How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering

[PaulinVA]

How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering - The New York Times

I found this very interesting.

RICHMOND, Va. — On a hot summer’s day, the neighborhood of Gilpin quickly becomes one of the most sweltering parts of Richmond.

There are few trees along the sidewalks to shield people from the sun’s relentless glare. More than 2,000 residents, mostly Black, live in low-income public housing that lacks central air conditioning. Many front yards are paved with concrete, which absorbs and traps heat. The ZIP code has among the highest rates of heat-related ambulance calls in the city.

There are places like Gilpin all across the United States. In cities like Baltimore, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Portland and New York, neighborhoods that are poorer and have more residents of color can be 5 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit hotter in summer than wealthier, whiter parts of the same city.

And there’s growing evidence that this is no coincidence. In the 20th century, local and federal officials, usually white, enacted policies that reinforced racial segregation in cities and diverted investment away from minority neighborhoods in ways that created large disparities in the urban heat environment.

 

[PaulinVA]

In the 1930s, the federal government created maps of hundreds of cities, rating the riskiness of different neighborhoods for real estate investment by grading them “best,” “still desirable,” “declining” or “hazardous.” Race played a defining role: Black and immigrant neighborhoods were typically rated “hazardous” and outlined in red, denoting a perilous place to lend money. For decades, people in redlined areas were denied access to federally backed mortgages and other credit, fueling a cycle of disinvestment.

…

The appraisers in Richmond were transparent in their racism as they mapped the city in the 1930s as part of a Depression-era federal program to rescue the nation’s collapsing housing markets.

Every Black neighborhood, no matter its income level, was outlined in red and deemed a “hazardous” area for housing loans. The appraisers’ notes made clear that race was a key factor in giving these neighborhoods the lowest grade.

One part of town was outlined in yellow and rated as “declining” because, the appraisers wrote, Black families sometimes walked through.

By contrast, white neighborhoods, described as containing “respectable people,” were often outlined in blue and green and were subsequently favored for investment.

 

[Annie]

This to me is where we could give reparations. Those (or their families) who fought for our country but were denied the benefits of the GI Bill because of redlining and restrictions on where they could buy should be compensated. In today’s dollars.

 

[PaulinVA]

My dad, whose father was a coal miner, was born in a house with an outhouse.

He served in WWII and used the GI Bill (in between Reserve callups for the Berlin Airlift and Korea) to graduate from college. He worked for decades on unmanned space launches, launching communications satellites. We had a solid middle class life.

I am well aware that Black men were often prohibited from using those benefits.

I get nervous about talking about reparations. However, there is more and more understanding of the evidence of harm done through government policies through the years.

 

[Annie]

Yes, and I believe that these reparations make a lot more sense. The damage was very clear, recent, and can be documented.

If someone’s grandfather served, there will be records. If the grandfather was unable to benefit from the GI Bill because of government-imposed restrictions, we can see that.

A huge part of the reason white families have more wealth is that they were able to buy houses through the GI Bill. The fact that this was denied to some who also risked their lives in service to our country is extremely wrong, and only secondarily because of the subsequent lack of wealth.

Take the average price of housing of the area in which they lived in those times, put it into today’s dollars, and give it to the person or heirs.

 

[PaulinVA]

A huge part of the reason white families have more wealth is that they were able to buy houses through the GI Bill. The fact that this was denied to some who also risked their lives in service to our country is extremely wrong, and only secondarily because of the subsequent lack of wealth.

Yes, it’s wrong. College AND housing. A double whammy.

Take the average price of housing in those times, put it into today’s dollars, and give it to the person or heirs.

Lottery winners sometimes/usually don’t have a lot of success with their new-found wealth. I’m not saying reparations would be like winning the lottery, but it sorta is.

I don’t think money can make up for the wrongs.

The harm is that the GI Bill and favored housing policies for Whites created a mindset, an expectation. The White people who benefited didn’t know it at the time. I dare say most weren’t culpable. It’s the wealth created, but it’s also the path the families that benefitted where started down.

 

[Annie]

You are absolutely right. As a result of owning a home, families were able to do things that would have not happened otherwise.

Unfortunately, we can’t go back and change the past, and we can’t even this situation out completely. Bit we can do a little bit, and I believe we should.

 

[PaulinVA]

But we can do a little bit, and I believe we should.

I wouldn’t actively support it, but I wouldn’t work against it.

I think something like freely-given scholarships to college and trade schools and lower-priced loans would be more appropriate, since those were the things taken away.

 

[Annie]

I do not know if black Americans were barred from those types of programs. If they were, that would be something to take into consideration.

The reason I think it should be applied to lack of home ownership is that that issue is very clear and also because it was a result of government policies.

If someone owns a house, it gives them stability and allows them to fund activities such a business or education. In addition, a home is wealth.

 

[PaulinVA]

The reason I think it should be applied to lack of home ownership is that that issue is very clear and also because it was a result of government policies.

I think buying a house in the right part of town is directly related to that GI Bill college degree. The salary that a college graduate made in the fifties/sixties allowed them to buy that house that appreciated in value to create intergenerational wealth.

 

[Victoria33]

I suppose the answer will be to rely on politicians who have failed the inner city for 55 years.

 

[PaulinVA]

I suppose the answer will be to rely on politicians who have failed the inner city for 55 years.

Victoria, Redlining was a Federal program under administrations of both parties. Sometimes things posted here are not an opportunity to blinded blame Democrats for something.

Redlining - Wikipedia.

Although informal discrimination and segregation had existed in the United States, the specific practice called “redlining” began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).[12][ page needed ][13] Racial segregation and discrimination against minorities and minority communities predated this policy. The implementation of this federal policy aggravated the decay of minority inner-city neighborhoods caused by the withholding of mortgage capital, and made it even more difficult for neighborhoods to attract and retain families able to purchase homes.[14][ page needed ] The assumptions in redlining resulted in a large increase in residential racial segregation and urban decay in the United States.

In 1935, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) asked the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) to look at 239 cities and create “residential security maps” to indicate the level of security for real-estate investments in each surveyed city. On the maps, the newest areas—those considered desirable for lending purposes—were outlined in green and known as “Type A”. These were typically affluent suburbs on the outskirts of cities. “Type B” neighborhoods, outlined in blue, were considered “Still Desirable”, whereas older “Type C” were labeled “Declining” and outlined in yellow. “Type D” neighborhoods were outlined in red and were considered the most risky for mortgage support. These neighborhoods tended to be the older districts in the center of cities; often they were also [black neighborhoods] Urban planning historians theorize that the maps were used by private and public entities for years afterward to deny loans to people in black communities. But, recent research has indicated that the HOLC did not redline in its own lending activities and that the racist language reflected the bias of the private sector and experts hired to conduct the appraisals.