Comments by "Darkpaw1" (@darkpaw1522) on "Nick Johnson"
channel.
-
33
-
32
-
20
-
15
-
7
-
Well to be fair "White" generally means someone with a lighter skin. Heck, I knew a "white" girl who actually was albino black.
Most "white" people are mixed to be honest. I once dated a white girl who was %25 black, and rest was a mix of italian and white. Heck I remember not too long ago people considered Italian and white people different in the US. I also remember even further back when red headed Irish gingers were very discriminated, and not just a ginger joke played for mild laughs.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is "white" is becoming more and more subjective. Heck, every race is in the US is subjective. I don't think a single person born in the United States is 100% anything. Really odd we still even have race here, especially very blurred ones like Asian, Black, or White; which devalues the actual race. What I'm saying is we should eliminate race altogether or define it far more concretely. Because right now we're in the middle using vague phrases with no meaning to define a skin color that inaccurately describes a person. And personally, I would like the former, as I feel race just further enforces discrimination by categorizing someone for little reason.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If an environment improves, the taxes to maintain the environment improves. If taxes raise the mortgage/ rent worth is higher.
For example, say a bad neighborhood gets a park built. That park was likely built by city taxes. Thus, the nearby owns now have to pay higher taxes to maintain it. If they don't then the park turns into a terrible place. If they do then the neighborhood improves at the cost of everyone. If they don't get the park then the neighborhood stays the same.
Most bad neighborhoods tend to want nice things like clean streets, parks, policing, etc. So they get it. Thus the neighborhood improves. Leading to the homes being worth more, either by the bank or the owners.
So two scenarios happen: The neighborhood rejects this plan and remains bad and cheap. Or they accept it and improve and gain value.
If the latter you have gentrification. The people who raise their value along with the neighborhood's will grow in wealth. The ones that don't and remain the same will decline. If you decline the law of capitalism will expel you to a area of your means.
The benefit and edge here is it happens slowly. You can either move before it happens, or after. You value either way. You can see it coming long before the effects become burdensome, no matter what your income is, home owner ir not.
Either way, it HAS to happen. It's either that or reject it and remain terrible. A neighborhood cannot improve without investing months into it. And if it improves so does the value of everything in it. Want less drug dealers on the streets? That cost money? Less gangs? Money? Cleaner sidewalks? Money. Better schools? Money. Nothing comes for free. The only other solution outside government tax based aid is gated communities, which themselves cost money, it's why they're so expensive.
Either way you have to invest in your neighborhood.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Nwkcurly I never mentioned crime.
Gentrification is inevitable if you want a neighborhood to improve. Whatever state of "keeping it real" is it isn't improving a neighborhood.
I lived in the hood too. Areas that were gentrified were far better. Kids were happier, people had better jobs, there were less crime. Expensive? Yes. But you can't get something from nothing. While the places that pushed back gentrification were inevitably consolidated and became cheaper. Criminals moved in, and now it's essentially 3 kilometers of traps houses and welfare queens.
You're young so you may not see the entire picture. But later on you'll get some ecomics class from your college. I mentioned it in a previous post but to keep it short:a neighborhood that improves is more valuable, thus raising property taxes, thus raises rent.
If you ever want the "hood " to be an actual "neighborhood" you have to improve it. All that time and money has to come from somewhere, and the people in it have little of either. Gentrification is the only way. The only exception is if somehow a whole xommunity became wealthier simultaneously, thus freeing up time and money to invest in their neighborhood, which rarely happens especially in places near urban areas.
Of course, you can reject gentrification all the same. My neighborhood did. Tried improving it themselves. And it's still the hood 20 years later, and far worst.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1