There is another possibility.
It could be that the black population found living in San Francisco to be so abominable and at odds to their values they just got sick of it all and left.
Economics is not the problem.
San Francisco is the problem
(plus.....the big’un is coming)
I think a few posters are of the same thought process, but it would seem that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Are you saying that the normative amount of Blacks per capita doesn’t exist because they are somehow more sensitive and averse to the same conditions that everyone else apparently seems to be oblivious to? I mean, after all, if democrat policy is keepin’ the man down and he can’t live there, then he moves to a less affluent and likely more dangerous/filthy area or some other affluent area. If that isn’t the issue, then there has to be some other underlying problem that would tend to affect the rest of the populace similarly (again all things being equal) - think standard normal distribution of population.
Maybe black people are disproportionately homophobic and they choose to stay away (ooh, we need more diversity training). /sarc
That would be an entirely different premise than the article suggests (the choice to stay away vs. being somehow kept out by policy).
Either this affects the black populace only in this specific area of the country (which Sowell appears to be saying), or it doesn’t. If Sowell is right, then there is some reason for it. I just have a hard time believing it is as simple as he suggests on the surface (I really think he is hinting at more than what he lets on in the limited space of the article). I don’t think a citation would’ve hindered the length of his article enough to be troublesome - rather it would’ve helped immensely.
I know; everyone’s a critic :)
YMMV