Do you consider race when looking for a neighborhood to live in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, whatever the historical, social, and economic reasons for California's dwindling African American population, it makes it a very unhealthy place to raise children who have a realistic perspective of true diversity in this country.

In California you encounter more poverty, more social, economic, educational, professional, ethnic, and religious diversity, more Latin American diversity, more Asian American diversity, and more new immigrant diversity, yes, undoubtedly, but at a loss of the State's African American diversity.

I once read a comment to an article on this issue, posted by a self-identified African American, who said that California today was like a conglomeration sketch of every possible type of diversity, to which someone had taken an eraser to the African Americans in the picture.

I agree, but I'm hard pressed to come up with an example of a healthy place to raise kids with a realistic perspective of diversity in this country. I mean, my kids' school skews about 1/3 White, 1/3 Latin@, and 1/3 Black but even then there are virtually no Asian students.

If you have identified some sort of racial Shangri-La in the United States of America, I'd be very happy to hear about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, OP, white people in this area do not explicitly consider race hen choosing a neighborhood BUT if you spend a short time on the schools or real estate forums you will see people who are looking only in areas with "good schools," which nearly always correlate to high scoring, white and Asian neighborhoods. There is a tremendous academic achievement gap in this area between whites/Asians and everyone else. When people choose neighborhoods based on test-based school performance, they reinforce the racial divide whether they know it or not.

Oh, they know it. It's just "test scores" lets them pretend they aren't being racist.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/04/20/one_standardized_testing_supporter_in_new_york_lets_it_slip_it_s_all_about.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

+1. That's the primary reason.

+2. Likewise Washington and Oregon.

Well, Oregon was founded as a Klan state (and used to encompass much of present-day Washington), so that's a bit of a different kettle of fish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol at all of the people lying through their teeth in this thread. Of course everyone considers race. You don't see bleeding heart liberals moving to the depths of PG county, nor do you see many African Americans moving to Old Town Alexandria. for the Canadian OP: people pay attention to race because they are concerned about property values and crime. Like it or not, certain demographics are more likely to commit violent crimes and property crimes. There is a history in this country of "blockbusting," where realtors would use subterfuge to sell one or a couple houses on a block to African Americans, then would start throwing bricks through people's windows to make them think the neighborhood was going to hell in a hand basket. The realtors would put their business cards and flyers all over the neighborhood and, before you knew it, the white home owners would be selling like hot cakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting).

We are an upper middle class white family (>$300K annual income) with school-aged kids and we bought in a historically black neighborhood (Nauck) in south Arlington--until last year, we were the only white family on our block. Racism depresses real estate values, so our house was way more affordable than a comparable home in north Arlington. We're not scared of sending our kids to a Title I school in Arlington, one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

[Anonymous]

A former AA CA resident here. We headed West for work, stayed for several years, but after we had a baby we headed back East. We lived in San Diego and while we could've afforded to live in one of the better school districts--maybe not Del Mar, but definitely Carmel Valley--I didn't want her to be the "lonely only" in her class, which she almost certainly would have been.

After moving back East and living in a better school district that was 6-7% AA, that seemed like a *ton* of diversity in comparison to SD!

[Anonymous]

10:39 here - 10:43, that's how I meant it. It must be really weird to find yourself, daily, in situations where you are the "only." The only black, the only white, the only woman, etc. I've been the only female non-admin in a few work environments, and that was weird enough. When my daughter and I were at that park, I wondered if the other people were thinking, "What are THEY doing here? Are they lost?"

Arlington is difficult because there are schools that are 80+ % white and schools that are 70+% hispanic and not a lot of schools where there is a more even mix - say 30% white, 30% hispanic, 30% asian, 10% black. (there aren't many blacks in Arlington as a whole so it would be harder to get much higher, I think.) I did try to find a home in one of the more diverse areas, but in the end, I just gave up and picked the house I liked and could afford that had good schools. A lot of the diverse schools are in the middle of the county, close to Metro, so Metro drives the prices up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

+1. That's the primary reason.

+2. Likewise Washington and Oregon.

Well, Oregon was founded as a Klan state (and used to encompass much of present-day Washington), so that's a bit of a different kettle of fish.

Oregon became a state in the 1850s. The Klan did not exist until after 1865. Oregon territory included all of present day Washington State, but when Oregon became a state it did not.

So much misinformation on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Just bought a house in North Arlington. We looked at school quality, teardown activity, and the types of cars people drive.

I wanted a neighborhood where our house would not be the largest or smallest, where we would not be the richest or poorest. We wanted a neighborhood where people seemed to drive the same type of cars we do (not luxury models), because we felt that indicated that we might have similar incomes and views of what material things were important.

I would love to have a more diverse neighborhood - but I'm not going to sacrifice school quality to do so. As many have pointed out in Arlington, it's not really a matter of choosing between Great Schools elementary schools rated 7 instead of 9. It's 9 or 3. There isn't much of a gradient. That said, we did choose one of the more diverse of the highly rated elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a train wreck but really what do you expect. Yeah, most upper income liberals want to live around people just like them. Nowadays its less about skin color and more about income and groupthink. Own an expensive car, shop at whole foods, send your kids to French classes, and seem really upset about GMOs and you'll fit right in.

upper income conservatives, however, are a totally different story, right pp?

NP. at least the conservatives put their money where their mouths are and stay in their own lane. meanwhile, the liberals are content to make historically black communities unaffordable under the guise of "improvement."

If you are a conservative, shouldn't you be cheering the free market and the right of black families to sell their houses to the highest bidders? Culture war trumping free markets this time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol at all of the people lying through their teeth in this thread. Of course everyone considers race. You don't see bleeding heart liberals moving to the depths of PG county, nor do you see many African Americans moving to Old Town Alexandria. for the Canadian OP: people pay attention to race because they are concerned about property values and crime. Like it or not, certain demographics are more likely to commit violent crimes and property crimes. There is a history in this country of "blockbusting," where realtors would use subterfuge to sell one or a couple houses on a block to African Americans, then would start throwing bricks through people's windows to make them think the neighborhood was going to hell in a hand basket. The realtors would put their business cards and flyers all over the neighborhood and, before you knew it, the white home owners would be selling like hot cakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting).

what are the "depths of PG"? You certainly see white folks, I assume more or less liberal, moving to Hyattsville, Mount Ranier, and some other towns in PG. And of course lots move into mostly black parts of DC.

Liberals are hypocrites when they move into all black areas (evil gentrifiers" and hypocrites when they do not. To some conservatives, liberals are hypocrites whatever they do or do not do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

+1. That's the primary reason.

+2. Likewise Washington and Oregon.

Well, Oregon was founded as a Klan state (and used to encompass much of present-day Washington), so that's a bit of a different kettle of fish.

Oregon became a state in the 1850s. The Klan did not exist until after 1865. Oregon territory included all of present day Washington State, but when Oregon became a state it did not.

So much misinformation on this thread.

You are right about when it was founded, but you forgot the part about the state's constitution forbidding blacks to live, work or own property there.

http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a train wreck but really what do you expect. Yeah, most upper income liberals want to live around people just like them. Nowadays its less about skin color and more about income and groupthink. Own an expensive car, shop at whole foods, send your kids to French classes, and seem really upset about GMOs and you'll fit right in.

upper income conservatives, however, are a totally different story, right pp?

NP. at least the conservatives put their money where their mouths are and stay in their own lane. meanwhile, the liberals are content to make historically black communities unaffordable under the guise of "improvement."

If you are a conservative, shouldn't you be cheering the free market and the right of black families to sell their houses to the highest bidders? Culture war trumping free markets this time?

I highly doubt that PP was a conservative. More likely someone who feels somehow negatively affected by gentrification, but needs to be careful what they wish for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

+1. That's the primary reason.

+2. Likewise Washington and Oregon.

Well, Oregon was founded as a Klan state (and used to encompass much of present-day Washington), so that's a bit of a different kettle of fish.

Oregon became a state in the 1850s. The Klan did not exist until after 1865. Oregon territory included all of present day Washington State, but when Oregon became a state it did not.

So much misinformation on this thread.

You are right about when it was founded, but you forgot the part about the state's constitution forbidding blacks to live, work or own property there.

http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

Thank you.

To the other PP. Ok. You're right. Oregon was not founded as a Klan state. It was founded as a whites-only state, that later became very attractive to the Klan, and that at one point hosted the headquarters of the Aryan Nations. I have obviously thoroughly maligned the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

+1. That's the primary reason.

+2. Likewise Washington and Oregon.

Well, Oregon was founded as a Klan state (and used to encompass much of present-day Washington), so that's a bit of a different kettle of fish.

Oregon became a state in the 1850s. The Klan did not exist until after 1865. Oregon territory included all of present day Washington State, but when Oregon became a state it did not.

So much misinformation on this thread.

You are right about when it was founded, but you forgot the part about the state's constitution forbidding blacks to live, work or own property there.

http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

Thank you.

To the other PP. Ok. You're right. Oregon was not founded as a Klan state. It was founded as a whites-only state, that later became very attractive to the Klan, and that at one point hosted the headquarters of the Aryan Nations. I have obviously thoroughly maligned the state.

Several lower midwestern states excluded blacks before the Civil War - IIUC, Illinois did. So they, along with of course all the southern and border states, would have been attractive to the Klan. Which in fact was active in the South only after the Civil war, and was active in the south and in many midwestern and northeastern states in the 1920s. There was no particular connection to Oregon, that I am aware of.

The Aryan Nation, IIUC was HQ in Idaho. Not that most people in Idaho liked the AN.

Someone wants to smear Oregon for some reason - I guess because it is seen as progressive, and someone does not like progressives. So I guess this is not ignorance, so much as malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a train wreck but really what do you expect. Yeah, most upper income liberals want to live around people just like them. Nowadays its less about skin color and more about income and groupthink. Own an expensive car, shop at whole foods, send your kids to French classes, and seem really upset about GMOs and you'll fit right in.

upper income conservatives, however, are a totally different story, right pp?

NP. at least the conservatives put their money where their mouths are and stay in their own lane. meanwhile, the liberals are content to make historically black communities unaffordable under the guise of "improvement."

If you are a conservative, shouldn't you be cheering the free market and the right of black families to sell their houses to the highest bidders? Culture war trumping free markets this time?

I highly doubt that PP was a conservative. More likely someone who feels somehow negatively affected by gentrification, but needs to be careful what they wish for.

Someone annoyed at WF and at anti GMO folks, for whatever reason. Maybe a food industry exec?

There are plenty of white liberals of course who do not shop at WH, who eat GMO foods, and who drive cheap cars, or who own no cars at all. And plenty who do not gentrify (loads of white liberals out in MoCo, in Fairfax, and of course in North Arlington)

But whose lane is whose? Which neighborhoods in DC collectively belong to blacks? What happens when the black people who live in those neighborhoods, and wish to sell their homes freely, do not share the belief that whites belong in some other lane?