There are a few issues in the news that I’ve wanted to touch on but haven’t had the time. Still don’t have the time.
So I’ll present a scenario and a question.
You’ve got a neighborhood of black people in a predominantly black city. Two populations–one rents, the other owns. There is a movement underfoot to give the neighborhood a historic site designation. Doing so would raise the property values, but also the rents.
Black people have a vested interest in building wealth. Black people also have a vested interest in affordable housing.
Both populations can claim to speak for “the black community.” The renters can say that the historic designation would hurt black people in as much as they need affordable housing. The owners can say that the historic designation would help black people in as much as they need wealth.
If there is a shared black interest here how is it to be figured out?
Who’s instigating the historic site designation, and, given what’s going on in the housing finance market right now, is this even a substantive and credible scenario?
a combination of (black) elected officials and (black) community association members. and yes this is a substantive and credible scenario, because people are still buying in baltimore given its relative inexpensiveness in comparison to dc.
Does a property tax break/ceiling come with the historic designation?
Interesting dilemma: Historical designation will raise property value and rent. This is not a “black” issue, but a dichotomy between the landed and the landless, a scenario almost old as time.
Will the historical designation increase income per capita in the designated zone? Will historical designation increase property value by virtue of new investments or property speculation? How much of the designated area is public (community) property, and what does the public get in return (sales, leases, and rents)? What about “Renter Rights”? Who negotiates term of tenancy and, on what basis does rent rise?
The basic assumption in the above scenario is that the renters are up the creek, with nothing with which to appeal except common skin color. (We’re all black… except when it comes to green). Most rental leases have no “Renter Rights” clauses, though there are many neighborhood associations empowerment corpus.
Except there is a sense of moral obligation of the landed class to the landless class, there can be no resolve to the contradiction, where one party or the other gets hurt.
This is a really tough question, and speaks to the challenges of politics in our day. I’d feel a bit presumptuous to fire off a quick solution that easily satisfies all parties involved, so I’ll defer.
However as Eddie alluded to, the underlying issue isn’t a “black” one that can be claimed by either side. It is a “green” issue, one of economic empowerment and development. For any group to think that they can speak for the interests of all black people is small-minded and selfish.
I think that it should be the burden of the fortunate to look out for the less fortunate, particularly when they are within your own community. Some issues in society are just too big for government, and that is where the community must take care of its own.
What if those who were to benefit from the property value increase agreed to a “stay” on rent increases for a set period of time, say 1-2 years. This would give the “less fortunate” resident renters the opportunity to prepare either to relocate or improve their financial situation. Just a thought.
I understand what both of you are saying. But I’m not sure that I agree that this isn’t a black issue that can be claimed. Black people are affected right? Can’t the renters (for example) claim that it is in black people’s interest to have low rents? And on the other side can’t the homeowners say that it is in black people’s interest to build wealth that they can transfer?
Are you suggesting that the only condition in which we can claim an interest is against whites?
Your false dichotomy is funny in light of the fact that the historic site designation is a legal artifact of a white political/economic infrastructure.
Can we call this the afro-saxon paradox?
There are some aspects of the situation that are funny, but I wouldn’t think the historic site designation to be one of them. Damn near everything we use to generate profit comes from the state. The historic site designation is a legal artifact just as various contracts signed to transfer ownership of the house.
I do see a false dichotomy, but not in the example I gave.
If the establishment or non-establishment of the district is the whole deal, then the renters probably lose. Odds are the owners’ skills at navigating the system are better than the renters’. The only way you find a Black issue in the situation you describe is if the establishment of the historic district is part of a larger plan.
On the Afro-Saxon paradox. There are clear examples of individuals basically crapping on the corporate interest. One of the issues I wanted to bring up was the Fox fake debate that was called off by the CBC. It’s clear there that a few folks were getting their pockets lined, that Detroit was looking to get some much needed pub, but on the whole that black and progressive interests would’ve been hamstrung.
THe other issue I wanted to bring up was Myor Booker’s recent appointment of a white man to head the Newark police department (he was already the interim head). For the first time since Newark was taken over by a black administration the top two heads of the police department are white. You can guarantee that a number of black folk are and will continue to be heated over that one.
But this example? This isn’t like that at all. And given that black people are segregated and have to deal more with each other than they do with people who are white, at least in private neighborhood space, this issue that I bring up is where black politics really exists. No false dichotomy here.
If they were genuinely dealing with one another, then surely some form of creative collaborative process subservient to the greater good could have been constructed.
No, you’ve illustrated a false dichotomy embodied by folks whose interests have been trivially divided and thereby conquered….,
(P6 slipped by)
Of course the renters lose here. Or rather in most cases–and this dynamic is playing out in black neighborhoods with means across the country–the renters lose out. The owners have more time, more knowledge, more connections.
But in winning a black interest–the desire to build black wealth–does win out. Just not the interest that the renters (and likely some of us depending on our own personal politics) wanted to see win.
(edited my post and craig’s response for clarity. i said “people who are not white” when i meant “people who are white.”)
Genuinely dealing with each other.
One time out of ten. Maybe three times.
And it is possible that this agreement could be reached in a larger inter-racial context. If the neighborhood they lived in were all black…but the city they lived in was majority white. Although even here I see the renters losing out, and whatever deal cut benefitting the owners rather than the renters.
But being black doesn’t mean much in this context right? P6 and the others all brought this up. Another aspect of their identities (whether or not they owned a home) was more important. Yet and still though the idea of a black interest can and often IS brought up in this circumstance in order to privilege one set of interests over another.
Your answer is the normative answer…the answer that should in most cases be the correct solution. My answer? Politics. This is the descriptive answer.
So? This naturally and inevitably predisposes Black folks to afro-saxon political norms? Or is B-more comprised of thoroughly individuated and systematically afro-saxonized negros structurally and intergenerationally incapable of anything other than trivial conformity with the majority template?
bereft of an integrated fabric of community in which political/economic interests are shared in common, clearly not…..,
Clarifying…,
Here in KC, every monday morning at the Black Agenda group, we have a number of organizations which meet weekly to discuss issues of concern throughout the community.
Community activists, politicians, clergy, city and corporate officials, and interested others come together to keep one another up to date and to discuss what’s going on in the city. Of course, issues requiring further drilldown are pursued outside the context of the general forum – however – the existence of the forum is sufficient from what I’ve observed – to prevent folks from getting at direct cross purposes with themselves.
Well informed folks would’ve dispassionately explored an issue like this well in advance of its ever coming before the city council. I guess my overarching point is that if folks are not talking among themselves and collaborating to come to terms, then there isn’t much there that you can call a community.
I hope that our dialogue is leading to progress in resolving this dilemma. However, I still see mutually exclusive economic interests- property owners versus renters- blacks who have versus blacks who have not.
Can blacks who have speak for blacks who have not? Can either speak collectively for blacks, as a whole?
There must be consensus; otherwise, one side will paternally usurp the voice of the other. As an advocate of the “poorest of the poor”, my biggest challenge has come from those who claim to speak for all black people.
Is increased property value more important than daily survival? I don’t think property owners will starve to death if their investment does not appreciate. However, an increase in rent can force poor families to make deeper cuts in necessities, and could contribute to a higher rate of infant mortality caused by poverty.
The reason I called it a false dichotomy is because it was posed as a zero sum game between haves and have nots. Black folks should not involve themselves in any such games – because at the end of the day, embedded in this society – we will all still be dealt with by the majority as Black folks.
Clealy, if these folks have no dialog with one another and no forum in which to interact and plan for the greater good, then there’s nothing going on here that can be called community. There are simply two competing groups and the one with the resources and access to governance will win at the expense of the ones with no resources and no access.
It would be a “zero sum game” if one side neutralizes the other… kind of like my hometown Fort Worth, where one-half the black folks are Democrats and the other half Republicans. But in this situation, it looks as though the property owners will have the final say, insofar as they have a “vested interest” in property. Renters have no longer term investment, and can come and go at will. Once upon a time, only property owners had the right to vote. Now both landlord and renter can vote; but when it comes to politics, it is still the vested interest allows hold sway. Otherwise, the disenfranchised must rely on humanitarianism, nationalism, or some ideology stronger than raw material interest to draw them together to form a consensus.
As other posters have noted, ‘race’ is not a factor in this model. It’s all about money. And while property owners are going to explore every option available to increase the value (and equity) of their property, getting the neighborhood recognized as a historic site in itself won’t achieve the desired result. Property owners would be better off choosing between: a) buying undervalued rental properties, then raising rents or converting them into condos (following ‘rent-gap’ theory); b) establishing within the neighborhood the types of commercial enterprises frequented by upper-income consumers, i.e.; bistros, concierge services, salons, day spas, galleries, etc.; c) any combination of a) and b). Unfortunately for renters, the property owners have most of the leverage.
Renters in the neighborhood do have cards to play, however. They may petition the local gov’t to maintain or reserve a certain number of the community’s properties as rentals via zoning. Or, renters can organize as co-ops or condo associations to buy their residences from the current owners. A third strategy would be for renters to organize for opening the types ‘personal service’ businesses upper-income consumers would solicit. I happen to believe only if renters become owners is ‘win-win’ scenario plausible.
For the sake of integrity I must admit that I own a rental property in the Station North arts and entertainment district of Baltimore. Craig is right in that there is a paucity forums in which all interested parties meet and collaborate. MIB raises a very intriguing solution but without networks that link renters, landlords, and city agencies I think that renters would still lose out. People and their motivatations are complex. And renters shouldn’t be assumed to have moral authority. The two other brothers that I know who also own in the area are energetic self-starters who aren’t simply out to make money but also contribute time to community service. I think that most owners can be made to feel a visceral connection to the community that goes beyond callous material benefits. Such a bond is needed if we’re to transcend this game of competing interests.
I think most Black folk in the position already feel the connection. The thing is, their best judgment and efforts, if successful, will inevitably price things beyond the renters’ ability to keep up with.
This (I will call it a) flaw is inherent in the way things are set up.
pshaw…,
I sat with 5 sets of parents y’day evening who’ve had their kids in the same school/same grade as my son for the past 4 years. We all knew one another’s names and would routinely make small talk. However, sitting together at some park benches for 90 minutes during soccer practice was the first time we had ever had a chance to talk with one another at length. We talked about community, past vs. present.
I’m reading the book Group Genius right now, and it was that title that got folks to talking
It was an immensely refreshing discussion – which we all committed to repeating and enlarging upon.
That is, if they exclusively go after the historic designation as a means to inflate property values. What if alternatively, they were to get together around a mutual and reciprocal property improvements plan, (much like commercial lease holders do) and come up with a systematic approach to working together to improve property values through incremental upgrades? Renters could contribute sweat equity and cooperate in making bulk purchases and in cooperative improvement efforts.
Kind of like the annabaptist folks in Kansas, Missouri, and Pennsylvania do with their legendary community roof raisings, except on a much smaller scale.
See, there are folks out there already who handle their’s like no other through the strength and unitary focus of their communities. Our weak-assed shit, by comparison, reduces to little more than slogans on tee shirts and spirited rhetoric.
To me, a visceral connection is a material connection. In this case, we have a compromise solution in which renters obtain the benefits of incrementally upgraded plant in which to reside – while the property owners obtain the material benefit of increasing property value due to upgraded plant and property. Seems like a win/win to me, of course, there are countless devils hidden in the details of such an arrangement.
Tangible material benefits are an important component. But it’s not enough to prevent predation. To do that property owners must believe that they are part of something greater. I liken it to membership in a fraternity. There are benefits which simply can’t be measured or tallied. In fact folks can and do sometimes act in ways that are irrational in an economic sense but provide emotional and spiritual rewards that are highly valued. President Bush’s neglect of this fact is why even the faith based community as chronicled by David Kuo feels betrayed by Mr. Bush even though the federal government has given massive amounts of money to church groups.
First of all you gotta define “wealth”. If you are talking about property owners who own property which does not generate income, then that property is a negative “asset” and only potentially an asset.
However, to the extent to which the properties in which the black renters live are profitable to the owners, these properties are assets and thus constitute wealth.
Thus the real question:
Are the landlords black?
as usual, it depends. some things in life are indeed priceless. but what are the full circumstances? is it some truly historic building with real and deep roots in the community? is it under immediate threat of destruction? if so i should think even those who might be negatively affected by a rent increase would want to preserve it.
Also,
1) how much could we expect an increase in rent? is it modest? would it be immediate (i mean, why would the neighborhood’s attractiveness zoom overnight simply because one building has been given official ‘historic’ status)?
2) would it not also mean an increase in property taxes for the owners? there are two sides to every coin.
(charles i edited the time stamp because i’m away on business and only now have been able to deal with moderation…)
Fisher. Yes. The landlords are all black.
more later.
The idea of an organization that could manage these issues before they appear is a good one. But there are still resources to distribute here. Renters are (presumably) a transitory group compared to owners. They also tend to have fewer resources. Craig referred to details that would have to be worked out.
I understand what he’s saying here, but how those details are ferreted out is also the consequence of a political process. Who votes? Who determines what is on the agenda? Who determines the leaders?
And all of this is placed within a framework in which the two versions of “the black community interest” already have different weights attached to them because of ideological reasons. I’m willing to bet for example that “black wealth” means more to the average black person than “black affordable housing.” Blacks are more likely to support this than whites are…but again we’re talking about BLACK politics (that is, the politics within black communities) rather than RACIAL politics (that is, the politics between various racial groups).
I don’t think we’re talking different ideologies.
Maximizing their particular economic returns is the goal of both groups. What you have here is different means. Even if they had the same goals the means would vary because one would have further to go than the other.
To me you’re describing a pure class issue.
Yes…IF you already have affordable housing.
Like I said, pure class issues.
I was referring to aggregate public opinion. There are all types of broke black folk who would support and defend black wealth and its generation before they’d do the same for affordable housing.
When you think about class you don’t think ideology is at work?
I think ideologies are class-bound.
so this is a pure class issue, with two groups who have two different sets of material interests, and ideology isn’t at work?
I suppose being driven by material interests counts as ideology.
I think in the end you always come back to the issue of class. Both groups are driven by material interests (it’s just that one group has more “material” than the other). Both groups want to thrive/reach their maximum. Unfortunately, in order for one to do that, the other group will have to make some very tough concessions.
This is the factor that differentiates one group’s experience from the other.
The way I see it, yes there is such a thing as black wealth, just as there is a black politics. But, black people just like these terms aren’t monoliths, we all have our own agendas, levels of preparation/education, ideaologies etc.
And I would suggest the best way to get a compromise is to frame it as a discussion of methodology to achieve the shared ideological goal of getting paid.
Still leaves room for scammers, but…
I think that one has to agree with the basic premise that property ownership is more liberating that renting, and that ultimately if what you want for black people is liberty, then the interests of the renters must be sacrificed. The only difficulty with this solution is that if the end of liberty for property ownership is merely home ownership, then there is no benefit in that sacrifice.
That is to say that if the end game is mere middle-class existence, then there is no upside out of this game. You have thus defined the dimensions of the barrel and the character of the crabs. It is only if a sufficient amount of power comes from the benefit of home ownership, ie equity leveraged to capitalize a greater project, that the value of private property is expressed. It is a pure class issue only within the context of housing. In the context of capitalism, it is a more complex issue.
As with so many things, the solution lies in balancing concerns and creating a synthesis of interests. Wealth building for the African American property owners should be the first consideration given its long term positive economic affects for both owners and renters alike. However, the immediate displacing affect that swiftly raised rents would have on those Africans Americans that need affordable housing should also been given great consideration.
The residents should back the historic designation in order increase the owners wealth and raise the tax base of the community, set a maximum level that landlords can raise rents per year to give renters time to adjust to the higher prices and increased jobs that would come into the community, and commit to using the increased tax based to attract jobs, maintain some affordable housing, and improve the surrounding schools.
We must begin to think 2-3 generations ahead when we make policy. It is true the two groups come from different classes, but in this country class and race are inextricably bound. African Americans are seen as lower class by virtue of their phenotype and therefore can not presume that material assests will allow them to escape the stigma and consequences of those groups in the a lower class. Therefore, we must forge public policy that seeks to help all African Americans regardless of class.
That is to say that if the end game is mere middle-class existence, then there is no upside out of this game.
Discounting idle wishing, I’d say that is the exact end the majority of people are looking for.
Which is why our concepts of black power are probably different. As a black nationalist, I grew up prepared for princely things. The idea of speaking Swahili was that it was going to be the language of the new Pan-African world leadership. Hacking past the American middle class was basic.
Part and parcel of that idea was that a new black capitalist could not possibly do worse that the old white capitalists. All we needed was capital. Thus most of my ideas about a black elite have been formed around mastery of the ‘masters tools’. But if the entire scope of Pan Africanism and black nationalism was just to score some low-rent housing for Claudine, well, the Negro Church could have handled that.
Obviously black nationalism and Pan-Africanism have failed, and many of the post-colonial powers did in fact do worse than the colonial powers. So things have adjusted. I, therefore and am black elitist without a racial constituency in a post-Jim Crow nation, witness to world historical ideas falling on unambitious ears.
If there is no Aggregation, then it will be strictly a middle class question. No wonder they don’t teach Harold Cruse any longer.
But if the entire scope of Pan Africanism and black nationalism was just to score some low-rent housing for Claudine, well, the Negro Church could have handled that.
Most people want nothing more than a comfortable middle class existence. I have no idea where that “entire scope of Pan Africanism and black nationalism” came from.
What made you inject that?
It is my original scope in approaching black nationalism. My uncle did teach economics at the University of Ghana, and of course my family was deeply involved in the establishment of black student unions on Southern California campuses. I have other cousins that work in the UN. As a family we spoke French and Swahili – so blackness to me originated in an international context. The projects of Black Consciousness, certainly as I perceived it in Los Angeles, were part of a global struggle. As close friends of the Ligons, who ran the first and largest black bookstore in LA, we were aware of how metaphysics informed (and didn’t) Kawaida, and also how some aspects of Gandhi’s spiritual influence on King and Black Consciousness was supposed to take place. It was certainly deep enough for my parents to give Christianity itself a back seat, temporarily. So there were struggles between this international black power impulse and the Negro Church that informed my upbringing in the black movements. I still recall the passport pictures and the immunizations. In 1968, we were prepared to head to Haiti or Ghana or the Ivory Coast. (phew!)
As a family, we made accommodations to the times, and soon it became clear that we would be black *cultural* nationalists and not separatists. But I cannot forget those things that forged the new black identity against the old Negro identity and the international component of the struggle. Subsequently, I’ve always identified with Muhammad Ali and the costs of exile and expatriotism suffered by Baldwin and Carmichael/Toure. As well, I’ve looked specifically at the establishment of national black organizations as inheritors of that struggle. It always seemed to me, before my conservative epiphany, that aiming for comparisons with the white middle class was beneath the ambitions of capital B Blacks.
I’ve never interpreted the life of Malcolm X, for example, as being one whose great value was his articulation of depravity suffered by American blackfolks beneath Jim Crow and the white middle class. Rather, I’ve always seen him as an example of the new kind of man whose existential juju put him way above and beyond all that – to the international stage. That existential juju was blackness, the sound of the drum, the stuff that makes us full humans and worthy of something far above and beyond white accommodation, but carriers of liberty. It is precisely Malcolm’s rejection of white accommodation that makes him estimable, internationally.
To a great extent what black liberation demands is white accommodation. But that cannot be an end in and of itself. It must ultimately be black self-reliance that is the goal, we must indeed inherit the earth. Baldwin makes this clear in “My Dungeon Shook”. This is the gripe I’m having with Fisher who sees the World as White and all black progress in it as a zero-sum game. But I see true Blackness, as a path to full humanity which takes responsibility for the world. And it is in that context, as free men and women, in America that I expect blacks to take up the burden of full responsibility, not only for ourselves but for everyone. I think that can only be done by African Americans understanding that thing that made Malcolm, and Baldwin world figures whereas inheritors of the CRM cannot get on the UN agenda.
I think that existential juju is still out there to be had and that its exploitation will free our minds. If the endgame of blackness is middle-class status in America, then I have truly transcended blackness. I don’t believe that, but it is something of what I’ve rhetorically flirted with this year.
I was asking what it had to do with Lester’s topic. I still don’t know.
Well, my opinion is out there and I’m out of cigarettes, so…
Well the glib answer is that a ‘black’ renter isn’t free, whereas a black property owner is. If we agree that the purpose of assuming a proper black identity is to increase freedom, by any means necessary, property ownership is definitely a necessary means. If indeed this is a proper black community, one that is not suffering from a ghetto mentality, then the advantage of property ownership should be clear.
‘Blacks’ who do not understand or respect the responsibilities of property ownership, who are merely aping white middle class standards with no global context in their freedom struggle, do not deserve to be called ‘black’. Then you have reduced the problem to a simple class struggle within the context of one so-called ‘black community’. Who cares about that?
Cobb, are you a renter or a property owner?
I am a lowly renter, subject to the whims of the faceless person behind the management company whose property I occupy.
The only people who are “free” in this false dichotomy are those who have the perspicacity and social fluidity to construct processes of group genius in which mutual, reciprocal solutions which serve the greater good can be developed, as for example the one I proposed and the even better one proposed by MIB;
Solutions such as these can incorporate (literally) the best efforts of the community in question.
Wait a second. There are all types of freedoms we might envision renters having over property owners. Some of these are mundane–the freedom from having to cut the damn grass, or fix property. Some of these are more esoteric–the freedom to move/roam.
Cobb isn’t just privileging one set of freedoms, he isn’t even acknowledging that other forms exist. And such a move–which happens all the time–ends up justifying the jack move, in the name of a particular “black interest.”
cross-posted because it seemed right on point…,
As a contemporary of Stokely Carmichael, having gone from SNCC to black nationalism, and Black Panther Party, I gave up on Pan Africanism when it became evident that we would never get all black people on the same page, as far as an economic agenda is concerned.
First, we must realize that private property is a totally Western concept. In Africa and among American Indians, land ownership was an incomprehensible idea. “The land belonged to the people and the people belonged to the land” was an African proverb.
Second is the concept of landed property as “capital”. Being Capital, it has a tract of its own- and that is, to appreciate in value. Otherwise, it would not be considered capital or of economic value. Capital has no personality, no favoritism, and no skin color.
Third, landed property has a downside risk. Normally, Capital (here, in the form of landed property) appreciates in value, except in deteriorating neighborhoods. In these neighborhoods, the property value falls, because of a lack of demand or interest.
The attempt to shore up property value by designating the community as a “historic district” is artificial. Local government may invest in new infrastructure, parks, plazas, etc., but the underlying character and unabated trend will only bring the property values down again.
Formation of communal ownership through a financial instrument like a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) may provide all parties with a “vested interest”. There would be the less likelihood of residents feeling “estranged” from the community. People with a vested interest care for their lawns, take root in the community (less roaming), protect their property and neighborhood, and take an interest in political decision-making that affects their property investment.
So, it all boils down to private or communal ownership- either every man for himself, or each man for the good of all.
Unfortunately, with the Kelo decision, land ownership as a means of moving up or being a more viable part of society is no longer a truism.
Anyway, in a case like this, I think the rights of the owners have to take precedence over those of the renters. “Affordable rents” isn’t a “Black issue” but I would think that if renters get moved around enough, it should provide strong motivation to own something.
I would think that if renters get moved around enough, it should provide strong motivation to own something.
That parallels your school voucher position, doesn’t it?
You’re right, though. The way European society and all its ex colonies are written, owners rule.
Hmmm…
You’re right.
Cobb, a renter….
WhoTF woulda thunk!?!?!?!?!
PLEASE! Cobb is a lot smarter than you think.
what up doe…..
federally recognized historic districts become eligible to 10% tax credits, which are usually enough to enable redevelopment of historic properties. also, conforming to the physical guidelines in an historic district sometimes requires physical improvements to the home that may be cost prohibitive (era-appropriate paint, roofs, windows, etc.) this has been a gentrification enabler and has displaced people who have lived in areas with depressed property values. african americans, broadly, have not embraced historic preservation/historic districts as a tool for redevelopment. the reasons are complex, but include some of the above comments about land v. landless, and from an environmental justice perspective, a general lack of community access to information/captial/power connected to change in the built environment.
despite the epidemic of predation on the black community by shady mortgage companies, the best tool for empowering people to have a role in change is to get them owning their property. generally, renters have no leverage. owning you home doesn’t guarantee that you can stay given change, but it does allow you to beneift from change, even marginally, from building equity and/or taking the money offered by a developer and using that money as you see fit. a first/parallel step to historic designation should be an aggressive strategy to identify the risks to homeowners holding on to their homes (limits of fixed income, etc.), developing strategies for addressing them, and moving as many renters to owner as you can.
if tax credits are not an issue (or outweighed by negative impacts), there is state and local designations, which don’t carry the tax break, and don’t enable gentrification. there are also conservation overlays/districts. i’ve worked on one in a black community and the advantage is that the community self-defines their community values (preserve x house, don’t allow y use) and it goes into policy. since it doesn’t come with the tax credit, or the physical guidelines in historic districts, its not as disruptive to people’s lives.
if the gentrification tide is inevitable (hard to say) there’s the urban land trust. the dudley street initiative is a model. working with the city to cede land decisions to a third party made of of community folk gives a structure for land planning that is not purely profit driven.
With the medical science advances, We know more about the enhancement of health problems. Exercise is the key to strengthen health.According to the post that running every morning is the simplest way if you don't want to go to the gym. It teach you a lot about exercise methods here.I feel it is good for us.On the other hand,I want to buy some fashion things in these websites but I dont know how to choose.I hope you can help me.thank you very much! Dior homme shoes
An Essential Black Politics Question http://t.co/FfyxtD7U