Category: CTHistory Essay 2013

In 1943, a dispute erupted between white West Hartford whites and federal housing officials over whether or not African Americans should be allowed to live in the World War II public housing tract called Oakwood Acres.  Public housing tracts were created to house the many war workers and their families living in the Hartford area.  The United States government funded these housing tracts, and therefore housing officials needed to abide by federal laws regarding occupancy.  Federal Housing authorities eventually did require West Hartford to admit African Americans, however, town residents and leaders prevailed in controlling the rules used to maintain their virtually all-white community.  Racist actions such as these were factors in shaping the demographic of West Hartford today.

Demand for housing was high throughout the United States during World War II.  Across the nation, people moved into cities looking for jobs in wartime defense industries [1].  In 1940, President Roosevelt and the United States Congress established the United States Housing Authority (USHA) and authorized it to build public housing units [2]  with the goal of providing housing for war workers.

In the 1940s there was an influx of war laborers, both White and African American, and their families into the greater Hartford area.  These people worked in defense factories such as The Pratt and Whitney Machine Tool Plant [3].  As a result of this, housing options were limited in the Hartford area.  In August of 1943, 8,000 new housing units were developed in Hartford and New Britain to accommodate the growing population [4].  The new options for housing were apartment style homes built under the Hartford Housing Association (HHA) and paid for with federal funding from the USHA.  Compared to the rest of New England, Hartford successfully provided housing.  According to a 1943 Hartford Courant report, “Connecticut has about half of all the government war housing constructed in New England.  Half of the government housing in this state has been put up in the Hartford-New Britain area.”[5]  With these impressive statistics, one may think that most of the need for housing in Hartford was met.  However, families and African American war workers had the most difficult times finding homes.[6]  To accommodate this, “400 housing units for white in-migrant families”[7] were being constructed, leaving only the African Americans without secure housing options.  Berkley Cox, chairman of the HHA called this situation “satisfactory.”[8]

 

Oakwood Acres

        One unit developed under the HHA was the Oakwood Acres Housing Tract, on Oakwood Avenue in West Hartford.  It spanned between St. Charles Street and Seymour Avenue.  Oakwood Acres was described as new, simplistic, and affordable [9].  In 1943, only 14 out of the 300 apartments in the building were occupied [10], and many African Americans still had nowhere to live.  The federal government’s plan was to use this space to provide housing for the African Americans in need of homes.

The Debate

Because the government funded Oakwood Acres, the unit needed to abide by federal law, which stated that officials could not legally reject African Americans applying for housing.  West Hartford homeowners, living near oakwood Acres, were quoted in the Metropolitan News saying that they were “alarmed” and “horrified” at the idea of “Negroes” living in their neighborhood[11].  The Hartford Courant described the situation as an “infiltration” of African Americans[12].  This harsh, racist language described the overarching feelings of the neighborhood, “The general sentiment of these homeowners is: ‘We don’t want them here’.”[13]  The Courant also portrayed the white homeowners as hardworking people who “invested their savings in their homes[14]” and did not deserve to live near African Americans.

Furiously, the homeowners wrote to Cox, of HHA, asking if the African Americans would be admitted to Oakwood Acres.  Cox did not comment on the issue[15].  Because of this, the people of West Hartford sent petitions to their Senators Francis Maloney and John A Danaher, and Congressman William Milier.[16]  Milier told the people that he would look into the issue of whether it was unlawful for Oakwood Acres to reject all African American applications for housing.[17]

The Outcome

The United States Housing Authority responded with an ultimatum.  They stated that it was unlawful to exclude African Americans from Oakwood Acres based on their race.  Local housing officials were advised that unless the race restrictions were lifted, the federal government would step in.[18]  Under this decision, African Americans would be admitted if they applied for a unit.  This angered the homeowners of West Hartford, prompting West Hartford housing officials to find a loophole.  They decided to accept applications from only “Negroes with essential West Hartford industry jobs.”[19]  This ruling was made knowing that there were only six African American families who fit this criterion, and they were not interested in living in Oakwood Acres.[20]

Ultimately, African Americans were technically allowed to live in Oakwood Acres.  However, the local officials were able to find a way to limit the number of eligible African Americans so much that none actually did move into the tract.  The white West Hartford housing officials and their supporters trumped the federal government.

In 1956, Oakwood Acres was demolished.  It had become dilapidated and the people of West Hartford feared it made their neighborhood look like a “slum.” [21]  By destroying the unit, West Hartford also erased this dark, racist part of their history.

Today, West Hartford is predominately a white community.  One may argue that the demographic of West Hartford was shaped by racist, discriminatory actions begun by the housing committee and the people of West Hartford in the 1940s.  In this case, the people of West Hartford were able to outwit the federal government to achieve their goal of preventing African Americans from living in Oakwood Acres.  As more situations like this occurred over time, including the implementation of race restrictive covenants, the current demographic of West Hartford was shaped.

 

---

[1]Kristin, Szylvian. “The Federal Housing Program During World War II.” From Tenements to Taylor Homes. : 121.

[2]Kristin, Szylvian. “The Federal Housing Program During World War II.” From Tenements to Taylor Homes. : 123.

[3] “1877 Worker Visits New Tool Plant.” Hartford Courant, 10 29, 1941.

[4] “Housing Reaches 8000 mark in City and New Britain.” Hartford Courant, 08 14, 1943.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Negroes May Occupy Oakwood Acres to Solve Rental Lag.” The Metropolitan News, 09 03, 1943.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] “Housing Official Noncommittal On Racial Question.” Hartford Courant, 10 21, 1943.

[16] “Residents Ask Congressmen’s Aid on Negro Housing Threat.” Metropolitan News, 11 04, 1943.

[17] Ibid.

[18] “Negros May Not Move Into Oakwood War Housing Tract.” Metropolitan News, 12 16, 1943.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21]  Katherine Ellen Winterbottom, “Beneath the Veneer,” The Spectator [West Hartford Historical Society Newsletter] Autumn (1998): 1,10–14.

[22]  Wilson, Tracey. “West Hartford in World War II.” . West Hartford Life, Last Modified 04 2002.  Web. 7 Jan 2014.

 

 

 

Hartford lawyer and Democratic delegate Simon Bernstein stuck out from his political peers at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention. While the Democratic and Republican chairmen of the time were entrenched in a debate over the state’s unequal political representation system, Bernstein dared to dream a little bigger (Bernstein interview by Campbell 10). As a member of the Bloomfield Board of Education, Bernstein recognized that in 1965, Connecticut was the only state that did not guarantee its citizens a constitutional right to an education and thus decided to draft a new amendment to address this problem (9, 11). After days of being ignored by his Democratic Party superiors and then finally threatening to confront the media about his concerns, Bernstein’s request was met. Delegates at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention passed Bernstein’s amendment which guarantees free public education to every child, setting the stage for a series of prominent educational lawsuits, including Horton v. Meskill (1970), Sheff v. O’Neill (1989), and Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) v. Rell (2005) (Bernstein interview by Campbell 11, 1; “CCJEF v. Rell Overview”).

The Man Behind the Amendment

Bernstein was born on January 17, 1913, in Hartford, Connecticut (Bernstein interview by Campbell 13; “Simon Bernstein). After graduating from Trinity College and Harvard Law School, he began his political career in Hartford as a lawyer and democratic alderman (Bernstein interview by Campbell 1, 13). During his time in Hartford, Bernstein served on the city’s Finance Committee and also actively participated in the 1940s Zionist movement, a political effort that sought to encourage local lawmakers to support Israel’s fight for its own state (Bernstein interview by Campbell 9; Bernstein Interview by Zaiman 3). In 1950, Bernstein moved to Bloomfield and was elected to the Bloomfield Board of Education (Bernstein interview by Campbell 1, 9).

In all of his political efforts, Bernstein proved he was not afraid to confront difficult issues that others were hesitant to address. For example, in 1947, Bernstein took on a legal case involving a racially restrictive covenant, a term used to describe real estate agreements that prohibit people of a specific race from occupying a piece of land. This covenant, in particular, limited a property sale in the West Hartford area to “non-Semitic persons of the Caucasian race” (Bernstein interview by Campbell 4). The Hartford Courant published an article about Bernstein on March 28, 1947, which wrote that Bernstein felt the covenant’s racially specific language was “against public policy” (“Bernstein Seeks End” 21). Bernstein eventually managed to get this phrasing erased from the original property agreement, making him the first person in Connecticut to successfully address a legal case of this kind (Bernstein interview by Campbell 8).

The Creation and Impact of the Education Amendment

One of the reasons why Bernstein’s peers at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention attempted to stifle his enthusiasm about an education amendment was because they were focused on only one task: revising the state’s system of political representation. Connecticut’s representation system needed to be fixed because of the 1964 United States Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. Sims (Collier 593). The Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires state legislatures to apportion representatives based on each district’s population to ensure that all citizens are equally represented (“Reynolds v. Sims”). This “one man, one vote” law thus made Connecticut’s system – two representatives for every district – unconstitutional (Collier 591).

Because the sole purpose of the Convention was to align Connecticut’s representation system with Reynolds v. Sims, John Bailey, the influential and Democratic chairman, had no interest in seeing any proposals regarding schools (Collier 593). However, this did not stop Bernstein from voicing his concerns about Connecticut’s lack of a constitutional guarantee to education: “I was enough of a history student of law, a lawyer, to know that once a convention is called for the state or national, nothing is irrelevant,” Bernstein stated in an oral interview (Bernstein interview by Campbell 10). Rather than accept the legislature’s pre-planned agenda, Bernstein chose to challenge his political superiors.

In order to get the legislature’s attention, Bernstein repeatedly asked Bailey to consider his proposal and also threatened to discuss his frustration with the media. In the end, it was this threat that got Bernstein what he wanted: Bailey granted Bernstein a meager five minutes to draft a proposal in an effort to quickly return to the discussion on political representation. Bernstein’s amendment, which he scribbled onto a scrap of paper in order to make his five-minute deadline, is general because Bernstein believed the language of the Constitution should reflect overall principles and ideas (Bernstein interview by Campbell 11). It states that, “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation” (Collier 591).

Although the world “equal” is not explicitly written in the amendment, its inference has been used as a foundation for nationally recognized educational inequality lawsuits such as Horton v. Meskill (1970), Sheff v. O’Neill (1989), and Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) v. Rell (2005) (Bernstein interview by Campbell 1; Collier 594; “CCJEF v. Rell Overview”). At the time of Horton v. Meskill, Connecticut supplied school districts with $250 per child, forcing states to rely heavily on local property taxes for additional funding. The Horton plaintiffs used Bernstein’s amendment to argue that this system was unconstitutional because it meant educational quality varied considerably from poorer to wealthier towns (Eaton 90-91). Sheff v. O’Neill used Bernstein’s amendment to prove that the extreme racial, ethnic, and economic isolation of the Hartford school district left its schoolchildren, and other suburban schoolchildren, with an insufficient education that the state was required to remedy (“Sheff v. O’Neill”). The CCJEF v. Rell lawsuit used the 1965 Educational Amendment to argue that Connecticut’s system for funding public schools is not only inadequate, but also disproportionately harms minority schoolchildren and their ability to participate in the democratic process, thrive in college, and reap the monetary rewards of intellectual success (“CCJEF v. Rell Overview”; “CCJEF v. Rell” by The Lawyers Committee).

After his years as a laywer, Bernstein served as a Connecticut Superior Court Judge for 27 years. He passed away on January 17, 2013 at his home in Sarasota, Florida at the age of 100 (“Simon Bernstein”). His contribution to Connecticut lives on through the 1965 educational amendment that continues to serve as a foundation for educational inequality lawsuits throughout the state.

Works Cited

1. “Bernstein Seeks End of Restrictive Clauses.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): 21. Mar 28 1947. ProQuest. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.
2. Bernstein, Simon. Interview by Jack Zaiman. Greater Hartford Jewish Historical Society Oral History Collection. Greater Hartford Jewish Historical Society, 1971. Web. 6 Oct 2013.
3. Bernstein, Simon. Interview by Katie Campbell. “Oral History Interview on Connecticut Civil Rights.” Trinity College Digital Repository. Trinity College, 2011. Web. 4 Oct 2013.
4. “CCJEF v. Rell.” The Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. <www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/site/documents/files/CCJEF-v.-Rell-Summary.pdf>.
5. “CCJEF v. Rell Overview.” Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. <http://ccjef.org/ccjef-v-rell-overview>.
6. Collier, Christopher. Connecticut’s Public Schools: A History, 1650-2000. Orange, CT: Clearwater Press, 2009. Print.
7. Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.
8. “Reynolds v. Sims.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 7 Oct 2013. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0377_0533_ZS.html>
9. “Simon Bernstein.” The New Haven Register. 30 May 2013. New Haven Register. Web. 7 Oct 2013.
10. “Sheff v. O’Neill—Today in History.” ConnecticutHistory.org. CThumanities, n.d. Web. 7 Oct 2013. <http://connecticuthistory.org/sheff-v-oneill-today-in-history/>.

Zoning: Emancipative or Restrictive?

In the early 1900s, leaders of West Hartford sought to implement zoning restrictions.  West Hartford was a farming town with nearly as many cows as people and was hopeful of becoming a larger residential suburb for workers from the city of Hartford to escape to.  (Butterworth 23).  Intended or not, there were repercussions that occurred due to the Zoning Act of 1924.  Today, we still see similar statistics, which leads us to believe there could be a correlation between zoning and racial segregation.

The 1924 zoning committee planned to be the first in the area to create these regulations.  Robert Whitten came to Hartford by invitation from the committee and was wanted on board for his intelligence and persistence.  The committee wanted zoning to create a desirable community for people leaving the city of Hartford in hope of finding peace and space.  The Zoning Acts were developed in an attempt to ensure the calmness and quality size of the land.  “On the economic side, zoning means increased industrial efficiency and the prevention of enormous waste.  On the human side, zoning means better homes and an increase of health, comfort and happiness for all the people.” (Whitten Cover).  Zoning was also used to keep the area neat, eliminate trash, and provide people with reassurance that their property would be safe and protected from a decrease in value.

 What Was the Plan?

The Hartford Zoning Committee covered many aspects in regards to building restrictions in their proposal.  West Hartford was to be divided into three areas: residential, business, and industrial.  Each section had its own restrictions as to what was allowed.  There were a lot of restrictions within the residential district.  Sidewalks were to be set 20 to 40 feet back from the road in order to ensure less traffic and more parking availability.  Every building area was allowed to have a garage. However, the larger the lot, the greater amount of cars was permitted.  (Whitten12).  There were also regulations included to avoid obstruction of view, regulate side and front yards, and unify the height of all structures.

The document specified that for a large amount of money you could live in a certain area and have the entire lot to yourself.  For a lesser amount of money, you could still be in the town, but it was a smaller section and the houses were not only smaller but they were right on top of each other.  Ultimately, this was an attempt to segregate the town into rich and poor.  “It is recognized, however, that it would be unwise to implement any rule of this kind.  It is quite likely that it limited portions of these areas provision for two family houses, group houses and even apartment houses will be economically and socially desirable.” (Whitten 14).  Entirely, West Hartford was considered economically undesirable to all families who were not financially capable of purchasing under the new regulations. It deterred people from building multi-family houses and promoted the purchase of single-family pricier homes.

The Hidden Plan

Zoning may not have been the sole cause of the current wage gaps of residents in West Hartford vs. Hartford.  However, it is apparent that zoning laws had an influential role in segregating people by income.  Consequently, people who were left unable to afford the new property were left to settle in Hartford.  Race and income are very commonly linked which meant that the poor minorities were primarily located in Hartford while the white middle class settled in West Hartford.  The Zoning Act of 1924 made West Hartford a very exclusive, privileged place to live.

Zoning Today

The Zoning Act was put in place to accommodate all classes of people/workers who were migrating from the city of Hartford.  Today, if we look at a map showing racial change in Hartford, it becomes evident that the surrounding suburbs are 90-100 percent occupied by white residents.  (Magic Lib 1).  In an attempt for equality, the zoning laws inadvertently caused the minorities to settle in the poor city of Hartford.  Hartford is filled with apartment buildings and complexes that accommodate multiple families.  The suburbs lend themselves to single family homes, which allow for a higher class of residents to purchase property.  In addition to a differentiation in location of races in the Hartford area, today there are also significant differences in household income when comparing Hartford and West Hartford.  (Social Explorer).  West Hartford’s average household income is $80,061 while Hartford’s is $29,107.

Zoning originated as a proposition for a safer, healthier, community.  The commissioners, along with Robert Whitten, proposed rules and regulations that would ensure stability.  Whether or not zoning directly caused racial and economic segregation is a question largely debated?  What we do know is that the area of Hartford and the surrounding suburbs are not areas of equal emancipation when it comes to opportunities in life. Clearly the effects of zoning demonstrate segregation.  Perhaps the question should be: “Was there a hidden agenda when zoning was implemented?”

 

Works Cited

      Butterworth, Miriam, Ellsworth S. Grant, and Richard Woodworth. Celebrate! West Hartford: An Illustrated History. West Hartford, CT: Celebrate West Hartford, 2001. Print.

      “Racial Change in the Hartford Region, 1900-2010” University of Connecticut Libraries Map and Geographic Information Center – MAGIC . Web. 20 Jun. <http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/otl/timeslider_racethematic.html>.

Social Explorer Tables:  ACS 2007 to 2011 (5-Year Estimates) (SE), ACS 2007 — 2011 (5-Year Estimates), Social Explorer; U.S. Census Bureau

Whitten, Robert Harvey, West Hartford Zoning: Report to the Zoning Commission on the Zoning of West Hartford (West Hartford, Conn: Zoning Commission, 1924),

“Zoning Maps of West Hartford, Connecticut, 1924 to Present.” University of Connecticut Libraries Map and Geographic Information Center – MAGIC . Web. 20 Jun. 2012. <http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/otl/dualcontrol_zoning_westhartford.html>.