Friends, let's step back a bit from "abolish the suburbs" & talk about the underlying problem. Economic opportunity varies a lot across places. And high housing costs in some suburbs are barriers to accessing opportunity--esp for Black & Latino renters. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/16/exclusive-communities-deepen-inequality-in-every-metro-area/

White communities used to bar Black households explicitly (restrictive covenants, redlining). Those practices are now illegal. BUT. Zoning laws banning apts are legal & very effective in blocking renters. Anti-apartment zoning + racial income gap = de facto segregation.

Lots of conversations about restrictive zoning & hsg affordability focus on differences across metros. And it's true that metros in CA & Northeast have higher rents & higher rent-income ratios than Midwest & South metros.

But guess what? Restrictive zoning exists everywhere! Every metro has relatively more & less expensive jurisdictions. LA & DC have some cheaper places, Detroit & Dallas have some expensive suburbs.

Sidebar: here I'm using "suburb" to mean any jurisdiction other than primary central city w/in a metro. Jurisdiction boundaries are handy b/c local govts determine zoning. But as @JedKolko @ShawnBucholtz point out, "suburban" boundaries are fluid. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-07/how-to-define-american-suburbs

Comparing across metros, more expensive areas have higher rent-income ratios. When we look within metros, that flips. High-rent suburbs in Dallas, Detroit, & LA have LOWER rent-income ratios than low-rent places. Why? Because only rich people live in those suburbs.

Washington DC metro is an interesting exception: rent levels & rent-income ratios are positively correlated. That's b/c population is concentrated in fewer, larger jurisdictions that are more economically diverse. Income sorting happens w/in counties more than across them.

To measure how affordable places w/in metros are to typical households, I calculate regional affordability: local rent/metro median income. Places above 45-degree line are affordable to current wealthy residents, but out of reach for people elsewhere in metro area.

Places like Highland Park TX & Bloomfield Hills MI are perfectly affordable to their current residents, but renters (who earn about 65% of metro median) currently living in Detroit & Dallas wd be squeezed trying to move there. San Marino's regional rent-income ratio is 0.6-ouch!

So what does this have to do w/ racial segregation? Black & Latino households earn less than non-Hispanic whites, have lower wealth, & are more likely to be renters (legacy of discrimination). So they can't afford rent in expensive suburbs.

Notice that not ALL suburbs are expensive or majority white! (San Marino is super expensive but majority Asian.) We don't need to abolish the suburbs, but exclusive suburbs should be held accountable for restrictive zoning that effectively keeps out middle- & low-income renters.

That's the spirit of federal Fair Housing Act & state "fair share" laws. Local govts should not be able to prohibit housing that serves range of incomes. High housing costs are a barrier to racial integration & economic mobility.

@HUDgov & state govts (CA esp) are trying to figure out how to identify "bad actors" on zoning. Regional affordability metric is simple to calculate for any metro & uses public ACS data. That's much easier & more transparent than surveying planners (again) about zoning. (end)