www.ie.edu
At least you moved passed posting articles saying it is a Ponzi scheme (which is the first sign someone is clueless on Bitcoin). I’m going to count this as growth. #prouddadmomentBitcoin, What’s Happening? | IE Insights
<p>Given Bitcoin's most recent plummet in value, Manuel Romera analyzes what is causing the collapse and questions whether Bitcoin and its competitors are cryptocurrencies or actually cryptoassets.</p>
NPR huh.
There is not much legal substance in the NPR article. I have no clue what “restrictive coastline” even means. And wealthy shoreline communities? What is that? All shoreline communities are wealthy these days. And if the low tide property ownership is in fact the law in Massachusetts, that law likely goes back 200 years and it would cost a fortune to buy all that land for the public.
Yep and even if it’s private property under fla law you get access to the beach
You know why it’s that way? Because Desavage said so.
MAKE AMERICA FLORIDA!!!!! He’s SAVAGE !!!You know why it’s that way? Because Desavage said so.
He needs to make I am American his theme song when he runs in 2024!
I don’t follow at all. I’ve been to many beaches and river banks where you couldn’t traipse through private property to get there. You have to find a public access. We walked on a beach at MV, from a public parking lot. I’m still not convinced that NPR made a substantive point. NPR started with racism and intended to find facts to support it. NPR didn’t pull it off.
Using MV as an example, another story:
I've got no dog in your fight over private vs. public beaches in MASS. But it would be wrong to call this any kind of racism. It's private property owners wanting to keep things from being too crowded and exclusive. If a black or brown person or Indian or whatever bought a property, they too would have these rights of exclusion.Using MV as an example, another story:
But let’s not pretend there are not resentments, foremost for many (if you discount the impact of big money on real estate prices) being beach access. For almost two-thirds of Martha’s Vineyard’s beaches are legally, if not always in practice, closed to the public. And on no subject is the influence of hush money more apparent.
Private Beaches
A state law from 1647 gives private landholders exclusive rights to their beaches, and some Island towns exclude non-residents from enjoying a day at their stretches of sand. Whether beaches should be open to the public is an ongoing topic of debate on the Vineyard.mvmagazine.com
Here is a town on Long Island with "resident's only" beaches:
Beaches | Hempstead Town, NY
Some of Long Island's most beautiful South Shore beaches are located in the Town of Hempstead.hempsteadny.gov
Now we can debate if there is racism in this. I am not at all claiming a town is buying a beach to keep out persons of color. But towns that can buy beach expanses are probably fairly wealthy. So the result is largely going to be beaches that are visited by Whites as Whites are far more likely to have money. But beyond that, the person of color visiting from out of town will probably be more noticeable to authorities than you or me. So the result tends to have a racial bias even if unintended.
Are you denying "resident's only" beaches exist? Because right there on the Hampstead website it says:
Beaches are open to Hempstead Town and Nassau County residents only.
That seems clear to me. Not public access, not parking. "Beaches are open to ....".
Correct. But economic "discrimination" is not racism. (It might not even be classism--I'm sure there are some beach communities that just want to keep out all people, no matter their class, if they aren't locals).
Yes, I doubt those private property owners would welcome whites from Appalachia over black or brown persons.
I still remember this class. Some states have genuine private beaches. Others, like Florida, technically only have public beaches, although some of them allow for restricted access. Some states even require that private property cannot block a public beach without providing some sort of easement for public access.
I’m unsure if your point.Using MV as an example, another story:
But let’s not pretend there are not resentments, foremost for many (if you discount the impact of big money on real estate prices) being beach access. For almost two-thirds of Martha’s Vineyard’s beaches are legally, if not always in practice, closed to the public. And on no subject is the influence of hush money more apparent.
Private Beaches
A state law from 1647 gives private landholders exclusive rights to their beaches, and some Island towns exclude non-residents from enjoying a day at their stretches of sand. Whether beaches should be open to the public is an ongoing topic of debate on the Vineyard.
Here is a town on Long Island with "resident's only" beaches:
Beaches | Hempstead Town, NY
Some of Long Island's most beautiful South Shore beaches are located in the Town of Hempstead.
Now we can debate if there is racism in this. I am not at all claiming a town is buying a beach to keep out persons of color. But towns that can buy beach expanses are probably fairly wealthy. So the result is largely going to be beaches that are visited by Whites as Whites are far more likely to have money. But beyond that, the person of color visiting from out of town will probably be more noticeable to authorities than you or me. So the result tends to have a racial bias even if unintended.
Are you denying "resident's only" beaches exist? Because right there on the Hampstead website it says:
Beaches are open to Hempstead Town and Nassau County residents only.
That seems clear to me. Not public access, not parking. "Beaches are open to ....".
Strangely enough, my point really has been ignored. MV has resident's only beaches. MV has signs "all are welcome here". Those two points are totally incongruent to me, but apparently to no one else. Sort of an "all are welcome, but use the back door".
We have already established that MV is not open to everyone and welcoming of everyone. They got rid of those immigrants post haste. The NPR article appears to be a distraction (a racial one at that) which says, "stop talking about immigration and look how racist places like MV are about beach access." OK NPR. Agree. Rich liberals in Massachusetts are hypocritical assholes who embody just about everything they hang up signs about being against.
What’s incongruent? First I never saw that as your point. Second, being welcoming Is not the same as relinquishing private property rights. As I suspected, your latest link shows that private beach/coast ownership goes back several hundred years in Massachusetts. Maybe it would be nice if all coastal areas were in public hands, but they are not. My beef with NPR is it bringing racism into the picture. There are plenty of reasons to think MV residents, and those on the Cape for that matter, don’t like to associate with most POC, without Making one up.
Did you catch this remark from Obama?
Please. Slavery was also part of the New England landscape. It’s long gone. If a town today administered its public spaces in a way to exclude blacks, I’d sue their collective asses and I would win.The history of cities owning beaches to keep out PoC existed just as redlining existed. Both towns tried to hold onto. They succeeded in holding onto residents-only beaches in the Northeast. Cities keeping residen't only beaches are keeping alive the policy enacted to block Blacks.
In the decades that followed, local governments across the US enacted a host of policies and practices designed to segregate places of outdoor leisure by race and effectively exclude people of color from public beaches. In the south, those methods were quite explicit. Coastal cities such as Norfolk, Virginia, Charleston, South Carolina, and Miami, Florida, prohibited African Americans from stepping foot on any of their public beaches, and for years ignored blacks’ demands for public beaches of their own. Whites’ indifference to the health and humanity of black communities often had deadly consequences. Throughout the Jim Crow era, shockingly high numbers of black youth drowned each summer while playing in dangerous, and unsupervised, bodies of water. When white officials did respond to black demands for beaches and parks of their own, they invariably selected remote, polluted, often hazardous, locations. In Washington DC, officials designated Buzzard’s Point, a former dumping ground located downstream from a sewage plant, as an appropriate location for the city’s “colored” bathing beach. In New Orleans, it was a remote site on Lake Pontchartrain, 14 miles from downtown, surrounded on both sides by fishing camps that dumped raw sewage into the lake. One health official described the waters offshore as “grossly contaminated” and wholly unfit for bathing.In the north, whites employed more subtle, but no less effective, methods of segregation. Predominantly white suburbs and towns in the north-east, for example, designated their public beaches for residents only, or charged exorbitant access fees for non-residents, or barred non-residents from parking near the shore, all designed to keep minority populations in neighboring cities out. City officials, meanwhile, failed to provide black neighborhoods with safe and decent places of public recreation and deliberately made beaches and pools frequented by middle-class whites inaccessible to the poor and people of color.America’s segregated shores: beaches' long history as a racial battleground
For decades officials imposed regulations to restrict African Americans’ use of public beaches – and the fight for equal access is far from overwww.theguardian.com
Towns created resident only to keep out Blacks. Those beaches still exist. Which means that the limited number of beaches that will accept blacks are well overcrowded. The people in these towns are not necessarily keeping the beaches resident only specifically to keep out Blacks, but it is the end result.
So tell me specifically what I am saying is wrong. Did northern towns create Resident only beaches to keep away Blacks, yes or no, very easy question. Can I find examples of this on the internet?
IF yes, are some of those beaches still resident only today, yes or no counselor. Let's stop playing word games. Did towns create these beaches and do they still exist?
I am willing to be real. It isn't usually the color that is the issue anymore (it was in some cases in the past). The problem is the "poor" and the host of social issues that come along with it. Crime, drugs, general disrepair. It can sometimes look racial because the black community has higher poverty rates per capita. MV welcomed the Obama's. They would welcome Oprah. They would gladly have the CEO of Univision. What they don't want is the poors bringing the Jerry Springer and Maury to their posh little island.
The history of cities owning beaches to keep out PoC existed just as redlining existed. Both towns tried to hold onto. They succeeded in holding onto residents-only beaches in the Northeast. Cities keeping residen't only beaches are keeping alive the policy enacted to block Blacks.
In the decades that followed, local governments across the US enacted a host of policies and practices designed to segregate places of outdoor leisure by race and effectively exclude people of color from public beaches. In the south, those methods were quite explicit. Coastal cities such as Norfolk, Virginia, Charleston, South Carolina, and Miami, Florida, prohibited African Americans from stepping foot on any of their public beaches, and for years ignored blacks’ demands for public beaches of their own. Whites’ indifference to the health and humanity of black communities often had deadly consequences. Throughout the Jim Crow era, shockingly high numbers of black youth drowned each summer while playing in dangerous, and unsupervised, bodies of water. When white officials did respond to black demands for beaches and parks of their own, they invariably selected remote, polluted, often hazardous, locations. In Washington DC, officials designated Buzzard’s Point, a former dumping ground located downstream from a sewage plant, as an appropriate location for the city’s “colored” bathing beach. In New Orleans, it was a remote site on Lake Pontchartrain, 14 miles from downtown, surrounded on both sides by fishing camps that dumped raw sewage into the lake. One health official described the waters offshore as “grossly contaminated” and wholly unfit for bathing.In the north, whites employed more subtle, but no less effective, methods of segregation. Predominantly white suburbs and towns in the north-east, for example, designated their public beaches for residents only, or charged exorbitant access fees for non-residents, or barred non-residents from parking near the shore, all designed to keep minority populations in neighboring cities out. City officials, meanwhile, failed to provide black neighborhoods with safe and decent places of public recreation and deliberately made beaches and pools frequented by middle-class whites inaccessible to the poor and people of color.America’s segregated shores: beaches' long history as a racial battleground
For decades officials imposed regulations to restrict African Americans’ use of public beaches – and the fight for equal access is far from over
Towns created resident only to keep out Blacks. Those beaches still exist. Which means that the limited number of beaches that will accept blacks are well overcrowded. The people in these towns are not necessarily keeping the beaches resident only specifically to keep out Blacks, but it is the end result.
So tell me specifically what I am saying is wrong. Did northern towns create Resident only beaches to keep away Blacks, yes or no, very easy question. Can I find examples of this on the internet?
IF yes, are some of those beaches still resident only today, yes or no counselor. Let's stop playing word games. Did towns create these beaches and do they still exist?
I think that is the most reasonable thing you have ever shared here.
You are pushing into Cosmic territory with this post.The history of cities owning beaches to keep out PoC existed just as redlining existed. Both towns tried to hold onto. They succeeded in holding onto residents-only beaches in the Northeast. Cities keeping residen't only beaches are keeping alive the policy enacted to block Blacks.
In the decades that followed, local governments across the US enacted a host of policies and practices designed to segregate places of outdoor leisure by race and effectively exclude people of color from public beaches. In the south, those methods were quite explicit. Coastal cities such as Norfolk, Virginia, Charleston, South Carolina, and Miami, Florida, prohibited African Americans from stepping foot on any of their public beaches, and for years ignored blacks’ demands for public beaches of their own. Whites’ indifference to the health and humanity of black communities often had deadly consequences. Throughout the Jim Crow era, shockingly high numbers of black youth drowned each summer while playing in dangerous, and unsupervised, bodies of water. When white officials did respond to black demands for beaches and parks of their own, they invariably selected remote, polluted, often hazardous, locations. In Washington DC, officials designated Buzzard’s Point, a former dumping ground located downstream from a sewage plant, as an appropriate location for the city’s “colored” bathing beach. In New Orleans, it was a remote site on Lake Pontchartrain, 14 miles from downtown, surrounded on both sides by fishing camps that dumped raw sewage into the lake. One health official described the waters offshore as “grossly contaminated” and wholly unfit for bathing.In the north, whites employed more subtle, but no less effective, methods of segregation. Predominantly white suburbs and towns in the north-east, for example, designated their public beaches for residents only, or charged exorbitant access fees for non-residents, or barred non-residents from parking near the shore, all designed to keep minority populations in neighboring cities out. City officials, meanwhile, failed to provide black neighborhoods with safe and decent places of public recreation and deliberately made beaches and pools frequented by middle-class whites inaccessible to the poor and people of color.America’s segregated shores: beaches' long history as a racial battleground
For decades officials imposed regulations to restrict African Americans’ use of public beaches – and the fight for equal access is far from over
Towns created resident only to keep out Blacks. Those beaches still exist. Which means that the limited number of beaches that will accept blacks are well overcrowded. The people in these towns are not necessarily keeping the beaches resident only specifically to keep out Blacks, but it is the end result.
So tell me specifically what I am saying is wrong. Did northern towns create Resident only beaches to keep away Blacks, yes or no, very easy question. Can I find examples of this on the internet?
IF yes, are some of those beaches still resident only today, yes or no counselor. Let's stop playing word games. Did towns create these beaches and do they still exist?
www.wsj.com
Whoa Whoa Whoa! You mean high earners are taxed?
Opinion | Now New York Democrats Tell Us
They finally have second thoughts on taxing the rich—a little late.
The light bulb went off…keep taxing high earners and they will leave. Then you can’t fund the essential public services
Yes, but don't tell the other libs - they actually think billionaires don't pay taxes.
