4 ms·

> The government heavily subsidized highway construction, set requirements for massive amounts of available parking, and through the FHA, provided affordable mo

> The government heavily subsidized highway construction, set requirements for massive amounts of available parking, and through the FHA, provided affordable mortgages to white families to move to the suburbs Why do you think the government did this? I will posit that it is because voters wanted it to happen. It's not some grand conspiracy by evil fossil fuel overlords.

eesmith 3y ago
> Why do you think the government did this? You can't seriously disentangle the different factors. Clearly white supremacy was one factor that went into the overall vision. From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new-york-highway-i81-viaduct-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new... : "The construction of I-81, along with the rest of America’s highway system, was a part of the federally funded program in the 1950s called “urban renewal”, which targeted formerly redlined, urban Black neighborhoods, labeled “slums’’, for removal. The former 15th ward neighborhood of Syracuse, once a thriving Black community, was the chosen location to build I-81. As a result, dozens of Black homes and businesses were bulldozed." "These infrastructure projects prioritized the needs of (largely white) commuters in the suburbs over the lives of poor Black residents in cities. It wasn’t limited to Syracuse or New York state; across the country, federal estimates show about 1.2 million Americans were displaced by urban renewal. That legacy lives on today: in Portland, Oregon, Black residents call part of the Interstate 5 highway that runs from Washington to California their “Robert E Lee statue”. In New Orleans, the Claiborne Expressway has been dubbed a “racist monument”." > I will posit that it is because voters wanted it to happen. While you can posit that, bear in mind that racial discrimination was official government policy when the interstate highway system was planned and construction started in the 1950s. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States : "In the United States during the 1940s, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, low-cost mortgages through the G.I. Bill, and residential redlining enabled white families to abandon inner cities in favor of suburban living and prevent ethnic minorities from doing the same. The result was severe urban decay that, by the 1960s, resulted in crumbling "ghettos"." If you use the narrow lens that something is justified because the majority of voters want it, then you end up also justifying racial discrimination during the 1950s. If the majority of voters want the poorest 25% of the population to subsidize suburban living, is that fair? Because that's what we have, and tyranny of the majority is a failure mode for majority rule. (Even more so given how black adults are dis-proportionally disenfranchised.) Who is arguing "evil fossil fuel overlords"? That would be ahistorical.
- vel0city 3y ago
  > residential redlining enabled white families to abandon inner cities aka it allowed people to do what they were wanting to do. Those people weren't forced to leave the cities, they were given opportunity to do so and chose to do it. Nobody here is currently debating whether this was "fair" or "good" or that it wasn't subsidized or enabled by the government, just pointing out that things are the way they are because that's what the people wanted. None of your post goes against that idea, you're just pointing out racial disparity of the actions. People chose to move to the suburbs. They weren't forced. People continue to choose to live there. Have you actually talked to a lot of suburbanites? Most that I know would say they prefer that way of life. Tons actively fight against densification/urbanization. As the old suburbs get denser and more urban, they continue to flee outwards, buying bigger and bigger lots and houses each move. They specifically don't want to live in dense urban areas. If they wanted to, they would, but they at least think they don't want to make those tradeoffs. Do you think the vast majority of people living in the suburbs just like wake up every day thinking "man I really hate living here, welp, guess I'll do nothing about it!" Do you think the people shopping for a 3,000sqft house on a 1 acre lot deep down really want a 900sqft apartment?
  - eesmith 3y ago
    > Those people weren't forced to leave the cities, they were given opportunity to do so and chose to do it. Let's go back to xyst's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 . "It’s a choice shoved down our throats by decades of destroying urban cores, bulldozing poor communities/neighborhoods in favor of massive highway projects, and removing bustling streets of human activity with useless parking lots." xyst never said there wasn't a choice. Instead, the thumb was pressed down on scale, hard, to encourage people to make a specific choice. You said that was a-historical. It was not. > People continue to choose to live there. What choice do they have? The US zoning system for decades has mandated either high-rises or single-family car-dependent suburbia. If someone wants to live in a mixed-use area with walking distance from school, restaurant, parks, and restaurants, with mass-transit options ... where do you suggest they live? > They weren't forced. Yes, they were. Who do you think enforces zoning requirements? Answer: the police force. Zoning restrictions are the reason why most places are only single-family homes. The duplexes and short-rises of the immediate post-war suburb I grew up in are no longer allowed. > Do you think the vast majority of people living in the suburbs just like wake up every day thinking Now you're just being silly - of course not! So let's back back to the actual issue. You said xyst's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 was a-historical, but have yet to show why it's historically inaccurate. Do you think the vast majority of people have a choice of living somewhere which isn't car dependent? If they don't have the choice, is there really a choice? Can you really say people "prefer" a car if they have no choice without a car?

eesmith 3y ago

> Why do you think the government did this? You can't seriously disentangle the different factors. Clearly white supremacy was one factor that went into the overall vision. From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new-york-highway-i81-viaduct-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/21/syracuse-new... : "The construction of I-81, along with the rest of America’s highway system, was a part of the federally funded program in the 1950s called “urban renewal”, which targeted formerly redlined, urban Black neighborhoods, labeled “slums’’, for removal. The former 15th ward neighborhood of Syracuse, once a thriving Black community, was the chosen location to build I-81. As a result, dozens of Black homes and businesses were bulldozed." "These infrastructure projects prioritized the needs of (largely white) commuters in the suburbs over the lives of poor Black residents in cities. It wasn’t limited to Syracuse or New York state; across the country, federal estimates show about 1.2 million Americans were displaced by urban renewal. That legacy lives on today: in Portland, Oregon, Black residents call part of the Interstate 5 highway that runs from Washington to California their “Robert E Lee statue”. In New Orleans, the Claiborne Expressway has been dubbed a “racist monument”." > I will posit that it is because voters wanted it to happen. While you can posit that, bear in mind that racial discrimination was official government policy when the interstate highway system was planned and construction started in the 1950s. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States : "In the United States during the 1940s, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, low-cost mortgages through the G.I. Bill, and residential redlining enabled white families to abandon inner cities in favor of suburban living and prevent ethnic minorities from doing the same. The result was severe urban decay that, by the 1960s, resulted in crumbling "ghettos"." If you use the narrow lens that something is justified because the majority of voters want it, then you end up also justifying racial discrimination during the 1950s. If the majority of voters want the poorest 25% of the population to subsidize suburban living, is that fair? Because that's what we have, and tyranny of the majority is a failure mode for majority rule. (Even more so given how black adults are dis-proportionally disenfranchised.) Who is arguing "evil fossil fuel overlords"? That would be ahistorical.

vel0city 3y ago
> residential redlining enabled white families to abandon inner cities aka it allowed people to do what they were wanting to do. Those people weren't forced to leave the cities, they were given opportunity to do so and chose to do it. Nobody here is currently debating whether this was "fair" or "good" or that it wasn't subsidized or enabled by the government, just pointing out that things are the way they are because that's what the people wanted. None of your post goes against that idea, you're just pointing out racial disparity of the actions. People chose to move to the suburbs. They weren't forced. People continue to choose to live there. Have you actually talked to a lot of suburbanites? Most that I know would say they prefer that way of life. Tons actively fight against densification/urbanization. As the old suburbs get denser and more urban, they continue to flee outwards, buying bigger and bigger lots and houses each move. They specifically don't want to live in dense urban areas. If they wanted to, they would, but they at least think they don't want to make those tradeoffs. Do you think the vast majority of people living in the suburbs just like wake up every day thinking "man I really hate living here, welp, guess I'll do nothing about it!" Do you think the people shopping for a 3,000sqft house on a 1 acre lot deep down really want a 900sqft apartment?
- eesmith 3y ago
  > Those people weren't forced to leave the cities, they were given opportunity to do so and chose to do it. Let's go back to xyst's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 . "It’s a choice shoved down our throats by decades of destroying urban cores, bulldozing poor communities/neighborhoods in favor of massive highway projects, and removing bustling streets of human activity with useless parking lots." xyst never said there wasn't a choice. Instead, the thumb was pressed down on scale, hard, to encourage people to make a specific choice. You said that was a-historical. It was not. > People continue to choose to live there. What choice do they have? The US zoning system for decades has mandated either high-rises or single-family car-dependent suburbia. If someone wants to live in a mixed-use area with walking distance from school, restaurant, parks, and restaurants, with mass-transit options ... where do you suggest they live? > They weren't forced. Yes, they were. Who do you think enforces zoning requirements? Answer: the police force. Zoning restrictions are the reason why most places are only single-family homes. The duplexes and short-rises of the immediate post-war suburb I grew up in are no longer allowed. > Do you think the vast majority of people living in the suburbs just like wake up every day thinking Now you're just being silly - of course not! So let's back back to the actual issue. You said xyst's comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37951319 was a-historical, but have yet to show why it's historically inaccurate. Do you think the vast majority of people have a choice of living somewhere which isn't car dependent? If they don't have the choice, is there really a choice? Can you really say people "prefer" a car if they have no choice without a car?