6 ms·

I think there is a harsh reality that the buyers that want nicer single family homes WANT economic segregation. There is generally no benefit for those buyers t

by brk 4y ago

I think there is a harsh reality that the buyers that want nicer single family homes WANT economic segregation. There is generally no benefit for those buyers to live next to or near "affordable housing". This creates a disincentive to create this kind of housing layout.

davidw 4y ago
It wasn't that long ago that buyers wanted racial segregation too: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten... That's one of many reasons that a lot of the better reforms we're seeing are at the state level, where it's easier to do the right thing and where politicians are less beholden to a few local loudmouths.
- brk 4y ago
  Racial segregation is really a different issue though, it involves excluding a person based on something out of their control. Economic segregation is really a different issue, and it is not something you are going to fix with legislation. The people with money will always be able to live someplace acceptable to them. A government can force most entities to be non-racist through various laws and actions. But you really cannot force someone to live next to an area they do not desire.
  - nradov 4y ago
    In particular some neighborhoods are expensive because they are expensive. There may not be anything special about the location but affluent people will pay more to avoid having to associate with poor people. (I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just pointing out that it's a major factor in how people decide where to live and how much they're willing to pay.)
  - davidw 4y ago
    It's all pretty similar really. In Euclid vs Ambler (which definitively legalized zoning), one of the Supreme Court justices described apartments as "parasites". You could get rid of that zoning that enables wealthy people to say 'no' to other types of housing. Sure, they can always buy up a big lot somewhere far away - fine, whatever. But where cities are growing, that kind of discrimination embedded in the local zoning code is not ok. And you can legislate it away - Oregon was the first state to do so with HB2001, which re-legalizes up to 4-plexes in all our cities. In any neighborhood. A 4-plex in a posh neighborhood is still not going to be cheap, but it allows more integration than if it weren't legal to build at all.
    - brk 4y ago
      What you are talking about is slightly different. There are plenty of communities where there are a variety of single-family homes, and MDU's. I actually live in one. However, the majority of the residents are of roughly the same economic status. Some have large homes and growing families, some are empty-nesters that downside to a smaller condo in the development. But for the most part, they are all of the same economic class. This is different than thinking there is going to be a large number of upper income single family housing units that would find living next to a Section 8 kind of development desirable. I know people who grew up in "affordable housing", and put in significant effort to get away from that kind of neighborhood, and would not want to live near one. This is a real challenge, and it can't be legislated away, the fix (IMO) is far deeper than zoning changes.
  - thescriptkiddie 4y ago
    > Racial segregation is really a different issue though How do you square that with the fact that racial minorities are significantly poorer on average? > it involves excluding a person based on something out of their control Are you implying that people choose to be poor?
vineyardmike 4y ago
I think a more realistic statement is that most of those buyers think they want the effects of economic segregation, and there is "real" subset of eg. multi-millionaires that actually want it. Most people don't want homelessness, "gangs"/crime , and rundown houses and other unsightly signs (perceived or real) of the economic lower-class in their neighborhood, a smaller subset don't want their children to socialize with the lower-class children, and a smaller subset truly want a private enclave of elitism. To be frank, there is a benefit to live near lower-income people: its easier to find service workers for your local cafe/restaurant/etc. The affordability problem facing many cities is that there are too few service workers because not enough people can afford to go to the city and work (because commuting from affordable areas isn't worth it). A city with a varied population can support more local businesses, and can have a more varied local economy, and can even be more resilient - eg. if there is a big storm, but the town has no plumbers, electricians, etc, you may need to pay more to "import" that workers from doing jobs in their own town (which also likely has residents in need of work). If you are a millionaire, you can pay to import service work, but most middle-class people can't.

by brk 4y ago

davidw 4y ago

It wasn't that long ago that buyers wanted racial segregation too: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten... That's one of many reasons that a lot of the better reforms we're seeing are at the state level, where it's easier to do the right thing and where politicians are less beholden to a few local loudmouths.

brk 4y ago
Racial segregation is really a different issue though, it involves excluding a person based on something out of their control. Economic segregation is really a different issue, and it is not something you are going to fix with legislation. The people with money will always be able to live someplace acceptable to them. A government can force most entities to be non-racist through various laws and actions. But you really cannot force someone to live next to an area they do not desire.
- nradov 4y ago
  In particular some neighborhoods are expensive because they are expensive. There may not be anything special about the location but affluent people will pay more to avoid having to associate with poor people. (I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just pointing out that it's a major factor in how people decide where to live and how much they're willing to pay.)
- davidw 4y ago
  It's all pretty similar really. In Euclid vs Ambler (which definitively legalized zoning), one of the Supreme Court justices described apartments as "parasites". You could get rid of that zoning that enables wealthy people to say 'no' to other types of housing. Sure, they can always buy up a big lot somewhere far away - fine, whatever. But where cities are growing, that kind of discrimination embedded in the local zoning code is not ok. And you can legislate it away - Oregon was the first state to do so with HB2001, which re-legalizes up to 4-plexes in all our cities. In any neighborhood. A 4-plex in a posh neighborhood is still not going to be cheap, but it allows more integration than if it weren't legal to build at all.
  - brk 4y ago
    What you are talking about is slightly different. There are plenty of communities where there are a variety of single-family homes, and MDU's. I actually live in one. However, the majority of the residents are of roughly the same economic status. Some have large homes and growing families, some are empty-nesters that downside to a smaller condo in the development. But for the most part, they are all of the same economic class. This is different than thinking there is going to be a large number of upper income single family housing units that would find living next to a Section 8 kind of development desirable. I know people who grew up in "affordable housing", and put in significant effort to get away from that kind of neighborhood, and would not want to live near one. This is a real challenge, and it can't be legislated away, the fix (IMO) is far deeper than zoning changes.
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  > Racial segregation is really a different issue though How do you square that with the fact that racial minorities are significantly poorer on average? > it involves excluding a person based on something out of their control Are you implying that people choose to be poor?

vineyardmike 4y ago

I think a more realistic statement is that most of those buyers think they want the effects of economic segregation, and there is "real" subset of eg. multi-millionaires that actually want it. Most people don't want homelessness, "gangs"/crime , and rundown houses and other unsightly signs (perceived or real) of the economic lower-class in their neighborhood, a smaller subset don't want their children to socialize with the lower-class children, and a smaller subset truly want a private enclave of elitism. To be frank, there is a benefit to live near lower-income people: its easier to find service workers for your local cafe/restaurant/etc. The affordability problem facing many cities is that there are too few service workers because not enough people can afford to go to the city and work (because commuting from affordable areas isn't worth it). A city with a varied population can support more local businesses, and can have a more varied local economy, and can even be more resilient - eg. if there is a big storm, but the town has no plumbers, electricians, etc, you may need to pay more to "import" that workers from doing jobs in their own town (which also likely has residents in need of work). If you are a millionaire, you can pay to import service work, but most middle-class people can't.