That's one of many reasons that a lot of the better reforms we're seeing are at the state level, where it's easier to do the right thing and where politicians are less beholden to a few local loudmouths.
Economic segregation is really a different issue, and it is not something you are going to fix with legislation. The people with money will always be able to live someplace acceptable to them. A government can force most entities to be non-racist through various laws and actions. But you really cannot force someone to live next to an area they do not desire.
You could get rid of that zoning that enables wealthy people to say 'no' to other types of housing. Sure, they can always buy up a big lot somewhere far away - fine, whatever. But where cities are growing, that kind of discrimination embedded in the local zoning code is not ok.
And you can legislate it away - Oregon was the first state to do so with HB2001, which re-legalizes up to 4-plexes in all our cities. In any neighborhood. A 4-plex in a posh neighborhood is still not going to be cheap, but it allows more integration than if it weren't legal to build at all.
This is different than thinking there is going to be a large number of upper income single family housing units that would find living next to a Section 8 kind of development desirable.
I know people who grew up in "affordable housing", and put in significant effort to get away from that kind of neighborhood, and would not want to live near one.
This is a real challenge, and it can't be legislated away, the fix (IMO) is far deeper than zoning changes.
How do you square that with the fact that racial minorities are significantly poorer on average?
> it involves excluding a person based on something out of their control
Are you implying that people choose to be poor?