“Urban planners need to interrogate whether the profession has value if it fails to protect the public interest by not analyzing the historic and current manifestations of racism, specifically anti-Black racism, that pervades it.

I invite all of us in urbanism fields, especially those who espouse “cities for all” and “open streets for people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds,” to consider why Black people are harassed and dying in public spaces while jogging, riding their bicycles, walking, playing, bird watching in the park, having a barbeque, just existing in public space, or driving their cars. Moving forward, planners and elected officials must seriously contemplate what they can do to answer the calls for justice, redress and reparations.

In Toronto, Black residents make up 10% of the population, yet account for 61% of all cases where police used force resulting in death, and 70% of police shootings that resulted in death. In the U.S., Black men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men, and Black women are 1.4 times more likely to lose their lives to police violence than white women.*

Every planner and urbanist should consider how our history of city building has brought us to the point where Black community members are more likely to be harassed and killed in public spaces by public officials with impunity.

Given the number of Black people profiled and murdered on our streets, how can urbanists remain singularly focused on fighting inanimate objects—like cars—while actively ignoring human rights, and silencing advocates who point out that streets aren’t in reality for everyone? Perhaps systemic racism, in which ableism is entrenched, is the greatest enemy to cities and not cars?

flickr/weaverphoto 

“Going forward, planners and urbanists can take four anti-racist actions.

read more: streetsblog, 24.06.2020. 

“Fellow white urbanists and policy professionals, there are two key things to acknowledge if we are to be effective allies:

Since the days of slavery, white people have been taught to fear blackness as a means to justify the immoral ownership of other humans. And since slavery, we have held power. What we have failed to see — over and over and over again — is that our fear of blackness and our hold on power has meant that we are the aggressors. Our learned response to blackness — danger! — means that we kill black people, whether they are jogging or driving or struggling for breath. And we largely do it with impunity.

If we simply look at the patterns that play out repeatedly, we should recognize that it is not white people who should be afraid of black people, but black people [are] afraid of white people.

For those of us in the planning and policy worlds, this is critical to understand. The most basic need we have as human beings is for safety. But the presumption of safety that we as white people enjoy is not one that extends to our brown and black neighbors. Far too often, this manifests in the actual death of black and brown people. But it can also show up in being trailed at a retail store because, as a person of color, you’ve been profiled as a shoplifter. It can show up as kids on the playground chanting “dirty Mexican”. It can show up as a white neighbor stopping you on the street and asking what you’re doing “in this neighborhood,” And as the viral videos show, it can show up as phone calls to the police when you gather with your friends for a bbq.

All of these are experiences that my friends, neighbors and family members have shared, right here in Oakland. My biracial children started experiencing discrimination at the age of five, as soon as they entered a predominantly white school environment. It is everywhere and it is frequent and it is indiscriminate in its application. Because people of color are surrounded by white people — and because white people hold internalized bias — there is no place for people of color to be truly safe in our communities.

As planning and policy professionals, understanding this dynamic is central to our ability to disrupt systemic racism. We tend to focus on policies and planning approaches aimed at making people feel “good.” A high-quality of life. Ease of commute. Active and well-used public spaces. But before people can feel good, they must feel safe. And as white policy professionals, it is time for us to establish as our first question, “What will allow all members of our community to feel safe?” In this space, in this city, in this region, in this system.

protest in san francisco, 31.05.2020. flickr/sirgious

“White America, so many of us wish to be allies. So many of us are deeply outraged and experiencing grief and pain in the face of yet another lost life. We want to help. But if we want to help, we have to take responsibility for our part in perpetuating the systems that have led to these outcomes. We have to undo our own racism, and we have to be deeply focused on undoing racism in our spheres of influence going forward.”

read more: spur, 01.06.2020.

melody cooper, sister of chris cooper.

read more: nytimes, 31.05.2020.

the league of american bicyclists & their equity initiative, 2015. [11mins]

the league tries to transform from a bike advocacy organization to a social justice advocacy organization.

“I understand why people in society use the term “people of color”: it replaces the outdated term “colored people” with one that is more personable and palatable; it allows for a kind of political solidarity between the non-white citizens of the country and the world; it acknowledges the ways in which racism and white supremacy affect people from many groups (not just Black people), and is a platform for their collective shared experiences, concerns, etc.

That being said, we need to stop saying “people of color” in instances we mostly (and sometimes only) mean “Black people.”

The public use of the term POC seems to have become less about solidarity, and more concerned with lessening the negative connotations and implicit anti-Black reactions (fear, scorn, disdain, apathy) to Blackness. In popular discourse, POC is often a shorthand for “this issue affects Black people most directly and disproportionately, but other non-white people are affected too, so we need to include them for people to listen and so people to understand we aren’t talking about race as only Black vs. white.”

Saying POC when we mean “Black people” is this concession that there’s a need to describe a marginalized group as “less” Black for in order for people (specifically, but not only, white people) to have empathy for whatever issue being discussed...

black lives matter los angeles led a mass justice rally, 2018. flickr/kengikat

“The use of “person of color” is legitimate and there are plenty of situations where it’s appropriate to use the term. One example is if you are discussing why Hollywood should take greater steps for inclusion and diversity, it makes perfect sense to use “people of color” to describe the issue.

But if you were raising questions about the lack of Native representation in films, using them as an example of how Hollywood needs more “people of color” evades the issue. I’d argue that saying “we need more Native representation in film” is not only a more direct way to address the problem, but it properly centralizes the specific concerns and issues of the Native film community, and directs you to the spaces where the solutions can be found — Native communities.

Several racial and ethnic communities (including white people) are negatively affected by the school-to-prison pipeline or police brutality. However, the oppressive systems which spur these phenomena impact the Black community to a much greater degree (and to an extent were historically designed for that specific outcome). Other groups might face housing discrimination, but the history of redlining in America is a specific response to Black people migrating from the South to northern and western cities.”

read more: joshua adams, 17.10.18. 

protestors blocked the 880 freeway in oakland andd climbed on top of a big rig projecting "black lives matter" on its side. flickr/orvised

“Three decades of research have amply confirmed Pettigrew’s (1979) prescient observation that residential segregation constitutes the “structural linchpin” of racial stratification in the United States. 

With respect to neighborhoods, surveys have consistently shown that white avoidance increases rapidly as the percentage of potential black neighbors rise; that such avoidance is rooted in anti-black stereotypes; and that it persists even when objective characteristics of the neighborhood are experimentally controlled. African Americans seem to be tolerated as potential neighbors for whites mainly when they are small in number and are not perceived in stereotypical terms. Indeed, in American social cognition today, black professionals are perceived to be on a par with others in the middle class and generally accepted as mainstream “Americans”, in contrast to poor blacks who continue to be seen in very negative terms and are largely blamed for their own poverty and problems. In keeping with their growing acceptability, in 2000 affluent African Americans for the first time were able to achieve declines in segregation as their socioeconomic status rose.

Racial attitudes have thus evolved such that whites no longer insist on segregation in all circumstances and are willing to share social space with black Americans under certain limited conditions. Specifically, in metropolitan areas where blacks constitute a small share of the population and are relatively affluent they should observe a shift toward integration over time, whereas in areas where blacks comprise a large share of the population and display high rates of poverty they should continue to experience high levels of segregation. Both predictions are borne out by recent trends in the United States...

Although racial residential segregation is no longer universal in urban America, it continues actively to be produced and perpetuated within an important subset of metropolitan areas that together contain a disproportionate share of the nation’s black and Hispanic residents. The active, ongoing production of residential segregation today occurs within a context of sharply rising inequality and growing segregation on the basis of wealth and income, thereby creating a new and more complex urban ecology in which race and class interact powerfully to determine individual and family well-being.

segregated neighborhoods of chicago. via radicalcartography

“As income distributions polarize and poverty intensifies within metropolitan areas characterized by high levels of black and Hispanic segregation, the inevitable result is the spatial concentration of poverty within black and Hispanic neighborhoods; and as poverty is concentrated spatially, so are its correlates such as crime, violence, family disruption, dependency, and substance abuse, in the process creating a uniquely disadvantaged residential environment that is rarely, if ever, experienced by white Americans.

Under conditions of hypersegregation things go together ecologically such that low neighborhood income is strongly correlated with a host of other deleterious conditions that collectively undermine human well-being across a variety of dimensions. For this reason, exposure to concentrated neighborhood disadvantage has unsurprisingly emerged as the critical nexus for reproduction of socioeconomic disadvantage over the life course and across the generations, especially for African Americans but increasingly also for Hispanics.”

read more: douglas massey, 03.2016. 

“A study published Monday in the journal PNAS studies the pollution problem by looking at consumption. While we tend to think of factories or power plants as the source of pollution, those polluters wouldn't exist without consumer demand for their products.

The researchers found that air pollution is disproportionately caused by white Americans' consumption of goods and services, but disproportionately inhaled by black and Hispanic Americans.

"This paper is exciting and really quite novel," says Anjum Hajat, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study. "Inequity in exposure to air pollution is well documented, but this study brings in the consumption angle."

Hajat says the study reveals an inherent unfairness: "If you're contributing less to the problem, why do you have to suffer more from it?"

“The study, led by engineering professor Jason Hill at the University of Minnesota, took over six years to complete. 

The researchers generated maps of where different emitters, like agriculture or construction, caused PM2.5 pollution. Coal plants produced pockets of pollution in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, while agricultural emissions were concentrated in the Midwest and California's central valley. "We then tied in census data to understand where different racial-ethnic groups live to understand exposure patterns," says Hill.

Consider one major contributor to emissions: agriculture. Consumer expenditure surveys from the Bureau of Labor Statistics provide detailed data on how much money households spend in various sectors of the economy, including food.

These data gave the researchers an idea of how much blacks, Hispanics, and whites spend on food per year. Other expenditures, like energy or entertainment, are also measured. Taken together these data represent the consumption patterns of the three groups.

To translate dollars spent on food into air pollution levels, the researchers traced money through the economy.

The researchers have now completed the causal chain, from dollars spent at the grocery store, to the amount of pollution emitted into the atmosphere. Completing this chain for each source of pollution revealed whose consumption drives air pollution, and who suffers from it.

After accounting for population size differences, whites experience about 17% less air pollution than they produce, through consumption, while blacks and Hispanics bear 56 and 63% more air pollution, respectively, than they cause by their consumption, according to the study.

"These patterns didn't seem to be driven by different kinds of consumption," says Tessum, "but different overall levels." In other words, whites were just consuming disproportionately more of the same kinds of goods and services resulting in air pollution than minority communities.”

read more: npr, 11.03.19.  the study: “inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial–ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure.” tessum, chris, et al. 11.03.2019. 

Tamika Butler, in her talk about racism and public space, at the anne niles active transportation lecture for portland state university’s initiative for bicycle & pedestrian innovation.

read more: bikeportland, 13.11.17. 

Americans misperceive racial economic equality. pnas, vol. 114 no. 39.

via “Why we still don't grasp racial economic inequality.” marketplace, 19.09.17.

white america is quietly self-segregating. everyone wants diversity. but not everyone wants it on their street.

"These findings are consistent with a concept known as Group Threat Theory, which is the idea that when minority groups grow in size or power, the majority group feels threatened," wrote Washington University researcher Allison Skinner....

When it comes time for the housing search, black and Latino residents look in neighborhoods that are as diverse as they say they want. University of Illinois sociologist Maria Krysan found that white residents "give a socially acceptable answer in the abstract," but they end up searching and living in much less diverse areas.

It's not black and Latino people who are self-segregating into neighborhoods—rather, it's white residents who say they want more diversity but end up looking in less diverse areas.”

read more: vox, 18.01.17.

“The chef first came to prominence in 2012, when he co-authored an article on the now defunct website GiltTaste.com called "Is It Fair for Chefs to Cook Other Cultures' Foods?" In the piece, he and food writer Francis Lam debated the phenomenon of white fine-dining chefs opening upscale "ethnic" restaurants to much critical acclaim. That same year, Huang wrote a scathing review of the celebrity chef Marcus Samuelsson's Harlem nouveau soul-food restaurant Red Rooster, which he criticized for catering almost exclusively to well-to-do diners from other boroughs who would otherwise never set foot in the neighborhood.

"What [Samuelsson] doesn't realize about Harlem, soul food, and perhaps himself is that they're all good enough already," Huang wrote. "It's the rest of the world that needs to catch up."

If you were to boil Huang's food criticism down to an overarching philosophy, it would be something along those lines. Simply put, the idea that soul food or traditional Thai or Mexican food or whatever isn't good enough — that it needs some fine-dining chef to "elevate" it — is bullshit.

Huang explained that he thinks fine-dining chefs who leave their four-star restaurants to open a new place in a low-income neighborhood think they have a kind of "armor." "It's like, 'Oh my God, it's so cool. They're going to a place that's underserved.' And I'm like, 'It's still underserved. Because you're serving these people [who drive in] from San Francisco ... and the people in that neighborhood can't even afford it.'" 

would salsipuedes count as one of those new restaurants in an underserved neighborhood, though not in west or east oakland? “The most enigmatic new restaurant in Oakland sits in a residential section of the Longfellow neighborhood. Apart from a single, tired-looking burrito shop, Salsipuedes is the only dining establishment within a several-block radius.” (google maps streetview, 06.2015)

“Rather than not opening restaurants at all in West Oakland or in the Deep East, Huang said he would encourage chefs to consider their impact: "Who am I employing in this neighborhood? Who am I feeding in this neighborhood? Am I pricing this food at a price point that works for people in this neighborhood?"

Halfway through our conversation, Huang remembered the name of the Vietnamese restaurant that he'd loved when he visited Oakland last year. "Bun Mam Soc Trang," he said. "That was a real heart-of-the-neighborhood restaurant."

When I told Huang that the family-run noodle joint he was referring to closed earlier this year (26.01.16) because the restaurant's landlord didn't want to renew the lease, the irony wasn't lost on him.”

read more: ebx, 07.06.16.

bun bo hue at bun mam soc trang, by daniel c. on yelp. 

A 2015 study by researchers at Harvard Business School found evidence of “widespread discrimination against African-American guests” by Airbnb hosts, and many black Twitter users have begun sharing their experiences of rejection on the short-term rental platform using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack.

For many, Airbnb serves as a functional equivalent to a hotel, but the startup – and other similar internet marketplaces – exist in a grey area, potentially beyond the reach of the hard-won reforms of the civil rights movement.

“Even though the intent [of the law] is there,” Veena Dubal, a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings says, it’s difficult to make 20th century statutes apply to 21st century corporations, which use “creative corporate structuring to evade the law’s protections, so that you’re back in an exploitative place that existed before the laws were written.”

One solution to the legal quandary would be to consider Airbnb itself as a public accommodation, rather than as a conduit for two million individual public accommodations. The US attorney general could then bring an enforcement action against Airbnb under Title II, Leong says, or black Airbnb users could attempt to bring a class action suit against the company.

twitter/tinalabang

“Overall, we find widespread discrimination against African-American guests. Specifically, African-American guests received a positive response roughly 42% of the time, compared to roughly 50% for White guests. This 8 percentage point (roughly 16%) penalty for African-American guests is particularly noteworthy when compared to the discrimination-free setting of competing short-term accommodation platforms such as Expedia. The penalty is consistent with the racial gap found in contexts ranging from labor markets to online lending to classified ads to taxicabs.

“On the whole, we find that results are remarkably persistent. Both African-American and White hosts discriminate against African-American guests; both male and female hosts discriminate; both male and female African-American guests are discriminated against. Effects persist both for hosts that offer an entire property and for hosts who share the property with guests. Discrimination persists among experienced hosts, including those with multiple properties and those with many reviews. Discrimination persists and is of similar magnitude in high and low priced units, in diverse and homogeneous neighborhoods.”

read more: guardian, 06.05.16. the study: “Racial Discrimination in the Sharing Economy: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” 06.01.16 [PDF].

“people of color”

I’ve always had and still have issue with this term. i will very hesitantly and with much resignation raise my hand when asked by a speaker who is a “person of color” in the audience. and when i see an article which repeats the term “people of color” multiple times, i’m just like, Gyahh!!

the reasoning behind why i hate the term “person/people of color”:

so... what would i push for instead?  MINORITY. NON-WHITE PEOPLE.

how about that? we’re all pretty much at the common understanding this is a White Majority nation. so why not just flip that around so we can completely include everyone who is NOT that?

i don’t know and can’t pinpoint when the term “minority” started to decline in usage to be replaced by “politically correct” term “People of Color”, but I would like the term “minority” to make a comeback. 

because it’s true, right? non-white people are still a minority in this county. in terms of power, share of resource distribution, etc, etc..

*though, yes, there are underserved poor white populations, as well. and in that situation you could say “minorities and underserved white population”.

another thing: There’s a blog on tumblr called @fyeahpoconbicycles. while i support this blog in concept.. i always get irked because:

japanese mom cycling with kids in tokyo: NOT “People of Color”—unless they are immigrants living in America. flickr/tohru_nishimura

thoughts? white people, do you like using the term People of Color? People of Color, do you have this logic conundrum, too? any other asians feel excluded by this term because we’re “Yellow” and no one directly mentions us that way? or should i shut up because apparently Asians Are Doing Just Fine They Get Good Grades and Good Jobs and No One Needs To Care About Them?

White residents have also used Nextdoor to complain and organize calls to police about Black residents being too noisy in public parks and bars — raising concerns that the site amplifies the harmful impacts of gentrification. On Nextdoor and other online neighborhood groups — including Facebook pages and Yahoo and Google listservs — residents have called Black and Latino men suspicious for being near bus stops, standing in "shadows," making U-turns, and hanging around outside coffee shops. Residents frequently warn each other to be on the look out for suspects with little more description than "Black" and "wearing a hoodie."

Siblings Emma and James Fisher are more comfortable walking around Chinatown than in their own Upper Dimond neighborhood due to concerns about racial profiling.

Audrey Esquivel, a Glenview resident, was profiled in her own neighborhood when a nearby resident feared she might be trying to break into her home. 

"...Esquivel felt that she had to do something to speak out about the profiling in her own neighborhood. She subsequently joined Neighbors for Racial Justice, a small group of both white residents and people of color who came together in 2013 to speak out against prejudiced posts on Nextdoor and on Yahoo and Google listservs (many of which remain active). The group, which now has roughly twenty members, has given presentations on racial profiling at community meetings, hosted film screenings on racial inequities, led Black Lives Matter vigils, and has brought its concerns to OPD, Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council meetings, and Nextdoor.”

Later, the moderator of Glenfriends, a white man, banned Esquivel from posting on the forum.

Oakland native Leland Thompson became so frustrated with Glenview residents profiling him and fearing he might be a criminal suspect that he stopped jogging in his own neighborhood.

“After seeing so many posts warning of dangerous Black men, Thompson, who grew up in the projects of East Oakland and has lived in Glenview for seventeen years, said he stopped wearing hoodies. "It's sad because people are not seeing individuals. They're just seeing profiles and they're acting on it," he said. "Even though this is my community and my home, they just see a silhouette."

Thompson, an executive coach and leadership trainer, used to go jogging at 5:30 a.m. in his neighborhood, but he said residents would clearly get scared of him, and eventually he decided it was only a matter of time before someone called the police on him. He never runs in his neighborhood anymore. "How come I have to change to make you comfortable? I have to show you that I'm not threatening as opposed to you making the assumption that based on my behavior, I haven't posed a threat?" he said with a loud sigh.

Thompson told me that white women have darted across the street to avoid him on his own block. He said that when that happened recently, he became so angry and frustrated that he was visibly shaking by the time he got home.”

Cedric Bedford-Chalale, a longtime Adams Point resident, was horrified when members of his Nextdoor group encouraged each other to call the police on a young Black boy who hadn't picked up his dog's poop.

"To call the authorities about something as small as dog shit? This is how little black Boys end up getting shot." Bedford-Chalale said it feels like the racist posts are constant in his neighborhood. "Every time there's a Black person, it's 'Call the police! Call the police!'"

Shikira Porter, an Upper Dimond resident, has asked her neighbors to stop racially profiling Black Oaklanders on Nextdoor — but has faced significant pushback from Nextdoor users and the group moderator. 

Porter said a white man recently stared her down while she was in the driveway of her Upper Dimond house one morning, getting ready to take her son to school. "Finally, I said to him, 'Yeah, I live here,'" she said. 

And two white women, she added, recently questioned her when she pulled over and briefly parked her car a few blocks from her home to answer a call on her cell from her son's school. 

When these incidents happen, it can feel difficult to resume normal activities. "You're supposed to go into your day and show up to work and not be angry," she said. "It's all these ways people of color have to try to hold it together."

read more: ebx, 07.10.15. photos by Bert Johnson. watch: Unwelcome at Home: Black Oaklanders on Racial Profiling. [8mins]

it frustrates me so much that so many people act cowardly and press prejudices online rather than actually go and talk in person to the people in their own neighborhood.

“Last August, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system launched a mobile security app called BART Watch, which allows riders to send alerts, including text messages and photos, directly to BART police from their cellphones. Through a California Public Records Act request, the East Bay Express obtained a month's worth of alerts, approximately 763 individual messages sent to the BART police, and analyzed the contents. 

The data show that BART riders report blacks for both alleged crimes and non-crimes at disproportionate rates compared to other racial or ethnic groups, and that people perceived as being homeless are also being targeted with a high number of complaints, often for sleeping, smelling bad, and other non-crimes. BART police representatives told the Express that the app has become a valuable tool, but human rights advocates say the way it's being used by the public is cause for concern.

"Society conspires to marginalize people," said Zachary Norris, executive director of the Ella Baker Center. "With this app, you see the criminalization of poverty and racial profiling all put together."

Some of the alerts identifying blacks as offenders concerned behaviors that are not crimes, or appeared to be based on suspicion, rather than solid evidence of criminal wrongdoing... Passengers who sent these alerts to the police often characterized playing music, singing, dancing, talking loud or yelling, and taking up more than one seat as "disruptive behavior" by a black person that warranted a police response...

"There are much better ways we could be spending resources than developing apps like this," said Norris. "Some people don't have enough to eat, or enough money to make it from their second to third job, but what we see with this app is people complaining about others sleeping on the BART train."

read more: ebx, 05.08.15.

well.. some people actually bothered to (or were bothered enough to) download and use this app.

“Fourteenth Street NW in Washington, D.C., is a major boundary line for change in the city. At one point in the not-too-distant past, the young professionals who have flocked to the District over the last decade and a half would not have thought to venture east of 14th. Now, it’s the epicenter for the city’s schmancy restaurants and tawdry condo buildings.

“We’re hoping to get enough support behind the opposition to compel them and demonstrate that the neighborhood would rather have a more local bodega, clothier or anything else,” the petition’s author, Ezra Weinblatt, told Tim Regan of Borderstan, a D.C. neighborhood blog.

Weinblatt tells Regan that he and his fellow condo owners are “not impressed by the processed and sugary foods” sold at 7-Eleven. Fine, but just a block or so away, there’s a CVS that sells all the same prepackaged foodstuffs. Chains don’t appear to be the problem here, either; there are Subway and Dunkin Donuts outlets on the same stretch of the 14th Street corridor.

The petition itself is contradictory: 7-Eleven stands to “cannibalize existing businesses, assuming anyone was to patronize the establishment.” But in the interview with Regan, the petitioner is clearer: “People hanging out at four in the morning on a street corner are not looking to pick up trash. They’re looking for trouble. We don’t want trouble.”

It’s one thing when someone groans about a store he doesn’t like opening in his neighborhood. It’s another when nearly 200 others join him in his call to keep out commercial enterprises that cater to people of lower means. It’s classism.”

read more: citylab, 10.07.15.

in other places... like taipei, 7-11′s are ubiquitous (like starbucks on every block) and no big deal... flickr/adeneko

i’m not sure how i feel about thebolditalic—an sf-based newsblog that seems to be filled with writers who are white yuppies.

this editorial was basically about a white lady from the midwest who’s grown up in boring towns/cities who moved to oakland after seeing the sf wasn’t really an option. she was depressed and hated oakland, but that’s mostly her fault as she didn’t seek out social interactions in her new city, in addition to her prenatal depression.

her in-laws live in an affluent part of oakland, and then she and her husband moved to adams point near lake merritt, also a nice part of town. she likes the cute little shops and deems it a show of civic pride to shop locally and especially likes oaklandish. 

but after six years of living in oakland, that’s all she can say about the city. pretty shallow.

there’s one good snippet that I would’ve blogged here as a quote:

“What are we telling the world when we wear our address on our sleeve? ...A city isn’t simply where you live; it shapes who you are.”

but the other issues totally overshadow that—here are some reader comments on the article “I had to hate Oakland before I learned to love it,” 30.03.15. :

comment by erikatastrophe:

comment by onyxcat333:

comment by onlyonepost: