You argued that it wasn't race, but socioeconomic status. It was explicitly race historically: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neighbor

You argued that it wasn't race, but socioeconomic status. It was explicitly race historically: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neighborhoods-were-created-equal-in-palo-alto https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/not-all-neigh... https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/black-in-palo-alto-longtime-residents-describe-painful-toll-of-everyday-racism https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/07/03/black-in-palo... Restricting supply now is often justified by 'keeping neighborhood character', but that character is one which explicitly excluded others based on their race. I'd argue there are also examples where it's race and not socioeconomic status today. There was a recent story from a black VC jogging in Palo Alto who had the police called on him because 'he was up to something'. (I searched around, but couldn't find the link to his story). Increasing housing supply doesn't make neighborhoods unsafe and would increase the funding available to the local communities. > "There's nothing wrong with that. It's not their job to fix the systematic issues in the US." It may not be their job to fix everything, but I'd argue they're responsible for not pushing policy to make things worse.