1. Political scientist Mara Sidney, one of the few scholars to study the two movements side by side, points out that despite baseline agreements on issues of social justice, there is very little collaboration between advocates in the two camps. She writes, “Fair housing groups do not typically partner with the affordable housing movement in local movements for regional justice,” and that “national fair housing policy has produced a population of local fair housing groups that have trouble developing allies and do little to mobilize the public behind their cause.... At the same time, for a variety of reasons, affordable housing advocates may not perceive fair housing or civil rights advocates as natural allies.” Mara S. Sidney, “Fair Housing and Affordable Housing Advocacy: Reconciling the Dual Agenda,” in The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America, ed. Xavier de Souza Briggs (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2005), 267.

2. Sheila Crowley and Danilo Pelletiere, Affordable Housing Dilemma: The Preservation vs. Mobility Debate (Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2012).

3. Ibid., 5.

4. “Combined Principles—Intersection of Community Development and Fair Housing,” revised draft, November 16, 2012, p. 1.

5. Ibid.

6. The relevance of the debate is also reflected in the ongoing “conversation” between fair housing and community development advocates on this issue. The National Housing Institute’s Shelterforce (the “voice of community development”) has been host to a prolonged discussion about the merits of mobility and community development strategies over the past several years. See, e.g., Bill Bynum, “To Move or to Improve?,” Rooflines, 2016; “Shelterforce Exclusive: Interview with HUD Secretary Julian Castro,” February 4, 2016; Staci Berger and Adam Gordon, “Fair Housing and Community Developers Can Work Together,” Shelterforce, October 15, 2015; Peter Dreier, “The Revitalization Trap,” Shelterforce, October 1, 2015; Brentin Mock, “The Failures and Merits of Place-Based Initiatives,” Atlantic Citylab, May 25, 2015; Miriam Axel-Lute, “Seeking Solidarity between Place-Based and Economic Justice Work,” Rooflines, June 1, 2015; Josh Ishimatsu, “The False Choice between Mobility and Community Development,” Rooflines, August 4, 2014; and Philip Tegeler, “In Pursuit of a ‘Both/and’ Housing Policy—the Case of Housing Choice Vouchers,” Rooflines, April 7, 2014.

7. My use of labels for different racial/ethnic groups requires some explanation. The phrase “people of color” is meant to refer to racial and ethnic groups other than “white, non-Hispanic.” Thus, people of color include African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. In this book I use the term interchangeably with “minority.” The term “white” is used as shorthand for “white, non-Hispanic.” The substance of most of the public policy issues examined in this book are most relevant for African Americans (a term I use interchangeably with “blacks”). Indeed, much of the history of fair housing and civil rights discussed in the book relates specifically to African Americans. Further, the evidence shows that African Americans are subject to higher and more enduring levels of racial segregation than other racial/ethnic groups; see Lee Sigelman and Susan Welch, “The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes,” Social Forces 71.3 (1993). All these labels are used purposefully. If a phenomenon applies to only African Americans, or if the historical issue concerned only (or overwhelmingly) African Americans, then the language used will be similarly specific. For more general statements I refer to people of color, acknowledging that although blacks may suffer the deepest forms of discrimination and housing deprivation in the country, other groups such as Hispanic Americans and Native Americans share a subordinate position in the political economy of American urban areas. For the most part, all the groups that make up “people of color” experience many of the housing deprivations examined in this book at a rate greater than do whites. The exception to this is Asian Americans, though this is not uniformly the case across all subgroups within Asian Americans. Certainly race is a social construction, but it is no less relevant or important for being so. The issues addressed in this book centrally involve the reality that access to adequate housing (however defined) is differentially distributed along racial/ethnic lines. The broadest divide is between whites and people of color, yet the starkest disparities are between whites and blacks. The terminology used in the following pages will shift according to the precise argument being made.

8. Desmond S. King and Rogers M. Smith, Still a House Divided: Race and Politics in Obama’s America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011).

9. Ibid., 17. These alliances manifest themselves in the housing field, according to King and Smith, much as they do in other fields such as employment policy, where racial inequalities are problematic.

10. Ibid., 7.

11. Elizabeth Anderson, The Imperative of Integration (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010).

12. King and Smith, House Divided, 24.

13. See, e.g., Alexander Polikoff, “Sustainable Integration or Inevitable Resegregation: The Troubling Questions,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986); Robert Lake and Jessica Winslow, “Integration Management: Municipal Constraints on Residential Mobility,” Urban Geography 2.4 (1981); Leonard S. Rubinowitz and Elizabeth Trosman, “Affirmative Action and the American Dream: Implementing Fair Housing Policies in Federal Homeownership Programs,” Northwestern University Law Review 74 (1979).

14. “Protected classes” is a reference to the population groups identified in the U.S. Fair Housing Act of 1968 that are specifically protected by the nondiscrimination mandates provided for in the act.

15. See, e.g., Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management.”

16. Rubinowitz and Trosman, “Affirmative Action.” See also Charles E. Daye, “Whither Fair Housing: Meditations on Wrong Paradigms, Ambivalent Answers, and a Legislative Proposal,” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 3 (2000): 241.

17. David Imbroscio, “‘United and Actuated by Some Common Impulse of Passion’: Challenging the Dispersal Consensus in American Housing Policy Research,” Journal of Urban Affairs 30 (2008).

18. Alexander Polikoff, Waiting for Gautreaux : A Story of Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006). See also the ruling in Otero v. New York City Housing Authority, 354 F. Supp.941 (U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, 1973), and the examples provided by Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management.”

19. See, as examples, the decision in Otero v. NYCHA; and Michael H. Schill, “Deconcentrating the Inner City Poor,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 67 (1991).

20. The temporality of these stations is not strict. In fact, some of the efforts that are categorized in the second station evolved contemporaneously with those in the first. The temporal ordering is most prominent in the emergence of the third station, in which efforts are made at breaking up existing concentrations of people of color.

21. See, e.g., Justin D. Cummins, “Recasting Fair Share: Toward Effective Housing Law and Principled Social Policy,” Law & Inequality 14 (1995).

22. Sharon Perlman Krefetz, “The Impact and Evolution of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit and Zoning Appeals Act: Thirty Years of Experience with a State Legislative Effort to Overcome Exclusionary Zoning,” Western New England Law Review 22 (2000): 381; and Spencer M. Cowan, “Anti-Snob Land Use Laws, Suburban Exclusion, and Housing Opportunity,” Journal of Urban Affairs 28 (2006).

23. Nico Calavita, Kenneth Grimes, and Alan Mallach, “Inclusionary Housing in California and New Jersey: A Comparative Analysis,” Housing Policy Debate 8.1 (1997).

24. The use of the term “ghetto” is contentious and thus requires some explanation. The word carries a negative connotation and is a somewhat dated usage, being most widely used in the United States in the 1950s and ’60s. The term was earlier used, of course, in reference to Jewish quarters in European cities. The usage migrated to the United States as social scientists and advocates compared the conditions of blacks in America to the Jews in Nazi-era ghettos. See Mitchell Duneier, Ghetto: The Invention of a Place, the History of an Idea (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016). As Peter Marcuse argues, the term is meant to signal a community that is segregated by force rather than by choice; see Marcuse, “The Ghetto of Exclusion and the Fortified Enclave: New Patterns in the United States,” American Behavioral Scientist 41.3 (1997). In some cases the degree of volition that produces a segregated or racially/ethnically defined community is difficult to assess. Indeed within any segregated community there are undoubtedly families who are there by choice and others who are trapped there because of lack of alternatives. Middle-class black or Hispanic neighborhoods are generally not considered “ghettos” by those who reside there. Increasingly, even low-income minority neighborhood residents chafe at the use of the term “ghetto.” In this book I use the term in two ways. The first is as a historical reference. Thus, when referring to the civil rights era, I adopt the usage of the times, referring to black neighborhoods the way that the principals did. I also use the term to signal neighborhoods that are the target of fair housing advocacy, neighborhoods that integrationists desire to desegregate. This is done to reflect the sense among integrationists that these communities are traps and that they do reflect forced segregation.

25. This point is not universally acknowledged. Political scientist David Imbroscio argues that the narrow concern with exclusionary zoning channels a great deal of political capital and effort that could have the effect of diverting resources from affordable housing efforts in the core. See Imbroscio, “Beyond Mobility: The Limits of Liberal Urban Policy,” Journal of Urban Affairs 34.1 (2012). The strength of Imbroscio’s claim here is tied to the issue of scarcity and opportunity costs raised earlier.

26. Though the most well-known case, Shannon v. HUD (436 F. 2d 809, 3d Cir. 1970) is by no means the first example of fair housing advocacy aimed at restricting the placement of subsidized housing in core neighborhoods. See the discussion in chapter 2.

27. See, e.g., Antonio Raciti, Katherine A. Lambert-Pennington, and Kenneth M. Reardon, “The Struggle for the Future of Public Housing in Memphis, Tennessee: Reflections on HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods Planning Program,” Cities 57 (2016); and Amy L. Howard and Thad Williamson, “Reframing Public Housing in Richmond, Virginia: Segregation, Resident Resistance and the Future of Redevelopment,” Cities 57 (2016).

28. David Imbroscio’s response to the regionalist argument in Urban America Reconsidered may be a notable exception, although his argument there goes far beyond the community development field; see Imbroscio, Urban America Reconsidered: Alternatives for Governance and Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010).

1. See, e.g., Sandra J. Newman and Ann B. Schnare, “ ‘... And a Suitable Living Environment’: The Failure of Housing Programs to Deliver on Neighborhood Quality,” Housing Policy Debate 8 (1997); Michael H. Schill and Susan M. Wachter, “The Spatial Bias of Federal Housing Law and Policy: Concentrated Poverty in Urban America,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 143 (1995); Robert Gray and Steven Tursky, “Local and Racial/Ethnic Occupancy for HUD Subsidized Family Housing in Ten Metropolitan Areas,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John M. Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986); Ira Goldstein and William L. Yancey, “Public Housing Projects, Blacks, and Public Policy: The Historical Ecology of Public Housing in Philadelphia,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John M. Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986); Douglas Massey and Shawn Kanaiaupuni, “Public Housing and the Concentration of Poverty,” Social Science Quarterly 74.1 (1993).

2. Stacey Seicshnaydre, “How Government Housing Perpetuates Racial Segregation: Lessons from Post-Katrina New Orleans,” Catholic University Law Review 60 (2010). See also Stacey Seicshnaydre, “The Fair Housing Choice Myth,” Cardozo Law Review 33.3 (2012).

3. Several studies have shown a link between assisted housing and growth in concentrated poverty. See Goldstein and Yancey, “Public Housing,” Massey and Kanaiaupuni, “Public Housing,” and Lance Freeman, “The Impact of Assisted Housing Developments on Concentrated Poverty,” Housing Policy Debate 14.1 – 2 (2003). See also Arnold R. Hirsch, Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), for the argument about subsidized housing creating and reinforcing racial segregation.

4. See Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, “Durable Inequality,” in Poverty Traps, ed. Samuel Bowles, Steven N. Durlauf, and Karla Hoff (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006). Their study of Chicago over a twenty-year period showed a rigid hierarchy in which neighborhoods tended to remain in place relative to one another over time.

5. Ibid., 176.

6. Patrick Sharkey, Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 176.

7. Statement of Edward L. Holmgren, executive director of the National Committee against Discrimination in Housing, The Gautreaux Decision and Its Effect on Subsidized Housing—Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), 85.

8. Statement of Alexander Polikoff, executive director of Business and Professional People in the Public Interest, The Gautreaux Decision and Its Effect on Subsidized Housing—Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), 139.

9. Seicshnaydre, “How Government Housing,” 687.

10. Gary Orfield, “The Movement for Housing Integration: Rationale and the Nature of the Challenge,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 26.

11. Explicitly race-based zoning was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).

12. See, e.g., Maria Krysan, “Prejudice, Politics, and Public Opinion: Understanding the Sources of Racial Policy Attitudes,” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000).

13. John Goering, “Political Origins and Opposition,” in Choosing a Better Life? Evaluating the Moving to Opportunity Social Experiment, ed. John Goering and Judith D. Feins (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2003).

14. As examples of regionalist writing see Bruce Katz, ed., Reflections on Regionalism (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2000); Peter Dreier, John H. Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom, Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century, 3rd ed. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2014); Manuel Pastor, Chris Benner, and Martha Matsuoka, This Could be the Start of Something Big: How Social Movements for Regional Equity Are Reshaping Metropolitan America (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009); David Rusk, Inside Game, Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999).

15. Support for the demolition and redevelopment of public housing is a good example of this common approach. The movement to demolish and redevelop public housing was importantly abetted by fair housing desegregation lawsuits in the 1980s and 1990s targeting public housing authorities in cities across the country. The dismantling of public housing was also strongly supported by regionalists such as Bruce Katz and Peter Calthorpe, who saw the effort in terms of addressing debilitating patterns of place-based inequities within metropolitan areas. See Edward G. Goetz, “The Audacity of HOPE VI: Discourse and the Dismantling of Public Housing,” Cities 35 (2013); Edward G. Goetz, New Deal Ruins: Race, Economic Justice, and Public Housing Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013).

16. Rusk, Inside Game.

17. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires, eds. The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities (New York: Routledge, 2010). See Susan Popkin et al., The Hidden War: The Battle to Control Crime in Chicago’s Public Housing (Washington, DC: Abt Associates, 1996), on the exposure to crime of public housing residents in Chicago. Jonathan Kozol provides a memorable description of the biohazards confronting the ghetto of East Saint Louis, Missouri, in Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools (New York: Broadway Books, 2012).

18. Sharon Jackson et al., “The Relation of Residential Segregation to All-Cause Mortality: A Study in Black and White,” American Journal of Public Health 90.4 (2000); and Angus Deaton and Darrne Lubotsky, “Mortality, Inequality and Race in American Cities and States,” Social Science and Medicine 56 (2003).

19. Dolores Acevedo-Garcia, Theresa L. Osypuk, and Nancy McArdle, “Racial/Ethnic Integration and Child Health Disparities,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010).

20. Hartman and Squires, Integration Debate.

21. Anderson, Imperative; Renee E. Walker, Christopher R. Keane, and Jessica G. Burke, “Disparities and Access to Healthy Food in the United States: A Review of the Food Deserts Literature,” Health and Place 16.5 (2010).

22. Keith R. Ihlandfeldt and David L. Sjoquist, “The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: A Review of Recent Studies and Their Implications for Welfare Reform,” Housing Policy Debate 9 (1998).

23. Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro, “Race and Wealth,” Review of Black Political Economy 17.4 (1989).

24. See Katrin Anacker, “Shaky Palaces? Analyzing Property Values and Their Appreciation Rates in Minority First Suburbs,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36.4 (2012); Katrin Anacker, “Still Paying the Race Tax? Analyzing Property Values in Homogeneous and Mixed-Race Suburbs,” Journal of Urban Affairs 32.1 (2010); Lauren J. Krivo and Robert L. Kaufman, “Housing and Wealth Inequality: Racial-Ethnic Differences in Home Equity in the United States,” Demography 41.3 (2004).

25. Rusk, Inside Game.

26. Hartman and Squires, Integration Debate; Xavier Briggs, “Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of Social Capital,” Housing Policy Debate 9.1 (1998). This type of social capital is to be distinguished from a different type of social capital, what Briggs calls “bonding” social capital, which provides more day-to-day material benefits to low-income individuals from members of their support networks. Bonding social capital seems to be in abundance in very low-income neighborhoods—see, for example, Sudhir Venkatesh, American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), or Rhonda Williams, The Politics of Public Housing: Black Women’s Struggles against Urban Inequality (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)—but it is less useful for generating economic opportunities that might support upward mobility.

27. See Briggs, “Brown Kids”; and Silvia Domínguez and Celeste Watkins, “Creating Networks for Survival and Mobility: Social Capital among African-American and Latin-American Low-Income Mothers,” Social Problems 50.1 (2003).

28. A corollary to ghetto disadvantage is the evidence of the adverse effects of concentrated poverty. Concentrated poverty, it should be noted, did not emerge as a public policy problem until the late 1980s. The problem was simply not formally labeled and conceptualized during the years in which the fair housing movement emerged and grew. Nevertheless, the intense spatial concentration of poor households in American cities has become a central target of the fair housing movement since the 1990s. Concentrated poverty mirrors racial segregation in many ways, especially as it has been argued to damage the life chances of those living in such conditions. Furthermore, there is a heavy racial overlap to poverty concentrations. Most areas of concentrated poverty are also racially segregated neighborhoods, and poor African Americans, for example, are several times more likely to live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty than are poor white households; see Paul Jargowsky, Concentration of Poverty in the New Millennium: Changes in Prevalence, Composition and Location of High Poverty Neighborhoods (Camden, NJ: Rutgers Center for Urban Research and Education, 2013).

29. Douglas Massey and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993); john powell, “Reflections on the Past, Looking to the Future: The Fair Housing Act at 40,” Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development 18.2 (2009); Anderson, Imperative.

30. Lawrence Bobo, “Keeping the Linchpin in Place: Testing the Multiple Sources of Opposition to Residential Integration,” International Review of Social Psychology 2.3 (1989).

31. Sharkey, Stuck in Place.

32. Florence Roisman, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in Regional Housing Markets: The Baltimore Public Housing Desegregation Litigation,” Wake Forest Law Review 42.2: 351. This is a more radical statement than it might appear, as many careful social scientists would aver that the correlation between segregation and social outcomes such as crime and drug abuse, though high and easily demonstrable, fall short of actual causation.

33. Anderson, Imperative, 64.

34. See, e.g., Camille Zubrinsky Charles, “The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation,” Annual Review of Sociology 29 (2003).

35. Reynolds Farley, Elaine L. Fielding, and Maria Krysan, “The Residential Preferences of Blacks and Whites: A Four-Metropolis Analysis,” Housing Policy Debate 8.4 (1997).

36. See, e.g., Stephen Grant Meyer, As Long as They Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Conflict in American Neighborhoods (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

37. Oliver and Shapiro call this the “racialization of state policy.” Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro, Black Wealth / White Wealth (New York: Routledge, 1995).

38. Meyer, Next Door.

39. Charles E. Connerly, “From Racial Zoning to Community Empowerment: The Interstate Highway System and the African American Community in Birmingham, Alabama,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 22.2 (2002).

40. Michael Danielson, The Politics of Exclusion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976).

41. Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).

42. See Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom, Place Matters; Schill and Wachter, “Spatial Bias”; and Christopher Bonastia, Knocking on the Door: The Federal Government’s Attempt to Desegregate the Suburbs (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).

43. Oliver and Shapiro, Black Wealth; Kevin Fox Gotham, “Separate and Unequal: The Housing Act of 1968 and the Section 235 Program,” Sociological Forum 15.1 (2000); George Lipsitz and Melvin L. Oliver, “Integration, Segregation, and the Racial Wealth Gap,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010).

44. See, e.g., Thomas J. Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North (New York: Random House, 2009).

45. See, e.g., Peter Medoff and Holly Sklar, Streets of Hope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood (Boston: South End, 1994), for a graphic example of blockbusting.

46. See, e.g., Margery A. Turner et al., Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 1 of the Housing Discrimination Study (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2002); and Stephen L. Ross and Margery Austin Turner, “Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan America: Explaining Changes between 1989 and 2000,” Social Problems 52.2 (2005).

47. Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, “Race Segregation for Largest Metro Areas,” http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/segregation2010.html. These figures are based on census block groups and thus differ slightly from indices calculated at the census tract level.

48. Rima Wilkes and John Iceland, “Hypersegregation in the Twenty-First Century,” Demography 41.1 (2004).

49. John R. Logan, Brian J. Stults, and Reynolds Farley, “Segregation of Minorities in the Metropolis: Two Decades of Change,” Demography 41.1 (2004).

50. K ori J. Stroub and Meredith P. Richards, “From Resegregation to Reintegration: Trends in the Racial/Ethnic Segregation of Metropolitan Public School,” American Educational Research Journal 3 (2013).

51. Elizabeth Kneebone and Natalie Holmes, U.S. Concentrated Poverty in the Wake of the Great Recession (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2016).

52. Ibid.

53. See the arguments in Schill, “Deconcentrating”; Florence Roisman, “Constitutional and Statutory Mandates for Residential Racial Integration and the Validity of Race-Conscious, Affirmative Action to Achieve It,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010); Anthony Downs, Opening Up the Suburbs: An Urban Strategy for America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973).

54. For a suburban perspective see Scott W. Allard and Benjamin Roth, Strained Suburbs: The Social Service Challenges of Rising Suburban Poverty, Metropolitan Opportunity Series Report (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2010).

55. See Schill, “Deconcentrating,” and Edwin S. Mills, “Open Housing Laws as Stimulus to Central City Employment,” Journal of Urban Economics 17 (1985).

56. National Conference on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, The Future of Fair Housing: Report of the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (NCFHEO, 2008), 3.

57. Susan Clampet-Lundquist and Douglas S. Massey, “Neighborhood Effects on Economic Self-Sufficiency: A Reconsideration of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment,” American Journal of Sociology 114.1 (2008).

58. Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz, “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment,” working paper no. w21156 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015). The findings of this paper are examined more fully in chapter 2.

59. Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1954).

60. See, e.g., Sigelman and Welch, “Contact Hypothesis”; and the review in Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp, “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90.5 (2006).

61. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Bantam, 1968), 480.

62. Anderson’s argument in The Imperative of Integration includes this assertion on page 84. See also Gary Orfield’s use of the expression as well; Orfield, “Movement for Housing,” 20.

63. Anderson, Imperative, 102.

64. Ibid., 99.

65. Ibid., 134.

66. See the discussion in chap. 2.

67. Anderson, Imperative, 110.

68. See, e.g., John Charles Boger, “Toward Ending Residential Segregation: A Fair Share Proposal for the Next Reconstruction,” North Carolina Law Review 71 (1992).

69. Orfield, “Movement for Housing.”

70. Anderson, Imperative.

71. Rusk, Inside Game.

72. Pastor, Benner, and Matsuoka, Something Big, 9.

73. Rusk, Inside Game, 59.

74. Ibid.

75. Joseph Gibbons, “Does Racial Segregation Make Community-Based Organizations More Territorial? Evidence from Newark, NJ, and Jersey City, NJ,” Journal of Urban Affairs 37.5 (2014).

76. Robert J. Sampson, Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

77. This position is exemplified by the congressional testimony of Michael Meyers, the assistant director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1978 that “the effect of gilding the ghetto [i.e., community development] is to deprive blacks of favorable, equal opportunities in housing.” See Michael Meyers, “Prepared Statement,” The Gautreaux Decision and Its Effect on Subsidized Housing—Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session, September 22, 1978. Claims such as these about community development efforts contradict the plea made by some for a “both/and” strategy that urges both community development and integration efforts.

1. Karen Chapple argues that “when we support integration, we often confuse the end with the means. Even if diversity is an important goal among urban planners, it is equality that matters from a civil rights perspective.” See Chapple, Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions: Towards More Equitable Development (London: Routledge, 2015), 115. See also Imbroscio’s argument about the thread of urban policy he calls “urban expansionism” in Urban America Reconsidered, p. 141. The argument is also made in the context of income and social mix policies; see, e.g., Loretta Lees, Tim Butler, and Gary Bridge, “Introduction: Gentrification, Social Mix/ing and Mixed Communities,” in Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth?, ed. Gary Bridge, Tim Butler, and Loretta Lees (Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2012).

2. See Bridge, Butler, and Lees, Mixed Communities.

3. Barry Steffan et al., Worst Case Housing Needs: A 2015 Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015).

4. Diane Yentel et al., Out of Reach, 2016 (Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2016). FMRs are rent estimates derived from market studies of metropolitan areas conducted annually by HUD. FMRs are set at the 40th percentile of rents of recent movers (households who moved within fifteen months of the rent survey). FMRs are adjusted for number of bedrooms and are used to determine payment standards for the federal housing choice voucher program.

5. The “housing wage” is the hourly wage necessary to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rent at 30 percent of the housing income. Yentel et al., Out of Reach, 2016.

6. Steffen et al., Worst Case Housing.

7. John O. Calmore, “Fair Housing v. Fair Housing: The Problems with Providing Increased Housing Opportunities through Spatial Deconcentration,” Clearinghouse Review 14 (1980).

8. Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, writing in 1967, observed that given the poor housing conditions of the urban core, “it seems clear... that if the poor are to obtain decent housing, massive subsidies must be granted for new and rehabilitated housing in the ghettos and slums.” See Piven and Cloward, “The Case against Urban Desegregation,” Social Work 12.1 (1967): 102.

9. William Wilen and Wendy Stasell, “ Gautreaux and Chicago’s Public Housing Crisis: The Conflict between Achieving Integration and Providing Decent Housing for Very Low-Income African Americans,” Clearinghouse Review 34.3–4 (2000): 140.

10. See Preston H. Smith III, Racial Democracy and the Black Metropolis: Housing Policy in Postwar Chicago (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012).

11. Calmore, “Fair Housing,” 8.

12. Shannon v. HUD, 436, F.2d 809 (3rd Cir. 1970).

13. Calmore, “Fair Housing,” 18.

14. Ibid., 8. Calmore and many others agree with Tein that “subsidized housing tenants... should be able to choose better housing over integration.” See Michael R. Tein, “The Devaluation of Nonwhite Community in Remedies for Subsidized Housing Discrimination,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 140.4 (1992): 1494.

15. Calmore, “Fair Housing.” See also Roy L. Brooks, Integration or Separation? A Strategy for Racial Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).

16. See, e.g., Maria Krysan and Reynolds Farley, “The Residential Preferences of Blacks: Do They Explain Persistent Segregation?,” Social Forces 80.3 (2002).

17. Daye, “Whither Fair Housing?”

18. Wilhelmina A. Leigh and James D. McGee, “A Minority Perspective on Residential Racial Integration,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 34.

19. John Calmore asked these very questions four decades ago; see Calmore, “Fair Housing.”

20. This is certainly the case among many residents of public housing who have seen their communities demolished over the past twenty years. See Goetz, New Deal Ruins.

21. P. H. Smith III, Racial Democracy; King and Smith, House Divided.

22. The Kerner Commission in 1968 noted that housing conditions were one of the most important causes of the urban unrest of the 1960s. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report.

23. Leigh and McGhee, “Minority Perspective,” 39. See also Ceri Peach, “Good Segregation, Bad Segregation,” Planning Perspectives 11.4 (1996): 395. Peach writes, “A clear distinction should be drawn between eliminating poor housing conditions and eliminating areas of ethnic concentration.”

24. Alexander Von Hoffman, “Like Fleas on a Tiger? A Brief History of the Open Housing Movement,” Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies, 1998, 32.

25. Chester Hartman and Gary Squires, “Integration Exhaustion, Race Fatigue, and the American Dream,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010); Sheryll Cashin, The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class Are Undermining the American Dream (New York: Public Affairs, 2004). The “integration exhaustion” may be more a case of shifting ideas about policy priorities. Cashin suggests that integration is not the goal it was a generation ago, quoting a resident of Washington, DC, writing in the Washington Post, “It’s time to reverse an earlier generation’s hopeful migration into white communities and attend to some unfinished business in the ‘hood,’” p. 341.

26. Orlando Patterson, The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s “Racial” Crisis (New York: Basic Civitas, 1998). On the history of violence and intimidation that met black families who led the way in housing integration see Meyer, Next Door.

27. Anderson, Imperative, 70.

28. Gregory Squires and Charles E. Kubrin, Privileged Places: Race, Residence, and the Structure of Opportunity (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006). The full quote is, “‘By the time I come home I don’t want to have to deal with white people anymore,’” 204–205.

29. Of course it might be argued that the contact hypothesis refers primarily to the enhanced tolerance of whites toward people of color as a result of increased exposure. Such an interpretation would, of necessity then, assume that people of color already find the behavior and attitudes of whites to be acceptable. But, here again, we must conclude that the phenomenon of integration fatigue provides evidence to the contrary.

30. Tommie Shelby, Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006).

31. Tein, “Devaluation,” 1470. Tein remarked simply that “judicial remedies that force integration in subsidized housing fail to account for the right of minority tenants to choose not to integrate.” As Wilen and Stasell note, “To the extent that integration policies require African-Americans to leave their neighborhoods against their will, they are deprived of freedom of choice to decide where to live, just as they were under former segregation policies.” Wilen and Stasell, “ Gautreaux,” 140.

32. Tein, “Devaluation.”

33. See Polikoff, Waiting, 214–216.

34. Goering, “Political Origins.”

35. See Piven and Cloward, “Case against”; and Calmore, “Fair Housing.”

36. Danielson, Politics of Exclusion.

37. See, e.g., Robert Neelly Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Danielson, Politics of Exclusion; and Goering, “Political Origins.”

38. Whites continue to move away from communities in which people of color locate. See Daniel T. Lichter, Domenico Parisi, and Michael C. Taquino, “Toward a New Macro-Segregation? Decomposing Segregation within and between Metropolitan Cities and Suburbs,” American Sociological Review 80.4 (2015).

39. J. Rosie Tighe, “Public Opinion and Affordable Housing: A Review of the Literature,” Journal of Planning Literature 25.1 (2010).

40. Paul M. Sniderman and Edward G. Carmines, “Reaching beyond Race,” PS: Political Science & Politics 30.3 (1997).

41. Goering, “Political Origins.”

42. Patterns of white resistance to low-cost housing continue to prevail in all parts of the country, including liberal and progressive regions such as the San Francisco Bay area and the Twin Cities region of Minneapolis–Saint Paul. See, e.g., Megan Hansen, “Marin Residents Stand in Rain to Protest High-Density Housing Developments,” Marin Journal, February 7, 2014; and Iris Perez, “Workforce Housing Project Bitterly Contested in Carver,” Fox 9, March 2, 2015.

43. Megan Cottrell, “Did the Public Housing Transformation Destroy Chicago’s Black Voter Base?,” Chicago Muckrakers, January 4, 2011. The decline in the size of Chicago’s black population was astounding in the 2000s—a loss of more than 175,000, or close to 17 percent of the black population (U.S. Census, author’s calculations).

44. Seicshnaydre, “Government Housing,” 708.

45. See the review in Edward G. Goetz and Karen Chapple, “You Gotta Move: Advancing the Debate on the Record of Dispersal,” Housing Policy Debate 20.2 (2010).

46. Elvin Wyly and Daniel Hammel, “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification,” Housing Policy Debate 10.4 (1999); Goetz, New Deal Ruins.

47. In 2014 the annual aggregate amount of residential mortgage lending in the United States was $1.39 trillion (http://www.consumerfinance.gov/hmda/explore#!/as_of_year=2014&section=summary). Most of this represented investment flows out of declining neighborhoods and into higher-income and more profitable places. The entire HUD budget for that same year was $41.5 billion. That is to say, the entire HUD budget, not all of which goes to real estate investment, is less than 3 percent of the annual amount of private-sector residential real estate investment. If one were to add commercial real estate investment, the percentage would shrink much further. To expect that this level of public-sector effort will offset private-market trends is to expect a great deal.

48. Iris Marion Young argues that integration efforts tend to focus on the movement of individuals into excluded areas, focusing on individual households and therefore not on the large systems that produce racial inequalities. See Young, Inclusion and Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 227.

49. Elizabeth Kneebone and Emily Garr, The Suburbanization of Poverty: Trends in Metropolitan America, 2000 to 2008 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2010). See also Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013).

50. Cited in Family Housing Fund, “The Need for Affordable Housing in the Twin Cities,” Minneapolis, 1998.

51. To use the Twin Cities as an example again, in October 2012, the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Agency reported close to three thousand names on its waiting list. Carver County reported a public housing waiting list of one to five years, depending on unit size. Scott County had not opened its Section 8 waiting list for five years after gathering over one thousand names in 2007; it estimated eight to nine hundred names on its public housing waiting list for two-, four-, and five-bedroom units. The demand for such housing is increasing rapidly. The Metropolitan Council estimated that 44,467 more units of affordable housing would be needed in suburban areas of the metropolitan area just to meet the increased demand generated by population growth in the suburbs between 2011 and 2020. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, Summary Report: Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cities, 2011–2020,” Saint Paul, MN, 2006.

52. Imbroscio, “Beyond Mobility.” Imbroscio points to studies showing broad swaths of decline in suburban areas, including areas far beyond the inner-ring suburbs, and the shrinking number of places with safe housing close to work and with good public schools, citing Jerome M. Segal, Graceful Simplicity: The Philosophy and Politics of the Alternative American Dream (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), as well as Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom, Place Matters.

53. John Goering, “Introduction to Section IV,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John M. Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 202.

54. Edward G. Goetz, Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2003).

55. Jennifer Comey, Xavier Briggs, and Gretchen Weismann, “Struggling to Stay out of High-Poverty Neighborhoods: Lessons from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment,” Urban Institute Policy Brief No. 6, March 2008. In another study, this one of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the most common type of move by Section 8 voucher holders who were given the opportunity to “port” their vouchers to any community in the region was to take a voucher from a suburban community and move to one of the central cities (Minneapolis or Saint Paul). See Elizabeth G. D. Malaby and Barbara Lukermann, “Given Choice: The Effects of Portability in Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance,” CURA Reporter 26.2 (1996).

56. Calmore, “Fair Housing.”

57. The only systematic analysis of this question is twenty years old. See Naomi Baillin Wish and Stephen Eisdorfer, “The Impact of Mount Laurel Initiatives: An Analysis of the Characteristics of Applicants and Occupants,” Seton Hall Law Review 27 (1997).

58. Alan Berube, Elizabeth Kneebone, and Carey Nadeau, The Re-emergence of Concentrated Poverty: Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2011).

59. Lake and Winslow reasonably ask, “What is the acceptable black/white ratio to serve public interests?” Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management.” See also Chapple, Planning Sustainable Cities.

60. Indeed, one of the claims made on behalf of the Gautreaux program—wrongly, it turned out—was that such a mobility program could address the “spatial mismatch” problem in which new jobs were located far from lower-income communities, making it difficult for residents of those communities to access employment opportunities. The widely cited positive employment benefits of moving to suburbs among Gautreaux families was actually the absence of a negative effect of moving. Suburban families were no more likely to be employed after moving than they were before moving, while those who moved within the city experienced a more than 10 percentage point decline in employment. See Susan J. Popkin, James E. Rosenbaum, and Patricia M. Meaden, “Labor Market Experiences of Low-Income Black Women in Middle-Class Suburbs: Evidence from a Survey of Gautreaux Program Participants,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12.3 (1993).

61. See, for example, Goetz and Chapple, “You Gotta Move,” for a review.

62. Young, Inclusion and Democracy.

63. Chetty, Hendren, and Katz, “Effects of Exposure.”

64. The authors also suggest there is evidence that the thirteen-and-under treatment group enrolled in “better” schools than did those in the control group. To accept this, one would have to accept the authors’ notion that the average earnings of graduates is an accurate measure of school quality, an idea that seems problematic at best.

65. Thomas B. Edsall, “Where Should a Poor Family Live?,” New York Times, August 5, 2015.

66. Chetty, Hendren, and Katz, “Effects of Exposure,” 3, italics in the original.

67. Larry Orr et al., Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2003).

68. Comey, Briggs, and Weismann, “Struggling,” 3.

69. Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph, Integrating the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing Transformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).

70. Ibid., 190–191.

71. Ibid., 134. See also Laura Tach, “More Than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes, and the Mixed-Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project,” City & Community 8 (2009); and James Fraser and Edward Kick, “The Role of Public, Private, Nonprofit and Community Sectors in Shaping Mixed-Income Housing Outcomes in the U.S.,” Urban Studies 44.12 (2007).

72. Chaskin and Joseph, Integrating, 216.

73. Much of the literature referenced in this section is reviewed and summarized in Rebecca Cohen, The Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health: A Research Summary (Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy, 2011); and Rebecca Cohen and Keith Wardrip, Should I Stay or Should I Go? Exploring the Effects of Housing Instability and Mobility on Children (Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy, 2011).

74. Joseph Harkness and Sandra J. Newman, “Housing Affordability and Children’s Well-Being: Evidence from the National Survey of America’s Families,” Housing Policy Debate 16.2 (2005).

75. Elizabeth L. March et al., Rx for Hunger: Affordable Housing (Boston: Children’s HealthWatch and Medical-Legal Partnership, 2009).

76. Deborah A. Frank et al., “Heat or Eat: The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Nutritional and Health Risks among Children Less Than 3 Years of Age,” Pediatrics 118.5 (2006); Alan Meyers, Diane B. Cutts, et al., “Subsidized Housing and Children’s Nutritional Status: Data from a Multisite Surveillance Study,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 159 (2005); Alan Meyers, D. Rubin, et al., “Public Housing Subsidies May Improve Poor Children’s Nutrition,” American Journal of Public Health 83.1 (1993).

77. Fredrik Andersson et al., “Childhood Housing and Adult Earnings: Between-Siblings Analysis of Housing Vouchers and Public Housing,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, Working Paper 22721 (2016).

78. Craig E. Pollack and Julia Lynch, “Health Status of People Undergoing Foreclosure in the Philadelphia Region,” American Journal of Public Health 99.10 (2009).

79. Susan J. Smith et al., “Housing as Health Capital: How Health Trajectories and Housing Paths Are Linked,” Journal of Social Issues 59.3 (2003); Sarah Nettleton and Roger Burrows, “Mortgage Debt, Insecure Home Ownership and Health: An Exploratory Analysis,” Sociology of Health and Illness 20.5 (1998); Scott Weich and Glyn Lewis, “Poverty, Unemployment, and Common Mental Disorders: Population Based Cohort Study,” British Medical Journal 317 (1998).

80. Carolina Guzman, Rajiv Bhatia, and Chris Durazo, Anticipated Effects of Residential Displacement on Health: Results from Qualitative Research, San Francisco Department of Public Health and South of Market Community Action Network, 2005; Sheridan Bartlett, “The Significance of Relocation for Chronically Poor Families in the USA,” Environment and Urbanization 9.1 (1997).

81. See, e.g., Bonnie T. Zima, K. B. Wells, and H. E. Freeman, “Emotional Behavioral Problems and Severe Academic Delays among Sheltered Homeless Children in Los Angeles County,” American Journal of Public Health 84.2 (1994); Lisa A. Goodman, Leonard Saxe, and Mary Harvey, “Homelessness as Psychological Trauma,” American Psychologist 46.11 (1991); Ellen L. Bassuk and Lynn Rosenberg, “Psychosocial Characteristics of Homeless Children and Children with Homes,” Pediatrics 85.3 (1990); David L. Wood et al., “Health of Homeless Children and Housed, Poor Children,” Pediatrics 86.6 (1990).

82. See Richard D. Cohn et al., “National Prevalence and Exposure Risk for Cockroach Allergen in U.S. Households,” Environmental Health Perspectives 114.4 (2006); Rick Nevin and David E. Jacobs, “Windows of Opportunity: Lead Poisoning Prevention, Housing Affordability, and Energy Conservation,” Housing Policy Debate 17.1 (2006); Patrick Breysse et al., “The Relationship between Housing and Health: Children at Risk,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112.15 (2004); G. R. Istre et al., “Deaths and Injuries from House Fires,” New England Journal of Medicine 344.25 (2001).

83. Maria R. A. Cardoso et al., “Crowding: Risk Factor or Protective Factor for Lower Respiratory Disease in Young Children?,” BMC Public Health 4.1 (2004); M. A. Baker et al., “Household Crowding: A Major Risk Factor for Epidemic Meningococcal Disease in Auckland Children,” Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 19.10 (2000); Gary W. Evans et al., “Chronic Residential Crowding and Children’s Well-Being: An Ecological Perspective,” Child Development 69.6 (1998); S. J. Lepore, G. W. Evans, and M. N. Palsane, “Social Hassles and Psychological Health in the Context of Chronic Crowding,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 32.4 (1991); Walter R. Gove, Michael Hughes, and Omer R. Galle, “Overcrowding in the Home: An Empirical Investigation of Its Possible Pathological Consequences,” American Sociological Review 44.1 (1979).

84. Arthur J. Reynolds, Chin-Chih Chen, and Janette E. Herbers, “School Mobility and Education Success: A Research Synthesis and Evidence on Prevention,” paper prepared for the Workshop on the Impact of Mobility and Change on the Lives of Young Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods, June 29–30, 2009, National Academies, Washington, DC; Edward Scanlon and Kevin Devine, “Residential Mobility and Youth Well-Being: Research, Policy, and Practice Issues,” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 28.1 (2001); Will Craig, The Kids Mobility Project (Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1998); David Kerbow, Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School Reform, Technical Report No. 5 (Chicago: University of Chicago Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, 1996).

85. Maya Brennan, Patrick Reed, and Lisa Sturtevant, The Impacts of Affordable Housing on Education: A Research Summary (Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy, 2011).

86. Kerbow, Patterns.

87. Sandra J. Newman and C. Scott Holupka, “Housing Affordability and Children’s Well-Being,” working paper, Center on Housing, Neighborhoods, and Communities, Institute for Health and Social Policy, Johns Hopkins University, 2013; and Sandra J. Newman and C. Scott Holupka, “Housing Affordability and Investments in Children,” Journal of Housing Economics 24 (2014).

88. Keith Wardrip, Laura Williams, and Suzanne Hague, The Role of Affordable Housing in Creating Jobs and Stimulating Local Economic Development: A Review of the Literature (Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy, 2011).

89. National Association of Home Builders, The Local Economic Impact of Typical Housing Tax Credit Developments (Washington, DC, 2010).

90. Chris Walker, Affordable Housing for Families and Neighborhoods: The Value of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in New York City (Columbia, MD, and Washington, DC: Enterprise Community Partners Inc. and Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 2010). See also Wardrip et al., Affordable Housing.

91. Sean Zielenbach, Richard Voith, and M. Mariano, “Estimating the Local Economic Impacts of HOPE VI,” Housing Policy Debate 20.3 (2010).

92. Wardrip et al., Affordable Housing.

93. Lei Deng, Roberto G. Quercia, Wei Li, and Janekke Ratcliffe, “Risky Borrowers or Risky Mortgages: Disaggregating Effects Using Property Score Models,” Journal of Real Estate Research 33.2 (2011).

94. Wardrip et al., Affordable Housing.

95. Alex E. Schwartz, Scott Susin, and Ionu Voicu, “Has Falling Crime Driven New York City’s Real Estate Boom?,” Journal of Housing Research 14.1 (2003). One study showed that increased property values would allow New York City to recapture a $2.4 billion investment in subsidized housing over a twenty-year period; Alex E. Schwartz et al., “The External Effects of Place-Based Subsidized Housing,” Regional Science and Urban Economics 36.6 (2006).

96. Wardrip, Affordable Housing.

97. Kitashree Chakrabarti and Junfu Zhang, “Unaffordable Housing and Local Employment Growth,” working paper no. 10–3, New England Public Policy Center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2010.

98. Schwartz et al., “External Effects.” One direct study of the crime-reduction question indicates that targeted housing rehabilitation by CDCs does indeed reduce crime problems. A study of fourteen multifamily, low-income housing developments purchased and rehabilitated by community development corporations in Minneapolis from 1986 to 1994 showed that in the aggregate there was a significantly lower level of crime calls (both total and violent crimes) from these properties after their conversion to subsidized housing. See Edward G. Goetz, Hin Kin Lam, and Anne Heitlinger, There Goes the Neighborhood? The Impact of Subsidized Multi-Family Housing on Urban Neighborhoods (Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1996).

99. Studies of New York City, Portland, Seattle, Dallas, Cleveland, and Santa Clara found that projects have resulted in an increase in market prices of nearby homes in surrounding neighborhoods. The Santa Clara study found greater benefits in low-income neighborhoods than in other areas. A national study of tax credit projects found a similar effect—that increases in property values occurred in declining neighborhoods. The national study also found that tax credit projects “reduce incomes in gentrifying areas in neighborhoods near the 30th percentile of the income distribution” and have no impact on the construction of other new multifamily housing in stable or declining neighborhoods. Properties in suburban Minneapolis–Saint Paul neighborhoods with tax credit properties performed as well or better after construction of tax credit projects and in comparison to control neighborhoods. A study of Polk County, Iowa (Des Moines), found a lower rate of appreciation for property near tax credit projects, though no effects were found for projects with an income mix or “high quality” design. Tax credit projects for the elderly were associated with a higher-than-market rate of appreciation. A study focusing on more suburban neighborhoods in Wisconsin indicates that LIHTC projects there had no significant effect on neighborhood home values, and a study in suburban New Jersey found no negative effects of tax credit projects on property values. A study of tax credit properties in Philadelphia showed that surrounding properties experienced a slight decline in property values. See Ingrid Gould Ellen et al., “Does Federally Subsidized Rental Housing Depress Neighborhood Property Values?,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26.2 (2007); Jennifer Johnson and Beata Bednarz, Neighborhood Effects of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2002); Roxanne Ezzet-Lofstrom and James Murdoch, “The Effect of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Units on Residential Property Values in Dallas County,” Williams Review 1.1 (2006); Lan Deng, “The External Neighborhood Effects of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Projects Built by Three Sectors,” Journal of Urban Affairs 33.2 (2011); Nathaniel Baum-Snow and Justin Marion, “The Effects of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Developments on Neighborhoods,” Journal of Public Economics 93 (2009); Maxfield Research, A Study of the Relationship between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN: Family Housing Fund, 2000); Richard Funderburg and Heather MacDonald, “Neighbourhood Valuation Effects from New Construction of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Projects in Iowa: A Natural Experiment,” Urban Studies 47.8 (2010); Richard K. Green, Stephen Malpezzi, and Kiat-Ying Seah, “Low Income Housing Tax Credit Housing Developments and Property Values,” Center for Urban Land Economics Research, University of Wisconsin, 2002; Len Albright, Elizabeth S. Derickson, and Douglas Massey, “Do Affordable Housing Projects Harm Suburban Communities? Crime, Property Values, and Property Taxes in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey,” SSRN, 2011; Chang-Moo Lee, Dennis P. Culhane, and Susan M. Wachter, “The Differential Impacts of Federally Assisted Housing Programs on Nearby Property Values: A Philadelphia Case Study,” Housing Policy Debate 10 (1999).

100. Ingrid Gould Ellen and Ionu Voicu, “Nonprofit Housing and Neighborhood Spillovers,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25.1 (2005). Nonprofit housing projects in Minneapolis were also found to have a positive impact on nearby property values; see Goetz, Lam, and Heitlinger, There Goes the Neighborhood. Both for-profit and nonprofit-owned developments produced benefits in Santa Clara, California; see Deng, “External Neighborhood Effects.”

101. William A. Rabiega, Ta-win Lin, and Linda M. Robinson, “The Property Value Effects of Public Housing Projects in Low and Moderate Density Residential Neighborhoods,” Land Economics 6.2 (1984); Lee et al., “Differential Impacts”; Robert F. Lyons and Scott Loveridge, “An Hedonic Estimation of the Effect of Federally Subsidized Housing on Nearby Residential Property Values,” Staff Paper P93–6, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, 1993). A study of New York City’s local effort to invest in subsidized housing revealed “significant and sustained” benefits for surrounding neighborhoods that increased with project size; see Schwartz et al., “Eternal Effects.”

102. Ellen et al., “Federally Subsidized Rental”; George C. Galster, Anna Santiago, and Peter Tatian, “Assessing the Property Value Impacts of the Dispersed Subsidized Housing Program in Denver,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20 (2001).

103. Ellen et al., “Federally Subsidized Rental.”

104. Robert A. Simons, A. J. Magner, and Esmail Baku, “Do Housing Rehabs Pay Their Way? A National Case Study,” Journal of Real Estate Research 25.4 (2003); Chengri Ding, Robert Simons, and Esmail Baku, “The Effect of Residential Investment on Nearby Property Values: Evidence from Cleveland, Ohio,” Journal of Real Estate Research 19.1 (2000); Kelly D. Edmiston, “Nonprofit Housing Investment and Local Area Home Values,” Economic Review, First Quarter 2012; Schwartz, Susin, and Voicu, “Falling Crime.”

105. See Daniel Trudeau, “The Persistence of Segregation in Buffalo, New York: Comer vs. Cisneros and Geographies of Relocation Decisions among Low-Income Black Households,” Urban Geography 27.1 (2006) on the reluctance to make an initial outward move; and Comey, Briggs, and Weismann, “Struggling,” for the tendency of families to move back to lower-income neighborhoods.

106. See, e.g., Goetz, Clearing the Way, on lack of demand for mobility. The literature on the resistance to forced removal is growing: see, e.g., John Arena, Driven from New Orleans: How Nonprofits Betray Public Housing and Promote Privatization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012); Jason Hackworth, “Destroyed by HOPE: Public Housing, Neoliberalism, and Progressive Housing Activism in the US,” in Where the Other Half Lives: Lower Income Housing in a Neoliberal World, ed. Sarah Glynn (London: Pluto, 2009); Amy Howard, More Than Shelter: Activism and Community in San Francisco Public Housing (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014); Patricia Wright, “Community Resistance to CHA Transformation: The History, Evolution, Struggles, and Accomplishments of the Coalition to Protect Public Housing,” in Where Are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities, ed. Larry Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and Patricia Wright (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2006); Goetz, New Deal Ruins; Melissa Arrigiota Fernández, “Constructing ‘the Other,’ Practicing Resistance: Public Housing and Community Politics in Puerto Rico” (PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2010).

107. Jeff Spinner-Halev, “The Trouble with Diversity,” in Critical Urban Studies: New Directions, ed. Jonathan S. Davies and David L. Imbroscio (Albany: SUNY Press, 2010). Spinner-Halev specifically argues that “the problem of choice also haunts many of the proposed solutions to the problem of segregation,” 115.

108. Thomas C. Schelling, “A Process of Residential Segregation: Neighborhood Tipping,” in Racial Discrimination in Economic Life, ed. Anthony H. Pascal (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1972), 157.

109. These preferences have been fairly stable over time. See Krysan and Farley, “Residential Preferences”; Lawrence Bobo and Camille L. Zubrinsky, “Attitudes on Residential Integration: Perceived Status Differences, Mere In-Group Preference, or Racial Prejudice?,” Social Forces 74.3 (1996); Reynolds Farley et al., “‘Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs’: Will the Trend toward Racially Separate Communities Continue?,” Social Science Research 7.4 (1978).

110. Rubinowitz and Trosman, “Affirmative Action.”

111. Shelby, Dark Ghettos.

112. Spinner-Halev, “Trouble,” 115–116. Spinner-Halev was referring specifically to Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom’s Place Matters.

113. Schill, “Deconcentrating,” 839.

114. This has been pointed out by Calmore, “Fair Housing,” Tein, “Devaluation,” and by Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management.” As Calmore argues, the rigid pursuit of equal opportunity goals may actually restrict choice rather than enhance it; “in the name of expanding choice and opportunities, the fair housing imperative actually restricts housing for poor, inner-city neighborhoods” (p. 8).

115. Henry Cisneros, “A New Moment for People and Cities,” in From Despair to Hope: HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities, ed. Henry G. Cisneros and Lora Engdahl (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2009), 13.

116. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management,” 323. In the Netherlands, pro-integrative policy was abandoned because of protests over the “way it limited choices for the migrant minorities it was supposed to help.” See Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 220.

117. William A. V. Clark, “Race, Class, and Space: Outcomes of Suburban Access for Asians and Hispanics,” Urban Geography 27.6 (2006); and von Hoffman, “Fleas on a Tiger.”

118. See Kimberly Skobba and Edward G. Goetz, “Mobility Decisions of Very Low-Income Households,” Cityscape 15.2 (2013).

119. Casey J. Dawkins, “Are Social Networks the Ties That Bind Families to Neighborhoods?,” Housing Studies 21.6 (2006).

120. Rolf Pendall and Joe Parilla, “Comment on Emily Talen and Julia Koschinsky’s ‘Is Subsidized Housing in Sustainable Neighborhoods? Evidence from Chicago’: ‘Sustainable’ Urban Form and Opportunity; Frames and Expectations for Low-Income Households,” Housing Policy Debate 21.1 (2011).

121. Squires and Kubrin, Privileged Places, 19.

122. Peach, “Good Segregation”; Peter Marcuse, “The Enclave, the Citadel, and the Ghetto: What Has Changed in the Post-Fordist US City,” Urban Affairs Review 33.2 (1997).

123. See, e.g., Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 218; Shelby, Dark Ghettos, 39.

124. Young condemns segregation for how it limits choice and reproduces structural inequality, and she lays out ways of distinguishing between forced segregation and clustering. Segregation, she argues, occurs when spatial concentration of social groups is accompanied by systemic power differential and stigma.

125. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 216.

126. Ibid.

127. Ibid., 197.

128. Ibid., 216.

129. Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), 47.

130. Shelby, Dark Ghettos, 39.

131. Susan S. Fainstein, The Just City (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010). Karen Chapple argues that this “means reconceptualizing policy and planning to provide more security to families in need across the region, regardless of where we think opportunity lies. Housing policy should continue to work to provide housing options across the region, but with the goal of integration at the scale of the district or place, rather than the neighborhood.” Chapple, Planning Sustainable Cities, 291.

132. See Imbroscio, Urban America; David Imbroscio, “Shaming the Inside Game: A Critique of the Liberal Expansionist Approach to Addressing Urban Problems,” Urban Affairs Review 42.2 (2006); David Imbroscio, “‘United and Actuated by Some Common Impulse of Passion’: Challenging the Dispersal Consensus in American Housing Policy Research,” Journal of Urban Affairs 30.2 (2008).

133. This is the “obligatory caveat” I mentioned in the introduction.

134. Imbroscio, “Shaming,” 224.

135. Imbroscio, Urban America, 5.

136. In his critique of regionalism, Imbroscio parts ways with Young. Where Young argues for policy making at a scale that matches the problem, Imbroscio sees greater benefit in retaining the autonomy of central cities in ways that will be described below.

137. Janet L. Smith, “Integration: Solving the Wrong Problem,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010).

138. Mary Patillo, “The Problem of Integration,” New York University, Furman Center, January 20, 2014.

139. Ibid. See also Mary Patillo, “Investing in Poor Black Neighborhoods ‘As Is,’ ” in Public Housing and the Legacy of Segregation, ed. Margery Austin Turner, Susan J. Popkin, and Lynette Rawlings (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2009).

140. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 219.

141. Ibid., 221.

142. Ibid., 227.

143. Ibid.

144. Imbroscio, Urban America, 144.

145. Patillo, “Problem.”

146. Ibid.

147. Beverly Tatum, quoted in Anderson, Imperative, 134.

148. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 217.

149. Shelby, Dark Ghettos, 60.

150. There is a considerable social science literature documenting the ways in which lower-income families depend on informal sources of support to make ends meet. These “personal safety nets” are reciprocal arrangements between similarly situated people. Support networks are typically made up of neighbors and family members living nearby. See, e.g., Carole Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein, Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997); and Domínguez and Watkins, “Mobility.”

151. Dawkins, “Ties That Bind.”

152. Shelby, Dark Ghettos, 70.

153. Sudhir Venkatesh, Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).

154. See, e.g., Hank V. Savitch and Ronald K. Vogel, “Suburbs without a City: Power and City-County Consolidation,” Urban Affairs Review 39.6 (2004).

155. See Imbroscio, Urban America, 142; J. Philip Thompson, “Review of Place Matters,” Urban Affairs Review 37.3 (2002).

156. Imbroscio also points out that central cities are the location of a “legacy of organizations dedicated to serving the poor” and people of color, and organizations dedicated to empowering disadvantaged groups. Imbroscio, Urban America, 144. See also Dan Clawson, The Next Upsurge: Labor and the New Social Movements (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).

157. Leigh and McGhee, “Minority Perspective”; Tein, “Devaluation”; Calmore, “Fair Housing”; Stephen Steinberg, “The Myth of Concentrated Poverty,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010); and Wilen and Stasell, “ Gautreaux.”

158. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 209 for the first quote and 225 for the second.

159. Anderson, Imperative, 133. Imbroscio argues that the dynamic of political mobilization seen in disadvantaged communities would likely disappear through integration; Imbroscio, Urban America.

160. Young, Inclusion and Democracy.

161. A point Downs made early on; Downs, Opening Up.

162. Fraser and Kick, “Shaping Mixed-Income”; James C. Fraser, “Beyond Gentrification: Mobilizing Communities and Claiming Space,” Urban Geography 25.5 (2004); Calmore, “Fair Housing.”

163. See, e.g., Polikoff, Waiting, on the need for radical surgery in segregated neighborhoods to completely change the socioeconomic dynamics.

164. Wilen and Stasell, “ Gautreaux.”

165. Ibid.; Deirdre Oakley and Keri Burchfeld, “Out of the Projects, Still in the Hood: The Spatial Constraints on Public Housing Residents’ Relocation in Chicago,” Journal of Urban Affairs 31.5 (2009).

166. Mindy Fullilove, Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do about It (New York: One World / Ballantine, 2009); Karen J. Gibson, “The Relocation of the Columbia Villa Community: Views from Residents,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27.1 (2007); Lynne C. Manzo, Rachel G. Kleit, and Dawn Couch, “Moving Three Times Is Like Having Your House on Fire Once: The Experience of Place and Impending Displacement among Public Housing Residents,” Urban Studies 45.9 (2008); Susan Greenbaum et al., “Deconcentration and Social Capital: Contradictions of a Poverty Alleviation Policy,” Journal of Poverty 12.2 (2008).

167. See Douglas S. Massey et al., Climbing Mount Laurel: The Struggle for Affordable Housing and Social Mobility in an American Suburb (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013).

168. Young, Inclusion and Democracy, 226. See also Shelby, Dark Ghettos.

1. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier.

2. See Hirsch, Second Ghetto; and Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom, Place Matters.

3. See, e.g., P. H. Smith, Racial Democracy; James Q. Wilson, Negro Politics: The Search for Leadership (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960); and Horace R. Cayton, Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

4. P. H. Smith, Racial Democracy, 96.

5. Ibid., 70.

6. Ibid.

7. See Lawrence J. Vale, From the Puritans to the Projects: Public Housing and Public Neighbors (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009); Bradford D. Hunt, Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).

8. Hunt, Blueprint; Martin Meyerson and Edward C. Banfield, Politics, Planning and the Public Interest: The Case of Public Housing in Chicago (New York: Free Press, 1955); and Hirsch, Second Ghetto.

9. Wilson, Negro Politics, 188.

10. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door, 67.

11. See Newman and Schnare, “Suitable Living Environment,” for national figures.

12. Wilson, Negro Politics, 188.

13. Ibid.

14. Juliet Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement: Challenge, Conflict and Change (Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books, 1971).

15. Paul E. King, “Exclusionary Zoning and Open Housing: A Brief Judicial History,” Geographical Review 1 (1978).

16. Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement.

17. P. H. Smith, Racial Democracy, 121.

18. The ban on discrimination in the operation of publicly assisted housing was made national by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, via executive order. The idea of conditioning federal funds on progress made in desegregation resurfaced in the first Nixon administration, though not adopted then. Currently, HUD is authorized by Congress to withhold certain block grant funds from communities that are flouting their fair housing obligations. The threat of withholding federal funds is an explicit part of HUD’s new rule on affirmatively furthering fair housing.

19. Von Hoffman, “Fleas on a Tiger,” 20. See also Charles Abrams, Forbidden Neighbors: A Study of Prejudice in Housing (New York: Harper, 1955), 273.

20. This phrase came from the NCDH national newsletter, Trends, October 1959. See Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement, 38, fn. 37.

21. Karl E. Taeuber, “Residential Segregation,” Scientific American 213.2 (1965).

22. Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Preston Smith III argues that prior to the Second World War there was a strong social democratic strain in black politics. Especially in the area of housing, black leaders defined the interests of the community in terms of the need for the working class and lower-income households to be adequately housed. Support for public housing, for example, was class-based advocacy in favor of expanding welfare state responsibilities. Indeed, there was significant support for Catherine Bauer’s notion of public housing as mass housing for workers, modeled on European approaches. Smith juxtaposes this orientation with what he terms “racial democracy,” which is defined by race-based claims to equality that simultaneously relegate class issues. Smith argues that racial democracy came to dominate during the postwar civil rights period. See P. H. Smith, Racial Democracy.

27. Flora Bryant Brown, “The NAACP Sponsored Sit-Ins by Howard University Students in Washington, D.C., 1943–1944,” Journal of Negro Education 4 (2000). See also Mark Newman, The Civil Rights Movement (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004).

28. The organization would later change its name to the Congress of Racial Equality.

29. See the history in Meyer, Next Door.

30. Janet Abu-Lughod, Race, Space, and Riots in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); and Newman, Civil Rights Movement. See also Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).

31. Peniel E. Joseph, ed., The Black Power Movement: Rethinking the Civil Rights–Black Power Era (New York: Routledge, 2006), 2.

32. James Tyner, The Geography of Malcolm X: Black Radicalism and the Remaking of American Space (New York: Routledge, 2006), 79.

33. Ibid., 79.

34. Ibid., 87.

35. Ibid., 86.

36. Ibid., 83. This is from the address that came to be known as the “Ballot or the Bullet” speech.

37. Manning Marable, Race, Reform, and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945–1990 (Oxford: University Press of Mississippi, 1991).

38. Newman, Civil Rights Movement; Marable, Race, Reform and Rebellion; August Meier and Elliott Rudwick, CORE: A Study in the Civil Rights Movement, 1942–1968 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973).

39. Akynyele O. Umoja, “1964: The Beginning of the End of Nonviolence in the Mississippi Freedom Movement,” Radical History Review 85 (2003).

40. Marable, Race, Reform and Rebellion, 73.

41. Roy Innes, the chair of CORE at the time, maintains that whites voluntarily left the organization and while doing so took important resources, such as the donor contact list, with them. Others argue that CORE forced whites out of the organization in the name of black self-determination. See Marcus D. Pohlmann, ed., African American Political Thought, vol. 1 (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2003), esp. “Truth, Lies and Consequences,” 381–404.

42. See Robert Weisbrot and G. Calvin Mackenzie, The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s (New York: Penguin, 2009), on the means by which Democratic Party leaders responded to the Freedom Party challenge.

43. Joseph, Black Power.

44. Ibid.

45. Robert L. Allen, Black Awakening in Capitalist America: An Analytic History (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 19.

46. See Amy Abugo Ongiri, Spectacular Blackness: The Cultural Politics of the Black Power Movement and the Search for a Black Aesthetic (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2010); William L. Van DeBurg, New Day in Babylon: The Black Power Movement and American Culture, 1965–1975 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

47. Juliet Saltman, Open Housing: Dynamics of a Social Movement (New York: Praeger, 1978). The integrationist leaders of the civil rights movement argued that increased aggression in word and action were, in fact, threats to the racial justice movement rather than its next stage. See Marable, Race, Reform, and Rebellion.

48. Robert O. Self, American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003).

49. Joseph, Black Power, 174.

50. Joe R. Feagin and Harlan Hahn, Ghetto Riots: The Politics of Violence in American Cities (New York: Macmillan, 1973).

51. In 1967, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover ordered operatives “to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist, hate-type organizations and groupings, their leadership, spokesmen, membership and supporters.” See Clayborne Carson, In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981). The effort, called the Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO), particularly targeted the Black Panthers. Marable reports that within two years of its formation, “the Panthers had been targeted by 233 separate actions.... In 1969 alone, 27 Black Panthers were killed by the police, and 749 were jailed or arrested.” Marable, Race, Reform, and Rebellion, 125.

52. Joseph, Black Power. See also Kenneth S. Jolly, Black Liberation in the Midwest: The Struggle in St. Louis, Missouri, 1964–1970 (New York: Routledge, 2006); Charles E. Jones, “The Political Repression of the Black Panther Party, 1966–1971: The Case of the Oakland Bay Area,” Journal of Black Studies 18.4 (1988); David Cunningham, “The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left,” Social Forces 82.1 (2003).

53. See Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); Kyle Crowder, “The Racial Context of White Mobility: An Individual-Level Assessment of the White Flight Hypothesis,” Social Science Research 29.2 (2000).

54. Larry H. Long, “How the Racial Composition of Cities Change,” Land Economics 51.3 (1975).

55. Farley et al., “‘Chocolate City.’”

56. This pattern of urban development had established itself years earlier. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights used the term “white noose” to describe American urban development as early as 1961. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Housing: 1961 Commission on Civil Rights Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1961).

57. Allen, Black Awakening, 166.

58. Ibid., 19.

59. Alice O’Connor, Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century US History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).

60. Ibid.

61. James Defilippis, Unmaking Goliath: Community Control in the Face of Global Capital (New York: Routledge, 2004).

62. O’Connor, Poverty Knowledge.

63. Ibid.

64. John T. Baker, “Community Development Corporations: A Legal Analysis,” Valparaiso University Law Review 13 (1978).

65. Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America (New York: Vintage, 1966), 46.

66. Ibid., 46.

67. Kenneth B. Clark, Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1965), 28, quoted in Carmichael and Hamilton, Black Power, 18.

68. Allen, Black Awakening, 64. The black capitalism movement received a significant boost from Richard Nixon, campaigning for the presidency in 1968. As evidence of how widely adopted the concept of black power had become in two short years, Nixon offered his support for the idea in March 1968. He defined it as “the power the people should have over their own destinies, the power to affect their own communities, the power that comes from participation in the political and economic processes of society.” While this language comes very close to that used by black nationalists, Nixon’s operationalization of the concept was a set of initiatives such as Small Business Administration loans for black enterprises, tax incentives for business development in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and the expansion of black homeownership. At the time Nixon laid out his first ideas about black capitalism, he distinguished his proposal from the War on Poverty approach of the Johnson administration, noting that “what we do not need now is another round of unachievable promises of unavailable federal funds.” Allen, Black Awakening, 192.

69. Newman, Civil Rights Movement. In addition to these economic debates, contested ideas about the political orientation of the civil rights movement were swirling. While the mainstream civil rights movement had long advocated integration and participation within broadly accepted political venues, i.e., working with liberals and allies within the Democratic Party, other ideas, such as community control, were circulating widely.

70. Nishani Frazier, “A McDonald’s That Reflects the Soul of a People: Hough Area Development Corporation and Community Development in Cleveland,” in The Business of Black Power: Community Development, Capitalism, and Corporate Responsibility in Postwar America, ed. Laura Warren Hill and Julia Rabig (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2012), 70.

71. Brian Purnell, “‘What We Need Is Brick and Mortar’: Race, Gender, and Early Leadership of the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation,” in Hill and Rabig, Business of Black Power.

72. Julia Rabig, “‘A Fight and a Question’: Community Development Corporations, Machine Politics, and Corporate Philanthropy in the Long Urban Crisis,” in Hill and Rabig, Business of Black Power.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid.

75. Laura Warren Hill and Julia Rabig, introduction to Hill and Rabig, Business of Black Power, 9.

76. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report, 1.

77. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door, 101.

78. See Meyer, Next Door, for a complete description.

79. Jill S. Quadagno, The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

80. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door.

81. Carmichael and Hamilton, Black Power, 17.

82. Ibid., 41.

83. Ibid., 53.

84. Ibid., 46.

85. Ibid., 54.

86. Allen, Black Awakening.

87. Quoted in Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement, 43.

88. Ibid.

89. Sidney Fine, “Michigan and Housing Discrimination, 1949–1969,” Michigan Historical Review 23.2 (1997) 102.

90. Saltman, Open Housing: Dynamics, 66.

91. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door, 78.

92. Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement, 155.

93. David Goldberg, “From Landless to Landlords: Black Power, Black Capitalism, and the Co-optation of Detroit’s Tenants’ Rights Movement, 1964–69,” in Hill and Rabig, Business of Black Power, 161.

94. Danielson, Politics of Exclusion, 149.

95. Saltman, Open Housing: Dynamics.

96. Ibid., 310–311.

97. Danielson, Politics of Exclusion, 150.

98. Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement.

99. Ibid., 125.

100. Saltman, Open Housing: Dynamics.

101. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door, 67.

1. Carmichael and Hamilton, Black Power, 155.

2. See Frederick Siegel, Troubled Journey: From Pearl Harbor to Ronald Reagan (New York: Hill & Wang, 1984). This argument that white flight was a response to the urban riots of the 1960s is contested by many, including Heather Ann Thompson, “Rethinking the Politics of White Flight in the Postwar City: Detroit, 1945–1980,” Journal of Urban History 25 (1999).

3. Von Hoffman, “Fleas on a Tiger.”

4. George Metcalf, Fair Housing Comes of Age (New York: Greenwood, 1988); Massey and Denton, American Apartheid.

5. Massey and Denton, American Apartheid.

6. Michael J. Vernarelli, “Where Should HUD Locate Assisted Housing? The Evolution of Fair Housing Policy,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986).

7. Polikoff, “Sustainable Integration”; Daye, “Whither ‘Fair’ Housing.”

8. Robert Lake, “Postscript: Unresolved Themes in the Evolution of Fair Housing,” in Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy, ed. John Goering (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986); and others.

9. Jean Eberhart Dubofsky, “Fair Housing: A Legislative History and a Perspective,” Washburn Law Journal 8 (1968).

10. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management”; Rubinowitz and Trosman, “Affirmative Action.”

11. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management,” 318.

12. See, e.g., Robert G. Schwemm, “Overcoming Structural Barriers to Integrated Housing: A Back-to-the-Future Reflection on the Fair Housing Act’s ‘Affirmatively Further’ Mandate,” Kentucky Law Journal 100 (2011).

13. Roisman, “Affirmatively Furthering,” 385. Roisman also tells the story of Nixon and Romney, arguing that they knew affirmatively furthering fair housing meant moving blacks to suburbs.

14. Ibid., 373–374.

15. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management,” 316.

16. Roisman, “Affirmatively Furthering”; and Roisman, “Constitutional and Statutory Mandates.”

17. Mara S. Sidney, Unfair Housing: How National Policy Shapes Community Action (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003).

18. Ibid.

19. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management,” 318.

20. Tein, “Devaluation,” 1467, n. 23.

21. Sidney, Unfair Housing.

22. Ibid., 32.

23. Ibid., 33.

24. Michael P. Seng and F. Willis Caruso, “Achieving Integration through Private Litigation,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010).

25. “Shelterforce Exclusive: Interview with HUD Secretary Julian Castro,” Shelterforce, February 4, 2016. Castro said similar things in late 2015 on MSNBC. “This idea that we ought to get folks into, at their choice, areas of higher opportunity makes a lot of sense. Just a couple months ago there was very powerful research from a group out of Harvard led by Raj Chetty that said when you get families into higher opportunity areas, that has great outcomes in terms of educational achievement, in terms of income. At the same time, you can’t forget about the distressed areas and investing in the older urban core neighborhoods.... In these distressed urban neighborhoods, it’s not enough just to focus on housing, or just improving the education or transportation, you have to focus on all of these things.” He went on the say that the government cannot “forget about folks who also want to live [in central neighborhoods], where they have lived forever. That’s their home, that’s where they want to be. If you gave them a choice to go somewhere else they wouldn’t because they want to live there.” Interview with Melissa Harris Perry, August 30, 2015.

26. Roisman, “Constitutional and Statutory Mandates.”

27. NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 817 F.2d (1st Cir. 1987); Roisman, “Affirmatively Furthering”; Roisman, “Constitutional and Statutory Mandates.”

28. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management.”

29. Saltman, Open Housing: Dynamics.

30. See, e.g., King, “Exclusionary Zoning.” A range of state courts, in cases like Appeal of Kit-Mar Builders, 439 Pa. 466, 268 A.2d 765 (1970), striking down lot size requirements; Bristow v. City of Woodhaven, 35 Mich App. 205, 192 N.W.2d 322 (1971), striking down restrictions on mobile home parks; and most famously, Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 336 A.2d 713, 731–33 (N.J. 1975), invalidating the use of restrictions on multifamily housing to exclude lower-cost housing, ruled in these early years to reduce regulatory barriers to opening up the suburbs.

31. See, e.g., Kennedy Park Homes Association v. City of Lackawanna, N.Y., 436 F.2d 108 (1971); and United States v. City of Black Jack Missouri, 508 F. 2d 1179 (1974).

32. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door, 99.

33. Ibid., 103.

34. Danielson, Politics of Exclusion.

35. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door; Danielson, Politics of Exclusion.

36. Bonastia, Knocking on the Door, 107.

37. Ibid., 109.

38. Danielson, Politics of Exclusion.

39. Ibid., 154.

40. Ibid., 153.

41. Ibid., 148–156.

42. Ibid., 154.

43. Ibid., 149–155.

44. Ibid., Politics of Exclusion.

45. David Listokin, Fair Share Housing Allocation (New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1976).

46. See Newman and Schnare, “Suitable Living Environment.”

47. Saltman, Open Housing: Dynamics, 99.

48. See, e.g., Rolf Pendall, “Why Voucher and Certificate Users Live in Distressed Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate 11.4 (2000).

49. Edward G. Goetz, “Housing Dispersal Programs,” Journal of Planning Literature 18.1 (2003).

50. See, for example, Malaby and Lukermann, “Given Choice Choice: The Effects of Portability in Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance.” The effort to enhance the dispersion of voucher holders continued in 2016 with the creation of “Small Area FMRs” that expand the number of neighborhoods in which Housing Choice Vouchers can be used. It is expected that the Small Area FMRs will provide voucher holders with better access to high-opportunity neighborhoods.

51. Recall Seicshnaydre’s impassioned plea for greater subsidized housing in “opportunity” areas, noting that as long as the politically easy decision to continue concentrating it in core areas is taken, little to no progress in outlying areas will be made.

52. Roisman, “Affirmatively Furthering.”

53. Saltman, Open Housing as a Social Movement.

54. Shannon v. HUD.

55. Vernarelli, “Where Should HUD Locate,” 219, quoting from Shannon v. HUD at 822. See also Bonastia, Knocking on the Door, 128, on the limited nature of the Shannon decision.

56. Vernarelli, “Where Should HUD Locate,” 219–220.

57. Danielson, Politics of Exclusion, 154.

58. Vernarelli, “Where Should HUD Locate.”

59. Ibid., 223.

60. Goering, “Introduction.”

61. Ibid., 201.

62. My brief history here is based largely on chapters 2 and 3 of Leonard S. Rubinowitz and James E. Rosenbaum, Crossing the Class and Color Lines: From Public Housing to White Suburbia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

63. Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, Crossing, chap. 2. Because the CHA would not cooperate with the plaintiff’s counsel, the two “parties proceeded largely independently” in proposing remedies. The CHA’s proposal consisted of merely not considering race in siting future public housing. The judge adopted the remedy offered by the plaintiffs.

64. Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, Crossing, 36.

65. Andrea Gill, “‘Gilding the Ghetto’ and Debates over Chicago’s Gautreaux Program,” in Hill and Rabig, Business of Black Power, 184–214.

66. Ibid., 190.

67. Ibid., 194.

68. Ibid., 199.

69. Cardiss Collins, “Introductory Remarks,” in The Gautreaux Decision and Its Effect on Subsidized Housing—Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), 2.

70. Ibid., 2.

71. Statement of Ronald Laurent, senior vice president, McElvain Reynolds Co., in The Gautreaux Decision and Its Effect on Subsidized Housing—Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), 64.

72. Collins, “Introductory Remarks,” 3.

73. “Statement of Alexander Polikoff, Executive Director, Business and Professional People in the Public Interest; Accompanied by Milton Shader, Cocounsel,” in The Gautreaux Decision and Its Effect on Subsidized Housing—Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, United States House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), 138.

74. Quoted in Gill, “‘Gilding the Ghetto,’” 200.

75. Polikoff, Waiting for Gautreaux, 241.

76. Ibid., 289.

77. See Goetz, Clearing the Way.

78. Harvey Luskin Molotch, Managed Integration: Dilemmas of Doing Good in the City (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 111.

79. Ibid., 82. See also W. Dennis Keating, The Suburban Racial Dilemma: Housing and Neighborhoods (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), on how integration maintenance programs are perceived by many to operate in ways that favor white families and cater specifically to their neighborhood preferences.

80. Molotch, Managed Integration, 101.

81. William J. Wilson and Richard Taub, There Goes the Neighborhood: Racial, Ethnic and Class Tensions in Four Chicago Neighborhoods and Their Meaning for America (New York: Knopf Doubleday, 2011), 179.

82. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management.”

83. See, e.g., Daye, “Whither ‘Fair’ Housing.”

84. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management,” 322.

85. Ibid.

86. The most famous case on this issue is United States v. Starrett City Associates, 488 U.S. 946; 109 S. Ct. 376; 102 L. Ed. 2d 365; 1988 U.S. 5023, which struck down a strict quota system of tenant assignment in a New York apartment development. Decisions in Williamsburg Fair Housing Committee v. New York City Housing Authority, 493 F. Supp. 1225 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Burney v. Housing Authority of the County of Beaver, 551 F. Supp. 746 (W.D. Pa. 1982); and U.S. v. Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 718 F. Supp. 461 (W.D. Va. 1989) also invalidated race-conscious tenant selection schemes. See Keating, Suburban Racial Dilemma.

87. Otero et al. v. New York City Housing Authority et al., 484 F.2d 1122 (1973).

88. Though the defendants disputed the figures, they never offered any alternatives of their own.

89. Otero et al. v. New York City Housing Authority et al., 484 F.2d 1122 (1973), 2.

90. Rubinowitz and Trosman, “Affirmative Action.”

91. Ibid.

92. Otero et al. v. New York City Housing Authority et al., 484 F.2d 1122 (1973), 28.

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid., 29.

95. Ibid., 30.

96. Lake and Winslow, “Integration Management,” 322.

97. John Relman, Glenn Schlactus, and Shalini Goel, “Creating and Protecting Pro-integration Programs under the Fair Housing Act,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (New York: Routledge, 2010).

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid., 45.

100. Goetz, New Deal Ruins.

101. Joe R. Feagin, Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014). In a similar fashion, the evidence shows that affluent households are more segregated than households below the poverty level, yet our efforts to desegregate focus on poor families and on households of color, largely leaving affluent and white communities free from policy initiatives that might alter their residential patterns. See Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff, “No Neighborhood Is an Island,” Discussion 9: Residential Income Segregation, New York University, Furman Center, 2014.

102. See, e.g., Oakley and Burchfeld, “Out of the Projects.”

103. Goering, “Introduction.”

104. Roisman, “Affirmatively Furthering.”

105. Susan J. Popkin et al., Baseline Assessment of Public Housing Desegregation Cases: Cross-Site Report, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000); Susan J. Popkin et al., Baseline Assessment of Public Housing Desegregation Cases: Case Studies, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000).

106. See, e.g., Gibson, “Columbia Villa”; Goetz, New Deal Ruins.

107. See Goetz, Clearing the Way, describing the opposition of Southeast Asian immigrant residents in Minneapolis protesting their forced removal from public housing demolished as a result of the consent decree in Hollman v. Cisneros.

108. See Goetz, New Deal Ruins, for cases of de facto demolition across the country.

109. Polikoff, Waiting for Gautreaux, 301.

110. Wilen and Stasell, “ Gautreaux.”

111. Ibid.

112. Polikoff, Waiting for Gautreaux, 301.

113. Wilen and Stasell, “ Gautreaux,” 135.

114. Oakley and Burchfeld, “Out of the Projects.”

115. Wilen and Stasell, “ Gautreaux,” 118.

116. Goetz, New Deal Ruins.

117. Goetz and Chapple, “You Gotta Move.”

118. Alexander Polikoff, “HOPE VI and the Deconcentration of Poverty,” in From Despair to Hope: HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities, ed. Henry Cisneros and Lora Engdahl (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2009).

119. Alexander Polikoff, “Public Housing Destruction: Is It Worth It?,” For the Public Interest: The BPI Newsletter, February 2003. See also Wright, “Community Resistance.”

1. See the work of Imbroscio, “ ‘United and Actuated” and “Shaming the Inside Game,” as well as Goetz, Clearing the Way.

2. Goetz, New Deal Ruins.

3. Part of the impetus for creating something like the housing-plus-transportation (H+T) index is acknowledgment that these two typically constitute the largest expense categories for low-income families, and that some families have been trading off between the two. In the context of homeownership, the phrase “drive to qualify” captures the notion of families locating in exurban areas, some distance from metropolitan cores, in order to find mortgages they can afford. They are then faced with high transportation expenses (both financially and in terms of time) associated with more remote locations.

4. See Edward G. Goetz, “The Fair Housing Tightrope in the Obama Administration: Balancing Competing Policy Objectives of Fair Housing and Locational Efficiency in Assisted Housing,” Journal of Urban Affairs 37.1 (2015).

5. Marc Baldassare, Trouble in Paradise: The Suburban Transformation of America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986); Scott A. Bollens, “Municipal Decline and Inequality in American Suburban Rings, 1960–1980,” Regional Studies 22 (1988); William H. Lucy and David L. Phillips, Confronting Suburban Decline: Strategic Planning for Metropolitan Renewal ((Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000).

6. Becky M. Nicolaides, My Blue Heaven: Life and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, 1920–1965 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002); Andrew Wiese, Places of Their Own: African American Suburbanization in the Twentieth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

7. Chapple, Planning Sustainable Cities, 17.

8. See Nancy A. Denton and Joseph R. Gibbons, “Twenty-First-Century Suburban Demography: Increasing Diversity yet Lingering Exclusion,” in Social Justice in Diverse Suburbs: History, Politics, and Prospects, ed. Christopher Niedt (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013); Matthew Hall and Barrett Lee, “How Diverse Are US Suburbs?,” Urban Studies 47.1 (2010); Alan Berube and William H. Frey, A Decade of Mixed Blessing: Urban and Suburban Poverty in Census 2000 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2002); john a. powell and Jason Reece, “The Future of Fair Housing and Fair Credit: From Crisis to Opportunity,” Cleveland State Law Review 57 (2009).

9. Wiese, Places of Their Own, 5.

10. See, e.g., Brian A. Mikelbank, “A Typology of U.S. Suburban Places,” Housing Policy Debate 15.4 (2004); Bernadette Hanlon, Thomas Vicino, and J. R. Short, “The New Metropolitan Reality in the US: Rethinking the Traditional Model,” Urban Studies 43.12 (2006); and Bernadette Hanlon, “A Typology of Inner-Ring Suburbs: Class, Race, and Ethnicity in U.S. Suburbia,” City & Community 8.3 (2009).

11. Joel Garreau, Edge Cities: Life on the New Frontier (New York: Doubleday, 1987); Robert E. Lang and Jennifer B. LeFurgy, Boomburbs: The Rise of America’s Accidental Cities (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2007); Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia (New York: Basic Books, 1987); Alan Berube et al., Finding Exurbia: America’s Fast-Growing Communities at the Metropolitan Fringe (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2006); Wei Li, “Los Angeles’ Chinese Ethnoburb : Evolution of Ethnic Community and Economy,” p aper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, March 15, 1995; Wei Li, “Anatomy of a New Ethnic Settlement: The Chinese Ethnoburb in Los Angeles,” Urban Studies 35.3 (1998).

12. See, e.g., Denton and Gibbons, “Twenty-First-Century,” though this is a commonly held viewpoint by academics and journalists alike.

13. See Kevin Helliker, “U.S. News: Chicago Population Sinks to 1920 Level,” Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2011; and Judy Keen, “Blacks’ Exodus Reshapes Cities,” USA Today, May 19, 2011.

14. See powell and Reece, “Future of Fair Housing,” on the general point, and William J. Craig, “Minorities in the Twin Cities: What the 2010 U.S. Census Tells Us,” CURA Reporter 41.2 (2011), for an example in one metropolitan area.

15. Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, “Suburbanization and Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas,” American Journal of Sociology 94.3 (1988).

16. Katrin B. Anacker, “Immigrating, Assimilating, Cashing In? Analyzing Property Values in Suburbs of Immigrant Gateways,” Housing Studies 28.5 (2013).

17. William A. V. Clark, Immigrants and the American Dream (New York: Guilford, 2003); Audrey Singer, New Geography of United States Immigration (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2009).

18. Kneebone and Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty. Robert Suro, Jill Wilson, and Audrey Singer, “Immigration and Poverty in America’s Suburbs,” Brookings Institution, Paper No. 20, Metropolitan Opportunity Series, 2011.

19. Kneebone and Holmes, Concentrated Poverty. Kneebone and Holmes use American Community Survey data for the period of 2010–2014 to show that after the recession “the number of poor people living in concentrated poverty in suburbs grew nearly twice as fast as in cities.”

20. Kneebone and Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty, 29.

21. Kneebone and Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty.

22. Wyly and Hammel, “Islands of Decay”; Goetz, New Deal Ruins.

23. See, e.g., the study by Governing showing high rates of gentrification even before the housing crash: Mike Maciag, “Gentrification in America Report,” Governing, 2015. Though gentrification is measured in many different ways by researchers, there is overwhelming consistency in the findings pointing to clear patterns of gentrification in American cities.

24. For New York City see, e.g., D. W. Gibson, The Edge Becomes the Center: An Oral History of Gentrification in the 21st Century (New York: Overlook, 2015). For San Francisco see Richard Gonzalez, “As Rent Soars, Longtime San Francisco Tenants Fight to Stay,” National Public Radio, December 3, 2013, and James Tracy, Dispatches against Displacement: Field Notes from San Francisco’s Housing Wars (Oakland, CA: AK, 2014). For Washington, DC, see Chris Myers Asch and George Derek Musgrove, “ ‘We Are Headed for Some Bad Trouble’: Gentrification and Displacement in Washington, DC, 1920–2014,” in Capital Dilemma: Growth and Inequality in Washington, DC, ed. Derek Hyra (New York: Routledge, 2016); and Derek Hyra, “The Back-to-the-City Movement: Neighborhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural Displacement,” Urban Studies 52.10 (2015). See also Daniel Hartley, “Gentrification and Financial Health,” Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, November 6, 2013. Hartley’s study indicates that fourteen American cities saw more than one in five of their lower-priced census tracts gentrify between 2000 and 2007.

25. Derek Hyra, Making the Gilded Ghetto: Race, Class and Politics in the Cappucino City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming).

26. See Perry Stein, “Is Pricey Shaw a Model for Retaining Affordability amid Regentrification?,” Washington Post, May 21, 2015; and Aaron C. Davis and Abigail Hauslohner, “DC Council Passes $13 Billion Budget Focusing on Schools, Homelessness,” Washington Post, May 27, 2015.

27. J. K. Dineen, “Feds Reject Housing Plan Meant to Help Minorities Stay in SF,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 2016.

28. Richard Gonzales, “Feds to Allow Preferences for Low-Income Applicants in S.F. Housing Complex,” National Public Radio, September 23, 2016.

29. Henry Graba, “Obama Administration to San Francisco: Your Anti-gentrification Plan Promotes Segregation,” Moneybox, August 17, 2016.

30. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Rootedness,” May 17, 2016.

31. I will occasionally retain quotation marks around the phrase to remind the reader of the discursive aspect of this term. Historically, many of the metrics used to designate such neighborhoods have had little to do with opportunity directly, and when they have, they have tended to focus on a subset of opportunities. The result is a phrase that generally reflects a political project more than an objective assessment of neighborhood conditions.

32. Rusk, Inside Game.

33. Goetz, Clearing the Way.

34. See Henry G. Cisneros and Lora Engdahl, eds., From Despair to Hope: HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2009), especially chapters 2 and 3 for a full explication of the HOPE VI model.

35. The Gautreaux and MTO mobility programs utilize simple dichotomies. In Gautreaux the threshold between low-opportunity neighborhoods and high-opportunity neighborhoods was an African American population of 30 percent. In the MTO program it was a poverty population of 10 percent.

36. This is a dualism that long predates the emergence of the “opportunity” paradigm. As noted in chapters 3 and 4, a common analysis of American urban problems in the last half of the twentieth century referenced the “white noose” around American cities, in which poorer communities of color inside the central cities are contrasted with white, middle- and upper-income suburban communities outside. See Peter Marris, “The Social Implications of Urban Redevelopment,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28.3 (1962); Self, American Babylon.

37. The Hollman desegregation lawsuit consent decree used both race and poverty to define opportunity neighborhoods. See Goetz, Clearing the Way.

38. Current initiatives to operationalize and measure “opportunity neighborhoods” typically utilize Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies to map opportunity. GIS has allowed analysts to engage in opportunity mapping, sometimes called equity mapping, focusing on the distribution of multiple opportunity characteristics across a metropolitan landscape.

39. See, e.g., Bill Sadler et al., The Denver Regional Equity Atlas: Mapping Access to Opportunity at a Regional Scale (Denver: Mile High Connects, 2012).

40. Dolores Acevedo-Garcia et al., “Neighborhood Opportunity and Location Affordability for Low-Income Renter Families,” Housing Policy Debate 26.4–5 (2016).

41. See, e.g., Institute on Race and Poverty, Access to Opportunity in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Minneapolis, 2007).

42. Kirwan Institute, Equity, Opportunity, and Sustainability in the Central Puget Sound Region (Seattle, WA: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2012). Neighborhoods can be arrayed, the authors contend, by a single composite measure of opportunity. The result is a somewhat willful disregard for the greater information that could be provided by a more nuanced definition of opportunity.

43. Sadler et al., Denver Regional Equity.

44. See, e.g., Sarah Treuhaft, Community Mapping for Health Equity Advocacy, 2009, which contains five case studies of mapping for regional health equity; and Coalition for a Livable Future, Regional Equity Atlas: The Portland Metro Region’s Geography of Opportunity.

45. Popkin et al., Baseline Assessment, vol. 1.

46. The full list of selection criteria that QAPs must include is “project location, housing needs characteristics, project characteristics, including whether the project includes the use of housing as part of a community revitalization plan, sponsor characteristics, tenant populations with special housing needs, public housing waiting lists, tenant populations of individuals with children, projects intended for eventual tenant ownership, the energy efficiency of the project, and the historic nature of the project.” Internal Revenue Code §42 (m)(1)(C).

47. Internal Revenue Code §42 (m)(1)(B)(ii). The QCT incentive was added to the program by amendment in 1989; see Michael Hollar and Kurt Usowsky, “Low Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Census Tracts,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 9.3 (2007).

48. Elizabeth K. Julian, “Recent Advocacy Related to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Fair Housing,” Journal of Affordable Housing 18.2 (2009): 186.

49. See, e.g., Jill Khadduri, Creating Balance in the Locations of LIHTC Developments: The Role of Qualified Allocation Plans (Washington, DC: Poverty and Race Research Action Council and Abt Associates, 2013); Casey Dawkins, “The Spatial Pattern of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Properties,” Journal of the American Planning Association 79.3 (2013).

50. Khadduri, Creating Balance, 2.

51. Ibid.

52. See Florence Roisman, “Mandates Unsatisfied: The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program and Civil Rights Laws,” University of Miami Law Review 52 (1998); Lance Freeman, Siting Affordable Housing: Location and Neighborhood Trends of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Developments in the 1990s (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 2004); Kirk McClure, “The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program Goes Mainstream and Moves to the Suburbs,” Housing Policy Debate 17 (2006); Deirdre Oakley, “Locational Patterns of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Developments: A Sociospatial Analysis of Four Metropolitan Areas,” Urban Affairs Review 43 (2008); Keren M. Horn and Katherine M. O’Regan, The Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Racial Segregation (New York: Furman Center for Real Estate and Public Policy, NYU, 2011); Lan Deng, “Comparing the Effects of Housing Vouchers and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits on Neighborhood Integration and School Quality,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (2007); Casey J. Dawkins, Exploring the Spatial Distribution of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Properties (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011); Dawkins, “Spatial Pattern”; Shannon Van Zandt and Pratik C. Mhatre, “Growing Pains: Perpetuating Inequality through the Production of Low-Income Housing in the Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex,” Urban Geography 30.5 (2009); Jill Khadduri, Larry Buron, and Carissa Climaco, Are States Using the Low Income Housing Tax Credit to Enable Families with Children to Live in Low Poverty and Racially Integrated Neighborhoods?, report prepared for the Poverty and Race Research Action Council and the National Fair Housing Alliance (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 2006).

53. Horn and O’Regan, Low Income Housing.

54. Matthew Freedman and Tamara McGavock, “Low-Income Housing Development, Poverty Concentration, and Neighborhood Inequality,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34.4 (2015): 805–834. See also Baum-Snow and Marion, “Effects of Low-Income Housing.”

55. Ingrid Gould Ellen, Keren M. Horn, and Katherine M. O’Regan, “Poverty Concentration and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit: Effects of Siting and Tenant Composition,” Journal of Housing Economics 34 (2016); Ingrid Gould Ellen, Katherine M. O’Regan, and Ionu Voicu, “Siting, Spillovers, and Segregation: A Re-examination of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program,” in Housing Markets and the Economy: Risk, Regulation, Policy; Essays in Honor of Karl Case, ed. Edward Glaeser and John Quigley (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, 2009); Rebecca Diamond and Timothy McQuade, “Who Wants Affordable Housing in Their Backyard? An Equilibrium Analysis of Low Income Property Development,” NBER Working Paper No. 22204, April 2016.

56. Freeman, Siting Affordable Housing, and Oakley, “Locational Patterns.”

57. Van Zandt and Mhatre, “Growing Pains”; Dawkins, “Spatial Pattern.”

58. The definition of “low racial concentration” is census tracts with fewer than 25 percent of the population African American. Jill Khadduri and Carissa Climaco, LIHTC Awards in Ohio, 2006–2015: Where Are They Providing Housing for Families with Children? (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 2016).

59. Dawkins, Spatial Distribution, 35.

60. Diamond and McQuade, “Who Wants Affordable Housing”; Ellen, O’Regan, and Voicu, “Siting, Spillovers, and Segregation”; and Ellen, Horn, and O’Regan, “Poverty Concentration,” all use the first standard (does the program increase segregation or concentrations of poverty?) to assess the program, and Van Zandt and Mhatre, “Growing Pains”; and Khadduri and Climaco, LIHTC Awards, use the second standard (does the program achieve integration?).

61. Julian, “Recent Advocacy.”

62. In re Adoption of 2003 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Allocation Plan, 848 A. 2d 1, 5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004). Another suit was filed in 2002 by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union against the state allocating agency in Connecticut on the basis of the segregatory impact of LIHTC in the Hartford metropolitan area, In Re Declaratory Ruling on Connecticut Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program; see the brief description in Horn and O’Regan, “Low Income Housing.”

63. James A. Long, “The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit in New Jersey: New Opportunities to Deconcentrate Poverty through the Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing,” NYU Annual Survey of American Law 66 (2010): 75.

64. Robert Neuwirth, “Renovation or Ruin,” Shelterforce Online 137, September/October, 2004.

65. See also Khadduri’s contention that she “has found no research showing that distressed neighborhoods with LIHTC investments improve as measured by other quality measures such as well-performing schools, responsive public services, or safety.” Khadduri, Creating Balance, 2.

66. Neuwirth, “Renovation or Ruin.”

67. Ingrid Gould Ellen, Keren M. Horn, et al., Effect of QAP Incentives on the Location of LIHTC Properties (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015).

68. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., v. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Complaint filed March 28, 2008, in the US. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. 3:08-CV-546-D, 12.

69. ICP v. TDHCA complaint, 7 and 10.

70. ICP v. TDHCA complaint.

71. Ibid.

72. The ICP case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. The issue that the Supreme Court considered, however, was simply whether any party could make a legal claim on the basis of disparate impacts, or whether instead a litigant must prove discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2015, that disparate impact is indeed an actionable claim under the Fair Housing Act, was a major victory for ICP and for fair housing more generally. But the court did not rule on the substance of the case related to the location of tax credit housing. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court to resolve that issue. Using the Supreme Court’s test, the district court decided in favor of the State of Texas, concluding that the ICP had not proven that the action of the Texas DHCA had caused the maldistribution of tax credit housing. See Julieta Chiquillo, “After Supreme Court Victory, Dallas Nonprofit Loses Racial Suit against Texas Agency,” Dallas Morning News, August 31, 2016.

73. Housing Discrimination Complaint: Metropolitan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing, et al. v. State of Minnesota, et al.

74. See Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, Reforming Subsidized Housing Policy in the Twin Cities to Cut Costs and Reduce Segregation (Minneapolis, 2014), in which CDC salaries are published and alleged to contribute to a high cost of subsidized housing in the central cities. This report also contains a facile “analysis” of a single community development project on the south side of Minneapolis. The analysis covers a period during which the project in question was never more than half complete, is conducted at a scale much too large for a serious attempt to search for impacts, and, for the most part, focuses on outcomes of demographic change rather than benefits to existing populations and businesses (even though changing the demographic makeup of the neighborhood is not the intent of this project, or many other community development projects). Deficient in virtually every relevant aspect of research design, the study is nevertheless offered as evidence that community development efforts do not work. The “study” was later reproduced, unimproved, in an academic policy journal. For more see Edward G. Goetz, “Poverty Pimping the CDCs: The Search for Dispersal’s Next Bogeyman,” Housing Policy Debate 25.3 (2015); and Alex E. Schwartz, “The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, Community Development, and Fair Housing: A Response to Orfield et al.,” Housing Policy Debate 26.2 (2015).

75. See the discussion later in this chapter.

76. See Housing Justice Center, Preliminary Analysis of MICAH Fair Housing Complaint against State, MHFA, Met Council (Saint Paul, MN, 2015); Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, “Response to Housing Discrimination Complaint,” Saint Paul, MN, March 12, 2015; State of Minnesota, “Re: MICAH et al. v. State of Minnesota et al. Title VI Case Number 05-15-0003-6, Responses of State of Minnesota and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency,” March 12, 2015; all available from the author.

77. Such “analyses of impediments to fair housing” have been required of all HUD subgrantees for years. The novel element of the settlement, therefore, seems to be the commitment to a more robust community engagement process. Jessie Van Berkel, “Minneapolis and St. Paul Settle Federal Housing Complaints, Agree to Further Review,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, May 17, 2016.

78. Sustainable Communities Initiative Progress Report, prepared by Summit Consulting for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, April 2014. The six principles are (1) provide more transportation choices; (2) promote equitable, affordable housing; (3) enhance economic competitiveness; (4) support existing communities; (5) coordinate policies and leverage investment; and (6) value communities and neighborhoods.

79. See, e.g., Daniel Immergluck, “Large Redevelopment Initiatives, Housing Values and Gentrification: The Case of the Atlanta Beltline,” Urban Studies 46 (2009); and Daniel Baldwin Hess and Tangerine Maria Almeida, “Impact of Proximity to Light Rail Rapid Transit on Station-Area Property Values in Buffalo, New York,” Urban Studies 44.5 (2007).

80. Casey Dawkins and Rolf Moeckel, “Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay, and Who Will Go?,” Housing Policy Debate 26.4-5 (2016); Matthew E. Kahn, “Gentrification Trends in New Transit-Oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems,” Real Estate Economics 35.2 (2007) 2.

81. Emily Talen and Julia Koschinsky, “Is Subsidized Housing in Sustainable Neighborhoods? Evidence from Chicago,” Housing Policy Debate 21.1 (2011).

82. See, e.g., Acevedo-Garcia et al., “Neighborhood Opportunity,” on the tradeoffs between location affordability and some indices of opportunity.

83. Philip Tegeler and Hanna Chouest, “The ‘Housing + Transportation Index’ and Fair Housing,” Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Policy Brief, 2011. See also Oak Park Regional Housing Center, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s H+T Affordability Index,” February 2012, available from author.

84. Oak Park Regional Housing Center, “Affirmatively Furthering,” 2.

85. Pendall and Parilla, “Comment,” 35.

86. Sanchez et al. cite a State of Illinois study that found that 41 percent of former welfare recipients named transportation as a major barrier to their continued employment. Thomas W. Sanchez et al., The Right to Transportation: Moving to Equity (Chicago: Planners Press, APA, 2007).

87. Ibid.

88. Kneebone and Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty.

89. Ibid.

90. See Lingqian Hu, “Job Accessibility of the Poor in Los Angeles: Has Suburbanization Affected Spatial Mismatch?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 81.1 (2015); and Mizuki Kawabata, “Job Access and Employment among Low-Skilled Autoless Workers in US Metropolitan Areas,” Environment and Planning A 35.9 (2003).

91. Hu, “Job Accessibility,” 40. See also Shen’s work on employment accessibility in central cities. Shen measures not just the location of jobs, but their availability through turnover and job growth. Qing Shen, “Location Characteristics of Inner-City Neighborhoods and Employment Accessibility of Low-Wage Workers,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25 (1998); Qing Shen, “A Spatial Analysis of Job Openings and Access in a U.S. Metropolitan Area,” Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (2001). Lens finds that residents of public housing had better access to employment than residents of other forms of subsidized housing because of the centrality of public housing in cities. See Michael Lens, “Employment Accessibility among Housing Subsidy Recipients,” Housing Policy Debate 24.4 (2014). Pendall et al. reinforce the importance of transit for low-income households, though they argue the benefits of car ownership on employment and earnings exceed those of access to transit. See Rolf Pendall et al., Driving to Opportunity: Understanding the Links among Transportation Access, Residential Outcomes, and Economic Opportunity for Housing Voucher Recipients (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2014).

92. National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, The Future of Fair Housing: Report of the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, 2008.

93. See, e.g., Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing at HUD: A First Term Report Card (Washington, DC, 2013).

94. National Fair Housing Alliance, Expanding Opportunity: Systemic Approaches to Fair Housing (Washington, DC, 2014).

95. King and Smith, House Divided, 137–138.

96. 24 CFR Part 100 Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard; Final Rule, Fed. Reg. vol. 78, no. 32, February 15, 2013.

97. Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F. 3d 823 (2010).

98. Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., 568 U.S. (2012).

99. Texas DHCA v. ICP, 571 US 1 (2015), 1.

100. Ibid., 20.

101. Ibid., 21.

102. Ibid., 18.

103. Ibid., 19.

104. 78 Fed. Reg. 11476, and quoted in Texas DHCA v. ICP, 571 US 1 (2015), 19.

105. Stockton Williams and Maya Brennan, “A New Landscape of Housing Access and Opportunity,” Urban Land: The Magazine of the Urban Land Institute, November 30, 2015.

106. Ibid.

107. Atlanta Progressive News, “What a Fair Housing Victory in the U.S. Supreme Court Means for Atlanta,” September 19, 2015.

108. Edsall, “Where?”

1. See Chapple, Planning Sustainable Cities; Jim Capraro, “Can Successful Community Development Be Anything but Comprehensive?,” Shelterforce, July 17, 2013; Axel-Lute, “Seeking Solidarity”; Mtamanik Youngblood and Harold Barnette, “Community Development Corporations at a Crossroads,” Shelterforce, July 17, 2013; Kathe Newman and Edward Goetz, “Reclaiming Neighborhood from the Inside Out: Regionalism, Globalization, and Critical Community Development,” Urban Geography 37.5 (2015); Josh Ishimatsu, “Can Organizing Resuscitate Community Development?,” Shelterforce, November 22, 2013; Josh Ishimatsu, “Neighborhoods or Regions? A Trick Question,” Shelterforce, July 17, 2013.

2. King and Smith, House Divided.

3. Edward G. Goetz, Tony Damiano, and Jason Hicks, “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation” (unpublished paper, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Minneapolis, 2015).

4. Sidney, “Fair Housing,” 267.

5. This technique was most pronounced in the federal HOPE VI program, which displaced tens of thousands of very low-income people of color to other largely segregated and high-poverty neighborhoods. Desegregation lawsuits were much more likely to combine the dismantling of a segregated community with efforts to integrate white communities, through mobility programs or scattered site development.

6. John O. Calmore, “Race/ism Lost and Found: The Fair Housing Act at Thirty,” University of Miami Law Review 52 (1997).

7. The stigmatization of communities of color remains an inherent element of integrationist efforts if the objective of such efforts is a desired mix of people. Catering to white prejudices and preferences will always keep people of color in a subordinate position. If opening up exclusionary communities is instead pursued as a means of enhancing choice in the housing market and eliminating discriminatory barriers to housing, then the need to maintain an acceptable mix disappears along with the need to incorporate white preferences.

8. Shelby, Dark Ghettos, 75.

9. Myron Orfield et al., “High Costs and Segregation in Subsidized Housing Policy,” Housing Policy Debate 25 (2015). The label was picked up and repeated, unquestioningly, by Thomas Edsall in the New York Times, “Where?”

10. Together, these three components are essentially what Michael Bodaken and Ellen Lurie Hoffman of the National Housing Trust call a “Mobility Plus” strategy. See Bodaken and Hoffman, “The Need for a Balanced Approach to Fair Housing” (NYU–Furman Center, September 28, 2015).

11. Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff, “Income Inequality and Income Segregation,” American Journal of Sociology 116.4 (2011).

12. Patrick Sharkey, Stuck in Place.

13. Defilippis, Unmaking Goliath.