Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

The Future of Cities: How Sprawl and Racism are Intertwined

By Kevin Danaher and Shannon Biggs and Jason Mark, PoliPoint Press. Posted October 23, 2007.


Civil rights leader and environmentalist Van Jones talks about suburban sprawl, race and the future of cities.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following conversation with Van Jones is an excerpt from the new book Building the Green Economy: Success Stories from the Grassroots (PoliPointPress, 2007) by Kevin Danaher, Shannon Biggs, and Jason Mark. You can read more about the book here.

Van Jones is a passionate civil rights and human rights advocate. He combines practical solutions to problems of social inequality and environmental destruction, focusing on green economic opportunities for urban America. Jones grew up in rural Tennessee, graduated from Yale Law School, and works and lives in Oakland, California. He is the Co-Founder and President of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which seeks to replace the U.S. incarceration industry with community-based solutions.

Q. For the first time in human history, more than 50 percent of people now live in urban areas. Where does the city fit in your conception of environmental sustainability?

VJ: Cities have the capacity to sink or save the planet. The future of all humanity, and most species and systems, will be determined by what we choose to do with cities. The idea that the environment is about critters and creeks is a thing of the past. We have to be thinking about these things in terms of consumption and disposal processes of mega-cities.

Q. Sprawl has a negative impact not only on farmland and open space but on life in urban areas. How did this pattern of sprawl and gentrification develop? Who wins and loses?

VJ: Sprawl is a response to racial fear and anxiety on the part of white elites. The 'burbs were designed as a vehicle to get away from people of color, investing more in the white infrastructure as they moved away from the city, and the neighborhoods where people of color live. The other side of that is the disinvestment for the communities that remain behind; the money follows the new suburban development. Those that remain in the inner city continue to lose in this scenario.

Q. You've talked about cities and land use as issues that interest many groups: the suburbanites, environmentalists, and inner-city residents. If both environmentalists and inner-city residents have an interest in stopping sprawl, what's preventing them from working together?

VJ: Racism. It is the reason that people move away from each other. People don't want to talk about why people call this a "good" neighborhood or that one a "bad" neighborhood, but often it has to do with the race of the people that live there. White people divorce themselves from the bad neighborhoods and move to the suburbs. The black community has a lot of built-up feelings about our history, about the racism we experience. There is some healing that needs to take place there, so these communities have some issues, and don't want to work with each other, necessarily. There are a lot of feelings there.

Q. Many environmentalists genuinely want to work with other communities to address these issues of common interest. What is thwarting those efforts?

VJ: Those folks often speak about working together through "outreach" -- outreach in the sense of "outreaching to" these people or those people. Outreaching to the black community: "Well, we outreached to them so 'they' could hear our agenda and get onboard with what we are saying." This, as opposed to saying "let's go make some friends," building relationships, creating relationships. Figuring things out from a place where everyone's views are included. Relationships are give and take, mutual aid and help. Outreaching is the white thing, it's about bringing folks into what you are doing, and does not necessarily convey understanding.

Q. What is the effect of the prison industrial complex (especially juvenile prisons) on communities, particularly communities of color, and how does that system impede progress toward a green city revolution?

VJ: The incarceration industry is the new Jim Crow; you don't have to call him the "N word" if you just call him a felon. There are the same amount of drug problems in the 'burbs that there are in the inner city, but in the 'burbs the white kids get counseling, they don't go to prison. Generally speaking, they only call the police in the 'hood. The system has responded with compassion to white kids.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: environment, race, racism, sprawl, suburbia, van jones

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Suburbs created by racial fear and anxiety?
Posted by: free8500 on Oct 24, 2007 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that whites move to the suburbs out of "racial fear and anxiety" has been around for decades. But is there more to it? I've made a point to research this and what I hear from whites who actually lived through the "bussing" era was that it was not just "anxiety" but actual experiences that compelled them or their families to feel they had to move away. Many stories were of whites who initially had no negative feelings toward blacks or who were actually sympathetic. But when the schools and neighborhoods were forcefully integrated, they experienced a great deal of hatred and violence from blacks; bullied, threatened, robbed, beaten. Blacks may be felt it was justified but now what? The cycle of hate continues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Keep telling yourself that Posted by: rjgwood
» Racist comment Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Wishful thinking... Posted by: aka_bozo
Why the "racial fear and anxiety"?
Posted by: Icouldn'tagreewithyoumorebut on Oct 24, 2007 10:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does the author sincerely consider it racism to simply want to remove oneself and one's family from danger?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you serious? Posted by: EKSwitaj
» denial of black crime rate Posted by: EasterBunny
» horseshit Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: horseshit Posted by: Lesha
» whites invented racism? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: horseshit Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: horseshit Posted by: Lesha
» i am speaking for myself Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: denial of black crime rate Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: denial of black crime rate Posted by: EasterBunny
» Joys of suburbia Posted by: Deep
» FOR DEEP Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Some people dislike crowded cities...
Posted by: Cooltruth on Oct 25, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are too many regulations in most cities for me to want to live in a city. It doesn't have anything to do with the race of those who prefer to live in the city. Maybe they're happy to live in that close proximity to each other. That doesn't mean that everybody enjoys living that close if they can find places outside of a city they can afford to move to. It's cheaper to buy land away from the cities than it is to buy city or surburb property. Rents in cities tend to be expensive for what you'll get for your money. Unless you have a job that requires you to live in a city, you might be better off living in rural areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Move Away from Danger?
Posted by: Romantic Violence on Oct 29, 2007 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whites of that era, whether middle class or working class (post WW II) espouse the perceived, unfounded, and unsubstantiated 'danger' from living in the same areas of other ethnic minorities i.e. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and etc. but the major impetus for such a speedy transition from dwellers of public housing of the 1930's through the mid 1950's, we call them 'projects'; was the monetary incentives that enable whites to immigrate and populate the newly created suburbs (sprawl) via relatively new federal agencies such as FHA-HUD. Whites were arbitrarily extended 'loans' and in some instances, 'pre-approved' for low interest home owner loans (c 1947 Board of Real Estate Associations, Washington D.C.) . The same 'incentives were not afforded to Blacks and other ethnic minorities. Moreover, this sentiment is and continues to reflect attitudes of realtors, developers, and citizens of 'sprawlburbia'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Move Away from Danger? Posted by: astralman
» RE: Move Away from Danger? Posted by: newtype_alpha
Bravo!
Posted by: kablooie on Nov 5, 2007 1:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I listened to this native Tennesseean speak last year at the Alternative Media Conference in Memphis, TN, where he was very inspiring. I wish he could persuade Memphis's Mayor to adopt his green views -- Memphis has a solar panel factory, yet it is wholesale, not retail. Memphis has many of the problems described herein. We would stay and continue along with many other caring local non-profit groups to help lift up our beloved city, but after a devastating job loss we are moving out of state. I pray for a better future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and now, it's in reverse...
Posted by: eosrk on Nov 5, 2007 3:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the whites are taking over the cities and us blacks are being pushed into the subrubs, for example, take a look at Harlem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and now, it's in reverse... Posted by: Romantic Violence
» RE: and now, it's in reverse... Posted by: drcyflowers
It's not about skin color...
Posted by: Allstar Cookie on Nov 5, 2007 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...as much as it is about economics. People that live in low-income neighborhoods live a lifestyle that many others just don't want to be bothered with.

The rules of engagement in low income areas.

-Doorbells are optional....just lay on the car horn regardless of the time of day....or night.

-Dog craps on neighbors lawn....leave it.

-Drinking binges that start on the porch at 2pm is a normal occurrence.

-Drinking binges usually end sometime later that evening with a domestic or a fight with the neighbors.

-Kids as young as 7 or 8 staying out as late as they want and usually without adult supervision.

-Houses with bed sheet curtains.(not very attractive)

-If it's not your garbage on the front lawn....don't pick it up.

-A mattress on the front porch and an old refrigerator in the driveway is not unusual.

So how do you know when you've entered one of these neighborhoods?

When you start seeing plywood and satellite dishes attached to the same house. Priorities, you know.


Blame bad landlords.....blame bad tenants. Doesn't matter.

Higher income neighborhoods are certainly not immune to problems.....but for the most part....a more educated neighborhood is one where people have a bit more respect for each other.

Just my two cents.

Allstar Cookie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jeeves.... Posted by: sausage
» LOL- best comment ever Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» poverty as illness Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Is there a solution?
Posted by: underledge on Nov 5, 2007 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Historically, cities developed due to location for trade and employment. The city drew people from the countryside and elsewhere. Trains, trolleys and then the automobile made commuting a possibility and offered an escape from the crowded central city proper. Up through the 1950's, the cities possessed the essence of what was America.

Times and technology changed along with the need for mass numbers of workers. Simply look at some old photographs of office workers at an insurance company for example. What appears as an endless number of typists or file clerks have been replaced by a computer. Jobs died, companies went out of business or moved out of the central city and/or to areas where labor was cheaper and physical space was available. We are all products of these changes. Realistically, what remains of the majority of "cities" is a skeleton of their former selves. The majority of those remaining are on the lowest economic level and have few choices of getting out. I don't know if there is a solution. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There is a peaceful solution - Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Critters and creeks!
Posted by: jefhadist on Nov 5, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hell yes the environment is about critters and creeks. Jones is from rural Tennessee. He should know that. One of the insults to humanity in creating the urban nightmare has been the burying of the watershed and the destruction of the critters...none of which needed to happen on the scale it did. Look at the peregrine falcons nesting on the bay bridge or the coyotes in S.F. Restoration is the key for this century, an antidote to the destruction of the last. Rip out the concrete and plant! Re-introduce "truck farming" into the neighborhoods and give everyone a share. There are plenty of empty lots and buildings that need to go to open up and heal the land. Create urban sanctuaries where nature can take over. Plant quince trees everywhere to absorb the toxins. Build and remodel buildings with the environment in mind. Every single dwelling could have gardens on the roof or in front of the windows. Violence goes down when folks have the connection to nature that they can access. The cities have to be almost totally rebuilt with the ecosystem in mind. That'll create some jobs! And don't forget the critters or the creeks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Critters and creeks! Posted by: peri_winkle
Fighting the good fight on the green economy, but...
Posted by: johnshadows on Nov 5, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... He's right about using the retro-fitting of society to our environmental challenges as an economic opportunity. And certainly, we're spending too much money on prisons. People should not be going to jail for drug crimes, and we need to give up on that.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jones seems to think 'Racism' only runs one way (white against black), and he is turning a blind eye to violent crime by blacks in the inner cities. Black men make up six percent of the population and commit over fifty percent of the violent crime. I live in a segregated neighborhood, and recently saw 'Folk' (folk nation - an all-black gang) painted on a nearby stop sign. There was a shootout three blocks from my house six weeks ago, and all parties involved were black. I could hear the shots in my house. No fun, Mr. Jones. We do need to be fairer about how we distribute justice, but we also need to drive vicious psychopaths and their Way of the Gun out of society. And I don't care if that's Social Darwinism or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry, I meant 'integrated' Posted by: johnshadows
"We can have a Gulag or a green economy."
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 5, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course we have choices. "Race" is just another tool to feed those who divide us in order to conquer us.

It is clear to me that big time investors pay close attention to incentives from government tax breaks and subsidies. It is not clear to me they are always a final solution. But they can make a difference.

With very few exceptions, we have had, since the election of Nixon in 1968, an economy dominated by incentives for the rich to get richer. Under Reagan it got the name "trickle down." Nothing trickles down.

But so long as the electorate accepts the notion that incentives for lifting ordinary people is "tax and spend socialism" and incentives for making the rich richer is "compasionate conservatism," the US will continue our rush to the bottom.

Bush's popularity is now at a bottom never seen before. We needed voters to realize where we were headed before they put him in office. Our times are too precarious to stay home on election day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

White Flight
Posted by: andyw on Nov 5, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is always interesting to read the comments in these stories. I sympathize with those who believe that Whites fled "danger" and disorganization cities back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. That is what we are told, but, of course, it is only a half-truth.

Let's start with that "truth." Yes, starting in the 50's, then especially for the next couple of decades, a massive de-industrialization of cities were taking place. Cities like New York, which had significant social safety nets thanks to the revenues of large industries, found themselves feeling and looking poorer and poorer as industry declined and people began moving (with the help of "suburban planning" and policy incentives) to the suburbs. So, yes, it is "true" that cities were in fairly bad shape, but this was not intrinsic to cities as a concept; this was a global economic process where jobs were shifted overseas. (This has been going on for a long time). Cities thus seemed to become the locales of joblessness rather than jobs. Meanwhile, new income, building and overall growth created an illusion that suburbs were a more viable economy, while they are actually much harder to sustain in terms of energy and social networking.

Yet while cities did suffer because of global and national economic policy shifts (think of G. Ford's comment "Ford to NY: Drop Dead"), it was rather quickly realized that suburbs were not all they were cracked up to be. The news industry, which ideologically springs from and targets both the wealthy elites (who never abandoned the city) and the various classes of suburban Whites, portrayed and continues to portray the suburbs as a sort of paradise even though just a little investigation shows this not to be true. Poll after poll shows that people who live in dense urban environments feel safer and HAPPIER than those who live in the suburbs. Anecdotally, we also know that almost all serial killers come from suburbs, not cities. Make Davis takes the example of the infamous Night Stalker in L.A. He seemed unstoppable and made his terrible reputation in rich gated communities. When he actually tried to kill someone in the poor, densely packed neighborhoods of East L.A., he was caught.

But let's also talk about rural vs. urban. The murder rate is much, much higher per capita in rural areas than it is in urban ones. It only seems the opposite because the concentration of media attention makes urban centers look less dangerous. Why is this? Well, there are a lot of reasons, but one of the main ones is that rural life ceased being rural. Sure, it takes place out in the country and in fields, but its reason for being is no longer rural. What do I mean? I mean that rural communities exist mostly to feed urban ones. Factory farms and giant shipping infrastructures are part of the rural landscape, but they are urban inventions. This is why farmers, on the whole, are far, far more stressed than their urban counterparts. They are at the bottom of the production cycle, and believe me, everyone I know who has a chicken business, for example, says they are not working for themselves but for Goldkist. Any wonder then that rural poverty and insecurity are plaguing our country and our countrysides? Of course, you won't find that in the media. Our rural areas have been taken over by CEO's. They are beginning to fight back, but it may be too late. Regardless, let's not hide the fact that much of what is taking place in the countryside now is actually an extension of urban markets and urban market ideologies into the farm belt. Changing cities (inner and suburban) for the better can only happen in concert with agricultural reforms.

We've got to overcome racism (white-black AND sub/urban-rural) to move ahead. This is both a raising of political and geographical consciousness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really all that helpful?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 5, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 'burbs were designed as a vehicle to get away from _____________________....

Violent crimes. Failing schools in failed districts. High priced homes. Traffic in the immediate vicinity of the home. Drugs. HIV. Or perhaps they were designed as a place get away to for kids to ride their bike. Or plant a small garden. Or pick pecans off the ground.

Out of all these logical, objective reasons for making a positive move for one's family, the author made getting away from his Great Cause the reason why folks aren't moving to the cities in droves. Sure, there are 300M folks in this country, and--probably--two or three of them did achieve the equivalence the author was seeking: they moved out of the city to find an open space to burn a cross or two. I can agree with the author that that's a pretty ugly, racist reason, and doing so no doubt increases their "carbon footprint", to boot, what with all that soot and whatnot.

But to stereotype the author's disfavored group of people by coloring them as racists for trying to educate their kids in a safe place probably isn't going to help the author's more favored groups. Meh. I wouldn't call a bunch of people racists and then ask them to build a playground, but good luck with that anyway. There is, after all, a genuine need for urban redevelopment and investment in many cities.

Oh, and do us a favor and look up "melanin" in your fifth-graders science book. It turns out we're all "people of color"; it's only race-centric philosophy that separates us, and if you can get past your singular focus, you potentially open up a world of people who really just the same as you. To wit, "friends", "fellow citizens", or both.

Really! If you practice inclusivity some, you might find you like it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally all that helpful? Posted by: Frankstank
What a lot of phony baloney!
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Nov 5, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously, urban sprawl is caused by overpopulation. Racial hostility complicates the problem, but if there were a working sytem of family planning nationwide (and Worldwide) protecting the right of each woman to decide if and when to birth children, there would be no massive migrations from country to city or city to country. Overpopulation is a crime of male supremacy and corporate addiction to ever-expanding wealth and power.

To live in balance and survive, the human race must deliberately restrict itself to smaller and stable populations and stable economies that do not encroach upon and destroy the natural wilderness that keeps the planet healthy. Failing that, we humans commit ecocide and self-extinction - IF we do not first blow ourselves up by allowing madman Bush to launch his Biblical Armageddon!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check it out! Bucolic Iowa is #1 in something besides corn!
Posted by: sausage on Nov 5, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iowa ranks No. 1 in the nation in the ratio of blacks to whites in prison, according to a national study released in July by the Washington, D.C.-based Sentencing Project. The study found Iowa incarcerates blacks at a rate 13.6 times that of whites. Across the country, blacks are imprisoned at nearly six times the rate of whites.
The Des Moines Register.com

From U.S. Census Quick Fact.gov: White persons, percent, 2005 (Includes persons reporting only one race), 94.9%; Black persons, percent, 2005 (Includes persons reporting only one race), 2.3%.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The preconceived Drug war
Posted by: efficacy on Nov 5, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The interviewee touches on one the driving issues, when he talks about the prison system. With over seven million people in our criminal justice system and almost two thirds being black or Latino--how much of this plays into sprawl and white flight? The people that are either on probation, parole, half way houses, prison, or jail--come from basically poor communities--where we have been committing double jeopardy for the past four decades--where we take a potential tax base out of the community and then pay taxes for them to be in prison. Many say this was planned and to a great degree it has worked like a charm. Most talk about the war over there and not the war over here. Should'nt we be listening to the many voices that are now saying--That continuing this drug war is long term threat to the health of this nation.

All or at least most of the comments touch on issues that are relevant to some or great extent. However, most people run on emotion not critical thinking. If one thinks I'm all wet--just look around you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grew up in a ghetto surrounded by middle class suburbs
Posted by: Frankstank on Nov 5, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know what it is like to have that stigma of being from the projects, and the look you get from friends when they come to visit. Growing up I dealt drugs, stole like a demon, ran a very successful bike theft business, and had lots of weird sex with all sorts of people. It was a non-vanilla upbringing (yet I am white).

So, how did I escape this place for greener pastures (ivy league university etc.)? I got to know kids with ambition and good study habits. I am a very competitive person by nature, and this got me thinking and changing my aspirations and habits. And I did this just in time to get a scholarship to university. The happiest day of my life was the one where I got on the Greyhound bus and got out of there.

Since, I have travelled the world more than a few times.

I wish people like me would be consulted when priviliged princesses like some I can think of espouse socialist solutions to problems. Yet nobody listens to or consults people who actually grew up in these places. All my life I have had to listen to windbags who claim they are progressives (but nearly always are middle to upper class in background) tell me what is good.

Here is an idea for the left to regain its credibility: launch a rolling global consultation with real poor people and those who escaped poverty, and get real lessons about what people want. That would be a powerful tool for social change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and the kitchen sink
Posted by: anothername on Nov 5, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The interview makes it seem as though racism is the only reason suburbs developed and continue to exist. Previous posters have commented on some of the other factors creating suburbs, including cheaper land, motorized transportation, the shift of population from rural to urban and the desire for a middle ground, economic discrepancies, racial practices in granting loans, and personal experiences.

Several years ago I saw a historical perspective of Harlem. The community started as homes for the wealthy, situated beyond the edges of New York City. Very quickly, a rail line spanned the island of Manhattan which brought the lower income classes to the area. The rich simply abandoned their houses, which over time were taken over by African Americans. Harlem started as a suburb.

More recently I was in St Louis and visited an area just north of the downtown area. Just as with many other communities across America, that neighborhood was segregated and designated for Blacks. It was defined as an urban area with vitality because the Black doctors, lawyers, and shopkeepers lived there along with the washerwomen and doorman. When desegregation occurred, the wealthier members of the community moved to the better neighborhoods (e.g., suburbs) and the low-income neighbors stayed where they were or left for the next affordable place. Do the authors make any connection between the development of suburbia and the laws prohibiting desegregation?

I also remember the history of New York’s lower east side, the tenements of Jewish stories and the crowded homes of more recent waves of immigrants. As the immigrants gain wealth, they move to the suburbs or to more open lands of Queens. Regardless of where they move, however, they tend to stay within their native groups.

I lived in a village of 5,000 people in the northeast for a couple years where there were almost no people other than whites. I know of a White teenager who was mugged in a city by a Black and thereafter could not deal with any African American. I wondered just how much exposure to non-whites this teenager had previously had. Nevertheless, I think the racial mix of the village was more a factor of early settlement history and the small size of the community than racism. It’s not sprawl, per se, but those small villages were developing into bedroom communities for the larger metropolitan areas.

Furthermore, as a prior poster noted, the suburbs are where homes can be bought at something approaching an affordable mortgage. I would have liked for the interview to explore how racism plays into this reversal of moving the upper classes into the cities where they can walk to work, go to fancy bistros, and otherwise make a fast buck on gentrification (sorry, I’m rather opinionated on that point) while the lower income workers must buy cars and commute two to three hours each way for work. Moreover, as city councils look at redevelopments of downtowns, they are pushing single-room occupancies and other low-income housing structures far, far away.

Do the interviewees have an opinion on how public transit routes, job locations, and density of Blacks’ residences interact with sprawl?

Finally sprawl often arises when communities insist upon one or two acre lots to protect watersheds, while also keeping developments somewhat exclusive. It is also a result of so many people insisting upon having their own cars instead of sharing public transit. There was also a survey I saw a year or two ago that showed most Americans want a single family home with yard, not an apartment-like condominium if they are going to buy a property. I cannot remember if those results were broken down by race or not. This interview does not begin to explain racism in context of this reason for sprawl.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It is about culture I think Posted by: Frankstank
» RE: It is about culture I think Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: and the kitchen sink Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
That's true. Just look at Northern Virginia and compare to the rest of the state.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 5, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, you'll hear stuff like NoVA is diverse, yata yata yata. However, a closer look will tell you that Fairfax and Arlington counties are getting too crowded that the sprawl is now extending on to Prince William and Loudoun counties and in those counties there's a lot of racial discrimination. Those counties used to be rural but for the past decade farmlands have been BULLDOZED and RAPED to make room for "business". Ironically, even while Loudoun and Prince William counties made headlines throughout the state of curtailing illegals, those same counties still go out of their ways to "legalize" ILLEGAL labor. As for the rest of the state? There's a growing cancer of ILLEGAL near-SLAVE labor even as people wail about "illegals taking away their jobs".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neo White Flight Rationalizations
Posted by: BlueNote56 on Nov 5, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think several commentors here are missing a very important part of the equation. You claim that the impetus for people (white people) leaving the cities is based on seeking a safer place for their families. While I agree that everybody wants to live in a safe environment, you fail to examine how the residential neighborhoods in cities became so unstable (high crime, bad schools, etc.).

I am 51 years old, part of that generation that grew up firmly straddling the implementation of government enforced civil rights. In 1963, my family moved from Harlem to an all white neighborhood in St. Albans, Queens. There were no other black families on our block at the time. In the next two years several other black families moved within a four block radius. Out of those families, there were two doctors, a lawyer, and a high level administrator with the City's transportation department, college graduates with advanced degrees all.

Every one of those families moved to the neighborhood from wherever in search of less crime, better schools, a better life style in general. In a little more than five years, there was one white family (my next door neighbors) left for blocks and blocks around. Somebody tell me what they were running from. It certainly wasn't crime. The schools were still considered "good." The black families living there were not low income and possessed levels of education often surpassing those of their white neighbors.

My experience as a child upon first arriving in this neighborhood was to be assaulted on a regular basis either physically or verbally by the white kids and, all too often, adults. Yet I constantly see comments where white people say this is the type of behavior by blacks that drove them from neighborhood. Nonetheless, I didn't have to put up with it for too long. As I already stated, within five years all the white families were gone.

White folks weren't running from crime and a declining infrastructure. They were quite clearly not willing to live with black people as neighbors. It wasn't until the "great white flight" and the resulting drain of tax revenue that the neighborhood declined, making it less desirable for anyone, black or white.

The underlying point I'm trying to get to here is the this dismissive attitude toward racism that seems prevelant among certain commentors on this site. You know, the old "things are different now"...."we've got a level playing field"...."I don't see people in terms of color" arguments that keep getting trotted out. All I can say is that racism existed very clearly then (in the 50s, 60s, 70s) and it didn't suddenly wither up and die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: black doctors... Posted by: aka_bozo
ALOT DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU LIVE IN THE U.S.
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 5, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in New Jersey and city life is just too expensive. As the polulation grew everyplace, people had to live somewhere. Cities became overcrowded and so the suburbs were necessary. Now we've expanded to rural areas. From 1960-2000 our population doubled. People had to find alternatives to cities. In the 50's there was a fear of the atom bomb that caused people to relocate from big cities. It's never just one reason. Things change, they just do. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bittershaman2
Posted by: bittershaman on Nov 5, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iowa has black people? Do they imprison all of them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fuuuny! Lemme tell you... Posted by: Sojourner
Cities with trashed public schools are doomed unless . . .
Posted by: billwald on Nov 5, 2007 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cities with trashed public schools, Seattle, for example, are doomed unless the white people can be convinced that their children can obtain a superior education in a safe environment at less personal cost in the city.

I propose that a high school be created in leased space in a Seattle (for example) down town high rise that has entrance based strictly on test grades plus personal recommendation of Seattle School teachers. It would only have indoor sports.

Yes, in Seattle, 70% of the students would be Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or East Indian/Pakistani and 25% might be white. We gots to start someplace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scarey comments-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Nov 5, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No wonder Bush got into power. We are a nation divided.

As the article says-In the last 50 years-we have moved our society from the country to the cities. We have moved away from nature, growing our own food, and owning -OWNING-- not making payments on--our own homes.

We need to get rid of these huge cities. Maybe the best thing is just let it all fall---race wars, revolution-blow up the cities. Then we can rebuild, with a nation of small family farms-as someone once said -on another 'old scrap' of paper.

I just don't see America as being a saveable place anymore.
All you white people living in the condos and surburbs--when was the last time you actually visited a poor area? You think you are safe because you live 10 or 50 miles away?

The poster who said blacks trash their homes-they don't OWN those homes-why would you take care of a home you don't own? To help make your landlord richer? Don't you see it is a form of protest?
Maybe without even realizing it....look today at all the white suburb homes with the forclosure signs in the yards--are the plants dead? Is the lawn turned to weeds? Are the windows dirty and broken? It is just a matter of time....

I grew up in a white turned black neighborhood. My family was one of the last white families to leave. I watched a little black boy grow up across the street. He was a smart kid-got up at 4AM to do a paper route. But he grew up and became a pimp -and sold drugs. Why? Because that is where the MONEY IS- in a poor black neighborhood. What should he have done-work at McDonalds?
I was shocked when Bill Cosby recently said black kids should flip burgers. I think that shows he has no idea of what life is in black ghettos today. The choice is -work at McDonalds your whole life--and become a drug addict to cope with it-or if you are smart-become a pimp or a drug dealer. For most-there IS no other real choice.

What does the word Nigger really mean? It means-I may not have much or be much-but as least I am better than someone.

The enemy is not scared whites or angry blacks. The enemy is bushandco. The rich ruling class that feeds on us all like vampires. If we can't realize that-and come together to fight the REAL ememy-there is no hope left for this country-or the world.

KEEP YOU DOPED WITH RELIGION AND SEX AND TV. BUT YOUR STILL FUCKING PEASANTS-AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» TWO SOLUTIONS - Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» Inevitable results of human myopia Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: Scarey comments- Posted by: Joe
» RE: Scarey comments from WitchyNy Posted by: Allstar Cookie
You mean the white-peasants have been listening to Rush voluntarily, and it’s NOT a conspiracy?
Posted by: aka_bozo on Nov 5, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the real question HERE is what do you leftists (socialists, liberals, progressives, whatEVER) do to address this inconvenient REALITY? So that - maybe - you could kick the fascists in the ass at the poles for a change, instead of the other way ‘round.

Hmm, option one, which has worked SO SO SO well, over the last 40+ years:

* Prove your righteousness to the white-peasants, thereby enraging their tiny (but normal sized) peasant brains even further – ensuring your continued marginal political existence.

- or –

* Find some issue that would have some commonality between the races – like, oh – just throwing out darts here – poverty, regardless of colour?

Naaa, way to easy, I know, let’s MAKE those white-people like the blacks. Yeah - YEAH, we’ll pass some laws requiring whites to repent! That will SURELY work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Same old stuff ! Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Location - Location - Location; Superdome or Qualcomm Stadium?
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Nov 5, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Kevin Danaher and Shannon Biggs and Jason Mark . . .

I greatly appreciate this interview.

I have long believed that freeways were built to provide the privileged with what they might believe is the greatest bliss, ignorance.

Affluent persons wish to isolate themselves. They prefer to further separate themselves from the poor and people of color. The wealthy yearn to be insulated from what they fear, strangers. Xenophobia is more prominent than the elite wish to express. While whites speak of a colorblind society, they ensure that this will be their truth. The walls built high above the roadway do not deflect sound. These barriers hide what Middle America does not wish to see, the ghettos that serve as residence for the impoverished and racially rejected.

I invite your thoughts on an article by Judith Moriarty.
Location - Location - Location; Superdome or Qualcomm Stadium?

I offer this short description of the thesis . . .
Americans are consumed with the idea of "location." Where is the best place to live, survive, or without care from a society gone very wrong, die. Judith Moriarty writes of Booker Harris and his wife Allie, a couple who "survived wars, the Great Depression, the KKK, segregated water fountains/restaurants, schools, housing, red neck Southern sheriffs, numerous floods, and hurricanes. What they didn't survive was the contemptible corruption, and gentrification by disaster, of the 21st century."

If you choose, please add to the buzz already created.
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=30281

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the problem is much more complicated
Posted by: Guy Montag on Nov 5, 2007 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, the argument made by the writer as well as those made by many of the commenters here are reductionist and fail to grasp the complexity of the issue. The 'problem' cannot be traced to one overarching cause, whether it be racism, economic inequality, etc. The problem of urban sprawl exists at the intersection of multiple factors, including racism, class inequality, consumerism, and the mass mediated myth of suburban utopia, among others. It is not constructive to ignore the complexities of any issue, especially one with the potential ecological reprecussions of urban sprawl.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the problem is much more complicated Posted by: Constitutionalist75
We're all on a road to self-extermination
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Nov 5, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're all on a road to self-extermination. War, local violence, toxic chemicals, over-breeding, dwindling resources. Truly we have better things to argue about that why whitey is living in the burbs or why whitey is gonna move back into the shitty (oops, city) and kick the latinos, blacks, chinese, vietnamese, homeless, etc.. OUT. BIG PICTURE, folks. BIG PICTURE. Mama Earth is about to brush us all off like a dog brushes off fleas. We got more important things to worry about that racism in Amerikkka. The next wars will be fought over oil and water. Now, are we gonna learn to get along and share or are we gonna kill each other over H2O?
STOP BREEDING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's human nature to gravitate towards m.
Posted by: lwbaby on Nov 5, 2007 8:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
others like yourself.

Hence, the Chinatowns, Little Italys and whatnot.

The only group chastised for doing so are white anglos, they're racists if they follow human nature and gather in groups like themselves. But, they have the power.

More important is that suburbia as we know it is unsustainable. The car culture we so love is in it's waning years. We may want to live in a big house in the burbs but no one but the uber rich will be able to afford the gas to continue to do so.

I suspect that inner ring suburbs, which are often affordable and on buslines will make a comeback. They are somewhat walkable, the houses were built to last and are already fairly diverse. People living there know their neighbors and are more apt to band together to achieve common goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» eeeeeeeeew, breeders....ewwwwww! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» not many years left Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: not many years left Posted by: aka_bozo
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW!
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sitting member of Congress is introducing a measure to impeach the vice president of the United States and the story isn't visible on Alternet. This should be the leading story on a website that bills itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream. Some alternative! More like left gatekeeper.

For those who are interested in doing something constructive about our current state of affairs, please call your representative and urge them to support Mr. Kucinich's bill. The Capitol switchboard is:

1-800-828-0498
1-800-862-5530
1-800-833-6354

Just ask the operator for your representative's office. If you don't know it, tell her/him where you live and she/he will look it up. Once transferred to your representative's office, politely tell the person who answers the phone that you urge your representative to support Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the vice president. You will probably be asked for your name and address.

I just did this. It's the first time I had ever called my representative (Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ). It was easy and I felt better after doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, we're not. m.
Posted by: lwbaby on Nov 6, 2007 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one group should be chastized for grouping together. People have been doing that since the beginning of time because it's human nature to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]