Westchester County’s Racial Albatross
This article helps me make the case that “Poverty” is a state of mind that can not be undone by government mandate.
The commenter on this article hits the proverbial nail on the head. A little background:
Under a desegregation agreement, New York’s Westchester County will be compelled to create “low income” (euphemistically referred to as affordable) housing in majority white communities and actively seek out minorities to move into the housing. The agreement, not yet ratified by the county’s board of legislators, would settle a discrimination lawsuit. Taxpayers must subsidize housing for and be coerced into living next door to “low income” people who can’t afford to live next door.
Residents who object can move, but the government’s arm is long. Soon, there will be nowhere to go. Common belief holds that the civil rights movement ended such race-based practices, regardless of which race benefits from those practices. I guess it didn’t take.
I agree with Howard Husock, writing on LoHud.com. He says the housing agreement is flawed. An excerpt:
“[A]n analysis of census data shows that it’s wrong to call Westchester segregated. And research commissioned by HUD itself suggests that relocating low-income households to high-income areas – to receive what Sims calls “the fruits and benefits of an established neighborhood” – isn’t likely to lead to social or economic improvement.
“Westchester boasts a significant black and Hispanic population. Its 131,000 blacks represent 14.2 percent of its total population, and its 144,000 Hispanics, 15.6 percent – both mirroring almost exactly the population of the nation as a whole. Westchester’s minority population isn’t evenly distributed throughout the county, however, but concentrated in its southern cities, including Yonkers, New Rochelle and White Plains.
“Those who accuse the county of segregation don’t merely argue that southern Westchester has more minority families than northern – an argument that could be easily countered by pointing out that southern Westchester serves today, as it once did for Italians and Jews, as a stop on the path of upward mobility for families leaving behind the Bronx. Rather, they point to income.”
That low-income people can’t afford to live in expensive neighborhoods is considered racist, instead of economically feasible. Rent in certain zip codes is too costly for the “poor,” so the government steps in and forces taxpayers to subsidize lifestyle upgrades. Regardless, Husock makes the case that if blacks who could afford to live in wealthier areas of Westchester County are intentionally kept out, the settlement would make sense. But that’s not what’s happening. He claims blacks are “only slightly underrepresented” even in “super-wealthy” areas of the county.
Why do liberals and people who don’t mind accepting subsidies from the government think living only where you can afford the rent or mortgage is a bad thing? Back in the day, it was wrong for the government to sanction intentionally discriminatory housing policies. Why is okay in 2009 for the government to not only sanction but to create policy based on race?
Don’t miss Husock’s concluding paragraphs. First, moving low-income children to “better” neighborhoods doesn’t close the academic achievement gap, improve health, or any other magical thing.
Second, a better policy for low-income folks in the county? Upgrading poorer areas and using tax money (since the government’s going to take it anyway) to build housing in areas that low-income people can afford.
The question is, what’s the actual purpose behind moving “poor” people into expensive areas?
