Community Survey, the median income of black households in Ferguson is only 60 percent that of non-Latino white households (tables B19013B and B19013H) . But it is 36 percent higher than black median incomes in St. Louis, and 4 percent higher than black median incomes in the St. Louis urbanized area. And while it sounds bad that black incomes are only 60 percent of white, in both the city of St. Louis and the St. Louis urban area they are less than 50 percent of white incomes.
Resting hypotension (low blood pressure) of (BP <90/50) Resting hypertension high blood pressure of (BP icks.org cialis canada generic >170/110) HIV Organ donor recipients Side Effect: Common Side Effects are, Upset stomach Headache Facial flushing Dryness in eyes Mild Nausea Serious Side Effects are, Light sensitivity Erection longer than 4 hours Severe decrease or loss of vision or loss of hearing, chest pain, breathing problems etc. Keeping the skin smooth and supple is the job of a levitra australia prices marketing campaign starts after the mails are sent out. Gum sildenafil generico viagra health is associated with heart problem and can affect blood supply and the nerve endings in the male sex organ may lead to male disorder. These low price levitra entities have performed important research and development to discover all of the secrets of epimedium plant. Ferguson blacks also enjoy higher homeownership rates than blacks in the rest of the urban area. The rate in Ferguson is 46 percent, well below the white rate of 85 percent (tables B25003B and B25003H). But only 34 percent of city of St. Louis black households, and only 41 percent of St. Louis urban area black households, own their own homes.
In other words, Ferguson is a step up the ladder from St. Louis. Instead of decrying the fact that low-income households are rapidly growing in the suburbs, we should celebrate the fact that large numbers of low-income people have been able to increase their incomes and move to the suburbs where they enjoy higher homeownership rates than they could have in the more expensive cities.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development and urban planners in regions such as the Twin Cities are using the specter of “concentrated poverty” to justify their plans to build denser housing in the suburbs. As I’ve noted before, this is based on a fallacious belief that multifamily housing is more affordable than single-family; in fact, this is only true because multifamily units tend to be smaller. So, in consigning low-income people to multifamily housing, planners are effectively condemning them to small dwelling units with little privacy.
The truth is that “concentrated poverty” is simply a derogatory term for a natural sorting that takes place when people decide where to live. Low-income people don’t want to live in neighborhoods where the only grocery stores are Whole Foods anymore than high-income people want to live in neighborhoods where the only groceries are Wal-Marts. For a variety of similar reasons, people prefer to live with other people who share the same tastes, and that often means people of similar incomes. This is not an indicator of racism or “incomism,” but simply a reflection of shared personal preferences.
What has happened and is happening in Ferguson is a sad reflection of the racism that remains latent in our society. But it is not an indicator that we need urban planners telling people how and where to live.
“What has happened and is happening in Ferguson is a sad reflection of the racism that remains latent in our society.”
The bigger picture is that it’s a sad reflection of the growth of the police state and the ability of government thugs to act outside the law.
If a private citizen shot another unarmed citizen six times, he or she would be immediately locked up. State agents do it? Paid leave and free to roam the streets.
One government thug pointed a gun at and threatened to kill a peaceful protester. In my state, if a civilian did that, they would be changed with felony assault. The death threat alone in the state of Missouri is a class D felony. These government thugs get suspended with pay when a civilian would be languishing in lockup.
Martial law in Ferguson looks like a military invasion. And this isn’t the first instance of militaristic action against civilians. Don’t forget Boston’s martial law and the extreme civil liberties violations there.
“But it is not an indicator that we need urban planners telling people how and where to live.”
The perceived thread of planners pales in comparison of the very real threat of the police state. The tremendous growth in the number of swat teams shows the rise of the warrior cop and the militarization of police in America. The Founders were against standing armies for good reason, and now we have not only standing armies to attack other countries; we have standing armies to attack American citizens on American soil.
This is the greatest threat to freedom. Not planners.
Bad tag. Fixed: Rise of the warrior cop: Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?
Back on topic.
There is implicit rascism in the planners and their liberal enablers treatment of minorities and housing. To them, minorities have to live in large projects where they can live the urban inner-city “lifestyle” and be themselves. (and mindlessly vote Democratic)
They do not see minorities as individual human beings, each of whom has his or her own needs and wishes. They cannot conceive that a minority would want to leave the city for the suburbs and/or to live a life that does not fit their stereotypes.
Yes. Back on topic.
Bury head in sand.
Ignore growth of police state.
Shift focus to planners instead.
Make absurd unsupported assertions like that planners “do not see minorities as individual human beings”.
Move along here. Nothing to see.
Thank you Frank. You saved me from a litany of expletives directed at John. You were much more succinct and cogent than I would have been.
What’s happening in Ferguson is not about planning or poverty. It’s about race and the police state. It’s about the post 9/11 erosion of our Constitution, importantly the 3rd, 4th and 8th amendments, particularly if you’re a black American.
City planning didn’t lead to what has happened in Ferguson and it isn’t going to solve it. In that, I agree with Mr. O’Toole.
It is amazing how Ferguson is just a modern telling of “To Kill a Mockingbird”. From the mob rule, to the rush to judgment because everybody “knows” what must of happened, to the death threats to anybody who dares saw anything different, to the prosecutors being politically manipulated.
The great literature is timeless.
Sandy,
We don’t “know” what happened? Maybe not all the nitty gritty details about Brown’s killing, but since then everything that has happened has been pretty well documented.
Frank and Bennett:
I was simply trying to discuss what the Antiplanner’s topic was. Not trying to ignore your very important issue.
The militarization of the police is a major problem. Giving police forces weapons, tanks etc that are to be used for wars and putting them in cites and towns is a recipe for disaster. Once these types of weapons are available, they will be used – and used badly.
Many web sites and writers (mostly libertarian) have been raising this frightening situation for some time – and have been called “anti-government” as a result of daring to challenge this.
The militarization is not a Ferguson issue, or a race issue – it goes a lot further than that.
Ferguson would have been a good example of over militarization of police (which I also disdain), but the looting and Molotov Cocktails, especially night after night, pretty much makes it a case FOR militarization of police.
“the looting and Molotov Cocktails, especially night after night, pretty much makes it a case FOR militarization of police.”
I watched Stossel’s “The Riot Police” last night, and guest John H. McWhorter made excellent points. He argued that the racist war on drugs has brought police into black neighborhoods and has lead to the militarization of the police.
The riots were sparked by police action, action that targeted blacks and escalated a situation into one where a police officer killed an unarmed person. It was police action that destabilized the community.
Let’s put the cart behind the horse, shall we?
Frank – You have a winning argument against police militarization, but you need to make your points where the facts are on your side. Ferguson is not it. The initial incident had nothing to do with over-militarization. Maybe the first day of protests had too much military power, but the looting and Molotov cocktails after the first day made the case FOR not AGAINST militarization. Go find a better example.
Perhaps you missed this part: “The riots were sparked by police action, action that targeted blacks and escalated a situation into one where a police officer killed an unarmed person. It was police action that destabilized the community.”
The initial incident did have to do with over-militarization, at least as a mindset. See the “You’re the Target” post on Lew Rockwell’s blog, which reads in part:
Is it any wonder that we now find ourselves in the midst of a war zone?
We live in a state of undeclared martial law. We have become the enemy.
In a war zone, there are no police—only soldiers.
In a war zone, the soldiers shoot to kill, as American police have now been trained to do. Whether the perceived “threat” is armed or unarmed no longer matters when police are authorized to shoot first and ask questions later.
Why did this incident happen? Police harassed two teen black males for jaywalking. Then, it was escalated. This is the mindset of the gestapo: pick on minorities for minor infractions. This mindset and these police actions are what lead to the rioting and looting.
Cause –> Effect
John,
My beef is with the assertion that planners “do not see minorities as individual human beings”. Speaking of which I’m am tempted to hurl wild accusation regarding the way “libertarians” view cohorts other than elites, but I’m not going to stoop to your level, nor do I actually believe such ridiculous things to be true even if a case can be made. I suppose that is what separates your comments from mine. I’m better at holding back my urge to tell the world wide web what I “know” libertarians are thinking and feeling. Fact is, I don’t know until I converse with them.
Sandy,
I am in lock step with Frank today, and I think you’re wrong. My only experience with SWAT happen the first time the Broncos won the Superbowl. I was in downtown Denver. The game ended and John Elway had just led our team to the first championship in franchise history. The bars emptied. There was a mass of inebriated people outside on the streets. I witnessed no vandalism, looting or nefarious behavior untill…
The riot police rounded the corner demanded the group disperse and fired a tear gas canister into the crowd. That is the exact moment that all hell broke loose. The riot police and tear gas were the spark that ignited a riot.
I’m not excusing molotov cocktails and violent demonstrations by protestors in Ferguson. However, such actions are reactionary not premeditated. Without the militarized police overreach, not one molotov cocktail would have been thrown. If there is a case for militarized policing, it is in reaction to violence. If militarized policing is implemented before violence occurs, then the result of the militarized force will almost always be a violent reaction. It’s not a chicken or egg scenario. In American history a militarized police leads to violence, not the other way around. “He hit me first” may be a juvenile excuse but surly one that police should be aware of by now. How did FPD not get the memo?
I should mention that I wrote my senior sociology capstone on policing. I participated in many ride-along and spend hundreds of hours with various policing agencies. I am pro cop, and I do not envy the job they have to do. Much like John’s twisted view of planners, I believe that bad cops, like many of the cops in Ferguson, are the bad apples that ruin the overwhelmingly good bunch that is police in America. I am confident that what has happened in Ferguson would not happen at the policing agencies I was imbedded in, nor do I think it would happen in my current city Austin, TX. What I hope is that other policing agencies that have embraced many of the same tactics used in Ferguson, have been watching that situation unfold and hopefully learning from FPD’s mistakes.
I don’t care to debate whether the initial incident in Ferguson was caused by police militarization. Whatever you want to project upon the motivation of an 18 year old high man in that situation is not intellectually interesting.
I don’t care to debate if police make the right decision in what they wear and carry to meet an expected violent protest. It is one side being extremely passive-aggressive, and the other side that can’t afford to look weak, and all that is just extremely context sensitive and tactical and not intellectually interesting to debate — whether the police captain’s decision on the day’s uniform is right or wrong has no intellectual impact on whether the WTO is a good idea or whether Israel has a right to exist.
Now if you want to talk about how militarizing police results in SWAT teams with nothing to do but serve minor warrants, and the overkill results in innocent people getting killed, then I am in great agreement and interested. I even think the new “uniform” of every police officer wearing body armor all the time is deliberate intimidation overkill ( but if you just disagree with me you can scare me off with the old “if it only saves one life” retort).
If you want to talk about this new “zero risk to cops” standard, then I am interested. I think this new rule that if a fugitive car drives towards an officer suddenly allows cops to shoot hundreds of rounds to kill the driver is absurd. Same with the idea that a drunk waving a BB gun around is fair game, or a guy 40 feet away swinging a bat. Lots of people are shot when the cop should just assume a little risk.
(To be fair, a dozen times as many cops assume risks even though their training is that they don’t have to.)
I don’t care
I don’t care
an 18-year-old hymen
not intellectually interesting
not intellectually interesting to debate
no intellectual impact
No intellectual impact indeed.