I'm Joeverkill, and this is Notes from the Right-Wing.
Anyone who's read this blog more than once knows how much I absolutely hate the local government of Los Angeles. Well, they just keep doing stupid crap and giving me fodder for my hatred.
On Wednesday the City Council approved something called "inclusionary zoning" regulations. From the L.A. Times:
New condominium and apartment projects in neighborhoods such as Brentwood, Studio City and other affluent parts of Los Angeles could be required to include units for very poor people under a plan approved by the City Council on Wednesday.
There is no better name for this type of crap than nanny state quasi-communism. That's what this is. Imagine you're a doctor or a lawyer or designer of integrated circuits or something, and you got a good education, worked hard, got a good job, and saved your money so you could live in, oh, let's say, Brentwood. You're pretty satisfied there, relatively insulated from the third-world cesspool that the rest of L.A. has become.
And then the City Council passes this thing, and next thing you know you're living next to poor people. Not just poor people: very poor people. The value of your home drops, crime increase, and your kids can't go to sleep at night because the neighbors play reggaeton at 110 decibels into the wee hours.
What would you do? Probably move outside of the bounds of the city. So you do, and your neighbors do, and their neighbors do, and pretty soon property values in Brentwood are the same as they are in Crenshaw, and the whole neighborhood is filled with poor people.
The City's digging its own grave here.
I currently live in a garbage neighborhood. I absolutely hate 90% of my neighbors. One day, god willing, I will move to an area with fewer poor people, at which time I hopefully will not have to deal with gang members, feral dogs, loud reggaeton at inappropriate hours, and old women who threaten to slash my tires if I park in a public parking space in front of their homes.
But the housing plan is not the only communist nanny-state issue that L.A. passed this week. There's also a more minor, but nonetheless irksome, ordinance on day laborers. From the L.A. Times:
The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Wednesday requiring certain home improvement stores to develop plans for dealing with day laborers who congregate nearby in search of jobs.
The ordinance mandates that proposed big-box stores obtain conditional-use permits, which could then require them to build day-labor centers with shelter, drinking water, bathrooms and trash cans.
I'm sorry, but isn't loitering a crime? Also, don't these day laborers get paid under the table? Don't most of them avoid paying taxes on their earnings? The City is encouraging people to violate the law and duck taxes.
Beyond that, is this really the type of society we want to build for ourselves? A society where governments not only allow under-the-table, unregulated, undocumented labor, but publicly condone and foster it? Why even have minimum wage laws at all? Why have laws regarding workplace conditions?
By encouraging the use of day laborers, you're discouraging people from hiring labor via proper channels. This is harmful to businesses that actually obey labor laws. It also brings down the average real wage and harms the economy in general.
Man, I hate the City Council.
I'm Joeverkill, and this has been Notes from the Right-Wing.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Notes from the Right-Wing: City of Los Angeles Sucks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 responses:
i remember reading an interesting article that basically reflects "inclusionary" yada yada. basically, louisville has adopted a shift in the concept behind school busing re-integration programs. rather than attempting to redistribute people to enforce racial diversity, they are redistributing by class. this sounds like a reasonable idea to me in a school system, and apparently has proven results in terms of making poor kids with bad academic influences at home into smarter, harder-working people. frankly, i think its an idea whose time has come.
that being said, i just moved into a posh fucking townhouse that i'm renting. sale prices for these fuckers apparently start at $500k. i don't think anybody would want a crackhead, tweaker, bootleg dvd vendor, or chicle wagon on the premises.
however, now every posh neighborhood in LA will have its own fresh prince of bel-air. sweet.
Yeah. This is a Flava Flav sitcom on mynetworktv waiting to happen.
I'm not sure about that schools thing; I'd have to take a look at the study. It sounds, in theory, like a decent idea.
However, I don't think it's as applicable to housing. Living near someone does not guarantee any level of interaction that might cause any kind of intellectual or social "rubbing off." Also, the City of L.A. is messing around with a collective billions of dollars of real estate prices here. The last thing a reasonable city would want to do would be to artificially deflate housing prices in its most expensive neighborhoods. In addition to the billions lost in property values, the changes could cause a slow exodus that would deprive the city's economy and tax system of incredible amounts of money.
yeah, exactly. i don't agree with it at all. my new place has a homeowners association. while they bug the shit out of me, they have a purpose: keep real estate values up. bums don't help that.
What the fuck is up with the not so subtle racism Joe? Reggaeton? Really? I expected better from you. By your logic the poor are mostly Hispanic, mostly rude and inconsiderate and must be kept out of the racially pure, super rich neighborhoods.
I don't really think that zoning ordinances of the type you are describing work or that they are the best idea. However your ire is clearly tinged with distaste for the culture of poor minority groups. Your post is too personal and angry for me to believe otherwise. Loud music is loud music. It doesn't matter if it is Vivaldi or Daddy Yankee.
Third World cess pool? I can't believe you said that man. You are seriously disappointing me. According to you, your poor black and hispanic neighbours don't belong in the same country as you.
You don't even pretend to make a distinction between the different types of poor people. What about the poor waiters and busboys who service the posh sushi houses and coffee shops in Brentwood? I guess you'd want them to catch a bus every evening and disappear into "the cesspool" and then re-emerge the next day with a smile on their face as they serve you your coffee. Don't you think they want to get away from the noise and crime of the ghetto? Imagine that you had a son who was getting sucked into a gang and you wanted desperately to get him out of there. What would you do?
Why the hell is loitering a crime anyway? If a guy in a suit sits in a park and taps away at his key board he is considered an exemplary citizen. Even if he cruises the ghetto for a gram of coke he would probably get away with loitering. But little kids on skateboards and homeless people who happen upon a swank end of town need to be policed and kept away through stupid loitering ordinances.
You call the ordinance a communist, nanny state measure. But you have no issue with the insidious racial and economic segregation that is in place and traps minorities in urban warzones. What about that rigid mandate on the lives of your fellow countrymen?
"Rigid mandate?" Where's that written?
You can't loiter in a public park.
"Loud music is loud music. It doesn't matter if it is Vivaldi or Daddy Yankee." yes. If my poor, obnoxious, stupid neighbors were blasting country music, I'd feel the same way. They happen to be blasting reggaeton. Poor people are poor people, regardless of race.
"...little kids on skateboards and homeless people who happen upon a swank end of town need to be policed and kept away through stupid loitering ordinances." I'm all for that.
I do have a problem with "insidious" insitutional policies that keep people poor. That was one of the main points in my ranting against the day laborer ordinance.
"What about the poor waiters and busboys who service the posh sushi houses and coffee shops in Brentwood? I guess you'd want them to catch a bus every evening and disappear into "the cesspool" and then re-emerge the next day with a smile on their face as they serve you your coffee. Don't you think they want to get away from the noise and crime of the ghetto?" Sure. But fair is fair. if you want something, earn it. I want to live in Brentwood too, but it wouldn't be right for the City Council to mandate that I get to live there for less than everyone else is paying.
"By your logic the poor are mostly Hispanic, mostly rude and inconsiderate..." In Los Angeles, the poor are mostly Hispanic -- the population at large is mostly Hispanic. And yes, a lot of poor people are rude and inconsiderate. Don't get me wrong, a lot of rich people are also. But if you're trying to argue that there is no difference in living in a dwelling surrounded by the poor and one surrounded by the rich, I don't think many people are going to follow your logic.
I have to say, loud music is loud music,
but reggaeton fucking sucks.
if you're going to disturb the peace at least have some class about it
It is an unwritten but none the less rigid mandate for many minorities that they are forced to live in the inner city. My point was that you have a problem with codified systems of zoning but have no problem with economic laws that prevent racial mixing in neighbourhood. Those high real estate prices you are so infatuated with are a form of racial segregation.
What about the reverse phenomenon to what you describe, namely the process of gentrification - rich mostly white folk moving into poor boho neighborhoods and artifically driving prices up and forcing poor renters out? How fair is that to the minority communities nudged out of their chosen homes. What laws exist to protect those people cheated of their meagre possesions and properties.
I personally don't care as much about some rich fuck in Brentwood losing some property value on his million dollar home as much as I do about an impoverished family driven out of its poor digs.
Yes, it is true, you cannot loiter in a park. That is my point. What is a leisure activity for the rich is a crime for the poor who have no parks to loiter in and take to the streets.
Hah, where did I claim that it is the same thing to live in a poor neighbourhood as it is to live in a rich one. What I disputed in your arguement was the equation of poor = obnoxious hispanics, so drive them out and keep them at bay from our rich neighbourhoods = white, clean neighborhoods = first world and superior. The racist implications of that disturb me.
Your attempts to make this economic and political issue a racial one are unfounded.
Yoiu say: "My point was that you have a problem with codified systems of zoning but have no problem with economic laws that prevent racial mixing in neighbourhood. Those high real estate prices you are so infatuated with are a form of racial segregation." Economic laws? You want to cite any? I have no problem with a free market, if that's what you're saying. In fact, what are you saying? That the government should put price controls on all real estate, so that people of every economic status would have equal access to any given home? Where would you put the price line? Some people make zero, so I guess you'd have to put it at zero, right? Ridiculous.
You say: "What about the reverse phenomenon to what you describe, namely the process of gentrification - rich mostly white folk moving into poor boho neighborhoods and artifically driving prices up and forcing poor renters out? How fair is that to the minority communities nudged out of their chosen homes. What laws exist to protect those people cheated of their meagre possesions and properties." Again, if you want something, earn it. Work harder, work more, or get an education and find higher paying work; then you can buy the home you live in.
You say: "Yes, it is true, you cannot loiter in a park. That is my point. What is a leisure activity for the rich is a crime for the poor who have no parks to loiter in and take to the streets." There are plenty of parks, all over Los Angeles, and I would say that poor communities probably more, rather than less. Look at a map. Compare the number of parks in East L.A. with the number of parks in Beverly Hills, for example.
You say: "Hah, where did I claim that it is the same thing to live in a poor neighbourhood as it is to live in a rich one." It was my impression that you were implying this via your misguided attack on my reasoning for my opposition to this ordinance. If that's not what you mean, fine.
You say: "What I disputed in your arguement was the equation of poor = obnoxious hispanics, so drive them out and keep them at bay from our rich neighbourhoods = white, clean neighborhoods = first world and superior. The racist implications of that disturb me." You're the one making this a race issue, not me. I'm drawing a line between rich and poor. I'm sure the residents of Baldwin Hills (a wealthy, mostly black community, for those of you who don't live in L.A.) feel similar to the way I do.
You say: "I personally don't care as much about some rich fuck in Brentwood losing some property value on his million dollar home as much as I do about an impoverished family driven out of its poor digs." That's your prerogative. I, on the other hand, believe in fairness and the rule of law.
Why don't you come out and espouse your stance as a purely socialist one, rather than claiming this is a race issue and hiding behind a blanket of false righteousness?
I said in my initial reply that I do not believe that the program you criticised was a great idea. However, compared to the problems of the people living in the inner city, the effect of said ordinance on a wealthy neighborhood's property values does not worry me in the least. It is a matter of misplaced priorities, a common problem with free market theory run amok. There is certainly a strain of socialism in my arguement but I stand behind my criticism of your unwittingly racial politics and borderline racist images.
The rich and poor you draw lines between are closely divided on racial lines. It is a racial issue that you allude to in the language of your very first post. I only pointed out the obvious when you made those comments about reggaeton and third world invasions.
"Work harder, work more, or get an education and find higher paying work; then you can buy the home you live in." -
Are you suggesting that minorities in the poor neighbourhoods worked less than the wealthy white suburbanites and students who bought out their neighborhoods? The process of gentrification has nothing to do with the work ethic of people living in a neighborhood and everything to do with racial demographics and the perception of the safety of an area for different ethnic groups.
When you say you believe in fairness and rule of the law, what you seem to be saying is you care about it in the best neighborhoods. As long as the crime and poverty is contained in certain areas, which happen to also be minority communities, you are ok with it.
You cannot look at this issue in a colorblind way and you did not do so in your original post. It is a socio - economic - racial issue and to reduce it to any two of the three dimensions would make it a false analysis. The free market theory purports to solve problems in such a color blind fashion. Inevariably, for the poor and for minority groups who start from a position of disadvantage, the free market acts against their interests.
To the contrary, I'm for the rule of law everywhere.
I'm also for providing the maximum amount of opportunity for everyone. But I question the effectiveness of doing that with measures like this. I think budgets should be increased for public education, for one thing. That's the most effective long-term solution.
Again, the comments about reggaeton and gang members reflect my experiences in my current location. if I was in Alabama, or where I grew up in Florida, I would be saying similar things about white trailer trash folks.
You say: "As long as the crime and poverty is contained in certain areas, which happen to also be minority communities, you are ok with it." That's a ridiculous accusation. I'm not okay with crime or poverty anywhere. But the way to make things better is not to dilute poverty into affluent neighborhoods, it's to promote economic growth in poorer ones.
You can call me a racist all you want, but it's getting a bit tiresome that you seem to play that card every time you disagree with me. I'm curious what the rest of the readers of this blog think? Anyone else who sees my post as racist?
Joe, I keep pointing out the unconsciously racist language ( I don't think you are racist or malicious either ) in your posts because you continue to put your foot in your mouth everytime you post on issues like illegal immigration and poor neighbourhoods. I will keep pointing it out until you find a more mature way to address these issues.
If you criticised your poor white neighbours as 'white trash' that would be racist too. Even the fact that you compare poor people living in good neighbourhoods to a Flava Flav sitcom is low. That show has been called the modern day equivalent of a minstrel show and criticised for its portrayal of black women. That is exactly the type of stereotyped vision of blacks that feeds the racial fires in this country.
If this blog was read by thousands of average readers instead of us few friends and posters I guarantee that the comments section of this post would have comments by ignorant hate mongers. You may not intend to but you do fan some of those flames. I have seen it happen to more innocuous posts than this one.
I have to say here that I truly enjoy debating with you and bring up the race issue only when I think it is relevant. I like to debate other things as well and have done it in the past. My intention is not to smear you or discredit your arguements by playing the race card everytime. If you have noticed I always address the substance of your arguements without ignoring the undercurrents that I believe also play a role in the discussion.
I agree with Nielsd's criticism of your urban isolationism. You cannot ignore the poor by shutting them out of your street corners. They are an integral part of the economy that sustains rich areas like Brentwood.
If this blog were read by thousands of people, virtually every post would have comments by racist hatemongers and idiots of all ilks. That doesn't mean anything.
Yeah, the Flava Flav sitcom... can't remember the name right now... was offensive. In retrospect, that comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of my argument -- I threw out out there to riff on The Analyst's Fresh Prince of Bel Aire comment.
By no means should we "ignore the plight of the poor." But in my opinion, hand-outs aren't the way to go. They only keep people dependent.
If you feel that it's not right for some neighborhoods to exclude poor people, the you and I disagree on that. I do agree that it's wrong to exclude people on a racial or ethnic basis (among others).
I knock people in the financial sector, I knock corporate CEO's, I knock politicians in Washington, I knock liberal hippie anti-smoking activists. Those groups are predominantly white. Does that make me racist against white people, too?
Note that I never said "white trash." I said "trailer trash." You're the one who used the racial slur there, not me.
If you don't think poverty can be treated in a colorblind way, I disagree.
This is devolving into endless nitpicking. I believe the phrase you used was white trailer trash. I think the problem is that you lack an internal censor and I am a little over sensitive.
Jesus Christ, is minotauromachy always like that??
It's the tragedy of the commons, and it sucks.
And I would love to understand how economics is a race issue. Why does it always have to come down to that?
I'm not saying that the poor don't work hard. We have a lot of immigrant day laborers in my area (some legit, some not), and they work their asses off. I have a nice little white collar job, and I work my ass off, too. And I make more money. But am I the only one who was ever told, "Work smarter, not harder"??
People can argue all they like about how certain races or economic classes don't get the same opportunities that the white middle class enjoys. That is often true. And growing up in that white middle class, I didn't get the same opportunities that the rich kids did. But I worked hard, and I got some good advice about where to direct my efforts to reap greater rewards.
There are plenty of success stories out there - people who achieved through determination, ambition, intelligence - despite economic disadvantage. That's not to say that we can't do a lot more to promote a culture where kids are given that invaluable direction. But I'm not going to be sorry just because I'm white, or because I didn't grow up poor. I'm just not.
It's just so creepy - this ridiculous desire to make everything EVEN. We've grown into the age where everyone gets an award just for participating, and we are convinced convicts shouldn't be deprived of their divine right to cable television, and having a $30K income does not preclude you from living in a posh neighborhood. I just don't get it.
I realize that a) I'm ranting rather than making an argument and b) I am 2 weeks late to the conversation and everyone has moved on. But as my favorite college professor always told me, "Without C's and F's in the class, what would be the point of having an A?" I'm not saying I want those in the "F" category economically to stay down. I'd like to see the "lowest" economic class be totally comfortable, and I hope that one day, it will be. But if I clawed my way above you on the financial food chain, why should you be air-lifted to my rung?
/bitchiness
Comments however late are more than welcome. Its great that someone is reading. Yeah I am always like that. Even when I sing silly songs in the shower, I stomp my feet and demand that it rain on me.
It is unfortunate that economics is a race issue in America. Blame history for that. Also, as long as there is a high corellation between being poor and being a minority I would argue that the race factor is in play. Same with incarceration rates of minorities. I would say that race and economics play a role in that as well.
You worked hard to get where you are at and that is a great thing. I believe in hard work too regardless of how liberal my views are. However I have noticed how poor the rewards can be for back breaking work that really should be comparable to white collar work. A little more equality wouldn't hurt. A little less competition in the rat race would be better for our ulcers. This isn't a reasoned arguement either and that is just fine.
Post a Comment