3 ms·

But the current decisions were not determined long ago. They are made now. And everything indicates that they are made rationally based on data that actually af

But the current decisions were not determined long ago. They are made now. And everything indicates that they are made rationally based on data that actually affects the probability of investment returns. That is not race-based discrimination, and that is not redlining.

tptacek 5y ago
Yes, but they're made based on economic conditions that were set in place decades ago. This is a point Rayiner has made about other equity issues (for instance: about the need to explicitly correct for the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the professions); this is simply another instance of that. You can raise the standard of living in the redlined neighborhoods, and that does happen at the margins, but it happens slowly and only when economic conditions across the city are good. So no, it's not the case that Whole Foods or Pete's is just going to spontaneously site a new store in K-town. They're not avoiding that area because they're racist, but they are avoiding it because of racism.
- yes_really 5y ago
  It's disingenuous to say they are "avoiding the area because of racism". They are avoiding that area because it provides less return of investment than other areas. Part of the reason why that area provides less return of investment than other areas is because of racism that happened 50 years ago. Part of the reason is *not* due to racism. Regardless, it is not "de facto" redlining, as redlining is race-based discrimination in investment, and that is not what is happening now. If you are criticizing rational, data-based, non-discriminatory investment, then you should not caracterize it as redlining, as the defining characteristic of redlining (i.e. race-based discrimination) is lacking in the current situation.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    It provides less return on investment... because of redlining. It's not rocket science. If you think redlining isn't a factor, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up your argument that the almost 1:1 correspondence between redlining boundaries and disinvestment has nothing to do with redlining policy.
    - yes_really 5y ago
      I didn't say that. I didn't say anything close to that. I don't know how someone could have interpreted what I said as what you wrote in good faith. I believe you are arguing in bad faith; so I will stop engaging.

tptacek 5y ago

Yes, but they're made based on economic conditions that were set in place decades ago. This is a point Rayiner has made about other equity issues (for instance: about the need to explicitly correct for the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the professions); this is simply another instance of that. You can raise the standard of living in the redlined neighborhoods, and that does happen at the margins, but it happens slowly and only when economic conditions across the city are good. So no, it's not the case that Whole Foods or Pete's is just going to spontaneously site a new store in K-town. They're not avoiding that area because they're racist, but they are avoiding it because of racism.

yes_really 5y ago
It's disingenuous to say they are "avoiding the area because of racism". They are avoiding that area because it provides less return of investment than other areas. Part of the reason why that area provides less return of investment than other areas is because of racism that happened 50 years ago. Part of the reason is *not* due to racism. Regardless, it is not "de facto" redlining, as redlining is race-based discrimination in investment, and that is not what is happening now. If you are criticizing rational, data-based, non-discriminatory investment, then you should not caracterize it as redlining, as the defining characteristic of redlining (i.e. race-based discrimination) is lacking in the current situation.
- tptacek 5y ago
  It provides less return on investment... because of redlining. It's not rocket science. If you think redlining isn't a factor, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up your argument that the almost 1:1 correspondence between redlining boundaries and disinvestment has nothing to do with redlining policy.
  - yes_really 5y ago
    I didn't say that. I didn't say anything close to that. I don't know how someone could have interpreted what I said as what you wrote in good faith. I believe you are arguing in bad faith; so I will stop engaging.