While they mention the Atlantic article, this is primarily focused on suburbs of Oakland, CA (unless I really misunderstood something).http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/09housing.html?em
There is some serious weirdness in this article. After a paragraph describing "Several white women, all professionals who attend the same church and have lived in Antioch for 12 years or more" chatting at a Starbucks, the next paragraphs quote a couple of women. I _assume_ these women are from the Starbucks group, but who knows? Look at the ages: 35 and 36. Does that mean they moved in and bought their houses when they were under 25? Really?
As is all too often the case with NYT articles, long on "human interest", short on useful data.
A smart-ass (moi?) might point out this is yet another reason to pause and think twice before staying in one's suburban home in the face of high fuel costs (can't say high and rising when did you _see_ what WTI closed at? 112 something? WOW! I think that's getting close to the probable floor, which I think is around 110, but R. is convinced is more like 80. 80 would return us to our regularly scheduled end-of-the-world, as opposed to this new and unexpected end of the world we've been experiencing). But then, that might be judged racist, by the standards of this article, anyway.