> Then just as Harding Mall thought it was the end, it was not. Due to the high levels of foreign people and foreign languages, a local enteprenuer saw hope in the old mall cinema. He leased the space and ran movies that cost about 50% less than what other theaters charge today and they were all foreign speaking films.
This is clearly grouping "foreign language people" and "gangs" together. The phrase "took over" has negative connotations.
It's pretty clearly saying that it is bad that people who speak foreign came into the area, not just neutrally "describing [a] demographic shift of the mall "
One of the two local malls in my area suffered a similar decline and demographic shift for a time. The half not anchored by a Target and a department store became vacant save for a smattering of small local stores, many owned by enterprising foreigners.
The empty areas became frequent copping spots, and suffered a few drug related shootings and other incidents through the years before the City and the owners cleaned up and started getting more big-ticket tenants back into the mall. Nowadays the mall has sports facilities, a maker space,
That foreigners and "gansters" are involved the decline of an area doesn't make pointing out their coming in with the decline of the mall bigoted.
Ascribing intent to writing such as this says as much about the critic as it does the writer.
If you want it to, sure, it absolutely can!
> It's pretty clearly saying that it is bad that people who speak foreign came into the area, not just neutrally "describing [a] demographic shift of the mall "
No, it really isn't clearly saying what you're ascribing. That's your reading into it what you want to see. No one cries racism when an article about affluent whites taking over a neighborhood. This is just a different shift.
People absolutely do, even when words as strong as "took over" aren't used. Whenever race is mentioned wrt gentrification, it's one of the top comments|
For example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819695
> With the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we as a society decided that racial segregation was bad, and trying to demonize people people buying homes in a certain area due to their race was wrong
...
> Not okay to tell some one he ought not live somewhere because of his race. This is true regardless of what that race may be.
> speaking [...] not English which predisposes one to crime.
Even in jest, this perpetuates the view that unless they speak English in one's presence they should be viewed as having a propensity to crime.
edit: /s fail. toned down the personal.
"The mall itself became a haven for urban stores as white shoppers left for much better malls like the ones named above. Blacks continued to shop at the mall, leading to all kinds of theft and robbery problems."
Granted, as pointed out by other commenters, it's user-submissions. But still, even as a former resident, yikes. (And, as a former resident, not that surprising.)