Do you consider race when looking for a neighborhood to live in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you even find out the racial makeup? When I view houses I see 2 Neighbors. I do check the racial makeup of the elementary school. I've avoided a school area where my minority kid would be only one of two in her class. The area was 90% white.

ask your realtor

Is this a joke? Realtors are forbidden by fair housing laws from steering anyone into certain neighborhoods based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, handicap or familial status, or even discussing the racial or religious makeup of any school or neighborhood.

Really? I've had realtors tell me all about which minorities lived in which neighborhoods.

Yes, really.

Q: Can a real estate agent answer questions about the characteristics of a neighborhood if the questions concern one of the protected categories?

A: No.

http://www.barlowtriplett.com/Fair%20Housing.html#characteristics

[Anonymous]

I find it shameful and shocking that one of the nation's most liberal regions, California, has experienced black flight, and is now approaching the least African American diversity of any major metropolitan region or large state.

San Francisco's African American population stands at six percent, Los Angeles's at nine percent, and the State's as a whole at 5.8 percent and dropping. Why does no one talk about how the ultra-liberal strongholds of California have pushed out their African American population?

Some source articles. http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/san-franciscos-black-population-dwindling/

[Anonymous]

Like most people here, I care about location (commute) and schools. I don't care about the neighbor's race or ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it shameful and shocking that one of the nation's most liberal regions, California, has experienced black flight, and is now approaching the least African American diversity of any major metropolitan region or large state.

San Francisco's African American population stands at six percent, Los Angeles's at nine percent, and the State's as a whole at 5.8 percent and dropping. Why does no one talk about how the ultra-liberal strongholds of California have pushed out their African American population?

Some source articles. http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/san-franciscos-black-population-dwindling/

Another source article. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/25-drop-in-African-American-population-in-Oakland-2471925.php

Anecdotally, you sometimes go a long time in certain parts of Southern California without seeing an African American. That is completely unimaginable in other major metro areas. People say California is the nation's most diverse State, but that is simply not true when it comes to African Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it shameful and shocking that one of the nation's most liberal regions, California, has experienced black flight, and is now approaching the least African American diversity of any major metropolitan region or large state.

San Francisco's African American population stands at six percent, Los Angeles's at nine percent, and the State's as a whole at 5.8 percent and dropping. Why does no one talk about how the ultra-liberal strongholds of California have pushed out their African American population?

Some source articles. http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/san-franciscos-black-population-dwindling/

This is NOT a liberal vs. conservative issue. Racism is baked into the very dough of this country. Blacks are being pushed out of the Bay Area because they are, on average, poorer than their White counterparts. The reason why this is true has to do with national-level policies that have denied the tools of middle-class mobility to a huge swathe of the African American public.

Shorter version, all the poor people are being pushed out of the Bay Area and LA, but Blacks are over-represented in that group because of racism.

[Anonymous]

The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

+1. That's the primary reason.

[Anonymous]

Well, whatever the historical, social, and economic reasons for California's dwindling African American population, it makes it a very unhealthy place to raise children who have a realistic perspective of true diversity in this country.

In California you encounter more poverty, more social, economic, educational, professional, ethnic, and religious diversity, more Latin American diversity, more Asian American diversity, and more new immigrant diversity, yes, undoubtedly, but at a loss of the State's African American diversity.

I once read a comment to an article on this issue, posted by a self-identified African American, who said that California today was like a conglomeration sketch of every possible type of diversity, to which someone had taken an eraser to the African Americans in the picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a train wreck but really what do you expect. Yeah, most upper income liberals want to live around people just like them. Nowadays its less about skin color and more about income and groupthink. Own an expensive car, shop at whole foods, send your kids to French classes, and seem really upset about GMOs and you'll fit right in.

upper income conservatives, however, are a totally different story, right pp?

[Anonymous]

I have not.

There are a number of factors I look at:
- crime statistics via crime maps
- location of course (proximity to park, places I need to go, highways, etc)
- schools
- how nice the place is / "curb appeal" of the neighborhood, not necessarily the house as that's easy to remedy

I ended up in a neighborhood in DC with a lot of Hispanics, mostly living in a dilapidated apartment building several blocks down the street. That has its ups and downs, the primary down side being that they don't seem to value cleanliness. I.e. I'm always finding trash in my yard - calling cards, food containers, dorito bags, newspapers, etc. I dispose of the trash pretty quickly, as do my neighbors with the trash they find on their property, but it is annoying. (I wouldn't have noticed this before as the residents on my block ARE clean and dispose of trash they find on their property pretty quickly).

Yes I know it's them, a lot of the trash is in Spanish.

Lesson learned- in the future, I will definitely take this into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a train wreck but really what do you expect. Yeah, most upper income liberals want to live around people just like them. Nowadays its less about skin color and more about income and groupthink. Own an expensive car, shop at whole foods, send your kids to French classes, and seem really upset about GMOs and you'll fit right in.

upper income conservatives, however, are a totally different story, right pp?

NP. at least the conservatives put their money where their mouths are and stay in their own lane. meanwhile, the liberals are content to make historically black communities unaffordable under the guise of "improvement."

[Anonymous]

I will only ever buy a house in a neighborhood with only Inuit-Yupik people. If anyone of another race enters, then I put my house on the market. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, whatever the historical, social, and economic reasons for California's dwindling African American population, it makes it a very unhealthy place to raise children who have a realistic perspective of true diversity in this country.

In California you encounter more poverty, more social, economic, educational, professional, ethnic, and religious diversity, more Latin American diversity, more Asian American diversity, and more new immigrant diversity, yes, undoubtedly, but at a loss of the State's African American diversity.

I once read a comment to an article on this issue, posted by a self-identified African American, who said that California today was like a conglomeration sketch of every possible type of diversity, to which someone had taken an eraser to the African Americans in the picture.

I've lived in CA for over 40 yrs - both north and south - LA, OC, Bay Area. When I was younger, in LA, the majority of the kids in my HS were black. Today, if I look at the makeup of that HS, it is majority Hispanic. I don't know where blacks are moving to, but the hispanic population is taking over in that LA area.

In the Bay Area, PP had it right about how blacks don't have the wealth in that area. There are hardly any blacks in the high tech industry, and housing in the Bay Area is really expensive. For the most part, they are highly concentrated in the Oakland area and Hunter's Point in SF, or way further out in Vallejo or something.

[Anonymous]

The hypocrisy is so strong

California is what the country will look like int the future

Asians over Whites

Hispanics over Blacks

But keep fighting that real race war instead

lolz

In all seriousness work hard play nice and we can all get along have a great day everyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

+1. That's the primary reason.

+2. Likewise Washington and Oregon.