tion is illegal. Title VIII (Fair Housing) of the 1968 Civil Rights Act specifically forbade racial discrimination in the housing market (Reifel, 1994, p. 67). Neighborhoods have remained non-integrated to a large extent. The reason for this continued discrimination almost twenty years later has been examined. Psychological studies have shown that White and Black Americans prefer different levels of integration in their neighborhoods' (Reifel, 1994, p. 71). White Americans prefer segregation or low levels of integration. African-Americans favor neighborhoods with substantial levels of integration where both races are represented by equal numbers of individuals (Reifel, 1994, p. 69).
This difference in preference shows up in the price of two similar houses; one in an area with a low level of integration and the second house in a predominantly Black housing tract. The house in the non-integrated area will have a higher price than the equivalent house in an integrated neighborhood. White Americans are willing to pay a premium to buy a house in an are with few African-Americans living nearby. Since this price differential is not illegal, it requires different policy implications than violations of the Fair Housing Act. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, equal housing in the predominantly white areas was found to be priced between 11 percent and 16 percent higher than in the predominantly Black areas.
The price differentials help perpetuate housing segregation legally. Discrimination in the housing market, both legal and illegal forms, may restrict minorities' housing search, contribute to inequalities in economic prosperity by spacing housing and job opportunities inconveniently, and limit minorities ability to amass wealth in the form of residential property. It inevitably contributes to restricting economically disadvantaged African-Americans to poorer quality neighborhoods and schools (Reifel, 1994, p. 85).
The prej...