Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[Ana the Ist]

Right but don't you think that it being illegal for 499 years has possibly had an effect on the population?

It seems like math isn't a strong point either.

499 years?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In answer to the question posed in the OP, Modern day systemic racism exists​

What the bank did was illegal....not something condoned or encouraged by society.


In fact, it punished it.

 

[RDKirk]

What the bank did was illegal....not something condoned or encouraged by society.


In fact, it punished it.

The government didn't actually nail down anything City National Bank did that was specifically illegal.

The government identified that City National Bank did not have as many black and Hispanic loans as some other banks in the same business area.

The government identified that City National Bank did not have as many branches in black and Hispanic areas.

The government identified that City National Bank's branch in one specific black area did not have a loan officer desk.

The case did not go to court, it was settled out of court. The government did not actually prove that City National Bank did anything illegal.

City National Bank agreed to spend $31 million to increase its business activity in black and Hispanic areas....that is what the "fine" turns out to be.

 

[Ken-1122]

I dunno who lives in the house five doors down, much less why they chose to live where they are. Why would @essentialsaltes know these things about his neighborhood?

Sometimes when living in a community, you get an idea of what attracted the type of people who live there. If his community attracts rich black people, but not rich whites, asians, or brown people, there must something about that community causes this. I was just wondering if he knew what that was.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A headline is now evidence?

We may be getting somewhere.

Have we established that redlining is systemic racism?
Have we established that it was a good idea to make redlining illegal?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So why didn't your neighborhood with the bigger houses and nice views attract other lawyers, doctors, and entertainers?

Anyway, at the outset, it was white flight that attracted black people to the area. Once established, it takes a while for demographics to shift. It takes at least a generational shift before (some) whites no longer feel a need to flee.

 

[Ken-1122]

We may be getting somewhere.

Have we established that redlining is systemic racism?
Have we established that it was a good idea to make redlining illegal?

Redlining is systemic racism only when it is legislated. When it's been outlawed, it is no longer systemic racism, just racism.

Anyway, at the outset, it was white flight that attracted black people to the area. Once established, it takes a while for demographics to shift. It takes at least a generational shift before (some) whites no longer feel a need to flee.

The white flight of that area happened in the 60's several generations ago. White people are comfortable living around black people now.

 

[RDKirk]

We may be getting somewhere.

Have we established that redlining is systemic racism?
Have we established that it was a good idea to make redlining illegal?

I don't think we've established what "redlining" really is for today.

As I've said before, prior to the Civil Rights Act, companies would rather leave money on the table--suffer potential profit loss--than do business with black people. Money was irrelevant, race was the single factor in that business decision.

I'm not convinced that's the case in this situation. For reasons others have mentioned, I don't think that location of loan officer desks has any impact whatsoever on loan activity...except predatory loan activity.

I'll have to say that again because not everyone was listening. Nearly all loan services physically situated in poor neighborhoods are predatory.

There are areas here in my metropolitan area that I--if I were managing a bank--would hesitate to do business because it would put a hole in my company bottom line.

I can get more personal: I actually do run a business, frequently on location, and there are areas in this metroplex that I would not try to operate my business. And, yes, they can be sadly characterized as primarily black or Hispanic, but there are some predominantly white areas I won't venture as well. The primary consistent character of those areas is poor.

 

[RDKirk]

Anyway, at the outset, it was white flight that attracted black people to the area. Once established, it takes a while for demographics to shift. It takes at least a generational shift before (some) whites no longer feel a need to flee.

We're into our second generation of homebuyers, nearly into the third generation of homebuyers, since then.

So, what's the hold-up now?

I can answer part of that: One reason would be the age of the neighborhood. Homebuyers today with financial capability don't want old-style houses in old neighborhoods (except the true very wealthy old-money neighborhoods). The neighborhood could simply be "out of style," and nobody with financial options, black or white or Hispanic, moves into them. That means they're of less interest to banks as loan opportunities.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I can get more personal: I actually do run a business, frequently on location, and there are areas in this metroplex that I would not try to operate my business. And, yes, they can be sadly characterized as primarily black or Hispanic, but there are some predominantly white areas I won't venture as well. The primary consistent character of those areas is poor.

You are probably (unlike banks) not subject to federal laws that require you to do business there.

 

[RDKirk]

You are probably (unlike banks) not subject to federal laws that require you to do business there.

You're right, I'm not being required by the government to take clearly obvious physical and financial risks.

I am able to dodge that bullet.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We're into our second generation of homebuyers, nearly into the third generation of homebuyers, since then.

So, what's the hold-up now?

Hold-up? I'm not sure there's any problem that needs to be solved with respect to the demographics. Anyway, it's just the cumulative effect of lots of individual home buyers and sellers making decisions.

The neighborhood could simply be "out of style," and nobody with financial options, black or white or Hispanic, moves into them. That means they're of less interest to banks as loan opportunities.

It could be, but it isn't.

How hot is the View Park housing market?​

View Park is very competitive. Homes sell in 37 days.

• Many homes get multiple offers, some with waived contingencies.
• The average homes sell for about 5% above list price and go pending in around 37 days.
• Hot homes
  can sell for about 11% above list price and go pending in around 16 days.

 

[rjs330]

So why didn't your neighborhood with the bigger houses and nice views attract other lawyers, doctors, and entertainers?

Because white people didn't want to be around black people?

 

[rjs330]

We may be getting somewhere.

Have we established that redlining is systemic racism?
Have we established that it was a good idea to make redlining illegal?

I certainly agree that if a business has rules and policies that refuses to provide loans to minorities because of the color of their skin it definitely fits the systemic racism definition for that business. But I don't know if any businesses that do that.

And it's illegal to do that which goes against the broader idea of systemic racism. We as a society have said we don't want businesses to be able to discriminate line that and have elected people that support the idea of outlawing that type of behavior.

If a business is caught with policies or rules that say they will not provide services to black people they are in violation of law. They are not allowed have those systems in their company.

Again I know of no companies that do that including the one in the OP. They neither admitted to it nor did the government prove it. The government was in over reach mode in my opinion.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Again I know of no companies that do that including the one in the OP. They neither admitted to it nor did the government prove it. The government was in over reach mode in my opinion.

What you, and others, appear to be implying is that it was wrong for the government to make redlining illegal.

Because redlining is about putting lines around places on a map, not about explicit discrimination against people of various races.

And yet, in practically the same breath you take satisfaction in the progressive laws of the the past (assuming that the problem was fixed and systemic racism has vanished). But the Fair Housing Act forbade redlining -- that is, underserving regions on a map (due to racial make-up). That is what the bank was accused of doing, and what you consider government over-reach.

 

[RDKirk]

Hold-up? I'm not sure there's any problem that needs to be solved with respect to the demographics. Anyway, it's just the cumulative effect of lots of individual home buyers and sellers making decisions.


It could be, but it isn't.

How hot is the View Park housing market?​

View Park is very competitive. Homes sell in 37 days.

• Many homes get multiple offers, some with waived contingencies.
• The average homes sell for about 5% above list price and go pending in around 37 days.
• Hot homes
  can sell for about 11% above list price and go pending in around 16 days.

So, then, as I've said before: The fix is in. We're just waiting for generational shifts...which appear to be slow in coming. I've also said before, we won't see a big change in that regard until we Boomers have died off. At this point, about 30% of the population is still Boomer or older...I think it will only take a decrease to about 15%, not down to zero.

 

[RDKirk]

What you, and others, appear to be implying is that it was wrong for the government to make redlining illegal.

@rjs330 said exactly the opposite.

Because redlining is about putting lines around places on a map, not about explicit discrimination against people of various races.

And yet, in practically the same breath you take satisfaction in the progressive laws of the the past (assuming that the problem was fixed and systemic racism has vanished). But the Fair Housing Act forbade redlining -- that is, underserving regions on a map (due to racial make-up). That is what the bank was accused of doing, and what you consider government over-reach.

@rjs330 said exactly the opposite.

What was government overreach was that the government did not prove--they didn't even allege--that City National Bank was "putting lines around places on a map."

Back in the Civil Rights Era, there was an implicit understanding that profit was an acceptable exception. That's why we tested banks and real estate agents for "redlining" and other types of discrimination by taking the economic factor out of the equation. We used black people who had significant income and impeccable credit backgrounds. We used "black" areas that were as prosperous as the white areas around them and other measures to ensure we were truly comparing apples to apples with only race being the difference.

We actually did not use "equal outcome" as the indicator of racism. Those were the days that we had some of our own black banking experience, so we knew our own liabilities.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because white people didn't want to be around black people?

Humm....... And that goes for Asians, brown people, and all the other people with money that don't go to that neighborhood huh? They're okay with being around black people in other neighborhoods, just not in that neighborhood..... Interesting.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The government didn't actually nail down anything City National Bank did that was specifically illegal.

The government identified that City National Bank did not have as many black and Hispanic loans as some other banks in the same business area.

The government identified that City National Bank did not have as many branches in black and Hispanic areas.

The government identified that City National Bank's branch in one specific black area did not have a loan officer desk.

The case did not go to court, it was settled out of court. The government did not actually prove that City National Bank did anything illegal.

City National Bank agreed to spend $31 million to increase its business activity in black and Hispanic areas....that is what the "fine" turns out to be.

That's it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

@rjs330 said exactly the opposite.

Back in the Civil Rights Era, there was an implicit understanding that profit was an acceptable exception.

No, I think you (and he) are both confused about what redlining is. Redlining was always about the profit motive.

In 1935, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) asked the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) to look at 239 cities and create "residential security maps" to indicate the level of security for real-estate investments in each surveyed city. "Type D" neighborhoods were outlined in red and were considered the most risky for mortgage support.

They weren't outlined in red because black people lived there. They were outlined in red because of financial risk. That means they could legally charge more interest, because the loans were riskier. But what was made illegal was not serving those areas.