iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Preeti Vissa

GET UPDATES FROM Preeti Vissa

How the U.S. Government Promoted Segregation

Posted: 10/11/11 05:18 PM ET

As I wrote last time, a favorite right-wing talking point in recent years has been the claim that federal efforts to promote lending and investment in underserved communities, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, caused the subprime mortgage collapse and our ongoing recession. Not only is that nonsense, there's a crucial bit of history that the Rush Limbaughs and Neil Cavutos of this world leave out:

For decades the federal government actively promoted redlining and racial segregation in housing. The CRA is, among many things, an attempt to balance the ugly results of policies that boosted white suburbs at the expense of urban neighborhoods populated by people of color.

This history is briefly recounted in Regaining the Dream, an important new book about how to successfully and responsibly promote homeownership for low and moderate income Americans, and how such programs differ profoundly from the reckless subprime lending that marked the housing bubble.

Back in the early 1900s, authors Roberto G. Quercia, Allison Freeman and Janneke Ratcliffe explain, "most urban African Americans lived in neighborhoods that were predominantly white." But those setting federal housing policy believed that racially mixed neighborhoods had unstable property values. So when the Federal Housing Administration began promoting homeownership in the 1930s by backing home mortgages, it actually required racially restrictive covenants on the properties it insured.

The U.S. Supreme Court largely put an end to these restrictive covenants in 1948, but only slightly more subtle forms of racial discrimination in housing continued to be widespread for at least another generation.

It's hard to believe now, but the FHA's 1938 Underwriting Manual stated that "if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes. A change in social or racial occupancy generally contributes to instability and a decline in values."

Quercia, Freeman and Ratcliffe, all researchers at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, lay out the results such policies produced in stark terms:

The creation of these policies and practices helped support the creation of economically healthy white suburbs and economically struggling, primarily minority, central cities. If dense, aging, and mixed developments were considered less valuable, central city areas by definition would be undervalued. If it was important to keep racial and social stability in neighborhoods, then as white middle-class people were the first occupants of new suburban developments, black Americans would find themselves excluded from these areas. ... Between 1939 and 1954, FHA supported 60 percent of home purchases. Between the mid-1940s and mid-1950s, only 2 percent of these mortgages went to black Americans.

The effects of these policies linger today. For most Americans other than the very wealthy, their home is their single largest asset, the main repository of family wealth. The fact that whole groups of Americans were systematically kept from buying a home in neighborhoods where values were most likely to appreciate is a significant factor in today's racial wealth gap. According to the Pew Center, for every dollar a white family owns, the median Latino family has six cents and the median black family has a nickel.

That staggering gap didn't happen by chance. It was largely a result of deliberate policy choices.

As with many aspects of America's troubled history around race, it's tempting to try to forget all this -- to pretend that it's just history and no longer relevant. But sadly, the effects of our history of racial segregation live on, and efforts to fix the ongoing damage must continue.

As they look at the future of housing policy, the Obama administration and Congress must avoid policies that limit homeownership to the wealthy and thus continue to expand the gap between rich and poor. As Regaining the Dream shows, policies that promote sustainable homeownership for Americans of modest means are not only possible, they are good for our whole nation.

 

Follow Preeti Vissa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Greenlining

As I wrote last time, a favorite right-wing talking point in recent years has been the claim that federal efforts to promote lending and investment in underserved communities, such as the Community Re...
As I wrote last time, a favorite right-wing talking point in recent years has been the claim that federal efforts to promote lending and investment in underserved communities, such as the Community Re...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dirtydog1776
rub my soft, furry, objectivist tummy
09:09 PM on 10/12/2011
I see very clearly now. The first attempt to promote home ownership among blacks and other minorities was done irresponsibly the first time and lots of other factors were not taken into consideration. But the second attempt, "to successfully and responsibly promote homeownership for low and moderate income Americans" will be much more successful because we learned from our mistakes. Sorry, but government intervention just doesn't work. It cost us billions the first time and now you are advocating more of the same solutions that don't work.

Other reasons why blacks and Hispanic minorities have fell behind are conveniently forgotten. Government handouts and welfare that have destroyed minority families, low educational expectations, a low marriage rate for blacks and 75% of black babies born out of wedlock are some of the problems.

Maybe you can join the bandwagon of politicians, like Maxine Waters, that want to force banks to loan money to people who are not credit worthy? Politicians love to line up behind home ownership programs because it brings in the votes.

There are solutions to the problems you have discussed, you just have chosen not to consider them.
photo
Hyphenated Americans
Hispanic. Conservative. Christian. Hispanic.
06:08 PM on 10/11/2011
How about just doing the math. If you can't afford the home, you should not be able to buy it and the American people should not be forced to carry the burden of so-called efforts to leveling the playing field. These policies and legislation are created for one purpose, to take from those who have and give to those who do not, under the liberal disguise of affirmative and justice based. You can spin it any way you want it, 2+2 will never equal 5.
01:38 AM on 10/12/2011
"I have got mine, screw you", classic.
05:23 AM on 10/12/2011
The ONLY person I ever heard say what you just said was a union member in response to a question about sustainability of jobs for the next generation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
timm553
In vino veritas
08:21 AM on 10/12/2011
Apparently, you didn't read/understand the article. They had a system of discrimination in place to deny minorities the opportunity to get ahead. That disadvantage is compounded through the generations and NEEDS to be addressed. Maybe you'd understand if it had happened to you.