Student Posts – Page 10 – Cities, Suburbs & Schools Project at Trinity College

The Struggle for Educational Equity During the 1970s: Lumpkin v. Dempsey

October 16, 2013October 16, 2013Ambar Paulino

Screenshot of Filed Complaint by Plaintiffs on February 20, 1970; Courtesy of: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

Sixteen years after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling outlawed racially segregated schools in Southern and border states, civil rights activists filed a similar lawsuit in the northern city of Hartford, Connecticut. The Brown v. Board of Education court case unanimously ruled (9-0) that, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” on May 17th, 1954[1]. On February 20th, 1970, four minority Hartford parents challenged then Connecticut Governor, John Dempsey (1970-1971) in his ability to provide educational equity to all Hartford children by filing a similar lawsuit to that of Brown vs. Board of Education. Lumpkin v. Dempsey later recognized as Lumpkin vs. Meskill (Thomas J. Meskill 1971-1974) argued that certain Connecticut district laws functioned in such a way that they worked against the minority children of Hartford and ultimately denied them basic equal educational opportunities. The Lumpkin plaintiffs publicly challenged set school district boundaries between the city of Hartford and eight neighboring suburbs. The lawsuit challenged the efficiency of those district lines while raising important questions such as: why did certain towns have the ability to choose who they enrolled, and more importantly, why were Hartford schools not as academically successful as their neighboring suburban towns?

Legal Decisions leading to Lumpkin vs. Dempsey

Before the Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, the Board of Education abided by educational policies and regulations influenced by racial segregation. Under the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the notion of “separate but equal” was unanimously voted as unconstitutional in 1954.

Since its inception, the sole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment has been to guarantee all American citizens equal protection of their laws. The plaintiffs in the Lumpkin v. Dempsey lawsuit based their case on the fact the government failed to provide equal opportunity to minority students residing in Hartford, therefore violating the Fourteenth amendment. Southern states utilized Jim Crow laws to create a distinct separation between racial differences. While Northern states, such as Connecticut did not directly mandate segregated schools in their state laws, the plaintiffs argued that laws practiced in the South were being indirectly practiced in the North as well. The Lumpkin plaintiffs, who happened to be of Hispanic and African American descent strongly believed that the educational system was de facto segregated by socioeconomic and ultimately racial means, whereas the plaintiffs in the Brown plaintiffs had factual evidence (established laws), which they argued to be inherently unequal.

The Fight For Equal Educational Opportunities in Hartford

Lumpkin v. Meskill placed the legitimacy and efficiency of Hartford’s Public School system into question. According to the initial complaint filed by the plaintiffs, Mae Willie Lumpkin, Helen Vernell Johnson, Barbara Henderson and Mary Diaz, certain Connecticut State laws function to segregate and create “racially imbalanced school districts”, and because they are not able to provide the plaintiffs and people of their class equal educational opportunities, are ultimately unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment[2]

The plaintiffs, all parents of minority children enrolled in Hartford public schools were identified as citizens of the United States, but belonging to similar ethnic groups: African American and Hispanic (particularly of the Puerto Rican ethnic groups). The plaintiff’s racial background became the driving force behind their lawsuit which claimed, that many schools in Hartford had an excess amount (90%) of minority students enrolled, therefore making it practically impossible to integrate the schools, which is why they sought help from higher echelons that would restructure the way minority groups were distributed within Hartford[3].

Mae Willie Lumpkin and the other three plaintiffs demanded that the court recognize the fact that certain laws violated rights, and most importantly, the ordering of the state to integrate suburban towns by erasing district lines and creating a regional school district in order to have statewide integration. Defendants Thomas J. Meskill and other members of the Board of Education countered their argument by stating that there were many discrepancies in the plaintiff’s complaints. These complaints included the misunderstanding of Constitutional laws, to vague accusations[4].

To counter the plaintiff’s claims, in the Reply Brief of Defendants, the defendants called the plaintiff’s claims weak and urged them to reconstruct the foundation of their argument. “However, they [plaintiffs] are strangely reticent about stating with some specificity just what educational opportunities the defendants are denying to them and in what way such denial is being accomplished by the defendant State officials.[5]” The defendants based their counter argument on the fact that, the state oversees district activities such as: allocation of resources for a fiscal year, implement educational interests for the school year, but does not control site selection, enrollment or construction of the school. The court brief reiterates the fact that “Neither state law nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandate equal educational achievement for every child attending a public school,[6]” thus making the Lumpkin argument invalid.

Dissenting Opinions that Lead to Demise of Lumpkin Case

As Lumpkin v. Meskill gained regional attention, dissenting opinions arose from parents living in the surrounding suburban neighborhoods. Various periodicals of the time tracked the opinions of residents in the neighboring towns such as Bloomfield and

Sample Headline on Lumpkin Case. Courtesy of: James Ross, The Hartford Courant

Windsor. “The Bloomfield School board, one of the eight suburban boards named in the suit, is the only one to support the Lumpkin side of the issue requiring total integration”[7] wrote journalist Bill Grava in a Hartford Courant article published in 1974. Parents of students enrolled in Bloomfield schools were not pleased with the unanimous decision in a Parent-Teacher Association meeting to support the plaintiffs of Lumpkin v. Meskill. Another article published by James Ross, states, “‘I’m so burned up’ one parent said, ‘If this thing works, are they going to throw kids out like cattle? Will they divide kids up by color like a rainbow?’…. The parent accused the board [Parent-Teacher Association] of not wanting to fight.[8]”

Brown v. Board of Education, Original Court File; Courtesy of: OurDocuments.gov

Brown vs. Board of Education asserted that it was unconstitutional to racially segregate schools. Nearly two decades later, a four to five decision in Detroit resulted in the dissemination of a regionalization plan that would integrate schools involving nearly 800,000 students [9]. Milliken v. Bradley (1974) made it clear that because suburban towns had no direct involvement with creating a segregated environment, they were not obliged to help desegregate the districts in any way. The Milliken ruling played a critical role in the influence of the decision to dismiss the Lumpkin case because the decision clearly stated that suburban towns would not be held responsible for integrating cities. The Lumpkin plaintiffs specifically asked for the cooperation of the eight surrounding suburban towns in the initial lawsuit, and because this ruling made it constitutionally viable to refuse participation that is what many school districts chose to do.

A decade after both rulings, Sheff v. O’Neill surfaced, arguing a similar point to that of the Lumpkin case. The determining factor of the success of Sheff was the critical decision to take Sheff to the Connecticut Superior Court, versus Federal district court as done by Lumpkin plaintiffs. The complaint filed on April 26th, 1989 argued that the state of Connecticut allowed school districts to operate under racially, and socioeconomically segregated conditions ultimately allowing the state to create racially isolated residential communities such as those found in Hartford. In her book, The Children in Room E4, author Susan Eaton claims that there are parallels between the Lumpkin and Sheff cases, the earlier becoming the impetus for the latter to file in a higher level court, rather than Federal district court[10].

Ultimately, the Lumpkin case was left dismissed by the Federal District courts. After 1980, the plaintiffs, who worked endlessly to prove that those controlling the Board of Education caused the disparities in the public educational system were unheard of, and to this date there is no real updates of Mae Willie Lumpkin, or her childrens’ whereabouts. Although the Lumpkin case did not gain nation-wide recognition, it became the impetus for other big lawsuits such as the 1989 Sheff case, whose results have affected and will continue to affect children in Connecticut and potentially children across the nation for years to come. The Lumpkin case was the first of it’s kind; the plaintiffs being brave as parents of minority children to challenge those in power regardless of the socioeconomic and ethnic boundaries to fight for equal rights.

Work Cited

Collier, Christopher. Connecticut Public Schools: A History, 1650-2000. Orange: Clearwater Press, c2009.
Eaton, Susan. The Children in Room E4. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, N.C., 2007.
Grava, Bill. “Smith Predicts No Regional School Board: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). February 20, 1974.http://search.proquest.com/hnphartfordcourant/docview/552135542/abstract/140FFE468547E9ED9BF/1?accountid=14405.
Ross, James. “Town Viewed as Now Meeting Desegregation Suit Objections: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). April 26, 1974.http://search.proquest.com/hnphartfordcourant/docview/552141713/abstract/140FFD210DA46836B93/7?accountid=14405.
“Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954).” Justia US Supreme Court Center. Accessed October 8, 2013.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html.
“Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File” United States District Court, District of Connecticut; Filed in New Haven on August 25th, 1972. Attorney Robert K. Killian. Accessed via DropBox October 8,2013 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pktjiisx2zhi9bz/erOj3QfPzP/Lumpkin_19720825%20D%20Reply%20Brief%20CourtFile.PDF.
“Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint” United States District Court, District of Connecticut; Filed at Hartford on February 20^th, 1970. Attorneys Raymond B. Marcin, and Douglas M Crockett. Accessed October 8,2013 via DropBox.

[1] “Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka – 347 U.S. 483 (1954).”

[2] Attn. Marcin, Attn. Crocket, Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint, 6.

[3] Attn. Marcin, Attn. Crocket, Lumpkin Plaintiff Complaint, 5.

[4] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 16.

[5] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 23.

[6] Attn. Robert K. Killian, Lumpkin Reply Brief Court File, 24.

[7] Grava, Bill. “Smith Predicts No Regional School Board: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). February 20, 1974.

[8] Ross, James. “Town Viewed as Now Meeting Desegregation Suit Objections: Bloomfield.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987). April 26, 1974.

[9] Collier, Connecticut’s Public Schools: A History: 1650-2000, 634.

[10] Eaton, Children of Room E4, 79.

The Debate Over Who Could Occupy World War II Public Housing in West Hartford

October 15, 2013January 7, 2014Emily Meehan

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]

Screen Shot 2014-01-07 at 12.58.54 PM — Oakwood Acres Housing Tract 1954
This photo was taken a decade after the debate
Image from CT History Online Flikr

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.

Oakwood1951-2013 — Comparison of the location of Oakwood Acres Housing Tract 1951 vs 2013
1951 image from UConn MAGIC aerial photography
2013 Image from Google Maps

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

Screen Shot 2013-10-15 at 9.45.37 PM — Image from Dec. 16, 1943 Metropolitan News

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.

Five Minutes that Changed Connecticut: Simon Bernstein and the 1965 Connecticut Education Amendment

October 15, 2013October 16, 2013Elaina Rollins

Simon Bernstein circa 1965, the year of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention. SOURCE: Christopher Collier.

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).

Bernstein was given only minutes to draft his proposal for what is now known today as the 1965 Education Amendment. SOURCE: Christopher Collier. — Bernstein was given only minutes to draft his proposal for what is known today as the 1965 Education Amendment. SOURCE: Christopher Collier.

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

“Bernstein Seeks End of Restrictive Clauses.” The Hartford Courant (1923-1987): 21. Mar 28 1947. ProQuest. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.
Bernstein, Simon. Interview by Jack Zaiman. Greater Hartford Jewish Historical Society Oral History Collection. Greater Hartford Jewish Historical Society, 1971. Web. 6 Oct 2013.
Bernstein, Simon. Interview by Katie Campbell. “Oral History Interview on Connecticut Civil Rights.” Trinity College Digital Repository. Trinity College, 2011. Web. 4 Oct 2013.
“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>.
“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>.
Collier, Christopher. Connecticut’s Public Schools: A History, 1650-2000. Orange, CT: Clearwater Press, 2009. Print.
Eaton, Susan E. The Children in Room E4: American Education on Trial. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2007. Print.
“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>
“Simon Bernstein.” The New Haven Register. 30 May 2013. New Haven Register. Web. 7 Oct 2013.
“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

October 15, 2013Christina Raiti

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 Maps of West Hartford, Connecticut, 1924 to Present." — “Zoning Maps of West Hartford, Connecticut, 1924 to Present.”

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>.

The Effect of “Redlining” on the Hartford Metropolitan Region

October 15, 2013April 26, 2015Shaun McGann

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)
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.

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)

[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.