low income neighborhoods

Image: Chris Kindred for NPR

In Supersizing Urban America, history professor Chin Jou chronicles how the federal government made it easier for minorities to open fast-food franchises in low-income neighborhoods, rather than grocery stores. Today the landscape of urban America reflects this history: There’s a fast-food restaurant within walking distance in many low-income neighborhoods, but nary a green leafy vegetable in sight.

‘Supersizing Urban America’: How U.S. Policies Encouraged Fast Food To Spread

i am so disgusted by betsy devos’ confirmation. she does not understand the socioeconomic and cultural factors that impact public school districts and their students—this is evidenced by the fact that she thinks implementing more charter schools will improve the already-existing school system. improving school and student performance involves more than just building new schools, and i don’t think devos understands the root of poor student performance.

basically, poor schools are trapped in a cycle of poverty while schools in more affluent neighborhoods gain more funding. public schools are funded three ways: state education funds, property taxes, and standardized test scores.

it is well established that schools with less funding do worse than schools with more funding. the more money and resources a school has, the better students perform in school and on state tests. for poor schools, this is where the cycle begins: the school doesn’t have enough money, so students are not getting the same quality education as their wealthier counterparts; because they are not getting a quality education, they perform badly on standardized tests; because they perform badly on standardized tests, the school doesn’t get much funding; repeat cycle. add low property taxes to this equation and you get what is known as a “bad school.”

it is no coincidence that “bad schools” are located in low-income primarily black neighborhoods, and “good schools” are located in upper class primarily white neighborhoods. this casual segregation is not only a result of low funding, it’s a result of racism. many public schools did not fully integrate until the 1980s; while segregation was illegal by this point, many people of color (especially black people) were confined to their neighborhood schools. additionally, the racist housing market disallowed black people from moving into certain neighborhoods (where mostly white people lived), meaning many could not move into a better area.

as a result, poor black schools stayed poor and black, and wealthy white schools stayed wealthy and white.

there is a history to our public school system. it is a history of anti-blackness, racism, classism, and disenfranchisement. we can do better, but defunding public schools is not the answer. further disenfranchising poor people, black people, and people of color will only serve to further advance upper class (white) students while everyone else falls behind. sending these low income students to a charter school will not magically improve their performance. if we want to improve student performance, we must first work on improving our public schools and creating an education system that benefits every student.

Don’t You Try To Run Right Now

aka five times Mick Rory had to save Len Snart’s ass before he made a terrible decision about who to fuck, and one time he didn’t, in roughly chronological order.

aka what happens when @wacheypena and I agree that it looks like Len and Malcolm/Went and John are flirting in a gifset and everything spirals from there

1.    David Singh

They’ve made a habit of heading out to Saints and Sinners (the local dive bar) on Friday nights, in order that they can get drunk and find people to hook up with, in a rare show of humanity on Lenny’s part. Honestly, Mick’s begun to wonder whether Lenny’s just some kind of particularly pretty futuristic android. Usually Lenny sits and drinks until his hand gestures get more extravagant and he walks the block home with a wobble, and Mick watches Lenny until he’s inside the lobby of their crappy apartment building and leaves with some sweet little thing. Tonight, however, Lenny’s got his eye on some square-looking guy at the bar. Mick’s got to admit, Lenny has good taste – the man is certainly attractive – but there’s a major factor that makes him a no go.

Keep reading

… [I]n some (perhaps many) cities, discriminatory property assessments left [African Americans] with less disposable income than whites with similar earnings. … An investigation of 1962 assessment practices in Boston, for example, found that assessed values in the African American community of Roxbury were 68 percent of market values, while assessed values in the nearby white middle-class community of West Roxbury were 41 percent of market values. The researchers could not find a nonracial explanation for the difference.

Seventeen years later, an analysis of Chicago assessments found the most underassessed neighborhood to be Bridgeport, the all-white home of Mayor Richard J. Daley, where resistance to African Americans was among the most violent in the nation. Bridgeport assessed values were about 50 percent lower than the legally prescribed ratio of assessed-to-market value; in the nearby African American North Lawndale neighborhood, they were about 200 percent higher than the legally prescribed ratio.

In a 1973 study of ten large U.S. cities, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found a systematic pattern of overassessment in low-income African American neighborhoods, with corresponding underassessment in white middle-class neighborhoods. The study revealed that in Baltimore, the property tax burden in the white middle-class community of Guilford, near Johns Hopkins University, was one-ninth that of African American East Baltimore. In Philadelphia the burden in white middle-class South Philadelphia was one-sixth that of African American Lower North Philadelphia. In Chicago the burden in white middle-class Norwood was one-half that of African American Woodlawn. The report provoked no action by the U.S. Department of Justice. Considering all these studies, the differences are too stark and consistent to make benign explanations likely.

The higher property taxes paid by African American owners—and through their landlords, by African American renters—contributed to the deterioration of their neighborhoods. After taxes, families had fewer funds left for maintenance, and some were forced to take in boarders or extended family members to pay their property taxes.

In Chicago, excessive taxation also led to loss of homes by African Americans because speculators were permitted to pay off delinquent tax liabilities and then seize the properties, evict the owners, and then resell the houses at enormous profit. Because African Americans’ property taxes were often higher relative to market value, black families were more likely to be delinquent in tax payments and more likely to be prey for speculators who could seize their houses after paying off the taxes due. There are no contemporary studies of assessed-to-market value ratios by community and by race, so we cannot say whether discriminatory tax assessments persist to the present time, and if so, in which communities. In cities like Baltimore and Cleveland, however, African Americans are still more likely than whites to lose homes through tax-lien repossessions.

Costs of segregation attributable to discriminatory assessment practices, suffered by an unknown number of African Americans, are not trivial. This was not simply a result of vague and ill-defined “structural racism” but a direct consequence of county assessors’ contempt for their Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities, another expression of de jure segregation.

Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law is a pretty good book

Explaining Diversity as an Ally 

    Yes, I am a white female.  Yes, I am blessed to have privilege by living and growing up in New York.  Yes, I can only sympathize with, try and comfort, my friends of color who face discrimination daily.  Luckily, growing up in the city, and going to a school which offers an array of classes based on Race, I have been able to learn more about race through historical and personal anecdotes. However, what do you do when a close relative visits your ‘liberal bubble’, and immediately says things that you deem as ‘politically incorrect’? Here is my experience.

Keep reading

Chapter 19.3 Two is Company, Three is Even Better. (TRIXYA) ~ Mistress

A/N: Mad thanks to chykopon. God protect them. Link to part 2, which has a link to part 1 in the author’s note.

Read ALL the tags.

Summary: Deciding to give poly a go, Katya, Trixie and Matt start their rial run as a threesome(thruple?). Yeah, smut happens in this one.

Keep reading

vimeo

‘Out in the Night Trailer’ Out in the Night is a documentary that tells the story of a group of young friends, African American lesbians who are out, one hot August night in 2006, in the gay friendly neighborhood of New York City. They are all in their late teens and early twenties and come from a low-income neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey. Two of the women are the focus – gender non-conforming Renata Hill, a single mother with a soft heart and keen sense of humor, and petite femme Patreese Johnson, a shy and tender poet.As they and their friends walk under the hot neon lights of tattoo parlors in the West Village, an older man sexually and violently confronts them. He says to Patreese “let me get some of that” as he points below her waist. When she says that they are gay, the man becomes violent and threatens to “fuck them straight”. He spits and throws a lit cigarette. Renata and Venice defend the group and a fight begins, captured by security cameras nearby. The man yanks out hair from Venice’s head and chokes Renata. Then, Patreese pulls a knife from her purse and swings at him. Strangers jump in to defend the women and the fight escalates. As the fight comes to an end, all get up and walk away. But 911has been called and the man involved has been stabbed. Police swarm to the scene as their radios blast out warning of a gang attack. The women are rounded up and charged with gang assault, assault and attempted murder.

Gentrification and Displacement

Gentrification is not the same thing as revitalization. It is the process in which people in positions of power restructure and invest in low income neighborhoods for their own gain. In this process the property value of the neighborhood is inflated, members of the neighborhood are displaced, and the culture of the neighborhood is permanently changed.

Two major types of displacement that are specific to gentrification:

  1. Direct displacement - “My landlord just gave me a 65% increase on my rent, I have no choice but to move out.”
  2. Exclusionary displacement - “They just moved costly businesses that I can’t afford to shop at into my neighborhood run by people who don’t look like me.” Over time, people decide to leave because the neighborhood feels unfamiliar.

Gentrification is a social justice issue. The importance is that we recognize it as not only problematic, but a systematic attack on people of color. Often times news outlets, mainstream articles, and journalist might describe a gentrified community as “the go-to for real estate” or “a boost for the city’s economy.” The truth is, gentrification is not a natural process but it is a systematic process and because it is a systematic process it is not inevitable.

Unpopular Opinon: I’m a Feminist and I’m Pro-Life.

I’ve always been hesitant to call myself a feminist. I was initially put off by the associations that had latched onto the feminist movement as it was historically dragged through the thick of mainstream media (bra burning, man hating, mob mentality, and general vulgarity). I was also hesitant due to the politicalization of term which leaned aggressively liberally, connoting a slew of opinions related and unrelated to women. Feminism seemed to be a single word that would define not only my views on women’s rights, but my political views in general, my ethics, and even my temperament. 

I decided early on that ‘feminist’ was a far broader label than I was willing to place myself under.

However, to the relief of most of you I’m sure, I’ve since changed my mind.

 I’m a feminist. If the definition of feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men” I’d clearly be a liar to deny my subscription to these principles, given that I enjoy them and have come to expect them on a regular basis. Not to mention, had I remained a non-feminist, I’d be delivering a hypocritical slap in the face to the women who fought tooth and nail to provide me with the rights I take for granted today. But wait, before you diehard feminists rejoice in my change of heart, prepare yourselves:

I am a feminist and I do not, under any circumstances, believe it is my right as a woman to abort another human being.

Before you slaughter me with horrific tales of botched and fatal self-administered abortions, overpopulation, a woman’s freedom to do whatever she wants with her own body, or tell me that the patriarch is controlling my lady parts, I ask you to please, briefly open your mind to what I am saying.

Take heart, I am not going to try to demonize planned parenthood or any other sexual health clinic (I recognize that their organizations do primarily good, preventative work, that is, aside from abortions). Nor am I going to shock you with photos of mutilated fetuses and baby heads, though I could, but you’d deny their reality regardless. And least of all am I going to chastise and condemn those who’ve had an abortion.

I am merely going to ask you this question: Why do women feel that it’s their natural right to dictate whether another human being lives or dies?

If feminism is an empowerment movement for women to take back the rights that have been withheld from us for most of history, what about abortion fulfills that role? What does abortion have to do with women’s rights at all? 

I could go on for hours about the reasons why I choose to associate myself with something so unpopular, controversial, and obviously out of fashion as the  pro-life movement is today. The truth is I don’t care. I don’t care about being modern or being politically correct when it comes to precious lives. I also think it’s a waste of time to dance around people’s feelings when over 3,000 abortions are performed everyday in the United States. But it isn’t my intention to give you a preachy pro-life lecture that you could find anywhere on the internet. What I want to do is propose that feminism and the pro-choice movement aren’t the same, affiliated, or even related.

Many women are under the impression that they can claim abortion for themselves, that abortion is a women’s rights issue.

But abortion isn’t a women’s rights issue. Abortion is a human rights issue. 

Abortion affects the lives of millions of unborn men and women every year and to gender specify the subject in simply negligent.

People seem to prefer to ignore the origins of abortion practices: A Eugenically motivated business posing as charity, a systematic initiative to depopulate in exclusively low-income and minority neighborhoods. And despite immense social change, abortion still serves this purpose today.

If feminism is what it claims to be: a progressive equality movement and not a selfish matriarchal trend for angry ladies, then wouldn’t it advocate the rights of all humans and not exclusively women of a certain age? 

It breaks my heart to think that young women are led to believe that their modernity and independence is wrapped up in pro-choice propaganda that has nothing to do with exercising rights at all, only taking them away.

When a woman aborts a baby, she isn’t exercising her natural rights, she’s only denying someone else their right to life.

On Self-DX

As y’all know, I’m wishy-washy about the self-dx thing. My reason for posting on it at all is the amount of poop in the anti-self-dx posts that show up in the #autism tag. I might address actual pros and cons of self-dx later in this post, but my first points will be to address the poop.

1) It’s insulting to real autistics.
POOP. So far the only people I have seen make this claim are not actually autistic, they are not-autistics trying to speak for us poor autistic people that can’t speak for ourselves. We can, and we disagree. (if you are autistic and do find self-dxers to be an insult, feel free to respond and let us know why you find it insulting)

2) It’s harmful to real autistics.
This one needs evidence. How does someone saying “I am autistic” hurt me, an officially diagnosed autistic? How could it be, since the only things “real” autistics get from diagnosis is accommodations that require evidence? Self-DXers do not take resources from me.

3) You’re not autistic until a certified doctor says you are.
This is hilarious. If it were true then all we would have to do to eradicate autism is never tell anyone that they were autistic. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Autism is something we’re born with, whether a doctor tells us we are or not. Words are not magic that make it come into existence.

4) It’s wrong.
Moral judgments carry no weight without context. “Wrong” has to be defined. It’s an assertion with zero value.

5) Saying you’re autistic doesn’t make you autistic.
See point 3.

When I started to lose language processing ability, doctors told my mother I was going deaf. When it was proved that I wasn’t, they told her I was mentally retarded, in spite of the fact that I had previously been speaking and understanding speech. Why did they do this? Because I was a little girl and little girls can’t be autistic, it’s a boy disorder. (Later on I found out many doctors narrow it even further to white boys of middle income families.) It took two years of the most important development years of my life to get diagnosed with what was actually wrong. Fortunately, my mother, without knowing about autism, took it upon herself to diagnose me with a learning disorder that made spoken words hard and taught me to read and write long before I was finally diagnosed. (Aside re the mentally retarded - I am a member of Mensa and a software engineer. It’s a stupid thing to tell a parent of a 4 year old based on language processing.)

In the US, diagnosis for autism is ten to twenty thousand dollars. Of course only middle income kids are diagnosed - poor kids can’t afford to be. No, schools in low income neighborhoods do NOT sponsor the testing, they don’t have the money, either.

Doctors TODAY tell me that I can’t be autistic because I’m a girl. It is not a “used to be this way but it’s improved” thing. It is still a thing. So a non-verbal adult that cannot infer things from social cues, with SPD (Sensory Processing Disorder) signs, has unmanageable anxiety in social situations, etc (full list of autism criteria) can’t be diagnosed with autism simply for being born with a vagina.

I have had a doctor tell me that autism should be removed from my records because I had a head injury and head injuries are not classified as autism. In spite of the fact that the autism diagnosis came more than ten years before the head injury. Yeah, doctors can be incredibly stupid. Don’t forget that a doctor that graduated last in his class after repeating the course 12 times is still a doctor.

A serious reason for going beyond self-dx - some of the things that people think of as autism aren’t. And they are more treatable. Such as various anxiety disorders - if they are NOT autism, there are meds and therapies that can help a lot.

In closing, if a teenager suffering the usual teenager angst and confusion looks around at the autism criteria and diagnoses themself as an autistic all they’ve done is give themself a handle to hold onto until they grow through it. They haven’t hurt anyone.
If it turns out they are autistic, they’ve joined a community that can support them.
If it turns out they aren’t, they’ve become part of the community and a good ally because they have looked at it from the insider’s point of view.

Albert Einstein was a genius in ways you couldn’t even imagine and here’s why.

In 1935 he opened up a butcher shoppe in a low income neighborhood. He refused to sell any meat to the people in the neighborhood. Why? The reason may surprise you. He instead built an anatomically correct sculpture of himself out of meat and set it up in the front of his shop. He would harass anyone who walked past the shop, yelling “This meat man is just like me! This man is made of flesh just like I am.” Albert Einstein was later found dead in his apartment. The meat Einstein took his place and no one noticed for years.

anonymous asked:

whos the poision and witch username?? idk who you are talking about. but anyways, do you have any favorite headcanons about shelter/homes in the zones or the city?

poisoning-of-the-party and i think the other one is the-not-so-great-phoenix-witch (so just a lot of hyphens)

And I do! I see shelter in the zones as something thats just kinda pulled together? Like there are some actual building still out there either rotting or maintained (it really depends on the killjoy) like the diner, and other two story buildings. Basements are usually sealed because they were bomb shelters. And shelters that aren’t buildings are a lot of the time made from mud and wood thats lying around (which is usually from destroyed buildings). I think there are like patchwork homes and villages made from the most random ass shit. Or just big Hoovervilles of just neutrals.

In the city, I think people that submit to BLi have pretty good housing but those that don’t live in more low-income neighborhoods where the buildings are close and the apartments inside are cramped and leaning in places. They’re packed close and they can hang laundry out windows and stuff. There are shelters in the lobby too, some that take in orphaned children and homeless families. I think the farther to the edge of the city you get, the houses get all tiny and cramped and made out of dry wood and mostly kept together by their owners, and a lot of people live in the sewers and sleep in alleys.

It’s 6 p.m. on a Wednesday night and there’s a line out the door at EAT Café. Inside, executive chef and restaurant manager Donnell Jones-Craven is busy plating up salads and burgers, but he pauses to sprint out into the dining room. “I appreciate so much that you’re all here for dinner tonight!” he calls out to those still waiting in line. “Just bear with us and we’ll get you seated as soon as we can.”

Tucked into a crossroads of several West Philadelphia neighborhoods near Presbyterian Hospital and Drexel University, EAT Café is in the throes of its busiest night since opening six weeks ago in October.

EAT, which stands for “Everyone At the Table,” is the first restaurant of its kind in Philadelphia. The not-for-profit restaurant aims to provide a sit-down dining experience to residents of the city’s low-income neighborhoods by allowing patrons to pay whatever they can afford for their meals.

Philly’s New Pay-What-You-Can Restaurant Brings Everyone To The Table

Photo: Kristen Hartke for NPR

A study published in the Review of Educational Research Tuesday suggests that school climate is something educators and communities should prioritize — especially as a way to bridge the elusive achievement gap. The authors analyzed more than 15 years’ of research on schools worldwide, and found that positive school climate had a significant impact on academics.

And here’s the biggest takeaway: There’s no link between school climate and socioeconomic status. In other words, there are plenty of happy schools in low-income neighborhoods, too.

“Obviously you need to have a great math teacher that can teach math, but those social and emotional connections really help in the academic area too,” says Ron Avi Astor, a professor at the University of Southern California and a co-author of the study. “That creates a lot of opportunities for the low-income schools,” by giving reformers more tools to think about, he says.

How A Happy School Can Help Students Succeed

Illustration: LA Johnson/NPR

Teach for America is shrinking because it’s deeply flawed 

Teach for America, the extremely selective AmeriCorps program that places elite college graduates in teaching positions in low-income neighborhoods across the country, seems to be on the outs. The number of applications has decreased for two consecutive years, which represents a striking departure from a “15-year growth trend,” according to the New York Times. This fall, the organization estimates that the size of its famed teacher corps could decline by 25% from the 10,500 teachers currently placed in classrooms across the country.

How it’s failing teachers and students