Redfin and Realtor websites won't provide crime statistics for neighborhoods when homebuyers search for houses to avoid 'racial bias'

Two major websites used by homebuyers to search for properties to move into have decided that ignorance is bliss when it comes to crime statistics. As noted by Stacey Matthews on Legal Insurrection, Realtor.com and redfin.com decided on the same day that providing crime information on neighborhoods would promote racial bias. Helping families avoid moving to a house or condo in a dangerous crime-ridden neighborhood is far less important to them than virtue-signaling their trendy "anti-racism."

Apparently, they both have forgotten the ancient maxim "caveat emptor" — "let the buyer beware." I am not certain how to render "let the buyer be anti-racist" in Latin, but that is the replacement philosophy for these real estate marketing geniuses.

For connoisseurs of P.C. doubletalk, the statements issued by Realtor.com CEO David Doctorow and redfin.com's chief growth officer, Christian Taubman, are worth a look.

Doctorow write:

[E]arlier this month, we removed the crime map layer from all search results on Realtor.com to rethink the safety information we share on Realtor.com and how we can best integrate it as part of a consumer's home search experience.
In the weeks and months ahead, we plan to examine closely what neighborhood safety means for buyers and renters who use our site so we can reimagine how we integrate safety data on Realtor.com. Our goal is to ensure we are providing consumers with the most valuable, fair and accurate neighborhood data so they can make informed decisions about where they want to rent or purchase their next home.
We've also been collaborating with impressive advocates who have decades of fair housing experience.

I wonder who those "impressive advocates" are? BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, perhaps? She knows a lot about real estate, having laid out $3.2 million for four houses, including one in lily-white Topanga Canyon.

Redfin's Chief Growth Officer contends that crime data don't really tell you about safety. Here's what he said:

Even if you narrow down to crime as an indicator of safety, there are reasons to doubt the usefulness of the data available. The most straightforward source of crime data is the Uniform Crime Report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which collects reported crimes from police departments across the country. Most crimes in the U.S. go unreported, however, and most reported crimes go unsolved. The fact that most crimes are missing creates a real possibility that the crimes that show up in the data set skew one way or another. And the fact that most reported crimes go unsolved means that some of the crimes being reported in fact may not be crimes. If you're extracting data at the neighborhood level, the risk of these gaps leading to inaccuracy becomes high.

DO YOU BUY THAT EXPLANATION?

I think the prices will mostly tell you what you need to know.

Not always. You can have a nice neighborhood but its positioning in the overall city may or may not have evident issues to an outsider coming from across the country.

My wife and I recently moved from the Phoenix valley to North Carolina. We were looking in southern Virginia low country / Hampton Rhodes and northeastern North Carolina. We made an offer on a house that was great for us in a medium sized town in that market area after looking at a large number of houses. Houses were going fast this summer. The neighborhood was great. The five block by seven block area could not have been nicer but its proximity to a dying downtown which we did not analyze earlier made us glad when the sellers became idiots and tried to turn our full asking price offer into a "as is" offer and with their counter-offer gave us an out. We ended up with a home in North Carolina in a town we love. But we had spent four days driving and walking the whole town we moved to and therefore knew its character much better. Prices were very similar in both markets.

Years ago, I told my realtor I wanted to look at what appeared to be wonderful buys. She looked at me “significantly” and said, “There are certain things I can’t, by law, say. But I’m thinking you’d find it difficult to fit in there.” I realized later I’d probably have been killed.

It’s great to live in a neighborhood where you can leave your car outside unlocked. I regularly leave my house for hours and don’t lock the door. Now, I do have some “of color” neighbors, but they’re great folks. The problem, as I’ve found out the hard way, is when they have someone come to stay who is just out of prison. One occasion, a former convict was caught robbing neighborhood houses by a black deputy. He was robbing the deputy’s house and it was NEXT DOOR. The other former convict raped a young girl in the house. (If I recall, he was the husband’s brother.) The other problem is Section 8 housing. The idea there is to take people from the ghetto and move them into nice neighborhoods because it isn’t the people who commit crimes, it’s the neighborhoods they live in. You’ll see two things happen, rapid sales as people move away and increased security.

“...but its proximity to a dying downtown...”

Can you clarify what you mean by “dying downtown”?

Was it the crime in that area or was it the fact that the classic version of a downtown as we used to know it is a thing of the past?

A few years ago, I was in Mitchell SD. The city is growing and as crime goes, it’s pretty low. But the downtown is old and a bit run-down. There’s not much going on there. All the businesses have moved south of town closer to the interstate. Other than stopping at the Corn Palace, a person wouldn’t have much need to go to downtown Mitchell.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.