The article is somewhat difficult to read.<p>I think &quot;segregation&quot; should be &quot;zoning&quot;  throughout most of the article?<p>I get that he&#x27;s trying to draw a parallel to the historical practice of separating public facilities by race, but the connection is tenuous. One is de jure separation by ancestry for public, tax-funded, government facilities. The other is de facto separation by finances for private property (enabled by legal architectural requirements).<p>In any case, following this logic implies overturning most zoning restrictions and HOAs. (I myself am currently uncertain on my opinion on this.)