6 ms·
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 ar
by 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 agoIt 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 agoI 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.