Root, Race, Place
Root, Race, Place
Root, Race, Place
EDUCATION
REPORT
roots,
race,
place
A History of Racially Exclusionary
Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area
What roles and responsibilities
should local jurisdictions and
Bay Area residents have in
righting past wrongs?
How can we transform our
institutions of local governance,
zoning ordinances, housing
markets, systems of property
rights, connection to land, and
relationships to our neighbors
in order to fully realize racial
equity and belonging?
What systems must be established
to prevent the tactics of racial
exclusion and dispossession of
the region’s past from being
implemented again?
roots,
race,
place A History of Racially
Exclusionary Housing in the
San Francisco Bay Area
A B O U T T H E AU T H O R S ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
Eli Moore is Director of the California We thank the following historians and
Community Partnerships Program at researchers for their work that helped
the Haas Institute. His research focuses inform this report: Marilynn Johnson,
on urban planning, political economy, Paul Miller, Benjamin Madley, Marc
race, and human geography. Eli holds Weiss, Richard Rothstein, Robert Self,
master’s degrees in Geography and In- and Jessica Trounstine.
ternational Relations from the Syracuse
University Maxwell School of Citizen- Insightful feedback from the following
ship and Public Affairs. reviewers was instrumental in revis-
ing an early draft of this report: Amee
Nicole Montojo is a Housing Re- Chew and Chris Schildt, of PolicyLink;
search Analyst for the California Com- Catherine Engberg, of Shute, Mihaly &
munity Partnerships Program at the Weinberger; Caroline Peattie, of Fair
Haas Institute. Her research focuses on Housing Advocates of Northern Cali-
housing policy, displacement and gen- fornia; and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, of
trification, and equitable planning and Princeton University.
governance. She holds a master’s de-
gree in City Planning from UC Berkeley. REPORT CITATION
Moore, Eli, Nicole Montojo, and Nicole
Nicole Mauri holds a JD from Berkeley Mauri. "Roots, Race, and Place: A His-
Law and was a Coblentz Civil Rights tory of Racially Exclusionary Housing
Research Fellow at the Haas Institute. in the San Francisco Bay Area." Haas
Her legal practice will focus on advanc- Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society,
ing civil rights, housing, and economic University of California, Berkeley. Oc-
justice. tober 2019. haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/
Additional research assistance provided rootsraceplace
by Anetra Brown and Yvette Chen.
CON TACT
D E S I G N & L AYO U T 460 Stephens Hall
Rachelle Galloway-Popotas Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel 510-642-3326
IMAGE RESEARCH haasinstitute.berkeley.edu
Nicole Montojo
ON TH E COVE R “The View from Ohlone/Mission Bay: 1776-2016,” by Fernando Martí (see
justseeds.org/artist/fernandomarti/). Originally created for the publication Frames, Life,
and Liberation (see otheringandbelonging.org), this image was also used as a fundraiser
for the Sogorea Te' Land Trust, an urban Indigenous women-led organization that facil-
itates the return of Chochenyo and Karkin Ohlone lands in the Bay Area to Indigenous
stewardship (see sogoreate-landtrust.com/).
CONTENTS
Introduction 7
Local Expressions of Broader Systems 9
Local Actors and Tactics 10
Timeline of Racially Exclusionary Policies and Practices in the Bay Area 12
Key Findings 14
Exclusionary Zoning 29
Explicitly Racial Exclusionary Zoning 29
Early Cases of Implicitly Racial Exclusionary Zoning 29
Comprehensive and Euclidean Zoning 29
Conclusion 64
Endnotes 66
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
7
INTRODUCTION
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
8
The rampant displacement seen today in the San Francisco Bay Area is
built upon a history of exclusion and dispossession, centered on race,
and driven by the logic of capitalism. This history established massive
inequities in who owned land, who had access to financing, and who held
political power, all of which determined—and still remain at the root of
deciding—who can call the Bay Area home. While systems of exclusion
have evolved between eras, research indicates that “it was in the early
part of the twentieth century that the foundation for continuing inequality
in the twenty-first century was laid. By building inequality into the phys-
ical landscape, cities added ‘unprecedented durability and rigidity to
previously fragile and fluid [social] arrangements’.”2
The lasting impact of these historic processes is clearly evident in the
Bay Area, where racial residential segregation levels have persisted and,
by some measures, even worsened since the 1970s.3 People of color in
the region today still have far less wealth, less access to resources like
high-quality schools and job centers, and lower rates of homeownership
than white residents.4
Individuals and communities have resisted racial exclusion in housing
through organizing, legal challenges, individual acts, and other means.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
9
Organizations with deep roots in Bay Area communities led efforts to shift
public opinion, call out injustices, and fight for fair and affordable hous-
ing, locally and nationally, while also defending individual families facing
racial violence in their own neighborhoods. As part of the national civil
rights movement, many Bay Area racial justice advocates contributed to
the legal victories that overturned some exclusionary tactics. Yet despite
the progress won by these movements, and the formation of many civic
action and social justice groups pushing for racial inclusion and equity in
the years since, the region has failed to undo racial inequities entrenched
in earlier eras and is now perpetuating new ones.
Where do we go from here? To begin
to answer this, and to grasp what it will
take to undo racial inequality in housing,
To grasp what it
we must first understand how it was will take to undo
established and perpetuated. While
our efforts to build a more equitable racial inequality in
future naturally orient us toward the housing, we must
“new”—new policy solutions, technolog-
ical innovations, new development—we first understand how
cannot move forward without confront-
ing the past. In tracing the roots of the
it was established
region’s racial exclusion in housing, we and perpetuated.
find that racism reinvents itself, proving
to be dynamic, generative, and fluid,
yet also remarkably durable and entrenched. This report documents the
multifaceted tactics for racial exclusion and dispossession in housing that
changed over time and were carried out by various public institutions,
business interests, and networks. Understanding the history of how these
tactics functioned is essential to dismantling their legacies in the future.
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
10
ing wealth, owning land, and attaining equitable economic power. Com-
bined with forces such as overpolicing and fiscal austerity more broadly,
it meant that historically segregated neighborhoods that confined people
of color were undervalued, and their residents, who tended to be either
low-income renters or highly indebted homeowners, were more likely to
face unstable housing conditions.
Segregation is simultaneously a cause of racial inequity and an effect of
broader racialized systems of dispossession, including predatory invest-
ment (such as urban renewal) and disinvestment (such as white flight)
that allowed for capital accumulation for some through the extraction of
wealth from others. Financial benefits of racial residential segregation
accrued not only to white residents with concentrated resources in their
neighborhoods, but to the local real estate developers, agents, and in-
vestors who employed lucrative strategies such as blockbusting, racially
restrictive subdivisions, demolition and redevelopment, and expropriation
of land. Historian Destin Jenkins describes segregation as “the domestic
expression of the racial capitalism of the 20th century,” with “government
as the vehicle and capitalism in the driver’s seat.”5 The exclusion of the
Sheng family from South San Francisco is just one example of how this
dynamic played out over the course of the region’s history. Along with the
other cases detailed in this report, it illustrates how a multitude of actors
successfully merged public and private capacities using a racial logic of
difference not only to justify, but to actually drive the accumulation of cap-
ital through real estate by those in power. Within the system that these
tactics upheld, boundaries between “public” and “private” must therefore
be reconsidered. The “private” is more than individual choice, belief, and
action, as Jenkins points out,6 while the “public,” often acts in the private
interest of select property owners.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
11
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
12
TIMELINE OF RACIALLY
EXCLUSIONARY POLICIES AND
PRACTICES IN THE BAY AREA
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910
pre–1850 to post-1970
State Violence and Dispossession
Statutes enacted by Spanish, Mexican, and US (local, state and federal) governments
resulting in dispossession of land and exclusion from the right to property, and enforcement
of these laws through police violence.
pre–1850 to post-1970
Extrajudicial and Militia Violence
Acts of violence against individuals (e.g. assault, murder) and/or their homes (e.g. arson,
vandalism) to force or keep specific racial groups out.
1880–1966
Racially Restrictive Covenants and
Homeowner Association Bylaws
Deed restrictions prohibiting the sale or lease
of homes to specific racial groups; bylaws
restricting HOA membership by race.
1870 to post-1970
Implicitly Racial Zoning
Local land use regulations that are race-neutral on paper but
have a racially exclusionary effect.
1890–1917
Explicitly Racial Zoning
Land use regulations that explicitly
exclude certain racial groups.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
13
1966 1968
Reenstatement Passage of
of California Fair Federal Fair
Housing Act Housing Act
1937–post-1970
Racialized Public Housing Policies
Local housing authority segregation policies & racial quotas,
barriers (e.g. voter referenda) to building new public housing,
demolition of public housing without replacement.
1950–post-1970
Urban Renewal
State acquisition of private land through eminent
domain & forced displacement of residents to
allow for redevelopment.
1945 to post-1970
White Flight and Municipal Fragmentation
Movement of white households away from urban centers
to suburbs, incorporation of new suburban municipalities.
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
14
KEY FINDINGS
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
15 15
Local laws that perpetuated racial exclusion were often the re-
sult of coordinated mobilization by actors within both the public
and private sectors, which blurred the lines between public and
private action. Throughout the region’s history, the interests of white proper-
ty owners, government officials, and developers aligned over the protection of
property values and accumulation of wealth based on racial exclusion. In many
cases, their interests were one and the same. The South San Francisco city
manager who facilitated the public vote against the Shengs was a Southwood
homeowner himself. Founding board members of the public housing authorities
in Richmond and Oakland previously held leadership positions in state and
local apartment owner associations.18 The chair of the Berkeley Civic Art Com-
mission who spearheaded the creation of the city’s original zoning ordinance
in 1916 was also the president of northern California’s largest real estate bro-
kerage and development corporation, which built numerous racially restricted
subdivisions in Berkeley and San Francisco.19
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
16
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
17
pelled inhabitants from the land, which was later sold or given to soldiers
or other chosen beneficiaries.
The California Constitutional Convention laid the foundation for exclusion
and dispossession under US law when delegates denied California In-
dians the right to vote.35 Following this decision and through a series of
new laws, Madley explains, “legislators slowly denied California Indians
membership in the body politic until they became landless noncitizens,
with few legal rights and almost no legal control over their own bodies.”36
In the 1850s, under
threat of violence, at
least 119 California
tribes signed treaties
with US Special Com-
missioners in which
they surrendered
the vast majority of
their land.37 In return,
the Commissioners
promised to provide
for basic needs, pro-
tection and education, Louis Choris ’s “Vue du Presidio” (ca. 1815)
as well as designate depicts the early San Francisco coast with
land for 19 reserva- Spanish soldiers dominating the Ohlone people.
tions. However, the US Courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of
Senate rejected the California, Berkeley. 42
treaties, and instead
later authorized just
five military reservations that comprised less than one-sixtieth of the acre-
age negotiated in the treaties, and provided no protection or any of the
other promises made, leaving California’s Native populations extremely
vulnerable to acts of violence by vigilantes and militias.38 Madley states,
“Indians became, for many Anglo-Americans, nonhumans. This legal ex-
clusion of California Indians from California society was a crucial enabler
of mass murder.”39 Under US rule, California’s Native American population
fell by nearly 90 percent, from 150,000 in 1846 to 16,277 in 1880.40 In
the Bay Area, the Ohlone population plummeted to 2,000 by 1830, just
13 percent of the population 60 years prior. Today, people identifying as
Native American or American Indian alone in the US Census living in the
Bay Area number around 40,500.41
After the US annexation of California through the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848, the US government adopted the California Land Act
of 1851, which governed the transition in property rights and created a
commission that would investigate and determine the validity of all land
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
18
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
19
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
20
Before the alien land laws were struck down, forced internment of
people of Japanese descent during World War II resulted in a massive
loss of property and community in the Bay Area. Over the span of a
few months, Japanese Americans were rounded up by US soldiers and
local police, assisted by local officials and business leaders.50 In May
1942, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
All were required to sell or give away their belongings, and just weeks of
notice provided insufficient time to get a fair price for farms, businesses,
and homes. The economic loss has been estimated at $1–$3 billion na-
tionally (not adjusted for inflation).52
During World War II, Californians aggressively sought to enforce the alien
land laws to prevent interned Japanese Americans from returning.53 The
laws remained in place until 1952, when they were overturned by a se-
ries of court cases (Oyama v. California, Fujii v. California, and Masaoka
v. California) and furthermore made obsolete by the Immigration Act of
1952, which declared Japanese immigrants eligible for citizenship.54 They
were officially repealed by a ballot proposition in 1956.55
Enforcing Exclusion
Local law enforcement officials played a key role in maintaining racial
exclusion, as exemplified by police participation in rounding up Japanese
Americans to be sent to internment camps in 1942. Racial exclusion
occurred not only through the enforcement of exclusionary policies, but
also through disparate enforcement that targeted people of color while
maintaining impunity for white individuals, refusal to protect people of
color from violence, and the direct use of violence to enforce the spatial
boundaries of racial residential segregation. During and after World War
II, local officials attributed rising crime and disorder, and particularly vio-
lent crime, to the growing population of migrant Black southerners.57 A
1943 Oakland Observer article captured the popular sentiment:
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
21
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
22
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
23
EXTRAJUDICIAL AND
MILITIA VIOLENCE
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
24
“white only,” and often had signs announcing that these areas were sun-
down towns, meaning African Americans, Mexican Americans, Chinese
Americans, or other people of color were not allowed in town after the
sun went down.77 Historian James Loewen keeps records of sundown
towns, and lists Antioch, San Jose, and San Leandro as “surely” sundown
towns, and considers it “probable” that Burlingame, Lafayette, Palo Alto,
Mill Valley, Napa, Piedmont, and Ross were too.78 Loewen notes that in
the 1940s, some realtors proposed designating the entire San Mateo
peninsula a sundown area. An Atherton real estate agent “urged exclusive
‘white occupancy in the region,’” stating that the peninsula was “not a
proper place” for “Negroes, Chinese, and other racial minorities.”79 The
Pacific Citizen reported that other members of the realty board “felt the
only way to handle the minority problem was to set aside acreage and
subdivide it for minority groups with schools, business districts, etc.”80
Though the proposal for a sundown area was shelved, threats and vio-
lence largely kept people of color from moving in.
Several lynchings in the Bay Area were documented, although infor-
mation on the full extent is incomplete. Historian Monroe Nathan Work
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
25
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
26
taken root long before. The Ku Klux Klan had established a presence in
the Bay Area during the 1920s, staging rallies, participating in public
parades in their full regalia by the thousands, and carrying out cross
burnings in places such as the hills of Richmond. Their freedom to do
so was publicly endorsed in 1922 by that city’s main newspaper, the
Richmond Independent.93
During and after World War II, widespread resistance to racial integration
was expressed through intimidation and violence against Black families.
Johnson explains the rise of anti-Black racism during this period:
In the 1920s, the Oakland Klan chapter had thousands of followers, and
in 1925, 8,500 people participated in a Ku Klux Klan cross-burning
ceremony inside the Oakland Auditorium (now known as the Kaiser
Convention Center). Courtesy of the Bancroft Library, University of
California, Berkeley. 94
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
27
In 1952, Wilbur and Borece Gary and their seven children purchased
a house in the Rollingwood subdivision in unincorporated San Pablo.95
Rollingwood was built during the war with federal loans, which required
racial covenants that prohibited all 700 houses from being sold to African
Americans like the Garys.96 These covenants were officially invalidated by
the 1948 US Supreme Court decision, Shelley v. Kraemer, but segrega-
tion remained in place until the Gary family moved in. News of the Gary
family’s purchase prompted the Rollingwood Improvement Association
to attempt to negotiate a buyout of the home, which the Garys refused.97
Upon moving, they became the target of death threats, violence, and
intimidation by white residents. The office of their realtor Neitha Williams,
who was also African American, was vandalized. In his open letter to the
community, Wilbur Gary documented the placing of a Ku Klux Klan cross
on their lawn and the gathering of a 400-person mob that stoned their
home and shouted threats:
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
28
With intervention from the San Francisco Council for Civic Unity and
much public attention due to Mays’ fame, Gnesdiloff decided to sell. His
realtor refused to take part in the transaction, claiming that his business
would suffer as a result. Then one week after the Mays family moved into
the house, the front window was smashed with a rock. Marghuerite Mays
spoke out against the racism they encountered: “Down in Alabama where
we come from, you know your place, and that’s something, at least. But
up here it’s all a lot of camouflage. They grin in your face and then de-
ceive you.” In response, the San Francisco Chronicle called out the hy-
pocrisy of San Franciscans that “blunt the sharp edge of local indignation
against citizens of the South who have been exciting little sympathy with
their complaints that integration is a vexing problem.”102
As the region’s history of violence shows, extrajudicial violence often
drove the adoption of new exclusionary policies, and it even furthered
exclusionary tactics like racial covenants after courts ruled them unen-
forceable, solidifying this strategy as a dominant and enduring means of
control and exclusion.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
29
EXCLUSIONARY ZONING
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
30
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
31
The push for local government to set up zoning regulations was largely
driven by real estate developers and was in part an effort to institu-
tionalize the restrictions that had been enforced through private deed
restrictions.117 The city council appointed Duncan McDuffie, a prominent
Berkeley developer and leading proponent of zoning at the time, as
chair of the Civic Art Commission, which spearheaded the passage of a
zoning ordinance. According to McDuffie, “In Berkeley the value of pro-
tective restrictions has been amply demonstrated by their use in private
residence tracts. The adoption of a district or zone system by Berkeley
will give property outside of restricted sections that protection now en-
joyed by a few districts alone and will prevent deterioration and assist in
stabilizing values.”118 Several neighborhoods had been developed with
five-year private deed restrictions that had expired, so the zoning would
allow these restrictions to be renewed and institutionalized. As president
of Mason-McDuffie, northern California’s largest real estate brokerage
and development corporation at the time, which built numerous racial-
ly restricted subdivisions in Berkeley and San Francisco, McDuffie’s
influence reached beyond the City of Berkeley. California realtors cele-
brated Berkeley’s racial exclusion, praising in the California Real Estate
magazine in 1926 the city’s ability “to organize a district of some twenty
blocks under the covenant plan as protection against invasion of Ne-
groes and Asiatics.”119
According to planning scholar Sonia Hirt, Berkeley’s 1916 ordinance
was also likely the first in the country to define a principal “Class I” zone
exclusively for single-family houses, thus establishing the national trend
that has come to distinguish US zoning.120 Leading advocates of zoning
in Berkeley stated that “apartment houses are the bane of the owner of
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
32
the single family dwelling,” and would “condemn the whole tract…of fine
residences.”121 The same advocates also publicly voiced their explicitly
racist motivations: “We [Californians] are ahead of most states [in adopt-
ing zoning]…thanks to the persistent proclivity of the heathen Chinese to
clean our garments in our midst.”122
In the 1926 case Euclid v. Ambler, the Supreme Court ruled that zoning
ordinances were generally valid so long as they were not arbitrary and
unreasonable and had a “relation to the public health, safety, morals, or
general welfare.”123 Furthermore, the ruling upheld and endorsed the con-
cept of the exclusive single-family zone that Berkeley pioneered a decade
earlier.124 Now constitutional, this type of zoning became the model for
the rest of the country. Named after the court case involving the village of
Euclid, Ohio, “Euclidean zoning” involves the separation of uses, special
zones for single-family homes, setbacks, and height restrictions.
The widespread adoption of zoning coincided with an increase in immi-
gration and, for the North and Midwest, migration of African Americans
from the southern United States.125 Similarly, the Bay Area city of Mil-
pitas, a largely white jurisdiction, used zoning to prevent Black workers
from moving to the area after the Ford Motor Company moved its plant
there from Richmond after World War II. Charles Abrams reported that
when “the labor union attempted to construct housing for Black workers,
the city rezoned the site for industrial use…Thereafter came a sudden
strengthening of building regulations, followed by a hike of sewer con-
nection costs to a ransom figure.”126 As demographic shifts occurred,
the rhetoric used by planners in the early-twentieth century to justify the
creation of separate residential zones for single-family homes and apart-
ments tells a story of class and racial bias. Intermixing between these
residences would “condemn” the single-family homes according to the
architects of the Berkeley zoning plan. In this way, “zoning rules, like many
of the other moral reforms of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth cen-
turies, were designed to significantly reduce the likelihood that middle-
and upper-class children would come into contact with poor, immigrant,
or black culture.”127
Berkeley’s zoning scheme and much of the Euclidean zoning that swept
the country were early examples of implicitly racist policy design, evi-
denced in the publicly stated reasons for the policies, and their impact. In
her national study of zoning and segregation, Trounstine finds that “cities
that were early adopters of zoning ordinances grew to be 10 percent
more segregated over the following fifty years than did cities that were
not early adopters. The results also illustrate that zoning ordinances dou-
bled the amount of renter segregation. In early adoption cities, property
values would also become more unequal by 1970.”128
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
33
The real estate industry’s advocacy for zoning was driven by tightly in-
tertwined interests in generating profit and maintaining racially exclusive
areas. Real estate developers, who had often developed large tracts of
dozens or hundreds of homes, feared that the allowance of people of
color would lower the sale prices of the homes, a concern that white
homeowners also voiced. Historian David Freund illuminates the racial
underpinnings of zoning:
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
34
Trounstine states that “as zoning practices spread through the 1920s,
emphasis on the enhancement of property values became the dominant
argument.”130 The real estate industry’s involvement in the emerging field
of urban planning nationally resulted in a “decisive (and quite rapid)
shift in zoning’s focus, away from the broad concern with ensuring ‘best
use.’”131 Then “almost universally, it was believed that the wrong sorts of
people residing, or even working, in an area could negatively impact prop-
erty values.”132 Furthermore, “African American residential mobility was
always understood in negative terms, because it forced ever wider read-
justments of property values in white neighborhoods.”133 As Robert Self
aptly remarks, “Containment is not too strong a word for the industry’s
desire to minimize these readjustments.”134 This enshrined a “theory of
land-use economics [that] treated racial and class differentials, like other
supposedly objective land use variables, as calculable.”135 The circular
logic of this argument would prove self-fulfilling: white people feared the
presence of people of color would lower their property values, so when
people of color did move in, white people quickly sold, earning a lower
price than they would otherwise. This logic also devalued homes owned
by people of color, driving down overall neighborhood prices.
Incorporated municipalities also turned to exclusionary land use policies
like large minimum lot sizes, growth boundaries, and caps on new units.
For example, immediately after Atherton was incorporated in 1923, the
town adopted a zoning ordinance imposing a one-acre minimum lot for
housing.136 In the mid-1950s, more suburbs, typically seeking to prevent
annexation, followed suit in adopting stringent land use regulations. Los
Altos Hills, incorporating in 1956, enacted a one-acre minimum lot size
and precluded multifamily housing in their zoning ordinance.137 The 1959
General Plan states the citizens’ intentions were to preserve the town’s
“rural-residential” character and avoid “undue burdens” upon the town’s
resources with population concentration.138
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
35
RACIALLY RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS AND HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION BYLAWS
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
36
The Price List for the Berkeley Park subdivision in Kensington includes
a restriction against “Asiatics or Africans.” George Friend Company,
ca. 1914. Courtesy of Earth Sciences and Map Library, University of
California, Berkeley. 142
and bear the complete cost and burden of seeking to have the law en-
forced.”146
In 1960, the Marin County Committee on Racial Discrimination reported
that restrictive covenants were still in use, despite their illegality, in order
to place social pressure on white families who did not wish to discrimi-
nate.147 According to Alexander Saxton, a retired history professor and
a resident of Sausalito at that time, “Back then, Marin County was com-
pletely segregated. Housing segregation was strenuously enforced both
by local banks and real estate people. White people could find new hous-
ing around the county, but Marin City was the only place open to black
people. So that’s where they stayed.”148
After Shelley v. Kraemer, neighborhoods around the country, including in
California, continued to bar African Americans and other racial minorities
from purchasing property in their neighborhoods by creating community
associations in which potential buyers would have to become members
before purchasing property in the area. The white homeowners’ asso-
ciations were often created by real estate developers.149 Because the
bylaws of these associations restricted membership to whites only, they
functioned to prevent African Americans from buying in those neigh-
borhoods.150 Associations like these and remaining covenants, along
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
37
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
38
RACIALIZED PUBLIC
HOUSING POLICIES
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
39
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
40
and war guest programs that matched workers with homeowners that
had spare rooms or other vacant accommodations, largely excluded non-
white migrants.169
The local housing authorities, which controlled occupancy decisions and
managed the public housing properties, used informal quota systems
that limited access to Black applicants. The Federal Public Housing
Administration encouraged the use of quotas to fairly distribute hous-
ing based on need, but as Johnson explains, the quotas reflected the
white-Black ratio among war workers, rather than the ratio among public
housing applicants, thus not accounting for the disproportionate need
among Black migrants whose options outside of public housing were far
more constrained.170 For example, the Richmond Housing Authority set a
quota of four white households for every one Black household in 1943,
and the inadequate supply of housing for Black families required many to
double up or illegally sublet, which, if found by the housing authority, was
grounds for eviction.171
The extreme shortage of housing for Black families thus led to overcrowd-
ing, and given the poor quality of construction, subsequent deterioration
of the segregated public housing units. After the war ended, public
housing waiting lists reached record length.172 As more white families
were able to move out of public housing with the support of federal gov-
ernment programs, formerly race-restricted units were made available
to Black families. Thousands more migrants arrived in the postwar era,
and Black households became the majority of public housing tenants in
Berkeley, Oakland, and Richmond. By 1946, more than half of the total
Black population in the region lived in temporary war housing.173 These
residents were essentially trapped, as racial discrimination continued
to limit their housing options. Johnson notes that while Bay Area cities
permitted over 75,000 residential units from 1949 to 1951, only 600 of
these were open to Black homebuyers.174 She explains that their limited
residential mobility restricted access to job opportunities in the postwar
economy, especially as industry moved out to the suburbs, “literally freez-
ing some families into unemployment.”175
Amid changing public housing demographics, regional economic shifts,
and intermunicipal competition in the postwar era, local public debates
turned toward urban redevelopment, “slum clearance,” and the removal of
war housing as a necessity for progress. In 1949, Oakland officials stat-
ed that the war housing projects were the city’s “sorest blight problem,”
“beyond the salvage point,” and “unsuitable for housing or any other use.”
Richmond administrators echoed this sentiment, stating that the south
side of the city where public housing was concentrated was becoming “a
vast ugly slum, a reproach to the City and a constant source of trouble,
conflict, and expense.”176
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
41
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
42
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
43
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
44
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
45
As part of the
San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency’s
"slum clearance"
effort, buildings in the
Western Addition were
razed with no intent to
rebuild for displaced
residents. Courtesy of
San Francisco History
Center, San Francisco
Public Library. 204
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
46
blocks of homes and thriving commercial districts. While the plans for
the highways were designed by the State Department of Public Works,
the Oakland City Council selected the exact routes by 1958.198 In total,
between 6,600 and 9,700 housing units were demolished between 1960
and 1966, displacing over 10,000 people from West Oakland.199
In San Francisco, urban renewal targeted the Western Addition, which
included most of Japantown, and by the 1950s was where the largest
concentration of African Americans in the city resided. Evictions from
a 28-block area of the Western Addition began in 1958. By 1960,
8,000 individuals, most of whom were Black or Japanese American,
were displaced to clear the way for new development and greater ac-
cess to downtown for commuters from the northwestern part of the
city.200 After his retirement, the former San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency deputy executive director and Western Addition Area Director
Gene Suttle plainly stated, “One of the purposes of renewal when it
was called slum clearance was not only to get rid of the people and the
structures but to make sure those blighting influences didn’t come back.
And so there was no intent to rebuild for the kind of people who were
being displaced.”201 Many of those displaced had nowhere to go. A San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency survey showed that 34 out of every
35 apartments in the city prohibited African Americans, and the housing
that was available was typically segregated, substandard, and expen-
sive.202 In the latter half of the 1960s, a second phase of redevelopment
Excerpt from a page from the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency’s 1960
brochure advertising land for sale in the Western Addition through the urban
renewal program. Courtesy of San Francisco History Center, San Francisco
Public Library. 205
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
47
Left: An image from a 1965 flyer protesting the Marincello Master Plan.
Right: A rendering of the unbuilt Marincello development. Courtesy of
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Park Archives, Katharine
Frankforter Papers, GOGA 27066, and Interpretation Negative
Collection, GOGA-2316.
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
48
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
49
Racial Steering
For at least 25 years following its release in 1924, the National Associ-
ation of Realtors’ code of ethics provided the guidance that “A Realtor
should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a char-
acter of property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any
individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values
in that neighborhood.”215 The California Real Estate Association (CREA)
set standards for segregation in its buying and selling policies, which
local real estate boards implemented. Throughout the Bay Area and the
rest of the state, “local realty boards assumed the role of disciplining any
members who violated [them] and determined which neighborhoods and
tracts would be designated for ‘whites only,’ refusing to share listings
with agents who openly served nonwhite clients.”216 A San Jose Mayoral
Committee on Human Relations in 1960 explained that the real estate
community in the Bay Area continued to discriminate against Black home-
buyers for several reasons. Firstly, the real estate firms understood their
code of ethics to prevent them from selling homes in a way that would
allow for integrated neighborhoods. Secondly, real estate agents feared
economic and social ostracism if they sold homes to Black homebuyers.
Thirdly, agents believed that owners and neighbors would fiercely oppose
integration. And finally, agents were operating according to their own
prejudices.217 A mutually reinforcing dynamic existed between homeown-
ers applying racial prejudice in selling or renting homes and narratives
from real estate agents that integration drives property values down. The
majority of real estate agents thus saw it as their responsibility to keep
existing white areas white.218
Realtors and community advocates servicing northern Santa Clara Coun-
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
50
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
51
Blockbusting
Blockbusting was a particularly pernicious and profitable form of racial
steering where real estate investors would provoke fear of racial change
in the neighborhood so they could profit from the transactions. For in-
stance, after the first African American family moved to East Palo Alto’s
new Palo Alto Gardens subdivision in 1954, real estate agents carried
out a blockbusting campaign:
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
52
Discriminatory Lending
Redlining, or the discriminatory practice of denying borrowers access
to credit based on the racial or socioeconomic makeup of the neighbor-
hood where their property is located, fundamentally contributed to racial
disparities in access to homeownership, residential segregation, and
disinvestment from communities of color throughout the United States
from the 1930s onward. While redlining, discrimination in the provision
of mortgage insurance, and other racially exclusionary lending practices
were driven in large part by the federal government, local actors played
a key role in their creation and use. When the Home Owners’ Loan Cor-
poration (HOLC) created its infamous “Residential Security” maps that
redlined neighborhoods and ultimately informed both public investment
and private sector lending decisions, the agency’s examiners gathered
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
53
information from local bank loan officials, realtors, appraisers, and munic-
ipal officials to determine neighborhoods’ lending risk classifications.236
The maps thus not only captured, but further amplified the common
understanding and bias among local actors in charge of lending deci-
sions.237 Redlining maps were created in 1937 for the Bay Area cities
of San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Alameda, Em-
eryville, Piedmont, and San Leandro.238
In addition to racial covenants that already restricted the supply of hous-
ing available to people of color, lending discrimination was yet another
barrier to contend with. “We know that the Negro cannot operate in a free
market. There are restrictions: by neighborhoods, property owners, real
estate corporations, companies and some financial institutions… [M]ost
banks are operating and are influenced by their experience of 20 years
ago, when Negroes were the first to go broke,” stated Jefferson Beaver
in 1956, who in 1949 established the Trans-Bay Savings and Loan As-
sociation in San Francisco to lend money to Black borrowers who were
denied financing by larger banks.239
In its Civil Rights Inventory of San Francisco, the San Francisco Coun-
cil of Civic Unity documented some of the racial factors considered
by major mortgage firms in the city. It found that loan approval “often
depended on whether property was in an ‘approved’ neighborhood,”
meaning a neighborhood where people of color already resided. All
of the lenders interviewed stated that they would not issue a loan to a
“‘first-entry’ minority in an all-white district,” and a majority also stated
that they “were sure that their depositors and policy holders would
threaten to, or actually would, withdraw their accounts if loans were
made to first-entry nonwhites,” and that “entry of nonwhites made loans
to white borrowers more difficult.”240
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
54
The initiative sought to frame the Rumford Act as constraining the rights
of individual homeowners to sell or rent their homes. Proposition 14 was
even framed as a “decision between ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘forced hous-
ing’.”244 Proponents argued that state officials were “seeking to correct . . .
a social evil [housing discrimination] while simultaneously destroying what
we deem a basic right in a free society.”245 The “basic right” spoken of here
is the illusory conviction that property owners must be allowed to sell their
property to whomever they choose. This is an argument that “the right to
discriminate by race was not only rooted in ‘natural law’ and guaranteed by
the U.S. Constitution but that it was a cornerstone of American prosperity
writ large.”246 Scholar Daniel Martinez HoSang writes that this connection
white homeowners made between the traditional property right to exclude
others from one’s land and the Rumford Act is one intended to preserve
both white power and wealth: “a central dimension of what made property
valuable was the prerogative of (white) property owners to discriminate by
race.”247 Voters understood the message encoded in the alleged threat to
their property rights. The Rumford Act would make it harder for communi-
ties and real estate agents to keep African Americans out of predominantly
white communities. Statewide, voters approved the proposition: 65 per-
cent in favor, 35 percent against.
Like the fight over public housing and Proposition 10 in 1950, the state-
wide fight over fair housing can be traced back to the Bay Area. In 1963,
the Berkeley City Council passed a fair housing ordinance. Debate over
the new ordinance roiled as Berkeley’s representative in the California
Assembly, William Byron Rumford, introduced the state Fair Housing Act.
Just three months after the local ordinance passed, the local real estate
association proposed a referendum to repeal the measure.248 Berkeley
residents voted by a narrow margin (22,750 to 20,456) to repeal the
ordinance and passed an initiative affirming the legality of housing dis-
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
55
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
56
MUNICIPAL FRAGMENTATION
AND WHITE FLIGHT
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
57
Municipal incorporation offered the ability for control over the amount of
taxation residents would be subject to, what services and amenities the
municipality would pay for, and what kind of development would occur
within its boundaries (and when). Jessica Trounstine describes this logic,
writing, “Today, the most advantaged places are located outside of cen-
tral cities altogether so that disadvantaged residents have no direct role
to play in decisions about building affordable housing, expanding public
transportation, or diversifying schools.”262
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
58
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
59
DISCUSSION: TRACES
OF THE PAST TODAY
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
60
HOLC.275 They find similar patterns in the East Bay and San Jose, where
83 percent and 87 percent, respectively, of gentrifying areas were rated
as “hazardous” or “definitely declining.”276
According to researchers at Urban Habitat, current processes of gentri-
fication and displacement are creating new patterns of segregation, with
disproportionate shifts of Black and Latinx populations outward to the
region’s fringe as the core grows more unaffordable.277 The same red-
lined neighborhoods were also among the hardest hit by the foreclosure
crisis, as mortgage lenders targeted communities of color with predatory
subprime loans, a practice referred to as reverse redlining. Investigations,
including one from 2013 of the Richmond and Vallejo metropolitan statis-
tical areas by Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, have shown
that as banks repossessed foreclosed properties, they failed to maintain
and market these houses in the same manner as they did in predominant-
ly white neighborhoods.278
In the wake of the foreclosure crisis, private equity and investment firms
purchased thousands of foreclosed properties in neighborhoods of color,
converting them to rental units, maximizing profits through constant rent
increases, and aggressively evicting tenants who are often unable to
afford the increased housing costs.279 In March 2019, United Nations
human rights officials denounced these racially discriminatory and ex-
tractive practices of commodifying homes for undermining the human
right to housing.280
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
61
economic mobility,286 and other life outcomes. The trauma of racial ter-
ror, like lynchings, militia violence, and related threats, also has lasting
effects on health that too often go without recognition.287 Recent studies
have also found that displacement and the stress of housing instability
can cause severe harm to one’s physical and mental health.288
Discrimination Continues
Racial discrimination by real estate agents, lenders, and homeowners
continues today. The fair housing group Project Sentinel settled a case
in 2016 against an apartment complex in Santa Clara after claiming
that the complex had refused to accept Mexican forms of identification,
among additional forms of discrimination, against applicants of Mexican
national origin.290 A recent survey in Sonoma County found that a quarter
of residents had experienced discrimination in the rental market. Hispanic
families had been denied rental opportunities by landlords stating that
they would not rent to single parents with children.291 Another recent
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
62
Each dot on this map represents an Oakland property that was foreclosed
on between 2007 and 2011. Those marked in red represent foreclosed
properties that were later acquired by investors. The vast majority of
foreclosures occurred in formerly redlined areas, shaded in this 1937 HOLC
map in red (“hazardous”) or yellow (“definitely declining”). Image credit:
Evan Bissell
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
63
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
64
CONCLUSION
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
65
Racial discrimination in housing has been illegal for more than 50 years,
yet glaring racial inequities persist. Racial disparities in wealth, income,
and ownership translate into differences in economic power in markets.
This difference in economic power has meant that white people have had
signficant advantages in the housing market even after individual acts of
racial discrimination were prohibited. Policies that are not explicitly racial,
but create disadvantages for low-income people and renters, have per-
petuated racial inequities. These include cuts to funding for affordable
housing, concentration of affordable housing in low-opportunity areas,
and lack of protections for low-income renters.
Efforts toward building an equitable future must start with recognizing the
extensive history of racial exclusion and dispossession in the Bay Area,
its adaptive and enduring nature, and its manifestations today. The tactics
documented here are not restricted to the past. They may go dormant and
later be resurfaced, as we have seen with the recent surge in racially moti-
vated violence. While it is convenient to think of racism as a fixed structure
of the past that we are progressively moving away from, this view has
flaws. What if instead, as scholar Daniel HoSang poses, “we imagine rac-
ism as a dynamic and evolving force, progressive rather than anachronistic,
generative and fluid rather than conservative or static?”303 How would this
change our approaches? History facilitates an understanding of dynamic
racial tactics that is instrumental in preventing them from being deployed
again. Achieving inclusive communities requires us to directly confront the
roots of exclusion, provide restitution for historical racial injustices, and
transform the power structures that continue to perpetuate them.
A true reckoning with our region’s history prompts some critical questions
such as the following:
• What roles and responsibilities should local jurisdictions and Bay Area
residents have in righting past wrongs?
• How can we transform our institutions of local governance, zoning or-
dinances, housing markets, systems of property rights, connection to
land, and relationships to our neighbors in order to fully realize racial
equity and belonging?
• What systems must be established to prevent the tactics of racial exclu-
sion and dispossession from the past from being implemented again?
• How can we act locally and regionally to bring about this change?
Recognizing that some tactics of exclusion originated in the Bay Area
and spread throughout the country, how might we seed transformative
change locally to allow it to take root more broadly?
We invite you to reflect on these questions and take actions informed by
the region’s history. n
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
66
8 john a. powell & Kaloma Cardwell, 19 Marc A. Weiss, “Urban Land Developers
“Homeownership, Wealth & the Produc- and the Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case
tion of Racialized Space,” Joint Center of Berkeley,” Berkeley Planning Journal 3,
for Housing Studies Harvard University no. 1 (1986):12, https://doi.org/10.5070/
(2013): 13-18, http://works.bepress.com/ BP33113187.
john_powell/67/. 20 In re Lee Sing, 43 F. 359, 361 (N.D. Cal.
9 The California Fair Housing Act, also 1890).
known as the Rumford Act was first 21 Joshua S. Yang, “The Anti-Chinese Cubic
enacted in 1963, but was nullified in Air Ordinance.” American Journal of
1964 with the passage of Proposition 14. Public Health 99, no. 3 (March 1, 2009):
After the California Supreme Court ruled 440–440, https://doi.org/10.2105/
Proposition 14 unconstitutional 1966, the AJPH.2008.145813.
Rumford Act was reinstated.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
67 67
22 Taylor, Toxic Communities, 106. 41 US Census Bureau, American Community
Survey 2017 (5-Year Estimates), Table
23 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the
B02001. Race.
Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case of
Berkeley,” 18. 42 Vue du Presidio de San Francisco [ca.
1815], California Cornerstones: Selected
24 Sonia Hirt, Zoned in the USA: The Origins
Images from The Bancroft Library Pictorial
and Implications of American Land-Use
Collection, fG420.K84C6 1822x Part 3,
Regulation (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Plate II, The Bancroft Library, University of
Press, 2014), 165.
California, Berkeley.
25 Rhomberg, No There There, 241.
43 Karen B. Clay, “Property Rights and Insti-
26 Brian Byrd, Shannon Dearmond, and Lau- tutions: Congress and the California Land
rel Engbring, “Re-Visualizing Indigenous Act of 1851,” The Journal of Economic
Persistence during Colonization from the History 59, no. 1 (1999): 122–42.
Perspective of Traditional Settlements in
44 Jeremy Rosenberg, “How Rancho Owners
the San Francisco Bay-Delta Area,” Jour-
Lost Their Land And Why That Matters
nal of California and Great Basin Anthro-
Today,” KCET, April 16, 2012, https://
pology 38 (December 1, 2018): 163–90.
www.kcet.org/history-society/how-rancho-
27 Monica Arellano, Alan Leventhal, Rose- owners-lost-their-land-and-why-that-mat-
mary Cambra, Shelia Guzman Schmidt, ters-today.
and Gloria Arellano Gomez. An Ethnohis-
45 Robert F. Heizer and Alan J. Almquist, The
tory of Santa Clara Valley and Adjacent
Other Californians: Prejudice and Dis-
Regions; Historic Ties of the Muwekma
crimination Under Spain, Mexico, and the
Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay
United States to 1920 (Berkeley: Universi-
Area and Tribal Stewardship Over the
ty of California Press, 1977), 150.
Tupiun Táareštak [Place of the Fox Man]
Site: CA-SCL-894 (2014), http://muwek- 46 Yuji Ichioka. “Japanese Immigrant Re-
ma.org/tribalhistory/ethnohistory.html. sponse to the 1920 California Alien
Land Law.” Agricultural History 58, no. 2
28 Madley, An American Genocide, 26.
(1984): 163, 169.
29 Ibid., 28.
47 Ibid., 159.
30 Five Spanish missions were established
48 Ibid., 163.
in the Bay Area: San Francisco de Asis
(1776, also known as Mission Dolores), 49 Ibid., 167.
Santa Clara (1776), San Jose (1797), San
50 The Virtual Museum of the City of San
Rafael Arcángel (1817), and San Francis-
Francisco, “Internment of San Francisco
co Solano (1823).
Japanese,” http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/
31 Madley, An American Genocide, 26. evactxt.html.
32 Arellano et al., An Ethnohistory of Santa 51 “SF Clear of All But 6 Sick Japs,” San
Clara Valley and Adjacent Regions; 9-16. Francisco Chronicle, May 21, 1942,
accessed July 12, 2019, http://www.
33 Madley, An American Genocide, 27.
sfmuseum.org/hist8/evac19.html.
34 Elias Castillo, A Cross of Thorns: The
52 Sandra C. Taylor, “Evacuation and Eco-
Enslavement of California’s Indians by the
nomic Loss: Questions and Perspectives,”
Spanish Missions. (Fresno, CA: Craven
in Japanese Americans: From Relocation
Street Books, 2015).
to Redress, rev. ed., ed. Roger Daniels,
35 Madley, An American Genocide, 156. Sandra C. Taylor, and Harry H. L. Kitano
(University of Washington Press, 1991),
36 Ibid., 171.
163-167.
37 Ibid., 165.
53 Brian Niiya, “The Last Alien Land Law,”
38 Ibid., 168. Densho, accessed July 22, 2019, https://
densho.org/last-alien-land-law/.
39 Ibid., 171.
54 Ibid.
40 Ibid., 3.
55 Ibid.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
68
56 Photograph: San Francisco, Calif. (2031 75 Charles J. McClain, In Search of Equality:
Bush Street), War Relocation Authority The Chinese Struggle against Discrim-
Photographs of Japanese-American Evac- ination in Nineteenth-Century America
uation and Resettlement, WRA no. C-423 (Berkeley, CA: University of California
[recto], The Bancroft Library, University of Press, 1994), http://ark.cdlib.org/
California, Berkeley. ark:/13030/ft3r29n8p4/.
57 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 167. 76 H.A. Rodgers, “California--The Chinese
Agitation in San Francisco--A Meeting
58 Oakland Observer, May 15, 1943, quoted
of the Workingmen’s Party on the Sand
in Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 167.
Lots,” line drawing, Chinese in California
59 Ibid. Virtual Collection: Selections from the Cal-
ifornia Historical Society, http://ark.cdlib.
60 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 168.
org/ark:/13030/hb8n39n9d0, California
61 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 169. Historical Society.
62 Self, American Babylon, 77. 77 James Loewen, Sundown Towns: A Hid-
den Dimension of Segregation in America
63 Ibid., 226.
(New York: The New Press, 2005).
64 Ibid., 229.
78 Loewen, “Sundown Towns in the United
65 Charles Wollenberg, Marinship at War: States.”
Shipbuilding and Social Change in War-
79 Loewen, Sundown Towns, 394.
time Sausalito (Berkeley, CA: Western
Heritage Press, 1990), 92. 80 Ibid.
66 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 182. 81 Tuskegee University Archives, Box
132.020, cited by MonroeWorkToday,
67 Rothstein, The Color of Law, 67.
“MonroeWorkToday Dataset Compilation,”
68 Rhomberg, No There There, 53. Map of White Supremacy Mob Violence,
accessed July 24, 2019, http://www.
69 E. A. Daly, “Alameda County Political
monroeworktoday.org/explore/#.
Leader and Journalist,” an oral history
conducted 1971, in Perspectives on 82 Ken Gonzales-Day, Lynching in the West,
the Alameda County District Attorney’s 1850-1935 (Duke University Press,
Office, Regional Oral History Office, 2006); Michael James Pfeifer, Rough
Bancroft Library, University of California, Justice: Lynching and American Society,
Berkeley, 1972, p. 10; “U.S. to Probe 1874-1947 (University of Illinois Press,
‘Friendly’ Warning to Negro Woman,” 2004); William D. Carrigan and Clive
Oakland Times, July 23, 1926, quoted in Webb, Forgotten Dead: Mob Violence
Rhomberg, No There There, 52-53. against Mexicans in the United States,
1848-1928 (Oxford University Press,
70 Edward Castillo, “Short Overview of
2013); cited by MonroeWorkToday, “Mon-
California Indian History,” California Native
roeWorkToday Dataset Compilation.”
American Heritage Commission, ac-
cessed July 11, 2019, http://nahc.ca.gov/ 83 Equal Justice Initiative, “Lynching in Amer-
resources/california-indian-history/. ica: Confronting the Legacy of Racial
Terror,” accessed June 2, 2019, https://
71 Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Loaded: A Dis-
lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report/.
arming History of the Second Amendment
(San Francisco: City Lights Publishers, 84 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 54.
2018), 53.
85 Ibid., 53-54.
72 Madley, An American Genocide, 182.
86 Shirley Ann Wilson Moore, To Place Our
73 Loewen, “Sundown Towns in the United Deeds: The African American Commu-
States.” nity in Richmond, California, 1910-1963
(Berkeley, CA: University of California
74 Yang, “The Anti-Chinese Cubic Air Ordi-
Press, 2000), 41.
nance.”
87 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 52.
88 Moore, To Place Our Deeds, 45.
89 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 55.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
69 69
90 Moore, To Place Our Deeds, 12 and 101. Housing Act, 101 Cal. L. Rev. 1437, 1447
(2013), https://scholarship.law.berkeley.
91 Stephen Menendian and Samir Gambhir,
edu/californialawreview/vol101/iss5/4/.
“Racial Segregation in the San Francisco
Bay Area, Part 2: Racial Demographics” 107 In re Lee Sing, 43 F. 359 (N.D. Cal.
(Berkeley, CA: Haas Institute for a Fair and 1890).
Inclusive Society, February 2019), https://
108 Ibid.
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/racial-segrega-
tion-san-francisco-bay-area-part-2. 109 Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
92 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 54. 110 Wilhelmina A. Leigh and James B. Stew-
art, eds., The Housing Status of Black
93 Moore, To Place Our Deeds, 25.
Americans, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transac-
94 Wide-angle photograph of Ku Klux Klan tion Publishers, 1991), 9.
gathering in the Oakland Auditorium,
111 Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
Photographs of Ku Klux Klan assemblies
in Oakland and Contra Costa County, 112 Yang, “The Anti-Chinese Cubic Air Ordi-
BANC PIC 2013.023--A, The Bancroft nance.”
Library, University of California, Berkeley.
113 “Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire,” Chi-
95 Beckles, “The Gary Family of Richmond: nese in California, No. 83, The Bancroft
Fighting for Equality and Standing for Library, University of California, Berkeley.
Their Rights,” 2.
114 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
96 Rothstein, The Color of Law, 6. (1886).
97 Beckles, “The Gary Family of Richmond: 115 Taylor, Toxic Communities, 106.
Fighting for Equality and Standing for
116 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the
Their Rights,” 3.
Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case of
98 Wilbur Gary, Daily People’s World, March Berkeley,” 18.
13, 1952, quoted in Beckles, “The Gary
117 Kevin Fox Gotham, “Racialization and
Family of Richmond: Fighting for Equality
the State: The Housing Act of 1934
and Standing for Their Rights,” 9.
and the Creation of the Federal Housing
99 Loewen, Sundown Towns, 393. Administration,” Sociological Perspectives
43, no. 2 (2000): 291–317, https://doi.
100 United States Commission on Civil Rights,
org/10.2307/1389798.
Hearings before the United States Com-
mission on Civil Rights. Hearings held 118 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the
in Los Angeles, California, January 25, Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case of
1960; San Francisco California, January Berkeley,” 13.
27, 1960, January 28, 1960 (Washington,
119 Ibid., 18.
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960),
590. 120 Hirt, Zoned in the USA, 165.
101 Paul T. Miller, The Postwar Struggle for 121 Ibid.
Civil Rights: African Americans in San
122 Ibid., 171.
Francisco, 1945–1975 (New York, NY:
Routledge, 2009), 57. 123 Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272
U.S. 365 (1926).
102 Stephen Grant Meyer, As Long as They
Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and 124 Hirt, Zoned in the USA, 165.
Racial Conflict in American Neighbor-
125 Richard H. Chused, Euclid’s Historical
hoods (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little-
Imagery, 51 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 597
field, 2000), 132.
(2001).
103 Hirt, Zoned in the USA, 3.
126 Charles Abrams, “The Housing Prob-
104 Edward H. Ziegler, Rathkopf’s The Law of lem and the Negro,” Daedalus 95, no. 1
Zoning and Planning, 4th ed (2017). (1966): 68.
105 Ibid. 127 Ibid.
106 Swati Prakash, Racial Dimensions of 128 Trounstine, Segregation by Design, 197.
Property Value Protection Under the Fair
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
70
129 David M. P. Freund, Colored Property: 149 Trounstine, Segregation by Design, 67.
State Policy and White Racial Politics in
150 Rothstein, Color of Law, 79.
Suburban America (University of Chicago
Press, 2010), 46. 151 National Committee Against Discrimina-
tion in Housing, Inc., A Study of Patterns
130 Trounstine, Segregation by Design, 152.
and Practices of Housing Discrimination in
131 Freund, Colored Property, 51. San Leandro, California, (May 1971), 2, 8,
9.
132 Trounstine, Segregation by Design, 152.
152 Julie Chao, “HUD Tracking ‘whites-Only’
133 Self, American Babylon, 265.
Covenants in N. California.” SFGate, Oc-
134 Ibid. tober 25, 1998. https://www.sfgate.com/
realestate/article/HUD-tracking-whites-on-
135 Freund, Colored Property, 65.
ly-covenants-in-N-3062955.php.
136 Robert C. Ellickson, “The Zoning
153 Julia Scott, “Racist remnant struck from
Strait-Jacket: Evidence from the Silicon
covenant,” San Jose Mercury News,
Valley, Greater New Haven, and Greater
August 18, 2007.
Austin” Working Paper, Stanford Law and
Economics Seminar, Stanford, CA, No- 154 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 100.
vember 2018.
155 Ibid., 99.
137 Ybarra v. Town of Los Altos Hills, 370 F.
156 Ibid., 100.
Supp. 742 (N.D. Cal. 1973).
157 Ibid., 103.
138 Ibid.
158 Ibid., 106.
139 Rothstein, The Color of Law, 78-79.
159 Rothstein, The Color of Law, 5.
140 Ibid., 82.
160 Miller, The Postwar Struggle for Civil
141 The Argonaut, 1906, f F850 .A8 set 2
Rights, 48-51.
v.59 (1906), The Bancroft Library, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley. 161 Ibid.
142 George Friend Company, Berkeley Park, 162 Rothstein, The Color of Law, 6.
Amended Map No. 2, http://oskicat.berke-
163 Gary Kamiya, “How SF’s Housing Au-
ley.edu/record=b22254223~S1, Earth
thority Kept Its Early Projects All White,”
Sciences and Map Library, University of
San Francisco Chronicle, July 22, 2016,
California, Berkeley.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/
143 Rothstein, The Color of Law, 88-90. article/How-SF-s-Housing-Authority-kept-
its-early-8403968.php.
144 Elaine B. Stiles, Every Lot a Garden Spot:
‘Big Dave’ Bohannon and the Making of 164 Miller, The Postwar Struggle for Civil
San Lorenzo Village (San Lorenzo Heri- Rights, 51.
tage Society, 2015).
165 Miller, The Postwar Struggle for Civil
145 United States Commission on Civil Rights, Rights, 54.
Hearings before the United States Com-
166 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 109.
mission on Civil Rights, 257.
167 Ibid., 108.
146 George Lipsitz, The Possessive Invest-
ment in Whiteness: How White People 168 Rothstien,The Color of Law, 5.
Profit from Identity Politics, 20th century
169 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 93.
edition (Philadelphia, PA: Temple Universi-
ty Press, 2018), 26. 170 Ibid., 107.
147 United States Commission on Civil Rights, 171 Ibid., 107-108.
Hearings before the United States Com-
172 Ibid., 213.
mission on Civil Rights, 559-560.
173 Ibid., 215.
148 Eva Goldberg, “Making Art / Making Histo-
ry: The Negro History Quilt Club Of Marin 174 Ibid., 214.
City And Sausalito,” American Popular
175 Ibid.
Culture, http://www.americanpopularcul-
ture.com/archive/politics/quiltclub.htm. 176 Ibid., 217.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
71 71
177 Ibid., 97. ierra I) (N.D. Cal. 1970).
178 Ibid. 194 James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137, 143
(Valtierra II) (1971).
179 Ibid., 98.
195 NAACP brief, 21-26; Valtierra I, 313 F.
180 Ibid., 218.
Supp. at 5 & n.2.
181 Ibid., 223-224.
196 Cavin, “A Right to Housing in the Sub-
182 Rhomberg, No There There, 114-116. urbs,” 443.
183 Diego Aguilar-Canabal, “The Deplorable 197 Self, American Babylon, 142.
Politics Behind Article 34,” The Bay City
198 Ibid., 150.
Beacon, accessed July 23, 2019, https://
www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/ 199 Ibid., 155.
the-deplorable-politics-behind-article/
200 Ibid.,114.
article_d5421448-b4ba-11e8-9847-
6fb4a6f5cf5c.html. 201 Ibid.,109.
184 Johnson,The Second Gold Rush, 219- 202 Ibid.,117.
220.
203 Ibid.,120.
185 Rhomberg, No There There, 114-116.
204 Left: “Crane smashes against a dwell-
186 Cal. Const. art. XXXIV. ing in the Western Addition,” August
11, 1958, photograph,San Francisco
187 Rhomberg, No There There, 241.
Historical Photograph Collection, AAK-
188 SCA-1 Public housing projects, 2019- 1461, San Francisco History Center, San
2020 regular session, (2018). https:// Francisco Public Library, http://sflib1.sfpl.
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavCli- org:82/record=b1040341. Right: George
ent.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SCA1. Place, San Francisco News-Call Bulletin,
“Construction at Geary and Fillmore,” June
189 Kathleen Morgan-Martinez, “Local Control
30, 1960, photograph, San Francisco
in Low-Income Development: The Prom-
Historical Photograph Collection, AAC-
ise of California’s Article 34,” Santa Clara
1917, San Francisco History Center, San
Law Review 33 (1993): 765-798, http://
Francisco Public Library, http://sflib1.sfpl.
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/
org:82/record=b1016813.
vol33/iss3/7.. “Persons of low income” is
defined as “persons or families who lack 205 San Francisco Redevelopment Agency,
the amount of income which is necessary “The San Francisco Redevelopment
(as determined by the state public body Agency now offers… 43 acres of prime
developing, constructing, or acquiring the land in the Western Addition,” (San Fran-
housing project) to enable them, without cisco, 1960), accessed September 5,
financial assistance, to live in decent, safe 2019, https://archive.org/details/sanfran-
and sanitary dwellings, without over- ciscorede1960sanf.
crowding.” James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S.
206 Cavin, “A Right to Housing in the Sub-
137 (Valtierra II) (1971).
urbs,” 430.
190 Aaron Cavin, “A Right to Housing in
207 Ibid.
the Suburbs: James v. Valtierra and the
Campaign against Economic Discrim- 208 Louise Nelson Dyble, “Revolt Against
ination.” Journal of Urban History 45, Sprawl: Transportation and the Origins
no. 3 (May 1, 2019): 435. https://doi. of the Marin County Growth-Control
org/10.1177/0096144217712928. Regime.” Journal of Urban History 34,
no. 1 (November 2007): 39, https://doi.
191 Ibid.
org/10.1177/0096144207308049.
192 Ibid., 427-451.
209 Dyble, “Revolt Against Sprawl,” 41.
193 Brief Amici Curiae of the NAACP Legal
210 John Hart, “How Grit and Grace Saved
Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and
Marincello,” Bay Nature, accessed August
the National Office for the Rights of the
12, 2019, https://baynature.org/article/
Indigent, James v. Valtierra, 3 (Oct. 26,
saved-by-grit-and-grace/.
1970); Valtierra v. Housing Authority of
City of San Jose, 313 F. Supp. 1, 5 (Valt- 211 Dyble, “Revolt Against Sprawl,” 38.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
72
212 Ibid., 40. Public Library, http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/
record=b1035549.
213 Richard A. Walker, The Country in the
City: The Greening of the San Francisco 229 San Mateo County Historical Association,
Bay Area (Seattle: University of Washing- and San Mateo County Historic Resourc-
ton Press, 2009), 93. es Advisory Board, City of East Palo Alto
Historic Resources Inventory Report
214 Benjamin Ross, Dead End: Suburban
(February 1994), 71.
Sprawl and the Rebirth of American
Urbanism (Oxford University Press, 2015), 230 Self, American Babylon, 165.
91.
231 Johnson, The Second Gold Rush, 228.
215 National Association of Real Estate
232 United States Commission on Civil Rights,
Boards, Code of Ethics: Adopted by
Hearings before the United States Com-
the National Association of Real Estate
mission on Civil Rights, 726.
Boards at its Seventeenth Annual Con-
vention, June 6, 1924, quoted in Troun- 233 Ibid., 638.
stine, Segregation by Design, 166.
234 Ibid., 588.
216 Daniel Martinez HoSang, Racial Proposi-
235 Terry Link, “The White Noose: How Racist
tions; Ballot Initiatives and the Making of
Federal Policies Put a Stranglehold on
Postwar California. (Berkeley, CA: Univer-
the City,” San Francisco, November 1971,
sity of California Press, 2010), 56.
26-56.
217 United States Commission on Civil Rights,
236 Bruce Mitchell and Juan Franco, HOLC
Hearings before the United States Com-
“Redlining” Maps: The persistent structure
mission on Civil Rights, 616.
of segregation and economic inequality
218 Ibid., 735. (National Community Reinvestment Coa-
lition, 2018), 5, https://ncrc.org/wp-con-
219 National Association of Real Estate
tent/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/02/
Boards, Code of Ethics: Adopted by
NCRC-Research-HOLC-10.pdf.
the National Association of Real Estate
Boards at its Seventeenth Annual Con- 237 Ibid., 7.
vention, June 6, 1924, http://archive.
238 Richard Marciano, David Goldberg, Chien-
realtor.org/sites/default/files/1924Ethics.
Yi Hou, Testbed for the Redlining Archives
pdf.
of California’s Exclusionary Spaces,
220 United States Commission on Civil Rights, accessed August 9, 2019, http://salt.umd.
Hearings before the United States Com- edu/T-RACES/mosaic.html
mission on Civil Rights, 616, 637.
239 Miller, The Postwar Struggle for Civil
221 Ibid., 637. Rights, 58.
222 Ibid. 240 Trevor Thomas, San Francisco’ Housing
Market--Open or Closed? Civil Rights
223 Ibid., 726.
Inventory of San Francisco, (San Fran-
224 Ibid., 587. cisco, CA: Council for Civic Unity of San
Francisco), 29-30.
225 Ibid., 590.
241 California Department of Real Estate, Ref-
226 Ibid., 589.
erence Book: Information Relating to Real
227 National Committee Against Discrimina- Estate Practice, Licensing and Examina-
tion in Housing, Inc., A Study of Patterns tions (Sacramento: California Department
and Practices of Housing Discrimination in of Real Estate, 2010), 35, http://dre.
San Leandro, California, 2. ca.gov/Publications/ReferenceBook.html.
228 Bob Warren, San Francisco News-Call 242 Center for California Real Estate, “About
Bulletin, “Miss Frances Fletcher, Berke- C.A.R.,” Center for California Real Estate,
ley teacher pointing at chart that shows accessed August 11, 2019, http://center-
racial discrimination in housing sales and forcaliforniarealestate.org/about/car.html.
rentals in San Francisco,” March 9, 1962,
243 HoSang, Racial Propositions, 62.
photograph, San Francisco Historical
Photograph Collection, AAF-0302, San 244 Self, American Babylon, 204.
Francisco History Center, San Francisco
245 HoSang, Racial Propositions, 68.
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
73 73
246 Ibid., 70. The First Thirty Years (Mission Peak Heri-
tage Foundation, 1989), 33-34.
247 Ibid., 71.
268 US Census Bureau, 1950 and 1960
248 Earl Warren Oral History Project, “Legisla-
Decennial Census, retrieved from Asso-
tor for Fair Employment, Fair Housing, and
ciation of Bay Area Governments, Bay
Public Health William Byron Rumford,”
Area Census, http://www.bayareacensus.
Regional Oral History Office, University of
ca.gov/cities/Richmond50.htm
California, Berkeley, 1970-1971, https://
oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt5h4n- 269 US Census Bureau, 1970 Decennial
b0wd&brand=oac4&chunk.id=meta. Census, retrieved from Association of Bay
Area Governments, Bay Area Census,
249 David B. Oppenheimer, “California’s An-
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/
ti-Discrimination Legislation, Proposition
Fremont70.htm.
14, and the Constitutional Protection of
Minority Rights: The Fiftieth Anniversary 270 john a. powell and Kathleen M. Graham,
of the California Fair Employment and “Urban Fragmentation as a Barrier to
Housing Act,”Golden Gate University Law Equal Opportunity,” 79-80, 81.
Review 40, no. 2 (2010): 121, http://dig-
271 Ibid., 81.
italcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol40/
iss2/1. 272 Self, American Babylon, 259.
250 Ibid., 124. 273 Moore, To Place Our Deeds, 100.
251 Ibid., 125. 274 Bay Area Equity Atlas, “Neighborhood
Opportunity,” Bay Area Equity Atlas,
252 Self, American Babylon, 264.
accessed August 12, 2019, https://ba-
253 Ibid., 261. yareaequityatlas.org/indicators/neighbor-
hood-opportunity#/.
254 California Real Estate Association, Califor-
nia Real Estate Magazine, October 1964. 275 Miriam Zuk & Karen Chapple, “Redlining
and Gentrification,” Urban Displacement
255 Self, American Babylon, 267.
Project, 2015, https://www.urbandis-
256 Ibid., 268. placement.org/redlining.
257 john a. powell and Kathleen M. Graham, 276 Ibid.
“Urban Fragmentation as a Barrier to
277 Tony Roshan Samara, Race, Inequality and
Equal Opportunity,” Report of the Citi-
the Resegregation of the Bay Area (Urban
zens’ Commission on Civil Rights; Rights
Habitat, 2016), https://urbanhabitat.org/
at Risk, Equality in an Age of Terrorism
sites/default/files/UH%20Policy%20
(2002), 79, 85.
Brief2016.pdf.
258 john a. powell and Kathleen M. Graham,
278 Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
“Urban Fragmentation as a Barrier to
California. June 26, 2018. “Civil Rights
Equal Opportunity,” 85.
Organizations Accuse Bank of America of
259 Rebecca Hendrick and Yu Shi, “Mac- Housing Discrimination in 37 Metropolitan
ro-Level Determinants of Local Gov- Areas.” http://www.fairhousingnorcal.org/
ernment Interaction: How Metropolitan uploads/1/7/0/5/17051262/fhanc_bank_
Regions in the United States Compare,” of_america_final_pr_6-26-18.pdf
Urban Affairs Review 51, no. 3 (2015):
279 Surya Deva and Leilani Farha to the
417.
United States of America, March 22,
260 Ibid. 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/Docu-
ments/Issues/Housing/Financialization/
261 Self, American Babylon, 120.
OL_USA_10_2019.pdf.
262 Trounstine, Segregation by Design. 25-27.
280 Ibid.
263 Self, American Babylon, 121 and 124.
281 U.S. General Accounting Office, Siting
264 Ibid., 125-27. of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their
Correlation with Racial and Economic Sta-
265 Ibid., 126 and 171.
tus of Surrounding Communities (1983).
266 Ibid., 127. Commission for Racial Justice, United
Church of Christ, Toxic Wastes and Race
267 Oral History Associates, City of Fremont:
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace
74
in the United States (1987). 3-6.
282 Paul Mohai and Robin Saha, “Racial 292 BBC Research & Consulting, Sonoma
inequality in the distribution of hazardous County Regional Analysis of Impediments
waste: a national-level reassessment.” to Fair Housing Choice, Section iv, 1.
Social Problems, 2007; 54 (3): 343-370.
293 Peattie and Tankersley, Marin County
283 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Could Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
where you live influence how long you Choice, Chapter 3, 12-13. Note: Fair
live?” accessed July 22, 2019, https:// housing testing done via telephone relies
www.rwjf.org/en/library/interactives/ on people’s assumptions regarding the
whereyouliveaffectshowlongyoulive.html. race of the caller. Linguistics experts have
found that people called correctly identify
284 Sharon Stein Merkin, Ricardo Basur-
the race of the speaker about 80 percent
to-Dávila, Arun Karlamangla, Chloe E.
of the time, allowing fair housing organi-
Bird, Nicole Lurie, Jose Escarce and
zations and researchers to rely on voice
Teresa Seeman, “Neighborhoods and
and accent recognition to conduct testing
Cumulative Biological Risk Profiles by
studies.
Race/Ethnicity in a National Sample
of U.S. Adults: NHANES III,” Annals of 294 Contra Costa County Consortium, Anal-
Epidemiology 19, no. 3 (March 2009): ysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
194–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Choice (2016), 105.
annepidem.2008.12.006.
295 BAE Urban Economics, Alameda County
285 Elizabeth Arias, Loraine Escobedo, Joce- Home Consortium Analysis of Impedi-
lyn Kennedy, Chunxia Fu and Jodi Cisewki, ments to Fair Housing Choice (2015), iv.
“U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Esti-
296 Ziegler, Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and
mates Project: Methodology and Results
Planning.
Summary,” Vital and Health Statistics.
Series 2, Data Evaluation and Methods 297 David Ray Papke, “Keeping the Under-
Research, no. 181 (September 2018): class In Its Place: Zoning, the Poor, and
1–40. Residential Segregation,” The Urban
Lawyer 41, no. 4 (Fall 2009): 793, https://
286 Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick
scholarship.law.marquette.edu/fac-
Kline, and Emmanuel Saez, “Where is the
pub/459.
Land of Opportunity? The Geography of
Intergenerational Mobility in the United 298 Michael C. Lens and Paavo Monkkonen,
States,” National Bureau of Economic “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make
Research Working Paper Series, 2014. Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by
Income?,” Journal of the American Plan-
287 Equal Justice Initiative, Lynching in Amer-
ning Association 82, no. 1 (2016): 11.
ica: Confronting the Legacy of Racial
Terror. 299 Weiss, “Urban Land Developers and the
Origins of Zoning Laws: The Case of
288 Bay Area Regional Health Inequities
Berkeley,” 18.
Initiative. “Displacement Brief,” Febru-
ary 2016, http://barhii.org/wp-content/ 300 Hirt, Zoned in the USA, 165.
uploads/2016/02/BARHII-displace-
301 Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in
ment-brief.pdf.
Whiteness, 32.
289 Caroline Peattie and Jessica Tankersley,
302 Weiss, The Rise of the Community Build-
Marin County Analysis of Impediments
ers: The American Real Estate Industry
to Fair Housing Choice (Marin County,
and Urban Land Planning (New York:
2011), chapters 3 and 10.
Columbia University Press, 1987), 49.
290 National Fair Housing Alliance, The Case
303 HoSang, Racial Propositions, 2.
for Fair Housing: 2017 Fair Housing
Trends Report (2017), 91.
291 BBC Research & Consulting, Sonoma
County Regional Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice (Sonoma County,
City of Santa Rosa & City of Petaluma,
California, 2012), Executive Summary,
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e
76
@haasinstitute
r oot s , r ac e, a nd p lac e