Ode2Joy

Congratulations Baltimore! You reached 288!

25 posts in this topic

Doing your happy dance and breaking out the bubbly? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Birthday! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOLZ.  Ken can't be bothered to read what he's trying to insult someone about before opening his mouth and inserting his foot.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Upon reading the title I thought that was going to be the number of murders so far this year.  Not too far off though.

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

52 minutes ago, Ode2Joy said:

LOLZ.  Ken can't be bothered to read what he's trying to insult someone about before opening his mouth and inserting his foot.  :P

No foot inserted. I always read before commenting. My comment was because I'm not used to you posting anything but negative Baltimore stories. You never answered, did you break out the bubbly?

 

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Upon reading the title I thought that was going to be the number of murders so far this year.  Not too far off though.

Which is a sad commentary on what many cities have become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry, wrong thread.

Edited by jonsensback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ode2Joy said:

LOLZ.  Ken can't be bothered to read what he's trying to insult someone about before opening his mouth and inserting his foot.  :P

He does that very well, doesn't he? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our city's birthday is a great opportunity to read about its history to understand the problems it faces today:

 

Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City

"The effects of the two-tiered financing system were multiple. The first is that it resulted in blacks paying more for inferior housing. The combination of continuing black migration into the cities with residential segregation meant that African Americans could only find housing in deteriorating black urban communities. Landlords recognized this and often raised rents as high as they possibly could knowing full well that there was absolutely nothing blacks could do about it because there was nowhere else to move. Pietila cites an Urban League study from 1946 that showed blacks were paying an average of 170 percent over prewar levels and 75 percent above what was, then, the current market level. 

Second, segregation was an incentive to let black neighborhoods deteriorate. Landlords armed with the knowledge that blacks could not move into white areas and that the fear of “black invasion” into white areas kept city officials from enforcing building codes in black neighborhoods, landlords made no pretense at maintenance or investment in black areas. If blacks did not like the conditions in their neighborhoods then where were they to go? In fact, the lack of the government’s oversight of black neighborhoods’ conditions, combined with the growing market for black housing, led to a further deterioration of conditions when landlords looked to rent any space at all in black neighborhoods. In Baltimore in the 1950s, more than forty-seven thousand units of housing did not have indoor bathrooms because landlords converted them into rooms for rent. Instead they built outhouses in the backyards known as “crappers.” Similarly, this same dynamic served as a disincentive for building new properties in black areas, which explains, in part, why there was a persistent shortage of affordable low-income housing in these segregated areas. Why undertake the expense of building new properties when blacks were “willing” to pay for broken down, uninhabitable units? It was the free market at its finest. Studies in multiple cities found that despite the deplorable conditions of black housing in every American city, it was often more expensive than the good apartments and houses leased and sold to whites. 

Finally, the creation of a black housing market whose exclusion from conventional lending markets was sanctioned by the federal government gave rise to particular forms of predatory lending in black communities. While these predatory lending instruments would come in many different forms, one of the most exploitative was the “land-installment contract” (p. 99). In effect, it was essentially buying a house on an installment plan. Beryl Satter has written, in her important book Family Properties: Race, Real Estate and the Exploitation of Black Urban America (2009), extensively on the impact of contract buying in home sales in black Chicago, where the practice went on for much longer, but it is a little studied area of the political economy of racism in urban America. Houses sold on contract were more expensive than houses that could have been bought through conventional financing. Interest rates were high and blacks did not actually own the house, or take possession of the title, until the final contract payments were made. Moreover, if a family were to miss a single payment over the life of the contract, they could be evicted as if they were only a tenant and lose any and all equity they had invested in the property. Because of the higher cost of the contracts, many black homeowners in Chicago and Baltimore had to take on more tenants exacerbating the problems of neighborhood overcrowding and deterioration. The ability to make untold profits from black communities literally changed the face of American cities in a way that resonates with struggles over urban housing and racial equity today. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Our city's birthday is a great opportunity to read about its history to understand the problems it faces today:

 

Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City

"The effects of the two-tiered financing system were multiple. The first is that it resulted in blacks paying more for inferior housing. The combination of continuing black migration into the cities with residential segregation meant that African Americans could only find housing in deteriorating black urban communities. Landlords recognized this and often raised rents as high as they possibly could knowing full well that there was absolutely nothing blacks could do about it because there was nowhere else to move. Pietila cites an Urban League study from 1946 that showed blacks were paying an average of 170 percent over prewar levels and 75 percent above what was, then, the current market level. 

Second, segregation was an incentive to let black neighborhoods deteriorate. Landlords armed with the knowledge that blacks could not move into white areas and that the fear of “black invasion” into white areas kept city officials from enforcing building codes in black neighborhoods, landlords made no pretense at maintenance or investment in black areas. If blacks did not like the conditions in their neighborhoods then where were they to go? In fact, the lack of the government’s oversight of black neighborhoods’ conditions, combined with the growing market for black housing, led to a further deterioration of conditions when landlords looked to rent any space at all in black neighborhoods. In Baltimore in the 1950s, more than forty-seven thousand units of housing did not have indoor bathrooms because landlords converted them into rooms for rent. Instead they built outhouses in the backyards known as “crappers.” Similarly, this same dynamic served as a disincentive for building new properties in black areas, which explains, in part, why there was a persistent shortage of affordable low-income housing in these segregated areas. Why undertake the expense of building new properties when blacks were “willing” to pay for broken down, uninhabitable units? It was the free market at its finest. Studies in multiple cities found that despite the deplorable conditions of black housing in every American city, it was often more expensive than the good apartments and houses leased and sold to whites. 

Finally, the creation of a black housing market whose exclusion from conventional lending markets was sanctioned by the federal government gave rise to particular forms of predatory lending in black communities. While these predatory lending instruments would come in many different forms, one of the most exploitative was the “land-installment contract” (p. 99). In effect, it was essentially buying a house on an installment plan. Beryl Satter has written, in her important book Family Properties: Race, Real Estate and the Exploitation of Black Urban America (2009), extensively on the impact of contract buying in home sales in black Chicago, where the practice went on for much longer, but it is a little studied area of the political economy of racism in urban America. Houses sold on contract were more expensive than houses that could have been bought through conventional financing. Interest rates were high and blacks did not actually own the house, or take possession of the title, until the final contract payments were made. Moreover, if a family were to miss a single payment over the life of the contract, they could be evicted as if they were only a tenant and lose any and all equity they had invested in the property. Because of the higher cost of the contracts, many black homeowners in Chicago and Baltimore had to take on more tenants exacerbating the problems of neighborhood overcrowding and deterioration. The ability to make untold profits from black communities literally changed the face of American cities in a way that resonates with struggles over urban housing and racial equity today. "

 

You must be a gas at parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Smokey 1 said:

Upon reading the title I thought that was going to be the number of murders so far this year.  Not too far off though.

HAHAHHAAH.....exactly what I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Our city's birthday is a great opportunity to read about its history to understand the problems it faces today:

 

Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City

"The effects of the two-tiered financing system were multiple. The first is that it resulted in blacks paying more for inferior housing. The combination of continuing black migration into the cities with residential segregation meant that African Americans could only find housing in deteriorating black urban communities. Landlords recognized this and often raised rents as high as they possibly could knowing full well that there was absolutely nothing blacks could do about it because there was nowhere else to move. Pietila cites an Urban League study from 1946 that showed blacks were paying an average of 170 percent over prewar levels and 75 percent above what was, then, the current market level. 

Second, segregation was an incentive to let black neighborhoods deteriorate. Landlords armed with the knowledge that blacks could not move into white areas and that the fear of “black invasion” into white areas kept city officials from enforcing building codes in black neighborhoods, landlords made no pretense at maintenance or investment in black areas. If blacks did not like the conditions in their neighborhoods then where were they to go? In fact, the lack of the government’s oversight of black neighborhoods’ conditions, combined with the growing market for black housing, led to a further deterioration of conditions when landlords looked to rent any space at all in black neighborhoods. In Baltimore in the 1950s, more than forty-seven thousand units of housing did not have indoor bathrooms because landlords converted them into rooms for rent. Instead they built outhouses in the backyards known as “crappers.” Similarly, this same dynamic served as a disincentive for building new properties in black areas, which explains, in part, why there was a persistent shortage of affordable low-income housing in these segregated areas. Why undertake the expense of building new properties when blacks were “willing” to pay for broken down, uninhabitable units? It was the free market at its finest. Studies in multiple cities found that despite the deplorable conditions of black housing in every American city, it was often more expensive than the good apartments and houses leased and sold to whites. 

Finally, the creation of a black housing market whose exclusion from conventional lending markets was sanctioned by the federal government gave rise to particular forms of predatory lending in black communities. While these predatory lending instruments would come in many different forms, one of the most exploitative was the “land-installment contract” (p. 99). In effect, it was essentially buying a house on an installment plan. Beryl Satter has written, in her important book Family Properties: Race, Real Estate and the Exploitation of Black Urban America (2009), extensively on the impact of contract buying in home sales in black Chicago, where the practice went on for much longer, but it is a little studied area of the political economy of racism in urban America. Houses sold on contract were more expensive than houses that could have been bought through conventional financing. Interest rates were high and blacks did not actually own the house, or take possession of the title, until the final contract payments were made. Moreover, if a family were to miss a single payment over the life of the contract, they could be evicted as if they were only a tenant and lose any and all equity they had invested in the property. Because of the higher cost of the contracts, many black homeowners in Chicago and Baltimore had to take on more tenants exacerbating the problems of neighborhood overcrowding and deterioration. The ability to make untold profits from black communities literally changed the face of American cities in a way that resonates with struggles over urban housing and racial equity today. "

 

Yahhh know..... I may have a great idea. Some idiot proposed returning certain parts of the city that it annexed back to the counties. I got a better idea....give the entire city back to the black/minority populace. Would that make you happy HST2 FINALLY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Yahhh know..... I may have a great idea. Some idiot proposed returning certain parts of the city that it annexed back to the counties. I got a better idea....give the entire city back to the black/minority populace. Would that make you happy HST2 FINALLY?

Who "gives" the city "back" to the "black/minority" populace?  What the hell does that even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AugusteDupin said:

He does that very well, doesn't he? 

He really does.  I notice that many of the city's biggest defenders moved away from the city for the same reasons many people criticize the city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ode2Joy said:

He really does.  I notice that many of the city's biggest defenders moved away from the city for the same reasons many people criticize the city. 

I assume you are referring to White Marsh ken? :D Specifically? And I totally agree with you about the second sentence. As you may have noted through my posts that I only live about 2 blocks from the city line and living in Woodlawn w/ section 8's moving in daily..in effect the city is moving to me.

However....because I never lived in the city:huh: my opinion doesn't count....but someone (such as ken) who live 15 miles from the city and hasn't lived in the city for decades....does.

Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

Who "gives" the city "back" to the "black/minority" populace?  What the hell does that even mean?

Well the mechanics of doing so ....like the proposal to return annexed property ... is a non-starter and near impossible on both counts. I was trying to make a point to hst.

That is .... is seems to me....that HE will only be satisfied till blacks in the city have total control of their destiny...that's all. So since BC is with its high population of blacks would be a good starting place to let them 'run the show' entirely and right the wrongs....perceived or real.

However, judging by the political structure of BC ...especially at the highest levels...now and recent past....that 'show' is already in place. And it only seems to get worse.

That clarify it for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Well the mechanics of doing so ....like the proposal to return annexed property ... is a non-starter and near impossible on both counts. I was trying to make a point to hst.

That is .... is seems to me....that HE will only be satisfied till blacks in the city have total control of their destiny...that's all. So since BC is with its high population of blacks would be a good starting place to let them 'run the show' entirely and right the wrongs....perceived or real.

However, judging by the political structure of BC ...especially at the highest levels...now and recent past....that 'show' is already in place. And it only seems to get worse.

That clarify it for you?

I doubt he'd be satisfied. ;)  The white man will always find a way to stick it to Blacks.

But reversing the annexation of 99 years ago would be a snap compared to what you are suggesting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

I doubt he'd be satisfied. ;)  The white man will always find a way to stick it to Blacks.

But reversing the annexation of 99 years ago would be a snap compared to what you are suggesting.  

Hhahaha ....very true. He is somewhat fixated isn't he. But I still find it amusing that he and some other still try to blame whites for all the issues in BC yet...as I said blacks make up the bulk of high level politicians and I am pretty sure most of the 'grunts' that make up the cities services and such. And for some time now.

And yes reversing would be easier.

I am still waiting for a rebutal reply from the author of that op piece. After he said well the counties would get the cities funding from the state for those areas.....and I told him....I have a better chance of sprouting wings before that money got moved. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ode2Joy said:

He really does.  I notice that many of the city's biggest defenders moved away from the city for the same reasons many people criticize the city. 

Imagine that....say it aint so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Baltimatt said:

You must be a gas at parties.

Many of the guests would be saying, oh no, who invited him .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city was incorporated in 1852, separating then from Baltimore County.

 

There were to periods of annexation one in the 1890s when Woodberry and Hampden was annexed then in 1918 when extendedd to the current boarders.  

 

The county does not want the area back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 8:54 AM, Baltimatt said:

You must be a gas at parties.

Doncha like history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 8:30 AM, hst2 said:

Our city's birthday is a great opportunity to read about its history to understand the problems it faces today:

 

Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City

"The effects of the two-tiered financing system were multiple. The first is that it resulted in blacks paying more for inferior housing. The combination of continuing black migration into the cities with residential segregation meant that African Americans could only find housing in deteriorating black urban communities. Landlords recognized this and often raised rents as high as they possibly could knowing full well that there was absolutely nothing blacks could do about it because there was nowhere else to move. Pietila cites an Urban League study from 1946 that showed blacks were paying an average of 170 percent over prewar levels and 75 percent above what was, then, the current market level. 

Second, segregation was an incentive to let black neighborhoods deteriorate. Landlords armed with the knowledge that blacks could not move into white areas and that the fear of “black invasion” into white areas kept city officials from enforcing building codes in black neighborhoods, landlords made no pretense at maintenance or investment in black areas. If blacks did not like the conditions in their neighborhoods then where were they to go? In fact, the lack of the government’s oversight of black neighborhoods’ conditions, combined with the growing market for black housing, led to a further deterioration of conditions when landlords looked to rent any space at all in black neighborhoods. In Baltimore in the 1950s, more than forty-seven thousand units of housing did not have indoor bathrooms because landlords converted them into rooms for rent. Instead they built outhouses in the backyards known as “crappers.” Similarly, this same dynamic served as a disincentive for building new properties in black areas, which explains, in part, why there was a persistent shortage of affordable low-income housing in these segregated areas. Why undertake the expense of building new properties when blacks were “willing” to pay for broken down, uninhabitable units? It was the free market at its finest. Studies in multiple cities found that despite the deplorable conditions of black housing in every American city, it was often more expensive than the good apartments and houses leased and sold to whites. 

Finally, the creation of a black housing market whose exclusion from conventional lending markets was sanctioned by the federal government gave rise to particular forms of predatory lending in black communities. While these predatory lending instruments would come in many different forms, one of the most exploitative was the “land-installment contract” (p. 99). In effect, it was essentially buying a house on an installment plan. Beryl Satter has written, in her important book Family Properties: Race, Real Estate and the Exploitation of Black Urban America (2009), extensively on the impact of contract buying in home sales in black Chicago, where the practice went on for much longer, but it is a little studied area of the political economy of racism in urban America. Houses sold on contract were more expensive than houses that could have been bought through conventional financing. Interest rates were high and blacks did not actually own the house, or take possession of the title, until the final contract payments were made. Moreover, if a family were to miss a single payment over the life of the contract, they could be evicted as if they were only a tenant and lose any and all equity they had invested in the property. Because of the higher cost of the contracts, many black homeowners in Chicago and Baltimore had to take on more tenants exacerbating the problems of neighborhood overcrowding and deterioration. The ability to make untold profits from black communities literally changed the face of American cities in a way that resonates with struggles over urban housing and racial equity today. "

 

Your obsession with race is appalling. Someone with gas at a party would be more fun than you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now