
We Must Repeal Our Segregation Laws - natrius
https://medium.com/@niranbabalola/we-must-repeal-our-segregation-laws-32348d090520#.hviadnysu
======
paulddraper
The article is somewhat difficult to read.

I think "segregation" should be "zoning" throughout most of the article?

I get that he's trying to draw a parallel to the historical practice of
separating public facilities by race, but the connection is tenuous. One is de
jure separation by ancestry for public, tax-funded, government facilities. The
other is de facto separation by finances for private property (enabled by
legal architectural requirements).

In any case, following this logic implies overturning most zoning restrictions
and HOAs. (I myself am currently uncertain on my opinion on this.)

~~~
jannotti
His point is precisely that segregation laws and zoning laws do the same
thing, so he's trying to use language that makes that obvious. It's not a leap
really, right? To "segregate" things is almost synonymous with putting things
into their proper "zones" isn't it?

~~~
paulddraper
Yes, and I eventually got that.

segregate, zone, partition, divide, separate, categorize have similar English
definitions.

This is just my impression, but "We must repeal our zoning laws" would have
been an easier thesis to follow then "We must repeal our segregation laws",
particularly since they work differently.

------
geoffbrown2014
I don't think housing density is THE controlling factor in housing
affordability. I would think location swamps density as an affordability
input. And I think that home ownership as a means to social inclusion is an
interesting idea, but to assert that reducing property size will lower prices
and encourage whites to accept blacks into their communities seems fairly
unproven territory. Prior to regular successful integration trials somewhere I
think to take the connection as a forgone, its gone on long enough, conclusion
is premature. The article did little to bolster the argument for either. I
live near Chicago and to think if people in an expensive suburb like Hinsdale,
(tear down only places on tiny lots can run 750k or more) would subdivide
their property so that lower/middle income people could build and move in and
presumably socially integrate seems problematic and not just from race. The
difficulty of the city in serving the increased population and construction
would likely dramatically effect affordability, quality of life and would
likely be an urban planning disaster. The author is basically asking rich
people to voluntarily reduce their quality of life so that lower income people
can presumably get the halo effect of living amongst them. Two words spring to
mind, white flight.

~~~
naveen99
I wonder what would happen if the state bought some of these tear down lots in
hinsdale and put up a high rise low income apartments they're instead similar
to requiring low income housing in apartments and busing kids to different
schools for integration. In principle they could require low income housing in
rich neighborhoods by same logic. Maybe they tried and failed already...

Edit: I guess you could also require some $30 / night rooms in 5-star hotels.
And require some $30 seats in 1st class in airplanes. I will show myself out
now...

------
dzdt
Not mentioned in the article is the related problem that low-density drive-
everywhere segregated suburbia has a massive infrastructure cash-flow problem.
There is just too much roadway, water pipes, sewer pipes, and other utility
infrastructure to be maintained by the tax base. See e.g.
[http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-
scheme/](http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/).

------
danblick
I think this is an interesting topic that hasn't been talked about enough yet.

I wonder a little about inter-generational conflict. It seems to me like older
people (who may already own homes) and younger people (who often do not) often
have opposing interests when it comes to housing policy: homeowners want the
political system to prop up the value of their current homes while non-
homeowners want less expensive homes to come on the market.

Then there's also the huge public debt that's left to the younger generation
to pay...

------
vmorgulis
> In his work on proxemics, Hall separated his theory into two overarching
> categories: personal space and territory. Personal space describes the
> immediate space surrounding a person, while territory refers to the area
> which a person may "lay claim to" and defend against others.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics)

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_T._Hall](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_T._Hall)

------
daodedickinson
Oh I thought this was going to be about the return of segregated dorms this
year at the University of Connecticut.

