Josh Green is entitled to feel guilty not because he's white, but because he's a member of a group that unjustly voted itself privileges in the area of housing, to the detriment of non-members of that group. Race is relevant only to the extent that race was the legal criteria used to distinguish group members from non-members.
> As for the problems you bring up, if low prices are the problem, he's contributing to the solution by increasing demand. I segregation is the problem, he's bringing his nordic white family into the neighborhood and reducing segregation.
The residents of the neighborhood may be incrementally better off as a result of gentrification. But are they as well off as they would have been but for segregation?
The Copenhagen Interpretation of ethics captures an intuitive concept: making things a little better at the margin doesn't relive you of the responsibility for having made things bad in the first place. Consider the criminal justice reform. Right now, we're tweaking the laws to help those who received draconian sentences under "three strikes" type laws. But that doesn't undo the sin of a generation that lost its collective minds and put those laws into place to begin with. And it's totally valid to criticize those dickering around at the edges of the issue by pointing out how little it does to right the original injustice.