> At low to moderate levels of B, an increase in B should have a negative influence on housing value if Blacks are regarded as undesirable neighbors by Whites.
Either way, it's a dramatic oversimplification. Black people are also significantly poorer than white people, so it's also likely that black people can only afford to move into a neighborhood as property values decrease... yet the people who collated this data chose to make a different assumption.
> At low to moderate levels of B, an increase in B should have a negative influence on housing value if Blacks are regarded as undesirable neighbors by Whites.
Isn't that true? It's almost a tautology.
(Bad things can be true.)
For example ignores the fact that on the whole black people are significantly poorer.
In Boston the average white family has a net worth of $200k+ while black families in the same city have a net worth of <$10 (that's not a typo, it's less than ten dollars). Poorer people by nature can not afford houses in more expensive neighborhoods, so naturally you have a concentration of black people in poorer neighborhoods... it's not because white people find black neighbors undesirable, it's that black people are disproportionately poorer.
This kind of oversimplification tends to perpetuate a lot of negative stereotypes about black people while hand-waiving away the chronic issues black people are faced with that creates this kind of disparity.
The data is the data. The data isn't suggesting that "having more black people in your neighbourhood will depress housing prices." That's your take on what a racist causal interpretation would look like.
The correlation is very real and turning a blind eye to it is worse: https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/how-racial-disparities...