Commissioner Cunningham Laments Loss of Racial Diversity in Decatur
Decatur Metro | June 8, 2011From Monday’s AJC…
Kecia Cunningham, Decatur’s second ever African-American commissioner, said Monday she’s concerned about the recent census revealing a diminishing minority population.
It’s particularly dramatic in Decatur’s southwest corridor that’s gone from 70 percent minority and 30 percent white in 2000 to a 70-30 white-minority ratio in 2010. “We are basically losing our long-time African American neighborhoods,” she said. “We are a city that’s long prided itself on diversity, yet when the rubber meets the road, we’re not living up to that promise. We’re becoming more of a homogenous middle-class city.” Bill Banks for the AJC
Thanks to Karass for pointing it out!
Latest from Decaturish
When are we going to stop looking at things in white and black and focus on social economic conditions? I thought we were past this.
Also, this is clearly to be expected with the transformation that Decatur has gone through. No one wants to go back. I am sure many cashed in on ever increasing property values and moved to bigger and better houses.
Agree wholeheartedly G8. And what does the commissioner propose we do exactly to attract more minorities to Decatur? Now, like you said, if we are talking about social economic conditions…then that’s whole other story. But then I go down the road associating a low economic class with specific minorities, and I would not want to do that. If the commissioner wants to go down that road, then she wants more low-income housing to attract minorities back? We have low income housing (and quite impressive housing to say the least). Do we need more? We already have mixed-income condos around Decatur to better integrate. I just don’t understand what she wants us to do about it.
I don’t think I am wrong, but out of curiosity, weren’t most of the areas to which she is referring traditionally majority white from the beginning (1900ish forward) until about 1970 then shifted to more the 70/30 split in 80s then back around from the mid 90s until today? I guess my point is that these neighborhoods, at least in the last half decade, have always been in some sort of flux or transition when viewed broadly? Scott??
Exactly! It is the first thing that came to my mind when I finished reading the article. The neighborhood mentioned, along with several others have gone through this.
Nellie Belle’s comment is certainly on point. However, I think Keisha’s broader point is that we are not very economically diverse. I am sure she also has an emotional reaction, entirely understandable, to a — feeling more like a minority in her own home area. The demographic change has been pretty big for a decade, and most of us really don’t like change (unless we control it or initiate it.)
yes, oakhurst, for example, experienced “white flight” in the 70’s and the neighborhood’s composition changed completely. i moved here in ’95 and was one of the 30% to whom Commissioner Cunningham referred. my african-american neighbors (whom I hated to see leave) sold around 2003, and made a *killing* on their home before re-locating to the stone mountain area, where, honestly, there were more african-americans than oakhurst was trending toward.
#pendulum
Bingo. For some of these folks, this was the financial windfall of a lifetime. Imagine you are a working class family, and all of sudden your home doubles or triples in value. You can sell it, move to a cheaper location, and pocket the money that will send your kids to college or provide for your retirement. Who wouldn’t sell? It was a extremely positive development for those people. Only to the racial bean-counting social engineers is this a problem.
I’m sure there are also some folks who would like to stay but increasingly can’t afford it due in large part to high taxes on appreciated property values. But then the solution is simple — cut the taxes. Oh, the horror!
I’m all for lower taxes, but I’ve always thought that a much fairer solution to taxation would be to place a cap on the yearly increase in property taxes for existing owners. Tie that to inflation, cost of living or other, and you don’t punish elderly or poor residents when house prices around them increase. When a home sells, the tax rate would adjust upwards to the current valuation. In this way we’d be able to, as a community, provide a stable/predictable tax climate for those who are most likely to suffer from skyrocketing property valuations.
At the same time I’d get rid of all the exemptions, i.e. homestead, elderly school exemptions, etc. And as long as I’m changing all the rules, I’d get rid of the ridiculous millage rate/40% calculation, and provide people with a real number – 2.15%, 5% instead of hiding the real rate of taxation behind that silly formula.
The transition back to a more middle class area was not so positive for the lower income renters in private housing.
Wow. I work with the wonderful war refugee students at the Global Village School in Decatur. When I take them home, sometimes within walking or biking distance of downtown Decatur, I am struck by the fact that to the east of our city, the diversity is immense, and diversity means so incredibly much more than our outdated “black and white” version within the city. South Indian immigrants, and the refugees: from Burma, Congo, Bhutan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. etc. We do have Somalis living in Decatur, but most recent immigrants are shut out of the city by high property values. The diversity of Atlanta is changing all around us, and we’re not really in the thick of it, as if high walls keeps us forever in a little cocoon. Our racial conversation is a bit outdated, is what I’m saying.
I work with war refugees in Clarkston. We had a student teacher who grew up in Decatur. whose mother is presently teaching in the Decatur Schools. She had no idea of what the conditions of the lives of these children were just 4 miles from her home in Decatur. I understand what you mean by cocoon. By the way, this young woman would like to teach the students when she graduates from college. She is a superb person and magnificen teacher.
I work with kids at schools only 2-4 miles from my City of Decatur home. All of the schools had immigrants, one in particular is very diverse with immigrants from Asia, Africa, Middle East, Mexico, South America, and Eastern Europe as well as American born black and white students. Many of the immigrants are war refugees.
We do have some immigrants here in Decatur too, but not such a large number.
The city is certainly becoming less economically diverse than it once was.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it does seem that Decatur is growing less diverse– economically, sure, but more so & ethnically/racially. I do understand Commr. Cunningham’s feelings, as this is her home, and for some of us, it’s hard to watch the makeup of your neighborhood change so much within a relatively short amount of time (although Nelliebelle is correct that the Oakhurst area was originally pretty homogenously white, went through a flux to majority Black, and now is swinging back the other way). It can also be difficult to swallow if your perception is that your demographic are somehow being pushed out, and the Commissioner is correct in a way– I don’t think anyone can deny that the ever-escalating property (and other sundry) taxes here are pushing out many lower-middle and working-class folks (of all races, but again, of whom the majority here are Black). It’s a valid concern, but without an easy (or apparent) solution. If, as someone above said, Decatur is no longer very economically diverse, and that has led to the decrease in racial diversity, then how does a city go about attracting upper-middle class and wealthy people of different races (as opposed to the assumption proffered that the way the Commr. would address this growing disparity would be to set aside more lower income housing– I know it was offered with good intentions, but it still presupposes that the only way to attract minorities is to offer them something for free or at reduced cost)? Let’s face it: economic diversity is probably what Decatur is losing the quickest, and market forces are pretty tough to battle when enough folks who want to live somewhere are willing to pay a premium for it. Since I’m assuming most people who live here aren’t so wealthy that they have no financial worries, I’d think that residents across the board would want to slow that trend. But how? I don’t have any answers on this one, either. I guess it just is what it is.
+1
+2
I think the key to ethnic diversity is economic diversity.
The success of our town has resulted in rising housing prices.
I’m not in favor of underwriting low-income housing. However, I would be in favor of expanding the city limits. Although, most folks outside just see higher taxes and not the other good things that come with it– good schools, safe neighborhoods, great location, walkability.
I, for one, am not a minority, but I bought into this town when it was affordable. Now, I don’t think I could afford this town. But I’m very glad I live here.
BTW, I think the town has done quite a bit to help minorities stay here. Many, perhaps most, of the people whose homes are renovated and upgraded during MLK workdays are minorities.
I am one of the folks right outside the city limits and I can assure you that myself and the majority of my neighbors (confirmed by formal neighborhood surveys) see all of the good in being City of Decatur residents and are extremely hopeful that we will be annexed. Not sure who you would be referring to when you talk about those just outside the borders who don’t see the positives.
I’m not sold on this whole idea of diversity. Can someone explain to me:
1. In what ways are racial and/or ethnic groups different from each other?
2. How focusing on our differences (ethnic, economic, whatever) makes us more of a community?
3. How the supposedly liberal and enlightened Decatur could have possibly elected a person who thinks we need more or less people of a certain race or class?
One would think 50/50 could be the definition of diversity (and homogenous)–not a shift from 70/30 to 30/70…
On the other hand, I have to assume that the commissioner was speaking to a specific section of the populace–maybe trying to motivate them to stay in (or move to) the area.
and…
4. What is the definition of diversity? Racially, Is it based on percentage of the population? Why is 70 Black/30 White diverse but 70 White/30 Black is not? Should it mirror the national , state or local percentages?
5. Do you count by total city population or neighborhood or street?
6. It’s interesting to see people on this blog apparently wishing to limit people of wealth from living in Decatur through government intervention to achieve income diversity.
7. What’s important is that these changes are happening freely, not through coercion and harassment. As stated above “it just is what it is.”
“It’s interesting to see people on this blog apparently wishing to limit people of wealth from living in Decatur through government intervention to achieve income diversity.”
What are you talking about? Please be specific.
“It’s interesting to see people on this blog apparently wishing to limit people of wealth from living in Decatur through government intervention to achieve income diversity.”
It seems to me, if anything, that “government intervention” limits people who make less money from living in Decatur, via zoning laws and tax policy. What has anyone proposed that would limit “people of wealth?”
2. How focusing on our differences (ethnic, economic, whatever) makes us more of a community?
______________________
Dude, don’t you get it? Economic diversity is the tie that binds a community. That’s why I make a point to know what all my neighbors earn and what their assets are. Once you get that info on the table, people can really start to learn from one another and relate their different experiences. Heck, my neighbor and I talk all the time about how I earn way more than she does. She tells me about clipping coupons, and we laugh and laugh about how I don’t even know what a gallon of milk costs. And it’s great when she comes over to our house and we can show her all the stuff she can’t afford.
This can only happen when you have income diversity. Can you imagine a neighborhood composed of college professor, lawyer, doctor, artist, and restaurant owner who all happened to earn $100,000 a year? No diversity there at all. Just totally homogenous.
“Can you imagine a neighborhood composed of college professor, lawyer, doctor, artist, and restaurant owner who all happened to earn $100,000 a year? No diversity there at all. Just totally homogenous.”
Hmm..despite your intended sarcasm, you are describing a homogenous community. Throw in police officer, construction worker, nurse, mechanic, etc. Your list completely excludes blue collar and lower-paid white collar.
This is what Decatur is becoming. The only people who can afford the homes are the 40-something helicopter parents that are increasingly the face of Decatur. If Kecia is worried now, she’ll be downright appalled in 10 years when we have completed our transition to Dunwoody South.
Oh, so the inclusion of families. That’s what’ll make us Dunwoody South. I always thought is was Ruby Tuesday and Taco Mac.
That’s some definition of homogenous you have there — 5 people who do completely different things and likely have completely differen backgrounds are essentially the same in your book because they’re not deemed to be blue collar or sufficiently “low paid” white collar.
Agreed. I have never said, “Man, I wish there were more blue collar people around here.” Nor have I said “Man, I wish there were more white collar people around here.” I deal with people based on their personalities and if we have anything in common. Dealing with then based on there status in life is just silly.
“That’s some definition of homogenous you have there — 5 people who do completely different things”
Deeming a group homogenous because they are of the same socioeconomic class is no more arbitrary than calling them diverse because they have different occupations.
So you think you are equally defined by how much money you make and what you do for a living? I wouldn’t necessarily want to be defined by either, but I think I would rather be defined by my occupation than my paycheck.
“So you think you are equally defined by how much money you make and what you do for a living? I wouldn’t necessarily want to be defined by either”
Nor would I, but that isn’t the point. Often when people are of the same socioeconomic group they support and enact policies–intentionally or unintentionally– that exclude people on the lower rungs.
Deeming a group homogenous because they are of the same socioeconomic class is no more arbitrary than calling them diverse because they have different occupations.
________________
Well if both are arbitrary than I am at a complete loss as to what your point was supposed to be. Especially because you first seemed to suggest that adding some different occupations — blue collar and “lower paid” white collar, whatever that is — would equal diversity. At any rate, your statement borders on the absurd. It seems that in your view a group is homgenous if they happen to have the same income, and all other differences melt away. Occupation, on the other hand, is a far better proxy for a person’s personal interests, outlook on life, etc. Tom Hanks, Bob Dylan, the CEO of Coke, whatever — just rich guys.
My original point was to point out that your sarcastic list of occupations was hardly “diverse”—unless occupation is what defines diversity. I mentioned other occupations precisely because they are lower-paid. Communities dominated by one income range typically support local policy that keeps lower-income people out–despite their professed liberalism. And it is a bit specious to claim that people with different occupations represent diversity while insisting that their income level is irrelevant.
“Communities dominated by one income range typically support local policy that keeps lower-income people out–despite their professed liberalism.”
_________________________
Such as?
Prohibiting apartments from being constructed and/or prohibiting rentals would be one way.
Zoning laws that have minimum square footage requirements (Decatur has this).
Creation of “historic districts” that require architectural plans and/or materials making homes prohibitively expensive for low to moderate income families to build or renovate.
Just some examples I can think of.
Good examples. Thank you.
There are very few parts of the Atlanta area more diverse than Decatur:
African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Gay, Lesbian, etc…
Give it a rest with the great Black/White divide and realize that diversity goes far beyond the color of someones skin!
I’m proud of my fellow Decaturites for being sick of hearing about color and just wanting to move past it. Reverse discrimination runs unchecked in Atlanta/Decatur
Reverse discrimination? Huh?
[edited: no personal attacks]
@ nelliebelle1197 – Don’t tell me that you are so naive as to believe reverse discrimination does not exist. Many qualified applicants are not hired daily because they didn’t fit the racial requirement
I think the point Nellie was getting at is that “reverse discrimination” as a term doesn’t make any sense. It suggests the idea that “discrimination” is something that happens to black people so, if it happens to white people, it must be the reverse of that. But that’s silly. The practice is simply “discrimination,” regardless of who’s on the receiving end. “Reverse discrimination” would mean impartiality.
Or, put another way, the year before CSD’s big redistricting, around 8 white families joined together to integrate Oakhurst Elementary which, I believe, was at the time an all-black school. They didn’t “reverse integrate” it.
Whether the term is nonsensical on its face or not, we all have a common understanding of what it communicates – discrimination against members of the majority. Therefore the term is here to stay.
@TeeRuss
Thank you for articulating what I wanted to say! I sometime find it hard to put my thought into the right words.
A valid point but I still hold out for precision. For example, when considering Asians and African-Americans, African-Americans are the majority group yet I’ve never heard discrimination complaints against Korean shop owners in black neighborhoods referred to as “reverse discrimination.”
That would seem to suggest that the only real point of the term is to more pointedly showcase the victimization of white people, as though it’s more unfair when it happens to them.
“Discrimination” is equally bad, no matter who it happens to.
That would seem to suggest that the only real point of the term is to more pointedly showcase the victimization of white people, as though it’s more unfair when it happens to them.
“Discrimination” is equally bad, no matter who it happens to
That is your point of view on my statement. I totally agree that discrimination sucks no matter if your a woman, a native american, a handicapped person ect…. I just say that because the color of your skin is light doesn’t mean that is doesn’t happen as well.
“Many qualified applicants are not hired daily because they didn’t fit the racial requirement”
Sure, but the OP is suggesting the City of Decatur is using reverse discrimination, and it’s going “unchecked.” That’s a pretty serious accusation. What evidence is there to support such a claim?
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/trial-begins-to-decide-394136.html
Just for one. I”m sure I can find more. I know of another situation in Marta that was similar.
“Don’t tell me that you are so naive as to believe reverse discrimination does not exist. Many qualified applicants are not hired daily because they didn’t fit the racial requirement.”
1. I’d like to know where you see daily reverse discrimination because it is illegal. I know that there was a time long ago when government was simplistic about how they implemented affirmative action efforts. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission itself has held government agencies to hiring without discrimination and has taken action when reverse discrimination occurs, whether it involve sex, race, age, religion. I know of related actions and how goverment agencies have had to change their equal opportunity efforts to involve better recruitment instead of illegal selection by age, race, sex, or whatever inequality they were trying to balance.
I’m sure some reverse discrimination occurs but a lot less that folks like to claim. Systematic, open reverse discrimination is hard to get away with these days.
2. As a counter question: How often do you still hear that someone got their job or promotion because they were a minority? I still hear it frequently. To me, it’s evidence that we still need some kind of fair, legally sound affirmative action, if only on our brains and souls. Too many people still assume that a minority employee could not have gotten their job solely because of their credentials, experience, and merit. Sure, many minority employees are not perfect employees, but that is true of all of us employees.
The above comment sickens me.
jbgotcha,
I used to work in the public service industry and this is what make me feel like the pendulum has swung the other direction. I have been asked more then once, by customers, why more black didn’t work there. Not once was I asked about any other minority, including the two mentally handicapped people who worked for us. Sorry if me not being black and saying such a thing upset you enough to personally attack me. BTW, Caucasian is not the box I check.
I’m sorry that you feel like you were personally attacked. I was simply holding you accountable for your statement, and the fact that you feel attacked speaks volumes.
@jbgotcha,
“and the fact that you feel attacked speaks volumes.” No, could it be that your post was deleted because of no personal attacks?
Might be time for a new commissioner.
Come on, Gator. What has Kecia done to warrant that? She noted a factual situation and commented on it, expressing a little sadness that some of the folks who have grown up here and helped to make Decatur a delightful jewel of a city are leaving.
Decatur is fortunate to have a slate of reasonable and thoughtful commissioners.
It’s good to know that that whole “race” thing is over in Decatur.
And you do know WHY much of the area was white in the 1970’s and before? Just sayin’
As was said above, “it is what it is”, but don’t pat yourself on the back too hard.
Finally, it would be nice to see the whole conversation.
No, I don’t know why.
I would like to know what that means also. Genuinely curious.
Kecia Cunningham is a politician, and as such she has to say something. I really don’t think she expects anything to be done to stop the current trend. She probably just realizes that her time as commissioner is coming to end.
Diversity doesn’t just happen, it needs to be adopted as a core value and incentives need to be put in place to attract diverse people to the city.
Why’s her time as a commissioner coming to an end? Are the folks in her district not happy with her representation?
This statement will not help her in the next election – a quick way to lose your seat is to make new voters to your district feel unwelcome.
If she was planning to run again she would have introduced a thoughtful plan for addressing the issue as part of her statement.
My guess is she will not run again.
Why’s a Cunningham Plan necessary? We have a brand new Strategic Plan that addresses some of the factors behind the census shift. She’s expressed her appreciation and support of it several times at Commission Meetings.
Folks usually get voted back in or out based on what they accomplished while in office. It’s conceivable, though, that a bunch of thin skinned new voters could arbitrarily turn someone out over a perceived slight. It’d sure be a shame if it happened.
“Give it a rest with the great Black/White divide and realize that diversity goes far beyond the color of someones skin!”
Sorry, but in my experience only white people say this type of stuff and really mean it. If you are white, you have that privelege because you haven’t had to experience life as a person of color.
So should we get past race or still consider it? You can’t have it both ways…
If you don’t truly have to deal with racism, then I guess you can get over it. For everyone else, however…
There is a difference between dealing with racism vs. making everything about race.
You just don’t get…probably never will. How is correctly pointing out the decreasing numbers of African-American citizens in Decatur “making everything about race”? I’m done with you.
Little defensive, no? Good to know you are capable of having a discussion without personal attacks. I don’t mind a fact being stated. I just question why “diversity” for the sake of “diversity” when dealing with race or anything else is so important. I deal with people on an individual basis that has nothing to do with race. I understand not all people do, but that is not relevant to the conversation. I want people in my neighborhood that are pleasant, respectful and hopefully share some of my interests. I just don’t care what color they are. But, yes, I probably just don’t get it…
And I wasn’t commenting on Kecia making it about race; I was referring to you.
“only white people say this type of stuff and really mean it. If you are white, you have that privelege because you haven’t had to experience life as a person of color.”
This is one of those comments where I really there were a “like” or a little thumbs up to show a general agreement rather than responding directly. Why? Because the very nature of it makes me really uncomfortable, but it really is true. I’m making a huge jump here, but I would be willing to bet the ‘we’re past this place’ commenters above are white (correct me if I’m wrong that guys). And in my experience in life, that’s the only group I have ever heard it from. It was only about 50 years ago people were still drinking from separate water fountains. My parents still remember it. So in reality, we’re past the actual act, but it’s not as if it were ancient history either.
I hear what you are saying, but isn’t it a good thing that white people say they are past race? I completely understand that the recent history is still very real to many people, but how can we move forward if on one hand we are told to stop focusing on race, and on the other hand say that we should continue?
Those are good questions, and certainly worthy of discussion actually.
I think it’s probably a lot easier for folks who weren’t the target of discrimination, segregation, and worse case scenarios (physical violence) to get past it. Those experiences were real, and hurt you down to your soul, especially when experienced through the eyes of a child. But that doesn’t mean we can’t build a better future. I don’t think anyone here would pretend those things didn’t happen, but I do hear some pretty naive race related comments, and they are completely unhelpful in resolving anything.
I know I have said this already, I really wish she would expand on her comment, or we knew what else she said.. Did any other commissioners comment on this, and she was responding? What question was she asked? Did she just look at the map and blurt this out? WHAT CONTEXT WAS THIS IN???? (not capping at you Walrus)
@ jbgotcha – As a person of color who refuses to allow that to define who I am I can make this statement.
Anyone can make any statement they want. That does not, however, make it true.
Rick’s comment about people moving out through their own free will, and cleaning up on their home sales is really the most important point. The market should dictate these things, and it sounds like that’s exactly what has happened.
However… Maybe you are personally over viewing people by the color of their skin, that’s great! But some of the ‘we’re beyond racism, everyone needs to get over it’ comments above are absurd.
Racism goes in both directions, and it’s real. I have to wonder what bubble some of these commenters are living in. I don’t personally think the government should be involved in rectifying racial disparity gaps, but people need to get real, it’s still an issue.
I don’t know Keisha, but I would be willing to bet her experiences growing up in Decatur are quite different than someone who moved in a few years ago, and she has personal feelings about the changing nature of the place she grew up. She’s not just a commissioner, but a human being, and she’s got her feelings about it.
I’m glad people pointed out the racial ebb and flow in the neighborhoods over the years. These things happen and the market should dictate this, not the government.
Did she say anything else during the meeting on the matter? It says she was “concerned” not that she favored some sort of action to rectify this. Or did she? It’s hard to determine from this blurb if she was commenting off the cuff, or if this was some sort of action item she was interested in. (I seriously doubt that.)
Kecia did not grow up in Decatur. I believe she is from South Carolina and did not come to Decatur until she attended Agnes Scott College.
Thank you for the clarifications. I did a quick Google of search and was pretty impressed with her accomplishments, volunteer activities.
The statement she made is pretty damning and I really do wish there more context around it (even though it pretty much speaks for itself). It would be nice if she would clarify what she meant, or if she has any intent on attempting to improve/correct what she views as not living up to the diversity promise.
DM or anyone who was present-
Was this in a meeting room and on video like some are, or was she speaking to the reporter directly? What else was said on the matter?
She didn’t say it at the meeting, that’s why I found it such a weird AJC blurb. I’m assuming she said it directly to the reporter.
Guess they didn’t have the shoe letter to turn it into a full-fledged article.
Thanks DM. Too bad the AJC let the comment stand by itself without any additional context. Not really surprising though…
“Shoe letter”? Is that because “shoe leather” would be offensive to PETA?
The census results were briefly discussed at the May Meeting as a lead-in to the maps conversation. All of the commissioners remarked on the dramatic shift. Kecia Cunningham expressed concern, but she didn’t dwell on it. (She strikes me as being very pragmatic, and I’m thinking she’ll apply her efforts towards tackling the Strategic Plan goals that focus on economic diversity and aging in place rather than just wringing her hands and jawing about it. )
…What’s damning about her statement? She gave her assessment of where things stand, and some folks here are interpreting it to be some kind of a racial throwdown. Heck, there’s not even a “threatening” exclamation point to fan the flames!
If she would have left it at:
“It’s particularly dramatic in Decatur’s southwest corridor that’s gone from 70 percent minority and 30 percent white in 2000 to a 70-30 white-minority ratio in 2010. “We are basically losing our long-time African American neighborhoods,”
I don’t think it would have raised an eyebrow. I think what may be perceived as offensive is her opinion on it after that.
The rubber meets the road comment is accusatory of the city not doing it’s part and walking the diversity walk. But maybe that’s how she genuinely feels. If that’s the case, I don’t think she should be penalized for her opinion, but people also have the right to dispute her on what exactly the city should be doing to promote racial diversity in neighborhoods (if anything).
Should promoting racial diversity in the private real estate market really be something the city needs to be directly involved with? Closely tied to this matter, I would say absolutely for schools. But probably not private real estate.
How do you even go about managing something like that? ‘We need more blacks in x neighborhood, we need more whites in x neighborhood.’ That’s just way too much government interference at that point.
With the “rubber meets the road” remark, I think she’s saying that the City AND citizens need to step up. She’s also making two observations– we’re losing our predominantly black neighborhoods, AND the surge in middle class growth means that much of our economic diversity will continue to slip away if we don’t apply our efforts to coming up with affordable alternatives so that folks can stay. I don’t see it as a demand that we preserve black neighborhoods at all costs. But that’s just my two cents into the pot.
(The Strategic Plan will expand what’s doable on the private housing front. I don’t think anyone expects the City to swoop in and save the world, but an overhaul of the zoning ordinances should work wonders. Yay that they’ve already started gearing up the process!)
I really didn’t see a demand in her statement either. I personally find that there is value in racial diversity. I feel like she’s been pounced on unnecessarily here considering we don’t know the context in which she even made this comment.
I think it’s extremely sad to see long-time residents forced out because the high price of property taxes and other related expenses. And there are other legitimate issues raised above that keep prices high, and many people from being able to buy in. But that’s true in lots of neighborhoods, and it’s not intentional, just the economics. I don’t know if it’s something that requires direct action on behalf of the government. (I’m fine with it for schools though)
The reality is many have sold and moved on for other reasons other than being *forced* out. And obviously adding tons of affordable housing would increase diversity in every sense, not just racially, but then that brings a whole other set of issues. (Drain on resources)
It’s such a tricky subject, and I’m on the fence about some aspects of it honestly.
We wrestled a lot with gentrification in grad school. The smartest profs I knew basically said, at most all you can really do is ease the transition. In the end, it’s heart-wrenching for some, unimportant to others, and a positive thing for other others. It just is what it is, as many folks have already said.
There is value in all kinds of diversity. The more diverse you are, the more conflict. The more conflict, the more experimentation, the more success and failure. I appreciate DEM’s ongoing comments about diversity within the upper-income bracket. It’s an interesting argument. But I have trouble with it because while those people have different occupations and white collar skills, their home lives, community involvement patterns, outside interests, are quite similar. That’s not good or bad from a moral standpoint. It’s just less interesting and perhaps a more fragile system. (A community without disagreement is as screwed as a nation without disagreement.)
In a lot of ways, these conversations about diversity echo many economic conversations about the value/threat of monopolies. And I just have a hard time believing that monopolies are a good thing in an ever-evolving, competing world. Over course, most monopolies are the result of some kind of government regulation, which brings us back to earlier comments about zoning policies, etc, that limit lower (than upper-middle) income housing options in Decatur.
+1
I grew up in SE Decatur, off Glenwood Rd. near I-285, and even that area was majority white at the time. In fact, when we moved in 1984 the only black family on our street was the one that bought our house. During the late 70’s and early 80’s, I played baseball at Midway Park, and there were at most one or two black kids per team.
I just do not associate Decatur with the kind of gentrification going on in other parts of Atlanta. Decatur is far more diverse now than it was 30 years ago, and is much more open-minded about all kinds of diversity.
I remember having to go to the Decatur library on the square back in the late 1980’s for a school research paper and downtown Decatur was simply dismal. Now that same area is alive and filled with people. I don’t think that anything is being done wrong…everyone has the chance to benefit from a vibrant community.
I strongly agree with the concerned expressed by Commisoner Cunningham, the migration of african american families out of Decatur does challenge its efforts on being diverse.
It is not a crime to highlight the obvious. I would assume we would all want to acknowledge a change that is taking place and acknowledge its relevance. Would we not?
” We’re becoming more of a homogenous middle-class city”. What is wrong with that? We are a white same sex family middle income who live by black middle class families and Indian and Asian and mixed race families and single and married and struggling and succeeding. People of all colors and sexual orientations in the middle class who are now the new “homogenous”. There is much diversity and Decatur is more than just black and white.
We do still have hate and prejudice here and we don’t live in a bubble but most of my friends are just trying to make it in this homogenous middle class life.
For what it is worth, unless trends change, it will be much less than 30% African American in South Decatur in the 2020 Census. Many if not most of the 30% remaining are elderly African Americans – people currently in their 70’s and 80’s (and older) – who will either be deceased or moved into assisted living by 2020.
FWIW
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity
Might just be my favorite post ever on DM.
Spoken like a true classical liberal.
I prefer “Libertarian” these days; the “liberal” in “classical liberal” gives the uneducated the wrong impression.
I’m all for capitalism and limited government, but it seems like when we tried this as a country, Davo, we had widespread racial discrimination and perpetual economic injustice. It took a strong national government and some regulation of purely free-market capitalism (in the form of anti-discrimination laws, fair housing, and public accommodations laws) to make the playing field a little more level.
Is it the perfect way to do it? Of course not. But I would say that it is better than it was 50 years ago in your limited government, free market utopia when people and businesses were allowed to freely discriminate against people simply because of the color of their skin or their gender or whatever else.
And if you don’t think that we as a society might revert back to our old racist ways prior to the 1960’s anti-discrimination laws, if we were to get rid of them, and just let free market go unchecked, then go to the AJC right now and click on the comments to just about any news story you can find. You will find that the most vile forms of racism still exist in our society today.
Man, you got me going on this one as well. I completely disagree with you. If someone opened a restaurant in Decatur (or anywhere else) that did not serve blacks, whites, gays, etc., I sure as hell wouldn’t patronize that establishment. I trust that you or anyone else on this blog wouldn’t either. In short time, that establishment would be closed. We are so far from that mentality now, these places would be called out and shuttered through lack of business in no time. And if they do get business, then I am glad to know that those ignorant bigots are not dining next to me when I go out for dinner.
Maybe not in Decatur, but what if you drove 50 miles outside of town?
Fair enough, but then I just stand by my last statement that I’m glad those people are at their own sick little establishment and away from me and my family.
There would also be plenty of Landlords that would not rent to a business that discriminated.
How about disease? Certain housing projects exist entirely because certain landlords evict and/or refuse to rent to people with AIDS.
The mentality already exists.
Why Mulligan’s Bar in Marietta seems to thrive on its open racism against immigrants and black people. This is the guy who made the Obama monkey shirt in 2008 and now posts signs like this currently:
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-atlanta/sign-outside-mulligan-s-marietta-insults-illegal-immigrants-supports-arizona-immigration-law
If you think once you get outside of our little progressive bubble here in ITP Atlanta that open racism would not be allowed and tolerated, you are living on another planet.
Uh, I must chime in on this one. There was a HUGE difference in the government stepping in with the anti-discrimination laws (Civil Rights Act). The GOVERNMENT in many areas were requiring and sanctioning discrimination. The GOVERNMENT found “separate but equal” to be acceptable. This is why government needed to step in to correct its intrusion into the free market. It was actually private business that pushed for these anti-discrimination laws. So the reason the free market didn’t take care of itself back then (like it believe it would now), is because it was government sanctioned and mandated for so long. And no, I am not suggesting that no private business liked segregation, I’m just saying it was institutionalized by government for so long, that it helped shaped peoples ignorant views.
So are you saying that because roughly 40-45 years have passed since the government has gotten rid of Jim Crow laws, effectively sanctioning racial discrimination, that is is time to get rid of the civil rights laws on the books that regulate private individuals, businesses and corporations with respect to employment, housing and public accommodations?
So, if I wanted to open a restaurant and prohibit black people from eating there, or if I wanted to open a hotel and prohibit black people from staying there, that would be OK under the law?
Don’t you think some would revert back to this?
Yes, I do believe it should be up to private business to make that choice. I would find it disgusting if a business choice to do so, and I would never support it, but I don’t think it is up to government to tell a business who they can, cannot and must serve.
And on that point, we completely disagree and I think pretty much sums up the difference between our beliefs.
I believe that if you are a “public accommodation,” you should not be legally able to discriminate based on things like race, sex, religion, etc. If you want to do that, form a private club.
To allow a public accommodation to discriminate legally under the law is demeaning to the groups of people who are being discriminated against, denies them the ability to engage in interstate commerce, and denies them of their Constitutional rights.
“To allow a public accommodation to discriminate legally under the law is demeaning to the groups of people who are being discriminated against, denies them the ability to engage in interstate commerce, and denies them of their Constitutional rights.”
_________________________
Yes, it is demeaning, no question. It does not deny the ability to engage in interstate commerce, however. The Commerce Clause was used as justification for the federal government prohibiting discrimination at private establishments (which was a massive stretch); discrimination does not prevent people from engaging in interstate commerce. Lastly, please please please tell me how it denies them their Constitutional rights.
“The Commerce Clause was used as justification for the federal government prohibiting discrimination at private establishments (which was a massive stretch); ”
Thank goodness for that massive stretch; it’s one of the greatest accomplishments of the last century.
Exactly. What The Walrus considers a “massive stretch” is what I consider opening the door to the civil and constitutional rights to people who had been denied them for generations and would be continued to be denied them if we were to reverse course.
Just because I think a ruling is a stretch constitutionally, does not mean I don’t agree with the premise. I do not think, constitutionally, it was a stretch. It should have ordinarily been left up to the states. Having said that, because the government was so involved in discrimination, I do not have a problem with the federal anti-discrimination laws at that time, even though it think it was a stretch constitutionally. I am pro-choice, but i think constitutionally, Roe v. Wade is a stretch. Just sayin’…
The above should read “I DO think, constitutionally, it was a stretch.”
And I am still waiting for you to tell me which one of my constitutional rights are being violated if a private business chooses not to serve white people.
The Walrus says:
“And I am still waiting for you to tell me which one of my constitutional rights are being violated if a private business chooses not to serve white people.”
Clever. But I think that this begs the question. If the Constitution established the right not to suffer discrimination at the hands of a private entity, then there would be no need for federal civil rights statutes. The point is, however, that these aren’t constitutionally provided-for rights. So Congress had to enact legislation to protect them.
The point is, however, that these aren’t constitutionally provided-for rights.
_______________________
Exactly my point. Why does a person have a “right” to eat at every restaurant they want, but the restaurant owner not have the “right” to serve who he/she wants?
I am no Constitutional scholar, but I think the point that has become obviously clear is that most of us do not want to live in a society that legally sanctions racial and other forms of discrimination in public accommodations such as restaurants, stores, hotels and housing.
You, on the other hand, may personally abhor the practice, but are OK with our society tolerating it legally and think that private citizens and businesses ought to have the right to discriminate.
Fortunately, you do not represent me either in Congress or on the Supreme Court!!!!
I believe in freedom Marty. It’s as simple as that. You can’t have a love for freedom only when it’s all peaches and cream…
Well, freedom to me Walrus means a society which does not legally sanction discrimination.
Freedom to you must mean a society that does tolerate discrimination.
We just live in different worlds. Your definition of “freedom” is not better than mine.
Technically your definition involves a restriction of freedom. I don’t want “society” to sanction discrimination. I also don’t want society to “tolerate” it. As a society, I want people to be as vocal and condemning as they can be if someone discriminates. I just don’t think it’s the role of government. Heck, if anything, it will expose all the hidden racists out there for condemnation by society.
Under your definition the only person who is more “free” is the bigot.
Nope, under my definition, everyone is free; even the bigot.
And again, needed because of the GOVERNMENTAL discrimination that occurred for generations.
When the Supreme Court overturned laws that banned interracial marriage, a majority of the county still supported those laws. The “Government discrimination” was the will of the majority and had to be subverted by a branch of government.
Ah, but there IS a constitutional argument for this issue! Very different example. The government cannot discriminate. You will never see me state otherwise.
I am also against “the will of the majority” creating laws. The founding fathers were scared to death of majority rules (as I am). That’s why the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a direct democracy.
Source for the assertion that a majority of the entire country favored thos laws in 1967, just a year before the Civil Rights Act was passed? Because that is when Loving v. Virginia was decided. And it did not overturn any national statute. It overturned a Virginia law that had been put on the books in the 1920s.
Maybe not a majority, but according to Wikipedia, 17 states still had anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 at the time that Loving vs. Virginia was decided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States
Interestingly, although it could not be enforced, Alabama still had it on the books until 2000 when it was put up to a vote of the state. While it was overturned, nearly 40% (probably a majority of the white voters of Alabama), wanted them kept on the books. That was just 10 years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/12/weekinreview/november-5-11-marry-at-will.html
And you want to overturn our civil rights laws?
And you want to overturn our civil rights laws?
_________________
I’m not advocating that. If I was in office, It wouldn’t be on my agenda. I just don’t think it is necessary anymore.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx
Note that in 1968, the year after the state laws were ruled unconstitutional, only 20% the country approved of interracial marriage. That doesn’t necessarily mean those opposed thought it should be illegal, but it’s a pretty good indicator. Consider also that just last year, a plurality of Republicans in Mississippi asserted that interracial marriage should be illegal.
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/feb06.htm
In a 1965 Gallup poll, 42% of northern whites and 72% of southern whites supported a ban on interracial marriage. Not sure if that adds up to a majority, but it’s pretty close.
“And again, needed because of the GOVERNMENTAL discrimination that occurred for generations.”
True, and it began with the GOVERNMENT as envisioned by the “founding fathers,” most of whom, like most of their contemporaries, were racists; they certainly didn’t believe Constitutional rights extended to blacks or, in many areas, women.
No offense, but you clearly do not have a grasp on history. Most founding fathers were for equal rights for everyone, but new they could not get the government and constitution off the ground if they did not appease the southern delegates. It was an ugly compromise. To say all founding fathers were racist is just ignorant.
He didn’t say “all”, nor did he call your comment ignorant.
My apologies; he said “most”, which he still has no basis for. When someone is not well versed on a topic, they are considered ignorant on that topic. The word sounds harsh, but it’s accurate.
Disagree. You never even asked him what his definition of “racist” was.
Did approving the 3/5ths rule make you “racist”? Did owning slaves make you “racist”? You have a lot more digging to do before slapping on an ignorant label.
Ok, fair enough. I would like to know what evidence he used for that statement though.
Most of the men who signed the Constitution were racists; they believed blacks generally were inferior to whites. It is naivete to believe otherwise. I stand by that statement, and it is one that a trip to the library can easily verify. I’ve already made that trip.
I’m all for capitalism and limited government, but it seems like when we tried this as a country, Davo, we had widespread racial discrimination and perpetual economic injustice.
____________________
Isn’t it great that decades of massive social spending, taxation, civil rights laws and regulation of damn near everything got rid of the widespread discrimination and perpetual economic injustice? Oh, wait . . .
Maybe not, but it’s sure better than it was.
“Maybe not, but it’s sure better than it was.”
To put it mildly; I’m only 42 and I can remember segregated Santas at the mall. Imagine telling a child “that Santa Claus is only for white people.”
+1
this is why the south will continue to be mired in racial disharmony while most of the rest of our country is moving past it.
That’s a silly assertion. Have you been anywhere else in the US? Have they “gotten over” it in Detroit? How about South Dakota? New Jersey? California? I’m tired of hearing the same stereotypes about race issues in the South from people who either live in their racially homogeneous neighborhoods and towns, or who have as many issues as any place in the South, but refuse to admit it.
Amen to that, Josh. Race never played a role in New York City or Boston, did it?
As a native Southerner, I’m proud of being from here but also willing to admit to its flaws. Every time I see the Confederate flag on a bumper sticker or that odious “The South Was Right” that I see on a bumper sticker here in Decatur, I am saddened that my fellow Southerners still hang on to these symbols of our segregationist past. But the reason we aren’t “past this” is because this issue is a stain on the country due to slavery. Race was an issue from our nation’s very beginning and it is still an issue now. Had we all come here of our own free will, things might be different. But when one group of people is systematically subjugated and discriminated against for more than 200 years, it is going to take a very long time for the negative effects to subside.
Let’s not forget that segregation in this segment of the country was enforced not only by the law — meaning the sheriff and the police — but also by terror. People were threatened personally, burned out of their homes, fired from their jobs. They were beaten and murdered if they dared to express the opinion that everyone is equal. A look at the numbers of people who were lynched – brutally — shows it’s was not an aberration — it was a system.
Individuals who tried to stand up to the system of segregation- at best — left town. At worst, were found hanging.
Its certainly fair to say that today’s diversity goes way beyond black and white. But the history of this region still influences us all. Furthermore, it is part of the lived experience of us all and has a disproportionate influence on those who grew up as victims of segregation. For instance, an eighty year old black woman who lives in Decatur grew up going to segregated schools, and began her working life with extremely limited options.It’s unfair, in my opinion, to dismiss the damage done to those lives by saying it no longer exists.
Some pretty polarized views on this thread with a few more comprehensive perspectives. My guess is that a triangulation between the polarized positions yields a reasonable view of the situation. When one community replaces another, whether due to white flight, urban decay, gentrification, real estate booms or collapses, whatever, there’s a range of benefits and harms to a range of people. The trick is to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms since in the end we’re all human beings who are born and die and don’t get to take our mortgage, debts, assets, and renovated Craftsman cottages with us; all we really own is the experience in between.
Dacatur will continue to attract a diverse collection of people, but some central themes have emerged in the last decade that have changed what makes our community attractive now. Folks who value the “new” direction will stay, and those who don’t will choose to live elsewhere.
– We voluntarily choose pay high taxes (most of us)
– We are passionate about our public school system
– We have an active environmentalist community
– We grow our own food and raise chickens
– We bike and walk everywhere
– We value higher education
– We invest in and patronize local businesses
– We are family focused
– We have progressive attitudes toward gay & lesbian issues
Well said No Pain No Gain–thank you.
This sort of nutshell characterization puzzles me. Plenty of people who live in Decatur don’t grow their own food; plenty don’t keep chickens; plenty don’t bike anywhere and can only walk to some of the places they need to go; plenty don’t patronize many local businesses because the retail mix doesn’t serve their needs; and there are plenty who believe strong families are important but don’t have any children in their own household and resent being dismissed because of it. And there are plenty of people who were here before taxes got so high, can no longer afford to both live here (make the property tax payments) and pay for the “Decatur lifestyle” (trendy bars and restaurants and retailers, having to travel beyond Decatur for basic necessities like gas and groceries, etc.), and so are faced with the choice of staying here and seeing their standard of living decline or abandon the life they’ve built here and move on to someplace where their dollar goes farther.
Many of the comments on this thread (not singling you out alone, No Pain No Gain) definitely seem to reflect perspectives from inside the bubble of “my experience is representative of everybody’s experience.” Also, it seems worth pointing out that although many contrasting points of view are expressed here, the readership/writership of this blog is in no way representative of the larger community in the City of Decatur, in terms of either opinion or experience.
Excellent comment. A much needed reminder.
Some random points of potential interest: Quantcast measures DM’s black readership at 24%. Also, Michelle and Joe told me that while canvassing a Jazz Night in Oakhurst for the Decatur Adult Prom, only half of those attending had heard of DM.
Only! Heck, 50% name recognition sounds good to me. What would you have guessed it would be.
I just wanted to point out that what attracts newcomers is the way we are embracing these trends that make Decatur an increasingly interesting and vibrant place to live.
Change is positive. We need to embrace it and figure out as individuals how we want to participate and influence it. There is no looking back. We cannot harken back to the days of yore.
I stress change because we are just scratching the surface and the Decatur of the next 10 years will be hardly recognizable from today. I don’t grow my own food, nor am I environmentally passionate, but I appreciate that others are, and that they are teaching me and my children about alternative ways to think and live.
“I just wanted to point out that what attracts newcomers is the way we are embracing these trends that make Decatur an increasingly interesting and vibrant place to live.” — Not everybody agrees on what makes Decatur increasingly interesting and vibrant; and not all newcomers are attracted by the same things.
“Change is positive. We need to embrace it and figure out as individuals how we want to participate and influence it.” — I contend that not all change is positive for everyone who is affected. And a particular change can bring both positive and negative results for the same person, the same household, the same neighborhood, the same town. That being said, I do believe that change is inevitable, and I agree with No Pain No Gain it is up to each of us to choose how we participate in the present and try to shape the future.
I think Decatur is extremely diverse. I am a mixed race (Mexican, Spanish, American) woman and a lesbian. I have lived in Decatur for over ten years. I see more diversity now than I did ten years ago.
Kecia is not speaking about the issues clearly. It is a not a black/white issue. It may have been a black/white issue during the “white flight,” but that definitely is not the case now. I think the issue is a socio-economic, education, and lifestyle priority issue. To say it is black and white is plain ignorant and gets us nowhere.
The vast majority of people that have moved to the City of Decatur are here because it is a vibrant, family oriented (think music on the square), urban area with a good school system. People aren’t moving here to drive any particular race out, and no one race is leaving simply because another race is moving in.
Decatur is the perfect model of what a city should be. The fact that low income housing is literally a block away from the square where have great shops and restaurants is a testament that socio-economic diversity can work (it is not about race). To say that we are the next Dunwoody is crazy. I see no section 8 or low income housing in Dunwoody.
I live in Decatur because I prefer good schools for my daughter over having a mcmansion. I could easily spend what I have spent on my home and purchase a home, say in Stone Mountain that is 5 times the size of mine. But that is not my priority! I think there are plenty of educated African-Americans, Latinos, and other minorities who could afford to live in Decatur, but chose not to. Perhaps they have no children, or perhaps they want more house for their dollar. Whatever their reason is, ultimately it is not about race. It is about priority (how do you want to spend your money?)
The decrease in the black population in Oakhurst in the past 15 years or so–which is what this discussion is mainly about–is obviously mainly due to the gentrification of the area. Since race and Socio-Economic Status (SES) are highly correlated, as home prices go way way up, Oakhurst becomes richer and whiter.
Oakhurst is still quite diverse both in terms of race and SES, I think, but gentrification is continuing. As old residents die or move out, their houses are bought up and either extensively remodeled and expanded or torn down, with the new houses sometimes going for $600,000+.
If we want to maintain racial and SES diversity, we’ll need to maintain a diversity of housing options. We’re not going to prevent the upscaling of many Single Family Homes, and I don’t think we should. (It’s nice that people want to move here, and it helps increase our property tax revenue.) But as somebody suggested above, we can look at our zoning laws and make sure that we also do things to encourage more apartment complexes that are decent but not fancy, duplexes, modest single family homes, etc. We can do things that promote affordable housing while acknowledging that the gentrification of Decatur has been in many ways really good.
Amen!
To add to Martys list of policies that tend to exclude lower income people, I’d add the downtown building height limits.
World ends: poor, minorities hardest hit.
Diversity IS more complex than Black and White, but to call the Black-White divide an economic problem is a bit misleading. If you look at every data base available to any Graduate student you will find that the darker the skin the lower the socio-economic status. Color and a broad definition of income are so interwoven that to separate them is impossible. Period. Liberal or conservative. This is a fact. Omi and Winant, major researchers on economics, race, and ethnicity have completed extensive research all over the U.S for 15 -20 years. Here is one interesting finding: In neighborhoods that are considered “middle” class that are predominately White, Whites begin to vacate a neighborhood when the new residents of color rise above about the 11-12 percent margin. They looked at numerous cities and neighborhoods. Look folks the issues are not monolithic, never, but it is not simply and economic problem. There are certainly more than enough Blacks who are financially able to live here in the dec or anywhere they please. To put down Ms. Cunningham for lamenting the loss of many, many of our residents of color is too harsh. For those of us who are natives, we remember the 70’s when Whites ran out of this neighborhood and city so fast your head would spin. Same in Stone Mountain. Former White community that has become a predominantly Black community. The White population move North and out. Look at Gwinnett. The White population has moved further and further north. The southern ring has been abandaned. Sorry folks, I grew up here and tracking this type of data is my career. Let’s not over-simplify. Finally, race matters. Is it all that matters? No, but it damn sure matters
“Here is one interesting finding: In neighborhoods that are considered “middle” class that are predominately White, Whites begin to vacate a neighborhood when the new residents of color rise above about the 11-12 percent margin.”
That’s interesting, but is that due to a race or an economic shift? Doesn’t that just again support the interwoven argument? Maybe that’s what you’re saying, but I thought you were using it to argue that it’s not just economic. (FWIW: I agree with your statements, just not so sure about the example)
400 more comments and we’ll approach the Dollar General discussion. Keep it going!
The link in DM’s original post no longer connects with the AJC item and I can’t find it at ajc.com. Anybody know how to get at it? (Searching the site for “Kecia Cunningham” turns up zilch….as if she never had her name in the paper.)
Speaking of landlords, Walrus, I assume you believe they should be allowedto rent apartments based on racial discrimination?
Well first off, don’t think that is not happening now. But yes, I believe if you own a piece of property, you should decide who you do or do not rent it to. IT’S YOUR PROPERTY!
I feel live I am reliving the arguments of the segregationists of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
The used the SAME ARGUMENTS to justify discrimination as Walrus is using now!
No, no, Marty. There is no racial component to this. Walrus is just stating that property rights are absolute and inviolable. It’s right there in the Libertarian 10 Commandments, between “You ain’t the boss of me” and “I am a rock, I am an island”.
You clearly haven’t read all my posts if you think there is a racial component to this for me. It’s a disgusting suggestion. As i have clearly laid out, I would be first in line to spit on a business owner that discriminated on any basis. You are out of line.
And you clearly haven’t read my single post if you didn’t notice the line, “There is no racial component to this.”
I took it for sarcasm. My apologies if it was not.
That’s silly and completely unfair to what I have been saying Marty. You should be ashamed or yourself.
The fact is that the segregationists of the 50’s and 60’s used the same arguments then – people should be able to discriminate because it’s their property, their business, etc – as the arguments you are making now.
That is how they justified it.
Kinda sounds like a “my body, my right to kill the baby inside it” argument to me. I wonder if you share it…
And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? Just going for a really low insult, eh?
Uh, no. My point is that business owners should be able to run their business as they see fit, because it is THEIR business. The results may not always be pretty (discrimination). The same argument is used with abortion. “I should be able to do what I want with my own body” because it is MY body. The results may not always be pretty (dead baby), but we stand by that freedom. I think it is a good analogy and I am not surprised no one has tried to respond to it.
I guess all I can say is that thankfully your view is politically marginal.
I doubt I’d agree with brianc and Marty on much of anything, but I can’t go with Walrus on this. My strong libertarian streak would like to say that property rights trump anti-discrimination, but how could we run the country with a massive part of the population subjected to wanton discrimination in housing, public accomodation, and employment? It just does not work, aside, of course, from being morally wrong. Sometimes principle has to yield a bit to reality. Plus we’ve now lived with it for 40 some years, it’s worked out fine. The law isn’t going to be repealed. No chance. So this really is an academic debate in every sense.
Come on DEM, you know that was hard to right. As a businessman, if I saw a segment of the population that was in need of housing, I would offer it and make a killing. I know it’s scary as hell, but the free-market always works itself out.
I know and I am not suggesting that you’re a segregationist. There is a principled libertarian position to hold on this, and that is clearly what you are articulating. I just disagree that it would have been better to spend decades letting this work itself out as opposed to passing the Civil Rights Act. The Commerce Clause precedent it established is unfortunate, yes — and of course the left is trying to capitalize on it to usher in the regulation of absolutely everything, and we basically have a national government of limitless power. Still, the legislation was unfortunately necessary and, as I said, we now have 40+ years with it, and it’s worked. We can fight the other battles (healthcare, etc) without disturbing the civil rights act.
Still, the legislation was unfortunately necessary
_______________________
Agreed. I stated that above. But only because of what our government forced and/or allowed since its inception up to that point.
I support Walrus’s argument here. I, like Walrus, wouldn’t hire, rent, etc. based on race, and wouldn’t support businesses that chose employees or customers based on that, but I get really queasy when I (or the government) tries to think of “good reasons” to trample property rights.
If a business routinely makes a habit of hiring people, not based on qualifications and aptitude, but on other irrelevant criteria, their not so short-sighted competitors will eat their lunch.
There are lots of things we should have the right to do, but which are self-defeating, and/or repugnant.
That should read “hard to write.”
It was punnier as you wrote it.
“I doubt I’d agree with brianc and Marty on much of anything”
Maybe, maybe not. But I think these forums are sort of like road rage: we don’t have the face-to-face contact that allows for chummy disagreement instead of the typed equivalent of shaking middle fingers. In person, you could say to me “you’re crazy, man!” and then buy me a beer–as I told you why you’re the crazy one.:)
I think your view is a lazy one. Just let good ole’ government handle it when it should be up to us, as a free and free-market society to handle it. Will it take more effort and work on our part to limit it as much as possible? Yup, but i guess i am willing to put in the work to reach those goals.
Lazy…? Yep, all those lazy civil-rights activists who worked to get the Civil Rights Act passed. They should have been hard-working enough to wait for the magic of the marketplace to convince business owners that it was in their economic self-interest not to discriminate.
Haha! For the 20th time, I think the Civil Rights Act was appropriate legislation at the time. Not sure how many more ways it can be said.
Good one TOK.
Instead of doing the sit-ins at the lunch counters they should have just waited it out another 100 years or so until they came around.
Sit-ins are exactly the type of thing I am talking about. They (citizens) influenced change.
But look. By your own reasoning above, the bigoted shop owners with segregated lunch counters were just exercising their property rights as they saw fit. The citizens sitting in at the lunch counters against the wishes of the bigoted owners were violating the owners’ property rights to serve whom they wanted to as they wished–those citizens were doing something wrong. Moreover, they “influenced change” by getting Big Government to tell the bigoted owners that they weren’t allowed to refuse certain groups of people service. But that’s lazy, “let[ting] good ole’ government handle it when it should be up to us, as a free and free-market society to handle it.” The free-market way to handle it is to try to convince the owners to voluntarily stop having segregated lunch counters, by making them realize that it’s not in their business interests to have them. Right? (Leaving aside that at the time voluntarily desegregating your lunch counters would have been a terrible business decision at many locales…)
Well said. Of course, you and Marty are wasting your digital breath, or ink, or whatever. But still, thank you for taking the time and exercising the patience to engage in such a civil way with what’s being expressed.
Not a waste to me. I enjoyed reading it all!
By “wasting your breath/ink” I meant with regard to persuading Walrus to consider a different viewpoint. Edifying for others of us.
Funny thing to say as I obviously have considered a different viewpoint considering I am in the very small minority. The question is, have you?
I meant consider a different viewpoint than the one you’ve been espousing. Not embrace it, just consider it. And yes, I have tried considering a viewpoint different from my own–yours. But I keep getting woozy from the circular logic.
Yes, I know what you meant. I was stating that because I am in the minority, I have obviously considered the majority viewpoint.
“because I am in the minority, I have obviously considered the majority viewpoint.” — do what????
I am confused as to how you don’t understand this. Being that probably one percent of the population agrees with me, I have likely considered the counterpoint. To suggest that I have not considered the argument that it may be a good thing to have the government ban discrimination is just ludicrous. It is far for likely that you have not taken the time to consider my position.
You aren’t suggesting that my views could warrant uncivil comments are you? Because I would hate to think that Decatur folks are closed minded to other viewpoints…
“The citizens sitting in at the lunch counters against the wishes of the bigoted owners were violating the owners’ property rights to serve whom they wanted to as they wished–those citizens were doing something wrong.”
__
They were not violating the owner’s property rights (certainly not in the way govt. is). They may have been trespassing. But, hey, I don’t have a problem with a little civil disobedience to make a point.
“The free-market way to handle it is to try to convince the owners to voluntarily stop having segregated lunch counters, by making them realize that it’s not in their business interests to have them. Right?”
___
Wrong. I wouldn’t try to convince those owners of anything. They would be beyond convincing. I would just do whatever I could to make the public aware and have them shut down through the free market (picketing, shunning patrons, making it know to the community the kind of people running the place). I think in our day in age, these places would not survive the free market; it is hard enough without having to face public scorn.
You mean, “..until the Free Market would’ve taken care of the problem.”
I’m betting you think the New Deal and Social Security are bad ideas as well.
Your premise seems to imply that I don’t think the Civil Rights Act was appropriate (or that I am “against” it). It’s really tiresome to have defend an argument that was not made. I have stated at least three times that I thought that legislation was needed. My argument is that I don’t think it is needed any longer. I am not advocating a repeal, I’m just having a philosophical/political/academic discussion.
Having said that, while the New Deal (at least parts of it, not all) may have been necessary at the time, I think it did more harm than good with respect to the economy recovering. Also, these programs (including SS) were supposed to be temporary! How has that worked out? SS is a fraud. We should absolutely get rid of it (or at least let people own it and have more investment options). If a private company offered a retirement plan that only gave you a two percent rate of return and did not let you pass it along to your loved ones when you died, they would be laughed out of the marketplace. SS is a giant ponzi scheme. They pay out old investors with money from new investors. Eventually the money owed is less than the money coming in and it collapses. Bernie Madoff went to jail for this very thing and we all think he is evil as hell (i agree). But when it comes to SS, which is the exact same thing, we have no problem with it. Am I against our current SS system? You are damn right I am.
Walrus,
Don’t despair; you are not alone in your viewpoints. But you’re fighting a losing battle against those who refuse to accept the fact that one can simultaneously support diversity and question the government’s actions in “improving” race relations.
Of course, my support for your argument is most likely not helpful to your case. My chosen political affiliation make most on this blog assume I’m just another good ole boy Southern racist.
Thanks DTR. You can be my wingman anytime!
This is the best and healthiest (mostly) spirited discussion I’ve seen since finding this site. I’m finding that both my favorite posters as well as many I had lost hope in are making such wonderful points. I’m going to continue to stay on the sidelines, since I just can’t put in any better words what is already being said.
When did you find the site? There are others that are this good.
I think it was around the beginning of this year, and yes I’ve seen and been part of a few other strong conversations but this is the most snark-free one I’ve read. I would have contributed if I was in on this one earlier, but now I’m just enjoying it. Listening skills are important!
We moved into Decatur 4 years ago from a stifling white middle class community which was totally devoid of character and charm. Decatur with it’s wonderful diversity was a welcome breath of fresh air. Commissioner Cunningham has a point. Protect what attracted a lot of us reverse white flighters into decatur.
Anyone else notice the interesting conflict/juxtaposition of minority vs. majority discrimination here?
In many ways its the same, but in many of its outcomes, it’s very different. A real noodle-scratcher for the ages.
I think the noodle scratching comes from the fact that everyone is playing two hands here:
1) is the whole “how we see diversity and what it means to us and the community from the way that I see it”–a whole big mish-mash of hopes and perspectives, unrealistic or not….
2) is the “aren’t we supposed to see all people has being essentially the same, and therefore deny racist and racial tendencies”. These two ideas do not combine well at all because a choice has to be made in regard to the diverse hopes and perspectives meshing with a denial of racial issues.
The commissioner commented on 1 without really clarifying her definition of diversity, so it had to be taken as implying racial division. And that implication leads to a great deal of dissonance when you consider 2. Suddenly, for some of us, only certain kinds of change are good.
To reconcile this we have to clearly define, and agree on, what we mean by diversity (which I don’t think can be done to everyone’s satisfaction) AND somehow make it fit with the acceptance of all races.
Not all of us are playing two hands – it’s really only the pro-diversity folks, none of whom answered any of my questions above.
As you said, there’s a fundamental contradiction at work here.
A) Diversity is good because each race group has certain distinct, non-superficial characteristics.
B) Racism is bad because race groups do not have distinct, non-superficial characteristics.
I will go out on a limb and predict that in 50 years, people will look back on the pro-diversity era as a confused and backwards time. At least I hope so. The alternative is that we solidify our shared belief in race group differences back to 19th century standards.
Absolutely. We can’t have it both ways.
Well here ya go, for what it’s worth, a quick responsive opinion from a pro-diversity type. I don’t agree with the assumption — “racism is bad because race groups do not have distinct, non-superficial characteristics.” I don’t think others who would call themselves pro-diversity would agree with this either, at least if they’ve studied the issue carefully. Racism is bad because it can cause people to treat others badly solely because of membership in groups that do have distinct non-superficial characteristics. We do not live in a color-blind, or gender-blind, or ideology-blind society, and we should not. Even new research is showing that young children naturally sort individuals into groups. Noticing differences is natural — this is not the bad part. The bad part is discrimination and perpetuating negative stereotypes about certain groups and this is what children learn from adults, by our actions, what we say and what we don’t say. It is our job as adults who care about society and social ills like discrimination to be mindful of our own biases (subjective and objective) and how we may be transmitting them to children. AND if one goal is to live in a peaceful society moving towards cross-group understanding and mutual respect so that our common humanity is recognized, I do think that it is a positive thing to at least consider striving for a diverse community. And, in my view, entirely appropriate and helpful for a commissioner to bring it up.
For anyone that is interested in getting a read on your own preference-system, you may want to check out this online bias test (not perfect, but a helpful place to start):
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/research/
The difference here is racism is a human tendency that can be helped (like what you said about raising children…), but diversity is a societal effect (or construct) that works itself out; it mostly operates without our influence (if you dismiss the more racist tendencies (which I think you cannot), and it cannot be forced on any group of people. Once any sort of forced diversity becomes evident the more racist our reaction becomes, and, therefore, a community experiences a rise in discrimination (reverse or regular). I think it can be argued that forced diversity would end up looking like discrimination itself. And this is why some people took exception to the commissioner’s lamentation.
As you said, there’s a fundamental contradiction at work here.
A) Diversity is good because each race group has certain distinct, non-superficial characteristics.
B) Racism is bad because race groups do not have distinct, non-superficial characteristics.
Uh, no.
It’s racist to believe that on average blacks are stupid and lazy. It’s homophobic to believe gay men are icky, limp-wristed sissies who like to prey on children.
It’s not racist or homophobic to believe that people have a variety (or a diversity!) of viewpoints on and insights into the world, that this diversity is based upon a diversity of life experiences, and that one’s life experiences are shaped by one’s race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc. “Being black” (or being white!) is salient in the U.S. today in a way that “being a redhead” isn’t. Acknowledging this isn’t racist. And it’s not racist or homophobic to think that living in a community with a diversity of people from you can learn is a good thing–in fact, it may help you overcome racist or homophobic attitudes.
I can’t believe I’m about to quote John Stuart Mill. OK…
It’s hardly possible to overstate the value, in the present state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with other persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike with those with which they are familiar. Such communication has always been… one of the primary sources of progress.
+1 to On Liberty!
Ah, it’s actually from something else. But +1 on On Liberty anyway.
Can’t help myself:
‘The dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution is one of the pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes.’
John Stuart Mill
Awesome. How long could we keep a conversation going using only John Stuart Mill quotes do you think?
#howtoruinyourbloginunderaweek
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
– John Stuart Mill
Hmm: but how does this bear on blog moderation policies…?
Well said, TOK. Nothing more to add to this.
As stated before, we all agree on the definition of racism. At issue here is the many, many definitions of diversity. You gave us yours (it still cannot be fully reconciled with real human tendency…), and it is a good hope or expectation, but it is also highly unrealistic. In giving your definition of diversity, you also changed the argument–we are talking about racial diversity, and when you have a fundamental contradiction (diversity/racism) no amount of distraction is going to bring them together.
No one here is saying racism is good, diversity is bad–we are saying that they are not complimentary issues and one will always get in the way of the other (and vice versa).
I’ve read this comment string with great personal and professional interest. One thought that hasn’t been raised, which hopefully is obvious to many of you, is that there are a number of benefits to our living in a diverse (“of various kinds or forms”) community. One benefit is the increased opportunity to engage in conversation with different types of people, whether the differences are permanent (think race) or mutable (think political ideology). The mere act of civil debate with the “other” cultivates empathy, sometimes immediately, but usually eventually. Dare I say that empathy is one of the most important traits out there? If we can take on another’s perspective, then we are more apt to be truly compassionate in our own lives and spheres of influence. This is a good thing. The “diversity can help develop empathy” benefit is also particularly germane for our children. When a child has a positive self and group identity and a thoughtful grown-up talking to them about core human values of respect and fairness in relation to group identity, when that child is exposed to differences on an ongoing basis he or she will have an excellent foundation for their own empathic development. I think individuals acting to stop bias and unfairness based on membership in a particular group is not a given. This is something we need to actively work on, with ourselves and our children. I could go on and on.
very interesting discussion, particularly on the theoretical level.
a few hard facts I observed in Oakhurst.
quick recap: I moved here in ’95, paid 129k for one of the first completely renovated homes. 70/30 black/white composition. a good number of female led households with the matriarch in her 60s+ tumbleweeds blowing through Oakhurst Village.
my black neighbors moved into the neighborhood in the 70s. they paid about $35k.
around 2003 classic gentrification was obvious to all. many of the older black women who led their households were getting old. once they died or went into nursing homes, their heirs sold the homes, usually to whites at prices multiples of what they were purchased for.
my neighbors saw the prices homes were fetching and many of their friends were dying or selling–their old neighborhood wasn’t their old neighborhood anymore. they sold their home for $300,000+ and moved to Stone Mountain where they could buy a larger home, with a nice big yard, in a stable black middle class neighborhood.
facts. no judgement.
One great thing about this discussion is that is has been pretty civil, and still rather heated. Sure is better than the AJC blogs, which I read sometimes but which degenerate into name calling in a few posts.
If nothing else, perhaps Decatur is doing better in dialogue. Thanks to all.
Years of work trapping trolls in their baseless arguments and moderating comments behind that. It’s the “work” of many now, not just me.
Thanks for noticing.
It’s all perspective. One of my Oakhurst neighbors, who was here long before I moved in ten years ago, and I had a conversation years back that went something like this…
Neighbor: “It was fine around here until all the white people moved in and messed it up.”
Me: “What do you have against me living in your hood?”
Neighbor: “I like you just fine but I used to be able to park cars in my front yard and work on them and when the whites moved in, damn codes people came around and told me I couldn’t do that no more.”
Me: “I see your point.”
Neighbor: “But it is nice that the dope boys can’t be so out in the open around here anymore. I used to worry all the time about my mama and family coming out the house.”
Me: “See, some good did come of it.”
Neighbor: “I reckon. See ya next time.”
Me: “You too.”
+1
As I said above, as neighborhoods shift, there’s harms and benefits depending on who you are. Trick is to maximize the benefits for the most folks and minimize the harms.
I think Kecia spoke her heart and mind and I respect her for it. Maybe she doesn’t intend to run again and so was more forthcoming than she might have been otherwise. Maybe she does intend to run again and was drawing a line in the sand to get this sticky, slippery issue out in the open. Maybe her remarks were lifted completely out of context. Regardless, she has given Decatur years of conscientious service and deserves a lot more respect than some of the thin-skinned, defensive comments in this thread offered.
We can argue for days—obviously—about how diverse we really are or aren’t, how we got that way, what it even means and whether it even matters. I think it matters because it’s in our own best interest as a community. Humans thrive on a steady diet of conflict and reconciliation. Conflict and reconciliation are meaningful when parties seriously disagree about something of grave importance to both, and then find a way forward together. Grave disagreements—about speed bumps, millage rates, alcohol sales, bell schedules—arise when people hold contrasting and opposing political or ideological views, when their cultural and/or aesthetic values clash. Real life is full of kindness, inspiration, and comedy, along with stuff that breaks your heart, gets on your nerves, alarms you, or makes you think there ought to be a law. Finding a way forward in the face of all that makes a community hardy and vibrant, able to thrive because it can grow and adapt to changing conditions.
Decatur is diverse in ways that make for great visual snapshots and warm fuzzies, but the visuals don’t tell the whole story. The mere presence of people in many census categories doesn’t mean we have an effectively diverse community, if some people feel marginalized (and I guarantee you some of them do, reasonably or not). On the other hand, a group of neighbors who look diverse because of skin color, sexual preference, religious affiliation or other “visible” traits may actually all think and act just alike. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t represent diversity of a kind that challenges us as a community.
I think Decatur no longer feels like home to some of the people who helped make it what it is today. (And I think that’s what Kecia was commenting about, by the way.) I’m not proposing we go backward, just have enough respect to acknowledge different people who live here have different experiences and points of view. The two-edged sword of gentrification has cut a broad swath, and IMO people shouldn’t be so quick to take offense when somebody laments the passing of the old neighborhoods. Can’t my neighbor be glad her house is worth so much more and that the streets are safer and cleaner, and at the same time feel sad that all of her cronies of 30-40 years have died or moved away, and disappointed that her and their children and grandchildren are not making their homes here?
Anyway, I think we should stop tripping over race, sex, religion, and income. They’re all important and all contribute in varying degrees to who we are as individuals. But each can and does transcend the others. That’s why so many people feel like we’re “past it” already. In a way, we are. The conflicts and reconciliations that matter on a community level don’t have to do with those issues, they arise out of politics, culture, ideology, aesthetics. Not that I think we can successfully orchestrate diversity on those counts, either. It emerges and flourishes when conditions are right: when City codes and ordinances open up choices and encourage innovation to make more affordable housing a possibility, to make living without a car a viable choice, and aging in place a realistic goal; when through our social norms we remind and encourage each other to step beyond our bubbles—the bubbles that trick us into believing “most people here are like me and agree with me.” If we want to be diverse in ways that matter, then people of all political, cultural, ideological stripes need to feel welcome building their lives here, regardless of their skin color, choice of partners or churches, or how much they earn. I know I’m just begging to be mocked, but I do believe if we build it in our minds, then we’ll behave accordingly, and they will come.
smalltowngal- Beautifully said. You’re always so good at putting thoughts to paper, and this time you’ve really captured everything that always swirls around in my brain when I think about all of this. I hope it touches others as it’s touched me. We could all do a better job of opening up and trying to understand where folks are coming from. However different we are, with a shared goal of wanting to do better and really be about something, we could truly build an authentically diverse in all ways, one of a kind community here in Decatur– not for the bragging rights, but for the joy it’d bring us.
(That’s also what I thought Kecia was trying to say, but then I thought I might just be projecting… It’s very good to know that she’s as good within her district as she is at the City Meetings.)
DM- Hope you’re using all your mighty powers of sway to bring smalltowngal on board the new DM team.
thx for the kind words.