Monday, March 23, 2015

Carving an Exit - Apply NYC Co-op Rules Elsewhere

"Honey, the neighborhoods in Avon are a mix of newer construction and some older neighborhoods with good finishing touches."

"What about the schools?"

"It's a closer commute for you, and we can get more for our dollar."

>Checks website< "Schools are 90% white, mix of everything else for the remainder. Ha! Almost as many Asian-white mixed kids as black-white. Maybe this will work."

"No private schools. See! Let's do it."

"You forgot one last check... the NY Times 2010 census maps with race filters on and 2010 to 2000 comparison percentages."

"Dammit!"

"You almost talked me into that one."

Seriously, for being a race of horrible, evil backwoods morons who appropriate everything, whites sure do attract non-whites to their schools. In Indianapolis, the devolution has been: "Well the IPS schools went bad, but we can escape to Lawrence and Washington Township schools. Oh well, now Lawrence is bad, and my kids might not graduate from North Central in Washington Township, but there is always Fishers. Oooh yeah, let's move to Fishers for the good schools!" Blacks will always always follow, no matter how often the newspapers invoke the legacy of the Klan in Indiana. How could you stop this? How does New York City stop it? Start treating your developments like housing co-ops, and craft your suburb or exurb appropriately to defend your territory.

This sounds like going overboard, brah, why go to such a length? Because housing developments in our current era have a giant, exploitable hole. We live in the democratization of credit era. Your home that you bought in 1990 with an 8.5% mortgage, 20% down payment and strict underwriting rules can be bought with a 4% mortgage, 0% down and anything goes. Forget federal rules for housing diversity, the simple use of credit and the ever lowering of underwriting standards broke down any barrier money may have formed. One would need an incredibly tight market like an island (hmm, Manhattan is an island), harassing cops, maybe a history of racist, tough whites and zoning laws like those used liberally by blue states to keep the tide at bay. You have to practically have an area that is 50% above the media average home in your state to create a super zip. Homeowner association fees are partly a protection against this, but leverage just makes it a slightly higher hurdle to jump.

I use Indiana as a backdrop since it is where I live, but I already know Fishers will have problems within 25 years unless they find a way to jack up housing prices and block apartment building development. Carmel should be okay since it is so expensive in relation, but you never can be sure. Fishers growth is all in the last 20 years, with an order of magnitude population jump from 1995 to 2005. Fishers development was haywire with developments thrown up non-stop with strip malls to follow. This was developer heaven as all they had to buy was buy up farmland with easy money and promise "good schools, safe schools, 2400 square feet for less than Marion County". This is churn and burn work. Put the development up fast, sell the lots, and move on to the next one with cheap money. This is not for longevity.

A longer term view would go the co-op route. Co-ops in New York City are notoriously picky about who moves into their buildings. They pick you. You buy in. They can set the requirements they want. They do not have to give reasons for declining you. President Nixon was rejected by a co-op. It could be an easy switch to move the legal and contractual mechanics of a an apartment building to a development. The key is an owner who would incorporate and be invested for the long haul. The potential buyers would have to be invested for the community for a long term time horizon, not simple "home is an investment" thinking. This is why this co-op idea would be a winner though as the suburbs and family living are suited for the long term.

People wanting to buy for the school system, safe neighborhood and for their children's future are the kind of people you could talk into this idea. People might decry the lack of individuality one may have with their home per whatever rules, but look around you fools at the Edward Scissorhands suburbs you are in. People do buy into HOA developments often, so this is just taking another step. The time to start this idea would be an exurb or suburb in the making. Not an "on the boom" now location. It must be the "next" one people will flee to, because you'd have to get in with the small town's council to set this up, and to set this up with every other developer that shows plans for that town. One would have to pitch it to the natives and old timers of that community. A pitch could even be, "do you want your town strip malled and overgrown only to be destroyed by the dark tide that follows?"

One would have to be cautious and careful with this, but if the oddity that is the co-op declination system can work in NYC, it should work elsewhere. There will always be complaints, but give enough realtors incentives (cash in envelopes), and they will steer the wrong home buyers to other areas. One could even conjure up the weirdest conspiracy theories because certain, ahem, communities are prone to believing the wildest urban legends. Keep acceptance numbers slightly below regional demographic representation, a few donations to the UNCF and there will always be plausible deniability. That deniability is key because if the sovereign media did take a flashlight to your system, wouldn't they have to evaluate and scrutinize the long standing tradition of co-ops in NYC? Copying NYC behavior might as well be a deflector shield because they cannot have their precious system changed. The USG system is failing, start carving enclaves from within.

15 comments:

R. Wilbur said...

How does NYC get around the racial discrimination laws?

As you well know, there were all sorts of racial covenants put into deeds in newly formed suburbs. There are all sorts of government mechanisms in place to make sure something along similar lines doesn't happen again.

Is NYC simply sufficiently diverse -- that is, do they simply have enough successful and assimilated upper and upper-middle class minorities -- that this is a non-issue?

R.Wilbur said...

I do appreciate what you're doing. I would think you could simply examine more in-depth what sort of legal tricks whites in the Deep South pulled out of their sleeve once busing and forced integration of schools were put into play.

Lots of very smart Southern aristocrat lawyers, lots of money, lots of will, lots of (local) political power. What were they able to do? Lots of hits and misses, but overall, I think we can chalk it up to a loss. USG is adept at preventing manipulation of USG narratives via USG laws. Opting out of USG laws (i.e., Amish) works to an extent, but they wrote the rules.

One option you may not have considered (since you seem to be in a "new development" mindset) is a historic neighborhood / small town with an extremely strict, well-enforced Historic Preservation district, and Historic Preservation zoning ordinance.

These are put in place to protect the historic integrity of (mostly) architecturally significant 19th and early 20th century towns/neighborhoods, and if properly and vigorously enforced, have very broad powers in ANY changes -- everything from the paint color of a Victorian townhouse to the development (or non-development) of a new apartment complex within the district.

The review boards are, of course, full of prog architects and history groupies, leftists all, but they can enforce their unspoken prejudices under the guise of "protecting our architectural heritage".

Now, remove "architectural" and you have a de-facto regime enforcing a whole lot of what we're going for.

The neighborhoods are truly traditional, walkable, beautiful, and usually full of nice people who love their homes and gardens, who have an affinity for traditional or organic architecture and design, and the basic maintenance cost on older properties effectively prices out elements you wouldn't like to live near.

Look at a place like Madison, Indiana (which has an incredible Catholic school system), Attica, Columbus, etc. -- by enforcing historic and traditional architectural standards, they are also preventing a whole lot of other unpleasant modernness from creeping in.

Catch me @rwlochry if you're interested in more info.

Portlander said...

Hey, aren't you describing New Hampshire? You've lived in Indiana long enough to know you're not going to convince anyone in the rest of the country to move that close to all those Massholes. ;)

At the community level, I believe it's been done at scale twice: Irving Company in OC, and The Villages in Florida. Both times there were benevolent dictators at the helm with money enough to see a grand-scale vision to its completion. I'm not sure it could be reproduced today, though.

Anyway, stipulating it's even possible, I disagree that it's any kind of solution. Yesterday you were proposing a UBI and financial freedom, today HOA slavery?? And let's not forget HOA Boards are the worst. They embody the age-old problem of petty dictators: the pettier the realm, the pettier the dictator.

At heart is O'Sullivan's Law. Busy-bodies want to micro-manage others, and are happy to keep chipping away at the edges of freedom while conservative-libertarian types just want to be left alone and hate the hassle and bother of even defending themselves. They'd rather just live in denial until it gets so bad they move further west.

icr said...

"do you want your town strip malled and overgrown only to be destroyed by the dark tide that follows?"

I think a little too direct.

Max said...

"That deniability is key because if the sovereign media did take a flashlight to your system, wouldn't they have to evaluate and scrutinize the long standing tradition of co-ops in NYC?"

lol, of course not.

Rest of the piece is good, but expecting fairness and consistency from the Official Press is a bit absurd. Just look at the brouhaha over Ferguson's crime statistics, otherwise known as Averageville, USA.

Big Bill said...

Another tool: environmental impact analysis. Before you can put in certain structures (apartments, etc.) You have to do a lengthy and detailed analysis. What will the physical, social, infrastructure costs be?

Another key: control the developers by preventing easy rezoning.

Portlander said...

Oh, and a quick follow-up proving my point that HOA Boards are the pettiest of petty dictators: Nixon. :)

I am certain the same people that rejected Nixon would have fallen over themselves to let in a Kennedy, or in more modern times a De Blasio or Obama. I would be very surprised if his rejection were by old, out-of-sight money turning their nose up at (whispers) "I heard he's a politician."

peterike said...

This is OT but fits the larger interests of the blog.

Check out this company profile page for a new California tech startup that just got funding. These, my friends, are the faces of the new "American" economy. Scroll down and look. And think, 30 years ago nearly ever face would have been white.

http://rubrik.com/company/

Portlander said...

Yep, looks like my company.

Suburban_elk said...

That is interesting cover page for that IT company Rubrik. From the sound of their self promotion, they are heavy hitters doing important work for google facebook etc. So if they are all that, the page makes for an interesting "face study". The only guy with an old-school strongman face is Head of Sales - go figure! Mike Tornancasa (Northern Italian?), "motorcycle adventurer".

Another predictable face, Raylin Wright, the only half-way normal looking (white) woman in her best picture there a 6 (ok 6 and seven-eighths because light brown hair and shapely if muscular neck), is Design.

It would be interesting to hear from someone with experience in the IT world and at that level, are they that good, is this the creme of the crop, and if so are bindis that heavily overrepresented? and if so what the fuck. I was the under the impression that white men still stood out at the top, in that field.

By way of contrast and for a real old-school face check out Jim Gerritson at Wood Prairie Farm in Maine and get your potatoes now.

The point about strong faces is not so simple as massive jaw and brow ridges equals good, by the way. It has to be part of the whole group. As come up before, the athletes, the strongest men, get to eat the organs first but if they are not fit into a social structure that nurtures holistic values (or something), then the equation falls short.

peterike said...

Elk, it's a mixed bag. There are a lot of new companies that are top-down Indian run. These will have far more Indians/Asians overall, even in traditional "white" jobs like marketing. Because, you know, Indians like to work with Indians and hire Indians. Imagine that!

Not every company is like that. Take a look at this leadership team for a company that is doing extremely well right now.

http://www.purestorage.com/company/management-team.html

Though admittedly, this is more white than you'd expect. But the basic split is that Indian CEOs have majority Indians. White CEOs will have a multi-cult but majority white.

Here is another Indian led company:

http://www.nutanix.com/company/

Here is another white led company.

http://www.solidfire.com/about/management/

Another Indian led company:

http://www.nimblestorage.com/company/leadership.php

The overall trend is definitely toward more Indian led companies.

nikcrit said...

I use Indiana as a backdrop since it is where I live, but I already know Fishers will have problems within 25 years unless they find a way to jack up housing prices and block apartment building development.

What seems somewhat askew to trends in my city is: while the northern suburbs have grown increasingly black, in which 'burbs such Glendale and particularly Brown Deer are 20%-30% black, those to the south of the city, such as Franklin and Oak Creek, have gone from 0% to 1% or 2%, which is to say more or less unchanged.
I'm thinking the mitigaging factor may be the jewish population of those 'burbs; northern 'burbs like Fox Point are upwards of 60% Jewish; while those southern 'burbs I can't imagine to be more than 5% Jewish. I can't really form a theory from that but feel it must have something to do with the black suburb-clustering.
Along those same demos and divides, it's amusing to look at those day-after voting patterns during elections: the northern 'burbs will be blue with the exception of WF Bay, the goy and heavily protestant middle-to-upper-middle-class enclave, which are like their demo-peer western 'burbs Wauwatosa and Brookfield.

Devalier said...

Good post, I've been thinking along similar lines.

Another model to look at is cohousing. Here is an example in North Carolina. Hmm, the pictures of the people...that doesn't look like North Carolina. So maybe one way to get around the "that's racist" problem is to camouflage the community as a hippy, eco-sustainabilty cohousing location.


Camlost said...

Another model to look at is cohousing. Here is an example in North Carolina. Hmm, the pictures of the people...that doesn't look like North Carolina.

LOL.

This is in Asheville, which is Western NC in the mountains. It's extremely white there.

Blacks don't like living in the mountains because it's hard to reach government services there.

Dave said...

Many wealthy towns keep out diversity with two-acre single-family zoning. Some go as far as to buy any large piece of land that's put up for sale and turn it into a park. And environmentalists can think up a hundred reasons before breakfast why a particular piece of land shouldn't be developed.

You pay very high property taxes to live in such a town, but it's worth it for the "good schools".