Wash Post: Income Doesn’t Explain Housing Segregation in Atlanta or Elsewhere
Decatur Metro | August 2, 2011Tom sends along a link to a recent Census article in the Washington Post, which points out that affluent blacks and Hispanics throughout the U.S. live in neighborhoods noticeably poorer than low-income whites.
The two exceptions are in Washington D.C. and Atlanta, where affluent blacks and Hispanics live in neighborhoods on par with the neighborhoods of low-income whites. Why the exception?
Prince George’s County near Washington and DeKalb County outside Atlanta are home to many African Americans with college degrees and good incomes, pushing up the average for their regions.
As a result, blacks and Hispanics in both cities who earned more than $75,000 lived in neighborhoods that were virtually the same as neighborhoods populated by whites earning under $40,000, as measured by average income, poverty rates, education levels, home values and housing vacancies.
“Income, and being successful in class terms, does not necessarily put you in a different kind of neighborhood,” said John Logan, a Brown University sociologist who analyzed census data in his study released Tuesday.
The article doesn’t provide much in the way of answers, Tom sums up the article nicely when he says, “…above all, it seems to highlight the error of simplistic notions about why people choose housing that they do and what policies affect those choices.”
Interesting to think about in relation to our recent discussions about race in Decatur.
Latest from Decaturish
America Needs To Have A Superficial Conversation About Race
http://www.theonion.com/articles/america-needs-to-have-a-superficial-conversation-a,11408/
What I’ve found among my neighbors is that the black folks who “make it” want the big house and the big yard away from the city, just like first generation money did right after WWII.
It was the second-generation money, the children of those middle class suburbanites, who began migrating back to the city for the lifestyle, understanding that ostentation and conspicuous consumption has a short shelf life.
And it’s true here as well. I have several black neighbors who are middle class. They tell me their parents were middle class, too. In other words, they’ve begun moving here after growing up in places like Lithonia, which had the big yards and the big cars. They’ve learned the lesson.
It was the second-generation money, the children of those middle class suburbanites, who began migrating back to the city for the lifestyle, understanding that ostentation and conspicuous consumption has a short shelf life.
___________________
Well, let’s not get carried away. There is plenty of conspicuous consumption to go around in Decatur. It’s not as if the city has a shortage of German sedans and 5 bedroom homes.
At least we’re not Hummerville. That’s a conspicuous consumption fad I never understood. My favorite is Humvees with “War is not the answer” bumper stickers.
Those cars were/are so ridiculous in so many ways. But once gas prices took off in 2008 Hummers owners took it onthe chin, with the cars losing tons of value. GM got to the point where it had a hard timing giving away the Hummer division. I think Hummer sales have remained in the crapper since then.
I’ve never liked the Hummer H2 and H3. I’d take a milspec H1 any day tho!
Well, from my perspective, it’s not that complicated, and it’s likely because of two major reasons: First, no matter how affluent Blacks or Hispanics become, it’s no secret to us that the level of discomfort with our presence in most affluent white neighborhoods is much higher than in the communities where most of our folk live (i.e., the communities where we came up). Second, you can only live in a house where you can get a loan, and it’s no secret that financial institutions disporportionately turn down Blacks & Hispanics for loans that whites with similar incomes are regularly approved for– the perception is that we don’t pay our bills. If your household income exceeds $250,000 a year, and you could theoretically afford a $500,000 home, but you can’t get a loan for it in spite of that, then you’re going to end up living somewhere the houses are, say, $250,000 – $300,000. The first reason is, to a large degree, self-imposed (who wants to live where their neighbors are leery of their presence?); the second reason is something we’re really not able to do something about until the inherent bias that exists toward non-whites in financial institutions is somehow eradicated.
Ugh! “Disproportionately”– my kingdom for an editing feature, DM!!
It sounds like a good idea, but I worry it would cause worlds of confusion. Think about how many people get confused when I enter a comment Now imagine everyone editing comments after the fact. Everyone would be altering things after others responded and conversations would become very jumbled and weird.
Not sure it’s the best idea.
Not even spellcheck??? *sigh* You’re the blogfather, so you know better than I what would work or not– not really complaining so much as venting…it’s all good!
I was wondering if there could be spell check as one posts, not permission to edit later. But maybe it’s not technologically possible.
It may be. I’ll put it on the list!
I find the diction/grammer police occifers rather silly-ish and trivial-like
Me too. Who cares about a typo? Assuming the post in general is written clearly, we all know what you meant and don’t consider anyone stupid if they misspell something.
Some forums allow for editing within a very short time window of perhaps 1-2 minutes. That restriction would limit confusion.
Well said.
I also wonder if there’s an element of community that isn’t being measured here. While I certainly agree that your first point is one major driving force for this sort of segregation, do you think the other side of that coin is that even though this study deems them “poor neighborhoods” in terms of income, etc, that these neighborhoods are richer in other unmeasured aspects of community?
For a lot of people, yes– even though their neighborhood may in fact lack amenities such as walkability to restaurants, grocery stores, post office, etc. & may not have great schools. I guess it depends on how determined someone is to “move on up” and out of their comfort zone. It also depends on whether the particular affluent area to which one aspires is more or less overtly tolerant of folks outside the main demographic…some people would rather not find out.
The recent book Reckless Engangerment tackles the notion that qualified minorities have been disproportionately denied mortgage loans. Not saying it is definitive on the issue, but I’m not sure that it’s clear cut that racism has infected the process of getting a loan on any sort of systemic level. It’s always struck me as unlikely, though, because to large banks a mortgage applicant is not a person but a series of numbers. Income, credit score, loan-to-value, etc. The right numbers mean approval, since banks are in business to make loans.
You also have the fact that from about 2005 to 2008 anyon with a pulse could get a mortgage for darn near any amount.
2005 to 2008 were anomalies that will likely never be repeated– but even then, minorities were disproportionately steered toward the sky-high and/or fluctuating interest rates on the loans they applied to get. I haven’t read the book you mention, but I’ll agree that it can’t be definitive. I’ve worked in the consumer rights area of law for nearly a decade, and the things I see on a daily basis tell me the exact opposite of what you say the book postulates (automobile financing institutions are even worse). Now, of course, banks aren’t lending to hardly anyone of whatever color unless they have a 20% cash downpayment available, but it doesn’t change things much for minorities.
Could self-selection be an influence too? Why would profit-motivated lenders care about any borrower trait if that trait has no bearing on profitability and could result in big legal problems?
Profit motivated lenders, no matter how large, are still staffed by human beings, with all of their accompanying inherent biases and prejudices. They absolutely know the racial/ethnic demographics of the people they service– they keep tabs on them for statistical analysis (it’s one of the many factors that go into their calculations for risk). Nobody is going to be stupid enough to expressly list race/ethnicity as a contributing factor for a mortgage with less-than-ideal terms (or an outright refusal), but it still happens.
Loan underwriters at the large banks are processing dozens of applications at a time, applications made by people they don’t know. And they are not lending their own money, so why would they care who gets the loans? Heck the bank itself isn’t keeping the loan in most cases, but selling it to the government.
I mean, it just seems impossible that functionaries at B of A or Wells Fargo are sitting there saying, to heck with the $250k income and 750 credit score, I see that these folks checked the “African American” box, so they’re not getting a loan. I realize this isn’t data, but it just seems awfully hard to believe.
So I’ve read this a couple of times, and I’m not sure what to take away from it. In fact, I’m getting confused in the mix of race, income, and type of neighborhood people live in.
For example, I have no idea what this paragraph means:
“…blacks and Hispanics in both cities who earned more than $75,000 lived in neighborhoods that were virtually the same as neighborhoods populated by whites earning under $40,000…”
So does it mean that affluent Blacks/Hispanics are living in mostly Black/Hispanic communities that have lower income? Or are they living in mostly white communities with lower income? Or that Blacks/Hispanics choose to live in predominantly Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, no matter the average income of that neighborhood?
I’m feeling kind of dumb here…someone help me out.
I read that article twice and still couldn’t figure out what the writer was getting at. My guess is that the senior copy editors are all vacationing this week.
I took it to mean that the communities are comparable, i.e., about the same with respect to such things like style & value of homes, available (or lack of) amenities, distances from public transport, etc.– a neighborhood that whites would consider working/middle class wouldn’t be the first choice for aflluent whites, but would be (and often is) a first choice for relatively affluent Blacks/Hispanics. Obviously the actual racial demographics wouldn’t be the same.
As it relates to Atlanta, I’m a Black professional and a new CoD homeowner and I’d have to agree with the points made by Dana and Cubalibre. The majority of my successful Black friends live in the affluent Black subdivisions to the south (e.g. near Camp Creek and Cascade roads) or to a lesser degree, in majority white neighborhoods in the northern suburbs (despite the often chilly reception, it’s about good schools and bigger houses). Based on my recent house hunt, to get a [not even] comparable house in CoD or an Atlanta neighborhood with good schools, you’re talking $550k minimum. The more reasonable houses are the numerous 3/2 homes that many consider too small for 2.5 kids and frequent extended family visitors (that was our issue anyway).
As for the analysis, Atlanta (and maybe DC?) has affluent Black subdivisions that share a zipcode and/or census tract with their lower SES neighbors, so I’m not sure they could be teased out easily by Census analysis. Point being, an affluent Black person moving into a McMansion-filled subdivision of six-figure earning Black families would probably be counted as living in a working class neighborhood due to the SES of the surrounding neighborhoods. Yet everyone immediately surrounding them is in the $75k and up income range. I haven’t done the research myself but would guess affluent white neighborhoods are larger and further from working class neighborhoods, accounting for the higher averages.
All speculation though… based on absolutely nothing scientific.
Hi Danielle! Good to have ya here!