Ya gotta luv it

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi folks,

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/austin-texas-bakery-angry-over-exclusively-white-people-stickers-n326341

It's about 'Exclusively for White People' Stickers' in Austin, TX.

Jerry Baumchen

[TriGirl 268]

Early on in the story I thought perhaps the stickers were placed by people accusing those businesses of discriminatory practices. Though there isn't much more supporting information -- simply reporting that these stickers showed up -- it seems as though they were placed by bigoted people making their statement. Anyone else?

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[Coreeece 2]

TriGirl

Early on in the story I thought perhaps the stickers were placed by people accusing those businesses of discriminatory practices. Though there isn't much more supporting information -- simply reporting that these stickers showed up -- it seems as though they were placed by bigoted people making their statement. Anyone else?

I think Sugar Mama's Bakeshop got it right when they said the stickers may be an attempt at satire or a statement on gentrification in a historically black neighborhood.

The article mentioned how this area has a growing artistic community. I've worked with these types of gritty urban artists - They are very passionate. I can totally see them creating something like this, especially given the design quality of the sticker. I wouldn't be surprised if even a couple of black artists where in on it.

Now if that is true, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the satire, but I would disagree with how the satire was used.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[rhaig 0]

local take on it that I've heard is it's a protest of sorts. The gentrification of the neighborhood is pricing the locals (or former locals) out of being able to patronize those businesses.

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 212]

rhaig

local take on it that I've heard is it's a protest of sorts. The gentrification of the neighborhood is pricing the locals (or former locals) out of being able to patronize those businesses.

So . . . Progress is bad now, right?
And here I thought that moving forward was supposed to be good.

What would they say if Austin turned into something like Silicon Valley.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,123]

Some people would like it, and some wouldn't. Just like everything else. There were people who are thrilled when a DZ closes, and others who aren't. What determines which ones are "right?"

If people can no longer afford to live on their neighborhoods, they lose community; often they also end up losing jobs that are now farther away and possibly no longer accessible by walking or public transit.

If the owners of the houses want to sell them, it's good. If they didn't, then it sucks. Which owner is more "right?"

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 212]

wmw999

Some people would like it, and some wouldn't. Just like everything else. There were people who are thrilled when a DZ closes, and others who aren't. What determines which ones are "right?"

If people can no longer afford to live on their neighborhoods, they lose community; often they also end up losing jobs that are now farther away and possibly no longer accessible by walking or public transit.

If the owners of the houses want to sell them, it's good. If they didn't, then it sucks. Which owner is more "right?"

Wendy P.

What about when they just hike up the property taxes because of the income availability of the new people and displace, by default, the lower income people. That isn't very community friendly, and disagrees with what we are led to believe that the liberals believe in. After all, we have to protect the minotrities and the less fortunate . . . Well, that is until it's inconvienient.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rhaig 0]

turtlespeed

***Some people would like it, and some wouldn't. Just like everything else. There were people who are thrilled when a DZ closes, and others who aren't. What determines which ones are "right?"

If people can no longer afford to live on their neighborhoods, they lose community; often they also end up losing jobs that are now farther away and possibly no longer accessible by walking or public transit.

If the owners of the houses want to sell them, it's good. If they didn't, then it sucks. Which owner is more "right?"

Wendy P.

What about when they just hike up the property taxes because of the income availability of the new people and displace, by default, the lower income people. That isn't very community friendly, and disagrees with what we are led to believe that the liberals believe in. After all, we have to protect the minotrities and the less fortunate . . . Well, that is until it's inconvienient.
That's another thing the home owners of east austin on the edges of these areas are complaining about. The value of their property is going up and thus so are their property taxes. It's pricing them out of their homes that are paid for. They are effectively renting them from the state and if they can't pay the property taxes (rent) then they get kicked out.

There was a candidate for governor a few years ago who proposed abolishing property tax and raising sales tax. She turned out to be a nutcase for unrelated reasons. Though I'd completely support replacing property taxes with additional sales taxes.

Property taxes tax wealth. When the value goes up and you can't afford the taxes, you have to sell even if you didn't want to. If the sales tax is too high, then don't buy things that are taxed.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,400]

> The value of their property is going up and thus so are their property taxes.
>It's pricing them out of their homes that are paid for. They are effectively
>renting them from the state and if they can't pay the property taxes (rent) then
>they get kicked out.

California has a few laws to prevent that, primarily Prop 13. Prop 13 prevents property taxes from ever exceeding 1% of the value of the property. You also couldn't significantly change the valuation of the house unless it was sold. There are a few other propositions that (for example) cause the valuation to decline in a recession.

[rhaig 0]

billvon

California has a few laws to prevent that, primarily Prop 13. Prop 13 prevents property taxes from ever exceeding 1% of the value of the property. You also couldn't significantly change the valuation of the house unless it was sold. There are a few other propositions that (for example) cause the valuation to decline in a recession.

typical property tax runs around 3% here, but we don't have income tax.

Property declared as a homestead can't go up in appraised value more than 15% a year.

Property taxes here are all set and collected by the counties. The state sales tax is 6.25% with other municipalities able to add an additional 2%. If the municipalities were to rely on sales tax for their income instead of property tax, then based on my income taxes last year and estimated sales tax paid, they'd need to add 8% to the sales tax. This would seem outlandishly high, but there would be no property tax nor income tax.

It wouldn't likely trickle down to renters though... when was the last time anyone had their rent lowered? People would have to move to take advantage of lower rates, or at least threaten to move when their lease was up to get better rates.

--
Rob