The graphic above, which I found rather distressing, is from an article by Dan Kopf at Atlantic:
Perhaps no aspect of the annual migration in and out of San Francisco is as notable as the outflow of African Americans. San Francisco was 13.4 percent African American in 1970, but its population as of 2016 is less than 6 percent black. The population has steadily declined, and the trend seems likely to continue. From 2010 to 2014, there was annual net out-migration of around 2,000 African Americans from the city. That represents a 4.6 percent decline of the population every year.
The reason, of course, is skyrocketing housing costs. When you constrain the supply, you shouldn’t be surprised if costs rise. Making it impossible for black folk to remain in San Francisco is one way of coping with your problems, I suppose. I don’t think it will be as effective in Chicago as it has apparently been in San Francisco.
Blacks leaving a major city: is this a feature or a bug? Discuss.
It used to be called “de facto segregation”. Are we for that or against it now?
I don’t know what to make of these changes, there is a link to an article that suggests that beyond “urban renewal as Negro removal,” blacks that remained tended to live in high crime areas with the foreign born (Asian and Russian for whom new projects were built), so they left for Oakland and other places for safety and better opportunities. “When you concentrate people in poverty together without hope, there is a lot of tension.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/san-franciscos-black-population-dwindling/
I see problems with that explanation, PD. From 2000 to 2010 Oakland’s population and its percentage black population both went down. I don’t think those are irreconcilable. The whole metro area’s black population declined.