It's an interesting question: Is it ever acceptable to trade diversity for prosperity?
It sounds good, and righteous, striving to keep the neighborhood as diverse as possible, but who's to say the current percentage of various ethnic groups, and income groups, is the right one? Is there a correct percentage?
What's more, at least in DC, at the same time diversity has decreased in some neighborhoods, and to some degree in the city overall, there's been an increase in the city's overall prosperity, including decreasing crime and overall improvements to the surrounding neighborhood infrastructure (housing, businesses etc.) That's not to suggest that diversity equals crime, but it is to suggest that for some reason prosperity has been accompanied by a decrease in diversity, and vice versa. So the bad (decreased diversity) has been balanced with some good (better quality of living). How do you decide which is better, or at least more important? And are the two mutually exclusive?
As an aside, I'm reminded once of when I attended a US Civil Rights Commission hearing (or something like that) almost ten years ago - I was asked to testify about crime in DC. Before my testimony, someone from the city council was talking about how unconscionable it was that Latino families (in my neighborhood) couldn't even afford to buy a home in the neighborhood in which they've lived for decades. I couldn't contain myself, and interjected: Some of the rest of us have lived in that same neighborhood for decades and also can't afford to buy a home. My point: Sometimes we invoke "diversity" when it's actually a problem affecting everyone.
Articles like this make me, oddly, think of the Middle East, and Israel to be exact. Where we keep arguing who came first, and which ethnic community deserves to have which percentage on which plot of land. It's not terribly clear to me how anyone can make that kind of decision, and make it well - anywhere.
Read More......
Abbreviated pundit round-up
34 minutes ago