Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this is going to change until this country pays reparations. These ugly condo builds are not going to make housing affordable.

Absolutely THIS.

White America owes each and every Black Person of Color alive today $59.6 million dollars, to account for the lost of generations of family wealth from the time of slavery to the present. 400 years of slavery.

Black person of color is redundant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this is going to change until this country pays reparations. These ugly condo builds are not going to make housing affordable.

Absolutely THIS.

White America owes each and every Black Person of Color alive today $59.6 million dollars, to account for the lost of generations of family wealth from the time of slavery to the present. 400 years of slavery.

More free stuff, eh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this is going to change until this country pays reparations. These ugly condo builds are not going to make housing affordable.

Absolutely THIS.

White America owes each and every Black Person of Color alive today $59.6 million dollars, to account for the lost of generations of family wealth from the time of slavery to the present. 400 years of slavery.

More free stuff, eh?

If you are against reparations because they are "free stuff," then I assume you're for a 100% estate tax? That money is owed from real, actual work performed that was not paid for. If you are against people being paid for outstanding debts owed to their ancestors because they aren't the specific people who did the work, I see no logical reason you could be for people being paid an inheritance from their ancestors when they were not the specific person who earned the money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one told the Post that people don't say "gentrification" anymore. "Increasing density" is the new term of art.

"In the District, low-income residents are being pushed out of neighborhoods at some of the highest rates in the country, according to the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which sought to track demographic and economic changes in neighborhoods in the 50 largest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2016....

In the Navy Yard neighborhood, about 77 percent of residents were identified as low income in 2000. Sixteen years later, that population dropped to 21 percent.

Most of the people pushed out of these economic hot spots are black and low income, according to the data."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

This quote seems to assume that correlation equals causation.

"Navy Yard got more dense, low income people moved out, therefore density causes low income people to move out" is their basic assumption. But where is their research that shows that if that density had not come to Navy Yard, that those low income people would still be there?

Where do they prove that without density, Navy Yard would remain exactly the same instead of being even more expensive than it is now with even less low income people because the lack of supply and the appeal of living in a rowhouse next door to the ballpark kept it a low density neighborhood but made it consist entirely of multimillion dollar rowhouses?