Seems like the article starts with the conclusion that the disparity is explicitly racially motivate, and works backward. Why not work from a premise that the

Seems like the article starts with the conclusion that the disparity is explicitly racially motivate, and works backward. Why not work from a premise that the outcome is disparate but the reasons might be more nuanced? (that was rhetorical. I know why they didn't) What about: - Assessors don't properly account for disparate crime levels for properties that are similar on paper? - Minorities are priced out of gentrifying neighborhoods because of rapid price increases. This is why Prop 13 happened in CA in the first place, so middle class folk wouldn't be taxed out of their homes when they exploded in value. - Minorities don't know they can appeal their assessment. Who's responsibility is it to know that? Is there evidence that a state actively attempts to hide this info? - If they control for race, would the numbers show that white people who live in similarly high crime areas also pay disproportionate property tax? Could it be that black and Hispanic people disproportionately live in higher crime areas, and it is the lack of including crime rates in neighborhoods when assessing taxes is a primary driver if this effect?