History of segregated housing in the U.S.

       Segregated black enclaves existed before the Second World War, but the size and concentration of poverty held within them had never come close to the levels reached in the following decades after the war ended (Massey & Denton, 1993). This paper will argue that both the federal and local level of the United States government was responsible for the massive increase in racial segregation and ghetto development that was brought about after WWII in the American metropolis. The government’s actions were largely carried through by inciting feelings of territoriality and increased social distance felt by the majority of white citizens towards blacks.

       Social interaction consists generally of the interactions that take place between people, whether they include members of a family (primary relationships) or individuals that have joined together to promote a shared endeavor (Knox, 1994). The concept is further broken down more specifically into “expressive” categories (recreational or volunteer activities) and “instrumental” categories (business or political activities), which can also be represented together (cultural or religious activities) (Knox, 1994). This concept of social interaction goes on to form the concept of social distance (Knox, 1994). Social interactions feed into and help form the opinions and subsequent inclinations of individuals or groups as to how close they will allow members of other groups to enter their lives (i.e. neighbours or marriage partners) (Knox, 1994). Lastly the concept of territoriality is the function of one’s neighbourhood or area to act as the symbolic structure with which the majority of members can band together in their efforts to control the social interactions that take place within it (Knox, 1994). This collective force can then be used to foment action within the group (Knox, 1994).

       Beginning in the late 1930’s and throughout the 1940’s, various levels of government interceded in the promotion and influence over residential segregation. The Great Depression of 1929 had left many in the United States in precarious housing situations and without work (Massey & Denton, 1993). The Federal government’s solution to these social ills came in the form of legislation that saw the creation of the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) (Massey & Denton, 1993). The HOLC was created in 1933 to spur on home ownership, the construction and rehabilitation of the nations housing supply, and to provide jobs through stimulating demand in the construction industry (Massey & Denton, 1993). Funds were made available to offer low-interest loans and refinancing options to those whom had either lost their homes through foreclosure, or those who were at risk (Massey & Denton, 1993). The HOLC had initiated a rating system to determine which areas were risky investments and not deemed eligible for the loans (Massey & Denton, 1993). These “redlined” areas, as they were referred to, represented mixed race neighbourhoods, but most of the areas were those that specifically contained blacks (Massey & Denton, 1993). The HOLC specifically mentions the association with blacks and their effect on lowering real estate values (Massey & Denton, 1993). The HOLC set in place the institutionalization of disinvestment for black inner city neighbourhoods as banks and other mortgage brokers continued to use the redlined maps made by the HOLC (Massey & Denton, 1993).

       The Federal government continued with its residential initiatives by introducing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Veteran’s Administration (VA) (Massey & Denton, 1993). They were created in 1937 and 1944 respectively, to back the loans of banks to homeowners, which caused the required down payments to shrink from the typical 33% to 10% (Massey & Denton, 1993). The two administrations also made the monthly payments much more affordable by lengthening the repayment periods to upwards of 30 years (Massey & Denton, 1993). On top of this, because of the security provided by the programs banks were put at ease and interest rates came down considerably (Massey & Denton, 1993). With this great power over newly enfranchised homeowners came the two administrations preference for the suburbs, as only new homes garnered the full potential funds from the administrations, and those seeking to upgrade their homes received much less financing and much shorter repayment periods (Massey & Denton, 1993). Areas were also examined as to the racial composition and proximity to other homes, which largely excluded any inner city neighbourhoods especially those that contained black families (Massey & Denton, 1993). The use of the FHA was so prevalent in America during the 1940’s that more than half of all homes (60%) purchased during this period used its financing, with non-white candidates receiving less than two percent of the loans (McGrew, 1997).

       This led to the drastic lowering of property values in those areas because of the near impossibility for owners to sell their homes or to rehabilitate them, both of which greatly helped in the deterioration of inner city black neighbourhoods (Massey & Denton, 1993). The federal government not only showed that they collectively felt a great enough social distance from blacks that they felt justified to prevent them from living near other whites, but their attitudes and actions influenced the larger white population into adopting the same feelings, which would be evident in the governemnt’s schemes of ‘urban renewal’ that were to follow.

       After the federal government laid the groundwork for segregated investment and disinvestment, the local level of government took the reins and finished the job of inner city residential segregation. By implementing ‘urban renewal’ schemes, the segregated black community was once again struck a blow by the state (Massey & Denton, 1993). The urban renewal plans largely targeted black areas that encroached on prized land that white residents and businessmen had wanted to protect from racial mixing (Massey & Denton, 1993). One example of this is the Cincinnati Metropolitan master plan in 1948 (Casey-Leininger, 1993). It had a component in it that was to see the demolition of a large section of housing cleared where the makeup consisted largely of black residents, an area that the city deemed as slums (Casey-Leininger, 1993). The city proposed to relocate those living there to other housing arrangements, which included the construction of new public housing to provide for those who couldn’t afford private housing, and also private builders were to build single-family homes at low cost and subsidized by the government (Casey-Leininger, 1993). Both types of proposed housing failed to deliver enough space to adequately house the thousands that were displaced, with little of the proposed public housing ever being constructed and the private developers pricing their stock out of the reach of all but the middle-class (Casey-Leininger, 1993). The result was that the public housing that was built was quickly filled beyond capacity with black families, and subsequently the black poverty was further concentrated (Casey-Leininger, 1993). Other public housing that would be constructed later would begin to be outright designated by the city as for blacks only, as a continual push for segregation went hand in hand with concentrating the poverty held within (Casey-Leininger, 1993). Cincinnati was not alone in these ‘urban renewal’ schemes, as many cities in the Midwest and Northeast experienced them, the prevailing outcomes being further concentration of black poverty (Massey & Denton, 1993).

       The actions by the government instilled many white residents with the notion that blacks were irresponsible, lazy, and incapable of rearing their offspring or maintaining a home (McGrew, 1997). They further felt that black neighbors would erode the values of homes and bring a dangerous element to their safe streets (McGrew, 1997). These feelings would translate into an increased feeling of social distance felt for blacks, as they felt they did not deem them worthy to be their neighbors (McGrew, 1997). It was with this mentality that white residents who, for whatever reasons, able to leave for a new life in the suburbs showed feelings of territoriality as they felt control over their neighbourhoods threatened by incoming black families who were an unknown presence before this (Hirsch, 1983). In their efforts to keep control over their streets, in what they perceived to be a fight to save their neighbourhoods from becoming ghettos, many neighbors joined together to form groups to defend their properties in front of city council from having new housing projects developed near them (Hirsch, 1983), which helped to further segregate the black community and further concentrate the poverty of the black ghettos, as housing projects continually were constructed only in black areas of the city (Massey & Denton, 1993).

       This mentality towards blacks left little choice for middle and upper class black families but to remain in the segregated, neglected ghettos (Massey & Denton, 1993). Though blacks had been previously known to live in more class mixed areas than their white counterparts, it appears that the social distance between them had become too large to bear with the increased concentration of poverty that the government housing policies had pushed on to the black ghettos (Massey & Denton, 1993). The suburbs were viewed as a way out, except that the flight of upper class blacks further pushed the inner city black ghettos into poverty (Wilson, 1990).

       The Suburbs

       The suburbs were newly created places where returning veterans were welcomed with no money down mortgages arranged by the VA, but the invitation only extended to whites. Blacks faced exclusion from the VA’s loans, but the federal government went even further to bar their entry into the white dominated areas in the form of racially restrictive covenants, required on all suburban homes that used the FHA to financially back them (McGrew, 1997). Similar to the redlining precedent that established widespread adoption by private companies, the restrictive covenants became standard issue for much of America’s suburban housing developments (McGrew, 1997). Again the federal government’s feelings of a great social distance between whites and blacks created policies that again attempted to segregate the black community, and also caused the larger suburban white society to adopt the same feelings between blacks and themselves (McGrew, 1997).

       Despite these immense barriers set against them, some middle and upper class blacks still managed to break through. These white dominated areas were clearly important places for many black families as Weise (2006) showed that the suburbs represented a place where black middle and upper class families could distance themselves from those blacks lower on the social ladder. These black families felt a large enough social distance from other blacks that they did not feel they were respectable enough to be living in the same areas as them (Wiese, 2006). Things such as safe streets for their children to play on, and “civic associations, women’s clubs, Boy Scouts troops, and Saturday night pinochle games...lavish lawn parties and hearty cocktail sessions in pine walled rumpus rooms” were all social interactions that middle and upper class black families wanted in their lives, as well being activities they felt their high social status demanded (Wiese, 2006, pg.106). These expressive social interactions, and attitude of entitlement, would help to form the perceived social distance from those who did not participate in such activities - like those stuck in poverty within the ghetto (Wiese, 2006).

       Because acceptance by the dominant white families involved in the recreational activities surrounding the suburbs often excluded those of colour - displaying a continued feeling of large social distance felt between the two races - black families looked inwards for social interaction (Wiese, 2006). Black families made their homes places where primary and secondary relations could congregate for both expressive and instrumental social interactions, hosting such things as “professional groups, church groups, wives’ clubs, bridge clubs,” (Wiese, 2006, pg. 113). The federal government had done enough damage to the perceived social distance between blacks and whites that even among their own social classes, the majority of black families sought suburban homes in areas with a black presence already established, as whites had been known to harass black families new to white neighbourhoods (Wiese, 2006). This shows their increased sense of territoriality, similar to their urban counterparts, in efforts to protect their neighbourhoods from the perceived threat of blacks, instigated by the government’s policies and actions.

       To conclude, through the creation of the HOLC, FHA, and the VA, investment was steered, supported and subsidized towards newly constructed suburbs, and not made available to the inner city residential areas. Practices of redlining, initiated by the government agencies, influenced the banking community and caused the massive depreciation of inner city housing stock. This in turn caused the white population to leave en mass to the suburbs, leaving the large majority of black residents to live in increasing conditions of poverty. The majority of whites then began to associate the black population with poverty and vice, thus stimulating the social distance felt towards them. These feelings of a large social distance felt by whites towards blacks spurred on feelings of territoriality, which helped to guide the urban renewal schemes carried out by the local city governments. These actions further concentrated the poverty of the black ghettos into public housing, and further degraded other neighbourhoods that became part of the increasing black ghetto. The plight of the inner city black ghettos was then furthered with the removal of wealthier black families, as they increasingly wished to separate themselves from those in lower social standing, caused by the increasing social distance they felt towards them. The suburbs then became another segregated residential area for blacks as the government established and enforced practices of restrictive covenants that influenced the majority of industry to adopt them as well. These government actions caused black families to be restricted once again to where they could chose to live. As well, the government’s previous policies, and the new ones established for the suburbs, influenced the white residents into the continued feeling of a large social distance felt for the black community, and feelings of territoriality in what they perceived to be a fight to protect their white neighborhoods.