3 ms·
>Wasn't a BART extension proposed and vetoed by NIMBYs? It was the 1960's... so I'd probably say "vetoed by Racists" Despite California's stereotyped liberal/
by kindatrue 8y ago
>Wasn't a BART extension proposed and vetoed by NIMBYs?
It was the 1960's... so I'd probably say "vetoed by Racists"
Despite California's stereotyped liberal/progressive values, the 1960's also saw Prop 14 "allow property owners and landlords to turn away colored people" winning 65% support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(1964) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(196...
- pessimizer 8y agoAll property owners in SF are retroactively NIMBYs trying to keep young wealthy white and asian programmers out. Even though until 1974 the National Association of Realtors' Article 5 implicitly made it a code of ethics violation to move black people into a white neighborhood, and HOAs were originally called White Homeowners' Associations and their only purpose was to legally insure that all home sales in the neighborhood were to whites.
- mnm1 8y agoYou mean there's a difference? Cause up here near Portland, it seems to be the same story only five years ago instead of in the 60's. And I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the same throughout the country. I guess HN doesn't like it when comments get too close to reality.