Who is at "fault" for the gentrification of Brixton?

[pooka]

BTW, you also appear to be basing your answer on Urbanites you've met. Some of us may vary from that supposed norm, old son.

Well yes, I am basing it on those I've met - that's what I said. But if I'm wrong, and the majority of U75 posters are locals, then I'll stand corrected.

Surely you're missing the point here. It's not that "incomers" are moving into social housing, it's that IF somebody purchases their social housing, then invariably the purchaser IS NOT a w/c local.

Erm, don't think I'm missing the point, but perhaps I've been less than comprehensive. Allowing for what you say, then we'd have:-

Local kids will be deprived of social housing near their parents, if

It is occupied by incomers;
It is sold to locals, who then sell it on to non-locals;
It is sold to non-locals.

How's that?

(Incidentally, why do you say that people exercising RTB are invariably not w/c locals? In the first instance at least, they must be mustn't they?)

The example you give is a hard one, and I'll grant you that in the absence of RTB (which I certainly wouldn't argue for) the situation may have been easier for them. I say 'may' because, as far as I know, there has always been a shortage of social housing and long waiting lists. Cathy Come Home was made in 1966, AFAIR.

It's even cropped up on the Archers - but then me and Mrs M are probably the only people who listen to it!

Oooh Nooooo - You're talking to THE MAN WHO SPOTTED THE HANDKERCHIEF!

By the way, do you think Greg is about to do something messy with a shotgun in the woodshed? I think this job in Suffolk may be a blinder - he's being showing all the signs for a while and now this sudden resignation and clarity of purpose -bodes badly I'd say. The guilt will probably throw Pat back into depression.....

 

[pooka]

Might it perhaps be Pooka, that some children move away in manner of, "college educated middle class" whilst some decide to stay at home in manner of "Eastenders" idyll. Patronising? I don't think so, just a statement of the obvious.

As to your second point, you draw the wrong implications. Firstly, I don't think that the lack of social housing is mainly due to 'incomers'. I think there is simply a shortage, as the children of tenants take up tenancies etc. Secondly, the racism point is Anna Key's not mine. I have maintained a Trappist-like silence on that subject.

I accept your first point.

As for the second, if there's a shortage of social housing for local kids then it must be the case that incomers are displacing them, even if the incomers are not the sole cause of the shortage.

Generally, an influx of newcomers is going to exacerbate housing problems across the board - forcing up private rents, forcing up prices and extending the housing lists for social housing - all to the detriment of locals (in these terms).

Yes, the implication about racism follows on from Anna's point not yours.

 

[lang rabbie]

There is also the matter of the steady diminution of the private rented sector as part of Brixton's housing stock (prior to the very recent emergence of formerly owner occupied individual flats on the "buy to let" market, once rents had reached truly silly levels).

Despite the Rachmanite reputation of small landlords among many on the left of centre, and the Rigsby-like characters too many of us encountered as students, this sector did provide an intermediate sector - between "social" housing for the poorest and owner-occupation.

For a long time, Lambeth's Housing Department (in common with other authorities) was actively against "Houses in multiple occupation" - aka bedsitland, which provided low cost rented housing. They did not distinguish between the unsuitability of such accommodation for families with children, and a municipal view that not having your own bathroom automatically equalled deprivation. It was only in the early 90s that Lambeth realised that this sector was providing accommodation for many vulnerable single people, and started to work with landlords to secure improvements, rather than always arguing for conversions to self contained flats which reduced supply.

The lack of capital investment in a lot of the properties also had the effect of keeping the area looking depressed.

Another factor has been the utter shambles of Lambeth's Housing Benefits administration (for at least the last fifteen years) which has meant that rent might not be received by a landlord for up to 6 months. As the system went through its various crises, many landlords decided:,
i) to only rent at full market rent to those in employment, or
ii) to sell up for redevelopment as flats for sale

 

[ViolentPanda]

(Incidentally, why do you say that people exercising RTN is invariably not a w/c. In the first instance at least, they must be mustn't they?)

I should havemade myself clearer. I meant that the purchaser who buys from somebody who has exercised RTB. Obviously, the original purchaser would have (probably) been local w/c as you say.

The example you give is a hard one, and I'll grant you that in the absence of RTB (which I certainly wouldn't argue for) the situation may have been easier for them. I say 'may' because, as far as I know, there has always been a shortage of social housing and long waiting lists. Cathy Come Home was made in 1966, AFAIR.

My personal opinion is that (on the south at least) the situation is worse than any time since the 1960s. We have a steady net LOSS of social housing to RTB every year. New build in the HA sector doesn't even begin to compensate for the loss from council stock. Unless local authorities are given new powers to build and to borrow, then social housing as it is now is fucked., and central government won't do a thing because the "underclass" is something to be actively disparaged while occasionally fed crumbs from the master's table.

 

[Anna Key]

Anna - I find it very amusing that you use the law to try and back up an argument in the context of your user name AND much more importantly in the context of your current campaign for Clifton Mansions which if I'm not mistaken is a direct assault on current property rights legislation...

On the Rushcroft/Clifton situation, Lambeth Council shouldn’t be above the law. They’ve just lost in court - again (at considerable cost to Lambeth council tax payers) - in their efforts to clear my estate for sale to property developers.

And they keep failing to respond to requests for talks between the two sides to stop the litigation, protect the community and preserve the estate as social housing.

Even the judge, at the last court hearing but one, commented on the Council’s behaviour:

7.1 During the course of the current litigation a Case Management Conference occurred on 31st October 2003, where the Judge remarked on the amount of time the litigation was taking, the costs involved and inquired why “a more pragmatic approach” was not being taken by Lambeth Council.

7.2 The Judge went on to say that he “could not help wondering why no lateral thinking was being engaged in by Lambeth Council” especially as many residents were vulnerable and would require re-housing.

7.3 Apt asks Lambeth Council to take account of the Judge’s remarks when considering these proposals.

Source

I honestly don't think that you can make the leap from 'employment law' to 'housing law' in any case.

If racism in the workplace is wrong - and illegal - that suggests to me that racism in housing provision is also wrong - and should also be illegal.

Just out of interest Anna - what is your view on:

1. Equal opportunities

vs

2. Positive discrimination

I am firmly in camp 1 and find the concept of 2 loathsome BTW.

If equal opportunity arrangements don’t work - should they fail to deliver equal opportunities and leave some people excluded - I think it’s reasonable to go down the positive discrimination road.

Graduated taxation is an example of positive discrimination, while the Poll Tax was an equal opportunities tax. Which do you prefer?

Otherwise you’re left with the formulation “We’re all free to eat at the Ritz” which clearly we’re not.

Why should anyone go to the wall because of a dogmatic attachment to “Equal Opportunities?”

A Lord with tons of money should not be treated the same as a tramp don’t you think? The Lord can look after himself. A tramp often cannot.

Are you really arguing that Lord and tramp should be treated equally? LOL!

 

[hatboy]

Domski said:

"When Hatboy talks about 'being poor' and the 'poor being marginalised', I've often wanted to ask him what he does, and why he is poor... because I'd really like to understand. People who are poor because they are incapable of making 'their way in the world' deserve support from all of us, and that includes those who follow vocations like teaching, medicine, etc... (...very long list...)"

Answer: Physical illness, and potential of extreme physical illness and resulting stress, depression, mental health issues. Some inertia, some failure - it's hard to get back.

Plus just never exactly fitting in the majority anyway and the alienation that can create, variable self-esteem issues and stuff.

Working on it tho.

It's not easy for everyone - people have problems, lack opportunity, are trapped at the bottom of society or lack confidence for instance. People fail and/or fall by the wayside. People have drink or drug problems. People lack security at home and love.

Teachers are not "incapable of making their way in the world". They are underpaid. When lots of services and housing are tailored to the few who earn a very big wage ordinary working people are poor.

Plus everyone shouldn't be compelled to, and not everyone can, conform to
"cash rich, time poor" society. There's more to life than making money.

You speak like it's a given that the ideal is the successful, thrusting young professional. Alot of people just don't believe the hype. They're often right. It's a con.

Trapped in a job, trapped in a mortgage. You see who owns that flat when the next recession comes and you can't pay? The bank own it. Plus a population tied up in this way is a controllable population - that's what the elite want. Strike and lose your job, strike and lose your home. Do as you are told.

One more thing regarding "what about neighbours (whatever colour) who made a mint selling their house/business they had since 1960" or whatever. Well, when you're made an financial offer that's big and tempting you may "take the money and run" and good luck to you - Some are well pleased to get out. But many may not necessarily really want to go or really want to see their communities disolved and their neighbourhood become unrecogniseable to them.



I'm sorry by the way, but the "race debate" or whatever in this forum seems to have become more of a mess than ever IMHO. LOL. No offence. I'm glad others have cottoned on to it being important but AK, much as I like you, you seem to have it more polarised then ever.

I would have liked it if as Reubeness has said this website went all "hue-man" and had evolved a natural mix of people a bit beyond this polarity like groups of friends who are just a colour/class mish-mash and don't really notice anymore.

Oh well good luck with it boys and girls.

 

[Ol Nick]

Being English, white and having a penis?

You should probably give that back.

 

[pooka]

To attempt to answer Domski's original question ( and by 'blame' I take it you mean "what are the causes of gentrification").

I suppose we need to be clear what we mean by gentrification - and when it started. Definitions of gentrification, on both sides of the Atlantic, all seem to involve demographic change (social class, economic well being, lifestyle etc) as well as direct measures such as property values. Indeed, in the early stages of gentrification property values may be the least of it. In some cities, gentrification starts in areas largely abandoned and with very low value or free property.

So, the process of gentrification is about the resettlement of an area by a different (crudely, of different class) group of people, who see value in the area that had previously been overlooked.

Value in the first instance is in tangible terms - availability/cost of somewhere to live in an overheated south east housing market, and withing reach of central London. But value also in terms of a place that is attractive by the mores of the incomers. It's this latter value that the incomers cement, augment and broadcast - giving momentum to the whole process.

In those terms, I'd say that the (largely white) middle-class (let's not mince words) resettlement of Brixton has had a number of successive phases, each conditioning the next, rather like an ecological succession.

1970's - Squatters ie largely mid-class young people who saw value in abandoned or condemned property.

1980's - Short lifers (see newbie's comment above)

1980's - Skip fillers - the do-er uppers.

1990's - 'Apartment dwellers', buying ready done up or new build 'luxury apartments'

Of course there have been cross-overs, some squatters became short lifers or jumped straight to being skip fillers, or shifted into social housing, either by the council or by setting up a co-op. Each successive wave has used some resource/advantage (confidence, energy,time, cash) to carve out it's own place, each has changed Brixton and each has laid the groundwork for it successor.

The process hasn't been uniform - improvements to the infrastructure (like opening the tube) will undoubtledly have given it a spur, the property frenzies of the late 80's and late 90's probably have done likewise. Governement policies dierected at brown field development (in fill and conversions) have probably added to it lately. But underlying it, has been one continuous process I'd say - and one of which most of us posting on here are part of, one way or another.

To complain is a bit like people who go on about 'tourists' ruining their favourite holiday destination, without admitting they're a tourist too, just they got there a bit sooner. We've every right to mourn the 'way things were', but not to claim some moral high ground. That isn't to say we should just sit back and free-market economics let rip, whatever the consequences. Change has to be managed and the weakest protected. But that's different from trying to freeze the place in some past state (1980? 1970? when?) or engage in hysterical tribalism against the next wave of incomers.

There is a separate issue, one which gets a huge amount of attention on here, about town centre boozers etc. I'd argue that the developments are as much about the so-called 'night time economy' ie Brixton becoming an entertainment destination, as they are about the changing demographic of Brixton itself.

 

[newbie]

Good post, but don't forget

2000's - 'investors', using equity release from elsewhere or high salaries to grab their bit of the property boom.

There's a couple of buildings round the corner which were old style West Indian shops a decade or so ago- an elderly bloke with a few tins of ackees on the shelf, not much else- before conversion into apartments. They've changed hands with increasing frequency of late, as people with ever flasher cars move in, do yet another stylish makeover and then trouser their capital gain and move on.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK - I appreciate that there's a real danger of this degenerating into a mudslinging match but despite all the discussion of gentrification there's a lot of prevaricating around the actual cause and a lot of finger pointing at what gentrification actually produces rather than getting down to the root cause of why it's actually happening. Inevitably some of this ground will have been covered in other threads - so sorry...

I tend to think it's a product of the prevailing economic system rather than some sort of underhand plan to drive the incumbent community out of Brixton. But that's my opinion.

So who's fault is it?

1. The government
2. Lambeth council
3. Bar owners
4. The 'gentrifiers' - i.e. new people
5. The existing community (even)

etc etc...

Please lets not let this get into a discussion about 'editorial lines', the make-up of the Brixton forum, who doesn't get on with who etc...

why don't you think it's anything to do with class? and what makes you think there isn't some sort of underhand plan to drive the incumbent community out of brixton? if they could do it in parts of westminster, why not parts of lambeth?

 

[Streathamite]

Never apologise, never explain!

wouldn't have mistaken you for a fan of Richard Nixon before now!

 

[Pickman's model]

<Waits with baited breath>

what's it baited with?

i wait with bated breath to find out.

 

[Pickman's model]

wouldn't have mistaken you for a fan of Richard Nixon before now!

you haven't seen his list of enemies, have you?

 

[Anna Key]

Please don't piss around

I’m not pissing around. I’m putting an argument.

The argument centred on problems associated with the gentrification of an area both poor and multi-ethnic.

When a white area is gentrified by whites the problem of racism doesn’t arise. Other problems associated with gentrification do arise but the problem of racism does not.

When a highly racially mixed area, such as Brixton, is gentrified by (predominantly) white people - because that’s where the bulk of the incoming money lies - problems associated with racism may arise, because a disproportionate number of non-white people are effected adversely by the white-led gentrification.

This strikes me as a problem worth discussing on a thread devoted to the causes of gentrification.

and try to patronise me.

I’m not trying to patronise you. I’m putting an argument.

I can't be arsed to play your games

I’m not playing games. I’m putting an argument. It’s a controversial argument but that’s one reason why it interests me.

although I will comment that your tactics here perfectly sum up why some people are put off posting here.

I’ve put an argument which interests me as clearly and as powerfully as I can. If that puts people off posting I’m sorry.

If people are put off posting due to exposure to a rational argument on (what I believe is) a key issue effecting my neighbourhood that presents me with a choice:

(a) post the argument and put people off;

or

(b) avoid posting the argument and avoid putting people off.

Should you advise that (b) is the best option I’ll follow your advice. You are the best judge of what does and does not put people off posting.

In fact, I would prefer that the argument is not put rather than that people are put off posting. In the big scheme of things I think it’s better for “off-putting” arguments not to be put and for people, as a consequence, not to be put off posting.

You're clearly far more interested in scoring points than actually staying on topic and debating the issues.

I’m debating an issue which interests me - the relationship between gentrification and racism - as clearly and as courteously as I can. I’m doing so on a thread devoted to gentrification.

Still, if you think that manufacturing ridiculous suggestions that I might think 'black people can't be racist',

That, to me, was the implication of what you wrote. You’ve told me that implication is false. I accept that.

serving up weird nonsense about an irrelevant shite film

The film ‘Notting Hill’ sums up for me, in fictional form, what could happen to Brixton. Notting Hill, formally a relatively poor multi-ethnic area, gentrified into a predominantly white wealthy area.

So I disagree with you that a reference to the film, in the context of this discussion, is weird or nonsensical or irrelevant, but agree it’s an appalling film.

and announcing that those "who gentrify Brixton are racists" passes for meaningful debate, I'll leave you to it.

If I had simply made that assertion - that those who gentrify Brixton are racists - you’d be right. I’d hold up my hands. The production of a bald assertion, an ungrounded proposition, an unsupported truth-claim, does not constitute “debate.”

But I didn’t do that. I made the assertion then supported it with reasons. I produced a claim then backed it up. I advanced a proposition then provided reasons why, in my view, the proposition is true.

People then disagreed with me. The argument ranged widely. A genuine debate occurred.

I meant what I said earlier:

If certain subjects cannot be discussed, or may be discussed only in certain ways, I will follow your advice to the letter. You are the best judge of:

(a) appropriate topics for discussion; and

(b) the manner in which appropriate topics for discussion may be debated.

 

[reubeness]

Ises one and ones,

Somewhere on here Domski asks what other effects gentrification has on the local community.
The in-comers with a little bit of money and a lot of collateral, a good education and probably good jobs or career potential will not worry too much about what state or comprehensive school Tristram, Poppy or Saffron will go to. They will make sure their children pass any entrance exam to increase the chance of 'choice' - if push comes to shove they will fork out the x thousands of pounds a term for a private school, whichever way - the nearest failing state school will not be an option for them. The local school will never be able to compete, will only receive pupils who have no other choice and will continue to be labelled a 'sink' school.
Community resources are another area where 'in-comers' with the wherewithall to make choices will undermine the provision to the community. For instance - community stalwarts have been trying for years to 'include' those children in the area who will be selling crack, drinking alcohol, making babies, shooting or stabbing each other (by the way, many of these children populate the schools descibed above) somehow grass roots campaigners who have big hearts but don't know how to work within the system are eclipsed by articulate people who do know the system but don't really and truly understand what is needed in Brixton, for instance.
Not blaming any 'one' and I'm not saying that people should not have choices, I'm certainly not saying that you don't have the right to make sure your children get the best education possible - BUT many of the poor in our own town DO NOT HAVE THESE CHOICES THROUGH NO 'FAULT' OF THEIR OWN!!
I'm a great fan of conspiracy theories (lol) gentrification does change communities - they become infinitely more 'manageable'.
Blessed Love

 

[newbie]

why don't you think it's anything to do with class? and what makes you think there isn't some sort of underhand plan to drive the incumbent community out of brixton? if they could do it in parts of westminster, why not parts of lambeth?

Well the process started under a Labour administration and is continuing under a LibDem/Tory one, which raises the question of who exactly is 'they'?

When a white area is gentrified by whites the problem of racism doesn’t arise. Other problems associated with gentrification do arise but the problem of racism does not.

Isn't this more complex than just shouting racism? I agree that (and acknowledge my own part in) the effect of migration into Brixton has displaced the previous population (as indeed the Windrush generation did in their day). White has replaced black (as previously black replaced white) although that includes an influx of white people whose roots are not long established English.

But white is replacing second and third generation black. People who historically gathered together into communities based on country/region of origin are gradually dispersing into the wider population. Black faces are commonplace in small English towns these days where they never used to be, and are widespread throughout the outer suburbs. The mere fact that someone is black does not necessitate that they should want to live in or around Brixton... the availability of food, entertainment or culture which ties in with their upbringing is offset by squalor, crime and typecasting.

Just as young white people seek to move away from their parents and their upbringing so, surely, do young black people. Communities are no longer fixed.

That's not to say that every individual has or can exercise choice, but I have the striong impression your argument stems from the expection that most black locals are pawns in a wider game where they have no individual choice.

 

[pooka]

Good post, but don't forget
2000's - 'investors', using equity release from elsewhere or high salaries to grab their bit of the property boom.

Fair point. I'd kindoff included that in 1990's new build and the comment about brownfield, but you do make me pause to wonder whether there has been a quantum increase in speculative development, or whether it's just changed in type - ie used to be developers buying houses and splitting them into flats, whereas now they're building new 'luxury apartments'.

 

[Anna Key]

what's it baited with?

i wait with bated breath to find out.

“Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key,
With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness,
Say this ...”

Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, I.iii.123

 

[newbie]

Not blaming any 'one' and I'm not saying that people should not have choices, I'm certainly not saying that you don't have the right to make sure your children get the best education possible - BUT many of the poor in our own town DO NOT HAVE THESE CHOICES THROUGH NO 'FAULT' OF THEIR OWN!!

This is the heart of the problem, to my mind. If we recognise that each individual has the freedom to make personal choices, then when a lot of people make the same choice there will inevitably be winners and losers. No one person who seeks to move to Brixton is doing anything wrong, but the cumulative effect of too many people doing it is harming those locals whose choices are more limited.

 

[newbie]

Fair point. I'd kindoff included that in 1990's new build and the comment about brownfield, but you do make me pause to wonder whether there has been a quantum increase in speculative development, or whether it's just changed in type - ie used to be developers buying houses and splitting them into flats, whereas now they're building new 'luxury apartments'.

I think there's been a qualittitive change as the house price boom has gathered pace. Fewer first time buyers escaping innacity renting, more established professionals trading up to the inner dormitory suburbs.

 

[hatboy]

Reubeness said:

"gentrification does change communities - they become infinitely more 'manageable'. "

I think that's part of the hidden agenda. Brixton was/is scary and uncontrolable to the establishment. A place where people took to the streets and changed British politics.

Regarding Mr Lounge - (I won't say much because it's he hasn't said I can) but what I will say is what he's told me and is public knowledge. He was told by Brixton Challenge that their was no demand for a coffee shop as he proposed and given little or no money (5 grand max, Dogstar got 76 grand). He wouldn't have been able to open Lounge had he not had some money from his success as an actor.

Tony (proprietor of 414 club) received little or no Challenge money either (he did apply).

Both these men are black. Were they viewed as less deserving of BC money because of this? It has been suggested to me that perhaps the council thought people would leg it back to Jamaica.

 

[Anna Key]

Regarding Mr Lounge - (I won't say much because it's he hasn't said I can) but what I will say is what he's told me and is public knowledge. He was told by Brixton Challenge that their was no demand for a coffee shop as he proposed and given little or no money (5 grand max, Dogstar got 76 grand). He wouldn't have been able to open Lounge had he not had some money from his success as an actor.

Tony (proprietor of 414 club) received no Challenge money either (he did apply).

Both these men are black.

At some point someone needs to put some questions down in the Council Chamber to discover exactly who got what from Brixton Challenge.

Then someone needs to take the figures appart and discover whether there is truth or not in the whispers of 'racism' I've heard for years about how the cash was allocated.

I've done a bit of research but it's mostly lost in the mists of time. A few scraps of hard information are available, e.g. details of the Dogstar Brixton Challenge money came out when Dogstar Leisure Ltd liquidated.

Hatboy's right: Dogstar Leisure Ltd received £76,000. And then went bust.

 

[reubeness]

Ises Hatboy,
Yes indeed - those community big heart people I was talking about - always felt that their difficulty in getting funding was the result of past history around BC money and the "take the money and run" stereotype.
Blessed Love

 

[miss minnie]

i remember something came out about the challenge money. the hoo-ha seemed to die down very quickly though and i don't remember seeing real details.

lambeth had to give back £13m because of the committee's mismanagement. there were loud whispers of corruption too.

 

[lang rabbie]

But that might lead to people questioning the ability to run a whelk stall of certain individuals who have gone on to better things in the regeneration world.

From an awards press release a few years ago...

A former [position] of the Brixton Challenge Company, [name] oversaw the transformation of Brixton from a deprived and crime-ridden area to a major centre for entertainment.

 

[Mr BC]

You speak like it's a given that the ideal is the successful, thrusting young professional. Alot of people just don't believe the hype. They're often right. It's a con.

Trapped in a job, trapped in a mortgage. You see who owns that flat when the next recession comes and you can't pay? The bank own it. Plus a population tied up in this way is a controllable population - that's what the elite want. Strike and lose your job, strike and lose your home. Do as you are told.

This insight no doubt stems from your considerable experience of having been a 'thrusting young professional'?

If I may say so, you expect high standards of toleration from others about your life style choices but seem less willing to reciprocate.

 

[Mr BC]

I'd add "racists" to your list.

I agree with the argument – which drives some people mad and makes yuppies splutter into their live goats milk yoghurt – that the word “gentrification” in the context of Brixton is a synonym for the word “racist.”

In other words, those who gentrify Brixton are racists.

This argument, based on the relative sizes of the white and BME London middle classes, means that if you gentrify Brixton you drive out blacks in favour of whites.

If deploying market forces to drive out blacks in favour of whites isn't racist, what is? And it's happened before, in Notting Hill. So there's emprirical evidence to back up the argument.

And to do this at the very heart of Brixton - an icographically significant diverse neighbourhood with a history of resistance and political struggle - strikes me as somewhat provocative.

So gentrifiers, in the Brixton context, are racists.

They’re either “indirect racists,” who don’t realise the effect of their behaviour. Or they’re “direct racists” who indulge in gentrifying activity knowing full well they’re screwing black people in favour of whites.

Surely it's the latter point which is critical? I assume you would agree that very few, if any, of the 'gentrifiers' are what you term 'direct racists'? It would certainly be a very odd racist who pursued his ends by choosing to buy property in a heavily BME area in order, in some very small way, to further ethnic cleansing?

That leaves us with the charge that gentrifiers are 'indirect racists', which seems to have caused such offence. I would have thought that most people would agree with these propositions:

1) Gentrification leads to the poor being priced out of the housing market, whether it be rented or buying.
2)BME people tend to be poorer than their white counterparts.
3)Gentrification in an area with a large BME population therefore leads to BME people being priced out of their area.
4)The area therefore becomes 'whiter'.

Is racism the appropriate term for this process though? Surely racism requires some intention? Even institutional racism depends upon processes and procedures which are artificial (i.e. man made) constructions. The process I've set out above is a function of the laws of economics. Simple supply and demand. Those who participate in it are surely no more culpable than any of the other running dogs of capitalism. Those who work and earn wages for example. What I mean is, that they are unable to change the laws of supply and demand.

Whilst I would concede therefore that the process has consequences detrimental to the BME community, I would not describe those who participate in it as 'racists' whether direct or indirect.

 

[hatboy]

This insight no doubt stems from your considerable experience of having been a 'thrusting young professional'?

If I may say so, you expect high standards of toleration from others about your life style choices but seem less willing to reciprocate.

Nah, that's not it.

 

[editor]

If people are put off posting due to exposure to a rational argument...

No. It's your patronising and misrepresentational style of 'debate' in this thread that I suspect puts people off.

It's certainly put me off engaging any further in this debate. I don't like having words put in my mouth and I haven't the time nor the inclination to carry on correcting your ludicrous misrepresentations - e.g."Are you arguing that non-white people can't be racist?" (I made no such suggestion or anything like it)

I'm concerned about the comments I've received about this forum becoming insular, unfriendly and unwelcome to newbies.

After this particular exchange, I'm beginning to see what they mean. Doesn't it bother you or don't those other opinions count?

 

[editor]

T+++ received no Challenge money either (he did apply).

I'm not entirely sure if you should be posting up such business information in a public forum.

Have you asked him if he minds? Maybe you should amend your post.