That no negro can move into a block in which more than half of the residents are white....
That a violator of the law is punishable by a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment of from 30 days to 1 years, or both....
That no section of the city is exempted from the conditions of the ordinance. It applies to every house.
— Excerpts from Baltimore’s first racial-zoning ordinance (as summarized in the Baltimore Sun, December 20, 1910)
Racial zoning
During the summer of 1910, W. Ashbie Hawkins, an African American lawyer, purchased a home at 1834 McCulloh Street, an affluent—and all-white—neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland. He rented the home to his law partner (and brother-in-law), George McMechen, an African American graduate of Yale Law School. McMechen’s family became the target of harassment, intimidation, violence, and eventually, legislation, as Baltimore’s concerned citizens lobbied their local elected officials to do something about the “Negro invasion.”
In 1910 Baltimore passed the country’s first racial-zoning ordinance, making it illegal for African Americans to live in predominantly white neighborhoods (and vice versa). Other cities throughout the country followed suit, adopting similar laws, and racial zoning was born. With the passage of these ordinances, it became illegal, and punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, for African American residents to acquire property or reside in what would become de-facto segregated neighborhoods throughout hundreds of cities.
In 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down racial zoning—but not for the reason you might think. The court held that a city could not restrain the right of white Americans to sell their properties to whomever they wished—that is, if a white property owner wanted to sell his or her property to an African American, the government could not prevent it.
Neighborhood associations
The Supreme Court’s decision had little effect on racial segregation. In many cities, the ruling was sidelined as crafty lawyers attempted to distinguish their cities’ racial-zoning laws from the facts of the court’s case and anxious segregationists looked for workarounds. White enclaves formed neighborhood associations in which homeowners took up bylaws prohibiting the sale or rental of homes to nonwhites.
The Supreme Court had held that the government could not pass laws preventing Americans from selling their homes to whomever they wished—but that did not mean that private citizens could not enter contracts that enforced housing segregation. Racially restrictive covenants in homeowners associations’ bylaws, recorded directly on the titles of individual properties, prevented African Americans from acquiring or renting property in resource-rich—and white—neighborhoods of many cities.
Municipal zoning
Segregationists adopted another strategy to frustrate the court’s ruling: the development of municipal zoning policies that did not dictate who land could be sold to, but rather controlled how land could be developed and used. Neighborhoods zoned for residential use were further divided into single- or multifamily designations. Single-family residential areas were designated with especially restrictive zoning rules, requiring lots and homes to be of a certain minimum size and mandating that no more than one family could occupy a single-family home.
These rules were intended to keep out African Americans who were typically poorer and less likely than their white counterparts to have the means to purchase a single-family home. (The same zoning laws kept out poorer white Americans.) Neighborhoods consisting of single-family residences were seldom adjacent to areas zoned for industrial use, which were likely to be noisy and polluted. Neighborhoods consisting of multifamily homes, however, where Black families were more likely to live, frequently abutted industrial zones. While racially neutral on its face, municipal zoning enshrined housing segregation in and through land use policy, making it an effective proxy for racial segregation.
Lasting impact of housing segregation
Though conceived more than a century ago, racially restrictive covenants and discriminatory municipal zoning have been extremely effective in preserving and perpetuating the racial segregation of America’s neighborhoods. Urban Institute’s analysis of 2010 census data showed that a typical white American lives in a neighborhood that is 75 percent white and only 8 percent African American.
Of the 113 largest cities examined in Other & Belonging Institute’s 2021 survey of segregation trends, only two municipalities qualified as “integrated” cities. The survey noted the devastating effects of decades of segregation on those who have been kept out of historically white communities:
- Poverty rates in segregated communities of color are three times higher than those in segregated white communities.
- Household incomes and home values in segregated communities of color are about half as high as those in segregated white communities.
- The rate of homeownership is 46 percent in segregated communities of color versus 77 percent in segregated white communities.
Reversing the effects of discrimination
Reversing the effects of more than a century of discriminatory housing policy will require new approaches to land use. Two approaches are gaining traction and deserve further exploration.
The first is rethinking single-family residential zoning designations. These classifications were originally designed to cement racial and socioeconomic segregation, and the inequality they enforce persists today. Limiting and eliminating single-family residential zoning will help diversify segregated neighborhoods.
Several jurisdictions are taking the lead on this front. In 2022, California enacted the Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, which overrides local zoning ordinances and allows homeowners to subdivide lots into two parcels and turn single-family homes into duplexes. Under these new rules, single-family homes can be converted into dwellings with up to four units. In a state where more than two-thirds of all residentially zoned land is designated for single-family use, these changes could reverse segregation, providing affordable housing in low-density residential areas while depressurizing California’s broader housing crisis.
Other jurisdictions have gone further: The National Low Income Housing Coalition reports that Oregon has nearly outlawed single-family zoning statewide, and Minneapolis, Grand Rapids, and Cambridge have taken similar steps.
Another approach to reversing neighborhood segregation centers on changing where low-income housing is developed. In most communities, low-income housing is developed in low-income neighborhoods. For some practical reasons, this makes sense: property is cheaper in low-income areas, and less expensive property can make already stretched development deals pencil. Further, any attempt at building low-income housing in more affluent neighborhoods has the potential to generate NIMBY (not in my backyard) backlash, which can delay, or stymie, planned projects.
But building low-income housing in low-income neighborhoods concentrates poverty and continues the cycle of racial and socioeconomic segregation set in motion by racialized zoning practices. The negative effects of concentrating poverty extend beyond the perpetuation of housing inequality. Low-income neighborhoods tend to have lower-performing public schools and to be located closer to polluted industrial areas and freeways. They are more likely to be food deserts, and often to lack access to safe community spaces like public parks and libraries.
Building low-income housing in underserved neighborhoods perpetuates racialized wealth gaps and furthers negative health, education, and career outcomes in segregated communities. And because most low-income and affordable housing developments receive some form of government subsidy—in the form of tax credits, subsidized loans, or loan guarantees—governments that build low-income housing in underserved neighborhoods are responsible for supporting and fostering racial and socioeconomic segregation by concentrating poverty.
Jurisdictions need to mobilize to develop low-income and affordable housing in affluent and opportunity-rich neighborhoods. This kind of development will not only help to reverse racial and socioeconomic segregation: Bringing lower income residents into communities with more resources has the potential to improve racialized outcomes related to education, safety, and healthcare.
The government’s role
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), through its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program, proposed a rule in January 2023 that would require certain partners seeking HUD funding to develop and present “Equity Plans.” These plans would analyze factors that contribute to disparities in housing opportunities and set concrete goals to address them.
In 2017, California developed statewide maps identifying “Qualified Opportunity Zones,” areas with characteristics associated with positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families. These maps have helped the state promote the development of affordable housing in neighborhoods with more resources, potentially altering the affordable-housing landscape.
Tax credits and other financial incentives have been effective drivers of affordable housing in California in the past. According to the USC Sol Price Center for Social Innovation, the number of funded affordable housing units in areas with more resources increased by over 60 percent from 2014 to 2021 following changes to the state’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Some may question whether the federal and state governments should assert themselves in local zoning and development: But let’s remember how we got here. Local government laws and policies created and perpetuated our racially segregated neighborhoods. Racial-zoning laws and the legal enforcement of racially restrictive neighborhood association rules, covenants, and municipal zoning practices caused and cemented our segregated cities. Therefore, it’s appropriate that government actors do their part in reversing segregation in American neighborhoods.
For more information on George Fatheree’s work, check out this profile.
