focusing on the disenfranchised minorities.
I don't want to sound like a dick, but when it comes to population demographics in California, the term 'minority' really doesn't make any sense. The populated areas of that state are fairly balanced racially.
Oakland is 35% white, i'm sure many of them are in poverty. I worked in CA with my ex-wife making below the income level they are using while both working 60-80 hour weeks. Why should a third of the population be excluded based on race? It's a privately funded venture so sure, they can do what they want.
>focusing on the disenfranchised minorities.
I don't want to sound like a dick, but when it comes to population demographics in California, the term 'minority' really doesn't make any sense. The populated areas of that state are fairly balanced racially.
Oakland is 35% white, i'm sure many of them are in poverty. I worked in CA with my ex-wife making below the income level they are using while both working 60-80 hour weeks. Why should a third of the population be excluded based on race? It's a privately funded venture so sure, they can do what they want.
That makes sense. I admittedly don't know much about that city.
This does seem be a trial run for the program as it only focuses on 600 families.
That makes sense. I admittedly don't know much about that city.
This does seem be a trial run for the program as it only focuses on 600 families.
You're right, that would be a more ideal method to help mitigate all those in poverty. But in this case their focusing on the disenfranchised minorities.