Photo: A news crew films a segment about illegally parked churchgoers.
The tension between white “newcomers” and illegally parking black churchgoers is so high in Washington, D.C., that the city abandoned its plan to crackdown on double-parkers to come up with a “solution” to the problem.
In my experience, getting a parking ticket was always enough of a solution for me, but that’s me…
Before I delve into black churchgoers who park illegally, I’ll lay the foundation. There is a lot of racial and class tension in D.C. over “gentrifying” neighborhoods, affluent folks moving in, renovating formerly gutted out houses and opening upscale businesses in formerly blighted and/or low-income neighborhoods, raising property values and rents. People who’ve lived in the neighborhoods for decades can’t afford the high rent or property taxes, and they can’t afford to shop there.
Given what you know about the demographics of most urban areas, it’s not difficult to figure out the race of the “gentrifiers” and the race of the low income, long-time residents, is it?
As a devoted friend of free markets and low crime, I welcome gentrification. It warms my heart to see a “Condominiums Coming†sign on the same street as liquor stores and tacky check cashing store signs. When I see gutted out houses undergoing dramatic renovations in a bad neighborhood, it’s all good. When it comes to real estate, commerce, and improvements, I’m a staunch progressive.
Gentrification is the reason why church parking has become a big issue in the past few years, though quite a few of the illegally parking churchgoers are from different neighborhoods or states.
Back in the day, the cops let it slide. Churchgoers could double-park without worrying about tickets. But now that so many people are moving into improved neighborhoods, new residents and “old”churchgoers are not getting along. This issue has divided race from race, class from class, and churchgoers from non-churchgoers.
So what else is new? 
Paul Butler, a D.C. resident and one of the blogging black law professors at BlackProf.com, wrote a post somewhat sympathetic to illegally parking black churchgoers and hostile to white gentrifiers:
In these neighborhoods, the mainly white, wealthy new residents are often lousy neighbors – unfriendly and snobbish and scared of any person of color not wearing $200 jeans. They mythologize about how bad things were before they “rescued” the area with their $500,000 condos. The parking congestion is inconvenient but these people don’t present a case for sympathy. Forbearing the Sunday parkers would be a way of respecting the fact that they are moving into historic neighborhoods with cultural traditions that date before their wine bars and sidity gyms.
(Translation for people unfamiliar with “sidity†[usually spelled “siddityâ€]. It’s slang mostly used by blacks to describe one who is bourgeois or “stuck up.â€)
A few months later, Butler found himself in the gentrifiers’ shoes. He took his kids to breakfast one Sunday morning and returned to his car, which was blocked in by an illegally parked black churchgoer. Butler noted the tag number and headed to the church to alert the illegally parked driver. He writes:
So I park, enjoy a great breakfast, and when we come out…my car is blocked in by a long row of cars who have double-parked…45 minutes later, after much singing, praying, and praising of God by the congregation, and much complaining to the ushers by me, the announcement is made. The Virginia driver comes out immediately, is very apologetic, but I am empissurated. It should not have taken so long for Pastor to get around to being a good neighbor.
I guess I had it coming.
He had it coming, indeed! And Butler was just having breakfast in the neighborhood. Imagine how people living there and paying taxes feel. Taking the side of “righteous” lawbreakers may feel like a worthy contribution to the cause of social justice…until you become a victim of the lawbreakers. Still, that was a laugh-out-loud post, and I’m glad Butler decided to blog honestly about it.
This is why I blog the way I do and support the policies I support, like ending race preferences, for example. Even though I’m black and skin color preferences are designed to “help†me because my great-great-great-great grandfather may have been a slave or that my grandfather couldn’t work in certain professions because of his skin color, I can see very clearly how condescending they are to me (lowered standards and expectations), how unfair they are to non-blacks, and how pitifully unconscionable they are, given this country’s long fight to end government-mandated treatment based on race.
It’s the same with the church parking situation. Illegal parking is illegal parking. Period. It doesn’t matter who was there first, or that someone’s grandfather was “oppressed,” or that white gentrifiers may be “unfriendly” to long-time black residents and church members. (Whites in my neighborhood are quite friendly.) I can keep my emotions at bay and focus on the facts: churchgoers are not immune to parking laws, nor should they be immune.
Strangely enough, the D.C. Council tried to turn the illegal parking situation into a religious freedom issue! Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? For one thing, since when has a liberal city cared about religious freedom? And how do reasonable parking restrictions infringe on someone’s religious freedom? Ridiculous and embarrassing.
Illegally parked black churchgoers used to be a problem in my neighborhood, but conditions have improved considerably since residents started taking pictures of illegally parked cars and sending them to the police. There was a time I wouldn’t dare park on a certain street near my residence on Sundays because I knew I’d be blocked in.
By the way, if you’re wondering why I keep referring to “black churchgoers,” it’s because there doesn’t seem to be a problem with white churchgoers, who apparently obey parking laws. That’s the most plausible explantion I can think of. I attend a Reformed church in D.C., predominately white (with a good number of Asians and a sprinkling of black members), with a tiny dedicated parking lot for church staff, and surrounded by houses on all sides, and illegal parking is not an issue. Churchgoers don’t block driveways or fire hydrants, and they don’t hold up traffic or double-park. And the church is packed every Sunday! So is it a racial thing?
Christians of any color who break the law and then complain about people who complain ought to be ashamed. And then bringing race into it? Double shame, double-parkers!
For more information, see the relevant archives for the DCist blog, which has been all over this issue.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 74 comments }
Boy, LaShawn, sometimes when I read this blog I swear I don’t live in the same country as everybody else. I’ve never heard of anything like this. So this parking people in at church services is deliberate? Hard for this Kansan to imagine.
What I can understand is the resentment people must feel against those who would run them out of their neighborhood just because they have the big $$$$. Having served on a City Planning Commission for a year, I can tell you that these planning commissioners don’t usually have the best interests of the people in mind anymore. They watch out for the interests of developers. If you check out the businesses that a lot of commissioners are in, you will see that they are affiliated with building/construction/development, and there is no doubt in my mind that one of the major reasons they seek out positions on planning commissions is that somehow they will personally benefit from it.
I quit the planning commission I served on after about a year but I watch them like a hawk and my message to the people who read this blog is that if you want fairness in housing, attend your city planning commission meetings and raise “holy” hell. At the very least, the minutes of most city meetings are posted on the city web pages and it would be wise to keep up on your city’s “progress”. Stop fighting each other and get at the real culprits.
Yesterday, my husband and I were discussing the maddening behavior of folks at our local HEB. Customers think nothing of blocking long lines of traffic (note: there is only one lane going each direction)as they load up their groceries in the driving lane rather than parking in a slot. They stop in the driving lane to let folks out and then chat. They will block the driving lane if they see an individual going towards a parking aisle so that they can get a close-in spot, forcing everyone to wait in a long line while the person unloads their groceries, takes their cart back, and so on, rather than just driving to where there is an open spot. Yesterday, I happened to watch an elderly woman in line with an oxygen tube and huge ulcerations on her leg, forced to stand in line for fifteen extra minutes by unbelievably inconsiderate behavior of others (long pathetic story). Folks will shop two carts abreast, blocking an entire aisle and simply not get out of the way for a shopper who simply wants to shop and go.
To us, the inconsideration for others is appalling. Fundamentally, folks are saying that their convenience is far more important than the needs of others.
In the case of the DC parking situation, there is the same disregard for the needs of the residents (to be able to leave their driveways, for example) in favor of the arrogant assumption that the wants of the churchgoers are more important.
For those of you “not from around here” (Texas), HEB is a grocery store chain….
Not living in an urban neighborhood, we don’t have an illegal parking problem to deal with. Churches downtown might be a different story. When I lived in Arkansas, before my church built on a brand new property, the parish was in a residential neighborhood and the parking lot was not sufficient for the fast-growing congregation. People would park on the streets, but they didn’t block driveways or double-park. Congregation was mainly white and Hispanic (only church that my denomination in the town). The church and the neighborhood had both been there for years, and people seemed to be considerate of others. Don’t know why urban, predominately black churchgoers aren’t…
Sounds like these churchgoers need a lesson in loving thy neighbor as thyself. As in the HEB situation above, it all boils down to the Golden Rule.
I agree with the fact that lawbreakers are lawbreakers regardless of the activity engaged in. Sometimes civil disobedience to further a righteous cause is appropriate, but this doesn’t appear to be the case in the situation you described. It seems these people are doing it more for their convenience than for “the cause” otherwise they’d be out there with signs to protest.
As a Christian, I believe this sends a terrible message to the non-believers in the neighborhood. The congregants are willfully violating a local ordinance and negatively affecting the lives of others. Christ called us to serve our fellow man, to walk the extra mile, to obey the local laws (as long as they don’t conflict with God’s law). These folks are doing just the opposite. Their pastor, by not stopping them, is tacitly endorsing their behavior.
My sister, who lives in Fairfax, stopped going to a very large church when she found out the senior pastor was enabling his congregation to knowingly violate city ordinances on a routine basis. She felt that no matter how good of a preacher this guy may be, his witness was compromised by his behavior. Christ warned his disciples the Pharisees often don’t do as they preach and we should be wary of such people.
The same is true here. This shepherd is leading his flock astray, not for a great civil rights cause, but for a better parking slot. For shame.
Black bigotry at its finest! As one of the very few remaining lower-middle class whites in DC, I have no patience for blacks complaining about gentrification. Where were they when for over 20 years the Marion Barry regime governed the city like a banana republic and ran its finances into the ground?
My attitude toward black whining bigots: you had your chance! All this newfound concern for their community, what BS! In my forty years in DC a block from the ghetto, I have not witnessed one BIT of improvement all this time! There are as many Jerry Springer people with their massive social pathologies and violence as when I came. (I continue to deal with racial slurs and threats of violence – to which I have yet to back down!) No one has lifted a finger all these decades: Howard U students, churches, “civil activists”, and parents.
What can you do with people who have battered-wife syndrome? Not a damn thing. Who cares what the Butlers and other bigots of DC have to say? They are far more interested in hating white people than loving their own, especially the children. If people like him haven’t shown any interest all these decades in the plight of poor blacks when they were in charge, why should I?
i’m at a loss to understand why these incidents are being reported with a tone of bemusement, as if they were just another amusing story in the great kaleidoscope of life in the city. i’m also kind of outraged that a law prof would blog something sympathetic to the ‘blockers’.
it’s racism, pure & simple. just switch the races in this story: white folks, longtime residents of a neighborhood that’s seeing an influx of new black residents, respond by committing small but unmistakable acts of discrimination. they block black folks’ cars in at church. they attempt to frame the debate as ‘cultural degradation’.
if whites were doing this to blacks, it wouldn’t be reported whimsically. it’d be front page news: “black newcomers face climate of hate” “rage and hate greet blacks in xyz neighborhood” “climate of fear in church parking lot”. the justice department would announce a task force to look into it. black leaders would plan freedom marches. the media would begin their reports on it with references to the klan or neonazis. etc etc etc, ad nauseum. and should a white law prof blog of his sympathies to the whites – “they were there first; the blacks will ruin the cultural flavor of the neighborhood” – he’d be run out of town on a rail.
i think it stinks. “equality” works both ways, and the rules are supposed to be followed by everyone, not just white folks.
Good post! Only one serious bone of contention: gentrification. It’s indiscriminate bulldozing of lives is in no way good.
I recently found a place here in Pittsburgh where they’ve been trying to improve the neighborhood for some years. That’s all well and good. Except that now, the “out-pricing” has begun. On a street where people are just making a living, not poverty stricken mind you, but “getting by”, a house that just a few years ago cost 68g, is being offered for 100g.
As families move or in some cases are moved, the empty home is offered at a suddenly high price. Here’s the thing though: maybe gentrification works somewhere of which I’m not familiar, but here it only amounts to a temporary geographical redistribution of wealth.
To explain, what happens with housing is dependant upon where the upper-middle to upper class want to live. One generation decides that the suburbs are the place to be and that’s where building booms. (That’s what’s happening here now.)
Then, when a generation decides that the city is the place to be, they move there, and property owners and city officials make this easy via forms of gentrification.
The rub? When these people get tired of being where they are and move back to the other place, the resultant realty glut causes owners to sell low, filling the area with low to lower-middle class incomes, who invariable are subject to the next social movement whim.
In short, nobody is helped. People are merely shuffled, and most of these people aren’t living lives that deserve to be treated and mere obstacles to growth.
The newest attempt to fight this is the “multi-platform housing”. It’s a housing plan intentionally “stocked” with people of varying economic levels. It’s too early to state a conclusion as to it’s success here, but the bottom line remains that you don’t change people until you change their hearts, and treating them as cattle to be moved when better cattle comes along only makes those hearts harder.
I know all’s fair in the Capitalist Market, but those same capitalists need to recognize that seeking profit without regard to humanity only deepens the problem and shrinks their future gain.
I don’t see it as a race issue, just a Christian issue: Don’t be a lawbreaker,period. Black, White or Albino-we are not supposed to drive over the speed limit, park illegally or covet or slander or steal or…you get the picture. I’m not a legalist, but I do appreciate that when we knowingly break a law, that’s not right. And ‘THEY’ are always watching for us to break a law and confirm their opinion of Christians.
Pardon my naivety, but what does the color of the offender have to do with the infraction? If a law is being ignored and broken, then the offender should face the consequences. But what does the race of the person parking illegally have to do with anything? Who, exactly, stands and keeps count of which car owners are white and which are black? Is this a racially predetermined act of defiance? I don’t get it. Really. Somebody help me to understand why this has become an issue identified by race.
Kate –
I think it’s because the neighborhoods affected by this illegal parking are predominately white while the churchs with the illegal parkers are predominately black.
La Shawn I could not agree with you more! I agree 100% with every single word you said. Gentrification and all.
And you didn’t even talk about how when you walk out of some churches, you immediately smell cigarette smoke.
You’d think folks could at least wait till they got off the church lot to start killing themselves.
The bottom line is that some Black folks want White folks money and complain when Whites don’t do something like watch a Spike Lee flick. But they don’t want the WHITE PEOPLE, just their money! This is the crux of why they attempt to use Liberal laws and reparations lawsuits to make their dreams of taking others people’s money for themselves come true.
Of course those White folks can’t call the Blacks “rude” or they’d be branded “racists”.
When and how do we get those black leaders (several who are men of G*d) who do not seem to like white people to drop the walls and attitude and open their hearts? It just does not make sense, and serves only a negative purpose in these times.
I’m no longer in the D.C. area, but I know a little more about this than what LB states, so I’d like to provide some additional information if I may.
A number of these churches provide “outreach ministries” to residents and “street people” in the area.
The same people who rightly complain about parking also complained about the “outreach ministries” and went to the police and to the politicians to shut down the outreach ministries.
The same type of work that Salvation Army or the “Y” provides, some of those churches provide.
The new people moving in didn’t want the churches doing such activities and tried to use zoning regulations to stop the activities. If I remember correctly, they failed. But D.C. did lose a mega-church as the result of ongoing dispute with the new residents.
And, it was the new residents who were unwilling to bargin, not the churches.
I present this information for “the rest of the story” and wonder, in writing, if these churches providing these religious activities will also meet with similiar commentary.
The two cannot be separated. In fact, when the mega-church left, the residents were happy.
>>”I attend a Reformed church in D.C., predominately white…”
Wow, I didn’t know that was a word until I looked it up just now. I always thought it was a typo like ‘definately,’ but an example of it in use wasn’t given at dictionary.com. They just listed is as the adverb form of predominate. They do, however, give an example for ‘predominantly’ which is what I always assumed was the correct term to use in this sort of context. *sound of train wreck as topic veers on grammar tangent*
Back on track: This parking thing is indeed a very good example of wrong-headed “Christians” behaving antithetically. Thanks for another great post, La Shawn.
Dianne:
While your misgivings about gentrification are well founded I would suggest that this is not the issue for most of the illegal parkers. A large number of these are people who fled the city to the suburbs of Maryland and Virginia so their children would have a better life. This happened well before the present boom in the city.
Why did the people complain about the “outreach ministriesâ€? Just curious…
The residents’ attitudes about the outreach ministries actually have no bearing on the case. Residents should not have to “bargain” or even be friendly to be able to get out of their driveways or park in front of their own homes.
You’re right, Jan. Residents’ complaints, if true, are irrelevant to the issue of illegal parking. But I have a contingent of contrarian commenters who have to find something to nitpick.
– Admin
I don’t think this is bigotry, just human nature. I once ran a poacher off my land (I live in the country) and he kept saying to me as I escorted him to the fence row, “but I was born ‘roun here!” as if that excused his trespassing and poaching. I think these church-goers suffer from “but I was born ‘roun here”-itus.
Wow…another great article LaShawn…speaking the truth yet again…Of all people, we Christians have to be a witness to the world…and breaking the law, even as trivial as illegal parking sends a bad message to non believers…
This shouldn’t be a question about Black and White but about us glorifying Christ!!
DCist blog stated… “more than 50 legal Sunday-only spaces recently provided along the median of Rhode Island Avenue … a mere two blocks away from these churches … remain completely vacant and unused (i.e., not one car is parked there) [at 11:00 a.m., after church services had begun)]”
Hmmmmmmmmm….
Why did the people complain about the “outreach ministries� Just curious…
They didn’t like the “type of people” that were attracted to the lunch, dinner, and clothing give aways; the homeless. Their big complaint was the people would stay around, but they didn’t. They lined up before time, were served, ate, and dispursed.
The residents’ attitudes about the outreach ministries actually have no bearing on the case.
Despite what LB writes, it does have bearing on the case. It’s not just about parking. I’ve seen cases where the neighborhood goes to the church and has a discussion and then things get worked out. When “newcomers” go straight to the police and zoning commission concerning “outreach ministries” because they don’t like the “people they attract,” there is going to be problems from that point on.
Residents should not have to “bargain†or even be friendly to be able to get out of their driveways or park in front of their own homes.
One, the streets are public and residents have no rights to park in front of their home or even on the same block. Two, they can easily do what other residents in D.C. have done: go to the city to make parking by permit only at certain times.
But I have a contingent of contrarian commenters who have to find something to nitpick.
I disagree because I think it is a very big issue. In one case, I think, but I’m not sure, Metropolitan was at the center of a parking issue. The neighborhood fought when Metropolitan wanted to buy a lot for church goers. The neighborhood fought it and said it would be better used for other purposes.
I lived in an area of West Baltimore that had such issues and it was resolved by the neighborhood and the church in a civil manner.
I’ve seen the type of illegal parking in Black areas and white areas. I’ve seen the issue worked out most times, even in gentrfying areas.
I read in DCist that the Vegetarian restaurant at the heart of a lot of contention was denied a liquor permit due to Church protests. Apparently, Church goers did not want even the hint of possibility of their children seeing someone that had imbibed too much wine with their lunch. Church members claimed that their concerns were all on behalf of the children.
If this is true, why do these same folks apparently have no problem bringing the homeless (with all of the attendant alcohol and drug related pathologies and anti-social behaviors such as urinating in public) around OTHER people’s children and into their neighborhoods. When the Church members go back to their safe suburbs, the neighborhood is left to deal with their good intentions.
(note: naturally, not all homeless are subject to problem behaviors, but the pathologies are well documented for the group as a whole)
Perhaps it isn’t that these folks “don’t like” the homeless as your blanket statement asserts, but rather that they don’t like having their neighborhood made less safe or even less pleasant. Many would find this reasonable.
La Shawn:
Most of those complaining about “gentrification” are those who chose NOT to improve their lives – getting pregnant, lacking job skills, etc.. – they believe that, somehow, they have a “right” to a poor neighborhood that they can afford.
Ths other complainers are like the Law Prof, who “advocate for neighborhood justice” – but don’t live there.
Dorchester MA was the Irish ghetto of Boston. Irish lived there because they could not live elsewhere. It was near the ocean, but poor and run down.
When our unelected judges looked at the color map, they saw it was “too White” (I don’t know many dark skinned Irish). They ruled that it had to be more Black.
Blacks moved in under Government guidance. Irish students were bussed to Roxbury (Black neighborhood). Irish, being more ambitious, moved out.
With an expanding economy, waterfront property became more valuable. “Gentrification” began. The same people who refuse to improve their lives by avoiding pregnancy, going to school and obtaining job skills, are complaining the loudest about “gentrification” with high rent condos.
Landowners who make a profit selling their land are accused of not being “socially responsible”. “The poor” believe they are entitled to a waterfronr view.
One, the streets are public and residents have no rights to park in front of their home or even on the same block.
DarkStar, the primary problem isn’t the churchgoers parking in front of other people’s houses, it’s that they are DOUBLE-parking, as well as blocking driveways. If you notice in the quotes from Paul Butler, he wasn’t at his house. He was blocked in after enjoying a breakfast out with his family.
I have to say that I have made a killing out of gentrification in my real estate investing biz. I too love progress, development and big business.
Poor black folks can’t stand to see white folks having and making so much money, legally, and at their apparent expense. Especially when some news story decides to play the race card. The opposite is also true.
Here in Charlotte, alot of the old mostly black downtown neighborhoods have been replaced by high rise condos and offices.
This was due mostly in part to self-made billionaire Bob Johnson getting his arena built down here a few years ago.
Its funny, down here it was kinda the opposite. It was mostly middle and lower class WHITE folks against Mr. Johnson’s (who is black) getting his arena built down here, which pretty much led to the recent explosion of development downtown.
He also set up a number of other business ventures and has really done some great things for our city.
I guess those particular white folks did not like to see a confident & extremely wealthy black man having such a huge impact and making so much money in our city, with them believing it to be at their expense.
Jealousy breeds hate…..
Frank Zavisca,
Your comments about ‘gentrification’ are obviously simplified and skewed to the maximum political effect. i.e. Property develpers/landlords are ‘good’. Poor are ‘bad’.
With respect, isn’t that the same type of simplistic demagoguery as the far-left’s blanket condemnations to the reverse? You know, poor are ‘good’, landlords are ‘bad’?
In my opinion this kind of political slogannering is just very dishonest.
Regards,
JohnD
Most of those complaining about “gentrification†are those who chose NOT to improve their lives – getting pregnant, lacking job skills, etc.. – they believe that, somehow, they have a “right†to a poor neighborhood that they can afford.
Wow, so a hard working custodian doesn’t have the right to a simple shelter that he or she can afford? How far does the ‘dog eat dog’/’survival of the fittest’ go in an advanced, civilized society?
Apparently the residents complaining about ‘gentrification’ aren’t property owners. If they were they would have the choice of selling to the developers or not selling (assuming that eminent domain wasn’t used). If they choose to sell they will most likely profit immensely. Even if people have lived in a neighborhood all their lives, they really can’t complain that much if they don’t own the property.
Building new condos wouldn’t cause a parking problem if the builders were required to include parking spaces for each condo. This is required in many areas of the country.
Our church has been a horrible neighbor to its community. It’s located in the heart of a residential area of St. Louis, and our congregation has a history of parking illegally, and blocking neighbors’ driveways. Last year, our pastors were making weekly announcements.
If we can’t be considerate with something as banal as parking, how can we be trusted with sharing the Word?
Oh. Right. We can’t. Hence all the grace.
We used to say “high sadity” way back in the day. Good ole DC, you have to love it. When I was at Howard people were complaining about the blight on the U street corridor but today it is a bastion of small business. The same thing is happening on Georgia Ave. If the dazzling urbanites are not taking care of their homes or if buildings are abandon and become crack houses (see Marion Barry) then they should be torn down and the neighborhood gentrified. The question begs to be asked what was there before the new building? Furthermore I am in agreement with you about preferences. I have a philosophy of affirmative opportunity just give me a chance to excel if I don’t then so be it but if it is to be it’s up to me. My late father was born in 1930’s Mississippi he didn’t even finish High School but he made sure that me and my brothers were taught work ethic and some common sense values. That is what is missing hard work and dedication will lead to success. Not whining and acting like someone owes you a living because you were born here. I am sick and tired of these wusses that cry and moan every time they perceive that there is some racial injustice that is going. If I was tired of all the double parking I would buy a tow truck and start towing they would get the message then. It ain’t racism its capitalism stupid either s*%t or get off the pot. Sorry for the rant.
Frankly, I don’t know what to make of the situation on double parking and race. This whole paradigm with blacks against so many other groups is bewildering to me. Your article centered on black church goers against a newer upscale group taking over “their area”.
In Los Angeles where I live the problems appear more complex. The most prominent being various Hispanic populations supplanting blacks in South L.A. This has resulted in regular occurring race wars in school campuses and in prisoners. Then, there is the old adverbial deal with the Korean shopkeepers. Being white I belong to the group which is well, not too good.
Am I wrong in this analysis? I need help with this.
John
I went to Georgetown, so I know a bit about the problems in DC with parking. While in this particular case, the issue is black church goers in previously “black neighborhoods” dealing with white newcomers, this overall issue is not specifically a race issue. By that I mean that I think the same situation would exist if the newcomers and the church goers were black (the church goers would still be wrong and they would still double park). Again, Ms. Barber in her post let us know that the church members were black and the neighbors white. I think I know a better description for the Sunday visitors…SELFISH. They care about their needs first and seemingly only, very un-Christian.
By the way, I agree that racial preferences are problematic for a number of reasons, but the only preferences that I have noticed really discussed often are racial ones. Is that because as a black person, Ms. Barber tends to highlight black issues and so that is what most commenters focus on in their responses? Is it because those (outside of gay rights issues) are the only government sanctioned preferences that exist? Or, is it because those are the only preferences that most readers and commenters are against? Forgive my ignorance. I have looked around the site a bit but I haven’t seen the answer (I’m not saying that it is not here, I just haven’t seen it).
This is not directed at Ms. Barber for you to explain yourself. I have noted and respect the fact that this space is for your opinion and you allow us to comment on YOUR site. This is directed toward commenters. I am interested in their opinion about what preferences are acceptable or not.
Heather
When whites leave a city for the suburbs, it’s “white flight.” When they move back to the city, it’s “gentrification.” Another case of racism damning Caucasians no matter what they do.
Well said shade. Gentrification has its macro benefits but it also has many micro limitations. You often hear politicians and economists talk about efficency and social optimum and beleive me, it sounds good, really good and then you start to think, efficency? social optimum? Who does this apply to?
It is still all about the poor remaining poorer and the rich trampling over them. Sure, your gentrified neighboorhood gets a starbucks and some cafes but at what expense? Gentrification does not help solve the problem of why these poor neighborhoods existed in the first place. It simply scoops it all up and ships it on out to somewhere else to deal with.
I live in boston and am amazed at how gentrified this city has become. Boston is at its finest. The south end, which used to be one of the most dangerous sections of the city has just opened up a Barneys, a load of uber expensive cafes and shops but the people who used to live there have found themselves pushed further out in western ma to economically depressed areas such as Lowell or Chelsea.
It is a fact that the poor will always be among us but as socially progressive human beings, it should not be in our nature to profit off of their situation and that is what gentrification does.
Sorry if there are any spelling mistakes, i’m late for class.
Heather,
There should be no “government sanctioned” preferences gay, black, white or otherwise; however, we know that there is. The ones wanting preferential policies do have a point though in reminding us that “money” can open doors, too.
I think some of this double parking has to do with a breakdown in civility. In my apartment building I park my car in a non electronic operated garage on an alley. There have been times when people park their cars in front of my garage door blocking my exit even though I have a sign stating “No Parking”. In my derelict years as a teenager I would have never done something like this. In almost all these cases the offenders have been adults.
John
Gentrification can actually be good for poor black property owners. Here in Chicago near the lakefront there are neighborhoods like Bronzeville ( sp?) that older blacks who have lived in the area for 30 or 40 years are getting 4 and 5 times what they originally paid for their properties to sell it to developers of condo’s.
“Sure, your gentrified neighboorhood gets a starbucks and some cafes but at what expense? Gentrification does not help solve the problem of why these poor neighborhoods existed in the first place. It simply scoops it all up and ships it on out to somewhere else to deal with.”
~Very well said!
#29. Carson Sasser
Many of the people affected are elderly homeowners who are on fixed incomes and can’t afford their property taxes being tripled. Many don’t want to relocated from where the place where they built their lives.
And edub is correct. Gentrification doesn’t remedy bad neighborhoods. It moves them.
SmartBlkWoman
The cost of living may be 4 or 5 times what is was when they first bought their homes.
I have to agree with the first commentor sometimes I don’t think I live in the same country.
Its sad that the developers are pushing others out of neighborhoods. Its even sadder that there isn’t some sort of cap on these property taxes.
Where is Jesus allowed to come into these churches? Or has he been banned as a homeless bum?
*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*
Have a God Blessed Week.
http://www.goofyfun.com/1/vansweet.swf
Its Click and Comment Monday
*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*
i have 3 churches within 2 blocks of me 2 protestant and 1 catholic. no double parking however its a fact of life if i want my in front parking space i dont use my car for certain times if i can help it. as for double parking how about getting some of the pastors or priests to urge carpooling to church for people that go alone or just as a couple.
Hey, I got a parking ticket once when I was visiting the Cathedral of St Matthew the Apostle — and I wasn’t even blocking anybody in! Obviously my rights to religious freedom were violated. Does this mean I get to sue somebody?
No?
Many of the people affected are elderly homeowners who are on fixed incomes and can’t afford their property taxes being tripled. Many don’t want to relocated from where the place where they built their lives.
Very true. Why do my taxes rise because some rich folks want my house? Shouldn’t taxes be based on what I paid for it rather than what someone else would pay for it? The government may take their bigger slice if I sell at an inflated price, but they have no right to it until then IMHO.
La Shawn,
I agree a ticket would solve the problem quickly. Why aren’t tickets being issued? All the commenters can twist this topic around and talk about the problem being “gentrification” or whatever other cause they want to place blame with. This ignores the real problem, which is double parking. Why not ticket the church goers. Does being black make them immune to the law? When I got a parking ticket I paid my fine and didn’t make the same mistake again.
definition
Gentrification: the poor won’t always be with us:)
About the underlying issue of gentrification: The ultimate problem is not gentrification, but rather a government that spends too much money and thus imposes burdensome taxes. If property taxes were not so high, gentrification would not be a problem as folks could decided whether to move or not to move, but would not be forced to do so as a result of sky-rocketing property taxes. The solution is not to forbid gentrification or exempt more and more folks from paying taxes and thus insulate them from the amount of government that they impose (the bottom 50% of the US only pay 3.5% of federal taxes at this point) but rather to get a handle on government spending. Just the amount of money spent on education in DC is astounding (and there is little to show for it).
Interesting article! What would have been even more, forward moving, is if this discussion had stayed above race. By the time I got finished propaganda, I mean post 7. I felt it would spiral downward (racial) and a great civic discussion would be lost. Hopelessly I didn’t read any other post.
About the underlying issue of gentrification: The ultimate problem is not gentrification, but rather a government that spends too much money and thus imposes burdensome taxes.
Exactly. Renters are a different thing. The fact is that rent goes up and down. But when someone owns their home, I don’t believe that they should be burdened with a newly added cost beyond what they agreed to pay when they purchased the house. Many good, simple, working class people have worked hard to own their homes and it is pitiful when that is jeopardized by increased government taxation/thievery.
And Nardo hits in on the nail in post #44. Why should someone’s taxes go up because some rich person wants to buy their house?
Shade2…Are you different from Shade but related in some fashion?
It is interesting you mentioned your “great-great-great-great grandfather”. You may explain me why Barak Obama advertises himself as an African American, and African American community does not treat him as a gate-crasher. Was it a great-great-great-great grandfather of his white mother or his Kenyan farther who was disadvantaged by US slavery or later segregation???.
Here in Australia we have positive discrimination of Aboriginals, however it applies only to descendants of those who were the masters of that land before the English came. All others are subjects to the same rules, whatever their race is.
Funny
I’m neither poor but I’m black. Went to college, have a decent job, and was married for 2 years before I got pregnant. (WOW, do black people even do that?!)
and I’m getting priced out of my neighborhood by gentrification.
And I’m also wondering if being black makes you inherently an illegal parker (you know we’re all criminals).
Funny, I wonder why the Catholic church in the north end of my home town always has people double parking and blocking up two way street making it one way and causing all kinds of issues. I guess all those white people streaming out have black in them
I guess I’m my criminal illegal parking gene didn’t activate yet, or better yet I must be crazy into seeing poor white, black, hispanic, and Asian folks being pushed out of neighborhoods due to gentrification and developers hawking million dollar condos and being upset about it because well, we just can’t stand to see rich white people coming into our neighboorhoods and pushing us out.
I can’t afford to pay 6,000 a month in rent for a 1 bedroom, sorry.
Jan.
I post as Shade2 on another board and mistakenly typed it here (Shade was already taken on that board).
Here in Canton, MA our police make a point of ticketing people when they come to Mass (especially Christmas and Easter). The other religions in our area frequently park illegally, but are given a pass. By the way, the land our highschool is built on was donated by an old, rich, protestant family with one provisio, the Catholic church not be allowed to use the land in any way. Now we have a “church” group from Boston, MA that rents it (for a tiny amount of money) on the weekends for their services, and by the way, they park illegally but are never ticketed. Interesting area.
“Interesting article! What would have been even more, forward moving, is if this discussion had stayed above race. By the time I got finished propaganda, I mean post 7. I felt it would spiral downward (racial) and a great civic discussion would be lost. Hopelessly I didn’t read any other post. ”
That was the point I was concerned about. Somethings are totally about race. This is not. This is about ignorant people who don’t live in a neighborhood, blocking spaces because they want to. It just so happens that the opposing sides are black vs. white. As I stated in my post, it would be the same if they were both black.
Thanks John for the reply. I am glad to know that someone is against ALL government sanctioned preferences, not just racial ones.
Another question, I’ve heard people discuss quotas were a number of spots are held open for various types of people, they have to qualify so standards aren’t lowered but the do have spaces “reserved” for them. I don’t really know how I feel about that, I was wondering how others felt. For example, historically black colleges hold spaces for people of other races so that they get a chance to go to a school that otherwise receives 90% or better applications from blacks.
Heather
Posts 52 (Catholic allowances) and 54 (Protestant allowances)show that ignorance is not limited to blacks.
Heather
Based on patterns of Northeast Democrat/liberal politicians’ behavior, Christianity seems to be okay when non-white people are involved.
Why is the pastor not preaching Romans 13:1-7 to his flock? This really shouldn’t be happening.
Guess I don’t get it. Here in Boston, I attend a black Baptist church on Tremont Street, which features a number of competing institutions. On Sunday morning, there are people double-parked all up and down the street, and none of the neighbors, black or white, seem to think anything of it. It’s considered perfectly all right to park like that during Sunday services. Everybody lives with it. It’s no big deal, and certainly not a racial issue.
The cost of living may be 4 or 5 times what is was when they first bought their homes.
Comment by Shade
That’s true. But the point is that these people are making a huge profit that they can use to buy another home somewhere else and still have money left over.
SmartBlackWoman
1. Why should they HAVE to move if they don’t want to? My home has been in my family for 4 generations and I’d really be offended if someone implied that because rich people are moving in and we wouldn’t be brought out from a place we raised generations of family, that we were somehow lazy, ignorant, black people.
2. Where is this “somewhere else”the land of poor people pushed out of their homes?
3. A house in the Bronx is valued about 300,000 average? and thats a decent house. Same decent house anywhere else in New York(Queens, Brooklyn, manhattan, New Jersey,Westchers, and lower connecticut is 500,000. Where is my HUGE profit? My job is in manhattan, so if I sold above house I’d probably only be able to get something comparable in Pennsylvania, 3-4 hour commute away. If I was elderly or on fixed income how would that even work with out me being pushed out my state and away from my family?
Zakia says; “Why should they HAVE to move if they don’t want to?”
People are flooding out of high tax states because they can no longer afford the tax burden. this problem is FAR larger than gentrification. Add to that the millions that have fled from their homes over concerns about crime and those who have had their homes taken through eminent domain, and it becomes obvious that the American Dream is on shaky ground.
Why should they HAVE to move if they don’t want to? My home has been in my family for 4 generations and I’d really be offended if someone implied that because rich people are moving in and we wouldn’t be brought out from a place we raised generations of family, that we were somehow lazy, ignorant, black people.
Nobody said you or your family would be lazy or ignorant. But the bottom line is that don’t have a right to live in an area that you cannot afford to live in. The black people living in the area don’t have to sell if they don’t want to. If they have been living in a house for 30 years and they can afford to stay there then great! If they have been living in a house for 30 years and they can no longer afford the property taxes then they can either lose their homes or they can move. You don’t have a right to stay somewhere just because that’s where you have always stayed.
Where is this “somewhere elseâ€the land of poor people pushed out of their homes?
The “somewhere else” is in a neighborhood that they can afford, namely a smaller neighborhood in the south suburbs or the south side of Chicago farther from the lakefront.
A house in the Bronx is valued about 300,000 average? and thats a decent house. Same decent house anywhere else in New York(Queens, Brooklyn, manhattan, New Jersey,Westchers, and lower connecticut is 500,000. Where is my HUGE profit?
In your rush to respond you didn’t even critically read my post. First of all the location I was referring to was in Chicago. Second of all, there are homes all over the country-nice homes in nice neighborhoods-that are priced in the $100,000-$200,000 range. My home is in that range and we live in nice neighborhood in a home that has a full-basement, two-stories, and I can walk to the public tranportation system.
Furthermore, if you can’t afford to live in those areas that you named then the solution is to move somewhere else. I know that idea that you can’t always have what you want when you want it is pretty novel, but it’s the way life goes. If you want to live in a $500,000 home then you need to be making the kind of money where you can afford one.
My job is in manhattan, so if I sold above house I’d probably only be able to get something comparable in Pennsylvania, 3-4 hour commute away. If I was elderly or on fixed income how would that even work with out me being pushed out my state and away from my family?
Who said life was full of easy decisions? You take all factors in consideration and solve your own problems, not whine about how expensive the houses are in area you can’t afford to live in.
Wow. I can’t believe people don’t know how to park. I drive a gigantic 4WD 4-door Dodge Megacab 3500 Cummins dually truck. I could park that thing and the 8 horse trailer I pull with it in between any of the lines in most grocery store parking lots. I just don’t see what race or religion has to do with parking ability. If I can park my monster in between the lines then someone driving their ultracompact uppity hybrid car should be able to manage just fine. If you’re worried you might not get a space to park leave a half an hour earlier for Pete’s sake! My DOG could do a better parking job than the cars in that photo…
SmartBlkWoman
I guess your a product of this countries capitalist ideals. Its not the point of “whining” about expensive housing. Its about someone who has built their lives somewhere being told by people like you that all that doesn’t matter and the dollar bill does. Everyone is not a heart surgeon and cannot afford to live the lifestyle of a heart surgeon. It is not “whining” when your being pushed out of your ‘home’ by people only concerned about dollar signs. Some of these people are human beings I would think.
I guess your believe its alright for the government to kick people out of their houses, have their lives uprooted so someone can build a strip mall on their land?
I guess I just have a different more humane and more gray view of such things.
Jan – But I think the attitude displayed above like SmartBlackWoman’s is that of “Too Bad for you” And thats why people find themselves in these types of situations because the human aspect of the situation isn’t really cared about. I guess we live in a dog eat dog society.
Its about someone who has built their lives somewhere being told by people like you that all that doesn’t matter and the dollar bill does.
Your right, we do live in a capitalistic society and I am a staunch supporter of capitalism.
The problem with your stance is that it’s irrational. Doing something solely because you have always done it is not a rational reason. Living somewhere because that is the only place you have always lived is not a rational reason to continue to live there.
Everyone is not a heart surgeon and cannot afford to live the lifestyle of a heart surgeon.
True. Somebody is gonna be a CEO and somebody is gonna be a janitor. Your solution is to lower the lifestyle standars of the CEO and artificially inflate the lifestyle stardards of the janitor, which is unfair to the CEO.
It is not “whining†when your being pushed out of your ‘home’ by people only concerned about dollar signs. Some of these people are human beings I would think.
I know that these people are human beings which is why I know that they are adaptive to change and can make new homes and new lives elsewhere when they can no longer stay in the family home due to economic reasons.
I guess your believe its alright for the government to kick people out of their houses, have their lives uprooted so someone can build a strip mall on their land?
I hate when people guess instead of just asking the question. Perhaps part of your problem is that you do too much guessing and using your emotions to look at an economic system instead of using logic.
The government kicking people out of their homes is not the same thing as gentrification, and I know that you know that. So why conflate the two other than to be dishonest and cloud the issue?
“It is not “whining†when your being pushed out of your ‘home’ by people only concerned about dollar signs.”
Zakia, better get used to that dollar sign, because there’s nothing more energising for the Market than kicking the poor to the floor. It might not stop them whining, but it sure as hell makes a profit.
JohnD,
haha, you got that right.
SmartBlackWoman
The government kicking people out of their homes is not the same thing as gentrification, and I know that you know that. So why conflate the two other than to be dishonest and cloud the issue?
Basically because its the same idea. Money. The government taking over someones home to be mowed over by a strip mall in a deal with a developer because it will generate money for the developer and for the government is the same as a developer and the city officials supporting that developer in raising property taxes, the cost of living in the area, and ultimately driving out those that can no longer live there, to attract people with money, to build more expensive properties and put in place more expensive businesses to make money.
The human aspect is missing.
John D has it right, mowing over the poor, elderly , and people just trying to live life, has been the halmark of those whom are wealthy or are trying to seek wealth.
Like I said before you have this very black/white view of this and I’m more in the gray area because i’m looking at the entire scope of the picture as a person amongst many whom already have been pushed out of one area we could live in by gentrification.
Basically because its the same idea.
Eminent domain and gentrification are not “basically” the same idea. They are polar opposites. Gentrification is the movement of people through market forces while eminent domain is when your property is forcefully taken by a government entity.
John D has it right, mowing over the poor, elderly , and people just trying to live life, has been the halmark of those whom are wealthy or are trying to seek wealth.
What a crock. Rich people are paying most of the taxes in the country to fund all those nice government services for poor people, the elderly, and folks “just trying to live life” in additioni to the fact that they create jobs. It’s not that rich people actually hurt other people, it’s that other people are jealous of the rich.
It’s always in season to hate rich people.
Like I said before you have this very black/white view of this and I’m more in the gray area because i’m looking at the entire scope of the picture as a person amongst many whom already have been pushed out of one area we could live in by gentrification.
You’re not in the gray area. You just said that you were disgruntled about being forced to move because of gentrification and that you are looking at the situation from the exclusively human aspect instead of the economic aspect. You sound like you have staked out your position pretty clearly if you ask me. We just see things differently and thats ok.
#69 & #70.
You’re both right some of the time, and both completely wrong at others.
The error lies in making flat universal statements based upon gut feelings or a couple of observations.
Amongst millions of people who earn less than get-rich-quick property developers, there are surely many who are eventually priced out of the market.
To suggest this is wrong is probably dishonest. To suggest it is right is probably dishonest. To suggest that it doesn’t ever happen, is demonstrably dishonest.
Finally, to suggest that people just having a job and living their lives is a sign of weakness (for not being greedy/ambitious delete as applicable) is, I feel, wholly wrong.
Not everyone is jealous of rich people. I know rich property developers, and have worked with them. Many of them are enormously jealous and guard their wealth/frinds/status with the narrowed eyes of a dog over a piece of meat.
The thief is always afraid of being robbed.
One of these men has actual hatred of people who ‘just have jobs’ and look after their family working a 45 hr week, content to either buy or rent a modest abode.
He sneers at them for their lack of ambition/ruthlessness. Sees himspef as their superior in every way because he made a lot of money in the finance world.
Now his latest project fell through, he’s turned to hustling two gullible women and a few insurance companies to keep his ego/cashflow afloat. Not once have I known his poorer neighbours (including myself) to be jealous of his considerable wealth.
Angry at his self-focused (im?)moral compass, yes, but jealous? No. He’d sell his own grandmother to be seen in the ‘right’ car.
Yes rich people can very often be huge sh*ts, it often goes with the territory. And yes, very often, poor people can be just as sh*tty.
But there is an enormous spectrum inbetween. You know, people? To politicize and polarize over such a wide-ranging issue just makes no sense at all.
It’s arguably the spaces in between the stereotypes where the great majority live.
I guess judging ‘them’ all to be (insert lazy or dumb) or (insert greedy or aggressive) makes us feel so much better about ourselves? So while it is said above that ‘it is always in season to hate rich people’. Let us not forget that it is laways in season to hate poor people. Or gay people. Or black people. or white people.
The victim game is played so often that those who are really getting shafted are often ignored amid the din.
Regards,
John
John D, I have nothing against the rich, and those seeking to get richer.
In terms of gentrification issues, its usually the rich that benefit of the displacement of the poor or working class. And to suggest the poor and working class are “less than” because they don’t want to leave their homes or suggest uprooting one’s life is a simple thing when they aren’t prepared or don’t WANT or don’t have the means to and the “thats life , too bad”attitude seems uppity and means spirited to me.
I understand this attitude but I can’t take such a hardline on the issue because I feel there are more aspects to it then just telling too bad, sell your house, and go somewhere else and make due.
And the suggestion that people who work for others are less than by the simple fact they work for someone else seems illogical.
The problem is that most urban areas like DC and NYC simply cannot handle the number of cars that people try to pack into them. The population in this country is increasing exponentially and with that comes almost as many more cars which have got to be parked somewhere. I lived in DC in the 80s (in the gentrifying Adams Morgan area) and when I moved there I had a car. Even then it was a nightmare to find parking in the best of times and I quickly sold it and got used to taking the bus and the metro. And that is what these church goers should be doing — either carpooling or using the metro. This is not a racial issue…rather it is a lazy American issue.
What is so advantageous about this illegal double parking that they can’t seem to stop themselves from doing it?
Repj
Uhh they get to park their car, probably closer to where they need to be, instead of driving around for an hour looking for a parking space, or having to walk a few minutes to where they need to go.
Comments on this entry are closed.