The Effect of “Redlining” on the Hartford Metropolitan Region

Posted on

 See an updated version of this essay on “Federal Lending and Redlining” in http://OnTheLine.trincoll.edu.

(Source: Education/Instruccion, "Fair Housing At Its Worst")
(Source: Education/Instruccion, “Fair Housing At Its Worst”)

The contemporary racial isolation in the Hartford metropolitan region, similarly to metro areas across the country, undoubtedly stems from a mixture of past and present policies. Past policies, promoted by both private and federal interests, encouraged racial segregation. Despite the fact that explicitly racist policies no longer exist, their legacy often perpetuates inequality. A practice that appears outwardly benign, such as local zoning codes, can maintain historical inequality due to the outcomes created by racist policies in the past. Of all the historical housing barriers faced by ethnic minorities in America, “redlining” is perhaps the most talked about, and for good reason. Redlining is the nickname for the way in which banks evaluated the security of a property value for a loan transaction. This often resulted in downgrading investments in particular neighborhoods due to the way racial and socioeconomic status were used as criteria for determining desirability. Redlining practices played a prominent role in shaping the demographic patterns of cities and suburbs across the U.S.

 

Formation of the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation: Rating Neighborhood Investment Risks

The Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) was established through President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Legislation in 1933, as a way to combat home foreclosures during the years of the Great Depression.[i] What is critical to understand is that the HOLC created residential security maps to assess the “trend of desirability” in residential areas in Hartford and over 200 other cities during the late 1930s.[ii] In other words, the HOLC set out to evaluate the insurance risks of homes in order to direct the underwriting criteria of the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) and to provide a detailed guide for the contemporary and future mortgage loan investment decisions of all the newly regulated financial institutions engaged in home mortgage lending.[iii] The major issue is that the HOLC utilized the racial and socioeconomic composition of residents as criteria to determine whether neighborhoods were safe and stable investments for loans, rather than solely focusing on physical property conditions as the deciding factor. For example, a 1937 HOLC appraisal report for a tract of land near downtown Hartford describes the neighborhood as a “slum area now mainly occupied by Negros.”[iv] The appraisal also identifies the residents of this area as predominately “laborers or domestics” and estimates the average annual family income to be around $1,000.00.[v] This report exemplifies the role of race and class in the HOLC rating system – the neighborhood was given the lowest possible rating (Grade D).

(Source: On The Line)
(Source: On The Line)
HOLC Residential Security Map of Hartford Area 1937

The HOLC created color-coded maps that delineated four grades of housing – green being the highest rated, followed by blue and yellow respectively, while red was reserved for the lowest grade of neighborhood, hence the term “redlining”. This mapping system represents an institutionalized barrier to equal access to property and loans because the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and private lenders had adopted similar policies and maps in their own underwriting manuals, thus influencing their lending decisions in a racial manner as well. For instance, in the 1936 FHA Underwriting Manual, there are references to “inharmonious racial groups” or “incompatible racial elements” causing decreased value in a neighborhood.[vi] Essentially, the FHA was acknowledging that the presence of ethnic minorities in a mostly white neighborhood was an adverse influence that would damage property values.

(Source: UCONN MAGIC)
(Source: UCONN MAGIC)

 

The Relationship Between Race and Redlining in the Hartford Region

In the year 2000, West Hartford’s population consisted of about 17% minorities; Hartford’s minority population was recorded at 81%, making it a minority-majority city by a wide margin.[vii] An examination of the Federal HOLC “Redlining” Map from 1937 (shown above) helps to illuminate how two adjacent districts became strikingly racially polarized over the course of about 60 years. It is helpful to compare this map to the 1940 map of Racial Change in the Hartford Region (shown below). The comparison reveals two obvious conclusions: First, the region is overwhelmingly white. Second, the two census tracts in Hartford with a substantial black population, tract eight and nine, are both neighborhoods that were redlined by the HOLC.

(Source: UCONN MAGIC) Racial Change in the Hartford Region, 1940
(Source: UCONN MAGIC)
Racial Change in the Hartford Region, 1940

The Hartford neighborhoods that were redlined were also located in slum areas. So, was this low rating due primarily to race, or the poor quality of the housing? The answer is that both factors most likely played a major role, however, a comparison between two areas with similar physical factors, but racial differences provides evidence that a neighborhood’s HOLC rating could be substantially affected by the presence of an  “inharmonious racial group”. Through an examination of HOLC appraisal reports, it is apparent that area B-5 (North End of Hartford) and area C-9 (South End of Hartford) were neighborhoods with similar physical character in 1937. Both neighborhoods predominately consisted of two family houses that were 15-20 years old, in fair-good condition, and in a comparable price range. Even the socioeconomic breakdown of the two neighborhoods was close; B-5 had an estimated annual family income of $1,800.00 and up, while C-9 was estimated at $1,500.00 and up. However, area B-5 was rated “blue”, while area C-9 received a “yellow” rating. This difference in rating can most likely be attributed to the racial composition of the neighborhoods. Both had a small population of Italians, but area B-5 had no black population, while area C-9, although slight (approximately 1%), contained a black demographic. One remark from the appraisal of C-9 acknowledges this, “The Negro families are confined to Roosevelt Street. Lenders suggest caution in the selection of loans.”[viii] This demonstrates that the HOLC rating system focused as much on racial composition as it did on the physical quality of neighborhoods.

 

The Legacy of Racialized Housing Barriers

The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which is title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, made redlining on a racial basis an illegal practice. Yet, this did not mean lending institutions were expected to approve all loan applications. There is evidence that redlining continued in the Hartford region as late as 1977, manifesting itself as a systematic disinvestment of urban properties by banks and insurance companies.[ix] Redlining had serious ramifications for minorities in cities like Hartford. The racialization of space through real estate marked a shift from use-value to market-value, giving property a value that could grow or decline partially based on the racial composition of a neighborhood. New data has reinforced the fall-out caused by redlining. It shows that the neighborhoods redlined in the 1930s are now the areas of lowest opportunity in Hartford.[x] These high poverty areas are a result of past disinvestment caused by an undesirable status that was racially motivated. In the end, it is clear that simply outlawing racist policies of the past does not necessarily fix the damage that has already been done.

(Source: People, Place and Opportunity: Mapping Communities of Opportunity in CT)
(Source: People, Place and Opportunity: Mapping Communities of Opportunity in CT)

[i] Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, United States, Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, (1933), Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, and Federal Savings and Loan Corporation Annual Reports: 1933, accessed Oct 5, 2013 from FRASER, http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/holc/1933_annualrpt.pdf

[ii] University of Connecticut Libraries Map and Geographic Information Center – MAGIC (2012), “Federal HOLC “Redlining” Map, Hartford area, 1937,” accessed October 5, 2013 http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/otl/doclink_holc.html.

[iii] James Greer, “The Home Owner’s Loan Corporation and the Development of the Residential Security Maps,” in Journal of Urban History 39, no. 2 (2013), 276.

[iv] Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, “Residential Security Map and Area Descriptions, Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, Connecticut”, (1937), Box 64, City Survey Files, Record Group 195: Records of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, National Archives II, College Park, Maryland, available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu)

[v] HOLC, “Residential Security Map and Area Descriptions,” Area D1.

[vi] United States, Federal Housing Administration, Underwriting manual: underwriting analysis under title II, section 203 of the National housing act (Washington, 1936)

[vii] Town of West Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission, 2009-2019 West Hartford Plan of Conservation and Development, 14.

[viii] HOLC, “Residential Security Map and Area Descriptions,” Area C9.

[ix] Education/Instruccion, Fair Housing At Its Worst: Redlining in Hartford Connecticut, report 9 (Hartford, 1977), 179. available from the Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, Connecticut (http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu)

[x] Jason Reece et al., People, Place, and Opportunity: Mapping Communities of Opportunity in Connecticut: A Report Commissioned by the Connecticut Fair Housing Center (Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University, 2009), 16.

 

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on

0: Climbing past desegregation to integration takes more than a court judgment. It takes open hearts, open minds, and open attitudes – qualities the best adults struggle to gain and most five-year-olds have in abundance.

 

1: It is apparent that we must do more than simply desegregate our schools in Connecticut. Climbing past desegregation to integration takes more than a court judgment.

 

2: It is apparent that we must do more than simply desegregate our schools in Connecticut. Putting desegregation behind us, and moving towards integration takes more than a court decision. We must open our hearts, minds and attitudes; something adults struggle with, yet something that comes so easily to children.

 

3: It is apparent that we must do more than simply desegregate our schools in Connecticut. Putting desegregation behind us, and moving towards integration takes more than a court decision; we must open our hearts, minds and attitudes – something adults struggle with, yet something that comes so easily to children. [1]

 

4: It is clear that change must occur in Connecticut for us to move past desegregation to integration. A simple court decision fails to bring about this profound difference; maybe adults should take a page out of the book of children and come to the realization that opening our minds make all the difference when it comes to truly providing educational equality for all.[2]

 

5: Perhaps one of the most important things to understand about the Sheff case is that it is simply a stepping-stone to achieving educational equality. It is not an easy task to make the change from simple desegregation to true integration. As stated by Eaton, “It takes open hearts, open minds, and open attitudes – qualities the best adults struggle to gain and most five-year-olds have in abundance.”[3]


[1] Susan Eaton, The Children in Room E4 (Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 2009), 344.

[2] Susan Eaton, The Children in Room E4 (Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 2009), 344.

[3] Susan Eaton, The Children in Room E4 (Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 2009), 344.

 

 Bibliography

Eaton, Susan. The Children in Room E4. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 2009.

Sheff: 2013 Settlement

Posted on

The legal document that I analyzed was the 2013 Sheff settlement, the most recent settlement in a case that dates back to 1989. The document begins by acknowledging the original Sheff v. O’Neill decision. It briefly describes the 2003 and 2008 settlements pertaining to the case. The document notes that this new settlement pertains to the 2013-14 school year, although all parties are aware that efforts will need to continue beyond this date (June 30, 2014) to further reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation in Hartford public schools.

Next, the document highlights two changes in definition from the phase II stipulation:

1) Existing Magnet Schools are inter-district Magnet Schools that are in operation during the 2012-13 school year.

2) School districts outside Sheff region will participate in Sheff-related school choice programming through the Regional School Choice Office and students attending such schools/programs are to be counted towards the compliance goal.

Section III deals with new changes to goals and performance. When the goals of the 2003 settlement weren’t met, the parties renegotiated in 2008. They created two new goals:

1) Accommodate at least 80% of Hartford minority students wishing to attend reduced-isolation schools.

2) Enroll at least 41% of minority students from Hartford in a reduced-isolation school.

The 2013 settlement maintains these two goals, stating that one or the other (80% demand 0r 41% overall) must be achieved during this one year extension period. The rest of the document is dedicated to highlighting the steps that are being taken to ensure that the benchmark is met. I Will briefly outline this plan.

A) CT State Dept. Of Ed (SDE) is to provide funding for the creation of four new magnet schools and the expansion of one magnet school (Montessori)

B) Global Experience Magnet School, Wintonbury Each Childhood Magnet School and CT International Baccalaureate Academy will be turned into “Sheff” magnets and expand their enrollment of Hartford minority students.

C) Some existing Sheff magnet schools will improve their capacity to enroll Hartford resident students.

D) Participating technical high schools will  expand their seat capacity

E) SDE will promote applications for new charter schools in the Sheff region and make the Charter Schools Operations report readily available to the plaintiffs. Basically, SDE is saying they’ll make it easier to apply for the creation of new Sheff charter schools.

F) “Enrollment Management Plans” must now be submitted for schools that SDE anticipates might be in non-compliance with the desegregation standard for the 2013-14 school year. Also, the plaintiffs will be provided with copies of the EMP.

G) There are some major modifications to Open Choice. First, the per pupil operating grant for Open Choice school districts that exceed 4% participation is increased to $8,000. $750,000 is to be allocated to provide grants to local or regional boards of education for costs related to Open Choice Enrollment. SDE states that they’re willing to work with regions whose participation rate is lower than their capability. SDE is also willing to conduct a study on Open Choice retention rates. Finally, when Open Choice seats are unfilled, Hartford residents on the waiting list for magnet schools will be offered a placement.

A good portion of the rest of the document deals with SDE taking steps to make sure the plan is carried out. They want to hire someone full time to act as a director and oversee the implementation of the Phase II Stipulation. SDE is also seeking to make all this information more readily available to those who could take advantage of it through a new marketing campaign with HPS and CREC.

The conclusion of the settlement basically states that SDE must provide the plaintiffs with reports on the academic performance of HPS and non-HPS students participating in Open Choice.

Interestingly, it states that the plaintiffs reserve the right to contest the defendants method of calculating “demand”. Also, the defendants must pay the cost of the plaintiffs experts that they hire to convene to study the demographics of the Sheff region and the socio-economic make up of the suburban population.

Discussion Questions:

1. Which aspects of the 2013 settlement will be most effective at increasing the number of Hartford-resident minority students attending reduced-isolation schools?

2. Is the settlement specific enough to engender progress leading to reaching the benchmark in the next year or is the plan too vague to be truly effective?

3.  What aspects do you feel are missing from the 2013 settlement?

FHA Underwriting Manual

Posted on

The source that I looked at was the Underwriting Manual, written by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in 1936.  It contains instructions and regulations governing the procedures to be followed by the Underwriting Departments in Insuring Offices. It also describes techniques used by the FHA to determine whether or not mortgages are eligible for insurance. Insurance eligibility is determined by risk rating. The process of “risk rating” is extremely relevant to our discussion about housing barriers.

The famous term “red lining” comes from the FHA process of risk rating. The basic idea is that the FHA used race of occupants as one of the measurements for the value and stability of a neighborhood. Thus, neighborhoods that contained non-white inhabitants were given a low ranking (red) and thus those who lived there were deemed a risk and refused loans. The Underwriting Manual is a long and dense document, and one must dig through the text to find the few blatant racial provisions. These can be found in Section II under the heading “Risk Rating Instructions” in the subsection labeled “Protection From Adverse Influences”.

  • Paragraph 228: Deed restrictions are referenced as more effective than zoning ordinances in providing protection from “adverse influences”.  Racial occupancy is noted as a type of deed restriction that can have a favorable outcome if it is applied to all properties, including those in adjacent blocks.
  • Paragraph 229: Geographical position is said to afford protection against adverse influences in some cases. The manual states that, “Usually the protection against adverse influences afforded by these means include prevention of the infiltration of business and industrial uses, lower-class occupancy, and inharmonious racial groups.”
  • Paragraph 233: This paragraph contains some of the most racially charged language in the manual. It basically states that the Valuator needs to check out neighborhoods surrounding the property to see if there is the presence of incompatible racial or social groups as they could potentially invade the area. It recognizes that a change in racial or social occupancy leads to instability and reduced value. It is noted that once the character of a neighborhood is established, it is impossible to induce members of a higher social class to move in.
  • The same paragraph mentions that value is hurt if the children of inhabitants must attend school with pupils of a far lower level of society or an incompatible racial element.
  • Paragraph 284: “The prohibition of the occupancy of properties except by the race for which they were intended” is listed as an example of an effective deed restriction to supplement zoning.
  • Paragraph 289: The manual states that schools should be up to the standards of the neighborhood and not be attended in large numbers by inharmonious racial groups.

 

Secondary Sources:

1) Charles Abrams, Forbidden Neighbors (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955), 162.

– I found this source because in it Charles Abrams cites the FHA Underwriting manual from 1936.

 

2) John P. Dean, “Only Caucasian: A Study of Race Covenants,” The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, vol. 23 no. 4 (1947), 428-432.

-I found this article on jstor by searching the term “FHA Underwriting Manual”.

 

3) James A. Berkovec et al., “Discrimination, Competition, and Loan Performance in FHA Mortgage Lending,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 80 no. 2 (1998), 241-250.

-I found this article on google scholar by searching the term “FHA Underwriting Manual”.

 

Bibliography

 

-Abrams, Charles. Forbidden Neighbors. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955.

 

-Dean, John P. “Only Caucasian: A Study of Race Covenants.” The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics. Vol. 23 No. 4, 1947.

 

-Berkovec, James A., Glenn B. Canner, Stuart A. Gabriel and Timothy H. Hannan. “Discrimination, Competition, and Loan Performance in FHA Mortgage Lending.” The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 80 No. 2, 1998.

 

Discussion Questions

1) In what way was the FHA’s underwriting process inherently related to race?

2) What role did the FHA play in redefining the notion of real estate as having a market value rather than a use value and how did their use of racialized language in the Underwriting Manual affect what constituted real estate value?

Home (and School) Buying Simulation

Posted on

For the home and school buying simulation, my profile fell somewhat towards the middle of the pack. I had an annual gross income of $42,000,  a $10,000 savings, ownership of a vehicle and monthly debts of $400. This gave me a net monthly income of $3,100. According to CNN, this level of income allowed me to search for a home in the price range of $117,381-$131,610 and a monthly mortgage payment of $530-$600.

While searching for homes, I looked primarily in West Hartford and Wethersfield. I settled on a condo in the east end of West Hartford, located at 90 Kane st. This property was selling for $128,000, which was at the high end of my budget but still a realistic option. At this price, my monthly house payment would be around $590 a month. If I was to take out a 30 year fixed mortgage at 4.25%, I would end up paying $92, 440 in interest by the time the principle was totally paid off. Compared to the $128,00 price tag of the property, this is unquestionably a large amount of interest.

credit:http://zillow.com
credit:http://zillow.com

My main reason for choosing the Kane st. property was due to the eventual educational benefits. All the properties I could afford in West Hartford were located in the East/Southeast corner of the town which is historically the location of a higher percentage of multi-family houses and affordable apartments. This is partially due to rigid and extremely old zoning regulations established in the town. This has led to a stronger minority presence in this section of town and the elementary schools that service it. The properties I looked into seriously fed into Smith, Webster Hill and Charter Oak elementary schools. All these schools sit around the state average in terms of test scores. However, they all feed into above average middle schools and very strong public high schools. My choice of the Kane st. condo would result in my children attending Smith elementary, King Philip (or possibly Bristow) for middle school and Hall high school.

In the end, I believe this simulation demonstrated that the notion of “escaping” to the suburbs may be exaggerated. Although I do feel that my choice of property would result in strong educational benefits for my children, it would still stretch my budget extremely thin. The presence of numerous magnet schools which perform around or slightly above the state testing average present a good option for those in the Hartford area. However, obviously they are limited in how many children they can accept and for this reason I decided that the move to West Hartford could better ensure quality education through elementary, middle, and high school. There is certainly a limited amount of affordable real estate in Hartford’s suburbs, which could make it difficult to pull off such a move even if a family decided that it was in their best interest.