That depends very much on the local politics. If you are in California “This is structural racism, you can overcome your structural racism by becoming YIMBY” might be useful. If you make the same pitch in Texas it’s likely less successful.
The way the US handled racism in the 20st century is a core reason why there are much more isolated neighborhoods in the US than in Europe. Americans who can’t directly discriminate against Black people found that if you just make housing in a neighborhood expensive enough, you can keep the neighborhood relatively free from Black neighbors.
While you might not convince people to switch to being YIMBY, the structures of racism are still a key reason why those neighborhoods are setup the way they are setup and this is part of what “character of the neighborhood” meant over the last century.
Sure if your goal is to spread awareness about this issue, then talking about it makes sense.
If your goal is to convince people to become YIMBY, IMO its counterproductive.
Personally while I don’t consider myself NIMBY, I’m certainly YIMBY skeptic. I would not only be not convinced to change my mind by someone discussing structural racism, I would actively be less likely to support whatever they were pitching. I’m just trying to tell you honestly about my reaction because I suspect a lot of others would react the same way.
I’m just trying to tell you honestly about my reaction because I suspect a lot of others would react the same way.
I suspect a vast majority of the general population would react the same way.
But in the specific California ultra-progressive neighborhoods ChristianKL was talking about, mentioning how Euclidean zoning was designed with the specific purpose of keeping Black residents out of white neighborhoods, because the Supreme Court had thrown out previous and more explicitly racist proposals to keep out “negroes and Orientals” in Buchanan v Warley five years prior, could be more persuasive.
That depends very much on the local politics. If you are in California “This is structural racism, you can overcome your structural racism by becoming YIMBY” might be useful. If you make the same pitch in Texas it’s likely less successful.
Well arguments aside it’s worth noting that Texas is afaik more YIMBY than California.
Generally though I think the “you can overcome racism by doing what I want” well is basically dry at this point.
The way the US handled racism in the 20st century is a core reason why there are much more isolated neighborhoods in the US than in Europe. Americans who can’t directly discriminate against Black people found that if you just make housing in a neighborhood expensive enough, you can keep the neighborhood relatively free from Black neighbors.
While you might not convince people to switch to being YIMBY, the structures of racism are still a key reason why those neighborhoods are setup the way they are setup and this is part of what “character of the neighborhood” meant over the last century.
Sure if your goal is to spread awareness about this issue, then talking about it makes sense.
If your goal is to convince people to become YIMBY, IMO its counterproductive.
Personally while I don’t consider myself NIMBY, I’m certainly YIMBY skeptic. I would not only be not convinced to change my mind by someone discussing structural racism, I would actively be less likely to support whatever they were pitching. I’m just trying to tell you honestly about my reaction because I suspect a lot of others would react the same way.
I suspect a vast majority of the general population would react the same way.
But in the specific California ultra-progressive neighborhoods ChristianKL was talking about, mentioning how Euclidean zoning was designed with the specific purpose of keeping Black residents out of white neighborhoods, because the Supreme Court had thrown out previous and more explicitly racist proposals to keep out “negroes and Orientals” in Buchanan v Warley five years prior, could be more persuasive.