 |
| by Moses Gates Regional Plan Association |
In the third set of papers from
the Joint Center’s A Shared Future symposium, published last week, researchers
familiar with three cities were asked the question, “What would it take to make new and
remake old neighborhoods so that regions move decisively toward integration?” Ultimately,
the underlying answers—reducing income inequality, combating both institutional
and individual racism—are social. But as land-use planning has been used as a main
tool for both creating and maintaining segregation and housing discrimination, it
seems evident that the implementation of solutions could go through this same
route.
From this
perspective, all respondents identified a similar problem that keeps
their regions segregated: too much control of land-use on a local level and not
enough on a regional or state level. Marisa Novara and Amy Khare, when talking about
Chicago, write that, “If the goal is more
integrated communities… land use decisions cannot be concentrated solely in the
hands of local actors.” Willow Lung-Amam
notes that the policies which directly encourage integration—such as fair share
policies around subsidized housing—are “likely to face fierce opposition” on
the local level. And William Fulton
observes that while Houston is a bit different, with its lack of zoning, this does not necessarily shift the land-use control balance. Indeed, instead
of zoning restrictions, local communities simply switch to restrictive deed covenants,
historic district designations, and minimum lot coverages to limit development,
while the lack of zoning means that Houston and surrounding jurisdictions
cannot leverage the power of zoning via policies such as inclusionary housing
requirements.
With the problem identified, it would seem that solutions proposed would seek to challenge it. But this is where the authors take a small fork in the road. Instead of answering the “
what would it take?”question, they all answer “what can we do?” After acknowledging the political infeasibility of anything that would seriously challenge
the institution of local land-use controls, they all present a series of
various granular technical fixes, such as adjustments
to determining awards of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, easier permitting for
accessory dwelling units, enforcements of fair share allocations financing for
vacant home rehabilitation, housing voucher portability, funding for
anti-displacement programs, and using the various governmental points of
leverage to require more affordable housing. Rolf Pendall, in his summary, notes that the targeting of these solutions
reflects the political fragmentation of a particular region, with most emphasis
on the places where these incremental changes would impact the largest number
of people. He describes this underlying principle as a decision to “focus
energy for political change where the payoff is greatest.”
 | |
|
With the problem identified, it would seem that solutions proposed would seek to challenge it. But this is where the authors take a small fork in the road. Instead of answering the “
But are we focusing our energy this way when we write off serious change at the metropolitan, state, or even federal level? All of the solutions proposed are essentially extensions of policies that exist, to one degree or another, in other places in the United States. Yet none—either in combination or individually—have been shown to move a region “decisively toward integration.” As Douglas S. Massey and his colleagues have documented, virtually every major metropolitan region in the country still suffers from unacceptably high levels of residential segregation, in most cases only seeing modest improvements since the passage of the Fair Housing Act. Neighborhoods—whether in places with or without these policies—stay segregated, and when they are integrated it’s generally just a waystation on the road from one type of segregated neighborhood to another. It’s clear that the way forward is something new and large (and likely disruptive and politically contentious) that would weaken local land-use control and enable larger entities like state governments or regional planning bodies to provide real housing choices and combat segregation.
Implicit in this is the idea that the
interest in maintaining segregation lies with individual localities, but that the
sum of the localities (in the form of metropolitan regions or states) are
invested in combating it. While not discounting the fact that many people say
they desire integrated neighborhoods in the abstract while opposing them in
their own community (something anyone who has ever attended a local zoning
meeting in an exclusionary area can attest to) the math is obvious. Opposition
is concentrated in localities with a minority of the population, and this opposition
is the roadblock to creating truly integrated regions.
This is a something that can be
overcome. Surrendering to a powerful and vocal minority is the action of a weak
and disinterested majority. And despite the benefits of neighborhood
integration—such as better educational outcomes for all students—this unwillingness to seriously challenge residential
segregation has persisted, especially among the white majority that has not
borne the brunt of its negative effects.
But this may be starting to change. The
idea that local land-use control is sacrosanct is coming under question. For
instance, a serious challenge came earlier this year when California State
Senator Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, introduced California Senate Bill 827,
which would essentially override local zoning by requiring municipalities to
put a floor on the size of developments permitted near transit. While unlikely
to pass in its current form, the bill, which has two cosponsors, is already
gathering significant political support around the state and interest across
the country. This bill is far from a complete mechanism to combat residential
segregation. It does not directly address
racial segregation (and there are even concerns that it will negatively impact historically minority neighborhoods neartransit) and is mainly lauded for its
potential impact on housing supply
and the environment,
not segregation. But it would allow more housing in many exclusionary
municipalities with the infrastructure to support it, and it does show the ability
to use a tool—direct state overrides of exclusionary zoning practices—that we
seem to purposefully leave in the toolshed.
Papers from the A Shared Future symposium are available on the JCHS website.
No comments:
Post a Comment