Talk:Redlining/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources

This page has little to no sources for reference. In fact, I have been unable to verify the Federal Housing Authority's influence in Redlining.

I have added one source for that. More to come futurebird 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT and Redlining

The article indicates that many people feel that redlining has moved from race to the LGBT community. I am wondering if it is not more accurate to say only that some people believe this to be the case. Further, to the extent that it does occur in the LGBT community, it seems to have been most prevalent in the 1980's and early 90's, and even then was largely restricted to the problem of health insurers denying coverage to communities based on fear of AIDS. The article seems to hint that it was more widespread than that, and nothing has been cited to demonstrate the validity of that proposition. Kugel (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with this comment - when I read the piece in this entry that said that LGBT people were the victims of redlining I was shocked. The sources cited are nearly 20 years old. This article makes it seem as if this practice is common in 2009. While it is important to note that this did in fact happen (likely as a fear of HIV/AIDS, as Kugel pointed out) it should be made clear that this is in the (recent) past. If it is a current phenomenon I urge someone to find some references. Jennesy 30 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.178.106 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that redlining is shifting away from the Black community and toward the LGBT community seems dubious to me and may reflect an editor's bias. There are several statements in this article to reflect this opinion:
Many allege that the redlining target group has shifted from African Americans to the LGBT community.
Some even think that the Gay community as of 2009, are suffering practices that were similar to redlining.
Even though the first quote is cited, if you read the source it is poor proof of that assertion. It also does not pass the smell test, mainly because gay adults have a higher median income than the general population. (Numerous sources confirm this, such as this article, although that article is fifteen years old.) Not only do they have a higher income, but fewer gay families are raising children, so they have a higher disposable income as well. Moving people into a neighborhood who have high disposable income causes them to spend money on local businesses. The article I just cited also states that a significantly higher proportion of gays are self-employed, so they may be likely to set up shops in their own neighborhood.
By this logic, approving gays for mortgages and having more of them move to the neighborhood helps the neighborhood prosper. This gentrification phenomenon happened in neighborhoods such as Boston's South End; I imagine that it has happened in sections of some other urban neighborhoods as well, such as Lower Manhattan. It is foolish for lenders to discriminate against a group that helps to revive a neighborhood and its businesses. Midtempo-abg (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Too vague

"The term "liquorlining" is sometimes used[38] to describe the practice of encouraging very high density of liquor stores and other alcohol outlets in low income and/or minority communities relative to surrounding areas."

The practice? By whom? Who is encouraging this kind of alleged development, the government, realtors, liquor store owners? It's too vague and conspiratorial as it stands. Historian932 (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Redlining in Hawai'i ? Really?

It is simply preposterous to include the government's risk management practices due to geologic issues in a physical area in an article on discrimination based on race, creed, religion, sexual preference and other social issues.

My goodness, the government is trying to protect itself and society's pocketbook from the very real probability of billions of dollars in housing stock being burned and/or buried by a freaking active volcano. What happens to the loan's security when the volcano starts acting up, and private insurers drop coverage and pull out of writing policies in Hawaii?

Good grief.

But the reasoning is this: Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200.926d(b)(3) requires that the property shall be free of those foreseeable hazards or adverse condition which may affect the health and safety of the occupants or the structural soundness of the property.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/sfh/ref/sfh1-18j

These are defined by the U.S.G.S. Observatory as lava flow zones #1 and #2. 

       "Zone #1 consists of the summit areas and active parts of the rift zones of Kilaua and Mauna Loa…"*

       "Zone #2 consists of several areas that are adjacent to and downslope from the active rift zones of Kilaua and Mauna Loa and therefore are subject to burial by lava flows of even small volume eruptions in those rift zones."*

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/sfh/ref/sfh1-18i

173.48.123.193 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When Did Redlining End?

It is hard to tell from the article. Reference is made to Fair Housing Act of 1968 but that seems to have not outlawed Redlining. The subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires disclosure of redlining practices ... I guess its the Community Reinvestment Act -- "Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining."

I would hope for the article to clarify that even after the Civil Rights acts in the 1960s, Redlining was still legal as late as 1977. user:dannyman —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Redlining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Facebook housing ads

Facebook was recently charged with housing ad discrimination based on age, race, and religion. I think this should be included in the "Current issues" section. Link: https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-department-housing-and-urban-development-discrimination-advertising-1378099 130.126.255.74 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Added a section on Digital Redlining under current issues which links to the main article on Digital Redlining and uses the recent HUD charges against Facebook as an example. Autumm393 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Add reasons for redlining

I think there should be a section that attempts to explain what is sometimes mistakenly called redlining. For example, why would banks reject loans if there is profit to be made? This is an important question to ask in determining whether something is actually redlining. Often times banks rejected loans to black families/neighborhoods for good reasons - low income, poor credit, threat of race riots, worsening neighborhood condition. I just think we should include a section on this so that when someone does some research on redlining, they aren't too quick to call everything redlining. It's good to know the limits and restraints of this argument.128.175.81.47 (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. People who are higher risk or have less collateral have to pay more for loans because they are higher risk, which is another way of saying "on the average, they cost more to loan money to." Complaints of redlining seem to come frequently from people who don't understand that most banks are pursuing their rational self interest and not about to pass up potential profit. Of course, does anyone know whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might have created some form of moral hazzard in this regard, when they were created or privatized? ----Ryan Wise (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)76.175.199.3 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have too narrow a notion of "rational self-interest" here. Just because making an individual loan to someone black would be profitable, doesn't mean that the person approving the loan rationally considers it to be in his or her self-interest. In the case of redlining, the fear was among lenders that if you allowed one (otherwise qualified) black person into a previously white neighborhood, it would be harder to deny future (otherwise qualified) black people, which would in turn lead to white families moving out and the neighborhood "tipping" - which would result in decreased profits for the bank. Secondarily, the person approving the loan might have been under verbal instructions from a boss to deny loans to qualified black people attempting to move into particular neighborhoods. If so, then concern for one's own career prospects could easily override a perception that that individual loan could be profitable. ----User:marthews 12:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that redlining wasn't done for racist purposes but was just businesses trying to make sound decisions. All money is green and money lenders of all people know this. I'm skeptical that the banks would've cared what color skin the individual was as long as the money was paid back. With that, the banks knew the areas that were least likely to pay back their loans and as such, were too risky of an investment for them. This isn't a matter of who's being allowed to date someone's daughter, but rather what kind of return investment the banks were going to have. How about we clean the racist overtones of this article shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairmanriot (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To Chairmanriot: But redlining is a racial issue. Removing the "racist overtones of this article" would be ignoring the reality of the subject. Redlining is another form of racial profiling. Just because you can come up with a non-racist argument for why it makes sense to redline (the same arguments the violating businesses use) doesn't mean that racism is not a reality. I am very glad that you've not had to experience racism in your life. I hope we get to a world where no one ever experiences it. Unfortunately, it's still a major blight on our society, and to claim that redlining does not have racial motivations is to do an injustice to history. I believe the proper term is "whitewashing" (and for good reason). Agatehawk (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There's another angle to redlining. In the pizza delivery industry, "redlining" is the practice of marking certain parts of the delivery area as no-delivery zones either after dusk or all the time. A few years ago this drew cries of racism. In a few cities, most notably San Francisco, laws were passed mandating that if delivery was offered, then delivery must be offered to the whole city. This caused many mom-and-pop shops to discontinue delivery because they could only reasonably deliver a few blocks away from their shops. I've spent more time than I care to admit delivering pizza and can attest that such accusations of racism are nothing but garbage. We called it "redlining" because the bad parts of town were outlined on the map with a red felt-tip pen. Frotz (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool story bro. 2601:140:8900:61D0:F46E:D912:C410:3769 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah a comment for Agatehawk, I think that Chairmanriot did an excellent job of explaining why redlining can occur without any sort of racism involved. You simply spewed out a paragraph saying "It is racism" then you move onto an ad hominem fling about how Chairmanriot has just never experienced racism in his/her own life. You haven't explained whatsoever about how this is racist, and until we find some solid sources that point to racism, I don't even believe race should be discussed in this article. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, you entirely ignored the argument and instead made self self pitying remarks showing white resentment. Your opinion on these historical facts is irrelevant, find scholarship disproving it, or shut up. Reactionaries are all the same. 2601:140:8900:61D0:F46E:D912:C410:3769 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
If a bank chooses not to lend to people for reasons that are not related to racism, then it's not normally called "redlining." That's sort-of the whole point here. futurebird (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
But what I'm going for here is to explain to the reader that some cases of supposed "redlining" are not really redlining at all and it just has to do with the banks making sound lending decisions. The article seems to suggest that every case of a bank not lending to blacks must be redlining. 128.175.171.139 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if banks thought banning black people from loans would make them more money, it's still racist. I don't care about their motivations, that's their own business. All I care about are their actions. Your silly just so stories acting at the banks defense attorney are absurd and obtuse and completely unconcerned with the negative social effects of their objectively racist actual actions. The article has an associated map aligned with demographics clearly banning those communities from credit regardless of the individual circumstances of those on those communities. It's also absurd that you're just assuming perfect rational self interest and non racism in an Era where a third of the states were explicit white supremacist regimes. How wilfully ignorant can you be? Why do black people constantly have to relitigate history with you revisionists? This is documented historical fact and until you can find me contradictory scholarship I'm going to ignore your wilfully ignorant just so stories and denialism. 2601:140:8900:61D0:F46E:D912:C410:3769 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hood Culture?

LOL.. good lord. I'm redlining myself from even trying to start editing this wreck of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercster (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Past Redlining and hot neighborhoods

There is a valuable NYT article on how past redlining created hotter environments for people of color in inner cities today: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/24/climate/racism-redlining-cities-global-warming.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Questionable neutrality and quality standard in the recently added "Redlining and Health Inequality" section

Aforementioned section reads too much as an opinion piece and/or debate article to me. Initially wanted to revert to a previous revision but was told put something on the talk page instead. Note that the reader is often addressed as part of a collective "we", thus inappropriately assuming various characteristics of the reader. On that note, one could say that there are far too many occurrences of the word "we" in the section. ACE-san (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Redlining

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Redlining's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Jackson":

  • From Nonviolence: Jackson, George. Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson. Lawrence Hill Books, 1994. ISBN 1-55652-230-4
  • From Timeline of the American Old West: Ellis, James W. (1910). History of Jackson County, Iowa. Vol. I. Chicago, IL: S. J. Clarke Publishing Company. pp. 470–475.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing

This page lacks the the criteria to be a featured article at this point in time. In order to remedy this, the article would benefit from more well researched sources, and remaining comprehensive as well as neutral.

We will be adding more sources as well as making the necessary edits to improve the focus and dialogue of this article by removing bias and unnecessary detail.

http://engl1111.pbworks.com/w/page/143697822/Redlining

Atila003 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

More information needed on Redlining in Canada

One credible source has been identified that indicates that redlining happened in Canada but an expansion on this could give the article a more global perspective. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/0042098032000146830

I've removed the {{globalize}} template since the lead explicitly says the article is primarily about the US. If there is significant coverage of the topic in other countries, consider being bold and summarizing it in the article yourself. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaning behind "Retail"?

Ok, so i'm not supposed to ask, but what is the meaning behind this part?

— 185.59.105.27, Special:Diff/1023766256

Kleinpecan (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Discriminatory housing practices and CRT

The previous editor, Robjwev, claims that my source does not match my edit and therefore reverted my edit from 5 November 2021 several times. The following is a direct quote from my source article which clearly supports my edit: School funding inequities are exemplified in many racially and socioeconomically isolated districts, such as Detroit’s public schools. In 1940, shortly before Verda Bradley arrived in Detroit, Black Americans comprised 9.2 percent of the city’s population. Over 30 years later, when her children went to school, Black Americans comprised 44.5 percent of the city’s population. The ratio of Black students to white students was 58 to 41 in 1967. Seeking to desegregate the city’s schools, Bradley and other parents who were represented by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People alleged that Michigan maintained a racially segregated public school system through policies that isolated Black students within the city’s public schools. Due to racially discriminatory housing practices, Black families were excluded from the surrounding suburbs populated by white families that fled the city to avoid integrating the schools. However, in Milliken v. Bradley, the Supreme Court rejected a desegregation plan that encompassed Detroit’s public schools and the surrounding all-white suburbs. In exempting the surrounding suburban districts from the desegregation plan, the Court held that they were not required to be part of the desegregation plan because district lines had not been drawn with “racist intent” and the surrounding suburbs were not responsible for the segregation within the city’s schools. The Court left Detroit to desegregate within itself. In his prescient dissent, Thurgood Marshall observed, “The Detroit-only plan has no hope of achieving actual desegregation. . . . Instead, Negro children will continue to attend all-Negro schools. The very evil that Brown was aimed at will not be cured but will be perpetuated." Consequently, in 2000, the ratio of Black students to white students in Detroit’s public schools was 91 to 4. The city’s racially isolated public schools are also profoundly under-resourced. Recent litigation—Gary B. v. Whitmer—brought on behalf of students in Detroit’s public schools illuminates the state of the schools in the decades following Milliken. In their complaint, the plaintiffs describe deteriorating facilities that lack heat and are infested with vermin. They describe the absence of qualified educators that resulted in a middle schooler serving as a substitute teacher. But students like the Gary B. plaintiffs (and students in similarly racially isolated and under-resourced districts) are left with little recourse given that the Supreme Court held in 1973’s San Antonio v. Rodriguez that there is no federal right to education. Instead, the Gary B. plaintiffs brought a novel claim alleging that they were entitled to a minimum level of education that enabled them to achieve at least a basic level of literacy. The decision of the Court of Appeals in favor of the plaintiffs was ultimately set aside, and the state of Michigan reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. However, from a CRT perspective, the case is instructive about how the law can reproduce racial inequality. By rejecting a desegregation plan that sought to transcend the racial divisions imposed by discriminatory housing practices, the Court essentially foreclosed the possibility of implementing a workable desegregation strategy, and racial and economic inequality persisted unabated. CRT recognizes the inevitability of the segregated and under-resourced schools at issue in the Gary B. litigation, given Milliken’s indifference to the nature of covert discrimination decades earlier. The example of application of CRT to education in the case of Milliken illustrates how CRT recognizes the role of the law in perpetuating racial inequality. Employing a CRT framework necessitates interrogation of systems and structures in which we function. The Milliken example also implicates the impact of discriminatory housing policies and school financing systems in perpetuating racially isolated and under-resourced schools in Detroit and recognizes that education policy does not operate in a vacuum. [1] Tomabird (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with redlining, yes they talk about housing and how it relates to funding of schools but its all critical race analyst in academia environment, theory is not applied practically. Robjwev (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If you seriously think discriminatory housing policy has nothing to do with redlining then you clearly have some kind of agenda clouding your vision. Tomabird (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Redlining not housing discrimination policy. Not against highlighting the issues that it brings but this should not be part of this article. You should conceder relocating your article here Housing discrimination in the United States Robjwev (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea that this is just an academic discussion that doesn’t apply to real life is extremely offensive to those whose lives have been ravaged by racism. It is all to easy for those who have benefitted from privilege to deny the reality of institutional discrimination. What’s next- are we to claim that the after-effects of 350 years of slavery in the US are just academic? Tomabird (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Discriminatory housing policy is a form of redlining, and it affects many aspects of life- education being one of the most important, as it is what allows for future economic development. Inequalities in educational opportunities are direct results of redlining, as in the US amount of funding for public schools is directly tied to the tax base of school districts- rich districts will inevitably have better funding for their schools in this system, and therefore more opportunities for their students. The “level playing field” on which our system is supposedly based is a myth. Tomabird (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ George, Janel (January 11, 2021). "A Lesson on Critical Race Theory". americanbar.org. American Bar Association. Retrieved November 6, 2021.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hahmad1996. Peer reviewers: Dlajoie, Dpasss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Docbai. Peer reviewers: Docbai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mehayla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stovitz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Link decluttering from a reader’s perspective.

There are lots of hyperlinks. I feel that it would be easier to read if there weren't links to abstract concepts like "banking" and "supermarkets". Weirdojo1 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redlining/Archive_1&oldid=1213364021"