My reaction is because you stated it as if it were racist code being used and instead of using those statistics they should just exclude them and tout the low black and Mexican population because that's what people really mean. One of your latest responses makes the same claim. So my issue is not with any facts that may prove that safe places with good schools have low black and Mexican populations, but that you insinuate that anyone considering safety and good schools really is looking for a place with low black or Mexican residents.
My point about North Highlands is that is has the same black (11%) and almost the same Hispanic (18% vs 23%) population as Elk Grove (2010 census), yet Elk Grove is on the list and North Highlands is not on the list. Just pointing out that your claim that safety and good schools is used as code to eliminate places like this when making a "best places" list, rather than the safety and good school stats as they stand by themselves, is crap since all other metrics used to create the list are about the same (actually North Highlands probably has a better commute and cost of living score).
I don't think it's a racist code, just a code. It doesn't mean the writer was sending the message on purpose, and yet the reader still can't help but figure it out.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, and it's even annoying me by now. So I'll just spell it out one more time. If an area has "good schools" and "safety" among its attractive "best place to live" features, then you can be sure it doesn't have a high black and/or Latino population, and people will figure that out from such reports. It's not correct to interpret that as meaning "anyone considering safety and good schools really is looking for a place with low black or Mexican residents", although some people might do that. But if you were to say "anyone considering safety and good schools really might as well only look at places with low black or Mexican residents", then you'd have the gist of what I was saying. Meanwhile, anyone who "really is looking for a place with low black or Mexican residents" might not necessarily find a place with good schools and safety. Right? So all these statements sound similar, but actually mean different things.
That's weird about North Highlands. In the 2000 census data, it says 40% black and 30% Hispanic (70% total). In 2010 it says 11% black and 23% Hispanic (34% total). It says the white population increased from 16% in 2000 to 63% in 2010. That definitely surprises me (I don't recall hearing about whites moving into North Highlands in droves), and it goes to show you that simply having a majority-white population does not necessarily translate into "good schools" and "safety". Meanwhile, Elk Grove is actually probably a poster child for what happens to good schools and safety when the racial demographics change a lot in the other direction.
I get it - you and others want to be vigilant against racism wherever it raises its ugly head, so you are touchy about any statements about race. In contrast, I am tired of all the pussyfooting around by those who publish "best places to live" lists, which I why I just came out and mentioned the obvious, with a note of sarcasm that no one noticed.
It's certainly true that there are more factors besides safety and good schools when deciding where to live, and it depends on one's own situation and motives. City life, transportation time, housing costs, feeling comfortable in the local community, and other things figure into the equation. People without kids don't necessarily care about good schools.