Well, you see, when you want to solve a problem, you need people to do so. Often you need buildings, tools or other objects, or time to educate people in how to do their job differently, etc.
You know what all of these solutions have in common?
THEY COST MONEY!
Some inroads could be made without having an immediate cost to the taxpayers.
Zoning regulations could be altered to require a percentage of every development be specifically earmarked for low income housing. If one wanted to fight even more of an uphill battle, rules could be set in place that mandate some percentage of new housing be earmarked for minority ownership. These would not cost taxpayers a great deal to set up.
Tax deferral, and abatement , is a tool that is already in use in many cities to affect changes in blighted areas by encouraging middle and high income people to invest in distressed property. Alterations to the requirements for taking advantage of these tax breaks could be made that make them race specific (depending upon the existing racial makeup of the neighborhood being targeted), some kickback may come from a change like that though, as it is a benefit that would be largely going to white homeowners.
These things would add little cost to the taxpayer- yet have a large potential impact IMO
I find it odd that the idea of a "melting pot" has such resonance with so many of my white peers- yet they can't wait to get a "for sale" sign on their home if the neighborhood in which they live starts to reflect the overall color scheme of the U.S.
Conversely, friends and family who take what they consider a more liberal approach always have a million reasons why they do not choose to reside in a more integrated area- whilst simultaneously maintaining that integration is laudable, but somehow requires some large expenditure of government money. Since property, taxes, and overall cost of living is substantially lower in largely minority neighborhoods, I find that a tad Hippo-critical as well.
