When houses went on the market in my neighborhoods (first Beverlywood, in Los Angeles, sometimes called the Pico-Robertson Area, though that’s a much more expansive designation; later Teaneck, NJ and the accompanying Northern New Jersey towns like Englewood, Fair Lawn, and Bergenfield), sometimes Jews would move in and sometimes not. Especially in Teaneck, as the prices went up and up, the Jewish homes began to outnumber the non-Jewish ones, at least in the areas where synagogues caused Jews to view housing as optimal. There didn’t seem to be any conspiracy; we needed to live within walking distance of a shul. And while that distance could be extended beyond a block or two, your universe of housing options could often be drawn with a simple circle extending between half a mile and a mile around the shul building itself. But matters of convenience were also social, cultural, and economic. A wealthy shul would create wealthy homes around it, and make it harder for those outside the economic class of the shul members to move there.
And then we have the bizarre example posted at the top of this article. Apparently, a realtor or mortgage broker (there seems to be some debate) seems to want the neighbors of the area to band together, influencing the type of people who move in to an auctioned house.
Putting aside the ridiculousness of some of the issues involved here (such as the extreme cost of the house and banks’ willingness to sell an auctioned house to just about anyone to get it off their own hands, regardless of the community’s feelings), is this kind of thing moral?
