Essex County in NYT's Upshot

Essex County was a focus of the NYT's Upshot feature today.  Sadly, it's damning portrait. Bottom line - if you're poor, Essex County is a particularly bad place to grow up.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/03/upshot/the-best-and-worst-places-to-grow-up-how-your-area-compares.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Actually it is a dynamically written piece.  When you change the location on the map the article updates all of it's content to reflect the new location.  Pretty cool on the NYT's part.

Of course, if you live in Maplewood or South Orange or Millburn, the article doesn't apply.

Articles like this or articles on the best and worse places to live seem to imply that life is black and white and that if you don't live in one of the best  places, you may as well be living in labor camp.

Yes, that's part of what I really liked about it.  They do such great work with data presentation.  Still, the story is a troubling one.

unixiscool said:

Actually it is a dynamically written piece.  When you change the location on the map the article updates all of it's content to reflect the new location.  Pretty cool on the NYT's part.

Nothing new though.  I suppose it might be too extreme to say that poverty and joblessness are the root of all evil, but they come close.

The article is talking about children in poor families in these areas.  So imagining that income mobility for the poor in Newark, Irvington and East Orange is less than elsewhere in the nation isn't really much of a stretch.

qrysdonnell said:

The article is talking about children in poor families in these areas.  So imagining that income mobility for the poor in Newark, Irvington and East Orange is less than elsewhere in the nation isn't really much of a stretch.

 My quibble: poor kids that grow up in Newark face a drastically different set of obstacles than poor kids who grow up in Essex Fells or Millburn. I understand that county-level stats are the way to go with this, but c'mon. It's not just counties - it's the specific town or city.

How much can the county government affect these five factors?

"Across the country, the researchers found five factors associated with strong upward mobility: less segregation by income and race, lower levels of income inequality, better schools, lower rates of violent crime, and a larger share of two-parent households. In general, the effects of place are sharper for boys than for girls, and for lower-income children than for rich."

I think it is sad that the responses in this thread tend towards the "so sad but this doesn't really apply to us" approach.  We, too, are Essex County. We, too, have reponsibility for Newark, Orange, and Irvington. Now, we in a small part discharge a bit of that through our ineffectively administered but still high taxes. But we also have to confront the growing body of evidence that our notions of the problem are wrong. What if it is true that segregation and racism are worse in the north, and particularly the northeast? Baltimore is a lot like Newark in terms of history and demographics.

max_weisenfeld said:

I think it is sad that the responses in this thread tend towards the "so sad but this doesn't really apply to us" approach.  We, too, are Essex County. We, too, have reponsibility for Newark, Orange, and Irvington. Now, we in a small part discharge a bit of that through our ineffectively administered but still high taxes. But we also have to confront the growing body of evidence that our notions of the problem are wrong. What if it is true that segregation and racism are worse in the north, and particularly the northeast? Baltimore is a lot like Newark in terms of history and demographics.

 +1

No the wealthier parts of Essex county do not have any special responsibility for Newark just because of an artificial act of history that put us in the same county. Newark has been sucking us dry for way to long now. Newark in particular has all the resources it needs to be self sufficient. Resources the rest of overtaxed Essex county can only dream of.

yahooyahoo said:

How much can the county government affect these five factors?

"Across the country, the researchers found five factors associated with strong upward mobility: less segregation by income and race, lower levels of income inequality, better schools, lower rates of violent crime, and a larger share of two-parent households. In general, the effects of place are sharper for boys than for girls, and for lower-income children than for rich."

ramzzoinksus said:

No the wealthier parts of Essex county do not have any special responsibility for Newark just because of an artificial act of history that put us in the same county. Newark has been sucking us dry for way to long now. Newark in particular has all the resources it needs to be self sufficient. Resources the rest of overtaxed Essex county can only dream of.

 Then let me put this in terms you can understand: what will happen to the value of your house if there are riots in Newark this summer?

I doubt it would have any impact.

Seeing as I live a scant 1200 feet from Newark (and 208 years ago where I live was a part of it), I don't think it's crazy to feel some responsibility for the welfare of my neighbors.

max_weisenfeld said:

 Then let me put this in terms you can understand: what will happen to the value of your house if there are riots in Newark this summer?

 What happened during the 67 riots?

ramzzoinksus said:

Newark in particular has all the resources it needs to be self sufficient.

 Or you could read the article.

tjohn said:

Of course, if you live in Maplewood or South Orange or Millburn, the article doesn't apply.

Yes, counties can be a crude measuring stick for comparison purposes, but the findings are more sophisticated than that. I'm probably biased, but I believe the article does apply.

I thought this was interesting: 

Some economists who have seen the new study say that it argues for a new approach to housing policy. Current policy often forces the parents of young children onto waiting lists for housing vouchers. It also gives tax incentives to developers who build in poor neighborhoods, rather than rewarding those who build affordable housing in areas that seem to offer better environments.

The 67 riots basically created West Essex county. They certainly drove up property values there.

If you look at the chart, what you see especially for Essex County is inequality:  it ranks near the bottom for lower income kids, and near the top for upper income kids.

There's variation in all the counties, but not as extreme--Bergen is near the top on all.  Others are also more consistently middle or bottom.

qrysdonnell said:

Seeing as I live a scant 1200 feet from Newark (and 208 years ago where I live was a part of it), I don't think it's crazy to feel some responsibility for the welfare of my neighbors.

It's not crazy to care about others, even those who are not that close.

Short piece about what a county or region can do (but probably won't):

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of-minneapolis/384975/

DaveSchmidt said:

I thought this was interesting: 

Some economists who have seen the new study say that it argues for a new approach to housing policy. Current policy often forces the parents of young children onto waiting lists for housing vouchers. It also gives tax incentives to developers who build in poor neighborhoods, rather than rewarding those who build affordable housing in areas that seem to offer better environments

This is interesting.  The Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, perhaps the largest affordable housing program in the country, restricts the rents to at least 50% of Area Median Income.  If built in a higher income area, these rents would be too high for low income families.  At face value, the article might be arguing for abandonment of lower income areas by younger families, which would be devastating. Who would fill the gap left by them? Though it points to improvements in life status/expectations due to mobility to mixed income areas, I wonder what the effect would be if concerted effort was made to transform lower income areas to more mixed income areas.  LIHTC could be used to for mixed income buildings in low income neighborhoods, which would bring about change but at a very slow pace. But how many people would move to a low income area without large scale improvement in services?  Its a chicken and egg problem. Housing vouchers work, but many landlords refuse to take them.       

qrysdonnell said:

The article is talking about children in poor families in these areas.  So imagining that income mobility for the poor in Newark, Irvington and East Orange is less than elsewhere in the nation isn't really much of a stretch.

This!

Not that I don't think this is a bad situation that ought to receive attention but it isn't talking about most (if any) of the children in M/SO. 

(I'm really responding to the OP in this - and to counter the potential conclusion that we are all damned for bringing our kids up in this county.  But I totally agree that this should be of concern to all caring members of our society.)

Actually, "ramzzoinksus," it was an artificial act that caused the area covered by SOMA to secede from Newark.  From not too long after the founding of Newark in 1666 to some time in the 19th century, the entire eastern half of what is now Essex County  (up to the ridgeline of First Watchung Mountain) was part of Newark Township, until other townships (like the Oranges) started seceding.  Probably township government back then was not as powerful as city government (Newark was not incorporated as a city until the 19th century either), and the area was mostly rural with small but growing crossroad settlements.  But the area was governed by Newark, and might be part of a later "City" of Newark if not for the secessions.  For a comparison, the upscale area of San Diego known as La Jolla is not now, and has never been, an independent municipality.  It has always been within the boundaries of the City of San Diego.  Similar upper-middle-class and even more upscale areas of Los Angeles (for instance Bel Air or practically all of the San Fernando Valley) may not have always been part of the City of Los Angeles, but were certainly annexed early on.

Yes, but where I live was hived off from Springfield when the county boundaries were formed so was placed in Essex county.

ramzzoinksus said:

No the wealthier parts of Essex county do not have any special responsibility for Newark just because of an artificial act of history that put us in the same county. Newark has been sucking us dry for way to long now. Newark in particular has all the resources it needs to be self sufficient. Resources the rest of overtaxed Essex county can only dream of.

 I envy you - to be able to take a position of selfishness and ignorance and, apparently, believe it.  Easier than knowing there is a serious problem but not really knowing what to do about it.

I think this is one of those "forest for the trees" things (the article/analysis). If you account for population density (i.e. Essex has a big city and Bergen doesn't), how would the numbers look? From census, Essex pop density is 6211/sq mile compared with Bergen at 3884. We already know income mobility is not as good for low income kids from urban centers, right?

ramzzoinksus said:

Yes, but where I live was hived off from Springfield when the county boundaries were formed so was placed in Essex county.

 Move.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/time_to_panic_big_data_says_you_may_already_have_ruined_your_kids_life/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

max_weisenfeld said:

I think it is sad that the responses in this thread tend towards the "so sad but this doesn't really apply to us" approach.  We, too, are Essex County. We, too, have reponsibility for Newark, Orange, and Irvington. Now, we in a small part discharge a bit of that through our ineffectively administered but still high taxes. But we also have to confront the growing body of evidence that our notions of the problem are wrong. What if it is true that segregation and racism are worse in the north, and particularly the northeast? Baltimore is a lot like Newark in terms of history and demographics.

The role of unfettered illegal immigration into cities and states and the impact on the existing legal citizens is rarely discussed. The freight train of open borders and amnesty damages the existing communities to whom we HAVE a responsibility as they are our fellow Citizens.   Legal immigration is great. However in my view you cant discuss the plight of inner cities and without discussing the impact of illegal immigration.