Patterico's Pontifications

7/8/2020

San Francisco Supervisor Introduces CAREN Act Because “This Is The CAREN We Need”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:58 am



[guest post by Dana]

A San Francisco lawmaker has introduced the CAREN Act (Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies Act) in an effort to deter any future so-called Karens from making false, racially biased 911 calls:

Calling 911 to report a fabricated, racially-biased emergency would be illegal in San Francisco under a new proposal called, appropriately enough, the CAREN Act.

“Racist 911 calls are unacceptable that’s why I’m introducing the CAREN Act at today’s SF Board of Supervisors meeting,” San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton tweeted Tuesday. “This is the CAREN we need. Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies.”

The proposed San Francisco legislation would hold people liable for calling 911 to report something they know is false or exaggerated, and based on racial bias.

Fellow San Francisco Supervisor Matt Haney co-authored the bill, and noted in a tweet: “Racist false reports put people in danger and waste resources.”

Obviously, the bill would apply to both men and women, but the supervisor is clearly pushing back on the recent spate of “Karens” who have filed police reports against black men.

While it is already illegal in California to make a false police report, the CAREN Act adds a hate crime designation based on the racial bias of a fabricated report.

California State Assemblymember Rob Bonta of neighboring Oakland, who introduced similar legislation in AB 1550, released a statement discussing why he believes there is a need for his bill:

Racism and discrimination of any form is morally repugnant. California must continue to reassert its commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equity. But those principles are being undermined by the persistent and, often fatal, presence of systemic and institutionalized racism, personal prejudice, and implicit bias in our society. AB 1550, when amended, will impose serious consequences on those who make 911 calls that are motivated by hate and bigotry; actions that inherently cause harm and pain to others. This bill is incredibly important to upholding our values and ensuring the safety of all Californians.

…If you are afraid of a black family barbecuing in the community park, a man dancing and doing his normal exercise routine in the bike lane, or someone who asks you to comply with dog leash laws in a park, and your immediate response is to call the police, the real problem is with your own personal prejudice.

Given that Bonta specifically included the woman in Central Park who called the police on the black birder because she felt threatened by him, he has already determined that, had she been in California, she would be in violation of AB 1550. Yet given the vigorous debate we have been having about whether said woman in Central Park was actually threatened or not, and whether she should have been charged, I don’t see this legislation as being much more than a sticky wicket for both the public and law enforcement. Bonta essentially decided that the only reason the woman in the park called the police was because the birder was black, and dismissed out of hand her belief that she was being threatened based on the words the birder said. With this new legislation, how would a legal determination be made about the viability of a threat, and whether the individual was justified in making a 911 call? Is anyone not concerned that, with the passage of this bill, there will be an increased likelihood that individuals, particularly white women who are actually being threatened by a black male, might be reluctant to make an emergency 911 call? At some point, a subjective determination would need to be made as to whether an individual who believed they were being threatened, was actually being threatened and how much of their perception was based on racial animus. While I understand the concerns of wasting precious time and resources on fabricated calls, and even more importantly, the emotional damage that occurs when a black male is falsely targeted, is this the most effective way to solve the problem? I don’t think so.

–Dana

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I thank Dana for writing this post and would like to amplify her concerns by noting that this bill flies in the face of longstanding public policy. In Walker v. Kiousis, a CHP officer brought suit against a motorist alleging that the motorist had fabricated allegations in a misconduct complaint. The officer submitted a tape recording of the encounter as proof.

Kiousis filed a citizen complaint against Walker with the CHP. Kiousis alleged that during the arrest Walker had used profanity in speaking to him, had threatened him with physical violence, and had threatened him with three days in jail if he did not take a blood test.

. . . .

The tape recording failed to show that either officer at any time (1) told Kiousis, “Put your fucking hands behind your head”; (2) said anything about Kiousis getting his “ass kicked”; or (3) told Kiousis he would be in jail for three days if he did not take a blood alcohol test.

The court ruled against the CHP officer on numerous grounds, but the one that interests me was the motorist’s absolute privilege extending to statements in an official proceeding, which include reports of suspected illegal activity. The court cited the case of Imig v. Ferrar for the proposition that “The importance of providing to citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected illegal activity outweighs the occasional harm that might befall a defamed individual. Thus the absolute privilege is essential.” Imig itself makes it clear that the privilege extends to all sorts of complaints:

In King, the absolute privilege was applied to a letter written to the state Real Estate Commissioner charging misconduct by a broker. Likewise in Martin the privilege was extended to a letter written by a parent to a high school principal alleging unfitness of a teacher. In Ascherman it was extended to an interview which was preliminary to a hearing before the hospital board. The policy underlying the privilege is to assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing. As stated in King v. Borges, supra, 28 Cal. App. 3d 27, 34, “It seems obvious that in order for the commissioner to be effective there must be an open channel of [70 Cal. App. 3d 56] communication by which citizens can call his attention to suspected wrongdoing. That channel would quickly close if its use subjected the user to a risk of liability for libel. A qualified privilege is inadequate protection under the circumstances. … [¶] The importance of providing to citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected illegal activity outweighs the occasional harm that might befall a defamed individual. Thus the absolute privilege is essential.”

In those cases, the misconduct or illegality being reported is of an official, unlike, say, the lady in Central Park, who was reporting conduct of a citizen. However, the “importance of providing to citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected illegal activity” extends not just to reporting misconduct of public officials but to the reporting of any suspected illegal activity. The same government that proposes this CAREN act tells you “if you see something, say something.” But if you say something, we might prosecute you?

I propose my own KAREN bill, to outlaw calling people “Karen” unless their name is Karen. (You come up with the acronym; I lack the “create stupid acronyms” gene and accordingly will never run for office.) As for this bill, how about no.

44 Responses to “San Francisco Supervisor Introduces CAREN Act Because “This Is The CAREN We Need””

  1. Good morning. I don’t have time to look it up, but I’m curious to know how many racially motivated 911 calls are made each year in California? And how do the police determine that they were indeed made with racial animus?

    Dana (25e0dc)

  2. I think naming the law after a stereotype, the white blonde middle aged Karen, is very fashionable for the legislator, but it’s also the very worst way to go about lawmaking.

    False Report is already a crime in most places. People need to know they can call 911 when they are so scared their panic has impaired their decision making. Even dumb people, frankly especially dumb people, need the ability to call the cops to emergencies to bring order and safety as quickly as they can. It’s a very dangerous world when people decide that’s no longer an option.

    Furthermore violent crime is a real thing. Some of these Karen videos cut out context that makes clear there was some real aggression (more than the dog park one). I’m not sure why people think it’s cool to cultivate videos of upset ‘karens’ but that is indeed something some people are doing. Empowering them as though they are civil rights pioneers is a great way to get more unrest.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  3. I think naming the law after a stereotype, the white blonde middle aged Karen, is very fashionable for the legislator, but it’s also the very worst way to go about lawmaking.

    It’s not just fashionable, it’s ostensibly, and negatively targeting a very specific sector of the population based on race, sex, and age.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  4. This seems like a an unnecessary law. While there are plenty of examples of the police being called because someone was black I don’t think this is the best way to address that.

    Time123 (6e0727)

  5. Here’s a quick list of examples.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  6. UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I thank Dana for writing this post and would like to amplify her concerns by noting that this bill flies in the face of longstanding public policy. In Walker v. Kiousis, a CHP officer brought suit against a motorist alleging that the motorist had fabricated allegations in a misconduct complaint. The officer submitted a tape recording of the encounter as proof.

    Kiousis filed a citizen complaint against Walker with the CHP. Kiousis alleged that during the arrest Walker had used profanity in speaking to him, had threatened him with physical violence, and had threatened him with three days in jail if he did not take a blood test.

    . . . .

    The tape recording failed to show that either officer at any time (1) told Kiousis, “Put your fucking hands behind your head”; (2) said anything about Kiousis getting his “ass kicked”; or (3) told Kiousis he would be in jail for three days if he did not take a blood alcohol test.

    The court ruled against the CHP officer on numerous grounds, but the one that interests me was the motorist’s absolute privilege extending to statements in an official proceeding, which include reports of suspected illegal activity. The court cited the case of Imig v. Ferrar for the proposition that “The importance of providing to citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected illegal activity outweighs the occasional harm that might befall a defamed individual. Thus the absolute privilege is essential.” Imig itself makes it clear that the privilege extends to all sorts of complaints:

    In King, the absolute privilege was applied to a letter written to the state Real Estate Commissioner charging misconduct by a broker. Likewise in Martin the privilege was extended to a letter written by a parent to a high school principal alleging unfitness of a teacher. In Ascherman it was extended to an interview which was preliminary to a hearing before the hospital board. The policy underlying the privilege is to assure utmost freedom of communication between citizens and public authorities whose responsibility is to investigate and remedy wrongdoing. As stated in King v. Borges, supra, 28 Cal. App. 3d 27, 34, “It seems obvious that in order for the commissioner to be effective there must be an open channel of [70 Cal. App. 3d 56] communication by which citizens can call his attention to suspected wrongdoing. That channel would quickly close if its use subjected the user to a risk of liability for libel. A qualified privilege is inadequate protection under the circumstances. … [¶] The importance of providing to citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected illegal activity outweighs the occasional harm that might befall a defamed individual. Thus the absolute privilege is essential.”

    In those cases, the misconduct or illegality being reported is of an official, unlike, say, the lady in Central Park, who was reporting conduct of a citizen. However, the “importance of providing to citizens free and open access to governmental agencies for the reporting of suspected illegal activity” extends not just to reporting misconduct of public officials but to the reporting of any suspected illegal activity. The same government that proposes this CAREN act tells you “if you see something, say something.” But if you say something, we might prosecute you?

    I propose my own KAREN bill, to outlaw calling people “Karen” unless their name is Karen. (You come up with the acronym; I lack the “create stupid acronyms” gene and accordingly will never run for office.) As for this bill, how about no.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  7. I live here and am asking around, trying to get a sense of where the Supervisors are on the question. I’m bad at predicting Breed’s actions when they don’t involve the interests of a certain venture capitalist, but suspect she’d be fine with it.

    I agree with a strong presumption against any law named for or reacting to specific individuals. (Unless we’re talking about musicians – sometimes you need to send a message to the others.) I also think less of politicians who push them – it displays laziness and manipulative instincts, and makes me suspect they care more about talking about passing something than what, exactly, gets passed.

    And I’m wary of hate crime laws; they’re really easy to abuse. At the same time, there is a range of activity that lies at various places somewhere on the harassment terrorism continuum, that uses violence against individuals to harass and suppress groups of people based on race. Cross burning, public lynching and the false report* from Cooper are all flavors of the same thing, but I have little confidence our legal system is capable of navigating this sensibly.

    But then, a lack of confidence in the capabilities of my country (before we even get to the part about wisdom and will to sensibly use them) is a theme these days. We’ve become a nation of crabs in a bucket.

    john (cd2753)

  8. Is anyone not concerned that, with the passage of this bill, there will be an increased likelihood that individuals, particularly white women who are actually being threatened by a black male, might be reluctant to make an emergency 911 call?

    I don’t call 911 anymore, and this makes me even more certain that is a good policy.

    DRJ (aede82)

  9. The New York Times
    @nytimes
    ·
    Jul 3

    The San Francisco Police Department said it would no longer release mug shots because they reinforce racial biases, joining a growing movement by newspapers and broadcasters to curtail their use.
    __

    Priorities
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  10. The much nicer Dana quoted:

    The proposed San Francisco legislation would hold people liable for calling 911 to report something they know is false or exaggerated, and based on racial bias.

    If the proposed ordinance is based upon the notion that the offending complainant ‘knows’ to be “false or exaggerated,” doesn’t that require the city to prove that the complainant knew, at the time, that the reported activity was false or exaggerated? How can that work?

    The Dana in Kentucky (652337)

  11. 10. How it works in every community. The prosecutor can decide s/he sees evidence that supports a charge, and the jury agrees. The problem with racial animus is some people see it when others don’t.

    DRJ (aede82)

  12. The problem with racial animus is some people see it when others don’t.

    Everyone brings with them their own own presuppositions and biases which influence what they see, and what they perceive.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  13. True, which is why some argued against having hate crime legislation.

    DRJ (aede82)

  14. Another question this raises is, will 911 operators and/or responding officers be required to inquire as to the race of the caller? Or will they just note it on a report based on a visual determination? And, can a black individual who makes a fabricated 911 call on a black individual also face charges based on racial animus?

    Dana (25e0dc)

  15. But it’s beyond a reasonable doubt…the jury will have make that call. There have been cases where (based upon publicly available facts) it’s hard not to conclude the police were called because the person was black.

    Again, I think this is the wrong way to handle the problem. I think a greater emphasis on public safety / service in policing might be a better solution.

    Question for Patterico / other lawyers here; is SWATTING ever treated differently than other forms of false police reports?

    For instance, say there’s a black family grilling in the park and someone doesn’t want them there.

    Take a version of the BBQ becky incident.

    I can see treating the follow three calls differently. Assume the first case is an accurate description.

    1. “There is a man in a blue shirt grilling in the park and I want the police to come make him stop.”
    2. “There is a black man in a blue shirt grilling in the park, they’re harassing me. I’m scared and I want the police to come make him stop.”
    3. “There is a black man in a blue shirt grilling in the park, I think he’s armed, he’s threatening me and I’m scared and I want the police to come and protect me.”

    I think the way the arriving officer reacts will be different from 2 to 3.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  16. The much better-looking Dana quoted:

    The proposed San Francisco legislation would hold people liable for calling 911 to report something they know is false or exaggerated, and based on racial bias.

    “Racial bias,” huh?

    Given that the police concentrate their enforcement upon black neighborhoods, because black Americans commit crimes at greater rates than whites, does that not mean that our cities are stating, inter alia, that black people, specifically younger black males, are more inherently dangerous than others?

    If so, wasn’t the ‘Central Park Karen’ reacting exactly the same was as New York Police Department officers, and the NYPD leadership, have decided is correct?

    How, then, would the ‘Central Park Karen’ have been guilty of having called 911 to report something she ‘knew’ to be false or exaggerated, at the time she made the call, or of racial bias?

    The Dana in Kentucky (652337)

  17. @16, Wow is that twisted.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  18. Does this qualify as being a hate crime?

    Oregon Politician Admits Sending Racist Letter to Himself

    https://www.mediaite.com/crime/oregon-politician-admits-sending-racist-letter-to-himself/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  19. Well, now Christian Cooper, the birder, is refusing to cooperate with the police in the investigation. He says Ms. Cooper, the dog walker, has been punished enough.

    https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/07/08/birdwatcher-not-cooperating-police-central-park-karen-case/

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  20. @18 This guy sounds like a @$$hole that needs to go.
    @19 C. Coopers sounds like a pretty decent guy. Even in recording of the confrontation he comes across as pretty decent.

    Time123 (6e0727)

  21. will 911 operators and/or responding officers be required to inquire as to the race of the caller?

    I was a 911 operator for two years, a police officer for five. Race is important information that you usually have to ask to get. Normally people do not want to volunteer the information.

    I was trained, in my police dispatcher class (only a 40 hour course) to ask race, sex, age, then go head to toe asking about hat/hair to shoes. It’s systematic and easy to remember.

    I recall a lady would call and report ‘suspicious man’ walking through a parking lot or in an alleyway. She called so much, that seven years later, I know her 903 area code number by heart. The dispatch center’s policy was to dispatch all calls for service and rely on officer discretion as to how to handle it. This varied wildly. I recall I was just out of field training as a cop when I saw her number on a call sheet. Man walking through parking lot. I knew it would be a black college student. I frankly knew I did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him. I called the lady up and asked her what was suspicious about him, and then told the lady off in the same judgmental and immature tone I’ve displayed on this blog many times. I then called my supervisor and warned him she was going to file a complaint (she didn’t).

    Officer discretion is the place where all these dumb or murky unsolved questions collide. An officer who was inspired to become a cop from the TV show COPS, or is influenced by the volume of calls concerned about black people (there are a lot of these!), or has no life experience or education, will handle these questions differently from someone who watched a lot of Andy Griffith Show, or has a bachelor’s degree, or had a real job before, or experienced life kicking his ass a few times and knows how hard it can be to deal with reality. etc etc

    This legislator is unlikely to be very generous to cops who do not know what to do with the proof question this law asks. Cops are asked to resolve a lot of constitutional issues, and I think most of them do the best they can. They do not do it perfectly, any more than Justice Roberts does, and they are often working against a clock of some kind.

    I am frustrated that these issues are being determined based on politicians getting the right press, and not on helping us restore confidence in the institutions in our society, all of which seem to be suffering from poor credibility.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  22. KAREN Act

    Kindly
    Avoid
    Racist &
    Enervating
    Naming

    You’re welcome.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  23. Who guessed that not only would segregation make a comeback but so would Jim Crowe.

    frosty (f27e97)

  24. Who guessed that not only would segregation make a comeback but so would Jim Crowe.

    frosty (f27e97) — 7/8/2020 @ 12:19 pm

    No such luck Frosty, you still have to share drinking fountains with black people. /snark

    Time123 (6e0727)

  25. Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 11:21 am

    Another outstanding comment! Thank you.

    They [police] do not do it perfectly, any more than Justice Roberts does, and they are often working against a clock of some kind.

    This is an important part of the reality of policing that must always be forefront in our minds when discussing the issues of law enforcement.

    felipe (023cc9)

  26. 24 was intended as a joke btw.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  27. I also think less of politicians who push them – it displays laziness and manipulative instincts, and makes me suspect they care more about talking about passing something than what, exactly, gets passed.

    I agree. I would add that this law seems to be little more than pandering to the crowd, and obvious grandstanding. The vagueness of how to identify violators, and subjective determinations that will be need to be made make it risky for police officers in the position of making some critical decisions that they may not be equipped to objectively make (see: Dustin @ 21).

    Dana (25e0dc)

  28. I would add that this law seems to be little more than pandering to the crowd, and obvious grandstanding.

    Further, the fact that its named CAREN, just shows the seriousness of it. Its tweet trolling in legal’ish form, an executive order but from the city council member.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  29. Appreciate your positively these days, felipe!

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  30. The same government that proposes this CAREN act tells you “if you see something, say something.”

    I thught it was not the same government.

    “If you see something, say something” is New York, and later federal; this would be a local San Francisco ordinance. (except that it is, or was, also used by San Francisco)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/23/how-if-you-see-something-say-something-became-our-national-motto

    ‘If you see something, say something” was born on Sept. 12, 2001. New Yorker and advertising executive Allen Kay came up with the phrase without a client in mind — he wanted to create something positive in the days after the attack on the twin towers. “The model that I had in my head was ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships,’ ” Kay told the New York Times. “I wasn’t born during World War II, but I sure knew the phrase and so did everybody else.”

    He jotted the idea on an index card and kept it in his office. A few months later, when the MTA needed a safety slogan, he passed it on. In 2002, the phrase was one of several warnings the agency focus-grouped for a new ad campaign on city subways and buses. Others included “Be suspicious of things that look suspicious” and “If you see a package without a person, don’t keep it to yourself.”

    “If you see something, say something” was the favorite, and the agency adopted it that December. It got attention. Reports of suspicious packages in New York grew from 814 in 2002 to 37,614 in 2006. Since then, the MTA has spent $2 million to $3 million a year on slogan-adorned placards for trains, subway cars and buses, as well as radio and TV ads. In 2007, the agency even trademarked the slogan.
    “If you see something, say something” has since been adopted by the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Agency, Amtrak, and cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Melbourne, Australia.

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  31. Good comments, Dustin.

    DRJ (aede82)

  32. 16. The Dana in Kentucky (652337) — 7/8/2020 @ 10:15 am

    , does that not mean that our cities are stating, inter alia, that black people, specifically younger black males, are more inherently dangerous than others?

    If so, wasn’t the ‘Central Park Karen’ reacting exactly the same was as New York Police Department officers, and the NYPD leadership, have decided is correct?

    No, because Christian Cooper was 57-years old. And besides they had already talked with each other.

    But there’s no racial bias here, although she cold be accused of trying to use possible bias against him. It was all because he tried to force her to put a leash on her dog, as required by the park
    rules, or go away.

    This is, presumably, what active members of the Audubon society spend their time doing.

    Sammy Finkelman (70b0bc)

  33. Time123 (6e0727) — 7/8/2020 @ 12:30 pm

    No such luck Frosty, you still have to share drinking fountains with black people. /snark

    That sounds like some egregious racial profiling you’ve got there. Are you saying I picked frosty as a dog whistle?

    frosty (f27e97)

  34. Appreciate your positively these days, felipe!
    Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/8/2020 @ 2:36 pm

    It is only right to lavish praise on those deserving of it.

    To Haiku and Dustin:

    The concord established between you is the fruit of humility and prayer, a blessing not only for the two of you, that will surely radiate to those you love, but to us poor commenters on the internet. Your peace is our peace.

    Heh, that is, until the next skirmish. Until then, forever in Peace may you wave.

    felipe (023cc9)

  35. @26 I chose to identify as a snowperson of unspecified color. Drinking from fountains is harmful to snowpeople so sadly, I can’t share them with anyone.

    frosty (f27e97)

  36. I love it when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors tries to fix the “world”. One of these clowns actually argued that we didn’t need a military–that the police and the Coast Guard would suffice.

    norcal (a5428a)

  37. This law seems unnecessary and likely to be abused.

    Nic (896fdf)

  38. Trump’s last attendance at a Coronavirus briefing…April. Not the press conferences, an actual briefing. That was 70,000 US deaths ago.

    Russian bounties, nah, coronavirus, nah, he meets about…um…prolly something…walls?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  39. Our esteemed host wrote:

    I lack the “create stupid acronyms” gene and accordingly will never run for office.

    LOL! You were registered as a Republican for many years, so the Democrats will never trust you, and you abandoned the GOP when it became obvious that Donald Trump would win the Republican presidential nomination, so the Republicans will never trust you! It might be more than the lack of the “create stupid acronyms” gene which would keep you from running for office. :)

    The Dana in Kentucky (652337)

  40. Mr Snowman wrote:

    Who guessed that not only would segregation make a comeback but so would Jim Crowe.

    Segregation never went away.

    Oh, we forced racial integration in the public schools, though that has dramatically faded, and made racial discrimination in employment illegal, but our neighborhoods were never not segregated, other than at the margins. The left want to blame persistent neighborhood segregation on redlining and other nefarious white racist plots, but the simple fact is that, for the very greatest part, whites and blacks do not choose to be neighbors.

    The social engineers who insisted on the integration of the public schools believed — though nobody was ever honest enough to put it down on paper — that putting black children and white children together in the classroom would socialize the black children into being good white children, simply with darker complexions, and that within a couple of generations our neighborhoods would be a rainbow-hued nirvana. That white families and black families might have different cultural outlooks was somehow never considered.

    Look at television today. Every white television family has a black family friend, and, of course, they are all nicely middle class, but that’s an illusion. The Hallmark Channel was famous for it: the main characters were always pretty white people — until they finally produced a few with black main characters — and they always, always! had their close black friend, of the same social status, there for support and friendly advice.

    Today’s television commercials? The same way, plus the recent addition of interracial middle class families, a great way to advertise to both black and white potential customers at the same time.

    But it’s all an illusion. Minority neighborhoods resist ‘gentrification,’ which would raise the home values of the entire neighborhood, because they fear that such would eventually price minorities out . . . and gentrification almost always means younger white families taking a chance on the neighborhood.

    In Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito, the various ethnic groups were forced to live as neighbors, for the 35 years of his rule. Yet after he went to his eternal reward, it didn’t take the Serbs long to set the old ethnic strife aflame again, even though these people had been neighbors for over a generation.

    I lived for two years in Joe Biden’s home of New Castle County, Delaware, and it was the most segregated place I have ever seen. Driving home from work meant driving out 2nd Street — or was it 3rd Street? — where all of the faces were black or Hispanic. But six miles away, in Hockessin, if you saw a black or Hispanic face, you knew that they were working there, ’cause they sure didn’t live in that neighborhood. Even the working-class white areas like Elsmere were lily-white.

    The Dana in Kentucky (652337)

  41. The Dana in Kentucky (652337) — 7/8/2020 @ 6:53 pm

    In the name of racial justice and a claim that it will produce equal outcomes, BLM, and the left generally, is calling for more explicit segregation than you are referring to and de facto unequal treatment, i.e. we aren’t even pretending at separate but equal. I’m not in favor of that.

    frosty; the snowperson (f27e97)

  42. @26 I chose to identify as a snowperson of unspecified color. Drinking from fountains is harmful to snowpeople so sadly, I can’t share them with anyone.

    frosty (f27e97) — 7/8/2020 @ 3:14 pm

    I had no idea you were differently abled. I’ve always admired your peoples rich history and creative use of coal.

    Time123 (a7a01b)

  43. Minority neighborhoods resist ‘gentrification,’ which would raise the home values of the entire neighborhood, because they fear that such would eventually price minorities out . . . and gentrification almost always means younger white families taking a chance on the neighborhood.

    Interesting story;

    Years back I had a friend who was a foreman for a construction company, he knew how to build and had contacts to get material cheap. He bought a large and very run down home in a tiny town about an hour from the nearby city of 250,000 and 15 minutes from the nearby bedroom community for that city. It was a cheap buy and he fixed it up very nicely. Most of his neighbors were renters.

    They HATED him. They hated me because I’d come out to help him. It was pretty obvious. One guy even came by to explain that what he was doing would wreck the place. If the other owners saw that they could get more money for their properties they’d fix them up, raise the rent and people would have to move. Whole place was lily white.

    I don’t think the resistance to gentrification is based on race, i think it’s based on financial status.

    Time123 (c9382b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3473 secs.