Your claim simply isn't true, read again.
-
-
Replying to @tylercowen
I just did. I don’t see it. Exclusionary policy, yes. But not how racialized federal housing policy made urban real estate undervalued.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
For a start, you are changing your claim as to what is not in there.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tylercowen
Race, racialized housing policy and “white flight” are definitely not in there. I might give you exclusionary zoning bc you mentioned NIMBYs
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Poverty moving to the suburbs, some of it a racial issue, but poverty the thing to focus upon.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tylercowen
I think that's hard to square with the reality that black families have 1/10th the net worth of white families, and that much of this is
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @tylercowen
attributable to racially inequitable postwar housing policy as this country encourages ppl to store much of their wealth in real estate
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @tylercowen2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @tylercowen
and that housing and schools are a basket good in this country as well. So the property value differentials (read: wealth differentials)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @tylercowen
deliberately encouraged by FHA practices & private real estate practices from the 1940s-1970s are further reinforced by
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
differentials in how school districts in these different communities are financially resourced as well.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.