Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I definitely agree that segregation makes things unequal but things were unequal well before the era we're talking about here. It's not like there was a level playing field then these FHA rules came in. Most black families arriving in northern or western cities through this period (the mid-30s to mid-60s) didn't have a lot of money and there really wasn't a whole lot of opportunity to accumulate wealth before de-industrialization set in.
While white families were moving out of the city, GIs were filling colleges, then later sending all of their kids on to college a lot of black families were making a decent living in careers that were about to disappear in 5 or 10 years.
IMO, it's really 1000 indignities and the FHA racket in and of itself was only a few of those. Black people were generally earning less, had higher unemployment rates, and had lower educational attainment. A lot of that is because of employment discrimination but part of it comes back to education . . . and that's still where we fail hard as a country.
The problem is, the black families "eligible" for mortgages aka the ones with well paying jobs and high education were also excluded, missing that wealth building opportunity as well.
For example, my granddad had a masters. He was born in 1917. He didn't have many housing choices, even though in his town, in his generation, most people didn't even have a high school education. If he was white, that would have been a sure ticket to the middle class and generational wealth. My granddad did OK, he had enough money to live on through retirement, and was able to help his children when needed. But let's just say he didn't have the same opportunity as his white peers. And there is a delta in the housing prices and infrastructure in his small town that persists today over the black and white parts of town.
If you'll notice in TNC's story, the family with the housing contract, and others like them, did have money to save for a down payment and had well paying jobs for the time. It didn't help. In fact, this is a huge reason for the lack of generational wealth. People who were well positioned to create generational wealth weren't given the opportunity to do so.
The problem is, the black families "eligible" for mortgages aka the ones with well paying jobs and high education were also excluded, missing that wealth building opportunity as well.
For example, my granddad had a masters. He was born in 1917. He didn't have many housing choices, even though in his town, in his generation, most people didn't even have a high school education. If he was white, that would have been a sure ticket to the middle class and generational wealth. My granddad did OK, he had enough money to live on through retirement, and was able to help his children when needed. But let's just say he didn't have the same opportunity as his white peers. And there is a delta in the housing prices and infrastructure in his small town that persists today over the black and white parts of town.
If you'll notice in TNC's story, the family with the housing contract, and others like them, did have money to save for a down payment and had well paying jobs for the time. It didn't help. In fact, this is a huge reason for the lack of generational wealth. People who were well positioned to create generational wealth weren't given the opportunity to do so.
This is why I find a community like the Lakeview community on Long Island remarkable, but may also say something about how housing patterns were engineered.
This is why I find a community like the Lakeview community on Long Island remarkable, but may also say something about how housing patterns were engineered.
I would say it reflects housing segregation a lot. Well-off but mostly black communities suggests either race-driven housing policies, racial steering by real estate agents, or just white flight. As in: middle-class blacks could find non-poor communities to move to, but they were mostly black communities.
Lakeview: 78% black, 2% non-hispanic white
Malverne [to the west]: census tracts are about 5% black
Mostly white Malverne is 20-25% wealthier, a small income gap compared to the racial disparity. Southeastern Queens has a similar pattern. The most black zip code in the state is nowhere near poor.
I believe drive carephilly's point was that such segregation was present long before the FHA was around.
Oh. I was responding to the most blacks didn't have a lot of money. True, but even the ones that didn't where often trapped in poorer, usually black neighborhood, or concentrated in rather segregated neighborhoods [see NY neighborhoods mentioned earlier].
To everyone-from what I have read about redlining, both from the links posted on this thread and other, and from my own independent reading, redlining started well before the FHA. It was a standard practice in mortgage writing. So it is unfair to blame the FHA for redlining, as if they invented it. While I am certainly opposed to redlining, to the point that it hardly even needs to be said, I am not opposed to any lender having some standards for the kind of building they're going to loan someone money for. And yeah, I get it that in SF some of the redlined areas are still standing, in many cities, particularly in the east and midwest, there was some pretty awful housing that should have been torn down.
To everyone-from what I have read about redlining, both from the links posted on this thread and other, and from my own independent reading, redlining started well before the FHA. It was a standard practice in mortgage writing. So it is unfair to blame the FHA for redlining, as if they invented it.
Perhaps, but maybe having the government incorporate makes it more systematic. Redlining by either agency would would still have a big impact, of course.
Quote:
And yeah, I get it that in SF some of the redlined areas are still standing, in many cities, particularly in the east and midwest, there was some pretty awful housing that should have been torn down.
Some? I'd have to go through carefully, but from what I can tell it's most, definitely a large majority. The redlined areas of Brooklyn are mostly still around:
except for some mostly housing project urban renewal. To check how much survives, citydata.com has maps of % pre-1920 housing stock. I was in a rental in a red lined part of Brooklyn a week ago, it and most housing in the area predate the map. The old housing stock in area "1" became full of hipsters recently, housing stock in "3" isn't too different from the yellow and blue to the right of "6". Except "3" had some black people in it and soon became mostly black. Some of the old redlined housing in "6" is worth $1+ million.
The neighborhood I linked to above was populated by people working at warehouses and shipping facilities at the nearby waterfront instead of white-collar workers.
And yeah, I get it that in SF some of the redlined areas are still standing, in many cities, particularly in the east and midwest, there was some pretty awful housing that should have been torn down.
On a minority related note, over the weekend I went to an event in West Oakland, and rode my bike. The route meant I basically had to go through all of the redlined areas, these areas are currently in various stages of redevelopment/gentrification. (it isn't all or nothing in this case, I travelled several neighborhoods as my destination was roughly 5 miles away)
The neighborhoods were largely in tact, with the exception of a few buildings here and there or maybe a block here and there. The main differences were levels of upkeep. I saw original Victorians, Craftsmans, and Bungalows all around. Pretty crazy. As you can imagine the areas, particularly with the Victorians, are prime gentrification targets.
And more useless trivia:
This was on of the Black Panther's offices over in West Oakland, a redlined area:
^^I'm not arguing about San Francisco. I've spent so little time there, I'd be foolish to do so. I can tell you that some of those redlined areas in Pittsburgh were pretty bad. Still, I'd redline the house, not the inhabitants.
^^I'm not arguing about San Francisco. I've spent so little time there, I'd be foolish to do so. I can tell you that some of those redlined areas in Pittsburgh were pretty bad. Still, I'd redline the house, not the inhabitants.
Looks Pittsburgh was among the most substandard housing of big Northeast/Midwest urban areas (St. Louis was slightly higher). New York City and Boston were among the lowest. Interestingly, so were Detroit and Cleveland.
Last edited by nei; 05-30-2014 at 03:06 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
