"Honey, the neighborhoods in Avon 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, mix of everything else for the remainder. 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 on and 2010 to 2000 comparison percentages."
"You almost talked me into that one."
Seriously, for being a race of horrible, evil backwoods morons who appropriate everything, whites sure do attract non-whites to their schools. In Indianapolis, the devolution has been: "Well the IPS schools went bad, but we can escape to Lawrence and Washington Township schools. Oh well, now Lawrence is bad, and my kids might not graduate from North Central in Washington Township, but there is always Fishers. Oooh yeah, let's move to Fishers for the good schools!" Blacks will always always follow, no matter how often the newspapers invoke the legacy of the Klan in Indiana. 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, brah, 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 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. Homeowner association fees are partly a protection against this, but leverage just makes it a slightly higher hurdle to jump.
I use Indiana as a backdrop since it is where I live, but I already know Fishers will have problems within 25 years unless they find a way to jack up housing prices and block apartment building development. Carmel should be okay since it is so expensive in relation, but you never can be sure. Fishers growth is all in the last 20 years, with an order of magnitude population jump from 1995 to 2005. Fishers development was haywire with developments thrown up non-stop with strip malls to follow. This was developer heaven as all they had to buy was buy up farmland with easy money and promise "good schools, safe schools, 2400 square feet for less than Marion County". This is churn and burn work. Put the development up fast, sell the lots, and move on to the next one with cheap money. This is not for longevity.
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 a 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 as the suburbs 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 you are in. 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?"
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. 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.