> "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people".

No, I'm saying you are getting the causality inverted. You then "translate" what I am saying by inverting what I am saying and then call me names. How about you argue with exactly what I write rather than trying to "translate" it.

To clarify, the actual causality is this:

1) YIMBY's want to keep out crime.

2) The only tool available for keeping out crime, is to keep housing prices high and to keep out low-income housing projects, because low-income people disproportionately commit more crime.

3) Even though this is sub-optimal and I would like a much more fine-grained tool for keeping out crime (eg, being allowed to run criminal background checks on every person moving into my neighborhood), it is the only tool I have to protect my family and my children, and so I feel no moral guilt about using it.

4) Because black people have 10X-30X higher rates of crime, and higher rates of poverty, ANY policy that keeps out criminals or keeps out low-income populations will disproportionately keep out black people. But the end goal is not to keep out black people, that is not the point of the policy, that is an unfortunate side-effect caused by the higher-crime rates and higher rates of poverty among black people, which I have no power to fix.

It's a lot easier to label things racist than it is to address why some groups commit more crime or why people might not want to have more crime in their neighborhood.