|
|
|
|
|
by rsync
1945 days ago
|
|
"Homeowners have stable enough lives to have saved up a down payment, they tend to be older and have families. They also have a reason to not annoy their neighbors, because they will have to live with them for many years." This can be generalized - beyond the housing debate - as "having skin in the game". As someone who has been (at various times) a short and long term renter, a landlord, and a homeowner ... it rings true to me that, generally speaking, renters invest less in their homes and their neighborhoods and have less at stake in the outcomes of those neighborhoods/communities. That was certainly the case with me as a renter. I don't think it's morally negative to segregate neighborhoods on the basis of renting vs. owning. The attempts to link this kind of segregation to past periods of literal racial segregation is, in my opinion, going to find less and less traction - especially as non-white stakeholders (homeowners) aspire to the same kind of skin-in-the-game cooperation with their neighbors. |
|
What about the rampant housing discrimination in home-buying (without any enforcement) [0]? What about massive racial wealth disparates?
I think it is pretty naïve to suggest that the current backlash against having "renters" has nothing to do with race. Not more naïve than suggesting it only has to do with race, but close.
[0]: https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-...