“Honey, the neighborhoods in Avendale are a mix of newer construction and some older neighborhoods with good finishing touches.”
“What about the schools?”
“It’s a closer commute for you, and we can get more for our dollar.”
>Checks website< “Schools are 90% white. Ha! Almost as many Asian-white mixed kids as black-white. Maybe this will work.”
“No private schools. See! Let’s do it.”
“You forgot one last check… the NY Times 2010 census maps with race filters. Now for the decade change. Yeesh.”
“Dammit!”
“You almost talked me into that one.”

For being a race of horrible, evil backwoods morons who appropriate everything, whites sure do attract non-whites to their schools. In Every metropolis, the devolution has been: “Well the city schools went bad, but we can escape to Inner Ring burb schools. Oh well, now those are crumbling, but there is always the next burb. Oooh yeah, let’s move to the exurban outpost for the good schools of the future!” The underclass will always always follow, no matter how often the newspapers invoke the evil effects of the whiteness, white supremacy or privilege. How could you stop this? How does New York City stop it? Start treating your developments like housing co-ops, and craft your suburb or exurb appropriately to defend your territory.

This sounds like going overboard, why go to such a length? Because housing developments in our current era have a giant, exploitable hole. We live in the democratization of credit era. Your home that you bought in 1990 with an 8.5% mortgage, 20% down payment and strict underwriting rules can be bought with a 4% mortgage, 0% down and anything goes. Forget federal rules for housing diversity, the simple use of credit and the ever lowering of underwriting standards broke down any barrier money may have formed.

One would need an incredibly tight housing market like an island (hmm, Manhattan is an island), harassing cops, maybe a history of racist, tough whites and zoning laws like those used liberally by blue states to keep the tide at bay. You have to practically have an area that is 50% above the media average home in your state to create a super zip. That barrier to entry is a fee pid to creditors for safety. Homeowner association fees are additional protection against this, but leverage just makes it a slightly higher hurdle to jump.

A longer term view would go the co-op route. Co-ops in New York City are notoriously picky about who moves into their buildings. They pick you. You buy in. They can set the requirements they want. They do not have to give reasons for declining you. President Nixon was rejected by a co-op. It could be an easy switch to move the legal and contractual mechanics of an apartment building to a development. The key is an owner who would incorporate and be invested for the long haul. The potential buyers would have to be invested for the community for a long term time horizon, not simple “home is an investment” thinking. This is why this co-op idea would be a winner though for an intentional living community as the exurbs and family living are suited for the long term.

People wanting to buy for the school system, safe neighborhood and for their children’s future are the kind of people you could talk into this idea. People might decry the lack of individuality one may have with their home per whatever rules, but look around you fools at the Edward Scissorhands suburbs across America. People do buy into HOA developments often, so this is just taking another step. The time to start this idea would be an exurb or suburb in the making. Not an “on the boom” now location. It must be the “next” one people will flee to, because you’d have to get in with the small town’s council to set this up, and to set this up with every other developer that shows plans for that town. One would have to pitch it to the natives and old timers of that community. A pitch could even be, “do you want your town strip malled and overgrown only to be destroyed by the dark tide that follows?” The truly ambitious could just buy land as an LLC and incorporate a planned community.

The Irvine Company LLC used 44,000 acres to build a planned community. Its development is worth an essay of its own. Would not need that much land for your small idea, but the benevolent dictator model worked to build an amazing suburb in California. Lacks soul but stuck to a plan. Another possible move is to scout a small town with specific parameters and a historical element. One could propose residential developments that have your co-op format built in that extend from their core and use the historical preservation enforcement to prevent intruders from building new developments. County seat small towns across the Midwest, Appalachia and the Plains have good frameworks to try this in.

One would have to be cautious and careful with this, but if the oddity that is the co-op declination system can work in NYC, it should work elsewhere. Attacking these would be attacking a liberal principled exception for the rich of NYC, so they may side with you. There will always be complaints, but give enough realtors incentives (cash in envelopes), and they will steer the wrong home buyers to other areas. One could even conjure up the weirdest conspiracy theories because certain, ahem, communities are prone to believing the wildest urban legends. Keep acceptance numbers slightly below regional demographic representation, a few donations to the UNCF and there will always be plausible deniability.

That deniability is key because if the sovereign media did take a flashlight to your system, wouldn’t they have to evaluate and scrutinize the long standing tradition of co-ops in NYC? Copying NYC behavior might as well be a deflector shield because they cannot have their precious system changed. The USG system is failing, start carving enclaves from within.