“And his influence upon New York went far beyond the physical. In twentieth-century America, no city’s resources, not even when combined with resources made available by the state and federal governments, came close to meeting its needs. So cities had to pick and choose among those needs, to decide which handful of a thousand desperately necessary projects would actually be built. The establishment of priorities had vast impact on not only the physical but the social fabric of the cities, on the quality of life their inhabitants led. In New York City, for thirty-four years, Robert Moses played a vital role in establishing the city priorities. For the crucial seven years, he established all its priorities.”
- The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York by Robert A. Caro
Why it matters:
Deeply entrenched in modern urban policy is the legacy of unequal distribution politics written into law decades ago. Generations of homeowners continue to shoulder the cost of exploding rent prices against stagnant wage growth, decreasing availability of affordable housing units, and increasing selective gentrification across neighborhoods. This trend affects everyone in large urban hubs but has fallen especially hard on lower-income and/or non-white residents.
An example in history:
An example of unequal distribution policies in urban America is the system and widespread use of redlining. According to the Federal Reserve, redlining is “the practice of denying a creditworthy applicant a loan for housing in a certain neighborhood even though the applicant may otherwise be eligible for the loan. The term refers to the presumed practice of mortgage lenders of drawing red lines around portions of a map to indicate areas or neighborhoods in which they do not want to make loans”.
The widespread practice of redlining across the US has led to racially exclusive patterns, such as ‘racial steering’ –the act of deliberately guiding loan applicants and/or potential homeowners away from certain neighborhoods because of race; ‘use of excessively burdensome qualification standards’ — the use of unreasonable standards and application hurdles to deny housing and loans to applicants because of race.
In the 1930s, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, a federal agency, launched the initiative to redline more than 200 American cities and gave minority neighborhoods low “D” ratings, causing an immeasurable impact on generations of Americans today. The effects of redlining have since manifested themselves in reduced credit access, depressed ownership, and YoY decline in property values, according to a recent study by the Fed.
The Fair Housing Act —Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 — made it unlawful for mortgage lenders to redline on a racial basis. But it will take more than just time to dissolve the residual impact of drawing lines across cities to segregate communities and establish barriers of entry based on race. Regulatory institutions lay the foundation for long-lasting socio-cultural norms, creating rigid cultural barriers between minority and nonminority communities.
Over time, as a result of redlining, minority neighborhoods saw the general devaluation of their property values, and homeowners continued to face lending bias when applying for loans to buy, invest, or renovate in their homes.
Looking at this from a more personal perspective: if land passed down in a family continued to devalue against the rate at which land in other communities continued to increase in value over time, then that family will not be able to reap the benefits of land ownership — stability and prosperity over generations, nor will they make a return on their initial investment. At scale, these socioeconomic conditions can distress entire communities.
By bestowing zoning powers and land-use decision making to local policymakers, as illustrated in the Power Broker, allocating resources to improve low-cost neighborhoods are soon deprioritized over the interests of other, more affluent stakeholders. Over time, the gap between communities widens.
Statistics show…
San Francisco’s average home price has seen an increase of approximately 69% over the past five years, according to Point72 Homes. In the public spotlight, tech companies are often blamed for driving up housing costs because of their growing numbers of employees occupying available housing units.
However, analysis shows that San Francisco’s zoning laws play a very significant role in driving up rent prices because they restrict the supply of housing units. Data from UrbanFootprint, reported by the New York Times, shows that San Francisco still allocates 53% of land to low-rise, single-family homes in communities protected by zoning laws. Large swathes of the city are broadly banned from the construction of townhomes, duplexes, and apartment buildings, limiting space for urban development and driving up the fair market value of housing across the city. If high-demand, affluent neighborhoods refuse to build up, developers and people looking for affordable housing will be siphoned to low-cost neighborhoods, resulting in unmet demand and selective gentrification.
Cities that have upward of 35% of its land zoned for detached single-family homes include:
- Washington, 36%
- Minneapolis, 70%
- Los Angeles, 75%
- Portland, Ore, 77%
- Seattle, 81%
- Charlotte, N.C., 84%
- Sandy Springs, GA, 85%
- Arlington, TX, 89%
- San Jose, 94%
More importantly, cities continue to elect officials who ultimately do not enact change to address these issues.
My call to action
Thoughtful, collective, organized civic engagement at all levels is the first step towards enacting change for good. Pressure your local city council to build, adding to the supply of available housing units can let out some of the pressure storing up in major cities.
The housing crisis should be analyzed as both a regional and local problem. Zoning at a local level has led to gentrification and exclusion at a neighborhood level as more affluent communities leverage resources, power, and land-use policies to prosper at the expense of other neighborhoods.
Zoning power and land decisions should be handled on a city-level so city councils can coordinate with other cities to set regional goals for development, such as new market-rates for affordable housing and more equitable distribution of resources across district lines.
Finally, recognition of our history of inequitable urban policies and its continued legacy in our cities is just as important. Reading, writing, and sharing knowledge about social issues in your community can help residents make more informed voting decisions. Word-of-mouth can be an incredibly effective tool, especially within smaller communities. Through collective recognition, we can take the next step towards reconciliation to tip the social scale closer to achieving balance.
