More RACISM from California, concerning pollution for "people of color."

[reason10]

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-09/white-drivers-are-polluting-the-air-breathed-by-l-a-s-people-of-color-boiling-point

How white and affluent drivers are polluting the air breathed by L.A.’s people of color

So I couldn’t help but consider my own complicity while reading a new study from USC researchers, finding that Angelenos who drive more tend to be exposed to less air pollution — and Angelenos who drive less tend to be exposed to more pollution.

It may sound like a paradox, but it’s not. It’s a function of the racism that shaped this city and its suburbs, and continues to influence our daily lives — and a stark reminder of the need for climate solutions that benefit everyone.

My colleague Terry Castleman wrote about the study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Urban Studies. The core finding is that for every 1% increase in miles driven to and from work by people who live in a particular part of L.A. County, there’s an estimated 0.62% decrease in the lung-damaging “fine particulate matter” to which those Angelenos are exposed.

Since this RACIST author wants to play the race card, here is what he is saying:

1. Black and brown people are too stupid and lazy to own cars.

2. They are not allowed to ride the bus to work, so they are forced to walk and breathe the polluted air.

3. Whites are the ONLY ones allowed to drive cars in LA.

4. No blacks or browns are "affluent." Only whites.

 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, reason10 said:

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-09/white-drivers-are-polluting-the-air-breathed-by-l-a-s-people-of-color-boiling-point

How white and affluent drivers are polluting the air breathed by L.A.’s people of color

So I couldn’t help but consider my own complicity while reading a new study from USC researchers, finding that Angelenos who drive more tend to be exposed to less air pollution — and Angelenos who drive less tend to be exposed to more pollution.

It may sound like a paradox, but it’s not. It’s a function of the racism that shaped this city and its suburbs, and continues to influence our daily lives — and a stark reminder of the need for climate solutions that benefit everyone.

My colleague Terry Castleman wrote about the study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Urban Studies. The core finding is that for every 1% increase in miles driven to and from work by people who live in a particular part of L.A. County, there’s an estimated 0.62% decrease in the lung-damaging “fine particulate matter” to which those Angelenos are exposed.

Since this RACIST author wants to play the race card, here is what he is saying:

1. Black and brown people are too stupid and lazy to own cars.

2. They are not allowed to ride the bus to work, so they are forced to walk and breathe the polluted air.

3. Whites are the ONLY ones allowed to drive cars in LA.

4. No blacks or browns are "affluent." Only whites.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying. 

I'd have to ask him, of course, but I rather think that's just what you are saying, to deflect from the actual point of the article, which was that historically, freeway construction was primarily through black neighbourhoods rather than white. 

Due to the influence each group had at the time over city planning.

[reason10]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think that's what he's saying. 

I'd have to ask him, of course, but I rather think that's just what you are saying, to deflect from the actual point of the article, which was that historically, freeway construction was primarily through black neighbourhoods rather than white. 

Due to the influence each group had at the time over city planning.

Actually, what he's saying is racist. The article is stupid and racist.

(Anyone who says "people of color" is an ignorant racist. ALL people have color. And Asian and Indian nationals have the same coloring as light skinned Negros, but are in an economic class ABOVE American whites.)

ALL OF LA is a giant strip mall built over land that used to belong to someone else. A lot of America is built on land formerly owned by American Indians. This pollution has existed even in the early SIXTIES when that town became a giant turnpike. But NOW the racists have decided to play the ignorant race cards.

 

 

White people pollute. Black people breathe pollution.

Florida third graders write smarter stuff than that bullshit.

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Actually, what he's saying is racist. The article is stupid and racist.

(Anyone who says "people of color" is an ignorant racist. ALL people have color. And Asian and Indian nationals have the same coloring as light skinned Negros, but are in an economic class ABOVE American whites.)

ALL OF LA is a giant strip mall built over land that used to belong to someone else. A lot of America is built on land formerly owned by American Indians. This pollution has existed even in the early SIXTIES when that town became a giant turnpike. But NOW the racists have decided to play the ignorant race cards.

 

 

White people pollute. Black people breathe pollution.

Florida third graders write smarter stuff than that bullshit.

 

 

I think it's reading, rather than writing, that is the problem here.

Edited March 11, 2023 by bcsapper

[reason10]

18 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think it's reading, rather than writing, that is the problem here.

Nope. California is stupid and racist.

It's incompetent governor almost destroyed it's economy and there was a recall election. The RACIST voters in that shithole state kept this governor ONLY because his opponent was black.

In the 50s and 60s, Democrats ran the racist state like Alabama and Mississippi.

Here in the 21st Century, the most RACIST states are blue states.

Edited March 12, 2023 by reason10

[NYLefty]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:55 AM, reason10 said:

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-09/white-drivers-are-polluting-the-air-breathed-by-l-a-s-people-of-color-boiling-point

How white and affluent drivers are polluting the air breathed by L.A.’s people of color

So I couldn’t help but consider my own complicity while reading a new study from USC researchers, finding that Angelenos who drive more tend to be exposed to less air pollution — and Angelenos who drive less tend to be exposed to more pollution.

It may sound like a paradox, but it’s not. It’s a function of the racism that shaped this city and its suburbs, and continues to influence our daily lives — and a stark reminder of the need for climate solutions that benefit everyone.

My colleague Terry Castleman wrote about the study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Urban Studies. The core finding is that for every 1% increase in miles driven to and from work by people who live in a particular part of L.A. County, there’s an estimated 0.62% decrease in the lung-damaging “fine particulate matter” to which those Angelenos are exposed.

Since this RACIST author wants to play the race card, here is what he is saying:

1. Black and brown people are too stupid and lazy to own cars.

2. They are not allowed to ride the bus to work, so they are forced to walk and breathe the polluted air.

3. Whites are the ONLY ones allowed to drive cars in LA.

4. No blacks or browns are "affluent." Only whites.

 

More long winded rubbish from the guy who only wishes he had the money to live in California 

[Nationalist]

I have a few suggestions for California.

1. Enforce the law. Criminals belong in Jail. Not walking the streets waiting for another victim.

2. Round up all the gang bangers...the police already know who they are...and either deport them or put them in jail.

3. Round up all the homeless. Sort them by mentally incompetent who go to asylums, criminal who go to jail, and addicts who go to rehab.

4. Promote FAMILY!

5. Shake well and watch things turn around.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Nationalist

[reason10]

3 hours ago, NYLefty said:

More long winded rubbish from the guy who only wishes he had the money to live in California 

You aren't even a smart liar. You couldn't get me to Calif@gula even at gunpoint. And I don't want those f@gs coming here to Florida.

[reason10]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I have a few suggestions for California.

1. Enforce the law. Criminals belong in Jail. Not walking the streets waiting for another victim.

2. Round up all the gang bangers...the police already know who they are...and either deport them or put them in jail.

3. Round up all the homeless. Sort them by mentally incompetent who go to asylums, criminal who go to jail, and addicts who go to rehab.

4. Promote FAMILY!

5. Shake well and watch things turn around.

Already some of the goose steppers here are wishing they could have you arrested for such dangerous opinions.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Already some of the goose steppers here are wishing they could have you arrested for such dangerous opinions.

Isn't it odd that this "Great Reset" came with such insanity?

[reason10]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Isn't it odd that this "Great Reset" came with such insanity?

No different than the Democrats' mentors THE NAZIS with their brand of a Final Solution.

[NYLefty]

2 hours ago, reason10 said:

You aren't even a smart liar. You couldn't get me to Calif@gula even at gunpoint. And I don't want those f@gs coming here to Florida.

LMAO. Florida is loaded with gays and everything else redneck. You really need to look around ??

[reason10]

LMAO. Florida is loaded with gays and everything else redneck. You really need to look around

I never said I had a problem with queers. Florida is mostly loaded with better educated people than ANY  blue state.

I just like to occasionally tweak the goose steppers here with the Califagula remarks.

Queers are EVERYWHERE. They are like cockroaches. And I don't care what they do behind close doors, so long as they don't try to convert school children to their sick lifestyle.

Yes, there are some rednecks here.  Probably fewer than in your backwater Blue state. A LOT of our farm and cattle land owners are MEXICANS. Legal Mexicans who came here as migrant workers, worked very hard and saved, got their citizenship and bought land. There's a small formerly redneck town (Arcadia) that now looks more like Playa Del Carmen because of all the Mexicans who have bought the farm land around it. Pretty cool. You can get certain varieties of Mexican beer not found in most of the state.  And those people know the value of conservative concepts: family, hard work, obeying the law, etc.

There's a latin community near Fort Myers with TONS of Spanish speaking students, (a lot from Cuban, Dominican and Central American LEGAL immigrants. I've subbed in those schools. The kids are unusually well behaved, probably because their strict CONSERVATIVE parents would beat the shit out of them if they acted up. Not that it's a racial thing. It's a cultural thing.

 

[Deluge]

On 3/11/2023 at 9:46 AM, bcsapper said:

I don't think that's what he's saying. 

I'd have to ask him, of course, but I rather think that's just what you are saying, to deflect from the actual point of the article, which was that historically, freeway construction was primarily through black neighbourhoods rather than white. 

Due to the influence each group had at the time over city planning.

He still can't help but bring race into it, when it was probably more about maximizing the comfort of the affluent, not the white.

If it actually was about skin color, then you have to believe democrats were the driving force behind the decision to divide those lesser neighborhoods. 

[impartialobserver]

I know that no one wants to hear it but the reason that poor folks live in the urban core is not racism or even politics.. especially in LA which is a relatively new city. 

[reason10]

On 3/22/2023 at 3:10 PM, impartialobserver said:

I know that no one wants to hear it but the reason that poor folks live in the urban core is not racism or even politics.. especially in LA which is a relatively new city. 

Very true. In America, poverty is always a CHOICE.

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Very true. In America, poverty is always a CHOICE.

There are three words for it..... Bid Rent Curve.

It has to do with age of buildings, maintenance, and certain professions needing to be next to one another.

[reason10]

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

There are three words for it..... Bid Rent Curve.

It has to do with age of buildings, maintenance, and certain professions needing to be next to one another.

Nope.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/editorials/2012/01/27/three-rules-staying-out-poverty/15877394007/

The Brookings Institution has spent a great deal of effort studying this issue.

And presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been quoting their findings on the campaign trail.

Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:

1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.

If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you'll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.

Applies to everyone

These rules apply to all races and ethnic groups. Breaking these rules is becoming more commonplace, unfortunately, for all racial groups.

 

 

[impartialobserver]

Just now, reason10 said:

Nope.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/editorials/2012/01/27/three-rules-staying-out-poverty/15877394007/

The Brookings Institution has spent a great deal of effort studying this issue.

And presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been quoting their findings on the campaign trail.

Brookings whittled down a lot of analysis into three simple rules. You can avoid poverty by:

1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.

If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you'll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.

Applies to everyone

These rules apply to all races and ethnic groups. Breaking these rules is becoming more commonplace, unfortunately, for all racial groups.

 

 

Unrelated... I am talking about the urban core vs. the suburbs not poverty in general. I grew up poor... I have insight into this that you could only hope to have. 

[reason10]

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Unrelated... I am talking about the urban core vs. the suburbs not poverty in general. I grew up poor... I have insight into this that you could only hope to have. 

The "urban versus suburbs" concept does NOT negate the TRUTHS about what it takes not to grow up poor.

I never mentioned how I grew up, (I could have been poor or I could have been Richie Rich).

And if you consult any knowledgeable libertarian (Yeah, I know. The phrase is a redundancy) you might discover that a lot of urban rent issues come from rent controls, which have the exact opposite effect. Bottom line, urban inner city types usually are from single parent families and it will take a lot more effort on their part to escape the poverty cycle, mostly because their PARENTS didn't follow those three rules.

[impartialobserver]

21 minutes ago, reason10 said:

The "urban versus suburbs" concept does NOT negate the TRUTHS about what it takes not to grow up poor.

I never mentioned how I grew up, (I could have been poor or I could have been Richie Rich).

And if you consult any knowledgeable libertarian (Yeah, I know. The phrase is a redundancy) you might discover that a lot of urban rent issues come from rent controls, which have the exact opposite effect. Bottom line, urban inner city types usually are from single parent families and it will take a lot more effort on their part to escape the poverty cycle, mostly because their PARENTS didn't follow those three rules.

Explain how this plays out in Boise, Reno, Spokane, and las vegas where there are no rent controls? If you give me a bunch of subjective opinions... I am going to be done with you. 

Growing up poor gave me two insights that you obviously do not possess.. First, poor people live in the moment. You have money now.. you should spend it now. Second, they get locked into a rhythm of sorts. Whatever you did yesterday helped you survive to today so best just to keep going as is. Those are the two primary issues that are at the root of most poverty. The desperation that comes later almost always come from having no back up plan and nothing in reserve. 

[Guest]

We are grasping at straws, when just about anything can be deemed as racist, nowadays.

 

[reason10]

21 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

 

Growing up poor gave me two insights that you obviously do not possess.. First, poor people live in the moment. You have money now.. you should spend it now. Second, they get locked into a rhythm of sorts. Whatever you did yesterday helped you survive to today so best just to keep going as is. Those are the two primary issues that are at the root of most poverty. The desperation that comes later almost always come from having no back up plan and nothing in reserve. 

Explain how this plays out in Boise, Reno, Spokane, and las vegas where there are no rent controls? If you give me a bunch of subjective opinions... I am going to be done with you. 

In other words, if I commit the egregious sin of DISAGREEING with you, you're going to throw a tantrum and take your ball home, huh?

I might as well get started.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/

New research examining how rent control affects tenants and housing markets offers insight into how rent control affects markets. While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.

https://www.vox.com/22789296/housing-crisis-rent-relief-control-supply

The logic is simple: If you set a price ceiling below what the market price would be, you will reduce the incentive for people to supply that good. If you’re a hatmaker and the government says you’re not allowed to charge more than $5 for hats you’ve been able to sell for $10, you’ll probably stop making as many.

Of course, here we’re not talking about hats, we’re talking about housing. If fewer hats are produced, that’s not great, but if fewer homes are produced, that’s catastrophic. We’re facing a national housing shortage of 3.8 million homes, and it’s the leading contributor to the spiraling cost of housing and modern homelessness. It also could induce landlords to reduce their investment or upkeep of properties if they see their profits being slashed.

Gee! That's an ECONOMICS argument. I guess you never took the classes, much less teach them, if you didn't know that.

A REAL economics student would be aware of the existence of the greatest economist of all time: Ludwig Von Mises.

https://mises.org/library/unintended-consequences-rent-control

At the height of the debate over whether capitalism or socialism was the most productive way to run a society, Ludwig von Mises argued that government intervention begets further government intervention. When rents are held below their market-clearing value, people take rental units off the market or convert existing units into condominiums, luxury housing, or offices. Something like "key money" might also emerge, whereby the rent is held artificially low, but the landlord demands a massive payment to rent the apartment's key. Other enterprising landlords have attempted to get around the restriction by providing "furnished" apartments, for which the tenant pays the controlled rent but must also pay a marked-up price to rent the apartment's furniture. Government officials and landlords find themselves in an endless cat-and-mouse game of regulate-and-evade that has created its own legal infrastructure in the form of the New York City Housing Court. The court has fifty judges and handles over three hundred thousand cases annually.

Rent control also destroys landlords' incentives to maintain the housing stock. With rent control in place, people are lined up for housing, and therefore, the landlord can discriminate on the basis of who will take the most meager accommodations. Eliminating a landlord's ability to enjoy the return from investing in higher-quality housing means eliminating the landlord's incentive to invest in basic upkeep.

https://iea.org.uk/rent-controls-the-revenge-of-econ-101/

There has also been an increase in the number of properties that are up for sale, rather than rent, because while rents have been capped, sales prices have not.

So whether you compare the rent-capped part of Berlin’s rental property market to its counterpart in other cities, to its cap-exempt counterpart in Berlin itself, or to the owner-occupier sector – the result is always the same. The rent cap clearly is having a negative impact on supply, and this is happening astonishingly quickly: even I was not expecting to see any impact in this year, or the next.

If you want to call these FACTS "subjective opinions" then you clearly do not know the meaning of that word. Funny. I never met a college professor who didn't know the meaning of the word "subjective."

I gave you OBJECTIVE sources. ("Objective" defined as not influenced by personal opinions.)

Feel free to throw a tantrum and announce to the rest of the !diots that you're putting me on temporary "ignore."

And I welcome you to the next debate where you will lose.

You children are all the same.

 

 

[reason10]

EARTH TO CRETINS.

a. Area 1 has a group of buildings defined as "rental housing." They are in the business of making money by charging RENT for living quarters. They are PAID for this. They are not REQUIRED by law to do this.

b. Because the rental market is competitive, the landlords will not deliberately raise their rents above the free market, otherwise they lose tenants to the competitors. So they only raise rents to cover the higher costs of maintaining the properties.

c. If you put a cap on what the landlords in Area 1 can charge, after a while the rental properties wind up costing them money. So they SELL the building and move to Area 2, where the locals still have brains. The properties in Area 1 are bought by new landlords and either start out with HIGHER rents or are converted to other uses or just bulldozed.

Every reliable economist in this field says the same thing. Don't go looking to THE VIEW for any alternative facts. Those beeches on that Nazi panel can't even SPELL "economics."

[reason10]

Oh, by the way.  This thread is supposed to be about a RACIST statement in California about white people polluting the air of colored people. (Uh, duimba$$es. the term, "people of color" might as well be "colored people." )

Somehow, a self proclaimed Ivy League College Economics professor has managed to morph this into a discussion about rent controls, when it began as a discussion about air pollution and !diots seeing something racist in it.

And you wonder why everybody says liberals are such knuckleheads.