Barkley Speaks His Mind

[Mumbles]

Why shouldn't he have credibility? He's a black man talking about his experience, saying something that is obviously unpopular to say. How many black men talking about their experience would there have to be to allow a "blanket" statement about black Americans?

Cpl Ferro

Great. I'm also a black man talking about my experiences. And my experience is that I received strong support from other black people. My experience is that other black people were happy to see me succeed in any way.

Again, how does Charles Barkley get to speak about black Americans, in general?

 

[carlitos]

Well, I'm not sure I agree. However you interpret Barkley, though, can you at least respond to this question?

Asking me whether I'm smarter than another poster, or whether, in my opinion, another poster is being obtuse isn't even remotely on-topic to this discussion.

 

[Unabogie]

Asking me whether I'm smarter than another poster, or whether, in my opinion, another poster is being obtuse isn't even remotely on-topic to this discussion.

Perhaps you could at least explain how you found it so easy to understand the gist of the comment Mumbles made? It may help advance the discussion if you reiterate the point you were responding to.

 

[carlitos]

Perhaps you could at least explain how you found it so easy to understand the gist of the comment Mumbles made? It may help advance the discussion if you reiterate the point you were responding to.

The statement - Obviously, doing things like concentrating bus depots in black neighborhoods, especially when they ran on leaded fuel, will affect those neighborhoods. - is illogical. I'm not interested in "the gist" or the greater truthiness of the statement. One does not "concentrate" bus depots. I challenge anyone here to point me to a "concentration" of bus depots. What would make sense is that people in black neighborhoods would be less likely to have cars, and more likely to take public transportation.

 

[Unabogie]

The statement - Obviously, doing things like concentrating bus depots in black neighborhoods, especially when they ran on leaded fuel, will affect those neighborhoods. - is illogical. I'm not interested in "the gist" or the greater truthiness of the statement. One does not "concentrate" bus depots. I challenge anyone here to point me to a "concentration" of bus depots. What would make sense is that people in black neighborhoods would be less likely to have cars, and more likely to take public transportation.

And also that bus depots that spewed lead particles would be concentrated in those poor areas.

Here's an article written 11 years ago about the phenomenon.

http://www.thenation.com/article/mta-bus-depots-and-race

Bus depots are one of many environmental culprits, along with lead and sewage treatment facilities, that contribute to health problems in the area. A study released by the EPA in September 2002 concluded that diesel fuel is "a chronic respiratory hazard" and "likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation." In an ongoing study conducted by the Harlem Hospital Center and Harlem Children's Zone, startled researchers have found that 28 percent of the kids tested in Harlem suffer from asthma, one of the highest rates ever documented. (Though not believed to cause asthma, diesel fuel's fine particles irritate lungs and trigger asthma attacks.)

In 2000, the nonprofit West Harlem Environmental Action (WE ACT), founded in 1988 to combat environmental racism, filed a complaint against the MTA with the US Department of Transportation (DOT). Citing the disproportionate impact of the bus depots on communities of color, WE ACT charged the agency with violating the civil rights of northern Manhattan residents. The MTA responded that site choices are based on "legitimate business necessities" such as property value, zoning and available space.

WE ACT fired back with a map suggesting alternative locations for bus depots, which shows that empty lots abound in suitably zoned areas in certain parts of midtown. (Current plans for lower Manhattan redevelopment even include a depot for commercial charter and tour buses; WE ACT advocates turning that space over for public transportation use.)

WE ACT's complaint is currently under investigation. The DOT will not release any information on the pending case, but WE ACT hopes for a settlement as early as this fall. They believe the likeliest outcome is conflict mediation, which would entail meetings between community members and the MTA. Such negotiations would probably not result in the closing of any depots, but could lead to measures to temper their impact.

Beyond the health hazards, the presence of bus depots degrades everyday life in smaller ways. Community members voice concern about the constant noise and parking problems. Former bus driver Augustine Melendez, who lives near the 126th Street depot, says the air and noise pollution worsen in the winter, when the buses need to warm up before their routes. "Any time the weather goes below 32 degrees, they start the buses at about 1, 1:30 in the morning." And of course, a large bus depot plopped in the middle of the neighborhood is a blot on the landscape no affluent community would tolerate. As Harlem Councilman Philip Reed, who noted that the new depot not only reopened but also doubled in height, said, "It tends to loom as one of the pre-eminent sites in the neighborhood."

So honestly, this is not a new concern. It's been a source of litigation for decades. Nor is it a "conspiracy theory", as Wildcat asserted.

 

[carlitos]

• You posted an article that specifically discussed diesel-fueled buses. The comment that has generated 3 pages of back-and-forth specifically mentioned "leaded fuel." Do you understand the difference?
• If they moved the bus depot from Harlem to midtown, might there be community protests that folks were being inconvenienced, deprived of transit options, etc.? The Nation article suggested lower Manhattan. That would put Harlem's intra-city bus travelers ~120 blocks further from their homes.

There are a lot of reasons that kids in Harlem have more asthma. The bus depot might be a small contributor. Increased prevalence of smoking, cockroaches, mold, stress, genetics... Did The Nation or WE ACT do a regression analysis on these causes?

And, again, there is one bus depot two bus depots being discussed. One of anything is not a "concentration."

---
ETA - Corrections above with strike-out as I misread this whole thing as being about intra-city buses, not metro commuter buses.

 

[Unabogie]

• You posted an article that specifically discussed diesel-fueled buses. The comment that has generated 3 pages of back-and-forth specifically mentioned "leaded fuel." Do you understand the difference?
• If they moved the bus depot from Harlem to midtown, might there be community protests that folks were being inconvenienced, deprived of transit options, etc.? The Nation article suggested lower Manhattan. That would put Harlem's intra-city bus travelers ~120 blocks further from their homes.

There are a lot of reasons that kids in Harlem have more asthma. The bus depot might be a small contributor. Increased prevalence of smoking, cockroaches, mold, stress, genetics... Did The Nation or WE ACT do a regression analysis on these causes?

And, again, there is one bus depot two bus depots being discussed. One of anything is not a "concentration."

---
ETA - Corrections above with strike-out as I misread this whole thing as being about intra-city buses, not metro commuter buses.

I don't know if they did a regression analysis, but let's correct a few things. From the article, it says:

Outraged residents cited health hazards posed by buses spewing diesel exhaust, and protested that six of the borough's seven depots are now in northern Manhattan, where asthma rates soar above the city average.

So I'm not sure where you get the idea that this about only one or two depots. Second, Mumbles original comment was simply about bus depots, not about lead per se (although he did mention lead). It was about health problems in black areas that were made worse, in part, by the concentration of bus depots there.

Obviously, a strong family (not necessarily a married mother and father) is important for raising children. Obviously, good schools are a requirement for an educated population. Obviously, doing things like concentrating bus depots in black neighborhoods, especially when they ran on leaded fuel, will affect those neighborhoods. Those can all be, and are, true at once.

A simple Google search found the Nation article, which backed up his basic point. Wildcat chose to act like a troll and accuse Mumbles of presenting a conspiracy theory, when in context he's clearly saying that good families, good schools, and health (particularly lead) are all factors. Is that really controversial?

There are lots of articles about poor neighborhoods and their disproportionate exposure to pollutants.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-poor-neighborhoods-breate-more-hazardous-particles/

Tiny particles of air pollution contain more hazardous ingredients in non-white and low-income communities than in affluent white ones, a new study shows.

And notice this line as well:

"They live near highways, they live near where trucks spew diesel. That's the least desirable housing ... much different than a nice, leafy suburb." -Dr. Norman Edelman, American Lung Association, speaking of Hispanics and African Americans in the South Bronx“The notion of trying to figure out what are the different components and are there specific things in the PM2.5 that cause more of a problem… would have implications for how you regulate health effects,” Miranda said.

What are some other pollutants that come from living near highways and busy streets? Lead.

But I'm happy you're at least addressing this issue instead of crying about conspiracy theories. It's not a conspiracy theory, right? There really is a concern about poor people, mainly minorities, being exposed to harmful pollutants at a higher rate than whites.

And here's more.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/lead-crime-racism-black-white-juvenile

African-American boys disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system were also disproportionately exposed to lead contaminated dust as young children, because black children were disproportionately concentrated in large cities and older housing. In 1976-1980, 15.3% of black children under the age of three had blood lead above 30 mcg/dl (micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood), when just 2.5% of white children had blood lead that high.

Conspiracy theory? Or something real that should be noted when discussing the "plight" of black Americans?

 

[carlitos]

No, it's not a conspiracy theory, and yes it should be discussed. Apologies for interjecting and being somewhat pedantic about this.

 

[WildCat]

As far as lead paint from older housing goes, that is nearly 100% in older housing that was once an affluent area that has since become a run-down area. Leaded paint was what rich people used, it was much more expensive than other paints. They weren't painting the slums with leaded paint, but with cheap paint that didn't contain lead.

So if we're now trying to claim that lead paint use was "concentrated in black communities" I'll call BS on that as well.

 

[Unabogie]

As far as lead paint from older housing goes, that is nearly 100% in older housing that was once an affluent area that has since become a run-down area. Leaded paint was what rich people used, it was much more expensive than other paints. They weren't painting the slums with leaded paint, but with cheap paint that didn't contain lead.

So if we're now trying to claim that lead paint use was "concentrated in black communities" I'll call BS on that as well.

So it just magically got into the bloodstreams of black children at a rate six times those of white people? I posted several links supporting this, including one from Scientific American, and you posted...your opinion.

 

[newyorkguy]

It always amazes me on message boards how completely out-of-touch many people are as to the issues effecting Americans of color of moderate means. This is a good example: environmental racism which, by design or default, exacts a disproportionate cost on Americans of color of moderate means. It is an issue that has been around for about three decades and is well-known to anyone familiar with life in the inner city. Yet some people who are NOT people of color of moderate means have remained oblivious to it. Which is not really surprising.

As always, when an issue such as this is raised the 'usual suspects' always react with denial. Not happening. It's false. Then, as people argue it's not false it's real, they're accused of basically making it up. When links, cites and quotes are provided then people try and rationalize and minimize but at least they have been made aware of an issue that was previously unknown to them. You can actually go back through the messages and see the lights going on.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

It always amazes me on message boards how completely out-of-touch many people are as to the issues effecting Americans of color of moderate means. This is a good example: environmental racism which, by design or default, exacts a disproportionate cost on Americans of color of moderate means. It is an issue that has been around for about three decades and is well-known to anyone familiar with life in the inner city.

Not well known to me and I am familiar with life in the inner city.

Yet some people who are NOT people of color of moderate means have remained oblivious to it. Which is not really surprising.

These types of statements are just silly rhetoric. C'mon this is supposed to be a critical thinking board, isn't it? Examine your statements before you post them. This is no different than saying something along the lines of "of course, those who believe in evolution are totally oblivious to these facts, which is not really surprising..."

As always, when an issue such as this is raised the 'usual suspects' always react with denial.

This is the same type of contentless slur as above. Do you really think what you're doing belongs on a critical thinking board?

 

[Unabogie]

It always amazes me on message boards how completely out-of-touch many people are as to the issues effecting Americans of color of moderate means. This is a good example: environmental racism which, by design or default, exacts a disproportionate cost on Americans of color of moderate means. It is an issue that has been around for about three decades and is well-known to anyone familiar with life in the inner city. Yet some people who are NOT people of color of moderate means have remained oblivious to it. Which is not really surprising.

As always, when an issue such as this is raised the 'usual suspects' always react with denial. Not happening. It's false. Then, as people argue it's not false it's real, they're accused of basically making it up. When links, cites and quotes are provided then people try and rationalize and minimize but at least they have been made aware of an issue that was previously unknown to them. You can actually go back through the messages and see the lights going on.

Great post. Not only is the science conclusive on this, but Kevin Drum has made a pretty solid case that lead exposure was leading to a very large increase in violent crime. He's done a thorough job of correlating the increase of lead exposure with the rise of violence, but also tracks how when lead was removed from paint and fuel, the crime dropped precipitously, especially where the concentration of lead was highest, which was in the poor and minority communities. Now, was this a conspiracy to make black people sick? No, I don't think so. But it's impossible to ignore that historically, black people were literally forbidden from owning homes in the affluent or even middle class areas around the country where it was healthy to live, and the only places they were allowed to buy homes were where the pollution was. And when you combine that with the quantifiable increase in lead exposure, you have to consider it to be institutionalized poisoning based on racism.

 

[WildCat]

So it just magically got into the bloodstreams of black children at a rate six times those of white people? I posted several links supporting this, including one from Scientific American, and you posted...your opinion.

I posted a fact. The black kids, and the white kids, and anyone who is affected by leaded paint reside in housing that was once an affluent area.

Chances are if it's still an affluent area the lead paint has been painted over or removed so it is no longer a problem.

Stan Mavrogianis, a project director for the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning in Prince George's County, said that people in older houses are at a higher risk of lead poisoning because the paint used when they were built contained high levels of lead.

...Since many houses in Prince George's County were built before 1978 there is a risk of people being exposed to lead poisoning.

Mavrogianis said that houses in low-income areas are at risk of lead exposure. He said when the houses were built, often they were in the most affluent areas at that time. Since lead paint was costly, it was often desirable on expensive homes.

http://ww2.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2001/200136/landover/news/70208-1.html

My point stands: lead paint would not have been used in poor black neighborhoods. That it affects more black kids today is indicative not of institutional racism but of black kids being more likely to live in older housing in once-affluent inner city areas that are now run down.

 

[Unabogie]

I posted a fact. The black kids, and the white kids, and anyone who is affected by leaded paint reside in housing that was once an affluent area.

Chances are if it's still an affluent area the lead paint has been painted over or removed so it is no longer a problem.

This is silly. That a house may have been in an affluent neighborhood at the time lead paint was used doesn't mean it's still affluent. The claim is that black people live in OLDER homes, which have lead paint in them.

http://ww2.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2001/200136/landover/news/70208-1.html

My point stands: lead paint would not have been used in poor black neighborhoods. That it affects more black kids today is indicative not of institutional racism but of black kids being more likely to live in older housing in once-affluent inner city areas that are now run down.

You didn't even read the links, did you?

African-American boys disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system were also
disproportionately exposed to lead contaminated dust as young children, because black
children were disproportionately concentrated in large cities and older housing. In 1976-1980,
15.3% of black children under the age of three had blood lead above 30 mcg/dl (micrograms
of lead per deciliter of blood), when just 2.5% of white children had blood lead that high. In
1988-1991, after the elimination of leaded gasoline, 1.4% of black children and 0.4% of
white children under the age of three had blood lead above 25 mcg/dl.

Note the dates under discussion?

I don't even think it's important to determine exactly why black people were poisoned with lead at a rate six times higher than white people to have it be a valid point. The fact is, they were. Whether it came from lead paint, or lead particulates in the air, or from another source, it's not a conspiracy theory to note that minorities bear the brunt of the pollution, and have for many decades. Glad you're at least admitting this much instead of whining about a conspiracy theory that no one is claiming.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is going on right now in the South Bronx:

An undeveloped area couched between a waste transfer station and a FedEx shipping facility is just about as wild of a place as exists in New York City. There are designs on the space, however, namely the new headquarters for FreshDirect, an online grocery delivery service, which would bring a massive warehouse and over 1,000 diesel trucks, plus a fueling station, to the site...The South Bronx waterfront, which borders Randall’s Island, is lined, in part, with a 5000-ton-per-day waste transfer station, a power plant, and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal printing and distribution centers. Because of its industrial past, the area already has some of the highest asthma rates in the country, and rates of death from asthma are approximately three times the national average...Link

I do see both sides of this. I understand one reason the City of New York is backing the FreshDirect project is because it will mean a lot on entry-level jobs for South Bronx residents. At the same time, the area already has a huge trash recycling plant, a staging area for a truck/rail garbage transfer station and a huge power plant. The area has some very serious health issues which the city has never really addressed in a meaningful way. I'm not sure I agree FreshDirect should be turned away but I definitely think these New Yorkers should be getting more consideration from the city.

But my real point is environmental racism is a serious issue. There's no question about that. And...

Just a nitpick. Whether Mumbles knew it or not, at least in Manhattan the facilities being referred to as bus depots are NOT bus stations -places where buses pick up riders. The facilities are actually bus garages where hundreds of buses are stored, maintained and staged between runs.

 

[Unabogie]

This is going on right now in the South Bronx:


I do see both sides of this. I understand one reason the City of New York is backing the FreshDirect project is because it will mean a lot on entry-level jobs for South Bronx residents. At the same time, the area already has a huge trash recycling plant, a staging area for a truck/rail garbage transfer station and a huge power plant. The area has some very serious health issues which the city has never really addressed in a meaningful way. I'm not sure I agree FreshDirect should be turned away but I definitely think these New Yorkers should be getting more consideration from the city.

But my real point is environmental racism is a serious issue. There's no question about that. And...

Just a nitpick. Whether Mumbles knew it or not, at least in Manhattan the facilities being referred to as bus depots are NOT bus stations -places where buses pick up riders. The facilities are actually bus garages where hundreds of buses are stored, maintained and staged between runs.

I can't speak for Mumbles, but that's the way I understood it. It's not about bus stops or stations, it's about where they take the buses at night, where they idle them for long periods, and where the air becomes especially bad because of it. In the article I cited, there were 6 of 7 depots in the same area and the residents were upset that the city couldn't spread them out to other areas, considering the health hazards of having them all there.

 

[newyorkguy]

I can't speak for Mumbles, but that's the way I understood it. It's not about bus stops or stations, it's about where they take the buses at night, where they idle them for long periods, and where the air becomes especially bad because of it. <snip>

Yes I read your message and I didn't mean you. Btw, someone mentioned intra-city buses -- intra-city actually means 'within the city' (which is what these buses are) as opposed to inter-city (which is what these buses aren't) -- and metro commuter buses. The buses are transit buses, they're not specifically for commuters (these buses run 24/7) and the agency that operates them is the Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, which is part of New York State's Metropolitan Transportation Authority or MTA.

Probably more than anyone wanted to know.

 

[Mumbles]

I can't speak for Mumbles, but that's the way I understood it. It's not about bus stops or stations, it's about where they take the buses at night, where they idle them for long periods, and where the air becomes especially bad because of it. In the article I cited, there were 6 of 7 depots in the same area and the residents were upset that the city couldn't spread them out to other areas, considering the health hazards of having them all there.

No, that's absolutely correct, I'm discussing where busses are parked and maintained, not stops where riders are picked up and let off. As I recall, Boston now has a law stating that a bus can only be left idling for five minutes before it has to get moving, in response to this problem. This could be state law - I do know that groups would protest companies that flouted this law.

How we got stuck on this subject, I have no idea...