Antagonist? Catalyst? Realist? Change agent? It’s time for Dayton to face race.
I had a long conversation with a friend today. Someone inside the system, someone who wins elections. One on one, he stands up for me. In public, he keeps a safe distance. He wants me to change my style- I want him to stand up and take things head on. Somewhere, there is a middle ground- but, in Dayton it’s a no man’s land we don’t want to talk about, we avoid, we ignore and we pretend that it’s not the fundamental flaw- the root of all evil, what’s holding us back.
It’s as simple as this: Dayton is going to stay screwed until we integrate- and I’m not talking just Dayton, city of- I’m talking Dayton- regional.
This article that I quote below- from NewGeography.com is the most prescient article I’ve read that sums up what’s holding us back. And it’s not the fault of the black people- it’s a fault of all of us. From Oakwood with its handful of black students- to Wright Patterson Air Force Base which does a crappy job of reaching out into the local community to support small and minority business.
It’s our political parties that play games with elections, and our poor excuse for a Federal Judge Walter Rice- who can’t realize that the “desegregation” process imposed on Dayton Public Schools in the seventies- did nothing to integrate the suburbs – foisting white flight, sprawl and a permanent screwing of the core city.
We now have a group of people who are convinced we can become a “progressive” hip mecca- without realizing that until we find ways to employ our minorities, we’re going to continue to have a class struggle- and a mess on our hands. No amount of “bicycle friendliness” or “complete streets” compares with good schools with opportunity or jobs that pay more than just a hardscrabble wage.
I highly recommend you read the whole thing- not just this excerpt- to find out why the dreams of the “Dayton Development Coalition” and their “Regional Rally” aren’t going to get us there- until we address the fundamental problems:
As the college educated flock to these progressive El Dorados, many factors are cited as reasons: transit systems, density, bike lanes, walkable communities, robust art and cultural scenes. But another way to look at it is simply as White Flight writ large. Why move to the suburbs of your stodgy Midwest city to escape African Americans and get criticized for it when you can move to Portland and actually be praised as progressive, urban and hip? Many of the policies of Portland are not that dissimilar from those of upscale suburbs in their effects. Urban growth boundaries and other mechanisms raise land prices and render housing less affordable exactly the same as large lot zoning and building codes that mandate brick and other expensive materials do. They both contribute to reducing housing affordability for historically disadvantaged communities. Just like the most exclusive suburbs….
Lack of diversity in culture makes it far easier to implement “progressive” policies that cater to populations with similar values; much the same can be seen in such celebrated urban model cultures in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Their relative wealth also leads to a natural adoption of the default strategy of the upscale suburb: the nicest stuff for the people with the most money. It is much more difficult when you have more racially and economically diverse populations with different needs, interests, and desires to reconcile.In contrast, the starker part of racial history in America has been one of the defining elements of the history of the cities of the Northeast, Midwest, and South. Slavery and Jim Crow led to the Great Migration to the industrial North, which broke the old ethnic machine urban consensus there. Civil rights struggles, fair housing, affirmative action, school integration and busing, riots, red lining, block busting, public housing, the emergence of black political leaders – especially mayors – prompted white flight and the associated disinvestment, leading to the decline of urban schools and neighborhoods.
The only way we are going to fix ourselves- and to balance things out, is going to take a gigantic community gut check- a deep swallow of humility, and a strong communal spine- one that stands up for what is right – really right. It’s going to take a Dr. King or Gandhi-like leaders- to march us down the path to what we have to do to compete- and survive: regionalize and integrate, whole hog, everything.
One government, one school system, one income tax, one zoning code, one region under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
And not just Montgomery County- we’d include Beavercreek, Fairborn, Springboro- even Xenia, Tipp and Troy if they were smart. Springfield too if they’d like. We’d become big, and we’d learn to share. We’d find the best of the best to lead us- and pay them well. We’d stop thinking small- and think like an Army taking on a battle of international proportions. We’d make sure that we thought about the big picture first- and stopped sweating the small stuff.
Of course, I’m crazy for thinking this- or saying it. In Dayton, we don’t do anything without a collective hug, and the blessing of the poobahs. But, as long as we stay divided, we’ll continue to fail.
The moment our numbers start being looked at as a region, and we start acting as one, we can start addressing the real inequities in Dayton, the ones that are holding us back. We can stop “protecting our turf” and start actually harvesting it and selling it to the world.
I’m not suggesting I can lead the charge, but at least I can call for it. I don’t have to protect myself, my position, or my power base. Call me an antagonist, call me a jerk, but- then look inside and after reading the article quoted above- tell me if there is another way to go. I want to know.
I read what you wrote but, I’m not quite sure what you said (or how to respond for that matter). I suppose I should preface my comments by saying that I’m a minority (African-American, Black, however one wants to coin it). And what I think I read you writing (or perhaps, what NewGeography.com wrote) is that as a minority, I am unable to do things for myself; that I’m totally dependent on government hoisting me up (as opposed to simply ensuring that there’s a level playing field and then leaving it up to me to get on that field); or that I’m totally dependent upon the whites who fled to the suburbs to make special accommodations just for me.
I’m not sure I like any of those concepts (or the remedies that correcting them would entail).
Or perhaps, I just completely misunderstood what you wrote. I’ll find and read the whole article so that I can grasp the concept more fully.
@Brian- the link to the article is right below the indented block quote. The article is controversial. What I’m saying is the model that the powers that be are working on- to “turn the city around” are based on success stories from cities that have less segregation and less minorities- until we face our own demons- we won’t be able to move forward. Here is the link again: The White City | Newgeography.com.
I read the NewGeography.com article.
Another preface before I comment: When I was selected for City Council earlier this year, a Dayton Daily news reporter wrote: “As the lone African American on the board, Jarvis will bring some cultural diversity to a group now made up of three men and three women.” My response to his comment (as was quoted in the Dayton Daily New) was: “Jarvis said he thinks diversity is important, but not just diversity for diversity’s sake. “I think it’s important, but I think what goes along with that is a person’s character and what they bring to the table.”
What I understand NewGeography.com to be saying is that the “blackness” of a city is the true measure of its progressivness. That’s an awfully patronizing point of view. As is the idea that “progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans?” I never looked at myself as being a measure of how progressive a city was. Again, an awfully patronizing and insulting point of view. (I can’t wait to read the readers’ comments on that article. I’m certain that it won’t be pretty.)
Living here in Beavercreek (92% white), I haven’t viewed the city’s residents’ choice to live here (in the suburbs) as fleeing away from minorities. (Though, there are of course some exceptions, I see it primarily as fleeing from areas that are impoverished.) If it were (fleeing from minorities), my being selected for city council earlier this year put a partial nail in that thinking; and, my being elected by the residents to city council a couple of weeks ago put it completely to rest.
“the traditional sine qua non of diversity,…” I’m gonna have to think hard on that one.
That article is certain to throw race relations back a few decades.
@Brian- I would think the divide between the races in Dayton has shown that race relations here haven’t improved in the last three decades. We replaced racial integration in our school system with economic segregation as the people of means bailed out of Dayton. We’ve been living a lie for the last 30 years thinking that busing children was a solution.
We’re not doing a good job of attracting business to our region- with multiple, uncoordinated agencies and departments fighting over every single lead- selling their soul (and all future property tax revenue) out in the name of “economic development.”
We are an uncoordinated mess- in large part, because the “elite” don’t want to deal with the troubles they left behind 30 years ago.
This article is out there- it’s a lightening rod for discussion- about the “new urbanist/creative class” vision and the old community/working class reality.
The fact that the DDN is a racist rag and factors your skin color into an endorsement is yet another indication that we haven’t moved past race issues here.
The discussion on the NewGeography article is as interesting as the article.
I’m trying to get a discussion started here about embracing our diversity- and looking at true systems integration- so that we at least all pay into the same fund- elect the same people- and expect similar results.
I’m tired of people complaining about taxation without representation (I live in Centerville but work or own property in Dayton) or- the fact that other than Dayton and Trotwood- Charter schools and their attendant problems are purely an urban thing.
Never mind the redundancy of leaders- and the lines on the map that no longer make sense (like the Greene being in Beavercreek/Greene County instead of Kettering- when 675 would make a better boundary).
Face it- we’ve got problems of a much larger scale than our current, antiquated systems are built for.
I think we agree with the facts of each (or most of) your points: 1. “We replaced racial integration in our school system with economic segregation.” Absolutely true. No question about it. (Now it’s how much green, and similar morals, values, ethics, etc., that you bring with you that matters.) 2. “We’re not doing a good job of attracting business to our region.” In certain areas of the region, I agree. 3. “We are an uncoordinated mess.” Possibly true. Is it a requirement, that I (Beavercreek) must coordinate everything I do with Riverside, Kettering, Dayton, etc.? I don’t think so. We each have our strengths; our own visions for our respective cities. That said, it would be interesting to see what resulted if we did coordinate. But, I can’t say that I agree that I MUST coordinate for the region (and/or for my city) to be successful. 4. “This article…. is a lightening rod for discussion.” (As well as your blogs, I should add – and I do appreciate your commentary.) True. However, I’m always cautious when writers (e.g., the NewGeography.com article) throw out numbers and percentages. A phrase we use at my day job is “If you torture numbers long enough, they’ll say anything you want.” 5. “The fact that the DDN is a racist rag and factors your skin color….” (That one is good for a lunchtime discussion to see where exactly you’re coming from — tough to get into specifics in a sentence or two.) 6. “The discussion on the NewGeography article is as interesting as the article.” Again, true. And discussion is the only way for the best ideas to bubble to the surface. The other comments do bring good discussion, when not taken to extreme. Embracing our diversity is great but, don’t think you have to treat me special. What makes this experiment so interesting is that we don’t all pay into the same fund, we don’t elect the same people, and we certainly don’t expect similar results. (At least, I don’t.) We each take advantage of the opportunities presented to us, utilize them in the way that benefits us, and then (hopefully) guide that to the results that we want. And, we… Read more »
Is it a requirement, that I (Beavercreek) must coordinate everything I do with Riverside, Kettering, Dayton, etc.?
Perhaps it should be. Does it help Greater Dayton (i.e., the metropolitan area) when the City of Dayton and the City of Kettering compete to move Reynolds+Reynolds jobs back and forth? Does it help Greater Dayton when the City of Riverside and the City of Huber Heights compete to move Meijer jobs? Is it best for Greater Dayton to ever expand outward, leaving a rotting core? Perhaps at some point we can bulldoze the City of Dayton and the first suburbs over and start over again with farmland in the center.
Black people can move to Oakwood, why would you suggest otherwise?
In the real world, with real people, we just live life. Putting pieces to a puzzle that don’t fit is a tough way to go through life. Let people do what they want to do, live where they want to live. If black people want to live in Oakwood then I suggest they buy a house of rent an apartmentor rent a house. No one is stopping them. Are you suggesting Oakwood should recruit black people?
Making situations more complicated than they need to be confuses people into thinking there is a problem. The problem is making up stuff to write articles and sell books and newspapers.
the “blackness” of a city is the true measure of its progressivness…I never looked at myself as being a measure of how progressive a city was
Gay people get in trouble whenever we compare our situation to that of African Americans, but I’ll wander in and say, you know what? I’ve certainly looked at myself as being a measure how progressive a city is. I was absolutely flabbergasted in 2007 when so many people claimed that banning discrimination based on sexual orientation would be Dayton’s downfall. Yes, because cities such as New York, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Columbus, etc., etc., etc., have become desolate wastelands since banning such discrimination. No, instead the reality is that cities that are attractive to minorities including “teh gayz” tend to do better economically. I’m not black, and perhaps if I were, I’d find it patronizing for cities to want to provide a safe welcoming environment for me, but as a gay man, if it’s patronizing to ban discrimination against me, if it’s patronizing to provide a welcoming space for people like me, go ahead and patronize me.
Black people can move to Oakwood, why would you suggest otherwise?
Perhaps, Gene, you’ve never heard of the term “Driving While Black.” Who knows whether Brian’s ever been stopped driving down Far Hills for no discernable reason, but having facilitated many, many Dayton Dialogue on Race Relations groups, I’ve heard from many African Americans who have been.
Is it illegal for a black family to buy property in Oakwood? Nope. Are there absolutely no reasons why a black family might feel uncomfortable moving to Oakwood? Please.
I was stopped in Oakwood by detectives in black suits in an unmarked car while bicycling through a fancy pants neighborhood. Long-haired Appalachians are a suspect class there too!
People feeling uncomfortable in Oakwood would be ,,,,,, drum roll please.,,,,,,,,,,,, THEIR PROBLEM. Fact, There are black people that live in Oakwood. Fact, there are well over 100 homes for sale plus a lot for rent in Oakwood. My suggestion is that if you are black, and you want to live in Oakwood, go buy a house in Oakwood (or rent). If you do not feel comfortable then that is your problem. WTF do you people know about Oakwood and who lives there? Really. Just like you say people stereotype others, you folks sure are stereotyping people from Oakwood.
People did not roll out the welcome mat when I moved to Dayton. I am white in a mix neighborhood. But somehow someway you expect people to roll out the mat for black folks…….. get over yourselves. This is only a problem in you mind.
[Interesting how this topic always leads here] –> When you refer to “Gay people”, I assume you’re referring to that person’s activities or actions. So far, this discussion has limited itself to discussing how people are treated based on who they are, not the activities they engage in. When we begin to wrap into the discussion how people are treated and accepted into a community based on activities they engage, we bring it to another level which complicates and distracts from the original discussion.
For example, if this community said that they didn’t want anyone living here who drives red SUVs (which I happen to have), I’d say that that was well within their right to not want anyone to have red SUVs. If they say they don’t want any person to live here who is yellow or red or black or white, etc., that wouldn’t be acceptable. I always differentiate decisions that are made based on who people are vs what people do.
The reality is there would be no Beavercreek if there was no Dayton. If you tell some one in Istanbul you are from Beavercreek- they have no clue, but say Dayton- and they’ve heard of it (from the Balken Peace Accords- which have meaning around the world- more so than the Wright Brothers for now).
We don’t celebrate our diversity well- except in the diversity of our communities- where each is very different. I’m enjoying Brian’s level of discussion on this subject and am glad to see him here.
Gene is as predictable as the sun coming up in the East- as is David L bringing in his issue and Drexel, excuse me Wesley, bring in his.
We’ve been playing a lot of shell games in the community- moving assets around the region- when we’ve needed to bring new players to the table. We’re not going to do that until we put our petty communities aside and look at how we’re all connected.
Keep talking. I’ve got other things to work on today.
I just think it is funny that you think Oakwood needs to have more black people living there? Why? And why go to Oakwood leaders, why not go to black people and suggest that they move to Oakwood?
Oakwood is not in the practice of recruiting any one type of person. There is no agenda whatsoever. To prove that, a lot of Jewish people moved into Oakwood….. Do you think the city set out to recruit them? No. Houses were for sale or for rent and BOOM, Jewish people bought them (mainly bc of the proximity to the synagogue, I am guessing.)
Again, well over 100 homes in Oakwood for sale right NOW. Plenty are for rent. Go round up one hundred plus black families and sell them on the virtues of Oakwood. They are more than happy to move there. And if they had 100 plus families do this then all of the sudden you don’t have you little hand holding “we are the only black family in Oakwood” mentality. With 100 families they would feel more than comfortable, because that is what life is all about, making people feel comfortable.
Still waiting for my neighbors to bring over cookies……
David Lauri,
Just FYI, the Meijer on Harshman that got poached to Huber was in the City of Dayton, not Riverside.
Hopefully the Meijer move at least solidified Kroger’s business up there, and they won’t be fleeing farther north too.
All the posts on here about thinking regionally with regards to decision-making are 100% right. For the guy that just got elected to Beavercreek Council, just remember that the more companies you poach from Dayton to fill in space at the Greene or the Acropolis, the closer we all get to having our area be thought of like Detroit on a national scale. If the core City goes down, you’re all coming with us.
I was jus’ sayin’, ya’ know. Now, I’ve got an interracial relationship to attend to. Ask questions if you’ve got them.
The West side of Dayton is really not rolling out the rug to invite us white folk over there…. I am not sure if it is racism, but damn The West Side has never ever reached out to me and I have lived in the Dayton are for 45 plus years…….
The West Side of Dayton has not reached out to me for business purposes either. What is up with that? That needs to change. I think we should put the leaders of the West Side of Dayton in jail for not being more open minded and accepting of white people. This has gone on for years and years.
East Dayton is the integrated diverse part of Dayton. White/Black/Hispanic/Middle Eastern/Some I’m forgetting. It’s a boulubaise of ethnicities and cultures compared to the west. Nobody seems to want to even acknowledge this. Not sure what it ultimately means, but it is what it is. There are, however, plenty of whites living in West Dayton sporadically, or in small pockets. Right off of Gettysburg Avenue behind Gardendale School is one example, although there are more.
@Brian:
“I always differentiate decisions that are made based on who people are vs what people do.”
Then under your system it’s ok to for a community to say they don’t want anyone living here that doesn’t worship the same way that they do.
Actually, because that (i.e., religion) was one of the foundations and underpinnings of the creation of this nation, that is the only exception that I make.
Although it must be noted that cultural anthropology shows decisively that melanin has absolutely no connection whatsoever to culture. Thus, we witness the ability of anyone with higher or lower levels of melanin to become a part of any other culture (i.e. a black person can be culturally Japaneese, German, British, Kenyan/the same holding true for whites or anyone of any other melanin level).
Therefore, aren’t we talking about a cultural schizm first? It’s common knowledge that there is in certain parts of America a cultural schizm between African-Americans and African immigrants exists. Why? Culture. It’s the same dynamic that exists between cultures all over the world, regardless of melanin, which is inconsequential, but used and abused way too often.
At least from my vantage, having lots of experience in rural, suburban, and inner-city environs, the cultural aspect of our different communities in America is completely unfathomed by most of the populace. There are as many cultures and sub-cultures within’ the majoritarian culture of the urban African American population as any other. But you would never know it from studying American media, especially local media.
When you realize that the breadth and depth of cultures unlike the one you were raised in are much more similar than different in that they are anything but one dimensional – all cultures are multi-dimensional – then you see how stupid the question of melanin is.
And when you’re ready to peel that culture onion in an honest manner, you see that we’re all just DNA-to-RNA-to-protein primates looking for a decent life. Genetically, there is no such thing as race.
When you refer to “Gay people”, I assume you’re referring to that person’s activities or actions.
Your assumption is completely wrong. Guess what? I was gay before I ever acted on it. I was gay and called “faggot” before I ever knew what the word “faggot” meant. I have always been gay.
You invited David Esrati to “a lunchtime discussion to see where exactly [he’s] coming from,” and I’ll follow that lead and invite you to a lunchtime discussion to see where exactly you’re coming from. It would be foolish of me to assume I know where you’re coming from, although, given what you’ve just said here, I do have some idea.
“Gay” is like having a propensity similar to an addicit’s to be hooked on crack, alcohol, etc. The genes are already built-in even before the drugs are used (or as you indicated, even before you acted on the feeling). Similarly, it’s simply an unfortunate defect in the genes.
I think the intention was to say that a person that is gay can not necessarily be spotted across the street, but when you are black you really can’t hide that fact.
Not that anything needs to be hidden…. it is just that somethings, gay or straight, are just better left not talked about in casual company/conversation with you neighborhood. To be blunt, people don’t want talk about sexual relations in public, nor should they. Therefore people really have no idea if a person is gay or straight. But it is generally obvious in any setting what color you are.
I am certain DL will come up with something that disputes this, but to a everyday normal person, someone who is not analysing every little last thing, you neighborhood does not know (unless you tell them) if a person is gay or straight, and often they don’t even think about that subject. Certainly there are exceptions to everything, but for the most part people don’t know if a person is gay but they certainly can tell if a person is black.
Defect?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riDXMI5Y9-k
“it’s simply an unfortunate defect in the genes”
What? You must be taking this from a biblical standpoint Brian. Otherwise who is to say what a defect is. Heck, God may be the worlds biggest drunk and wants all of us to be drunks but only gave the drunk gene to a few of us. Now I feel special.
Defect is not what it is……..
@Brian…I’ve been watching & reading this conversation since last night when David first posted this article comparison. I knew it was going to go south fast, yet sure as hell not in this direction. I found your first several reply post somewhat insightful.
Yet, you’ve now sunk to a very low & disrespectful level . To suggest that a gay man is gay, because of
“an unfortunate defect in the genes”. I hope that the citizens who elected you in Beavercreek, who didn’t judge you based on your cover, next time around look even further into your caliber of character.
The point is, no one gets to hide behind the curtain of “I was just born that way.” We’re all responsible for our individual actions, we choose our actions and activities we engage in, and people judge us by those actions. That’s the actual storyline behind the NewGeography article and why people choose to live where they do and away from others. It always goes back to one’s individual choices and those choices being different from others’ choices.
@ Brian….a gay man didn’t choose to be born gay, just like you didn’t choose to be born black.
Yet, as you say “We’re all responsible for our individual actions” as you will be held accoutable for your public statements here today. Enjoy a short term on the Beavercreek City Commission Mr. Jarvis.
I really wish we did not have to have this conversation. If a white person wants to move to West Dayton go. If a black person wants to move to Oakwood go. A person should be able to live wherever they want. If your neighbors don’t welcome you to the neighborhood go introduce yourself. Sometimes you have to be the first to make a move instead of waiting for somebody else. Don’t feel sorry for yourself because you are making $10 an hour but a CEO of a big corporation is making millions. Create a plan to make your situation better and don’ t stand around with your hand out waiting for someone to help you out. If you don’t know where to start go to the library or learn to network.Somehow and someway the City of Dayton residents need to come together and stop making it a white or black issue. By making changes to attitudes, then Dayton can work on improving the schools, cleaning up the neighborhoods, attracting new businesses and expanding established businesses,and attracting a diverse population of people who want and like to claim Dayton as their home and giving current residents a reason to stay. When things are improving in the city then suggestions and ideas to unite the Dayton region can be identified. I’ve seen plenty of good ideas thrown around on this blog but talk is cheap. Let’s see some action.
What I don’t do, is to say that because I’m black, that I have to act a certain way. That would violate basic principles of being responsible for ones actions. The same rules apply to me as apply to anyone else — it’s consistent and not hypocritical.
Brian, does that mean you are refusing to have lunch with me?
Gene, straight people flaunt their heterosexuality all the time, as you well know and would admit if you weren’t trying to provoke a response. They flaunt their heterosexuality when they get married, when they walk about pregnant, when they rent apartments or buy houses together, when they wear wedding rings, when they put pictures of their boyfriends or girlfriends or spouses on their desks, all without ever saying one word about what they do sexually.
Similarly, gay people don’t have to say a word about sex. If two men and their kids move into the house next door, the neighbors get that the men are gay. In Beavercreek, where Brian is on council, if the person selling that house meets the men and doesn’t want to sell to to them just because they’re gay, that’s perfectly legal. I think that’s wrong.
One last thing, and then I’m done responding to this thread (Brian has my phone number sent in a private e-mail if he cares to be Christian and dialogue with the other, something Jesus set out as an example for him to do) — when I first got called “faggot” I sure as hell hadn’t done any “talk[ing] about sexual relations in public.” Years after that first time, in high school I desperately tried to hide who I was for all the good it did me and still called called “faggot” and worse.
Strangely enough, now that I’m comfortable with who I am, now that my being gay, if it’s a problem is the other person’s problem and not mine, I don’t get called “faggot” very often.
My point was that most people do not sit around all day thinking about their neighbors sexual preference. Hell, you can hardly get a hello out of people today. Let’s not overstate our worth.
I said nothing about flaunting. Most people don’t care all the way around.
Yet, as you say “We’re all responsible for our individual actions” as you will be held accoutable for your public statements here today. Enjoy a short term on the Beavercreek City Commission Mr. Jarvis.
Hah! His views on the subject are probably probably will get him more votes considering how conservative Beavercreek is.
Anyway, back on topic. The author of the New Geography piece, Aaron Renn, and I have a long on-&-off interaction on the net, since we both posted on the old Louisville.com forum (Aaron was from Southern Indiana with family ties in Louisville and as y’all know I am a former Louisvillian).
Aaron went on to host a website on Chicago transit and is now running the very respected Urbanophile blog, one of the better urban affairs blogs with a Midwest focus (Aaron is now based in Indianapolis). Here is an Urbanophile post elaborating on the New Geography article:
http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/10/20/the-white-city/
Is it ok for us “unfortunate defects” to go shopping at the Green?
Jeff, thanks for the links to the Urbanologist and to his link to an American Prospect article [ http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=refugees_of_diversity ] on the concept of “Whitopia”. Two very interesting viewpoints on “diversity”.
Note in particular the comments about Indianapolis and Columbus programs/plans on this issue and think about whether there is an I-70 connection that can be exploited,copied or otherwise be useful to Dayton.
@Joe Lacey…..understand the rules, of “unfortunate defects” shopping @ the Greene
1) spend lots of $ & then complete 2&3 as fast as possible, before you might
flaunt your crack addict like behaviors for anyone to see
2) go to a certain infamous watering hole & be over over overserved & then kicked out
for being so overserved
3) then get yourself killed…or as damn close to it as possible
4) don’t worry we’ll cover up the whole chain of events & the media will have to dig
for over a week to find even a 1/2 of the story
Okay. Back on topic.
The White City does not talk about handouts or special treatment. Renn is discussing the issues that make Portland and Denver different from Atlanta and Houston- all four cities are succeeding, but for possibly very different reasons.
When Dayton, and Rustbelt leaders- civic and thought leaders- discuss how to make a city better, they look at Portland. They talk about Denver. Why? These cities do not share the amazing diversity of most Rustbelt cities. Renn’s suggestion is that Rustbelt cities, with their great diversity of income and ethnicities- more diverse than Portland and Denver- would do better to consider the cities of Houston and Atlanta as examples of how to succeed in the post-industrialized world.
We know that turf wars, territorialism, and male display behavior once used by Rustbelt city leaders to help create industrial jobs and woo companies is no longer effective. It’s now obvious that this hoarding behavior is not conducive to growth and is offensive. While Houston, Portland, Denver, and Atlanta have all successfully created an atmosphere of creativity and growth, Houston and Atlanta have done so in part because of, not despite, the extraordinary diversity (all types of diversity) of their residents, by actively looking for ways to share resources and pull together to lift up the entire region. Dayton isn’t there yet, but personally, I think that Dayton has all the pieces to put this puzzle together, I believe going forward Dayton’s great strength will ultimately lie in its diversity, we just need the proper leadership, or, maybe we just need the current leadership to get out of the way…
btw- Teri was the one who forwarded the article to me.
Thank you Teri for putting this conversation back on track.
I don’t care what the original post was. A public official posted that gay people are “unfortunate defects” and a lot of “progressive” and “liberal” folks seem pretty anxious to ignore it. Refusing to confront this kind of garbage in whatever medium is a big mistake.
@Joe- I think David L has addressed it quite well- and is setting up a meeting.
I think Mr. Jarvis (Brian) is deeply mistaken with his position on what equality means. I’m still of the belief that “all men (and women) are create equal” leaves no questions. When I’m asked to fill in the box on race- my answer is always the same: “human.”
I still don’t get your comment regarding Oakwood David. What are you suggesting?
Dayton is much smaller than these cities. All of these cities discussed have huge differences as well. The common thing among them is that they are cities, other than that these cities are all very different. By evening having a discussion on these cities is stereotyping them in a way that they all have to be similar. Well they are if the similarities are Downtown’s and people and business and parks and schools, etc. But each city is very different, and each city had different section within. So why lump them all together? Dayton is not Atlanta or Portland or Houston or Austin or Denver. And all of those cities are different in a lot of way.
Why compare to other cities? It is pointless. I have a friend that always say something like this : In Chicago…………. That is where I stop him. This is Dayton. Not Chicago. We don’t have the Bulls and the Bears and the Sear Tower (now renamed) or Lake Michigan. We have the Flyers and Dragons and Kettering Tower and small rivers.
I’m with Joe on this…David, I went “off topic”, yet I have to say I was fuming all day long yesterday about Mr. Javis comments & it wasn’t just one…he just kept on digging his ditch deeper with insults after insults. More importantly to me….you didn’t pipe in at all, which you normally do, and when you finally did it was only in praise of getting back on track.
I was more than disappointed to think this public official was given an open platform to continue to foam at the mouth with hate & ignorance.
As far as my comments w/ the Greene…I’m fuming over the most recent accident there, if the same thing had happened at a Dayton bar/shopping center, it would have been top news for days…Beavercreek covers up & hides very serious safety & security issues that occur at these locations…..the public has no idea what really goes on there.
@David E
David L gave Mr. Jarvis his phone number and then addressed comments by Gene, not Brian. Most of your posters don’t seem to have a problem with a local public official posting a dehumanizing comment about gay people on your blog.
Joe….my comments don’t seem to be getting posted for some reason
I’m so furious as a straight LGBT rights supporter…I have shared Mr. Javis comments with many today in the Greene County area, since I live in Sugarcreek. As I will also be personally contacting other elected officials in the Beavercreek community to share with them the words that were publicly posted….and that I will stop spending any $ in their community as long as he is on council.
not everyone that follows this blog is an insensitive ass