On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:39:16 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:49:02 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:40:02 -0400, blake murphy
>
>>>> that's all well and good, but in my mind i lump in the HOAs with property
>>>> covenants forbidding sales to jews or blacks. i suppose in those days
>>>> selling to gays would be too ridiculous to even think about.
>
>>> That attitude was history by 1970. It was called red lining out here.
>>> Nothing was in writing.
>
>>red-lining (having to do with issuing home-purchase loans) may have been
>>tacit, but many housing covenants were quite explicit: 'thou shalt not
>>sell thy home to a jew or a black.'
>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer>
>
>><http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1067.html>
>
> Actually red-lining was also explicit, in that the Federal Government
> (the FHA and its precursors) established red-line limits that
> the insurers and lenders then followed. This drove segregation --
> integrated communities which got redlined exhibited white flight.
> Places like Chicago and New York were more segregated in 1960
> than they had been in 1940, even before bussing kicked in and created
> additional white panic.
>
> So while racial covenants and red-lining were two different
> things, they were both explicit (in at least certain phases of
> their history). It is reasonable to view them as two aspects
> of the same underlying phenomenon.

jeez, i should have made the connection between red-lining and an actual
red line on a map, meaning something tangible and explicit.

but it wasn't in any contracts, because those contracts simply weren't
written.

your pal,
blake