but do you think restrictive zoning and onerous permitting requirements would have prevented that? It's not like laws against murder prevented lynchings, I think in most cases these rules would have just been ignored by municipalities because they largely exist to protect monied interests not vulnerable populations.

Not to be argumentative, but it's worth noting that Lynchings were considered legal because there was usually a criminal accusation and local officials involved.[1] A bill has been introduced in every Congress since 1918 to make Lynching illegal. It actually became illegal with the Emmett Till Antilynching Act (H.R. 55), enacted on March 29, 2022[2].

Now it's true that it could have been prosecuted anyway as murder or a civil rights violation, but it wasn't because of that convenient interpretation.

1. https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/history-l...

2. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/55

In Berkeley, CA, restrictive zoning in the early 1900s was used to reinforce and codify those outcomes that separated the rich and the poor. Those laws stayed in place for over 100 years, far longer than the term of a single elected official. So you have to be careful what kind of laws you pass.

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/07/23/berkeley-zoning-has-...

> I think in most cases these rules would have just been ignored by municipalities because they largely exist to protect monied interests not vulnerable populations.

When there are rules on the books, and they are bulldozed over, you can generally sue.