by Rik Keller
In 1917, the Supreme Court in Buchanan v. Warley ruled municipal racial zoning unconstitutional. In response, private agreements—including restrictive covenants—started to be put in place to continue residential segregation practices: “Racially restrictive covenants refer to contractual agreements that prohibit the purchase, lease, or occupation of a piece of property by a particular group of people.”[1] These were legally-enforceable contracts put onto the deed of the property. They were enforced with the help of neighborhood associations, real estate boards, and other organizations. For example, the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), started in 1908, promoted the use of racial covenants in new developments.
Typical language in these racially-restrictive covenants included statements such as “…hereafter no part of said property or any portion thereof shall be…occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race…”[2] These covenants became so commonplace that “by 1940, 80% of property in Chicago and Los Angeles carried restrictive covenants barring black families.”[3]
The Federal Home Administration (FHA), created in 1934, established mortgage lending requirements in its Underwriting Handbook. It implemented a policy of “redlining” or refusing to back/approve mortgages in specific neighborhoods based on racial or ethnic composition. The Handbook incorporated “residential security maps” into its standards for issuing mortgages. These color-coded maps described the “level of security” for real estate investments in 239 American cities. Additionally, the FHA Underwriting Handbook recommended the use of restrictive covenants to “provide the surest protection against undesirable encroachment and inharmonious use.” These federal redlining practice expanded beyond FHA-backed loans and spread through the entire mortgage and real estate industry.
In 1948, the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer ruled that state enforcement (including judicially) of racially restrictive covenants violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, it also found that private parties may voluntarily adhere to them. While this removed the legal ability to enforce the covenants by government, they were still commonplace. They were also used in combination with other practice such as “steering” of non-white potential homebuyers by real estate agents into some areas and away from others. And the continued existence of the covenant continued to send powerful signals about who was welcome or not in certain neighborhoods.
Legislation in California such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act (1959), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (1959) made some discriminatory practices in employment and housing illegal. The California Fair Housing Act of 1963 (AKA the Rumford Act) further strengthened the rights of people of color to purchase housing without being subjected to discrimination. The Rumford Act enabled potential renters and homeowners to appeal to the California Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) to force landlords/owners denying them rental or sale due to race to comply with fair housing law. However, the law only applied to public housing and in all residential properties with more than five units, so it excluded the vast majority of homes in California: it only applied to one-third of California’s 3.8 million homes.[4]
There was immediate strong opposition to the Rumford Act led by the California Real Estate Association (CREA; renamed as the California Association of Realtors in 1975), the Apartment House Owners Association, and the Chamber of Commerce that “made California the battleground for a national showdown on housing legislation”[5] with their campaign to repeal the Act through Proposition 14. The proposition passed in a statewide vote in November 1964 and soon after it was passed, the federal government cut off all housing funds to California. The proposition campaign with its highly inflammatory racist rhetoric has been cited as one of the causes of the Watts Riots of 1965.[6]
The California Supreme Court reinstated the Rumford Act in 1966, ruling that Prop 14 was illegal, because it violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which “prohibits all racial discrimination in the sale or rental of property.”
The passage of the national Fair Housing Act in 1968 finally ended the FHA’s redlining and other discriminatory practices, and made it illegal to include racially-restrictive covenants in property deeds. However, because the language still lingered in housing title/deeds documents and continued to create a discriminatory atmosphere, in 1980 California passed legislation requiring the following language to be added to covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs) by homeowner’s associations:
“If this document contains any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and federal fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.”
However, while unenforceable and illegal, some of these covenants continue to exist and can still be found today.[7] Despite required notifications as required by State law, this language can still provide an indication of a community’s attitudes towards inclusivity.[8]
Redlining and restrictive covenants in Davis
The city of Davis has a history of redlining and restrictive covenants. Dr. Jesus Hernandez, a professor in the Department of Sociology at UC Davis has published extensive research on this topic[9] and has previously compiled some examples of restrictive covenants in property deeds from Davis. In correspondence in Spring 2018 he stated the bulk of the restrictive covenants were for properties just north of the University (College Park and Oeste Manor areas), and the residential areas just to the east near 5th Street (including the University Avenue/Rice Lane, Old North, and Old East areas). These restrictive covenants are especially prevalent in properties built before the 1950s (as discussed above, a 1948 Supreme Court decision made them legally unenforceable), though there were some in properties developed after 1948 whose deeds still contained these restrictive covenants.
The City of Davis commissioned a study in 2015 entitled Davis, California: Citywide Survey and Historic Context Update. This document briefly discusses restrictive covenants in Davis (pp. 9-10; my bold):
Early developers subdivided several ranches adjacent to the little town into residential parcels after the establishment of the University Farm. Residential development continued to increase its pace, particularly in the 1920s when prosperity, population growth, and alterations in mortgage practices fueled a construction boom. During this period, development began well west of Downtown in the area north of the University Farm. The unique College Park neighborhood, set on an oval street, was initially planned in 1923. Designed by landscape architect Harry Shepard, College Park was restricted to residential development, and – like many such developments of the era – the deeds contained clauses that were meant to prevent non-whites and Jews from owning or residing in the neighborhood.
This author conducted extensive research in the Yolo County Recorder archives to locate examples of restrictive covenants. The following shows original documents for the College Park development including the subdivision map from 1924 and racially-restrictive language in the deeds for the properties that were originally sold by the College Park Association. Violation of these restrictions were subject to immediate forfeiture of the property. As described in the page excerpted from the legal property deed for the College Park subdivision below:
“…nor during such time shall said property or any part thereof or any building or buildings erected thereon be occupied by an person or persons other than those of Caucasian race.”
“No persons except those of the white Caucasian race shall use, occupy or reside upon any residential property in the tract of land hereinabove described, or any future subdivision thereof, except when employed as a servant or domestic in the household of a white Caucasian tenant or owner….for the sole reason that they [the owner] believe possession and occupancy by such persons would have a prejudicial effect upon the value of other property to said subdivision and in future units thereof.”
Dr. Hernandez stated that some of the covenants in the city of Davis were unusually harsh in that they are the only ones in his extensive national research on the subject that had financial penalties attached. As shown in the deed document for Sierra Vista Oaks below under the “RACIAL OCCUPANCY” section, in addition to property forfeiture there was an additional financial penalty of $25,000 for violations. That sum at the time of the covenants were written was more than the price of the houses. This restriction was directly flaunting the landmark Supreme Court decision in 1948 that made these covenants unenforceable by the government and attempted an end-around by instituting a financial penalty even if forfeiture was not enforceable. As shown in the documentation below, there is also specific language in the deed that states that these restrictions would still be applicable even in the face of future California Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court decisions that ruled them unconstitutional indicating that the property developers intended to directly flout national and State law.
In Davis—as in many area of the U.S.—redlining, restrictive covenants, and other discriminatory practices effectively locked out minorities from being able to participate in one of the greatest mass opportunities for wealth accumulation in U.S. history: the post-WWII housing boom. And even as overtly discriminatory practices started to be curtailed, post-WWII municipal zoning practices in the 1950s— especially in fast-growing suburban areas—emphasized large-lot single family homes as a way to exclude more affordable housing types and to continue patterns of racial/ethnic/income segregation. Davis is an example of how the wealth disparities that were accentuated by these policies and practices persist today with residential patterns and housing opportunities distributed along particular racial/ethnic and income lines.
In part two of this series—entitled How White Is Davis? Historic Demographics and Continuing Patterns of Discrimination—I will examine historic and current demographics in Davis compared to surrounding areas and California as a whole in order to determine what sort of continuing effect historic patterns of discrimination may have had. This will also include a discussion about how contemporary demographic, development, and lending patterns in places are tied to past housing practices that shaped their social geography.
Rik Keller has 17+ years of experience in affordable housing policy & analysis in Texas, Oregon, and California after obtaining his master’s degree in city planning; he is also a 10+ year Davis resident and a current renter.
Other sources:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/
http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-1968-FHA-Redlining.html
http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-FHA.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/19/498536077/interactive-redlining-map-zooms-in-on-americas-history-of-discrimination
http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1948-1968-Unenforceable-Restrictive-Covenants.html
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122484215:
The California Fair Housing Act [The Rumford Act] (1963-1968)
https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/how-prop-14-shaped-californias-racial-covenants
Personal communication, Jesus Hernandez, professor in the Department of Sociology at UC Davis (2018)
Davis, California: Citywide Survey and Historic Context Update (2015). Prepared by Kara Brunzell, Brunzell Historical for the City of Davis. https://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=4773
Yolo County Recorder-Clerk Office archives
[1] http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html
[2] https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/how-prop-14-shaped-californias-racial-covenants
[3] “Understanding Fair Housing,” U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Clearinghouse Publication 42, February 1973. www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11042.pdf
[4] https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/how-prop-14-shaped-californias-racial-covenants
[5] https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/radkowski-paper.pdf
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(1964); http://www.streetgangs.com/academic/1998.Alonso-RLAreport-final-001.pdf
[7] https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-ccrs-1798525
[8] Such as in El Dorado County: https://www.mtdemocrat.com/opinion/california-rambling-jim-crow-ccrs/
http://fox40.com/2017/04/25/oak-ridge-high-school-students-spearhead-effort-to-remove-racist-language-from-neighborhood-housing-documents/
[9] see “Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in Sacramento 1930–2004.” International Journal Of Urban And Regional Research, 33(2).(2009); “Race, Market Constraints, and the Housing Crisis: A Problem of Embeddedness.” Kalfou: A Journal of Comparative and Relational Ethnic Studies, 1(2).(Fall 2014), The Center for Black Studies Research, UC Santa Barbara.
It’s not much different than the rest of California.
According to the link below Davis is 63.85% white and CA is 61.26% white.
https://www.areavibes.com/davis-ca/demographics/
I don’t believe that California is 61% white (if you break out Hispanics). 38.9% of California is Hispanic, compared to 12.5 of Davis. That’s skewing the data that you are citing.
Only someone who has not spent much time in Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Modoc or Lassen Counties would say “I don’t believe that California is 61% white”…
Even Nevada, Placer and El Dorado Counties near Tahoe average close to 80% white (and are getting whiter with high rents forcing more and more people to move to NV for cheaper rent and commute to CA as tech execs convert more and more dumpy rentals into hip Air BnB places)…
And the total of those counties’ population accounts for what % of CA population? Maybe 2%, tops? Or were you talking about land area?
I’m with Howard, I have no idea what your point is here. Do you disbelieve the data? Do you not believe that LA is many times larger than the combined total of those counties?
According to the 2010 census:
Non-Hispanic white population in California is 40%
Hispanic is 37.6
Black 6.2
Asian 13
American Indian 1
Numbers based on self-identification, and not taking into account multi-racial folk, are becoming more and more irrelevant. But, they are what we have.
You don’t think race-ethnicity surveys should be based on self-identification?
Well, I guess because I am genetically ~ 1% Native American, I could self identify as that… someone 12.5% “black” could self identify as “black”… someone who as 1% “white” could identify as “white”, as could an Asian who is 0% other than Asian, could self-identify as “black”, “white” or hispanic.
Guess I don’t understand your question… could you clarify?
I have not seen anything to indicate a problem with self-identification for such purposes. Howard, citation?
The areavibes.com seems to rely on 2010 census data for Davis, but doesn’t break out a hispanic/latino category. But I can’t tell where the California demographic data is coming from at all. According to the 2010 census quickfacts site, Davis is 55.6% white & non-Hispanic/Latino. California is 37.2% white & non-Hispanic/Latino.
If you don’t break out a separate Hispanic/Latino category, then East L.A. is identified as being 50.2% white, but has been famously known as a Hispanic/Latino community for a few decades. 2010 census says East L.A. is 96.6% Latino.
The reason ELA is 96.6% Latino is that they have engaged in relentless “ethnic cleaning” for several decades. Ask any AA person in LA if they would consider moving to ELA.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ramona-hate-crime-20160707-snap-story.html
Keith
You chose to address only part of the premise of this article, namely numbers. Not distribution. Both matter in terms of property value.
The SN&R Paper recently covered much of what Rik presented today with the same “whites locked minorities from being able to participate in one of the greatest mass opportunities for wealth accumulation in U.S. history” spin.
As people who have read my posts for a while as a guy who is “pro-choice” on everything I am against housing discrimination (I would be fine if a mixed race couple of 19 year olds bought a home in the WDAAC or any other home in Davis) and I’m happy that more people are talking about the horrible racist history of discrimination on CA.
Most people don’t know that my immigrant Grandma (with a 6th grade education) worked as a cleaning lady as SF General hospital after my Grandfather (who also had a 6th grade education) got sick and couldn’t work any more working with mostly African American women.
I just went Zillow and I see that the 1,051sf 3×1 home on the 1900 block of Eddy in the San Francisco Fillmore district where my grandma’s African American best friend lived is worth $1.9mm (MORE than the Zillow estimate of any home on College Park or Miller in Davis (where I’m guessing not a lot of African Americans really wanted to live prior to 1968 anyway).
There is long list of reasons why people (of all races) are not able to “accumulate wealth” and the housing restrictions that ended 50 years ago are WAY WAY down the list…
P.S. With his “17+ years of experience in affordable housing policy & analysis” I sure that Rik knows that single family home homeownership did not result in people “accumulating much wealth” until the 1970’s when people of color could buy a home anywhere they wanted in CA. Prior to the 1970’s (with rare exceptions) the best way to “accumulate wealth” was to rent a modest home and save your money knowing that unlike the “homeowners” you would not be hit with skyrocketing property tax bills or expensive repair bills…
Prior to 1978 that is, right? Do you opine that is still true today, 40 years later?
A few things:
1) as the article states, there is an upcoming Part Two that will discuss demographic details about how white Davis is (and how it has changed over time) compared to surrounding areas and California as a whole.
2) The U.S. Census started the option to choose more than one race in 2000.
3) In the Census, Hispanic/Latino is an ethnic category, not a racial category, so it overlaps with racial categories.
4) The Census QuickFacts link that H Jackson provided does show estimated 2017 counts. If you look at the “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino” category, California is 37.2 % white, while Davis is 55.6%. So simplifying things and just looking at that category, Davis is about 50% more white than California as a whole. Of course, things are is more complicated than that and Part Two of this series will cover that in detail.
5) It seems a bit telling that the opening comment on the article tries to “truther” the notion that Davis is very white by using misleading/incomplete data.
Prior to 1978, ten years after the Civil Rights Act of 1968 pretty much ended housing discrimination in CA (but sadly not in much of the racist Southern US) a “used” home like a “used” car would typically sell for less after a few years (with many nice homes in Davis selling for under $40K). This is much different than in recent years where the price of the average Davis home has been going up by ~$35K a YEAR (and lots of Bay Area homes have been going up in value by MORE than $100K a YEAR).
With that said buying a modest home in Davis, Burlingame or Palo Alto for $35K in 1972 that is worth $800K, $2.3mm or $3.3mm today turns out it was a GREAT way to “accumulate wealth”. I have always liked the quote “past performance is no guarantee of future success” and I have no idea if buying a modest home in Davis for $800K, Burlingame for $2.3mm or Palo Alto for $3.3mm TODAY will result in much “wealth accumulation” before the typical person old enough to afford a home in that price range dies…
P.S. If this 1,452sf home (see link below) in Palo Alto (on a 5,662sf lot) sells at the $3.3mm list price the annual property tax bill will be over $35K more than the home value in the early 70’s (and after the 2% annual bumps the owner will pay the state more than $400K in property taxes about the value of the home in the mid 90’s)…
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Palo-Alto-CA/pmf,pf_pt/19497360_zpid/26374_rid/priced_sort/37.461404,-122.098575,37.40729,-122.190843_rect/13_zm/
Yes… and if a revenue neutral modification of Prop 13 was enacted, particularly in conjunction with an end to the commercial properties BS exemptions/games, new buyers would not have those burdens… but that ain’t going to happen… old farts would scream bloody hell! Not to mention the commercial folk (private sector)…
I’m surprised that the Vanguard hasn’t “declared war”, on Proposition 13. (Perhaps because you don’t battle a well-equipped, fully-funded army using a single soldier – carrying only a sword.)
I’m lost as to this comment.
Well, Proposition 13 has made home ownership more of a “no-brainer”, for those willing to keep their homes, and allows long-term homeowners to enjoy lower costs than others. This inherent value of long-term homeownership (resulting from Proposition 13) has likely contributed to the drastic rise in prices (as noted in Rik’s article), since it was enacted.
Also, because Proposition 13 limits revenues for cities (from developments), this helps ensure that new housing is (eventually) a money-loser, for cities. There’s articles on the Internet regarding the impacts this has had on local decisions statewide, regarding new housing developments.
However, Proposition 13 also ensures that existing homeowners are somewhat less-exposed to the costs of new development, which is somewhat made up for in the form of Mello-Roos fees.
I suspect that the results of Proposition 13 are viewed differently by development activists, vs. slow-growth activists. The real estate industry may not be too keen on Proposition 13 either, since it reduces turnover. That’s the reason that they’re behind the November initiative which would allow those over 55 years of age to transfer their low property tax anywhere in California – including WDAAC, if the residency restriction cannot be enforced or is ineffective.
(Actually, I believe that the initiative includes those who are 55 years of age or older.)
If you want to know my view of Prop 13, I think it’s been an unmitigated disaster. It’s also a poster case for legislative failure to deal with a real problem that led to the cure being worse than the disease.
David: Thanks – that’s pretty much what I suspected you’d think of it.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that Proposition 13 is entirely “fair”. It also contributes to the ability to hang onto wealth, for generation-after-generation (which tends to favor those who already have it – and who are generally “whiter” than others). Not only be increasing the price of housing, but actually reducing the costs of doing so. (And, the low property tax rates are transferable to children.)
The moderator needs to work on his sense of humor a bit I think. Otherwise the VG will be too dry and boring.
Actually, saw that as a fair disclosure, as I saw no deletions…
The moderator is not going to do that, especially for guest columns.
I’d like to thank Rik for the research and effort he put into this article. In general, Rik seems to back up his articles and comments far better than most on here.
Surprised that David hasn’t weighed in more, since this helps to support his “dark underbelly” comments, regarding Davis.
Regarding the restrictions themselves, what the hell is wrong with people, and how did this make it into the midway point of the 20th century? (Also – “pretending” that discrimination and its impacts suddenly ended at that point would be disingenuous.)
Own ‘history’ Ron…
Did any of your ancestors own servants/slaves? Were your parents and grandparents free of racial bias/discrimination/stereotypes? On one side (paternal) they were… we’re talking folk born as far back as 1890’s… on maternal side, not so much (strong biases), but funny thing… there’s wasn’t Blacks (per se), or Asians… it was Puerto Ricans (yeah, black, latino, etc. ancestry).
Feel free to admonish those who put those restrictions in place… many are available 24/7, many residing (permanently) in the complex at the NE corner of Pole Line and E Eighth. Don’t expect an immediate reply.
To get your answer, Ron, talk to your parents and grandparents.
I do know my great-great grandfather, and his brother ran a stop on the underground railway in PA… don’t know if they’d welcome them as next-door neighbors, but given their risks, I’m guessing that would have been OK with them… might well have done the ‘welcome wagon’ thing… can you say the same? Particularly as a supporter of no new folk in Davis? What is the difference?
Again, an overly-personal comment from you, with some incorrect assumptions to boot. And no – not to my knowledge, regarding my ancestors. (As if I was “personally responsible” for their actions in the first place.)
Regarding discrimination, I’m not attempting to “distance” myself (or anyone else) from it. I suspect that most people have at least some aspects of a “dark underbelly” within. Sometimes in the form of discrimination and outright hostility. (And not limited to those with “light-colored” skin.) So, in that sense, I’m asking what the hell is (still) wrong with people, even as our laws change.
Also – I am not against “new folk” in Davis. That statement is coming from you, not me.
If “overly personal”, just ‘report comment’…
You said,
Weird question, unless you ask the very aged, or the dead… I did not exist at the mid-point of the 20th century…
Shall we ask “what the hell is wrong with people, and how did the Holocaust happen?”… or the Spanish Inquisition? or the Salem witch trials?… or slavery (pick your locale/time)?… or the voting restrictions on women and/or non-landowners?
Or perhaps, the number of folk who see POTUS as a messiah?
Essentially adding to the point, unless you think humankind has “evolved” since then. Believing that this is all behind us is “weird”.
We’re seeing “active” examples now, with the Taliban, ISIS, etc.
Walk down any street in Oakland/Stockton at night, and see how long you last. Or, enroll your kid in a public school in one of those locales, and see what happens.
Go into any prison in the U.S., and observe how racially divided it is. That’s a reflection of our society.
I agree with Howard. I used to live in SE Washington DC. I was young at the time, early to mid 20s. Never once had a problem.
I was also able to avoid racially-based attacks, when I became an adult. Not so much, while attending public schools and taking public transit. (This was not a unique experience, in any way, shape or form. I witnessed it against others, as well.)
Anyone who believes that (only) those with light-colored skin engage in racism and hostility is either lying to themselves, is completely ignorant, or is blinded by ideology. (Maybe all three.)
In contrast, not once have I personally witnessed an attack from those with light-colored skin (verbal or physical), against someone with darker skin.
But you’re making the classic mistake. You’re looking at “attacks.” The bigger menace is institutional racism – racism written into codes, due to power assymetry. That’s what we’re talking about here. All you’re being is the referee who saw the retaliation and missed the initial violation.
Yawn, here we go again, I can see the Vanguard headed off on yet another racial tangent.
Well, I realize that’s the argument. And, I do see how it’s created an “unequal” starting point between races. I’d have to disagree regarding “menace”, though.
I was more than the “referee”, at times. I was the victim of it. So were others. (It really angers me whenever fools doubt that this occurs.) At the time, I didn’t understand (or frankly care about) the “initial violation”.
And again, not once did I witness the opposite (young whites initiating attacks against others, based upon skin color).
Fortunately, I also realize that “retaliation” is not the answer. (But, that’s how these things start, at times.) At the time, I would have appreciated a system that protected me and others. But, there was too much disfunction (and frankly, a lack of concern) to do so.
And again, it still exists. It’s easy to pretend otherwise in towns like Davis. (Seems to me that another commenter recently noted his experience “bicycling while white”, through Oakland.)
Strange “twist” – those who initiate such attacks don’t necessarily care if you aren’t a racist, yourself. Nor do they care how “liberal” or “progressive” you might be.
The lack of honesty regarding this entire subject is appalling. Ideology consistently clouds the truth regarding this subject. (The same phenomenon occurred when I was younger, as well.)
I just realized that I pretty much answered my own (earlier) question, regarding “what the hell is wrong with people”.
Fear was/is a large part of it. (Not necessarily aggression.) Fear was also behind the “white flight” to suburbs, as cities decayed.
Regarding the race-based restrictions, that fear also included a loss in property value, if “non-whites” moved in.
You wouldn’t be surprised if you saw what my day looked like. I’ll have plenty to say, but want to allow Rik to do part two before I say much more.
I have twenty-six employees that include:
4 Asian
2 African American
3 Hispanic (non-white I guess… whatever that means)
1 Russian
17 Female
I never give this any thought… just hire the best fit for the job. However, my two AA employee that both live in Sacramento (both single divorced with grown children) have commented that, although they like Davis and feel accepted and safe, they would never live here. It isn’t so much the whiteness of Davis they say – although that has been commented on by both – but it is all the uppity old academics giving off an air of social superiority, the high cost of housing, the high density of the place crawling with teenage and near-teenage students.
Ironically one of my Asian employees said she would not live in Davis because there are too many Asians. She works in my So Cal office. She was making a joke, but I think there is probably a real opinion there.
I think we are all tribal and seek a place where we feel more at home with our tribe… even those that chronically virtue signal a need for multiculturalism.
Interesting, fair, and very likely accurate observation. A set of data points. Thank you.
Jeff
Good ratio but how about 17 female . Are they all white ? Russians are white people . Why did you categorized him by nationality ?
A good book to read on this phenomenon in the U.S. is Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law.
So is it a problem if Davis has a higher percentage of whites than California as a whole?
If so, could that be considered racist by those who hold that opinion?
Doesn’t seem like you are really understanding the concept here. I think the point raised by Rik is that there were legal restrictions on certain folks moving to Davis and those legal restrictions have at least in part resulted in the current housing patterns we see today. The problem therefore is not the percentage of a given race, but why the percentage of a given race.
You miss the concept… yes there were legal restrictions on housing, yet there were overt and covert restrictions on employment, educational opportunities, too… the BS CC&R’s are an artifact, not a cause, after 50+ years… equal opportunity does not always result in equal outcomes… we should focus on the opportunities…
So, I may be anticipating part 2 of this series, but these issues are not simply artifacts, or relics of the past. We will soon be voting on a housing development that would include a policy of giving buyers’ preferences to current residents of Davis and those with connections to Davis (e.g., having relatives who live in Davis). The effect of such local preferences is to perpetuate existing disparities, regardless of their origin.
As Howard states, this was a long time ago. Maybe it contributed to the demographics we have today, maybe not. Is there a problem that Davis has a few more percentage points of white people than the state average? We also have a higher Asian population than the state average. Should we be looking into that too and what caused it?
Ken A wrote:
“I just went Zillow and I see that the 1,051sf 3×1 home on the 1900 block of Eddy in the San Francisco Fillmore district where my grandma’s African American best friend lived is worth $1.9mm (MORE than the Zillow estimate of any home on College Park or Miller in Davis (where I’m guessing not a lot of African Americans really wanted to live prior to 1968 anyway).
There is long list of reasons why people (of all races) are not able to “accumulate wealth” and the housing restrictions that ended 50 years ago are WAY WAY down the list…
P.S. With his “17+ years of experience in affordable housing policy & analysis” I sure that Rik knows that single family home homeownership did not result in people “accumulating much wealth” until the 1970’s when people of color could buy a home anywhere they wanted in CA. Prior to the 1970’s (with rare exceptions) the best way to “accumulate wealth” was to rent a modest home and save your money knowing that unlike the “homeowners” you would not be hit with skyrocketing property tax bills or expensive repair bills…”
First, does your grandmother’s best friend (or her descendants) still live in this house, or did they sell it decades ago (for reasons unknown) and forego all of that wealth gain? Speculators coming into a low income community and buying up houses at low prices, and then flipping them at a much higher price is one of the key issues here.
Second, contrary to your statement about wealth accumulation through real estate, one of the big real estate booms was in the post-WWII 1950s, especially in California. That price escalation flattened in the 1960s until the late 1970s, but those whites who owned homes in the 1950s had accumulated much of their wealth. In addition, the stock market was similarly flat in the 1960s, so there was no real alternative to accumulate wealth to what was held in real estate. Also, OWNING real estate in a stable neighborhood was another way to steadily accumulate wealth.
Third, the difference in access to owning a home in the 1960s explains much/maybe most of the difference in wealth between white and black Americans (note that real estate is by far the largest share of wealth for a median wealth household): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/28/black-and-hispanic-families-are-making-more-money-but-they-still-lag-far-behind-whites/?utm_term=.3e33d7f81a8b and https://www.epi.org/blog/the-racial-wealth-gap-how-african-americans-have-been-shortchanged-out-of-the-materials-to-build-wealth/
To answer Richard’s questions:
First, No, her daughter (now in her 80’s) sold the home in the 1980’s (due to the high crime in the area at the time related in part to failed “urban renewal” in the area), but she bought an apartment with the money near her home in Vallejo that her and her brother still own (they still send their Christmas letters to my parents).
Second, while there was a little (by modern standards) boom after WWII almost everyone who bought a home after getting home from WWII is dead today. If you look at the Japanese Americans that lost everything in WWII there are few groups in America today doing better so “home equity prior to 1968” does not seem to be holding the Japanese (or other groups that didn’t have a single relative with any home equity prior to 1968).
Third, I hope you are aware that “most” people in the past 50 years who bought a home didn’t do it with “home equity from prior to 1968”, and while it is trues that “some” people did inherit home equity it is not the biggest reason for difference in wealth (a bigger reason is spending less than you make and you don’t see many, if any Japanese-American, Scotch/Irish-American and/or Jewish Americans driving fancy SUVs they lease for over $1K/month with $10K custom rims)…
Reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s racist stereotype of the welfare queen.
Ken A.
These patterns of inequality in wealth and income established by years of discrimination and which persist to this day have been researched and well-documented by countless authors. I provided a small selection of sample references and links in this Part One article. And as I mention in the article, more will be forthcoming in my Part Two article. I am also providing a sampling of additional links below should you wish to get up to speed on the topic.
On the other hand, you seem to be offering nothing more than misguided propositions and wayward stereotypes without any evidentiary support for your claims. Just to pick one example that you brought up about how interned Japanese-Americans fared after WWII, this recent study examined that issue and found that “the economic consequences of confinement lingered among internees even 50 years later, and varied greatly on where they were placed.” This goes along with all of the evidence that we have about other groups and how opportunities and discrimination shaped the life paths for people and their descendants for decades.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/location-of-wwii-internment-camp-linked-to-long-term-economic-inequality/
In the short selection of readings about patterns of inequality below one common thread can be found in this quote in a review of The Color Of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein: “While the Fair Housing Act of 1968 provided modest enforcement to prevent future discrimination, it did nothing to reverse or undo a century’s worth of state-sanctioned violations of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Thirteenth Amendment which banned treating former slaves as second-class citizens. So the structural conditions established by 20th century federal policy endure to this day.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/17/528822128/the-color-of-law-details-how-u-s-housing-policies-created-segregation
https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianthompson1/2018/02/18/the-racial-wealth-gap-addressing-americas-most-pressing-epidemic/#79e4bdb37a48
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/systematic-inequality/
http://prospect.org/article/closing-racial-wealth-gap
https://inequality.org/great-divide/white-amnesia-racial-wealth-divide/
https://www.results.org/issues/the_racial_wealth_gap
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america
Eric may think that the love of custom rims is a racist stereotype, but the poor of ALL races love custom rims (almost as much as tattoos and cigarettes).
Most poor neighborhood in America have a store like this (the shops in poor white neighborhoods will sell custom rims “and” lift kits) where you can “pimp your ride” (with financing “as low as” 16%)…
https://lucky-tire-and-wheels.business.site/
Why are we bringing this subject up now? Hasn’t this been beaten to death over and over through the years. It seems like it’s just stirring the pot.
So any long lasting problem that has already been raised repeatedly is by default beaten to death and we should not raise it again? I’m trying to understand the logic here? Either you think this is a problem or not. If you don’t think it’s a problem – say so. If you think it’s a problem, then of course it’s not going to get solved without raising the issue – sometimes over and over again. Can you imagine? Martin Luther King launches into his I have a Dream Speech, you’re response – you’ve already raised the issue. Move on. You’re just stirring the pot. Really?
David, yes anyone has the right to bring the same old racial issues up over and over just as I have the right to say it’s like beating a dead horse.
So David, give some solutions. I’m all ears. Otherwise it’s just stirring the pot.
Shouldn’t you ask Rik that question, I didn’t write this.
I quoted you above, but nice dodge.
Your comment was about this article. When Rik has finished his series, I’ll offer my comments.
When you tire of writing about how horrible white males are today many find it fun to write about how they were even worse 60 years ago (deed restrictions) or 160 years ago (slavery) or 1,060 years ago (The Crusades – Tia’s Favorite).
We can’t go back in time and know for sure but I’m betting that even with a “extra low financing for people of color” sign at the end of Miller and College Park in 1950 we would not have had a rush of people of color that wanted to move to a farm town with less than 4,000 (mostly white) people.
P.S. Before anyone cries themself to sleep tonight for living in such a horrible racist city I’m wondering if anyone can name a single California farm town with under 5,000 people in 1950 that has more African Americans, Latinos and Asians today…
Add one more point – I’ve never seen this issue raised before. Rik is the first one to dig into the archives and demonstrate the pattern of legal discrimination IN DAVIS.
I’m guessing there is some connection to Measure L, but I could be wrong. We’ll see.
That might be the case Don. If so then I can see why the article.
I guess we’ll know tomorrow or soon after.
I agree. See my 4:47 comment, above.
D. Greenwald: ” I’ve never seen this issue raised before. Rik is the first one to dig into the archives and demonstrate the pattern of legal discrimination IN DAVIS.”
I would suggest interviewing Dick Holdstock. He is a former Davis CC member, retired, living in Winters, I last heard. In 1965 he was part of a contingent from Davis who went to Selma, AL to participate in the march. When he returned, he got interested in civil rights issues locally, and, I understand, did some work making the community aware of local restrictive covenants. He was part of the old Human Rights Council that developed around that time. If you ask some old timers, they could probably connect you with him. He’s in his 80’s.
The Hattie Weber Museum had a big exhibit on Davis deed restrictions not long ago and the topic came up on the Vanguard just this past June (but David may have missed them both or not heard about the deed restrictions that came up at a couple 100th anniversary events in 2017).
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/06/even-progressive-anyway/
H Jackson: here is a ~23 minute documentary about Dick Holdstock, John Pamperin, and Terry Turner going to Montgomery, AL in 1965. Restrictive covenants in Davis are mentioned in the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM9CBsBbrEg&feature=youtu.be
While I have come across references to these restrictive covenants in other sources (I mention this in my article), I had never seen the exact language used in the specific deeds. When this topic had come up previously in discussions on places like the Vanguard, there were references, but not exact language or copies of the documents. Even the consultant historian who produced the 2015 City of Davis historic resources report that I referenced did not have copies of these when I talked with her recently.
Lots of recent articles and discussion on the topic nationally (see dozens of links in my article and in this discussion; this is not an old well-worn topic: it is a story that has only recently begun to be fully told) inspired me to do the tedious legwork to track these down in the Yolo County Recorder archives. These articles all point to the conclusion that this is not history that we should bury or ignore: we are living with the consequences and continuing patterns today and need to make more people aware of them and address them. To borrow a phrase: “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”
Rik Keller: I’ve seen that. Very interesting video to watch.
Another interesting link to a related phenomenon that you may already know is that of “Sundown Towns” in the U.S. Site includes a database of documentation for sundown towns.
HJ: I know Dick pretty well. Good thinking.
While being moderated on two posts I felt strongly about… I’ll offer this… fear of the unknown is paralyzing and yet prompts “counter-measures” (yeah, not logical, but is).
WWII was interesting… first black americans my Dad encountered where in the Navy… major ports of embarkation/debarkation were San Diego and Oakland… first time Dad had been out of PA, from a town much like Davis… State College PA…
After the war, those areas drew ex-servicemen from all races… for many reasons… including climate and as another has pointed out, aggregation of others of similar races/backgrounds… after service, stateside, during the Korean War, Dad migrated to the SF peninsula, and brought his bride there a couple of years later… my neighborhood was “wonder bread”… 100% white… financial and affiliation things. Two miles away, it was different… where I went to Jr High, it was 1/3 black, 1/3 asian (about 40% Chinese, 40% Japanese, rest mainly Korean), and 1/3 white… mostly due to the neighborhoods… some of us were bused… special programs (gifted and developmentally challenged [I leave to others to speculate which group I was in]) and those from Foster City, where they had not built a JH yet… not racial busing, pragmatic busing… late 1960’s… the racial mix was more due to dislocation of Japanese during WWII (some of whom were kept at Tanforan race track, in SB), and folk seeking cultural affiliation… many of my JH classmates’ parents had been interned… here, or in Germany, the latter having the tattoos to prove it (Jews, who survived)…
Davis was not a big post WWII draw for folk… unlike SoCal or Bay Area… Davis was “wonder bread”… with some returning (from internment) Japanese farmers.
Turnbull? or Bayside?
I attended Bayside.
Thread cleanup: 16 comments removed.
It sounds like ethnic cleansing on DV