‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

[IM2]

This is what is called a policy. And it is racist. It does not mention race but as it's designed it purposely limits opportunities for those who are not white based on race.

‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

By Elizabeth Winkler September 25, 2017

It’s no secret that Americans live in divided spaces. The country’s cities and suburbs are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. These divides are often assumed to be a result of economics — as poor and rich families alike pick neighborhoods they can afford — and of personal choice, as Americans seek to live near people with whom they have more in common.

There’s a more sinister force at work, however. In many places, economic and racial segregation goes beyond market forces or personal choices. That segregation is buttressed by local laws and ordinances that effectively exclude or discourage poor and working-class people from moving into certain communities, keeping those areas primarily the domain of the white and wealthy.

Across the country, American communities employ “snob zoning” policies that forbid builders from constructing apartment buildings or impose minimum residential lot requirements. They are often presented as driven by concerns that building smaller units could change the character of a community. Some ordinances even exclude modest single-family homes in the name of preserving a neighborhood’s “aesthetic uniformity.” Such rules effectively impose a price floor for the cost of housing, making it impossible for people who live below a certain means to afford them, a recent report by the Century Foundation explains.

[Millions of poor families could benefit from housing aid Trump wants to cut]

The policies are widespread in cities and suburbs across the country, the result of a century of social engineering by federal and local governments. But a survey by the Brookings Institution found they are particularly popular in the Northeast and Midwest. Towns with the most stringent rules tend to have lower density and be wealthier than those with less regulation, according to researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The laws do not specifically mention race, but because African Americans and Latinos have on average far less wealth and income than white people, the laws do tend to drive people of color out and keep neighborhoods more uniformly white. That’s in keeping with the racist history of “snob zoning.”

Analysis | ‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

This how whites have always played with the law and you all know it. So like I say, gaslighting doesn't work here.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

 

[IM2]

Can't take the truth doggie?

 

[depotoo]

Can't take the truth doggie?

Where have you been? I’ve known that for decades.

 

[depotoo]

They are also denied the quality of city services as well.

 

[depotoo]

Liberals are trying to pull it off in colleges the last few years, as well, labeling them a safe space.

 

[Correll]

This is what is called a policy. And it is racist. It does not mention race but as it's designed it purposely limits opportunities for those who are not white based on race.

‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

By Elizabeth Winkler September 25, 2017

It’s no secret that Americans live in divided spaces. The country’s cities and suburbs are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. These divides are often assumed to be a result of economics — as poor and rich families alike pick neighborhoods they can afford — and of personal choice, as Americans seek to live near people with whom they have more in common.

There’s a more sinister force at work, however. In many places, economic and racial segregation goes beyond market forces or personal choices. That segregation is buttressed by local laws and ordinances that effectively exclude or discourage poor and working-class people from moving into certain communities, keeping those areas primarily the domain of the white and wealthy.

Across the country, American communities employ “snob zoning” policies that forbid builders from constructing apartment buildings or impose minimum residential lot requirements. They are often presented as driven by concerns that building smaller units could change the character of a community. Some ordinances even exclude modest single-family homes in the name of preserving a neighborhood’s “aesthetic uniformity.” Such rules effectively impose a price floor for the cost of housing, making it impossible for people who live below a certain means to afford them, a recent report by the Century Foundation explains.

[Millions of poor families could benefit from housing aid Trump wants to cut]

The policies are widespread in cities and suburbs across the country, the result of a century of social engineering by federal and local governments. But a survey by the Brookings Institution found they are particularly popular in the Northeast and Midwest. Towns with the most stringent rules tend to have lower density and be wealthier than those with less regulation, according to researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The laws do not specifically mention race, but because African Americans and Latinos have on average far less wealth and income than white people, the laws do tend to drive people of color out and keep neighborhoods more uniformly white. That’s in keeping with the racist history of “snob zoning.”

Analysis | ‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

This how whites have always played with the law and you all know it. So like I say, gaslighting doesn't work here.

Except that many whites are poor and/or working class. Sooo, how do you know that the intent is racial and not the stated reasons?

 

[Dale Smith]

Can't take the truth doggie?

The Washington Compost wouldn't allow me to peruse this particular article without subscribing.....my loss and I had tears to spare......

 

[IM2]

Can't take the truth doggie?

Where have you been? I’ve known that for decades.

I've known too.

 

[IM2]

Can't take the truth doggie?

The Washington Compost wouldn't allow me to peruse this particular article without subscribing.....my loss and I had tears to spare......

It wouldn't matter if you had read it.

 

[Correll]

Can't take the truth doggie?

The Washington Compost wouldn't allow me to peruse this particular article without subscribing.....my loss and I had tears to spare......

It wouldn't matter if you had read it.

Agreed. The vast majority of MSM pap, you can look at the title, and know everything that there is to know about the talking points contained in the piece, the reason for it, and the reason that the punk who wrote it, wrote it.

 

[Dale Smith]

Can't take the truth doggie?

The Washington Compost wouldn't allow me to peruse this particular article without subscribing.....my loss and I had tears to spare......

It wouldn't matter if you had read it.

Good call, the Washington Compost is simply a CFR mouthpiece and disinfo rag.....

 

[depotoo]

This is what is called a policy. And it is racist. It does not mention race but as it's designed it purposely limits opportunities for those who are not white based on race.

‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

By Elizabeth Winkler September 25, 2017

It’s no secret that Americans live in divided spaces. The country’s cities and suburbs are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. These divides are often assumed to be a result of economics — as poor and rich families alike pick neighborhoods they can afford — and of personal choice, as Americans seek to live near people with whom they have more in common.

There’s a more sinister force at work, however. In many places, economic and racial segregation goes beyond market forces or personal choices. That segregation is buttressed by local laws and ordinances that effectively exclude or discourage poor and working-class people from moving into certain communities, keeping those areas primarily the domain of the white and wealthy.

Across the country, American communities employ “snob zoning” policies that forbid builders from constructing apartment buildings or impose minimum residential lot requirements. They are often presented as driven by concerns that building smaller units could change the character of a community. Some ordinances even exclude modest single-family homes in the name of preserving a neighborhood’s “aesthetic uniformity.” Such rules effectively impose a price floor for the cost of housing, making it impossible for people who live below a certain means to afford them, a recent report by the Century Foundation explains.

[Millions of poor families could benefit from housing aid Trump wants to cut]

The policies are widespread in cities and suburbs across the country, the result of a century of social engineering by federal and local governments. But a survey by the Brookings Institution found they are particularly popular in the Northeast and Midwest. Towns with the most stringent rules tend to have lower density and be wealthier than those with less regulation, according to researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The laws do not specifically mention race, but because African Americans and Latinos have on average far less wealth and income than white people, the laws do tend to drive people of color out and keep neighborhoods more uniformly white. That’s in keeping with the racist history of “snob zoning.”

Analysis | ‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

This how whites have always played with the law and you all know it. So like I say, gaslighting doesn't work here.

Except that many whites are poor and/or working class. Sooo, how do you know that the intent is racial and not the stated reasons?

It has been going on for ever and a day. Here is the story of an area in Dallas, created for Blacks. I grew up in a suburb town north of there. Dallas has been run by Democrats for ever and a day as well. This was their solution to a ‘problem’ they had. Disguising themselves as their friend. And they say it was for middle class Blacks. It was well known what they were up to. -

In Hamilton Park, Wilson presents an historical narrative that examines the establishment of a black community in north Dallas. He contends that Hamilton Park was a "worthwhile if inadequate response to the serious problem of housing middle-income Dallas blacks" (p. viii). Indeed, reading this story one is struck by how blacks organized and were supported by whites in their collective efforts to improve housing conditions for African-Americans in Dallas.

Hamilton Park was established in the 1950s, the product of a difficult search for black homesteads. Beginning in the 1930s, Dallas' civic elite had recognized the need for black housing in non-public housing settings. Wilson begins his analysis by describing those early searches for black homestead sites. Pressure mounted throughout the 1940s as whites pressured urban leaders to prevent residential succession in white neighborhoods. The pressure grew intense in the late 1940s, culminating in a series of bombings in 1950. As municipal leaders surveyed the landscape, they focused on a parcel of land in north Dallas. This tract would eventually be developed as Hamilton Park.

In the 1940s, blacks began to make inroads into white residential enclaves. Violent demonstrations caused municipal leaders to intervene; they were concerned that the high profile protests would threaten the business elite's "carefully cultivated view of Dallas as a city of harmony, contentment, and industriousness" (p. 11). The Dallas Negro Chamber of Commerce and the Dallas Citizen's Council formed a joint committee to quell community fears while hoping to offer real residential options to blacks. The joint committee issued the Aston-Mitchell report, which noted the "acute and critical" housing shortage for blacks in Dallas. The report recognized the legitimacy of segregation so long as it did not result in "discrimination." One of the means of reducing the housing shortage was to build more public housing; the report recommended the construction of 1500 additional public housing units. But the committee also recommended that market rate housing be built in Dallas. The provision of housing for blacks that might choose to live in white neighborhoods could stem the problem of residential succession. So it was that the municipal elite took a material interest in the future of blacks and housing in Dallas. With the formation of the Dallas Interracial Committee, a biracial body began a systematic analysis of the housing problem in this southern city.

White leaders such as Jerome Crossman emerged out of this process. The president of a petroleum company, Crossman helped guide the difficult community planning process that resulted in the establishment of Hamilton Park in north Dallas. Wilson details the nuances of this search for a middle-class housing site for Dallas blacks, giving us detail on almost every aspect of the process: from the development deal to the naming of the streets. Hamilton Park was hailed as a real means of alleviating pressure on white neighborhoods, as well being a community in which families could benefit from improved environmental conditions.

Interest in the community was high, but few qualified homebuyers had been found after six months of marketing the new subdivision. Still, the local school opened in 1955, and at once became "a source of community pride and concern" (p. 60). Slowly the development began to fill out, and as the 1960s approached, the 173 acre segregated community was doing well. But as Wilson points out, given Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Alabama bus boycott in 1956, and the Kennedy administration's efforts on behalf of minorities, Hamilton Park was the "the creation of a dying era" (p. 65).

In the 1960s, Hamilton Park was not the only place for middle-class Blacks to live. Wilson documents the features of these other communities, and he discusses the assets and liabilities of the Hamilton Park setting. He notes that as Hamilton Parks evolved in the 1960s the community began to make additional service demands. For instance, the community had poor bus service and residents had a long way to travel for shopping needs. To validate this contention, Wilson begins to use ethnographic accounts to support his assertions. Interviews with long-term residents pepper the balance of the book; these recollections enhance the text and are one of its principal contributions.

During the late 1950s, residents of Hamilton Park created several community organizations. One of the most prominent was the Interorganizational Council (IOC); this group reflected the dominance of the Black Church in this community setting. A secular group, the Civic League, was also established. Both of these organizations became active in the late 1950s, and they continued their community roles into the 1980s. Of particular importance in Wilson's mind is the entrance of the IOC into the political arena. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s Hamilton Park residents forged a close alliance with the Democratic Party. The IOC distributed endorsement lists to neighborhood residents, and unabashedly supported those candidates that took Hamilton Park concerns to heart.

One of the chief areas in which major transformations took place over the years was in the local school system. Wilson spends two chapters analyzing the ways in which the school system reflected national trends. The difficulties of desegregation were a central feature of educational services in Hamilton Park. While two chapters on the evolution of the community's educational needs-beginning with Brown v. Board of Education through the 1970s-seems inordinate for this study, Wilson makes it clear that this community was an excellent example of a local residential enclave being influenced by broader social trends.

Hamilton Park was built in the 1960s, and as metropolitan Dallas grew throughout the 1970s, the community became surrounded by major transportation arteries and commercial development. As a consequence, land in Hamilton Park became very valuable. Wilson dedicates his next to last chapter investigating the intricacies of a major "buyout" attempt in which an unnamed developer offered $35 a square foot to all of the 733 property owners in the community. Wilson documents the potentially divisive effects that such a buyout offer had on the community's social network, again using extensive ethnographic accounts. Although a potentially fruitful offer, the proposal fell through in 1986, despite the community hiring an attorney to represent them in the negotiations.
H-Net Reviews



It was built across the ‘tracks’.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is what is called a policy. And it is racist. It does not mention race but as it's designed it purposely limits opportunities for those who are not white based on race.

‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

By Elizabeth Winkler September 25, 2017

It’s no secret that Americans live in divided spaces. The country’s cities and suburbs are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. These divides are often assumed to be a result of economics — as poor and rich families alike pick neighborhoods they can afford — and of personal choice, as Americans seek to live near people with whom they have more in common.

There’s a more sinister force at work, however. In many places, economic and racial segregation goes beyond market forces or personal choices. That segregation is buttressed by local laws and ordinances that effectively exclude or discourage poor and working-class people from moving into certain communities, keeping those areas primarily the domain of the white and wealthy.

Across the country, American communities employ “snob zoning” policies that forbid builders from constructing apartment buildings or impose minimum residential lot requirements. They are often presented as driven by concerns that building smaller units could change the character of a community. Some ordinances even exclude modest single-family homes in the name of preserving a neighborhood’s “aesthetic uniformity.” Such rules effectively impose a price floor for the cost of housing, making it impossible for people who live below a certain means to afford them, a recent report by the Century Foundation explains.

[Millions of poor families could benefit from housing aid Trump wants to cut]

The policies are widespread in cities and suburbs across the country, the result of a century of social engineering by federal and local governments. But a survey by the Brookings Institution found they are particularly popular in the Northeast and Midwest. Towns with the most stringent rules tend to have lower density and be wealthier than those with less regulation, according to researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The laws do not specifically mention race, but because African Americans and Latinos have on average far less wealth and income than white people, the laws do tend to drive people of color out and keep neighborhoods more uniformly white. That’s in keeping with the racist history of “snob zoning.”

Analysis | ‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

This how whites have always played with the law and you all know it. So like I say, gaslighting doesn't work here.

 

[Correll]

This is what is called a policy. And it is racist. It does not mention race but as it's designed it purposely limits opportunities for those who are not white based on race.

‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

By Elizabeth Winkler September 25, 2017

It’s no secret that Americans live in divided spaces. The country’s cities and suburbs are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. These divides are often assumed to be a result of economics — as poor and rich families alike pick neighborhoods they can afford — and of personal choice, as Americans seek to live near people with whom they have more in common.

There’s a more sinister force at work, however. In many places, economic and racial segregation goes beyond market forces or personal choices. That segregation is buttressed by local laws and ordinances that effectively exclude or discourage poor and working-class people from moving into certain communities, keeping those areas primarily the domain of the white and wealthy.

Across the country, American communities employ “snob zoning” policies that forbid builders from constructing apartment buildings or impose minimum residential lot requirements. They are often presented as driven by concerns that building smaller units could change the character of a community. Some ordinances even exclude modest single-family homes in the name of preserving a neighborhood’s “aesthetic uniformity.” Such rules effectively impose a price floor for the cost of housing, making it impossible for people who live below a certain means to afford them, a recent report by the Century Foundation explains.

[Millions of poor families could benefit from housing aid Trump wants to cut]

The policies are widespread in cities and suburbs across the country, the result of a century of social engineering by federal and local governments. But a survey by the Brookings Institution found they are particularly popular in the Northeast and Midwest. Towns with the most stringent rules tend to have lower density and be wealthier than those with less regulation, according to researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The laws do not specifically mention race, but because African Americans and Latinos have on average far less wealth and income than white people, the laws do tend to drive people of color out and keep neighborhoods more uniformly white. That’s in keeping with the racist history of “snob zoning.”

Analysis | ‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

This how whites have always played with the law and you all know it. So like I say, gaslighting doesn't work here.

Except that many whites are poor and/or working class. Sooo, how do you know that the intent is racial and not the stated reasons?

It has been going on for ever and a day. Here is the story of an area in Dallas, created for Blacks. I grew up in a suburb town north of there. Dallas has been run by Democrats for ever and a day as well. This was their solution to a ‘problem’ they had. Disguising themselves as their friend. And they say it was for middle class Blacks. It was well known what they were up to. -

In Hamilton Park, Wilson presents an historical narrative that examines the establishment of a black community in north Dallas. He contends that Hamilton Park was a "worthwhile if inadequate response to the serious problem of housing middle-income Dallas blacks" (p. viii). Indeed, reading this story one is struck by how blacks organized and were supported by whites in their collective efforts to improve housing conditions for African-Americans in Dallas.

Hamilton Park was established in the 1950s, the product of a difficult search for black homesteads. Beginning in the 1930s, Dallas' civic elite had recognized the need for black housing in non-public housing settings. Wilson begins his analysis by describing those early searches for black homestead sites. Pressure mounted throughout the 1940s as whites pressured urban leaders to prevent residential succession in white neighborhoods. The pressure grew intense in the late 1940s, culminating in a series of bombings in 1950. As municipal leaders surveyed the landscape, they focused on a parcel of land in north Dallas. This tract would eventually be developed as Hamilton Park.

In the 1940s, blacks began to make inroads into white residential enclaves. Violent demonstrations caused municipal leaders to intervene; they were concerned that the high profile protests would threaten the business elite's "carefully cultivated view of Dallas as a city of harmony, contentment, and industriousness" (p. 11). The Dallas Negro Chamber of Commerce and the Dallas Citizen's Council formed a joint committee to quell community fears while hoping to offer real residential options to blacks. The joint committee issued the Aston-Mitchell report, which noted the "acute and critical" housing shortage for blacks in Dallas. The report recognized the legitimacy of segregation so long as it did not result in "discrimination." One of the means of reducing the housing shortage was to build more public housing; the report recommended the construction of 1500 additional public housing units. But the committee also recommended that market rate housing be built in Dallas. The provision of housing for blacks that might choose to live in white neighborhoods could stem the problem of residential succession. So it was that the municipal elite took a material interest in the future of blacks and housing in Dallas. With the formation of the Dallas Interracial Committee, a biracial body began a systematic analysis of the housing problem in this southern city.

White leaders such as Jerome Crossman emerged out of this process. The president of a petroleum company, Crossman helped guide the difficult community planning process that resulted in the establishment of Hamilton Park in north Dallas. Wilson details the nuances of this search for a middle-class housing site for Dallas blacks, giving us detail on almost every aspect of the process: from the development deal to the naming of the streets. Hamilton Park was hailed as a real means of alleviating pressure on white neighborhoods, as well being a community in which families could benefit from improved environmental conditions.

Interest in the community was high, but few qualified homebuyers had been found after six months of marketing the new subdivision. Still, the local school opened in 1955, and at once became "a source of community pride and concern" (p. 60). Slowly the development began to fill out, and as the 1960s approached, the 173 acre segregated community was doing well. But as Wilson points out, given Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Alabama bus boycott in 1956, and the Kennedy administration's efforts on behalf of minorities, Hamilton Park was the "the creation of a dying era" (p. 65).

In the 1960s, Hamilton Park was not the only place for middle-class Blacks to live. Wilson documents the features of these other communities, and he discusses the assets and liabilities of the Hamilton Park setting. He notes that as Hamilton Parks evolved in the 1960s the community began to make additional service demands. For instance, the community had poor bus service and residents had a long way to travel for shopping needs. To validate this contention, Wilson begins to use ethnographic accounts to support his assertions. Interviews with long-term residents pepper the balance of the book; these recollections enhance the text and are one of its principal contributions.

During the late 1950s, residents of Hamilton Park created several community organizations. One of the most prominent was the Interorganizational Council (IOC); this group reflected the dominance of the Black Church in this community setting. A secular group, the Civic League, was also established. Both of these organizations became active in the late 1950s, and they continued their community roles into the 1980s. Of particular importance in Wilson's mind is the entrance of the IOC into the political arena. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s Hamilton Park residents forged a close alliance with the Democratic Party. The IOC distributed endorsement lists to neighborhood residents, and unabashedly supported those candidates that took Hamilton Park concerns to heart.

One of the chief areas in which major transformations took place over the years was in the local school system. Wilson spends two chapters analyzing the ways in which the school system reflected national trends. The difficulties of desegregation were a central feature of educational services in Hamilton Park. While two chapters on the evolution of the community's educational needs-beginning with Brown v. Board of Education through the 1970s-seems inordinate for this study, Wilson makes it clear that this community was an excellent example of a local residential enclave being influenced by broader social trends.

Hamilton Park was built in the 1960s, and as metropolitan Dallas grew throughout the 1970s, the community became surrounded by major transportation arteries and commercial development. As a consequence, land in Hamilton Park became very valuable. Wilson dedicates his next to last chapter investigating the intricacies of a major "buyout" attempt in which an unnamed developer offered $35 a square foot to all of the 733 property owners in the community. Wilson documents the potentially divisive effects that such a buyout offer had on the community's social network, again using extensive ethnographic accounts. Although a potentially fruitful offer, the proposal fell through in 1986, despite the community hiring an attorney to represent them in the negotiations.
H-Net Reviews



It was built across the ‘tracks’.

Sounds very different, indeed, almost opposite of what IM2 described.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Can't take the truth doggie?

No, I know you are still a boy.

Stop blaming whitey for all your own shortcomings, and start taking a little responsibility for your actions and you will take the first steps towards becoming a man.

 

[IM2]

Can't take the truth doggie?

No, I know you are still a boy.

Stop blaming whitey for all your own shortcomings, and start taking a little responsibility for your actions and you will take the first steps towards becoming a man.

The Root Cause of the Problems Blacks Face is White Racism

“A Root Cause is-the fundamental reason for the occurrence of a problem”

Collins English Dictionary

"Because most whites have not been trained to think with complexity about racism, and because it benefits white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of it (Kumashiro, 2009; LaDuke, 2009). We are th e least likely to see, comprehend, or be invested in validating people of color’s assertions of racism and being honest about their consequences (King, 1991). At the same time, because of white social, economic, and political power within a white dominant culture, whites are the group in the position to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.Being in this position engenders a form of racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have little compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought deeply about race through research, study, peer-reviewed scholarship, deep and on-going critical self-reflection, interracial relationships, and lived experience (Chinnery, 2008). This expertise is often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes, such as “people just need to see each other as individuals” or “see each other as humans” or “take personal responsibility.”

White lack of racial humility often leads to declarations of disagreement when in fact the problem is that we do not understand. Whites generally feel free to dismiss informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, seek more information, or sustain a dialogue (DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2009)."

 

[IM2]

This is what is called a policy. And it is racist. It does not mention race but as it's designed it purposely limits opportunities for those who are not white based on race.

‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

By Elizabeth Winkler September 25, 2017

It’s no secret that Americans live in divided spaces. The country’s cities and suburbs are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. These divides are often assumed to be a result of economics — as poor and rich families alike pick neighborhoods they can afford — and of personal choice, as Americans seek to live near people with whom they have more in common.

There’s a more sinister force at work, however. In many places, economic and racial segregation goes beyond market forces or personal choices. That segregation is buttressed by local laws and ordinances that effectively exclude or discourage poor and working-class people from moving into certain communities, keeping those areas primarily the domain of the white and wealthy.

Across the country, American communities employ “snob zoning” policies that forbid builders from constructing apartment buildings or impose minimum residential lot requirements. They are often presented as driven by concerns that building smaller units could change the character of a community. Some ordinances even exclude modest single-family homes in the name of preserving a neighborhood’s “aesthetic uniformity.” Such rules effectively impose a price floor for the cost of housing, making it impossible for people who live below a certain means to afford them, a recent report by the Century Foundation explains.

[Millions of poor families could benefit from housing aid Trump wants to cut]

The policies are widespread in cities and suburbs across the country, the result of a century of social engineering by federal and local governments. But a survey by the Brookings Institution found they are particularly popular in the Northeast and Midwest. Towns with the most stringent rules tend to have lower density and be wealthier than those with less regulation, according to researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The laws do not specifically mention race, but because African Americans and Latinos have on average far less wealth and income than white people, the laws do tend to drive people of color out and keep neighborhoods more uniformly white. That’s in keeping with the racist history of “snob zoning.”

Analysis | ‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

This how whites have always played with the law and you all know it. So like I say, gaslighting doesn't work here.

View attachment 238788

This is the race and racism section. As you are in a position of responsibility maybe you need to abide by the rules you penalize others for breaking. Your last post was a troll post that had no content and nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[Godboy]

This is what is called a policy. And it is racist. It does not mention race but as it's designed it purposely limits opportunities for those who are not white based on race.

‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

By Elizabeth Winkler September 25, 2017

It’s no secret that Americans live in divided spaces. The country’s cities and suburbs are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. These divides are often assumed to be a result of economics — as poor and rich families alike pick neighborhoods they can afford — and of personal choice, as Americans seek to live near people with whom they have more in common.

There’s a more sinister force at work, however. In many places, economic and racial segregation goes beyond market forces or personal choices. That segregation is buttressed by local laws and ordinances that effectively exclude or discourage poor and working-class people from moving into certain communities, keeping those areas primarily the domain of the white and wealthy.

Across the country, American communities employ “snob zoning” policies that forbid builders from constructing apartment buildings or impose minimum residential lot requirements. They are often presented as driven by concerns that building smaller units could change the character of a community. Some ordinances even exclude modest single-family homes in the name of preserving a neighborhood’s “aesthetic uniformity.” Such rules effectively impose a price floor for the cost of housing, making it impossible for people who live below a certain means to afford them, a recent report by the Century Foundation explains.

[Millions of poor families could benefit from housing aid Trump wants to cut]

The policies are widespread in cities and suburbs across the country, the result of a century of social engineering by federal and local governments. But a survey by the Brookings Institution found they are particularly popular in the Northeast and Midwest. Towns with the most stringent rules tend to have lower density and be wealthier than those with less regulation, according to researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

The laws do not specifically mention race, but because African Americans and Latinos have on average far less wealth and income than white people, the laws do tend to drive people of color out and keep neighborhoods more uniformly white. That’s in keeping with the racist history of “snob zoning.”

Analysis | ‘Snob zoning’ is racial housing segregation by another name

This how whites have always played with the law and you all know it. So like I say, gaslighting doesn't work here.

Why are you worrying about other peoples communities? Fix your own community before you complain about others.

 

[Correll]

Can't take the truth doggie?

No, I know you are still a boy.

Stop blaming whitey for all your own shortcomings, and start taking a little responsibility for your actions and you will take the first steps towards becoming a man.

The Root Cause of the Problems Blacks Face is White Racism

“A Root Cause is-the fundamental reason for the occurrence of a problem”

Collins English Dictionary

"Because most whites have not been trained to think with complexity about racism, and because it benefits white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of it (Kumashiro, 2009; LaDuke, 2009). We are th e least likely to see, comprehend, or be invested in validating people of color’s assertions of racism and being honest about their consequences (King, 1991). At the same time, because of white social, economic, and political power within a white dominant culture, whites are the group in the position to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.Being in this position engenders a form of racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have little compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought deeply about race through research, study, peer-reviewed scholarship, deep and on-going critical self-reflection, interracial relationships, and lived experience (Chinnery, 2008). This expertise is often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes, such as “people just need to see each other as individuals” or “see each other as humans” or “take personal responsibility.”

White lack of racial humility often leads to declarations of disagreement when in fact the problem is that we do not understand. Whites generally feel free to dismiss informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, seek more information, or sustain a dialogue (DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2009)."

Blah, blah, blah, whites bad, blah, blah, blah.