It was nearing the end of the night and the packed house at Davis Community Church of more than 200 people remained for the most part, as Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law – a book on the manner in which the American government deliberately imposed racial segregation on housing – returned to the podium to take an audience question.
One person asked, “How can we maintain that small town feel and still deal with our housing issues?”
Richard Rothstein rose to the mic one more time, and stated that a “small town feel is a euphemism for segregated community.” The audience roared with approval.
Throughout the evening, in the 40 minutes of his main presentation hosted by the League of Women Voters, the thesis of Richard Rothstein is that the Civil Rights movement in the US addressed discrimination and segregation in schools, in voting, in accommodations, and for the most part “abolished segregation in buses and lunch counters and all kinds of accommodations, transportation and employment.
“Yet at the end of the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement really folded up its tent and went home,” he said. “(It) left untouched the biggest segregation of all which is that every metropolitan area is residentially segregated.” He asked how can this be when we have come to understand that segregation and discrimination are morally wrong, and yet, “everywhere we look clearly defined boundaries by race.
“How can it be that we left this untouched?” he asked. “We’ve adopted a rationalization to eexcuse ourselves from addressing the most serious segregation of all.” And he included in that critique all of us – liberal and conservative and even himself.
We rationalize that by arguing that the previous segregation was “done by government,” but residential segregation is “something entirely different” we tell ourselves. “Residential segregation, we tell ourselves, that just happened by accident,” he said. “It happened because bigoted white home owners wouldn’t sell homes to African Americans in white neighborhoods.”
He said, “We tell ourselves that what happened by accident, can only unhappen by accident. It’s not a civil rights violation, because it wasn’t done by government so we can’t do anything about it. We give a name to it… we say it all the time, it’s de facto segregation, segregation that just happened in fact not law.”
Throughout his presentation, however, he really challenged that thinking.
He noted the story about a family buying a second home and then attempting to sell it to an African-American family. When the family moved in, an angry mob surrounded the home protected by the police, they threw rocks through the windows and the police either couldn’t or wouldn’t stop it.
The case he illustrated happened in Kentucky and, after the riot, the state arrested and convicted the family of sedition, for selling a white home to a black family.
“This doesn’t sound to me much like de facto segregation,” he said. He noted that there are thousands of such cases of mob violence that have been documented, protected by the police, and designed to drive blacks out of homes in white neighborhoods. “All of these are civil rights violations that have never been remedied.”
He noted that he found many state and local policies which “are racially explicit that were designed to create, sustain, reinforce, perpetuate racial segregation in every metropolitan area in this country and without those policies we would not have the racial landscape that we have to today.”
He said of course there was private bigotry by private actors, but those “private actors could not have created the racial segregation we know without government subsidy.”
Richard Rothstein gave the example of public housing, which he noted contrary to common belief was not created for poor people. At the time it was created during the depression, we had 25 percent unemployment, “public housing was for the 75 percent who were employed, who had good jobs.
“Public housing was the most desirable housing available for middle class and working families when it was first created during the new deal,” he said. “Most of the projects were for whites.”
Many of the urban areas at this time were integrated. He said we had “a lot of integration in mid-20th century America, much more than we had today.” But he explained that the public works administration frequently segregated them with separate projects for blacks and whites.
It was during this time that they started demolishing integrated housing and built housing for whites only, displacing African Americans.
Richard Rothstein further noted that it was affordable housing that created segregation. They put low income housing in “low income segregated neighborhoods,” he said, noting that they don’t call it that, but that’s what they are – mostly low income segregated neighborhoods.
“That’s because it’s easier to build it there,” he explained. “Affordable housing programs today reinforce segregation creating those same consequences.”
When they first started these programs, they discovered that most of the white projects “developed large numbers of vacancies” while the black projects “had long waiting lists.”
And what happened there is that they opened up the housing projects to African Americans and, pretty soon, these projects became predominantly African American. He explained how ultimately with the movement of jobs out of the cities and the decaying conditions inside the cities, “we got the kind of urban slums we associate with public housing.”
Following the presentation by Richard Rothstein, there was a locally based discussion on housing by three local people – Ash Feeney, the Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director, David Thompson who develops cooperative low-income housing, and Alyssa Meyer, legal counsel for Northern California Legal Aid.
Ash Feeney noted that the top issue in polling that took place last spring for the time was affordable housing. He discussed the reason that the price of housing has gone up – “It has gotten a lot more expensive to produce, harder to produce from a process stand point, and the costs have gone up.”
He noted that the city of Davis had great intentions with growth policies, but that led to untended consequences, namely increased housing costs and demographic shift.
“There’s a high barrier to entry (into the housing market) when you’re seeing the prices that we’re seeing today,” he said.
A huge issue is one of overpayment. He explained “that means when you’re paying over 30 percent or more of your household income towards housing costs.”
In the state of the city report, “it notes that 61 percent of renters are overpaying for their household.”
He noted that the median rent is over $1600 per month with a median income of about $63,000, that’s 31% of their income. So, for a median income, a median apartment is considered an overpayment.
David Thompson discussed, among other things, the history of cooperatives and he said that the association of cooperatives were the only ones willing to supply racially integrated cooperatives in the 1930s and 1940s – especially following the war.
However, despite such efforts, “none of them were complete as cooperatives. All of them were built.” He said, “FHA at that time in the late 1940s, would not finance any cooperative that did not include a racial covenant in its papers.”
They all went out of business “trying to do the good thing.” They were built, “but not one black person lived in those five (cooperatives).”
He noted that it was not until 1962 that President Kennedy prevented the FHA from discriminatory practices.
The main thrust of his comments were about the need for housing for moderate income people living in our town.
“If we want moderate income people to live in our town, this is one of the things we need to pay attention to,” he said. He noted that if you want to live in a market rate apartment in 2020 you will pay about $2200 in rent. “If you wanted to live in Dos Pinos, in the same three bedroom unit apartment on that same day in 2020, you would pay $1248, a $952 difference.”
He said that amounts to cash in hand for a moderate income person. He noted that most of the rents are above what people should be paying – and as a result there are a lot of people who live and work in Davis who can never save enough to purchase a house.
“They can never save a damn dime because they’re paying so much in rent,” he said. But living in Dos Pinos you have a lot more savings than at a market rate. Unfortunately, he said, there are only 60 units at Dos Pinos versus 13,000 or so market rate apartments. He argued we need to look at workforce cooperative housing as a way to solve this problem.
Finally Alyssa Meyer talked about some of her work at Northern California Legal Aid.
She noted that the vacancy rate in Davis continues to be less than one percent. Woodland has now joined Davis with a similar vacancy rate and West Sacramento “is not far behind.”
She said, “The housing crisis” has impacted people and they have more cases than ever, without any more staff to serve them.
The people most impacted are women and people of color.
“It is hard to be a legal aid attorney when there is no supply of housing,” she said. “There is no soft landing anymore as there is no place for people to go” if they are kicked out of housing.
One other thing she noted was a Catch-22. A lot of people are ineligible for getting housing because they have a criminal record. For some that criminal record is no more than sleeping outside. So they can’t get housing and thus are forced to sleep outside, but because they are forced to sleep outside, they can’t get housing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“It has gotten a lot more expensive to produce, harder to produce from a process stand point, and the costs have gone up.”
We have met the enemy and it R us. R as in Measure R.
Asst City Manager Feeney was a panelist and did discuss the impact of Measure R on our housing stock. When the video is available I think you should view that segment.
AgReed.
Perhaps rents aren’t “high enough” for developers to justify building more apartments in these cities. Perhaps the real problem is that salaries aren’t keeping up with rising costs.
In any case, there’s certainly areas in the country where the income/housing cost ratio is more favorable. That’s why many lower/middle income folks are leaving California. Is that a “bad” thing?
There are lots of euphemisms for “segregated community.” Another is just building more of the same types of peripheral subdivisions that we have seen in the past like the Cannery and what is planned for WDAAC.
Did anyone ask a question about housing developments in Davis that are purposely exclusionary with resident buyer preferences/restrictions like WDAAC’s “Taking Care of Our Own” program? And if they did bring up this issue, did the Vanguard accuse them, as it has it the past, of a “dangerous playing of the race card”?
Did the Assistant City Manager address the weakening of the City of Davis’ affordability requirements in 2018, and the reasons why it still hasn’t produced the studies and proposed updates that it had earlier promised to deliver by the end of 2018?
Did Mayor Pro Tem Partida dismiss concerns about segregation saying they are an “appropriation of civil rights issues for a land use dispute,” as she has in the past?
Did anyone ask about the rise of by-the -bed lease schemes that are designed to skirt affordability requirements and end up producing units that are less affordable by the bedroom than market rate units—such as Nishi?
Did anyone ask about loopholes in City regulations that end up with results like Sterling student apartments where the impact fee for a one-bedroom unit ends up being the same as a five-bedroom and as Luke Watkins said “In effect, the affordable housing units are subsidizing the market-rate units right now, which, of course, makes no sense if the city is looking for ways to encourage creation of more affordable housing”?
Of course they didn’t! That would have forced the commmunity to look into the unfrosted mirror and exposed the City commnity as a rich, liberal, closet-racist enclave. WDAAC (and the Davis Buyers Program) and the Affordable-by-the-Bed housing are the epitomy of double-speak designed to keep the commnity as exclusionary as possible while allowing itself to pat itself on the back as a bastion of caring. All of this is enabled by the Vanguard’s editorial postures continuing to promote unfettered development of high-end expensive housing while professing to support work-force housing for the po’ folks.
Maybe the problem is that you ran a bad campaign? And you apparently can’t get over it – it’s been over a year. Time to move on. You have also failed to recognize that the city and perhaps the world has passed you by.
Rik: Without a doubt, you consistently bring up the most relevant, cut-to-the-core questions and issues. Well done, as usual.
Also – regarding the Sterling example, I hadn’t previously considered the discriminatory impact of having the Affordable units subsidizing the market-rate units. (Previously, I had only thought of this from the perspective of the impact on the city’s finances – which is bad enough on its own.)
Rik
Why weren’t you at the forum to ask those questions? This seemed to be the perfect opportunity, rather than sniping at others for not doing your part.
But I’ll bring up a broader issue that undercuts your “solutions”: The amount of Affordable Housing units that might be built will make a trivial dent into housing segregation in this community. The ONLY effective solution is to build (a)ffordable (h)ousing that is created by having sufficient low-cost housing. The lowest cost housing that is available already exists as the duplexes that are dominated by student renters. Building student housing will open up that supply and make it more affordable. In addition other housing developments create more housing. And importantly is creating new senior housing (which is targeted at the most wealthy segment of our population–yes, seniors are not poor) that encourages them to move out of the family-stock housing they live in.
Mccann: Why wasn’t I at the forum? Because, despite having a bad cold that has knocked me out, I instructed students all day long. And then at night I was preparing a lecture and demonstration project for my class today.
No complaints— it’s just what I do to help pay for my housing.
[moderator: edited]
Is there a video of the event that is available? I had hoped to go but ended up I had to work last night.
Hiram, Davis Media Access did video the forum. It will be available in the next couple of days
David, Thanks for covering our forum. The forum was put on by the newly reconstituted League of Women Voters (facebook), CivEnergy (http://www.civenergy.org), Davis Media Access (http://www.davismedia.org), the City of Davis and the Avid Reader (http://www.avidreader.com).
The League of Women Voters Davis Area chapter was officially started 3 months ago and now has over 70 members. The chapter hopes to continue the nonpartisan work of the previous Davis chapter which was active for 57 years, and work on voter registration, voter education and the study of important civic issues. The chapter is committed to developing a diverse membership.
You know what else is reconstituted? . . . . . .
milk
That joke was a few french fries short of a Happy Meal.
Made me laugh . . . but then again, I’m a few bananas short of a smoothie myself.
But that’s not us, we might proclaim. There are no angry mobs protesting the sale of homes to non-white families. No. In Davis we are far more subtle. As Rik points out, we approve housing developments, like WDAAC, with local buyers preferences. (By the way, what’s the status of that program? We were told at the time of the Measure R vote that the details had yet to be determined.)
Rik and others are also opposing a housing development that is 76 425-sf single bedroom units. I don’t think he possesses the moral authority on this issue that he claims.
When you oppose all housing (not talking about you Eric), you no longer possess the authority to complain about discrimination – lack of housing is discriminatory.
Neither you nor David have any credibility regarding WDAAC.
You’re missing the point. The voters saw through the bad arguments and realized they were excuses not reasons to not vote for the project and even without the DBBP you and Rik and Alan would have opposed the project. You’ve lost the community wide argument.
Limiting a housing development to those with a connection to Davis ensures that “white people” will be favored. Let alone the age discrimination.
It’s the very definition of the type of issue that you and David claim to be concerned about. You have no credibility when arguing otherwise.
It goes back to you and David supporting any/all developments, with a secondary concern for any other issue (including outright discrimination). Despite what you claim.
Except that it’s not true. Davis is now 45% non-white and UC Davis is nearly two-thirds non-white. Moreover, the low income will be very diverse.
Moreover, when you oppose EVERY SINGLE PROJECT, people stop listening to your rationale. Which is why the No side went down in flames twice last year and why the slow growth candidates did poorly. The voters see the need for housing. That’s why they approved it. You don’t have a credible alternative to the proposals because most people now see through the naysayers arguments. They realize that they are going to oppose everything. You guys have lost this battle – at least for now, but aren’t strategic enough to think about alternatives.
It’s absolutely true.
First of all, you’re apparently including Asians as “people of color”, when there’s evidence that discrimination is much more of a concern regarding African-Americans and Hispanics.
Then there’s the fact that older, “whiter” generations of those with connections to Davis are generally in a much-better position to purchase homes, than younger, more diverse generations. This also ensures that the development will “favor” white people.
It takes a certain amount of (let’s just say) “confidence” for you and David to chime in regarding this issue, given your support of WDAAC.
Even worse is your “framing” of this issue as a political one, rather than an outright discriminatory one. That’s also something that David typically does.
Why are we re-arguing something that the voters agreed to over your vehement objections – by large numbers – over a year ago?
The bottom line is we need more housing. Most people who voted for it, saw that if people bought houses there and lived in Davis, they would free up a home elsewhere that would not be age restricted.
Goes back to you and David viewing everything through a political lens in support of any/all developments, with a secondary concern regarding any other issue (including outright discrimination).
Given the conflicts between what you claim to be concerned about, versus what you actually demonstrate, I’d probably refrain from exposing myself further – if I were in your (or David’s) position. But again, that goes back to what I’d derisively refer to as “confidence” and political b.s. Par for the course, on here.
The fact that the proposal was approved does not “prove” lack of discrimination. History is full of examples when the majority weren’t concerned, and/or demonstrated outright support of discrimination (or worse).
Given your stated position, one might think that David and you would be very concerned that it was approved.
Again Ron – not having housing is discrimination. Why? People can’t afford to buy housing in a constrained market. The people who can’t afford it, are generally people of color.
It’s political because in Davis we have Measure R. Maybe you should think about that when you support it’s renewal.
Alan! Who is this “Alan” of which you speak?
I dunno, why do Democrats keep complaining about Trump when he was legally elected over three years ago?
That’s a very long answer.
Limiting purchases to those who are predominately “white” (and older) is a blatant form of discrimination.
It’s probably challenging to find a more discriminatory, recent example anywhere in the entire country – even in areas that have a history of blatant discrimination.
Tough to blame Measure R, for that. And those communities are also more diverse than Davis is.
WDAAC targets one of the biggest housing conundrums we face. Seniors are living houses intended for families. How do we get them to move while meeting their desires to stay in Davis. WDAAC was one way to give a price discount for seniors to do just that. What other solution do you propose?
Richard: You’re bringing up an entirely different point.
You’re also probably asking the wrong person, regarding how to justify the latest development proposal (which happens to be discriminatory, in this case).
I suspect that (despite the “Davis buyer’s” program associated with WDAAC), it will ultimately be marketed and sold to those from outside the area. As occurred with the Cannery. Probably some Davis buyers, though.
Regarding “solutions”, I’m not sure what “problem” you’re trying to solve. Certainly, “affordability” is not going to occur without mandating it.
Lots of (existing) Davis households were probably priced-out of the Bay Area. That’s the way it goes – largely as a result of “economic development”.
If I were starting out today, I’d probably be on the wagon train to destinations outside of California. (Although there are still lots of areas within California that are affordable.) Either that, or I’d seek Affordable housing, and would likely support rent control.
I wasn’t able to add the following to my comment above, so I hope that the moderator won’t “count” this as an additional comment (which are still below “5”, regardless):
In any case, I would also likely support “living wage” efforts, stronger unions, etc.
Forced relocation comes to mind . . . if this weren’t ‘merica!
Ron O.: It looks like you are responding to someone who is trying to claim with a straight face that because someone like me–who has worked in affordable housing policy since I wrote the very first State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan back in the 1990s and has worked on affordable housing plans and policy for dozens of communities in California & Oregon–has publicly stated opposition to local two projects (Nishi & WDAAC) because they are exclusionary high-end housing with massively deficient affordable housing components, that I somehow lack “moral standing” to comment on exclusionary high-end housing with massively deficient affordable housing components.
So opposition to two discriminatory projects disqualifies one to comment on discriminatory projects? Weird.
It seems disagreeing with someone can disqualify you from being listened to these days. Sadly this is how low the level of discourse has sunk where people are more interested in not hearing someone out if they disagree than simply making a counter argument based on the merits.
This Texas law? “ The biggest federal housing subsidy program in Texas — which awarded $9.7 billion in tax credits from 1990 to 2011 — effectively has been reinforcing segregated housing, the U.S. Supreme Court found Thursday.”
In addition to some thinking that opposition to discriminatory housing projects disqualifies someone from commenting on housing projects, some people apparently think that the crooked actions of one branch of a governmental agency makes everybody crooked who worked for that agency. The head of TDHCA appointed after I started working there was a crony appointed by George W. Bush who got rid of all the “liberals” working on affordable housing policy in order to push the same ineffective free-market platitudes that we see championed among certain segments here. He eventually resigned in disgrace, under FBI investigation. And the LIHTC program, which was already well-known as a corrupt entity, got even worse. It was great to see them finally get their comeuppance years later.
But if someone really wanted to talk about Texas, they would mention that “Local preferences imposed by predominantly white communities in racially diverse areas may reflect intentional discrimination. (2) But even if they do not, such preferences invite FHA disparate-impact claims, a long-recognized method of establishing liability that was recently endorsed by the Supreme Court in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 2507 (2015).” [http://www.nhlp.org/files/2014supplement/Chapter02/FN%20317.1%20Recent%20Developments%20in%20Challenges%20to%20Residency%20Preferences%20(July%202013).pdf]
And the “disparate impact” principle in regards to residential preferences/requirements in that case, of course, is the exact problem with WDAAC. The following are two of many cases that are very similar to WDAAC that weren’t decided in the courts, but were resolved due to legal actions and investigations. Just because Davis voters approved a project that had massive spending by its deep-pocketed proponents, doesn’t make the project any more legal or any less discriminatory:
http://www.fairhousingnc.org/2014/city-of-dubuque-to-end-discriminatory-residency-preference-in-housing-program/
Oh, PuleeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEzzz!
Posting at 9:25 a.m.:
“Tough to blame Measure R, for that. And those communities are also more diverse than Davis is.”
Actually with the overflow of those that need housing but can’t get it in Davis due to lack of supply moving to these other nearby communities its fair to blame Davis and measure R for overwhelming the ability of places like Woodland to keep up with demand.
Ron G said “Actually with the overflow of those that need housing but can’t get it in Davis due to lack of supply moving to these other nearby communities its fair to blame Davis and measure R for overwhelming the ability of places like Woodland to keep up with demand.”
“Actually,” that is complete BS. Your hatred of Measure R has taken you to a new level of hyperbole that is totally contrary to what an actual analysis of growth rates and housing costs show.
“Complete BS” Not sure its complete BS. Maybe partial BS and a little hyperbole. Certainly the many people who work in Davis but live in Woodland impact the Woodland housing market. Since Measure R impacts the supply of new housing in Davis I think its fair to say that there are people who would not be living in Woodland if Davis hadn’t spent the last 20 years building little housing.
As for moral standing, honestly, can’t we stick to the issues without attacking each others integrity.
Ron G said “ Maybe partial BS and a little hyperbole…”
That seems reasonable. I’m wondering how far that hyperbole might extend the effects of Measure R: can’t you get it at least to Roseville?
Actually Ron, you’re completely right. I’ve found that while Rik has good knowledge of planning, he doesn’t know much about Davis and hasn’t been engaged here so he gets stuff like this wrong.
In response to Ron G.: Unlike Davis, Woodland is one of the communities that experienced a “true” housing crisis, in the form of a devastating market crash not so long ago. Strange, how no one was complaining about a housing shortage at that time. In fact, there was a glut of houses across the region, which couldn’t be sold (at a much lower price than today).
In any case, there’s no shortage of massive developments in Woodland (with more to come), primarily in the form of single-family dwellings. I don’t think that many apartment proposals have even come forward. Probably more “quick” money to be made in single-family dwellings, vs. apartments.
Not sure what’s occurring in West Sacramento, or Dixon.
You definitely have “moral standing”, and far more than the person I was responding to. I suspect that you would be more supportive of developments that provide a significant amount of Affordable housing, and are not purposefully discriminatory.
I strongly urge all participants to stick to the topics and stop the personally disparaging comments.
It’s bizarre that this account of Rothstein’s talk excluded his main policy prescriptions to address discrimination and exclusion. Fortunately, other accounts of the evening included these:
As.I have noted earlier, the Assistant City Manager did not address the weakening of the City of Davis’ inclusionary affordability requirements in 2018, and the reasons why it still hasn’t produced the studies and proposed updates that it had earlier promised to deliver by the end of 2018 and is now delaying until at least mid-2020.