Sad, yet effective(?) advertising
In the Salt Lake Tribune, contractor Bigg Homes removes racial data from their website. One of the advertised selling points for building in Eagle Mountain was "black race population percentage significantly below state average" (emphasis theirs). The co-owner David Adams was aware of this website for two months before it was removed (after the newspaper notified him).

The Salt Lake Tribune rightfully focuses on the legal issues of such advertisements in respect to the Fair Housing Act. I also agree with real estate agent De Lay that advertising using such statistics is "beyond unethical". But I wonder if it's effective advertising. Is there a market out there for white communities? Do I even need to ask? If you as a company (i) know your target consumer and, even better, (ii) know your target audience's fears, and, better still, (iii) can find a legal loophole to exploit these fears, then isn't it good business to exploit their fears? And I can't see any other way to explain why the racial makeup of the community is a selling point outside fear of "the others".

Now my question to you is whether advertising that your community is devoid of black people is different from advertising that your community is full of black people. I certainly will consider my neighbors before buying property. I'd much prefer to live in a queer neighborhood rather than the mormon suburbs. Which is the better advertising: queer population percentage significantly above state average or straight population percentage significantly below state average? Does your answer depend on who's in the majority statewide? What about non-Mormon population percentage significantly below state average?

P.S. On a more serious note, where do the Utah gays live? Is there a gay ghetto?