“I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low-income housing built in your neighborhood.” – Tweet by President Donald Trump, July 29, 2020.
by David J. Thompson
Levittown on Long Island in New York State is regarded as America’s first modern planned suburb. Built to accommodate returning World War II veterans, Levittown opened its doors on October 1, 1947. When complete, Levittown had 17,447 homes with a population of over 50,000. Levittown became the posterchild of the postwar USA and was featured proudly and prominently in all the mainstream magazines such as Life, Look, and Fortune. To many among a war-weary public, Levittown exuded everything associated with living the American Dream. There was, however one American element nowhere to be found in any of the 17,447 homes in Levittown—a Black family.
Blacks and whites had fought together in brotherhood all over the globe during World War II to defend democracy. However, a grateful government that welcomed home “the Greatest Generation” but fought that war with a segregated army had no desire to let returning Black soldiers live together with white ones. Fascism had been beaten abroad, but not racism at home.
Levittown was the direct creation of US government policy. The purchase of every single home in Levittown was insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Every Levittown homeowner’s contract barred buyers who were “not member(s) of the Caucasian race.” Thousands lined up to apply for America’s most publicized low-cost home ownership opportunity, but any Black people who turned up were turned away. The American future was bright for some, but due to racial covenants, it was legally off-limits to Black Americans.
In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kramer that racially restrictive covenants were unenforceable. Thurgood Marshall, then legal counsel for the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), submitted a brief in the landmark case on housing discrimination. Levittown removed the offending language from its contracts, but the FHA continued to insure loans only to whites who wanted to buy homes in Levittown. William “Bill” Levitt remarked at the time, “We can solve a housing problem, or we can try to solve a racial problem. But we cannot combine the two.”
In 1950, Eugene Burnett, a Black former G.I., drove from his rental in the Bronx to Levittown to get in line for an application for ownership, but was told by a salesman, “It’s not me, but the owners of this development have not yet decided to sell to Negroes.” Burnett was one of the million black G.I.’s who were eligible for a federally guaranteed mortgage under the G.I. Bill of Rights. Turned down, Burnett drove back to the Bronx.
As of 2017, only 1.19 percent of 51,800 Levittown residents were African American (617 people). Federal policy has left at least a three-generation legacy of continued de facto discrimination. Home ownership gave millions of white former G.I.’s and their families a leg up on the American ladder, even as one million Black G.I.’s found their economic path blocked.
Open Membership and the Co-op Struggle against Racial Covenants
Millions of Black and white G.I.’s fought together to defend democracy. Many came home with a wish to build a better America in which they could live together. A few racial walls were coming down—slowly.
In a number of American communities, former G.I.’s proposed new integrated communities. Winning the war against fascism abroad created interest in building a new America at home. Among these were a number of housing co-ops. The many cooperative housing communities that sprouted after the war proudly followed the Rochdale Principles, named after the English town that launched the co-op movement in 1844. The first co-op principle is open membership, which means simply that membership is open to all who wish to avail themselves of the services of the co-op and are willing to bear the responsibilities of membership.
Interracial housing cooperatives formed after World War II were specifically meant to be inclusive of families of any color whatsoever. However, the same FHA that financed hundreds of post-war white suburbs was adamantly opposed to integrated suburbs. As a result, the FHA opposed the establishment of interracial housing cooperatives.
Among the projects blocked were the following:
- Community Homes, Reseda, California: Based in Reseda near Los Angeles, the co-op housing group had purchased 100 acres in 1945, upon which they planned to build 280 homes. They spent four years buying the land, paying for site plans and floor plans, and meeting with the local planning department. Yet, it all stopped with the FHA’s decree that the inclusion of people of color (“Blacks”) jeopardized good business practice. A 1949 memo from Marshall to President Truman referred to the FHA’s prohibitive actions against Community Homes and York Center Cooperative Community in Illinois. The two co-ops were the only communities referred to in his memo. Truman then advanced some of Marshall’s suggestions in the National Housing Act of 1949.
- Peninsula Housing Association (PHA): Based in Ladera, west of Palo Alto, the PHA was formed in 1944 mainly by members of the local food co-op. By 1946, the housing co-op’s 150 members had purchased 260 acres of ranchland in the nearby Portola Valley. Denied FHA loans, the PHA ultimately closed and sold the land and plans to a developer who agreed to sell homes only to whites. In the 2010 US Census, Ladera’s 535 households have a population of 1,426, of whom only three people (0.2 percent) are listed as Black.
- Mutual Housing (now Crestwood Hills) Association: Three ex-servicemen returned to Los Angeles from the war with the idea of building an affordable integrated community based upon cooperative principles of open membership. By the late 1940s, the founders had recruited 500 members, and with a $1,000 deposit per member, they had raised the funds to buy 800 acres in Kenter Canyon in West Los Angeles. At first, the FHA was against all the land being owned cooperatively. Then, the FHA required the MHA to have racial covenants forbidding anyone other than a Caucasian to own and live in the housing. By 1952, with no progress and lots of development costs, the MHA was broke and had to dissolve. The resurrected Crestwood Hills Association had to accept the cutting of the collectively owned land into individual parcels, and they had to apply racial covenants to each lot in the first tract to get financing. By the time of the second tract, the co-ops had forced the FHA to follow the law and no racial covenants were required.
An Exception that Proves the Rule: The Case of Sunnyhills
When Ford moved its plant from Richmond, California to Milpitas, California, in 1954, one issue seemed insurmountable. Many Blacks worked for Ford in Richmond, and a number of them had worked on building Liberty Ships during the war in the same community. However, there was no housing open for Blacks in or near Milpitas, an hour’s drive from Richmond.
In the 1950s, the United Auto Workers union (UAW) and its president Walter Reuther had taken a strong interest in sponsoring integrated housing cooperatives for their members. Ben Gross, a Black UAW Local 560 leader in Richmond who was part of the national union task force on housing, was given the role of locating land near Milpitas. The UAW wanted to sponsor integrated housing cooperatives that could be built to accommodate the existing UAW Richmond workforce, which was about 20-percent Black.
The efforts of Ben Gross and others in the Richmond UAW Local 560 were repulsed by both local landowners and local governments. Santa Clara County had few Black residents, and segregation and racial covenants had kept it that way. When the UAW pursued funding for the homes in the development, they ran into the same FHA rules, regulations, and culture that had stymied the other co-ops. Once again, the FHA, local developers, and local government agencies looked like they were going to stop an integrated co-op.
However, in this instance, the UAW officers pursued a new and different tack. The UAW arranged for a long-term mortgage through the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). In this case, the UAW applied under a new co-op ownership program called Section 213 of the Federal Housing Act of 1950. This program was administered by the Cooperative Development Office of the FHA rather than the FHA’s single-family home program.
Without the UAW’s organizational and financial muscle, Sunnyhills would never have come about. Few other entities had the resources, people power, and time to withstand the years of struggle and the costs of litigation and development. Coming along a few years later than the other interracial co-op efforts also helped. Ultimately, Sunnyhills got built as an interracial cooperative, becoming the first one ever approved by the FHA.
When Sunnyhills was finally mapped out, the UAW saw to it that Ben Gross and other union leaders were perpetually honored. Gross Street in particular paid homage to the UAW-backed leader behind Sunnyhills. Due to his civic commitment, Ben Gross went on to become the first Black mayor of any city in California. He served as mayor of Milpitas from 1966 to 1970.
However, Ben Gross played one other unique role in US history. When Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev visited the USA in 1959, President Eisenhower wanted Khrushchev to see the fruits of a vibrant postwar America. One afternoon, after a visit to an IBM plant in San Jose, Khrushchev was whisked off secretly to see Ben Gross and his family in their home in Sunnyhills. Eisenhower wanted Khrushchev to see a home in an integrated neighborhood where Black and white families were living together. The Secret Service did not allow any photos to be taken and even confiscated the Grosses’ personal camera. The only US housing seen by the leader of Russia was an interracial housing co-op that ten years earlier would not have been allowed.
Segregated Housing’s Legacy Today
It is painful to record that in that postwar era and economy which saw so many changes in American society, racism was brushed under the rug. The housing segregation fortified by the policies of the FHA then has built the society we live in now. America, of course, continues to have a whole lot of work ahead of it if the country wishes to build an integrated society. The legacy of the blocked postwar co-op ownership projects—and of redlining more generally—is, of course, a central reason behind the nation’s large and still growing racial wealth gap.
Although in their time these cooperators did not always succeed, their efforts, along with the NAACP and other groups, for a better and racially diverse America were not in vain. It is hard to imagine the Fair Housing Act of 1968 coming to fruition, for example, without these earlier struggles to painstakingly, project by project, break down the edifice of federally supported housing segregation.
But that is not to ignore the enormous human cost that the participants in these efforts often faced. In almost all of the proposed communities described above, hundreds of people lost their life savings after dedicating years of effort to build interracial communities.
This article is dedicated to those brave cooperators who in fighting to overcome the color bar in housing did, through their considerable personal sacrifice, help bring an end to de jure discrimination and who remain, even today, an example to us all.
References
- Buckner, Cory. Crestwood Hills: The Chronicles of a Modern Utopia. Santa Monica: Angel City Press, 2015.
- Dannenberg, Elsie N. Get Your Own Home the Cooperative Way. New York: Greenberg, 1949.
- Eunice and George Grier. Privately Developed Interracial Housing: An Analysis of Experience. Berkeley, 1960.
- Hassan, Amina. Loren Miller: Civil Rights Attorney and Journalist. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press: 2015.
- Marshall, Thurgood. “Memorandum to the President of the United States Concerning Racial Discrimination by the Federal Housing Administration,”National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, February 1, 1949.
- Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law. Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York: 2017.
- Ruffin II, Herbert G. Uninvited Neighbors: African Americans in Silicon Valley, 1769-1990. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.
- Zellman, Harold, and Roger Friedland. “Broadacre in Brentwood?” In Looking for Los Angeles: Architecture, Film, Photography, and the Urban Landscape. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute. 2001.
David J Thompson is a former Director; Western Region of the National Cooperative Bank where he funded development of over 1,500 units of low and moderate income integrated cooperative housing. David is co-principal of Neighborhood Partners LLC, developer of over 1,000 units of integrated low-income housing.
Thank you for this article. This outlines a real history without a lot of political posturing that just tells it like it is. Since the mention of the housing cooperative in the article on Palo Alto Foothills Park, along with knowing people involved in the coop movement there, I did some research on the PHA, and what is stated in this article appears accurate. It is worth noting that Ladera, the current name of what should have been the housing cooperative, is not in Palo Alto, and, like East Palo Alto, isn’t even in the same county — though both are nearby.
This is a real historic example of what ‘structural racism’ is. That phrase never entered my world until a year or so ago, now the term ‘structural racism’ seems more common today in media than the word ‘racism’ used alone. Yet, I’ve only occasionally heard it explained, and usually quite superficially. I believe there are a lot of people who hear the term daily and don’t know what it really means. This article shows how structural racism came to be, and why it’s a structure. It was set up that way in the past and therefore is carried forward to today — as seen in Ladera’s racial makeup today — or more broadly in perpetuating the huge wealth disparity between racial groups.
What to do about it — that’s an entirely different topic.
Having said the above, I find the quote from President Trump under the photo to be gratuitous, and incongruent with the spirit and tone of the article. Curious if the article’s author or the Vanguard placed that line. I’m not defending the line — like our president, it’s divisive and tone deaf. That line is not about the history of structural racism in housing like the article is 100%; rather, that line makes a bridge to the implication that zoning changes to allow for denser and/or “A”-ffordable subsidized housing are a solution to the historic wrongs. The article itself does not makes make that leap.
The image and quote and title are from the author
I’m surprised from the tone of the article, as it says something about his current political beliefs that he didn’t even hint at in the article. Actually, I almost didn’t read the article because it appeared to be an opinion piece from the top line. But I’m glad I did as it was an excellent historical summary.
Terrifically informative article. Far from being gratuitous, I believe the Trump quote highlights the central purpose of the article. It harkens back to the famous quote by George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” For me, anyway, the quote, together with the article, are reminders of what’s at stake in the upcoming election.
I agree, Eric. He is trying to tap into fear.
But if one is honest with themselves, the type of Affordable housing that has been provided by the federal government has been (and continues to be) a crime-ridden disaster, for everyone (including its own residents). For the most part, at least.
I don’t know why that’s the case, but anyone who claims something different isn’t being honest with themselves.
So, Trump is actually trying to tap into a real fear.
Even if you are referring to public housing, as opposed to federally assisted housing, your assertion is demonstrably false.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/public-housing-success/406561/
I’m going to count you as one of those “not being honest” with yourself. 😉
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/public-housing-fundamentally-flawed/602515/
This occurred in Sacramento, as well. I was just watching a program which described how “Japantown” was destroyed to make-way for Capitol Mall. (Though I kind of like Capitol Mall.)
There’s tons of articles on the Internet, regarding this issue.
A lot of the older, large-scale public housing projects have been demolished, since it’s not working.
San Francisco has a history regarding this, as well (e.g., clearing out the existing businesses and homes in the Fillmore district), creating public housing, and then ultimately tearing down that public housing (because it’s a disaster).
There’s a recent film titled, “The Last Black Man in San Francisco” (something to that effect). I haven’t watched it yet, but I suspect that it would be interesting.
It does seem that non-Federal Affordable (smaller-scale) housing doesn’t isn’t as problematic.
But truth be told, I think the biggest problem with housing such as this occurs when people rely upon it (on a permanent basis), thereby creating a permanently-different socio-economic class.
And if that class disproportionately represents particular groups, you have the building blocks of continued structural racism.
There still are public housing projects at Hunter’s Point, Marin City, etc. The one in Marin City stands out like a sore thumb, given the community which surrounds it.
Large scale public housing projects are no longer a significant effort–in fact much of the public housing projects are being demolished and have been so since the Clinton Administration. Instead, the private sector generally is being used to provide that housing through programs such as Section 8. These programs disperse the housing across a community.
I’m sure the people living in this housing would very much like to get out of that housing. What is your proposed solution? The point is that these households are unable to accumulate the wealth required to buy into higher quality housing as the real estate market races away from them because other wealthier households keep bidding up the prices, which in turn increases the book wealth of those same households.
I’m not sure that’s true, of all people living in Affordable housing. (Probably most federal/public housing, though.)
When I have solutions to all of the problems in the world, I’ll let you know. I do know someone who got themselves out of that type of housing.
But quite often, we (as a people) don’t see or define problems in the same way, in the first place.
If they’re living in cheap housing (and are STILL unable to accumulate wealth), then perhaps their earnings are too low for the area in which they’re living. In that case, such housing is actually subsidizing employers who may (as a result of that housing) be “underpaying” employees.
I’ve been watching a series of programs, regarding all of the people leaving California for places like Texas (due to high housing costs, homelessness, traffic, etc.). Most of this relates to people leaving coastal areas. But of course, a lot of those people are moving to the Sacramento region, thereby “driving up” housing prices.
Regarding prices, a lot of that is related to the cost of construction. Lumber prices have nearly doubled, as a result of the pandemic.
But costs are (obviously) not the same in any two communities, ANYWHERE. That’s the nature of capitalism, itself.
As a side note, Elk Grove is a very diverse community, and is still (relatively) affordable. (Just an example.)
It’ll be different this time. See below:
Well, maybe not . . . 😐
Trump’s quote illustrates that the same basic appeal to fear is still being exploited by crass politicians just as they were 70 years ago. I don’t see it as being connected to current solutions, rather it’s shows an attempt to roll us backwards from even the minimal efforts we are making today.
Just wondering how they (a federal agency) would know what skin color one has. Was it required on the application?
This seems to conflict with the first quote.
Just trying to learn about this, not making an argument.
Although one thing I’ve never understood is the reason that black wealth didn’t occur (as much) in neighborhoods where they weren’t resisted, in some form. I assume that this is (again) related to difficulty getting loans in those areas (redlining).
I’m not sure I can find the article again from within the last 2 weeks, but it described how houses being sold that revealed that the owners were Black were receiving bids substantially less than the local market value and that by removing the revealing info (e.g., photos) the houses received higher bids. The market and real estate agents maintained the discriminatory pricing against Blacks even in those neighborhoods.
The two quotes are in alignment. It illustrates how even if a particular legal stricture is removed, other institutional and cultural barriers still exist that must be overcome. This is why simplistic solutions are rarely effective. More comprehensive solutions are needed for extensive problems.
Dear Readers:
I had my own inadequacies logging on so would have liked to have posted responses earlier. My fault.
Thanks for the comments.
In reply to Alan. I have been doing the research on these co-op communities for about 20 years. I had provided Richard Rothstein (Color of Law) with background on these co-op efforts to create inter-racial communities which appear in his book. After he gave his talk in Davis earlier this year I began to do research with more intensity. I had written this article for offer to a number of magazines/publications. In the middle of getting the article out there, President Trump made his remark, July 2020.
In my mind Trump’s quote is in context. I believe he is using low-income housing to mean mainly Black but likely other minority households. By Trump’s action he was making it clear to very white suburbia that they will be safer from Blacks and minorities being brought into those suburbs.
I was ashamed to see such race baiting language from the 1950’s re-appearing in 2020.
Just my opinion.
David Thompson
DT, thanks for the response. Indeed, when I visited the east coast and south, I found race relations are an entirely different thing than what they are on the west coast. So you may be right. In Davis, it’s mostly people not wanting to invest their life savings in a home they hope to retire in, and have a giant building go up next door (for example), not about the race of their neighbors. But we do live in a utopia where most racial issues seem to involve a lawn mower.
Ironically, WWII, the Korean War had a lot to do with that… and where folk were stationed, like Port Chicago/Antioch, San Diego, etc. A lot of soldiers and sailors did not return to their home states, and stayed in CA…
In CA, WA, some large cities back East or Midwest, the prejudice was generally less than in more rural areas in Midwest, or South.
David T is somewhat incorrect about blacks and whites “serving side by side” in WWII… units, both Army and Navy were either segregated, or blacks not in combat… even in segregated units, most officers were white… Truman started to change that during the Korean conflict…
I don’t doubt that this is the reason many homeowners object to multi-family or affordable housing. But often it’s a pretext for discriminatory motives. Rarely is anyone going to come out and say they object because of the race of prospective tenants (or because they will be low income families, or students, or people with developmental or other disabilities). Instead, opposition is stated on the purported impact on the “character” of the neighborhood, traffic, parking, etc.
Are those not valid concerns?
They might be—but the point is those stated concerns may not be the real motive. (And “character” is pretty vague.)
More: I have been involved in many cases, for example, involving single family homes being established for people with developmental disabilities where these arguments were made by neighborhood homeowners but were demonstrably untrue—i.e., they were a pretext for discrimination.
I read that as – you think some — or many — people in Davis would object to their neighbors due to race, income level, being students, and/or having disabilities.
“involved” ? – sorry I don’t track what people I don’t know do for a living, or as hobbies.
“but were demonstrably untrue” — how did you demonstrate this demonstrablitilization?
I’m just saying you can’t always take the reasons given at face value. It happens in even the most upscale of communities. In fact it’s more likely to occur in such communities.
So some people are racist? That’s patently obvious. The question becomes, at one point does one have a racist community? Is this a couple of A-holes, or widespread? I’ve been involved in several development issues (and no, not always in opposition), and I’ve just not seen it. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, but I sure don’t see it as widespread. Unlike MWB, which is rampant.
In reply to one of Ron’s queries;
The process for Levittown was that buyers had to queue up to be interviewed in person. The company that owned Levittown had sales offices on site and you can see on Google images photos of the long lines for the available homes. The paperwork was done on site by the owners rep. Blacks knew they were not eligible. Even so, there was the racial covenant in the mortgage documents so any Black applicant would be disallowed. The mortgages were made by a bank but the loan insured by the FHA. FHA would have removed its guarantee of every home in Levittown if even one had been sold to a Black. So Levittown had a serious interest in complying with FHA’s racial covenant.
Mr. Burnett as a Black veteran was eligible to use the program but only as long as he bought in a Black neighborhood. However, As a Black he was not entitled to get an FHA insured mortgage on a home in a white neighborhood. Mr. Burnett was brave enough to test the racial policies by getting in line at Levittown. Thank God he made the effort.
Just to show the role of racism.
One other unique veteran of the Second World War did get a home in Levittown. He had served in the navy in combat in Europe. However, he was a German U boat crew member who had fought against the USA. He was also White and that was all that mattered. He got a home.
David Thompson
Wow!
(re: Mr. Burnett, & the Nazi)
X2!
Thanks, David.
It is an interesting article.
But, I hope that development patterns (such as Levittown) are becoming a thing of the past – regardless of the skin color of the occupants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown#/media/File:LevittownPA.jpg
Yikes!
I guess you can blame the rise of automobiles, for this. How much damage they have caused (directly, and indirectly).
If only everyone else would stop driving. Well, they’ve probably cut back a little temporarily, at least. 😉
Then again, there is a broader movement back toward the suburbs, as well.