The article I examined was “Fair Housing at Its Worst: the flagrant violation of Title VII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act in Greater Hartford, Connecticut, report 6.” This report speaks about “blockbusting” and “panic selling” and about how mass solicitation of homes and apartments in communities creates an artificial reservoir of sales. Mass solicitation could be desirable for a neighborhood or it can have a negative effect in neighborhoods of minority or low-income concentration. In such situations, perfectly adequate housing goes unemphasized, which then causes leaders who often have significant decision-making power to move from such areas. Usually criticism of public schools increases as well as the poor morale in health recreation and summer programs. Government services are threatened by elimination and there is an increase in news reportings of unpleasantness and negative reaction is multiplied. The result of this is a loss of the sense of confidence, stability, and healthy growth in that area.
The next section explains the lack of racial integration in the state of Connecticut, calculating that in order to achieve a random distribution of blacks and whites 71% of the regions population would have to relocate.
Collective racist action is so clear in the federally established financing program of home-ownership for lower-income families known as section 235. The Federal Housing Administration discriminated against blacks by discouraging investment in racially mixed neighborhoods as well as inner-city neighborhoods. This report gives evidence that from the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the HUD 235 program was used to reinforce racial segregation in housing and used to further urban economic and physical decay. It is known that mortgage lenders, builders, brokers, and HUD officials understood the racist process but did nothing. The evidence behind this is that it is clear that HUD was aware what was occurring in the 235 program because it issued regulations requiring affirmative action program to integrate the projects which were being constructed and sold. “Although steering was clearly occurring in both the ‘new’ and ‘existing’ home purchase aspects of the program and two-thirds of units being purchased were ‘existing’ homes, HUD affirmative action requirements were only applied to ‘new’ construction. Both HUD and the lenders ‘looked the other way’.”
Sources:
Gotham, Kevin Fox. “Beyond Invasion and Succession: School Segregation, Real Estate Blockbusting, and the Political Economy of Neighborhood Racial Transition.” City and Community 1.1 (2002): 83-111. Print.
-I went to google scholar and typed in “blockbusting” and “panic selling”
Keating, W. Dennis. The Suburban Racial Dilemma: Housing and Neighborhoods. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1994. Print.
-I typed in “lack of racial integration in Connecticut” into jstor.
Rotberg, Robert. “Where can a Negro Live?” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): 1. Aug 20 1956. ProQuest. Web. 13 Sep. 2013 .
Discussion Questions:
1) Since this report makes it clear that HUD officials were aware that the 235 program was reinforcing racial segregation because it issued regulations requiring affirmative action but only for “new” home purchases which does not include the “existing” two-thirds of homes, does that mean that “steering” could be a public rather than just a private matter?
2) What is mass solicitation and what are ways in which it can either promote a neighborhood as being “desirable” or have negative effects in neighborhoods of minority or low-income concentrations?