Discrimination is using the brain god gave you to discern the best option or action to take. In and of itself discrimination is not inherently bad. But when used, particularly by governments, to control or even just influence what folks can do or where they can live based on colour, culture, ethnicity or even socio-economic status there is an evil taint.
But that is exactly the kind of discrimination underpinning the "these apartments are good, but those, back then were bad."
To really grok this you must remember Dunwoody's first assault on undesirables hoped to use a Parks Bond Referendum to capitalize our own little Pogrom. This forced expulsion was rationalized as a way to improve our schools and therein lies the big clue. So what about these most-favoured apartments? How can they possibly be better than the ones the City so wanted to bulldoze? How are they even different?
Turns out the problem is not with apartments per se, but with the specific kind of folks that live therein. In both cases they're immigrants. But over by PIB they're hispanic, poor, with more than few suspected to be undocumented. Down Ashford Dunwoody, they're asian, mostly Indian (dot not feather), sporting H1B visas and IT jobs with more than decent salaries. And they speak english--kinda.
More importantly the PCID apartment dwellers are educated and fully intend that their children will not just succeed in school--they will excel. These apartment dwellers are all right by us not least because their children, who primarily attend Austin and Dunwoody Elementary are part of the reason that each of these schools ranked above the much ballyhooed Vanderlyn on the most recent CCPRI rankings. Austin even ranked well against special charter and magnet schools.
In short, it is simple discrimination and socio-economic segregation that determines whether an apartment is good or bad.
But that is exactly the kind of discrimination underpinning the "these apartments are good, but those, back then were bad."
To really grok this you must remember Dunwoody's first assault on undesirables hoped to use a Parks Bond Referendum to capitalize our own little Pogrom. This forced expulsion was rationalized as a way to improve our schools and therein lies the big clue. So what about these most-favoured apartments? How can they possibly be better than the ones the City so wanted to bulldoze? How are they even different?
Turns out the problem is not with apartments per se, but with the specific kind of folks that live therein. In both cases they're immigrants. But over by PIB they're hispanic, poor, with more than few suspected to be undocumented. Down Ashford Dunwoody, they're asian, mostly Indian (dot not feather), sporting H1B visas and IT jobs with more than decent salaries. And they speak english--kinda.
More importantly the PCID apartment dwellers are educated and fully intend that their children will not just succeed in school--they will excel. These apartment dwellers are all right by us not least because their children, who primarily attend Austin and Dunwoody Elementary are part of the reason that each of these schools ranked above the much ballyhooed Vanderlyn on the most recent CCPRI rankings. Austin even ranked well against special charter and magnet schools.
In short, it is simple discrimination and socio-economic segregation that determines whether an apartment is good or bad.
Posts
