"I am a white woman living in an overwhelmingly white, low-crime neighborhood. My homeowners’ association pays off-duty members of the local Police Department to patrol the neighborhood..."

"... even though there is broad agreement among Black community leaders that the department has a race problem. I have become increasingly uncomfortable paying for this patrol. I want everyone in my neighborhood, regardless of what they look like or whether they live here or are just passing through, to be safe. If I don’t want to give money (beyond my tax dollars) to this Police Department, can I decline to pay that portion of my homeowners’ dues?"

So writes a lady in Missouri to the NYT "Ethicist" columnist, Kwame Anthony Appiah.

I think we all know the answer to the question, and Appiah has many sentences, but 3 of them give the answer that must be given: 

You chose to buy a house in a neighborhood with a homeowners’ association, which is, in effect, a hyperlocal government. You have a voice in it — a voice that can be amplified by suasion — but so do your neighbors. You can’t simply withdraw from it or renegotiate its terms by yourself.

Another answer, prominent in the comments over there, is: MOVE! 

But what's the point in that? The woman doesn't like what's being done, but it's not being done to her. If she leaves, she'll have no voice at all, and it's even less likely that the change in behavior she wants will occur. 

And yet she does continue to enjoy the extra crime control her neighborhood has bought for itself. Does she need to move to give up that benefit — move somewhere more out of control, put her personal safety on the line? Or is it enough that she has put her distaste for her own privilege into words and gotten those words published in The New York Times?