Book Club Week 4 Recap: Economic Exclusion

This post was written by Jordan Williams, Management Analyst with the Office of Housing and Community Development, Department of City Planning.

As we met for our fourth book club session to discuss Richard Rothstein’s, The Color of Law, we first delved into the context of housing policy. The presentation focused on the narrower question of: How do the housing policy decisions of the 20th century still impact Atlanta today? We reviewed how previous policies of exclusionary zoning and redlining created the segregated, low-density city that Atlanta is today. As a result of these policies, in Atlanta today, nearly 60% of land is zoned for single-family use with white households concentrated in the north and east and African-American households largely in the south and west.

Economic suppression and exclusion worked in tandem with practices of exclusionary zoning, redlining, and urban renewal to further segregate the nation and Atlanta. Under the New Deal, despite the implementation of a federal minimum wage, millions of workers were excluded because they worked in fields such as agriculture or domestic service that were known to disproportionately employ African-Americans. These exclusions persist in the present day, which is worsened by the fact that Georgia has a minimum wage of only $5.15 per hour. These financial limitations also translate into reduced opportunities for African-Americans in building home equity. As a case study, the group examined two similar properties in Atlanta, one in an affluent, predominantly white neighborhood (Ridgedale Park), and another in Venetian Hills, a predominantly African-American neighborhood with higher levels of poverty. Despite the similar size and style of the homes, the former had a value of $397/square foot while the latter had a value of only $159/square foot based on the most recent sales prices. This is only one of countless manifestations of a century of economic and zoning policies that have excluded, marginalized and impoverished African-American residents of Atlanta.

We then split into our small discussion groups and discussed the economic suppression and exclusion documented by Rothstein. Participants reviewed Rothstein’s recounting of African-American exclusion from unions and federal assistance programs. While whites were able to benefit from programs that helped to obtain jobs and financial security, African-Americans were often excluded from the programs or unable to find housing that would enable their participation due to local outrage over the presence of African-Americans. With regards to unions, though they are widely considered progressive institutions today, they were among the foremost agents of economic exclusion for African-Americans for much of the twentieth century. African-Americans were largely limited to auxiliary roles and were seldom permitted to supervise whites. This led to a tiered wage system that limited and suppressed African-American economic mobility. The effects of this are still visible today because no remediation was ever undertaken. Following a program of wealth-building for whites, the federal government then reverted to a laissez-faire economic policy that left African-Americans behind.

One of the most challenging issues the group wrestled with is how we can avoid the ills of gentrification, particularly displacement. As neighborhoods experience rising property values, how can they successfully revitalize without the displacement of legacy residents? In other words, the challenge for many practitioners and advocates is how public policy can bring quality jobs, schools, transportation options, and amenities without displacing the people it is intended for in the context of a capitalist economic system. These economic considerations also intersect with law enforcement and the recent national reckoning with racial injustice. Perhaps our law enforcement strategies actually reinforce patterns of gentrification and displacement. And once these problematic patterns and policies are recognized, how can we begin to solve them?

As the full group returned to recap our conversations, a sense of enthusiasm was palpable. Even though we may have had more questions than answers, there was a sense that the time for being a bystander has passed, that the time to be actively engaged has arrived. As one participant put it, how can link the habits of democracy with the outcomes we seek?