Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcusgarvey | Hacker News Reader

I think the point is that there was a de facto subsidy of segregated white neighborhoods in the first instance.

Perhaps a de facto or indirect subsidy, but the cost of moving into those neighborhoods went up while the cost of housing for those being excluded went down. It's also arguable that cities made money with these practices (it would take some work to figure out.)

So the subsidy argument falls apart. If it doesn't cost the city money overall and white people end up paying more both for housing and in taxes then the problem with redlining lies elsewhere. (I am not trying to defend redlining, by the way.)

Even if the cost of moving into the neighborhood went up, the white homeowners surely also benefited from higher home equity values which they can borrow against; realized gains from selling the homes -- for them and for their heirs; better public school systems; better public facilities.

So, no I don't think the subsidy argument falls apart.

Only if the market goes up enough vs the other neighborhoods and what would have happened. Which maybe you can argue it does. I'm not racist enough to believe that the presence of people with black skin is that detrimental to property values. It seems clear that redlining is about class more than race.

You still have the problem that subsidies are generally thought to cost money. If redlining makes the city money it goes from "this is evil and doesn't work economically" to "this is evil but it makes money."

Lost another 10 karma overnight for trying to join this discussion without going "hoo, haaa, obviously the whole world is racist and sexist and that disgusts me..." before voicing contrary opinions.

Yeah downvote that one, too.

I'm starting to interpret the "don't complain about downvotes" guideline as "don't shed light on how this community misuses downvotes to quietly marginalize contrary views while maintaining the illusion of civil discourse."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com