Restrictive covenants and zoning are 2 different things. I think you can argue there is some social nexus between the 2 legal tools, but they are entirely separate ideas, used quite differently. In Seattle, restrictive covenants excluded both blacks and Jews from property ownership. Covenants were ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court and began to break down in Seattle in the years following WWII, with regards to blacks. They remained enforced against Jews longer, well into the 1960s. I’ll never forget the day when my parents took us to play with some children in a new, very nice property development across the street from Sand Point. My parents informed me that we were visiting, because this was the first new property development open to Jews, and all the Jews were excited now because it meant they could purchase homes outside the areas they had been relegated to, primarily the Central Area and Capitol Hill. Seattle remained a segregated city, as applied to Jews. Private clubs (Seattle Tennis, Rainier, WAC, etc) were not opened to Jews until the early 1990s. The city did not hire Jews. Weyerhaeuser was well known to not hire Jews. Yes, zoning has had disparate racial impacts, an area I have studied in depth. But Seattle’s zoning laws are not the cause of the affordable housing issues, and they are not the solution. I suggest reading some articles by my friend Charles Mudede for a succinct discussion of the real causes of Seattle’s affordable housing issues. They could solved in an instant if anyone really wanted to. Many other cities. Have already done so, which is why capital is fleeing to Seattle, the last unregulated major city in the US, outside the South.