Block busting was not intended to 'help' people (unless your a land developer), it was all about tapping into peoples racism and scaring them into selling their houses for less than their worth by telling them that ethnic minorities were moving in. Yes, it started because the government allowed neighborhoods to not be racially segregated, but the loss in property value and peoples reactions were based in racism and nothing else. I would argue that it illustrated how racist our parents &/or grand parents were more than anything else.
I don't believe it places the receivers above the providers, we all live in a society, in my case American society, and at a certain level we are in it together, so instead of taking the attitude, "I have mine, screw you", we all benefit from a little compassion towards one-another or more importantly doing what we can to not leave members of our group behind. Now I am not advocating for encouraging others to "milk" the system, but there is quite a lot of gray area between enabling others too "milk" the system and helping others get off their feet.
The intent of block busting is not at issue. Would it have made a difference if the intent were pure? This gets at the heart of my point - and one I'm not sure you grasp. A number of redistributive /helping people programs are sold based on intent. I'm not buying, precisely because of their unintended consequences.
Now, you want to talk in generalities about "helping people" and I say that anytime you inject your "intent" into the political arena, politics WILL corrupt the cash flow (sso best to keep the cash out of it). Understand, the devil is in the details here. Understand, also, the poor tend not to be well-connected or have much access to lobbyists. That's why there's a line of well-heeled sharpies who purport to represent them, none of whom do, who continue to siphon large cash flows while you continue to speak in fuzzy generalities about helping people. Understand this: you/I/anyone will never see more than pittance wages from the carpetbagger. There's a reason for that.
In short, private charities have excelllent pass-through rates. Too bad the federal government can't say the same. I've worked both for and with them. You simply don't understand from whence they come.
As for racism in block-busting: No. You can't bolster the fuzzily advanced cause you cite. Here's what happened - and still happens to some extent today in Section 8 housing: the Federal Government subsidizes people from low-income areas to move into better-income areas. Inevitably, the crime rates increase in the transplant areas. Then people begin to flee, abandoning what was a better neighborhood to become, once again, a low-income area. This begs the question: is the environment a product of the inhabitants or vice-versa? The other embarassment was HUD's creation of entire neighborhoods, most of which became crime foci and destroyed local property values before themselves being destroyed (because infested with criminals - nand who doesn't consider "the projects" to be undesirable?).
See for their latest screw-up, e.g.,
http://www.statebrief.com/briefblog/2011/02/21/the-feds%E2%80%99-destruction-of-our-home-values/ This last documents the history of the Fed's involvement/near mandate of high-risk mortgages - the underwriting of which was root cause of the recent real estate bubble and bust.
So, go ahead and talk about helping and feeling all you want. Facts are what count. You need to sharpen your argument. What, exactly, are you advocating?
