Yong Feng See Research Paper Renewal or Resegregation?

The Racial Politics of Urban Renewal from 1949-1964 Urban renewal in America was first enacted in legislation with the Housing Act of 1949, as a program that aimed to remove blight and revitalize the cities.1 It reached its peak in the postwar period, and then was terminated in the early 1970s after a series of urban riots that protested against its policies. Urban renewal was not defined by any specific piece of legislation, but consisted of a bundle of programs that included public housing, slum clearance, urban redevelopment, highway construction and home mortgages. Much research has shown that urban renewal helped to perpetuate patterns of racial segregation in cities, and that its effects on segregation lasted well after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.2 In line with this, a common perception is that this segregation was an unfortunate result of good intentions that were poorly implemented. On the contrary, it can also be argued that the primary aim of urban renewal was never to help the poor. Instead, urban renewal policies from 1949 to 1964 were intentionally skewed in favor of the middle classes. Although urban renewal was initially motivated by the need to house the poor, its legislation heavily disadvantaged blacks, who made up a huge majority of the urban poor.3 While the government often preached and exaggerated the benefits of urban renewal to people from all parts of society, the truth was that urban renewal limited opportunities for black
1

In the Housing Act of 1949, the exact phrase used was urban redevelopment. The phrase urban renewal only came into popular use after the Housing Act of 1954. 2 Kenneth T. Jackson, Race, Ethnicity, and Real Estate Appraisal: The Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration, Journal of Urban History 6 (August 1980), 419-452; Marc A. Weiss, The Origins and Legacy of Urban Renewal, in Urban and Regional Planning in an Age of Austerity, ed. Pierre Claval, John Forester, and William W. Goldsmith, 53-80, New York: Pergamon, 1980; Mark Gelfand, Federal Programs and the Cities Patterns of Three Decades: 1933-60, in A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America, 1933-1965, 198-237, New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. 3 In President Harry Trumans State of the Union address in 1949 that introduced the 1949 Housing Act, he said that the number of low rent public housing units provided for in the legislation should be increased to 1 million units in the next 7 years. This was a goal that was never attained. Harry S. Truman, "Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union," January 5, 1949. Published online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13293.

people and at the same time directed government spending to middleclass whites. The clearing of slums, together with a lack of increase in public housing, meant that displaced blacks were left without adequate housing. In the ten years following the inception of the 1949 Housing Act, over 140,000 low-rent housing units were destroyed, but fewer than 2000 similarly priced units were built.4 At the same time, the cleared land was used for private construction projects that created employment for many middle-class whites. This obviously unequal treatment led critics of the program to dub it Negro removal. Historian Arnold Hirsch argues that urban renewal was rooted, in large part, in the desire to control and mitigate the consequences of racial succession, as evidenced by how it seemed to prioritize slum clearance over housing the poor.5 Unlike welfare programs like public housing, urban renewal spent federal money on projects that benefitted middle-class whites.6 While slums were cleared and urban blight reduced, the subsequent social problem of rehousing those displaced by the bulldozer was largely ignored. The anti-poor bias of urban renewal was largely due to the huge influence of business interests in its implementation. The government needed large amounts of funding in order to rebuild the cleared areas, and the urban investors and private interests who could provide this funding often asked for favors in return. Hirsch described this vividly when he says that not only had private developers been given new bootstraps, but local, state, and federal authorities further obliged them by hauling them up two-thirds of the way, mostly by making it legal and cheap to acquire land from slum areas through the power of eminent domain.7 The Federal Housing Authoritys (FHA) reluctance to hand out loans to blacks in a practice known as redlining was also a result of business influence. Historians Kenneth Jackson and Mark Gelfand both describe how the FHA acted solely in the interests of itself and the real estate industry, putting a stamp of federal approval on residential segregation while claiming to act in the name of sound business principles.8 Through intensive lobbying, business groups like the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB) and the Urban Land Institute slowly changed government policy to allow for private development of cleared land.9 Although federal rhetoric at the top talked about the need to take care of minorities housing needs, the individual authorities invariably chose to go along with what private developers
4 5 6 7 8 9

Gelfand, 208-9. Hirsch, 90. Weiss, 65. Hirsch, 88. Gelfand, 220 and Jackson, 446-7. Weiss, 58-63.

wanted, for the sake of convenience and expediency. In examining how the governments urban policy hugely disadvantaged blacks, it is clear that the urban poors inability to be represented in government authorities was also a contributing factor. Their lack of representation meant that people who were prejudiced against blacks could direct urban policy. A description of the FHA portrays it as being full of people with less-than-enlightened racial views and who declared stables, pigpens, and inharmonious racial groups equally objectionable.10 However, it must be noted that not all parties were equally biased towards whites. Supporters of the public housing program advocated and spoke for the welfare of the blacks. Nevertheless, even within the public housing movement, the reformers were middle class people who took on a paternalistic attitude and did not feel the effects of their actions. They eventually gave in to urban renewal supporters and helped pass a bill that did not include public housing, as they felt slum clearance was itself was an important goal. Marc Weiss evaluates this as an obvious example of the need for the poor to be able to organize themselves and be included in the planning process, instead of relying on people to speak on their behalf. 11 In another scenario, minority leaders asked for equal treatment in federal laws, but failed to incite any change as their supporters in the echelons of the federal government felt it was unsafe to bring up the sensitive topic of race.12 All these examples show that racial discrimination was inherent in federal policy through a lack of minority representation, and not just a misguided implementation of its legislation. Defendants of urban renewal might argue that in the long run, the revitalization of the city that urban renewal helped bring about was beneficial to people from all social classes and races. The clearing of slums and addition of new commercial buildings improved public health and safety and also increased economic activity and growth. In addition, the improved facade of the city and new infrastructure such as highways and transport systems could be enjoyed and used by all. Thus, the end result of urban renewal could be said to justify its initial negative effects on urban blacks. All the policies that were carried out were in the interests of the long-term welfare of the entire city. The overall improvement that urban renewal induced in American cities cannot be denied. However, even with this in mind, urban renewal remains a program that was arguably redistributive to upper income

10 11

Hirsch, 85. Weiss, 70-71. 12 Gelfand, 212-3.

people.13 The residential segregation of blacks has had massive repercussions on their social mobility, and has become so deeply rooted that it seems destined to stay.14 The benefits that urban renewal brought to the cities were mostly claimed by the middle classes, who could live in the pricier residential apartments and work in the modern office towers that were built over the slums. Thus, even in the long term, urban renewal favored the white middle class. The federal urban renewal program painted a false picture of helping society as a whole, while it was in fact heavily controlled by the business sector and influenced by the dominant racial prejudices of the time. This resulted in policies that deliberately supported the middle classes. It is instructive to note while examining past or present public policy that most policies are crafted under the influence of various powerful and invisible interest groups, that might not always prioritize the social good. It is likely that if black groups had more equal representation in the planning process, urban renewal would never have so overwhelmingly favored middle-class whites. Instead, Americas cities could have taken a turn for the better, with greater racial and socioeconomic diversity replacing the segregation that persists today. Bibliography Hirsch, Arnold R. With or Without Jim Crow: Black Residential Segregation in the United States. In Urban Policy in Twentieth Century America, ed. Arnold R. Hirsch and Raymond A. Mohl, 84-90. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1993. Jackson, Kenneth T. Race, Ethnicity, and Real Estate Appraisal: The Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration. Journal of Urban History 6 (August 1980): 419-452. Weiss, Marc A. The Origins and Legacy of Urban Renewal. In Urban and Regional Planning in an Age of Austerity, ed. Pierre Claval, John Forester, and William W. Goldsmith, 53-80. New York: Pergamon, 1980. Gelfand, Mark. Federal Programs and the Cities Patterns of Three Decades: 1933-60. In A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America, 1933-1965, 198-237. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.

13 14

Weiss, 65. Hirsch, 90-94.

Rhetorical Outline Proposition: The urban renewal program from 1949 to 1964 was biased towards subsidizing the white middle class. Goal: To advance the proposition and convince the reader that the policies behind urban renewal favored whites over blacks. Plan: An introduction with a justificatory proposition, three reasons, a refutation and concession, and a conclusion. Audience: Classmates who have some knowledge of the politics of housing in America in the 20th century and have read the main text, but have not read the other three sources and might not be knowledgeable about urban renewal in particular. P1 Says: Urban renewal in America was short-lived, beginning in 1949 and ending in the 1970s. It was carried out in the form of various programs and its policies encouraged the persistence of residential segregation in cities. Despite popular thought that this was due to a perversion of how it was carried out, the problem was that the policies themselves were biased against the poor. P1 Does: Gives an introduction to the topic that provides the reader with a brief background to urban renewal in America. Specialized premises are used as the reader is assumed to have some knowledge on the politics of housing in that time period, but not about urban renewal. The last few sentences lead up to the justificatory proposition by presenting an idea that is contrary from it. P2 Says: Government rhetoric emphasized the inclusiveness of urban renewal but the program actually was a contributing factor to increased segregation. The governments urban policies deliberately supported the middle class to a large extent by spending money on development projects that gave them jobs. On the other hand, the slums where the poor lived in were cleared without adequate numbers of new housing units for them to move to. P2 Does: Elaborates and explains the proposition in further detail, with a strong reason that clarifies it by focusing on the actual policies of urban renewal and not its original intentions. Specific examples are used to support the reason, and the statistics are chosen to give the argument credibility. A quote that emphasizes the unequal aspect of urban renewal is also used to support the reason with an opinion from a reliable expert on the topic. P3 Says: Urban renewal was heavily influenced by the private sector. Agencies like the FHA carried out policies that suited both it and the

businesses, but not the poor. Lobbying by business organizations also changed public policy to suit their conveniences. This was due to a need of financial support from the private sector, as well as self-interest by the various authorities. P3 Does: States the second reason that supports the proposition, looking at the influences behind urban policy that led to the effects mentioned in P2. Direct quotations and paraphrasing from the sources are used as evidence. The Hirsch quotation used appeals to emotion, as it slightly exaggerates the influence of private developers through a vivid analogy. Other sources are cited to lend credibility to the argument. The last sentence summarizes the examples given links back to the proposition by talking about the influence that shaped urban policy. P4 Says: The lack of political power of the poor was also a factor in their disenfranchisement. Federal authorities were filled with people from the middle classes who had prejudices against blacks and thus did not act effectively on their behalf. Even the public housing advocates eventually gave way to the larger group of urban planners and their lobbyists, as they were still influenced by middle-class bias. P4 Does: Introduces the third reason and supports it with a wide range of evidence, including anecdotes that illustrate the effects of prejudice. This reason supports the proposition with a strong argument, as it is undeniable that racial prejudice was still present in the historical period discussed. The quotations used show the racial prejudices against blacks effectively and appeal to the readers emotion, especially as they contrast greatly with the now widely accepted premise of racial equality. A wide range of evidence is cited to show how racial prejudice affected people from all parts of society. P5 Says: Proponents of urban renewal might contend that it improved the overall condition of the cities. This improvement was of use to both the poor and the middle classes. Thus it can be argued that taking a long-term perspective, urban renewal aimed to help everyone in society. P5 Does: This paragraph introduces an alternate reason that tries to rebut the proposition of the paper. This increases the papers credibility as it shows that opposing arguments were also considered. The reason is supported by examples of how urban renewal could conceivably help all parts of society. P6 Says: It is true the urban renewal improved lives; yet, it still favored the middle class. The impacts of the segregation that urban renewal caused are not small and are long lasting. The white middle class was able to reap most of the improvements that urban renewal brought due to their higher income. P6 Does: The first two sentences concede to the argument in P5 that urban renewal improved overall living standards, but rebut the rest of it.

This strengthens the paper by dismantling a strong argument against the proposition. The reasoning is supported by reference to a source as well as a general example that is easily understood. P7 Says: The urban renewal program did little to improve the living conditions of the urban poor due to the shaping of its policies by both external and internal interests. This shows that in the drafting of public policy, the group that takes the public interest as its priority might not always have the final say. If minorities were given more political power in the shaping of urban renewal policy, todays cities might have been less strongly segregated. P7 Does: Summarizes the arguments of the paper, and brings the reader back to the proposition by paraphrasing it. The conclusion also links to further ideas for the reader to consider by suggesting how a more inclusive policymaking process would have changed the cities of the present, as well as how this argument can be extended to public policy in general. This makes the conclusion more than a rehash of the paper and givens the reader options for further research or reading.