> Could you say more about your claim that zoning exists to keep minorities out of white-only neighborhoods? As I said, you can just go read the meeting minute

> Could you say more about your claim that zoning exists to keep minorities out of white-only neighborhoods? As I said, you can just go read the meeting minutes when they were introduced in the early 20th century and it's why they said they were doing it. But there's a book called The Color of Law about it. > And do you mean that all zoning laws still exist for this purpose, or that that was their original intent? They still exist because they haven't been removed yet and the SCOTUS precedent (Euclid v Ambler) that authorizes them hasn't been overruled. Racial covenants on individual properties were removed, but not that. > precedent for zoning laws that came from, e.g., England To be clear, England doesn't have zoning, it has /much worse ideas/ where you can't do anything without planning permission and the US is a big improvement over it. (Urban growth boundaries are okay though, but the US has national parks so we're cooler.) > Would we be living in a zoning-free society if not for racism? We would still have things that you probably think of as zoning but are not actually zoning. For instance, it's legal to have a corner store in a housing district in any given old quaint European country, and Japan has some light forms of zoning strictly controlled at the national level so individual cities don't get big ideas about becoming exclusive.