urbanSTL

True_dope wrote:Why is st. Louis and other rest belt cities so back vs white? sorry to sound dumb but I am really now from around here

If you have time, this is a pretty comprehensive look at the policies that have shaped the segregated state of St. Louis and the other cities like it.

The short answer is white power structures have essentially "herded" black people into specific pockets of each city and have, at best, left them to rot, and at worst, actively engaged in suppressing their betterment.

http://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/

This just keeps getting worse and worse.

Ferguson was understandable. Peaceful protests interrupted by youth acting stupid and a criminal element hell bent on committing crime. That's understandable. It's not good, but it's understandable.

Last night, the scenes of uniformed police officers and citizens shoving each other in a public meeting, the police union chief yelling at the committee chair, all of the rest of it, flat out embarrassing. Adults acting like children on video that is sure to go viral.

This is embarrassing.

And there's no end in sight. Cops do not back down. They are pride driven, led in to the meeting by a union boss wearing an "I am Darren Wilson" wristband. Antagonize much, sir?

downtown2007 wrote:Because the State of Missouri has a reputation of being anti immigrant and our economy hasn't had any significant growth in 40 years.

You said a whole book's worth of info in one sentience

southsidepride wrote:Yeah I don't get too worked up over the crime

Hell in the supposedly safe bastion of a Chuck E Cheese in God's Country St. Charles there was a shooting.

I don't labor under the idea that laws against guns will keep criminals from arming to the teeth, but can't we admit that our love affair with the gun makes it 100 times easier for the 2% of the population that fit under the term "sociopath" to make arguments over stupid crap that much more serious and sometimes deadly.

So while I understand the yakkers on 97.1 FM and others who get paid by the gun business to deny this why would your average citizen deny it?

I was totally down with your smug narrative and sincerely hoping that we could mix in a few church-going, gun-loving right-wing nuts into the local gunplay scene and let the whole "pfft, see this stuff happens everywhere" feeling wash over us in an awesome wave but, alas, it's the same old same old at the Chuck E Cheese (see news). Quite to the opposite, this sad tale from God's Country fits into MY smug narrative that the crime will go down in the City and up in the County over the next few decades if for the simple fact that as places are rendered unlivable people will simply move to wherever the next active civilization exists and Rinse/Repeat. It's only natural.

Next time they should try a "urinating" match and let ol' Bill Haas ref. You gotta love St Louis passion.

I just recently finished reading Ghettoside by Jill Leovy. It was a very interesting read about South Central in L.A., and the black homicide epidemic there. I may be oversimplifying things, but she attributed the continued disparity between black people being murdered and everyone else to insufficient resources and personnel in homicide departments and the focus on "broken windows" policing. Thinking how that applies to St. Louis, we have a ridiculous clearance rate when it comes to black homicides. The defense people always throw up when we talk about police brutality and such is, "Nobody is talking about black on black crime!" I am starting to agree with them, and because no one is talking about it, it isn't a priority for our public servants and police departments, leading to what I am are are hundreds of unsolved murders of black men in St. Louis City. Jill Leovy said on the Daily Show that the police reflect our priorities as a society. Obviously, our priority isn't to solve the murders of black people, who are just as deserving of justice as the rest of us.

leeharveyawesome wrote:

southsidepride wrote:Yeah I don't get too worked up over the crime

Hell in the supposedly safe bastion of a Chuck E Cheese in God's Country St. Charles there was a shooting.

I don't labor under the idea that laws against guns will keep criminals from arming to the teeth, but can't we admit that our love affair with the gun makes it 100 times easier for the 2% of the population that fit under the term "sociopath" to make arguments over stupid crap that much more serious and sometimes deadly.

So while I understand the yakkers on 97.1 FM and others who get paid by the gun business to deny this why would your average citizen deny it?

I was totally down with your smug narrative and sincerely hoping that we could mix in a few church-going, gun-loving right-wing nuts into the local gunplay scene and let the whole "pfft, see this stuff happens everywhere" feeling wash over us in an awesome wave but, alas, it's the same old same old at the Chuck E Cheese (see news). Quite to the opposite, this sad tale from God's Country fits into MY smug narrative that the crime will go down in the City and up in the County over the next few decades if for the simple fact that as places are rendered unlivable people will simply move to wherever the next active civilization exists and Rinse/Repeat. It's only natural.

So where they gonna move out to--Warren and Lincoln Counties? If you haven't paid attention to the news some pretty sick domestic type stuff has happened there in the past couple weeks. Some woman tried to kill her neighbor and then went on the loose. Another killed her husband and then ran into traffic on I-70.

But they were good ole white people so it's OK.

What's embarassing is that committee chair Kennedy is a tool with zero credibility who lives in the past. This is the same guy who doesn't want HTCs to extend to his ward, because he'd rather see the mansions black people couldn't live in 50 years ago rot than be rehabbed. So who cares what he thinks.

Here we go, conflating issues again. What in the world does historic tax credit redevelopment have to do with civilian review of the police department?

Alderman Terry Kennedy is a staunch advocate for black people, especially the people in his ward. In a city that is over 50% black, what's wrong with that?

And as far as "who cares what he thinks", the man is the chair of the Public Safety Committee of the Board of Aldermen. At a time like this, that's a pretty important position. Who cares what he thinks? A lot of people.

Northside Neighbor wrote:This just keeps getting worse and worse.

Ferguson was understandable. Peaceful protests interrupted by youth acting stupid and a criminal element hell bent on committing crime. That's understandable. It's not good, but it's understandable.

Last night, the scenes of uniformed police officers and citizens shoving each other in a public meeting, the police union chief yelling at the committee chair, all of the rest of it, flat out embarrassing. Adults acting like children on video that is sure to go viral.

This is embarrassing.

And there's no end in sight. Cops do not back down. They are pride driven, led in to the meeting by a union boss wearing an "I am Darren Wilson" wristband. Antagonize much, sir?

This just kills me.

You have scores of protesters out storming city hall, blocking traffic, and burning and looting whatever they please and you say that's "understandable."

Meanwhile, a police union guy wears a bracelet and OH MY GOD it's just too antagonistic! Seriously?

Anglophile wrote:

Northside Neighbor wrote:This just keeps getting worse and worse.

Ferguson was understandable. Peaceful protests interrupted by youth acting stupid and a criminal element hell bent on committing crime. That's understandable. It's not good, but it's understandable.

Last night, the scenes of uniformed police officers and citizens shoving each other in a public meeting, the police union chief yelling at the committee chair, all of the rest of it, flat out embarrassing. Adults acting like children on video that is sure to go viral.

This is embarrassing.

And there's no end in sight. Cops do not back down. They are pride driven, led in to the meeting by a union boss wearing an "I am Darren Wilson" wristband. Antagonize much, sir?

This just kills me.

You have scores of protesters out storming city hall, blocking traffic, and burning and looting whatever they please and you say that's "understandable."

Meanwhile, a police union guy wears a bracelet and OH MY GOD it's just too antagonistic! Seriously?

Just curious, when was the last time burning and looting occurred?

Followup:

When was the last time a Ferguson-related protest occurred?

I feel like a lot of people are fixated a few relatively isolated instances of arson and looting that have happened over a period of probably about 3 or 4 days total in the past five months. I can only guess as to what people's agenda is when they do this... If I had to, I'd say they probably understand that looting and arson are viewed fairly universally is deplorable.... so, as long as they keep talking about how bad it is, they can discredit the protesters without facing any of the uncomfortable realities that have been brought to the fore over the past few months.

But, like I said, it's just as guess.

I think this tiny group of professional protestors have taken a few tips from the Westboro Baptist Church. They are basically the same thing - extreme idealogues and media darlings. Both are good for a laugh. Haha.

My guess is Roorda and his police union are trying to stall this bill's progress before the Aldermen have to break in February before the elections

onecity wrote:

Here we go, conflating issues again. What in the world does historic tax credit redevelopment have to do with civilian review of the police department?

Alderman Terry Kennedy is a staunch advocate for black people, especially the people in his ward. In a city that is over 50% black, what's wrong with that?

And as far as "who cares what he thinks", the man is the chair of the Public Safety Committee of the Board of Aldermen. At a time like this, that's a pretty important position. Who cares what he thinks? A lot of people.

If he was a competent advocate for black people, he'd say to bring on the gentrification in his ward, endorse HTCs, so existing homeowners could choose to cash out on significantly higher RE prices, and those that stay behind could experience the benefits of living in a neighborhood that is seeing real investment and no longer decaying. He's have wealthier, happier contituents, though less segregated. Wins for the CWE, his constituents, and himself. As opposed to the sad parade of backward looking resentment he is currently the grand marshal of.

Are you sure gentrification wouldn't just result in white landowners selling their properties at a higher price as the black tenants get kicked out to live in the next-poorest neighborhood?

Northside Neighbor wrote:
Here we go, conflating issues again. What in the world does historic tax credit redevelopment have to do with civilian review of the police department?

Alderman Terry Kennedy is a staunch advocate for black people, especially the people in his ward. In a city that is over 50% black, what's wrong with that?

And as far as "who cares what he thinks", the man is the chair of the Public Safety Committee of the Board of Aldermen. At a time like this, that's a pretty important position. Who cares what he thinks? A lot of people.

It might be conflating issues a little bit, but I think it speaks to the fact that he is letting race cloud his perception of what's really good for his ward. Having abandoned houses and vacant lots all over a neighborhood is a terrible drag on property values and has a very negative psychological effect on the people living there. HTC's could improve that situation, but Kennedy would rather let them deteriorate further just to prove a bitter point. Of course, keeping your constituents bitter and angry toward white people is not without its political merits.

onecity wrote:

Are you sure gentrification wouldn't just result in white landowners selling their properties at a higher price as the black tenants get kicked out to live in the next-poorest neighborhood?

The heavily gentrified CWE still manages to be 28% black, which is 10% greater than the STL region, so no.

Yeah, but not in the gentrified areas.

So, yes.

Hey white people get hip to this- according to some on this forum if you're white and you choose to live in Ballwin you're an anti-urban probable racist who doesn't want to live around black people. But if you choose to live in, say, Fountain Park or even around Cherokee you're an a**hole who's driving out the black people.

Your other options are places like San Diego or Portland or Austin (or even Kansas City!) where you're free to live wherever you want without all the bullsh*t.

Can someone please come up with a reliable list to make it easier for any prospective St. Louis resident's so they don't get confused about where they can and cannot live? Post it on the City website maybe?

Northside Neighbor wrote:

What's embarassing is that committee chair Kennedy is a tool with zero credibility who lives in the past. This is the same guy who doesn't want HTCs to extend to his ward, because he'd rather see the mansions black people couldn't live in 50 years ago rot than be rehabbed. So who cares what he thinks.

Here we go, conflating issues again. What in the world does historic tax credit redevelopment have to do with civilian review of the police department?

Alderman Terry Kennedy is a staunch advocate for black people, especially the people in his ward. In a city that is over 50% black, what's wrong with that?

And as far as "who cares what he thinks", the man is the chair of the Public Safety Committee of the Board of Aldermen. At a time like this, that's a pretty important position. Who cares what he thinks? A lot of people.

Don't aldermen represent their districts, not the city as a whole? Isn't that the point of having alderman and not at large elections?