I really don't think this is about race. Although maybe the guy being gay might have something to do with it. I don't know what it is about gays, but they always seem to be shoving their agendas onto everyone else. They don't try to fit in and co-exist.
About municipal policies, that's a mixed bag. Land values have skyrocketed here. Mom's house is worth a million now, and homes are selling a couple hundred Gs over asking. A home nearby got remodeled and just sold for $3m, crazy. They sold for about $30g about 40 years ago. The city is trying to get low-income housing built, is discouraging car use in favor of bikes and public transit. These policies are doomed to failure, and the city should let the future take it's own course. You can only cram so many people into a city; cramming more in will only make it intolerable. People will leave of their own accord for lower-cost areas. Those who can afford it will come in. Gentrification is a natural process. But people should not be forced to conform their own property to the likes of newcomers, and I believe in personal property rights.
Maybe you misunderstand my poorly-stated comment: The ‘race’ is from the other side...the side that always claims ‘gentrification’; the article cites a 35-year white resident being called a ‘gentrifier’. I personally find it amusing that the gay couple would be so ignorant as to believe they would ‘melt in’ moving into the ‘big white mansion on the hill’ in minority-heavy Oakland just because they’re gay. Or, as the one black neighbor calls Oakland, “ancestral lands”.
I’ve documented City of Portland, OR policies on driving up land values; I don’t know what they call it when it happens to working-class non-black neighborhoods, but it’s all over the city in the urban growth boundary. They are also doing the ‘high-density/no car/mass transit’ housing thing. Some parallels, it seems...more than I thought. Good ‘ol boys network hard at work...