4 ms·

I live in a fairly low income area of the bay area, and when I drive into the Berkeley hills, Marin, or Piedmont/rich Oakland the density of Black Lives Matter

I live in a fairly low income area of the bay area, and when I drive into the Berkeley hills, Marin, or Piedmont/rich Oakland the density of Black Lives Matter signs in front of houses increases. Thats anecdotal evidence obviously, but there is something funny about our status quo when people live in a $2m home on a 1/2 acre of extremely sought after real estate while loudly advertising their desire for more equality. It is an interesting time watching the intersection of all these disparate ideals trying to coalesce into a coherent worldview and lifestyle in everyones minds.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
emteycz 6y ago
I thought BLM was about equality before law (enforcers), not economical egalitarianism.
CydeWeys 6y ago
Unfortunately there's a large overlap in the Venn diagram between NIMBYs and progressives, and those afflicted don't realize the inherent contradiction in holding both of those views. Personally I'm in the "build lots more housing everywhere because that'll make it cheaper for everyone" camp.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Yeah there’s a certain irony living in Palo Alto and seeing all of the black lives matters signs while the owners here do everything in their power to prevent any housing from getting built. Housing that would actually make this area more affordable to a larger audience. Who are the signs even for? The feeling I get is, “black lives matter but they can stay a town or two away from us - like in East Palo Alto.” It doesn’t look better when the history had explicit racial constraints on zoning.
  - tinyhouse 6y ago
    Well, people want to live in safe neighborhoods with good schools, with a well funded police, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not their job to fix the systematic issues in the US. It's not about race, it's about socioeconomic status.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      The inequitable aspect of "safe neighborhoods" is they depend on other cities for their existence. The people of Piedmont, as an example, require access to the cities of Oakland and San Francisco for their livelihoods, because there are no jobs, no businesses, and no cultural institutions of any kind in the town of Piedmont. They are purely parasitic. When you look at Berkeley you have somewhat of the opposite issue: they have the same population they had in 1950, but the number of jobs in Berkeley has doubled in the meantime. The general taxpayers of the Bay Area have paid to build three subway stations and an interstate highway through Berkeley, but Berkeley stubbornly refuses to let anyone enjoy the fruits of these investments except for people who already lived there half a century ago.
      - tinyhouse 6y ago
        That's true for many US cities but it doesn't mean it should be that way. In Europe for example there are many safe cities that are great places to live and raise a family but also have businesses and everything else you find in major urban areas. I can also give examples of such cities in the US.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        It sounds like we're all agreeing then. The other cities you're alluding to that actually do build enough housing to meet the demand for local jobs are doing things right. Contrast with the cities we've been discussing in this thread which have not been allowing much new housing development to meet demand and thus are creating all of the problems being talked about here.
    - 6y ago
vidoc 6y ago
> when I drive into the Berkeley hills, Marin, or Piedmont/rich Oakland the density of Black Lives Matter signs in front of houses increases. Because unfortunately, a large part of the phenomenon is just virtue signaling.
- paul7986 6y ago
  Love to see how much money those supporters of whatever virtual signaling they are cheerleading donate their wealth to such causes. Is it 25% ... is it anything at all? On a recent hiking trip up a popular mid-Atlantic hike virtue signal supporters defaced a huge sign/plaque dedicated to union soldiers. I was confused .. just as much as they are!
bluntfang 6y ago
>here is something funny about our status quo when people live in a $2m home on a 1/2 acre of extremely sought after real estate while loudly advertising their desire for more equality. This isn't isolated to the Bay either. I struggle with understanding activists who have careers in tech/pharma/etc who publically express these types of problems but privately are willing participants in the systems they deride. Sometimes I'm not sure if they actually want to live in the world they're fighting for. I know plenty of eco-activists who saddle up to the bar and order a hamburger after attending a meeting about how factory farming is destroying the world and we need to stop eating meat as a society yesterday.
jeffbee 6y ago
There recently was a kerfuffle in Berkeley when Robert Reich, ex-Secretary of Laber, UC Berkeley professor, and author of "The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It" was found to have written a letter to the city in opposition of a small apartment building that is proposed to replace an empty detached house on the block where he lives in his 2-million-dollar house. There is often a gap between the positions taken in print, and the actions taken in practice.
- raincom 6y ago
  Perversity of doing good at others' expense!!
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  Which, to my knowledge, he hasn't addressed or offered any rebuttal.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tinyhouse 6y ago
I don't see why it's funny. The fact you're rich doesn't mean you don't support equality. Also the slogan BLM can mean many things. The fact someone supports BLM (for whatever it means) doesn't mean they also think money should be equally distributed.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Realistically, what do you expect them to do? Bulldoze their own homes, become real estate developers, and build high-density housing on the lot? Living in an expensive house shouldn't disqualify someone from advocating against racial injustice. Simply buying a home and living in it is hardly equivalent to being a NIMBY.
- apsec112 6y ago
  They should stop lobbying the city to make it illegal to build houses that cost less than $2 million.
  - cwp 6y ago
    Or even just stop lobbying the city to make it illegal to build houses.
m0zg 6y ago
Those are called "luxury beliefs". The very same people would start locking their doors at night if a black family were to move in next door, and move their kids to a different private school if it got a little too "diverse" with Hispanic and black kids. That's why they move their kids out of public schools in the first place. Classic hypocrisy and NIMBY-ism. Nominally, they support the lofty causes as long as they're paid with someone else's money and are in someone else's backyard. Ex: Beverly Hills calling the police on the rioters while supporting the riots just the day before, or Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan who, when rioters showed up at her house, had CHOP bulldozed the very next day. There are are almost no exceptions to this that I could personally observe. And they will of course vehemently deny it (just watch the downvote count on this post), but in private that's how they behave.
d1zzy 6y ago
How do you reconcile that some of the most respected and influential US politicians (the main authors of the US Constitution) were essentially rich people from well off families? If you think about it it makes sense: poor families do not have the luxury to care for societal level change or to promote it in any shape or form. They are more worried about putting food on the table, keeping themselves clothed and a roof over their heads. I think it's only logical that people who do not have to struggle with such issues are the ones that are more likely to influence political change, even if at a glance the changes they are proposing do not seem to directly serve their interests. Now whether their stated ideas are followed with action is a different matter.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

emteycz 6y ago

I thought BLM was about equality before law (enforcers), not economical egalitarianism.

CydeWeys 6y ago

Unfortunately there's a large overlap in the Venn diagram between NIMBYs and progressives, and those afflicted don't realize the inherent contradiction in holding both of those views. Personally I'm in the "build lots more housing everywhere because that'll make it cheaper for everyone" camp.

fossuser 6y ago
Yeah there’s a certain irony living in Palo Alto and seeing all of the black lives matters signs while the owners here do everything in their power to prevent any housing from getting built. Housing that would actually make this area more affordable to a larger audience. Who are the signs even for? The feeling I get is, “black lives matter but they can stay a town or two away from us - like in East Palo Alto.” It doesn’t look better when the history had explicit racial constraints on zoning.
- tinyhouse 6y ago
  Well, people want to live in safe neighborhoods with good schools, with a well funded police, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not their job to fix the systematic issues in the US. It's not about race, it's about socioeconomic status.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    The inequitable aspect of "safe neighborhoods" is they depend on other cities for their existence. The people of Piedmont, as an example, require access to the cities of Oakland and San Francisco for their livelihoods, because there are no jobs, no businesses, and no cultural institutions of any kind in the town of Piedmont. They are purely parasitic. When you look at Berkeley you have somewhat of the opposite issue: they have the same population they had in 1950, but the number of jobs in Berkeley has doubled in the meantime. The general taxpayers of the Bay Area have paid to build three subway stations and an interstate highway through Berkeley, but Berkeley stubbornly refuses to let anyone enjoy the fruits of these investments except for people who already lived there half a century ago.
    - tinyhouse 6y ago
      That's true for many US cities but it doesn't mean it should be that way. In Europe for example there are many safe cities that are great places to live and raise a family but also have businesses and everything else you find in major urban areas. I can also give examples of such cities in the US.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        It sounds like we're all agreeing then. The other cities you're alluding to that actually do build enough housing to meet the demand for local jobs are doing things right. Contrast with the cities we've been discussing in this thread which have not been allowing much new housing development to meet demand and thus are creating all of the problems being talked about here.
  - 6y ago

vidoc 6y ago

> when I drive into the Berkeley hills, Marin, or Piedmont/rich Oakland the density of Black Lives Matter signs in front of houses increases. Because unfortunately, a large part of the phenomenon is just virtue signaling.

paul7986 6y ago
Love to see how much money those supporters of whatever virtual signaling they are cheerleading donate their wealth to such causes. Is it 25% ... is it anything at all? On a recent hiking trip up a popular mid-Atlantic hike virtue signal supporters defaced a huge sign/plaque dedicated to union soldiers. I was confused .. just as much as they are!

bluntfang 6y ago

>here is something funny about our status quo when people live in a $2m home on a 1/2 acre of extremely sought after real estate while loudly advertising their desire for more equality. This isn't isolated to the Bay either. I struggle with understanding activists who have careers in tech/pharma/etc who publically express these types of problems but privately are willing participants in the systems they deride. Sometimes I'm not sure if they actually want to live in the world they're fighting for. I know plenty of eco-activists who saddle up to the bar and order a hamburger after attending a meeting about how factory farming is destroying the world and we need to stop eating meat as a society yesterday.

jeffbee 6y ago

There recently was a kerfuffle in Berkeley when Robert Reich, ex-Secretary of Laber, UC Berkeley professor, and author of "The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It" was found to have written a letter to the city in opposition of a small apartment building that is proposed to replace an empty detached house on the block where he lives in his 2-million-dollar house. There is often a gap between the positions taken in print, and the actions taken in practice.

raincom 6y ago
Perversity of doing good at others' expense!!
reducesuffering 6y ago
Which, to my knowledge, he hasn't addressed or offered any rebuttal.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tinyhouse 6y ago

I don't see why it's funny. The fact you're rich doesn't mean you don't support equality. Also the slogan BLM can mean many things. The fact someone supports BLM (for whatever it means) doesn't mean they also think money should be equally distributed.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

Realistically, what do you expect them to do? Bulldoze their own homes, become real estate developers, and build high-density housing on the lot? Living in an expensive house shouldn't disqualify someone from advocating against racial injustice. Simply buying a home and living in it is hardly equivalent to being a NIMBY.

apsec112 6y ago
They should stop lobbying the city to make it illegal to build houses that cost less than $2 million.
- cwp 6y ago
  Or even just stop lobbying the city to make it illegal to build houses.

m0zg 6y ago

Those are called "luxury beliefs". The very same people would start locking their doors at night if a black family were to move in next door, and move their kids to a different private school if it got a little too "diverse" with Hispanic and black kids. That's why they move their kids out of public schools in the first place. Classic hypocrisy and NIMBY-ism. Nominally, they support the lofty causes as long as they're paid with someone else's money and are in someone else's backyard. Ex: Beverly Hills calling the police on the rioters while supporting the riots just the day before, or Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan who, when rioters showed up at her house, had CHOP bulldozed the very next day. There are are almost no exceptions to this that I could personally observe. And they will of course vehemently deny it (just watch the downvote count on this post), but in private that's how they behave.

d1zzy 6y ago

How do you reconcile that some of the most respected and influential US politicians (the main authors of the US Constitution) were essentially rich people from well off families? If you think about it it makes sense: poor families do not have the luxury to care for societal level change or to promote it in any shape or form. They are more worried about putting food on the table, keeping themselves clothed and a roof over their heads. I think it's only logical that people who do not have to struggle with such issues are the ones that are more likely to influence political change, even if at a glance the changes they are proposing do not seem to directly serve their interests. Now whether their stated ideas are followed with action is a different matter.