Read on Twitter
"Exclusionary zoning" isn't some aberrant application/recent misuse/unintended side effect of zoning. Economic segregation is and always was the point of zoning. The sooner we dispense with the ahistorical "factories in residential neighborhoods" origin story, the better.
Elites in the 1910s didn't want poor people near them, especially immigrants and blacks. But it was expensive/impossible to adopt a robust deed restriction in an existing neighborhood; and even where deed restrictions existed, the perimeter remained exposed...
...Zoning was thus adopted to give these preferences the force of law, essentially socializing the costs of adopting and enforcing elite land-use preferences. In many cases, elite suburbs would incorporate literally just so glorified neighborhoods could adopt zoning and exclude.
"But...but...factories next to residences...?" This happened, but not nearly as much as you would think. Industry and residential has different locational needs, especially back then. And most cities *already* had demarcated areas for truly noxious industries.
Don't believe me? Go read Euclid v. Ambler, theoretically a case about industry in a residential area. What do they spend like 1/3 of the decision talking about? Explaining how apartments are pests or how corner groceries cause nervous disorders if they're let into oneplex nabes.
An absolutely crucial point: zoning and redlining were fraternal twins in institutionalizing American economic apartheid. As planners, we wring our hands constantly about the latter, as the former just...skates on by mostly unchallenged! https://twitter.com/MarcDavidLoeb/status/1355044738907463687?s=20
Even "industry" talk in early zoning materials was usually racially coded. NYC infamously adopted zoning to keep Jewish factory girls off of posh 5th Avenue; and in California, the "noxious" industry that zoning was meant to banish was usually a Chinese laundry.
