Though Philadelphia is, overall, quite “diverse,” a word that I mostly despise due to the way it has been co-opted, it is, internally, one of the most segregated large cities in America. As we previously noted, the Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer were aghast that the “percentage of Black and Hispanic Philadelphians who feel unsafe in their neighborhood is double the percentage of white Philadelphians.”
Gun violence is both a disease and a symptom. It’s crucial that our city’s goal be twofold: ensuring that all Philadelphians feel safe, and that the ranks of those who do not isn’t determined by skin color. Only when that is the case can Philadelphia truly say it is facing its challenges together.
For what are the Board asking here? They have already let us know that they don’t like gentrification, wealthier white people moving into predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and fixing up distressed homes; that, they claimed, led to segregated white pockets in the city. Somehow, no one seems to see the increased values in gentrifying areas lifting the net worth of the homes of black and Hispanic people living in those areas, or the value of white residents who are completely accepting of living in an integrated neighborhood. The Board seem to want more black residents in Chestnut Hill — which, with zip code 19118, one of the examples the Board used, being 67% white, ought to be considered integrated because that means 33% are not white — and Rittenhouse Square, but unless those residents can afford to move there, either the city, or someone, will have to provide the same subprime mortgages that caused the crash of 2007-9, or build ‘affordable housing’ in places which would then see other people’s property values decline due to it.
There is, of course, a not-so-subtle undertone to the Board’s editorial, the theme that white people make places safer, while blacks and Hispanics make areas more dangerous. The members would deny that, of course, but it is right there, obvious to anyone who reads what they wrote.
Unless, of course, the Board are saying that white Philadelphians should feel as unsafe as black and Hispanic residents do? If Will Bunch is on the Board, that wouldn’t surprise me!
And now the Board want to financially depress white areas of the city:
A recent lawsuit shows that segregation remains high in Philadelphia and that significant obstacles remain for Black households to build wealth through real estate.
By The Editorial Board | Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 6:00 AM EST
As demonstrated through The Inquirer’s “A More Perfect Union” series on the legacy of racism in Philadelphia, bias and discrimination have a long history in our city. It is a rot in the foundation of America that we must all continue to repair and rebuild.
A recent housing lawsuit may be the latest part of that effort.
A Philadelphia landlord is accused of steering federal housing voucher recipients into properties in majority-Black neighborhoods, but not in predominantly white areas. This closes even more doors for people already hemmed in by a growing shortage of available rental housing and perpetuates racial disparities.
It is also a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and the city’s own prohibition against tenant discrimination, as detailed in the suit against ProManaged Inc., a Mount Laurel-based landlord with 77 rental properties throughout Philadelphia.
Housing choice vouchers were designed to give low-income households a choice in where they live. Rather than being forced into disinvested areas, these families would have options, with market-rate housing in middle-class neighborhoods finally on the table. At least it was supposed to be.
What are federal housing vouchers? From the Department of Housing and Urban Development:
A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.
Note that: unless the voucher is for 100% of the rent, the family with the voucher are responsible for part of the rent. While the property owners are guaranteed the voucher amount, since that money is sent directly to them, they remain dependent upon the family to pay the remainder. And if the family are poor enough to be eligible for the vouchers in the first place, that means that many of them will be poor enough to be shaky in their ability to pay even the reduced amount.
A 2018 Urban Institute study found that two-thirds of landlords in the city refused to even meet with voucher holders. Compared to municipalities around the country, Philadelphia also had one of the highest disparities between acceptance rates in high- and low-income neighborhoods, a difference of 26%.
There’s some irony that the Inquirer’s editorial was published the same morning that the City of Brotherly Love informed us that it’d hit an even 500 homicides for the year. Given the fact that Philadelphia is a very violent city, and that violence is heavily concentrated in the neighborhoods with higher black and Hispanic percentages of the population, is it any particular surprise that a property owner in a ‘better’ neighborhood would not be all that happy about renting to people from those neighborhoods? Yes, it’s something of a ‘profiling’ judgement, but if the ‘profiling’ is being done based on vouchers rather than race, even there’s a question as to whether that constitutes racial discrimination. After all, poorer whites would face the same problem.
Even the Board recognized the problem, albeit in a backhanded way:
It’s no accident that maps showing structural racism in housing and the current epidemic of gun violence are nearly identical, according to a study by the Office of the City Controller.
Though it’s probably outside of the Board’s paradigm, they have said, inter alia, that bringing more black families into wealthier, whiter neighborhoods means bringing in more of the culture of violence. The people living in Kensington or Strawberry Mansion might be attempting to escape the violence of those areas, but they have also been more culturally conditioned to accept violence as normal, to accept the open-air drug markets as normal.
The Editorial Board at least noted that accepting vouchers came with its own economic disincentive to property owners:
For their part, landlords complain that accepting vouchers is costly and cumbersome. Unlike a private rental license — which in Philadelphia does not require an inspection — apartments leased to voucher holders must be inspected, and are held to higher standards. The landlord must also become certified through the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
So, the rental property owners must have their properties inspected by the city, which exposes them to unanticipated costs if the inspector finds something out of compliance. While the certification courses are listed as being free, they also require two days of the owners’ time, and time is money.
Leasing to voucher holders also comes with significant delays to the move-in process, keeping tenants unhoused and landlords unpaid from anywhere between 45 and 90 additional days when compared to a nonsubsidized rental. With record-low vacancy rates in the city, keeping units empty is expensive.
It sure seems as though people with apartments or houses to rent would want to keep them rented, rather than up to three months of vacancy, and no rent coming in, along with the problems that having an unoccupied dwelling brings. The owners’ property taxes don’t get suspended just because the property is vacant!
Property owners are rightly concerned about their properties’ values, and there’s a cost to that in bringing in people who must rely on vouchers to pay all or part of their rent. When the neighborhood starts to have more poorer people in it, it’s not just the rent: it’s vehicles of lesser value parked on the streets or in the driveways, it’s property not kept quite as nicely as previously, and it’s a subtle, but nevertheless real, perception that the neighborhood is losing value. These are things which depress property values, not only for the landlords, but the other properties in the neighborhood.
What the Editorial Board want is not just for landlords to accept more vouchers and rent to more poorer people, but for the resident homeowners to see the value of their properties to go down. It might not be politically correct to say — and being politically correct has never been something I do — but poverty metastasizes, poverty spreads more widely than just the poor family itself.
It’s both humorous and ironic that the Editorial Board have previously weighed in against “gentrification,” the very thing that both increases racial integration and raises property values in currently heavily minority areas. It takes some research, and familiarity with the Inquirer and its editorial slant, but if you read all of their editorials, and consider them together, you might well come up with the same conclusion I have: the Editorial Board want to mostly keep whites out of existing heavily minority neighborhoods, but move black and Hispanic residents into the more heavily white areas. Just how that makes sense mystifies me!
Home ownership is the best path to the economic success of a working class family, and we should not try to deny it to black or Hispanic Americans. But it is also something which cannot be forced, and the Editorial Board just don’t realize this. Rather, they would make people poorer by reducing their existing home values by pushing an influx of poorer people into established and economically growing neighborhoods.
The problems in Philadelphia are the things that the Editorial Board simply do not want to hear: they are cultural, in the acceptance and normalization of violence, the acceptance and normalization of bastardy, and the acceptance and normalization of drug use. Those are the things which have to be addressed, and they have to be addressed not by Governors and Mayors and city Councilmen, but by parents and neighborhoods and churches. There is no reason that poor or black or Hispanic residents cannot have a moral and ethical structure which leads to decent and safe neighborhoods, but the Board just don’t like people saying radical things like Christian or Jewish or Islamic morality are important culturally, that some of the individual choices some people take are harmful to both themselves and the community around them.
________________________________
Also posted on American Free News Network. Check out American Free News Network for more well written and well reasoned conservative commentary.
We have previously mentioned the questionable nature of Philadelphia’s homicide statistics. Following Ben Mannes report, the website Broad + Liberty has now undertaken to keep and report the numbers themselves, using data from several sources, including inside information:
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Broad + Liberty’s homicide tracker is higher than the city’s. The very first homicide listed, of a 31-year-old black male in the 3000 block of Clifford Street is not listed in the city’s shooting victims database, even though the wounding of a second person in the incident is listed. We reported on this earlier.
According to the city’s shooting victims database, which records only three victims, not four, and only two fatally shot, not three, as of 12:22 PM EST on Tuesday, January 10th, the victims were all Hispanic white males; what I have often called The Philadelphia Enquirer[1]RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but, reminiscent of the National Enquirer as it is, I thought it very apt. doesn’t want to tell you that part. As of this writing, the 18-year-old victim does not appear on the database.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/VYDG4CYKIVHULO63ED2XTYQ3Z4.jpg){kind=link}