Talk:DeMun, St. Louis

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Restrictive Covenants[edit]

The article says,

Although both the DeMun Park and Hi-Pointe subdivisions were designed as public neighborhoods, there were restrictive covenants attached to their deeds. Wright was an original trustee for the Hi-Pointe subdivision, which had restrictive covenants until December 1999. The restrictions were designed to insure architectural consistency, maintain the residential nature of the area, provide a funding mechanism for maintenance of the parks, trees, and streets, and limit use of the property to those originally designated.

Restrictive covenants of this type were often used to exclude black people from residential neighborhoods, and in a city like St. Louis, which once had a Segregation regime, one naturally suspects that that was the case with the DeMun covenants. If it was, then that fact should be frankly acknowledged. If it was not, then that surprising fact should be mentioned as well.

Note, by the way, that the reference for the quoted paragraph (and for several more points in the article) is now a dead link, and needs to be updated. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]