General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours

[Rainrider22]

Yeah basically. They'd rather have businesses with boarded up windows or old newspaper covering up store fronts. Instead of tourists and citizens walking the street, it seems they'd prefer to have junkies and riff raff digging through recycling bins for change to get their next fix. Downtown Cambridge could be the nicest downtown in the region but old white people seem to prefer to watch it die, especially when you read their so called objections to the LRT. Yet at the end of the day, they'll blame us nothing ever happens there.

Time to wake up boomers, it's 2021.

I respect that you have an opinion on why or why not Cambridge is being progressive however, I take exception and I am offended with your remark "Old White People"   I find your comment to be offensive, derogatory and and at a minimum, disrespectful to the people of Cambridge.

[Bytor]

Yeah basically. They'd rather have businesses with boarded up windows or old newspaper covering up store fronts. Instead of tourists and citizens walking the street, it seems they'd prefer to have junkies and riff raff digging through recycling bins for change to get their next fix. Downtown Cambridge could be the nicest downtown in the region but old white people seem to prefer to watch it die, especially when you read their so called objections to the LRT. Yet at the end of the day, they'll blame us nothing ever happens there.

Time to wake up boomers, it's 2021.

I respect that you have an opinion on why or why not Cambridge is being progressive however, I take exception and I am offended with your remark "Old White People"   I find your comment to be offensive, derogatory and and at a minimum, disrespectful to the people of Cambridge.

It's pretty darn accurate, though, when you consider what demographic that 99% of NIMBYs and ant-LRT people fall into. White baby Boomers tend to be the biggest bloc that actively complains to their municipal councillors about proposed policies that would make both our urban cores and suburban neighbourhoods better places for a wider variety of people.

[Rainrider22]

I respect that you have an opinion on why or why not Cambridge is being progressive however, I take exception and I am offended with your remark "Old White People"   I find your comment to be offensive, derogatory and and at a minimum, disrespectful to the people of Cambridge.

It's pretty darn accurate, though, when you consider what demographic that 99% of NIMBYs and ant-LRT people fall into. White baby Boomers tend to be the biggest bloc that actively complains to their municipal councillors about proposed policies that would make both our urban cores and suburban neighbourhoods better places for a wider variety of people.

So can we make comments like that about other subject matter and identified groups ?  no we cant... I am surprised at your lack of cultural competence.

[Bytor]

It's pretty darn accurate, though, when you consider what demographic that 99% of NIMBYs and ant-LRT people fall into. White baby Boomers tend to be the biggest bloc that actively complains to their municipal councillors about proposed policies that would make both our urban cores and suburban neighbourhoods better places for a wider variety of people.

So can we make comments like that about other subject matter and identified groups ?  no we cant... I am surprised at your lack of cultural competence.

Why do you feel that there is something wrong about noting that NIMBYs and this reactionary voting bloc strongly tend to be older and white? Do you deny the accuracy of taking note of that?

[Rainrider22]

I am not going to entertain that discussion on a public forum. I will leave it at that. I was offended by the comment period... I will leave it to the moderator.

[Bytor]

I am not going to entertain that discussion on a public forum.  I will leave it at that.  I was offended by the comment period... I will leave it to the moderator.

I'm not sure what is offensive abut it, but I am willing to be corrected.

What is offensive about noting that a certain reactionary municipal voting bloc that tries to prevent certain types of policies and project tends to be overwhelmingly composed of a certain ethno-cultural demographic group?

[jamincan]

I think NIMBYs can be any race. I recall this being pretty clearly demonstrated in Laurelwood when the Islamic Centre was planning on opening on Erbsville there.

[ac3r]

I respect that you have an opinion on why or why not Cambridge is being progressive however, I take exception and I am offended with your remark "Old White People"   I find your comment to be offensive, derogatory and and at a minimum, disrespectful to the people of Cambridge.

I'm not sure how "white baby boomers" is offensive. I myself am person of colour and could tell you a thing or to as to what is actually offensive and derogatory. The fact of the matter is, it's often old white boomers who make up the majority of our NIMBYs that are consistently opposed to new developments for whatever reason they may have. Look up any old news article about NIMBYs opposed to something here, and more often than not, you'll see a photograph of old people with their arms crossed trying their best to seem offended. There's even a subreddit to mock this because it happens all over the continent, although I do not know the name of it.

And no, I don't disrespect Cambridge. I love Cambridge. My current job involves an absolutely massive project coming to the city. I've also enjoyed my time working at the University of Waterloo School or Architecture and doing casual work as an addiction counsellor to the many unfortunate drug addicts that populate the city. It's a great place, but could be so much better. It's time for Cambridge to grow, to build an LRT, to build more housing/hotels/cultural venues, attract a diversity of people from all demographics and improve the lives of its citizens there. It would be a shame if this project was cancelled because some people complained they were too tall or would "ruin their view". It only takes a couple bored people to complain enough in public consultation meetings to derail a project, because anyone who might be okay with it don't bother to show up to these things. With the exception of the City of Kitchener - I'm pretty sick of it happening throughout this region just because some privileged dicks think a building shouldn't go there because their view will be ruined, that affordable housing shouldn't be near them or that they'll have to deal with 30 minutes of shade on a sunny day.

In any case, I fear this is far too ambitious for Cambridge and will end up cancelled or severely downsized.

[creative]

I respect that you have an opinion on why or why not Cambridge is being progressive however, I take exception and I am offended with your remark "Old White People"   I find your comment to be offensive, derogatory and and at a minimum, disrespectful to the people of Cambridge.

I'm not sure how "white baby boomers" is offensive. I myself am person of colour and could tell you a thing or to as to what is actually offensive and derogatory. The fact of the matter is, it's often old white boomers who make up the majority of our NIMBYs that are consistently opposed to new developments for whatever reason they may have. Look up any old news article about NIMBYs opposed to something here, and more often than not, you'll see a photograph of old people with their arms crossed trying their best to seem offended. There's even a subreddit to mock this because it happens all over the continent, although I do not know the name of it.

And no, I don't disrespect Cambridge. I love Cambridge. My current job involves an absolutely massive project coming to the city. I've also enjoyed my time working at the University of Waterloo School or Architecture and doing casual work as an addiction counsellor to the many unfortunate drug addicts that populate the city. It's a great place, but could be so much better. It's time for Cambridge to grow, to build an LRT, to build more housing/hotels/cultural venues, attract a diversity of people from all demographics and improve the lives of its citizens there. It would be a shame if this project was cancelled because some people complained they were too tall or would "ruin their view". It only takes a couple bored people to complain enough in public consultation meetings to derail a project, because anyone who might be okay with it don't bother to show up to these things. With the exception of the City of Kitchener - I'm pretty sick of it happening throughout this region just because some privileged dicks think a building shouldn't go there because their view will be ruined, that affordable housing shouldn't be near them or that they'll have to deal with 30 minutes of shade on a sunny day.

In any case, I fear this is far too ambitious for Cambridge and will end up cancelled or severely downsized.

Wow!

[ijmorlan]

I'm not sure how "white baby boomers" is offensive. I myself am person of colour and could tell you a thing or to as to what is actually offensive and derogatory. The fact of the matter is, it's often old white boomers who make up the majority of our NIMBYs that are consistently opposed to new developments for whatever reason they may have. Look up any old news article about NIMBYs opposed to something here, and more often than not, you'll see a photograph of old people with their arms crossed trying their best to seem offended. There's even a subreddit to mock this because it happens all over the continent, although I do not know the name of it.

Here’s an alternate scenario: suppose I regularly get accosted by people when I go to downtown Cambridge. Eventually I start telling people “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me”. Is that appropriate?

Now obviously, in this scenario, there is a good chance that I’m actually a racist or at least somewhat racist who notices when a Black guy accosts me but doesn’t notice when somebody else accosts me (or at least, doesn’t notice their skin colour). But it is also possible, and certainly true in some times and places, that all or most of the people doing the accosting really are Black. Even in this situation, though, is it really helpful for me to include the word “Black” in what I say? Presumably I would also stop going to downtown Cambridge if I was getting accosted entirely by white guys. So what is important is that I’m being accosted by people when I go there.

At the same time, I think it is reasonable to ask certain demographic questions about the NIMBYs. Are they recent immigrants who don’t want the next batch of immigrants to move in next to them? Or are they the descendants of 18th century immigrants? Or something else? Of course it sounds like they are likely the 2nd of those options. But insisting on characterizing them by race feels like it’s tarring everybody else with the criticism.

[Bjays93]

I'm not sure how "white baby boomers" is offensive. I myself am person of colour and could tell you a thing or to as to what is actually offensive and derogatory. The fact of the matter is, it's often old white boomers who make up the majority of our NIMBYs that are consistently opposed to new developments for whatever reason they may have. Look up any old news article about NIMBYs opposed to something here, and more often than not, you'll see a photograph of old people with their arms crossed trying their best to seem offended. There's even a subreddit to mock this because it happens all over the continent, although I do not know the name of it.

Here’s an alternate scenario: suppose I regularly get accosted by people when I go to downtown Cambridge. Eventually I start telling people “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me”. Is that appropriate?

Now obviously, in this scenario, there is a good chance that I’m actually a racist or at least somewhat racist who notices when a Black guy accosts me but doesn’t notice when somebody else accosts me (or at least, doesn’t notice their skin colour). But it is also possible, and certainly true in some times and places, that all or most of the people doing the accosting really are Black. Even in this situation, though, is it really helpful for me to include the word “Black” in what I say? Presumably I would also stop going to downtown Cambridge if I was getting accosted entirely by white guys. So what is important is that I’m being accosted by people when I go there.

At the same time, I think it is reasonable to ask certain demographic questions about the NIMBYs. Are they recent immigrants who don’t want the next batch of immigrants to move in next to them? Or are they the descendants of 18th century immigrants? Or something else? Of course it sounds like they are likely the 2nd of those options. But insisting on characterizing them by race feels like it’s tarring everybody else with the criticism.

I'd have to agree. Bringing race into it is pointless. Maybe it shouldn't be unacceptable to point out the ethnicity of certain people groups, but in our modern politically correct society it is. If I went of on a tirade about how it's all the Chinese fault for this problem or muslims fault for that, it would probably be in pretty poor taste. 

I've also met plenty of white boomers who are pro development my parents included. So to paint all of those people under the same brush is ridiculous. Call it out for what it actually is, people being resistant to change and not wanting to give things up, whether that be their view, or sunlight etc. That's not an issue exclusive to white boomers, anyone outside of constantly developing downtown area's probably has some sort of view along those lines regardless of race and ethnicity.

[Bytor]

Here’s an alternate scenario: suppose I regularly get accosted by people when I go to downtown Cambridge. Eventually I start telling people “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me”. Is that appropriate?

Now obviously, in this scenario, there is a good chance that I’m actually a racist or at least somewhat racist who notices when a Black guy accosts me but doesn’t notice when somebody else accosts me (or at least, doesn’t notice their skin colour). But it is also possible, and certainly true in some times and places, that all or most of the people doing the accosting really are Black. Even in this situation, though, is it really helpful for me to include the word “Black” in what I say? Presumably I would also stop going to downtown Cambridge if I was getting accosted entirely by white guys. So what is important is that I’m being accosted by people when I go there.

At the same time, I think it is reasonable to ask certain demographic questions about the NIMBYs. Are they recent immigrants who don’t want the next batch of immigrants to move in next to them? Or are they the descendants of 18th century immigrants? Or something else? Of course it sounds like they are likely the 2nd of those options. But insisting on characterizing them by race feels like it’s tarring everybody else with the criticism.

No it's not appropriate because of one reason: documentary evidence.

As you say, your perception of who is accosting you may very well be biased and as such is only an anecdote rather than reliable data. While visible minorities are over represented in the homeless population, the majority of them are still white people so for you to say “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me” is evidence of that bias and an example of racism because your perception is not based upon reality.

However, all we have to do is look at the photos of the NIMBYs in the papers, look at the the videos of the NIMBYs as they make their delegations to council, we can see whom the news reports go an interview for "local flavour". Overwhelmingly, these people are older and white. Noting that is simply noting an actual fact, and it is important that it get noted in the broader context of systemic racism in out society.

We can only fix it if we note it and admit that it is there.

[Bjays93]

Here’s an alternate scenario: suppose I regularly get accosted by people when I go to downtown Cambridge. Eventually I start telling people “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me”. Is that appropriate?

Now obviously, in this scenario, there is a good chance that I’m actually a racist or at least somewhat racist who notices when a Black guy accosts me but doesn’t notice when somebody else accosts me (or at least, doesn’t notice their skin colour). But it is also possible, and certainly true in some times and places, that all or most of the people doing the accosting really are Black. Even in this situation, though, is it really helpful for me to include the word “Black” in what I say? Presumably I would also stop going to downtown Cambridge if I was getting accosted entirely by white guys. So what is important is that I’m being accosted by people when I go there.

At the same time, I think it is reasonable to ask certain demographic questions about the NIMBYs. Are they recent immigrants who don’t want the next batch of immigrants to move in next to them? Or are they the descendants of 18th century immigrants? Or something else? Of course it sounds like they are likely the 2nd of those options. But insisting on characterizing them by race feels like it’s tarring everybody else with the criticism.

No it's not appropriate because of one reason: documentary evidence.

As you say, your perception of who is accosting you may very well be biased and as such is only an anecdote rather than reliable data.  While visible minorities are over represented in the homeless population, the majority of them are still white people so for you to say “I’m not going to downtown Cambridge because I don’t want some Black guy to accost me” is evidence of that bias and an example of racism because your perception is not based upon reality.

However, all we have to do is look at the photos of the NIMBYs in the papers, look at the the videos of the NIMBYs as they make their delegations to council, we can see whom the news reports go an interview for "local flavour". Overwhelmingly, these people are older and white. Noting that is simply noting an actual fact, and it is important that it get noted in the broader context of systemic racism in out society.

We can only fix it if we note it and admit that it is there.

No it's not appropriate because of one reason: documentary evidence.

As you say, your perception of who is accosting you a NIMBY may very well be biased and as such is only an anecdote rather than reliable data. 

Relying on newspapers headlines to discern an entire demographic is ridiculous and one could argue a newspaper wouldn't publish if a person of colour was a NIMBY for various reasons, including potential racist reactions towards them for holding such a stance. Who honestly knows it's not a rabbit hole worth going down, but last I checked there have been no surveys breaking down the NIMBY demographic so no matter how much evidence you have to support your point it still remains anecdotal.

[danbrotherston]

You guys are missing context.

If the data shows that BIPOC individuals ... lets say...are arrested by police more often (because there is actually data on that, and not on being "accosted"), the important thing is the context of why that is, and who is causing it.

Specifically we know there is a history of bias in policing, a history of racism and economic disadvantage in our society. That is an important piece of context. Why is that? And who has benefitted...you can answer that yourself.

The same context can be put around the fact that older white people are the most common form of NIMBYs.

And not surprisingly, it is for a similar set of reasons.

Now I think it's also important to ask who has agency in both situations. BIPOC folks don't want to be arrested, but have little control over the bias in policing. NIMBYs similarly don't have direct control over the city's choice to prioritize their opinion, nor do they have control over the media's choice to feature their voice above the voice of those who are being excluded from neighbourhoods. (Although some would argue they have more power in these things than traditionally disadvantaged individuals).

But they DO have agency over what attitude they choose to have when discussing their neighbourhoods. They COULD choose to use their voice instead to stand up for those who would be excluded.

In any case, there's grey all over...but I don't think ignoring race entirely is a good solution either. Context matters.

[Bjays93]

You guys are missing context.

If the data shows that BIPOC individuals ... lets say...are arrested by police more often (because there is actually data on that, and not on being "accosted"), the important thing is the context of why that is, and who is causing it.

Specifically we know there is a history of bias in policing, a history of racism and economic disadvantage in our society.  That is an important piece of context. Why is that? And who has benefitted...you can answer that yourself.

The same context can be put around the fact that older white people are the most common form of NIMBYs.

And not surprisingly, it is for a similar set of reasons.

Now I think it's also important to ask who has agency in both situations. BIPOC folks don't want to be arrested, but have little control over the bias in policing. NIMBYs similarly don't have direct control over the city's choice to prioritize their opinion, nor do they have control over the media's choice to feature their voice above the voice of those who are being excluded from neighbourhoods. (Although some would argue they have more power in these things than traditionally disadvantaged individuals).

But they DO have agency over what attitude they choose to have when discussing their neighbourhoods. They COULD choose to use their voice instead to stand up for those who would be excluded.

In any case, there's grey all over...but I don't think ignoring race entirely is a good solution either. Context matters.

I don't know why my reply double posted but I agree. I also believe the largest portion of NIMBYs are older white people, but that's also just cuz there's more of them in that demographic than anyone else. 

I'd like to know proportionally what sets of people are more likely to be NIMBYs. That would be data that is near impossible to get I'd imagine but I wouldn't be surprised if proportionally the numbers are much more similar. 

The reality is people of any background will likely have similar reasons for being opposed to a development, I think it's an intrinsic reaction for lots of people to not want a massive tower going up in their neighbourhood. 

There are also lots of people who are still NIMBYs but not vocally so, particularly immigrants because they feel like this country gave them a lot when they had nothing so even though they dont like it, they recognize they have it far better than before and so they dont speak up. This is fine but the underlying feelings towards the development are still the same. Lots of people are just like that, and my issue was not with singling out a demographic but rather painting that entire demographic under the same brush.