Incorrect again. Inflation has been at historic lows for the past decade, even with low interest rates. Perhaps the interest rates are causing appreciation in home values because of accessibility of credit and low mortgage rates. Please try spending less time writing manic posts and read the Economist or something.
Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
- Thread starter briv
- Start date
Incorrect again. Inflation has been at historic lows for the past decade, even with low interest rates. Perhaps the interest rates are causing appreciation in home values because of accessibility of credit and low mortgage rates. Please try spending less time writing manic posts and read the Economist or something.
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
I don't think we've been talking about the same thing. All of my posts in this thread have been debating whether the Seaport is racist or not. I've not been wondering how it's majority white... the reason why it's majority white is pretty simple: white people have more money on average than black people, and this is a desirable location near the waterfront with lots of high paying jobs. Note that I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's pretty clear that's the reason.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
And that distinction is the single biggest reason why the race discussion in America goes nowhere: "racism" can be either a systemic economic reality that deprives Black Americans of wealth across generations (and the opportunities that come with that) or a moral failing characterized by name-calling and active discrimination.
In sensationalizing the story, the Globe tries to have it both ways, pretending that Boston's issues with Black folks not being wealthy - which are not in any way unique to Boston - are the same thing as the "racist reputation" Boston earned in the 1940s-1970s through Yawkey and Busing. They aren't. At all. The first issue has pragmatic solutions. The second has only emotional grievances.
That only scratches the surface of what's wrong with the article, of course. The article was, frankly, offensive.
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
Thank you for putting it better than I could. The Seaport's 90% white demographic is a symptom of centuries of systemic discrimination against black people.
The big debate as I see it: are public policies that do not contribute towards racial equality, via omission of action, inherently racist? I think that's what going on here in the Seaport: the status quo is that white people are economically advantaged, and the Seaport did nothing to alleviate that. Some people say that's the free market, while others say that it's racist.
BINGO. The free market may be largely free but it is certainly not equitable. We must proactively work to try to lift up those who the free market tends to leave behind. That has an economic component as well as a racial one.
And thats exactly what the Globe is asking.
Some people here got VERY upset at this article, calling it racist garbage etc.
But what exactly is wrong with the article?
It says:
-There was an opportunity to build something new
-There was a lot of talk about inclusion and diversity
-That didnt happen
At no point, as far as I can tell, did the Globe throw around accusations of intentional racism.
They simply pointed out the racially disparate outcome.
But some people appear deathly afraid of talking about it. AKA:
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,722
Well said...but...
When the same development partners, including design, engineering, services, subcontractors get tapped on the shoulder time and again without fair/due search process....and the city sits on the sidelines without asking they run a more comprehensive search...is that OK? The mantra of "we work with those we know well, versus taking a chance on someone else" is the same sort of attitude that perpetuates advantage for some and disadvantage for others. It's not racist in and of itself, but is part of a system that perpetuates racial injustice. How is anyone supposed to be able to break in to a system like that?
Do we really think the best ones are always getting the jobs?
The black community wants these ol' boys clubs broken down. The question is: can the city be doing more about it? I think so.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,722
That's why I keep saying "we can do better" is not that hard of an attitude to espouse. Take the high road, people.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
The Seaport was not built by free market forces.
Seaport developments were heavily supported by massive amounts of Tax dollars 11Billion as the Globe would say by our leaders which help enrich billion dollar corporations with very valuable priceless land on the backs of the taxpayers.
The BRA and our leaders should have only invested taxes dollars in Infrastructure for the SEAPORT and give developers incentive to build with generous zoning to the parcels to these developed.
Roads, MBTA access ,Parks---Let the private money take the risk vs reward.
All the Political side deals and Corporate tax incentives only made the Seaport a basic Classism issue based on social class--- RICH vs Poor.
This how the Democrats roll into every city.
Jass, I only posted that to VAN because they shutdown my thread about talking about Racism in the Seaport below? I was talking about this way before you and I felt Van was being hypocritical to shutdown my thread then let everybody talk about it here. Its all about money. For Christ sake Magic Johnson group has been buying those Northpoint properties near the Museum of Science.
Overall the average worker cannot afford to live and around Boston with a family. Black, White, Red, Blue, Hispanic, Asian without sometype of family wealth. Houses in Everett are costing 500K now. EVERETT
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=5572
Last edited:
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
I can't speak for anyone specifically in this thread, but a lot of people (including myself) have a pretty high bar for what is considered racism. In my mind racism is actively trying to hurt (physically, economically, emotionally) members of a certain race. So if that's your definition of racism, it can be upsetting to hear something called racist when it's clearly not.
All that being said, I think public policy absolutely should be designed with the entire community in mind. I think more money should go to schools in low-income neighborhoods. I think public transit should be expanded to low income neighborhoods. I think that liquor licenses should cost a fraction of what they do so that bars and restaurants in poorer neighborhoods have a fighting chance. But I don't think it's racist for a private land owner to want to get as much money out of their property as they can, which means selling to demographic willing to pay the most.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,722
I don't either, but that's the exact purpose of policy: to scaffold human behavior in a direction which the democratic constituency considers better aligned with the social compacts of society.
There are all kinds of places were we see social compacts enacted in legislation or policy. Consider, for example, doctor-patient confidentiality. It may be more profitable to behave otherwise, but society decided we wanted doctor-patient confidentiality. It's a random example.
If society believes something should change, they should enact policy to change it, specifically because profit motive shouldn't be expected to change it on its own.
I am not anti-profit motive whatsoever. But I reject the notion that the only profit motive there can be is raw, unbridled profit motive. That's never actually existed anyway (since barbarism) - it's always been profit motive within the constraints of social compacts, often as enacted through policy or legislation.
If you are not a minority member of the community, is it really up to you to set the bar of what racism means, and become upset if someone else has a different definition?
The article interviewed people who were economically or emotionally hurt by the seaport process. Is that not good enough for you?
You might see "being mistaken for the valet" as a harmless anecdote, but these little "harmless" actions do start to add up real fast when day in and day out, you're the only minority in the room.
Additionally, you'll note that the globe article doesn't use the words "racism" or "racist" even once.
Indeed, it seems that the word is only being used by people calling the globe racist for reporting on racial disparity.
We're talking about two different things here. Concept 1 is that non-whites should have more representation in the development and construction firms that are building out the Seaport in particular and Boston in general. Agree completely.
Concept 2, which is somewhat absurd, is that having a few more blacks in the aforementioned discussion would have made the Seaport more "black friendly". This the position of the Glob article as well as jass amongst others. This concept is stark raving stupid. If the development team was from Mars, they're still going to build to turn a profit. That means high end stuff in a neighborhood that was always going to be desirable due to its proximity to downtown. No amount of non-white representation, even overlooking the FACT, completely unmentioned, that both the governor for a long part of the planning and construction, as well as the state senator who's represented the area for the past nearly 5 years, are black. This doesn't fit into the pre-conceived narrative, so its not mentioned or addressed.
You cannot start subsidizing minority only businesses in a neighborhood. Even putting aside how quickly you'd get sued, why are the black businesses getting subsidized in the seaport while a little ways down the road (Newmarket, Dorchester, etc) those businesses get nothing. What do you do if the desired customer base still doesn't show up?
Concept 2, which is somewhat absurd, is that having a few more blacks in the aforementioned discussion would have made the Seaport more "black friendly". This the position of the Glob article as well as jass amongst others. This concept is stark raving stupid. If the development team was from Mars, they're still going to build to turn a profit. That means high end stuff in a neighborhood that was always going to be desirable due to its proximity to downtown. No amount of non-white representation, even overlooking the FACT, completely unmentioned, that both the governor for a long part of the planning and construction, as well as the state senator who's represented the area for the past nearly 5 years, are black. This doesn't fit into the pre-conceived narrative, so its not mentioned or addressed.
You cannot start subsidizing minority only businesses in a neighborhood. Even putting aside how quickly you'd get sued, why are the black businesses getting subsidized in the seaport while a little ways down the road (Newmarket, Dorchester, etc) those businesses get nothing. What do you do if the desired customer base still doesn't show up?
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,722
^ dude, do you even read the posts above?
No one is saying to subsidize minority only businesses! The suggestion was to create a small-business/affordable rent offering (similar to the housing model) and simply ensure that the minority communities were aware of it (e.g., opportunity + outreach). That's it. No forced outcomes.
There were also several examples, in past posts, of how having diverse design teams resulted in the offerings being shaped differently. Yes, there is an advantage to a diverse design team.
No one is saying to subsidize minority only businesses! The suggestion was to create a small-business/affordable rent offering (similar to the housing model) and simply ensure that the minority communities were aware of it (e.g., opportunity + outreach). That's it. No forced outcomes.
There were also several examples, in past posts, of how having diverse design teams resulted in the offerings being shaped differently. Yes, there is an advantage to a diverse design team.
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
1) I'm not saying my definition of the word racism is correct, nor am I saying it's the only definition. My point is that when someone says something is racist, that means different things to different people. Don't be surprised if you get pushback because of it.
2) I'm dismissing the valet anecdote because I don't think it's relevant to the Seaport discussion. That sort of thing could happen to anyone in any part of the country. I remember mistaking an older white male as a Target employee because he was wearing a red shirt and khakis. Stuff like that happens sometimes.
3) People have the right to feel hurt or angry by whatever they want and they have the right to express it, too. That doesn't automatically make them correct just because they feel upset. Some guy in a car called me an asshole for cutting off his turn when I crossed the street in a crosswalk with the walk signal. People feel things that aren't necessarily rational or based in reality.
I remember feeling really uncomfortable the first time I went to a Catholic mass for a funeral in my early 20's (I'm not religious at all). All the chanting and singing and smoke made me feel really uncomfortable and unwelcome since I didn't know any of the words or customs. If I said Catholics made me feel unwelcome that would be true, but would it be justified? Should we make rules for Catholics to remove their chants? I don't think so.
Correct, it means different things to different people. But again, what right do you have, as someone not part of the minority community, to push back as to what racism should mean?
You really don't see the difference between confusion caused by a clothing choice, and an assumption made about who does or does not belong at a social gathering due to the color of their skin?
[/QUOTE]
I feel like you get it and then you throw out these ridiculous examples.
I mean, you felt uncomfortable for all of an hour at an optional event. Does this really compare to someone feeling uncomfortable in their own city because of their race, day in and day out?
Some of the arguments and statements that you make to support your points are so off and and are so overly sensationalized that it makes you lose credibility. Some examples:
I don't know if there is a plan to build a kayak launch or not, but kayaking is far from a 1% or an "elite" activity. You have got to be delusional to believe that. Don't most kayak launches (which do exist in other parts of the non-1% city) also provide rentals? Also, let's see.. Seaport is by the water.. I wonder if it would make sense to have activities there that are water-based.. I wonder if it would be elitist or just be common sense to have water-based activities by.. the water..hmm.
Did you know about the new Silver Line route coming in from Chelsea, which requires significant infrastructure investments as well? Also, are you really questioning why attention is being paid to addressing transport to/from a dense business area?! How is this not obvious?
You are right in that there are signs on the lawn. However, they say "No Pets Allowed on Public Green" or "No Pets Allowed on Fan Pier Park." There is additional signage intended to curb vandalism and damage and to limit liability, like restricting skateboarding. You see such reasonable signs all over Boston, the suburbs, and around the country. For some reason, you feel the need to call it out here as if it was something unique. Want to know why such signs exist? No one (I hope) enjoys sitting on or walking in dog poop. That would be "no fun" indeed.
I don't know if there is a plan to build a kayak launch or not, but kayaking is far from a 1% or an "elite" activity. You have got to be delusional to believe that. Don't most kayak launches (which do exist in other parts of the non-1% city) also provide rentals? Also, let's see.. Seaport is by the water.. I wonder if it would make sense to have activities there that are water-based.. I wonder if it would be elitist or just be common sense to have water-based activities by.. the water..hmm.
Did you know about the new Silver Line route coming in from Chelsea, which requires significant infrastructure investments as well? Also, are you really questioning why attention is being paid to addressing transport to/from a dense business area?! How is this not obvious?
You are right in that there are signs on the lawn. However, they say "No Pets Allowed on Public Green" or "No Pets Allowed on Fan Pier Park." There is additional signage intended to curb vandalism and damage and to limit liability, like restricting skateboarding. You see such reasonable signs all over Boston, the suburbs, and around the country. For some reason, you feel the need to call it out here as if it was something unique. Want to know why such signs exist? No one (I hope) enjoys sitting on or walking in dog poop. That would be "no fun" indeed.
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
Being a speaker of the English language?
You're projecting here. How do you know that person wasn't making an honest mistake? It's possible he was assuming black = valet, or maybe the black guy was dressed similar to the valets? It's not proof of anything on its own (i.e. it's an anecdote).
The whole point of my two examples is that what people feel isn't necessarily a valid or rational thing that should be acted upon. The angry driver was at fault and yet he felt mad at me. I felt uncomfortable at an extremely common social gathering. Neither of those are rational and we certainly shouldn't base any sort of policy around them. I'm fairly liberal, but one thing I don't like in the liberal sphere is this idea that just because someone feels one way that that's the way the world works. We should not accept "I feel uncomfortable" as evidence of anything; policy needs to be based on fact and not feelings.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/1...dle-class-most-its-broken-system.html?ref=yfp
Income inequality. Cambridge commercial real estate cost more than San Fran
Income inequality. Cambridge commercial real estate cost more than San Fran