The Shadow of Systemic Racism in American Suburbs
To understand the claim that suburbs are inherently racist, it’s important to look at the historical context, specifically in the United States. This view isn’t suggesting that the concept of suburbs or suburban living is racist in and of itself, but rather that the systems and policies that guided the creation and growth of American suburbs have been marked by significant racial bias.
Redlining
This was a practice that began in the 1930s, where the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) rated neighborhoods based on their perceived stability. Neighborhoods with African American residents or even those close to such neighborhoods were often marked as “hazardous” (usually colored in red on maps, hence “redlining”). This made it nearly impossible for residents of these neighborhoods to receive housing loans or mortgage insurance. As a result, people in these neighborhoods couldn’t afford to move to more affluent areas, which were often suburbs. This institutional policy effectively segregated American cities.
The Process and Impact of Redlining
When assessing the risk associated with a given neighborhood, the FHA considered several factors, including the age and condition of buildings and the incomes of residents. However, they also explicitly took racial composition into account. Neighborhoods that were predominantly Black, or even those that were racially mixed, were often deemed “hazardous” and outlined in red.
Banks and other lending institutions used these maps when deciding where to provide mortgages and at what rates. As a result, it was virtually impossible for residents in redlined neighborhoods to secure loans to buy or repair homes. This contributed to disinvestment and decay in these neighborhoods.
At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing the development of suburbs and making it easy for white families to secure loans for suburban homes. But these loans were often contingent on racially restrictive covenants that prevented the buyers from reselling to Black families. This ensured that suburbs remained predominantly white.
The Legacy of Redlining
Even though redlining was officially made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the impact of the policy continues to be felt today. The decades of disinvestment in redlined neighborhoods contributed to a cycle of poverty that has been hard to break. These neighborhoods continue to struggle with lower home values, poorer public services, and higher rates of crime.
Additionally, because home ownership is a major way that families in the U.S. accumulate wealth, the inability of Black families to secure loans and buy homes in the mid-20th century has significantly contributed to the racial wealth gap.
Efforts to address the legacy of redlining include reinvestment in these neighborhoods, fair lending practices enforced by the government, and initiatives to increase rates of home ownership among Black families. However, progress has been slow and the effects of redlining remain deeply ingrained.
White Flight
In the mid-20th century, a large number of white families moved from urban centers to suburbs, a phenomenon known as “white flight”. This was driven partly by increasing racial tensions and desegregation in urban areas. Many white families had the resources to move to the suburbs, but families of color, particularly black families, who were systematically denied these resources, were left behind.
Several key factors contribute to the occurrence of white flight:
Desegregation
The end of legally enforced racial segregation in the 1950s and ’60s in the United States led to significant changes in urban environments. Many white families began moving from city centers to suburbs in an effort to avoid integrated neighborhoods.
Perceived Safety and Quality of Life
Many white families perceived the suburbs as safer, quieter, and having better amenities (like schools and parks) than inner city areas. This perception was often closely tied to racial bias and stereotypes, particularly against Black Americans.
Housing Market Factors
With the growth of the suburbs, new housing opportunities emerged that were attractive to white families. In addition, discriminatory housing practices, like redlining and racial covenants, made it difficult for Black families and other people of color to move to these areas.
Economic Factors
Many of these suburban moves were facilitated by post-World War II economic prosperity, which disproportionately benefited white families due to systemic racism and discrimination.
The effects of white flight were and continue to be substantial. Urban neighborhoods that experienced white flight often saw a significant drop in investment and a decline in public services, which reinforced a cycle of poverty. Furthermore, this led to increased racial segregation in cities and suburbs, contributing to the racial wealth gap and educational disparities that persist today.
Since the late 20th century and into the 21st century, we have seen some changes in these trends. “Reverse white flight” or “gentrification” has occurred, wherein affluent individuals move into city centers, often displacing long-time, lower-income residents, who are disproportionately people of color. Also, many suburbs are increasingly diverse, reflecting changing demographics and attitudes. Nonetheless, the historical impact of white flight continues to shape racial dynamics and inequality in U.S. cities and neighborhoods.
Racial Covenants and Zoning Laws
Many suburbs had explicit racial covenants, which prohibited the sale of property to people of color. While these were ruled unenforceable by the Supreme Court in 1948, they were often followed in practice. Zoning laws were also used to this effect, by establishing large-lot “single family” zones that were economically out of reach for disadvantaged populations, which were disproportionately made up of people of color.
Racial Covenants
Racial covenants are legally binding agreements inserted into property deeds with the purpose of preventing the purchase, lease, or occupation of a property by a particular group of people, usually racially defined. In the U.S., these were frequently used to prevent Black people, and often other racial and ethnic minorities, from living in predominantly white neighborhoods. They emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a response to the increasing migration of Black people into urban areas.
Racial covenants were not a mere gentleman’s agreement but were enforced by courts. The Supreme Court, in the early 20th century, ruled that such covenants did not violate the 14th Amendment as they represented private action, not state action. It wasn’t until the 1948 case of Shelley v. Kraemer that the Supreme Court ruled that while such covenants were technically legal, they could not be enforced by state courts. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 then made these covenants unambiguously illegal.
Despite these legal victories, the impact of racial covenants remains. The neighborhoods that were once subject to these covenants are often still predominantly white and they helped set the pattern of residential segregation that still exists in many American cities.
Zoning Laws
Zoning laws are used by municipalities to control the development of land and the kinds of uses that each parcel of land may be put to. They are not inherently racist, but they have often been used in ways that produce racially segregated outcomes.
One example of this is the use of zoning laws to establish low-density “single-family” zones. Because these zones require a large amount of land for each home, they tend to make the homes more expensive and beyond the reach of lower-income families, who are disproportionately people of color due to systemic economic disparities. Some zoning laws have also been used to intentionally keep out affordable housing, which tends to house more people of color.
Zoning laws have also been used to segregate land uses, which can lead to environmental racism. For example, industrial zones, which often include polluting businesses, have historically been placed in or near neighborhoods populated by people of color.
Addressing the legacy of racial covenants and discriminatory zoning laws is a complex task. It involves not just changing the laws but dealing with their lasting impact on urban form and residential patterns. This can involve measures like affordable housing policies, inclusionary zoning, environmental justice initiatives, and efforts to desegregate schools.
Disinvestment
In areas affected by redlining and white flight, there was a significant disinvestment by city services and businesses. As resources were funneled into the developing suburbs, these urban neighborhoods suffered. This lack of investment in schools, infrastructure, and community services further entrenched racial inequality.
Process of Disinvestment
Disinvestment often begins when a neighborhood is deemed “risky” or “unattractive” for investment. This perception can be fueled by a range of factors, including racial bias and stereotypes, high crime rates, or declining property values. Once a neighborhood is labeled in this way, both public and private sector entities may begin to withdraw investment.
Banks and other financial institutions may refuse to offer mortgages or provide loans for businesses in these areas, a practice known as redlining. Insurance companies might charge higher premiums or refuse coverage altogether. Businesses may decide to locate elsewhere, leading to job losses and a lack of essential services in the neighborhood. Public entities may reduce funding for schools, infrastructure, and other public services, often due to a shrinking tax base but sometimes also as part of a deliberate strategy of neglect.
Consequences of Disinvestment
The consequences of disinvestment are severe and can create a vicious cycle of decline. As investment leaves a neighborhood, poverty and unemployment rates often rise, crime can increase, and physical infrastructure (like buildings, roads, and parks) can deteriorate. This can lead to further disinvestment, as the neighborhood becomes even less attractive to potential investors.
Disinvestment also has significant social costs. It can lead to worse health outcomes, lower educational achievement, and higher crime rates. Moreover, it can contribute to the social and economic isolation of the residents of disinvested neighborhoods, who are disproportionately people of color due to historical and systemic racism.
Addressing Disinvestment
Addressing disinvestment involves both short-term and long-term strategies. Short-term strategies can include initiatives to attract businesses and investment back to the neighborhood, such as tax incentives or grants for businesses that locate in disinvested areas. Public entities can invest in infrastructure and services, such as improving schools or public transportation.
Long-term strategies must also address the underlying issues that led to disinvestment, such as racial and economic segregation and inequality. This might involve broader economic policies to reduce inequality and efforts to reform discriminatory practices in lending and insurance.
Community-led development and investment initiatives are also a critical part of the solution. These can ensure that any investment benefits the existing residents and meets their needs, rather than simply leading to gentrification and displacement.
Final
It’s crucial to note that although these practices are now illegal, their effects persist. Neighborhoods that were redlined in the past continue to be significantly poorer and more racially segregated than others. Suburbs, meanwhile, continue to be disproportionately white and affluent compared to urban areas.
However, there are increasing efforts to address these racial disparities through policy changes, advocacy, and urban planning. By understanding and acknowledging this history, we can work to create more equitable housing policies and communities.
