A LOLA yelled out to Joe "go ahead, lie some more!!"

[CityLife]

^ In fairness, it was a different world. Only 40 years removed from emancipation, and still 60 removed from desegregation, there is no doubt that 100 years ago the neighborhood was not one that most African Americans were welcome, frankly, as anything other than servants or nanny's.

However, to say that this is what ANYONE wants to return to is inflammatory, and race baiting. While the neighborhood is brimming over with opinions on countless issues, one thing that seems to be true of almost everyone is that they love Springfield for the diversity. That flies in the face that "uppity newcomers" wanting it to return to the days of a "boring enclave of wealthy white people"

Agreed, I don't think anyone would want the neighborhood to turn into a "boring enclave of wealthy white people", but that doesn't mean that it was a boring place 100 years ago because it was full of wealthy white people. In that regard I guess Paris, Berlin, and London were boring back then too.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

only able to speak for myself here, but i'm more concerned about springfield turning into a wealthy enclave ov boring white people--i've got nothing against white people; some ov my best friends are white!  i just find the attitudes ov the 'new blood' (for lack ov a better term) quite distressing--and the diversity diminishes every day.

[zoo]

Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

[Dan B]

I didn't say "reverse racism". I think its a dumb term, and would never use it. Its high on my list of banned non-words with "same difference", and "irregardless".

Racism is racism, classism is classism, and stupid is stupid, no matter what the offending party's heritage may be.

[ChriswUfGator]

Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

Just. Wow.

[FLDrifter]

Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

Just. Wow.

I agree!

[strider]

Zoo, I find it very interesting that you of all people are now saying that Springfield should be diverse and are spouting that here on this forum.  Yet, at least until very recently, your “commercial” strategy said something very different.  You don’t like pawn shops, yet they are used by every social economic group.  You came out against a thrift store, yet, again, they are used by every social economic group.  You were against the car wash as it was only legal by exception and so it would destroy the overlay, yet it is a business needed by every social economic group.  Did anyone speak against the recently approved major exception on Pearl Street? The use was only permissible by exception and the use is intensive for a residential area, so by your previous definitions, this exception could destroy the overlay as well. Of course a chocolate shop is “higher end” and so while, once again, every social economic group can use it, only the higher of the social economic groups probably will.

This all leads me to ask, have you changed your spots or are you just trying to go undercover?

And that is the real issue with SPAR Council and much of it’s supporters.  What they say and what they really mean are often two very separate things.  Remember the e-mails involving the “red Alerts?”  All non-profits that help the poor are predators, but they (SPAR Council) must be careful not to be seen  as believing that way. They say we must be truly integrated to be successful, but the polices enacted often promote the moving on of the poor.

We all need to realize that to have a truly successful Springfield community, it must be all inclusive,  very diverse and the leaders of SPAR Council needs to stop the attacks and start working with everyone rather than against them.

[ChriswUfGator]

Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

I walked away and tried to formulate a polite response to that attitude. And I just can't.

I'm sorry, but that's racist. You don't get to decide what racial group should or shouldn't be moving into "your" area, according to your personal opinion of how diversity works. And which you've made perfectly clear should consist of more rich white people. So just bring back redlining while you're at it. Or in this case, we should call it SPAR-lining.

[CS Foltz]

Could we buss some rich people in? Color should not matter if they are rich right?

[Hypocrite]

Could we buss some rich people in? Color should not matter if they are rich right?

Don't worry, we are coming.

[zoo]

Quote from: zoo on Yesterday at 04:40:41 PM
Sorry K, but I've got to disagree that diversity in Springfield diminishes every day, unless one of us is misunderstanding the definition of diversity. Here's Merriam-Webster's version:

Quote
1: the condition of being diverse : variety; especially : the inclusion of diverse people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization <programs intended to promote diversity in schools>

When a community is 92% low-income, and over 80% African-American, diversity is created by adding elements other than that. Middle or upper income, white, yellow, red or whatever. Diversity does not necessarily mean more African-Americans should join the party unless there are few in the mix to begin with.

I walked away and tried to formulate a polite response to that attitude. And I just can't.

I'm sorry, but that's racist. You don't get to decide what racial group should or shouldn't be moving into "your" area, according to your personal opinion of how diversity works. And which you've made perfectly clear should consist of more rich white people. So just bring back redlining while you're at it. Or in this case, we should call it SPAR-lining.

It's not my opinion of what diversity is, or did you miss the Merriam-Webster part? I suppose the publisher's of dictionaries are also fools (along with the published experts on social injustice, neighborhood-level economics and community revitalization) and we should all just fall in line with you, Stephendare, strider and sheclown's version of the truth? And here's the rest of my post that Chris conveniently left off in an attempt to do exactly what was predicted...

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

Springfield also has diversity in ages, interests, political views, sexuality, pet preference, food preference, family make up, and on, and on, and on...

Though I haven't met everyone in the 'hood, it is interesting that, with all the diversity, I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

Btw, Strider, no "spot" change. My philosophy, or should I say my support of the published findings of experts in the field, hasn't changed at all. But the attempts to twist it to suit the views of those with less informed, self-interested, and predatory objectives have...

[zoo]

your Stampede the poors and 'others' out strategy

Let's please remember it was Stephen that typed that propaganda!

I haven't met a single person in Springfield that wants the community to turn into a "wealthy enclave", or a "boring place full of nothing but white people." But I have certainly met a few who try to use that garbage to manipulate the opinions of those who wish to believe it.

My philosophy, or should I say my support of the published findings of experts in the field, hasn't changed at all. But the attempts to twist it to suit the views of those with less informed, self-interested, and predatory objectives have...

[zoo]

Two studies previously referenced in this thread...

Here's another:
http://www.ceosforcities.org/pagefiles/EconomicIntegration.pdf

Also review the work done by Bruce Katz of Brookings and William Julius Wilson.

And when you contact them, be sure to ask them if they support a "Stampede the poors and 'others' out strategy" so you can get the response you seek.

These experts, and numerous others, are all idiots. We should just jump on the sparsely-supported bandwagon of Stephen, the all-knowing cunning linguist.

[Dan B]

im telling you.  more calcium.

less koolaid.

Well, thats productive.

[strider]

Gee, Zoo, I think you just called me a predator!  Puts you right there with a bunch of other Lola's who have no clue of what they speak.

I checked out your links from your original post.  In a nut shell, they are saying that segregating the poor into separate enclaves is wrong and does not work.  Big surprise, we all know that.  I believe the biggest examples used are the projects of the sixties and seventies. Built at great taxpayer's expense, many if not most have been bulldozed out of existence. Some, though, most likely were taken out not for those humanitarian reasons, but because the property became valuable to the "haves". Just the way of the world sometimes.

I never thought you changed your spots, you are simply hiding how you really feel behind a few studies that say nice things. Your reactions to various posts and your non-support of businesses and programs that are all inclusive give away your real feelings about this subject, regardless of what you might publicly now say.

The bottom line here is that even the studies you claim to subscribe to do not say force a social economic group out. They do not say to only allow and support businesses that your favorite social economic group may like.  They really mean what all of us have been saying.  To be truly successful, a modern urban community must be all inclusive and all must work together to achieve that. Some day I hope you will learn that.

To that end, Zoo, do you recognize any of the quotes below?

Successful economic integration requires working with the market, not against
it.

IZ represents a dramatic shift away from “Euclidian” zoning laws.

Their mantra is: “If someone is good enough
to work here, they ought to be good enough to live here.”

Above all, political success requires convincing citizens that the affordable units
will not harm property values.

Light rail systems are valuable not just because they respond to present demand
for transit but because they shape future demand for transit.

In short, the development of new light rail systems across American cities offers
an opportunity to build economically integrated transit villages.

Policies for promoting economic integration should not tell people where to live.

Economic integration, stated simply, means that households of all
different income levels have realistic housing options in all parts of a
metropolitan area, so that they can pursue opportunities throughout the region.

Indeed, as we show, inclusionary zoning and transit-oriented development can leverage market values to increase economic integration, with all its collateral benefits, at little or no cost to taxpayers.

They are all from the study for which you posted a link to in your recent post.  These few quotes actually support what myself, Stephan, MetroJacksonville and many others have been saying.  They are pretty much opposed to the known polices as enacted by SPAR Council, of which you are their “marketing expert" on the Board.