Jasmine Liu - 2016 Near Scholar

2015-16

JOHN NEAR GRANT Recipient

A House Divided: Historical and Present-Day Residential Segregation in Santa Clara County

Jasmine Liu, Class of 2016

A HOUSE DIVIDED:

HISTORICAL AND PRESENT-DAY

RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION

IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Jasmine Liu 2016 John Near Scholar

Mentors: Ms. Carol Green, Ms. Kelly Horan, Mrs. Lauri Vaughan April 6, 2016

The Fair Housing Act, embedded in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, was one pillar of many tenets codified in legislation that are now considered by Americans to be fundamental insurance of our basic rights. While financial standing of prospective tenants and renters has always been recognized as legitimate bases for landlords to make decisions, the Fair Housing Act singled out the prohibition of refusing to rent or sell to any person because of a person’s race, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, or disability. The FHA signaled an important protection the government finally formally adopted, and has significantly curbed overt racism since it was first signed into law.1 However, the concern today is no longer predominantly over blatant discrimination that is easily identifiable, but rather subtler yet potentially equally insidious prejudice. In this arena, the FHA may be less effective than necessary at stemming “discrimination with a smile.” Indeed, the research of John Dovidio and Samuel Gaertner in the Journal of Advances in Experimental Social Psychology indicates that the most prevalent form of racism today exists in the guise of aversive racism, which they define as characteristic of many white Americans who possess strong egalitarian values and and believe they are free from prejudice, yet continue to hold deep-seated resentment or bias that they are unaware of themselves towards minorities.2 Surely enough, a 2015 PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll found, for example, that while 61 percent of whites believe there is equal pay for AfricanAmericans and whites, only 27 percent of African-Americans are equally confident in this equality.3

Santa Clara County, located in the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, is situated in the heart of the Silicon Valley, often heralded as one of the most prosperous regions in the United States. Famous for its tech giant companies, including Google, Apple, Netflix, to name just a few, the area often represents innovation and advancement for the rest of the country.

Former U.S. labor secretary Robert Reich succinctly described both the successes and flaws of this new era when he stated in 2014, “We’re in a new gilded age of wealth and power similar to the first gilded age when the nation’s antitrust laws were enacted.”4 Just like the spectacular economic explosion in the late nineteenth century veiled extreme poverty and the exploitation of immigrant and low-wage workers, the massive amount of economic growth and prosperity in the United States at large, but especially the Silicon Valley, may be masking the reality of stark income and wealth inequality. Indeed, the Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a prominent business leadership group, reported in 2014 that while the area is experiencing increasing job growth, with a 4.1% rate compared to the rest of the nation at only 1.8%, and continues to sustain its unique venture capital atmosphere supporting investment and innovative growth and will remain strong economically for the “foreseeable future,” the growth is uneven and is slowly seeing the divergence of high-wage and low-wage jobs, with the loss of middle-income employment. The findings are even more alarming when comparing incomes by race: black Silicon Valley residents have seen their incomes drop by 21%, compared with a 4.9% drop compared to the same demographic nationally. Meanwhile, white Silicon Valley residents have seen their incomes rise by 0.2% in the same timeframe.5 While the Bay Area has never been labeled as one of the exemplar regions of urban ghettoization and deep, historical housing segregation, such as say the larger Detroit or Chicago areas, the combination of changing dynamics between socioeconomic classes and continuing discrimination may merge to formidably threaten integration efforts.

This paper seeks to explore how a particularly pervasive type of inequity, housing segregation, exists in Santa Clara County, and how these patterns have resulted from interaction between variables of race and socioeconomic status, and whether this segregation is a result of

conscious decision or unwilling circumstance. Moreover, this research investigates whether these trends have been affected by city, county, state, or federal governance, and what these governments may in turn do now into the future to reverse the tide of the development of negative patterns. It will first survey prominent authors and influential thoughts about historical segregation and its underlying causes. Then, try to bridge the gap between larger residential segregation in the country and the specific demographics and realities of Santa Clara County. Through this investigation, a constant theme will be the interplay between race and socioeconomic status, and choice versus constraint.

The second part of the paper will be focused on the policies Santa Clara County has undertaken towards the goal of improving accessibility to housing for low-income groups and minorities, and stipulating their potential effects on housing patterns. Have these policies been a success or a failure? What proposed policies has Santa Clara County yet to implement that could substantially improve housing conditions? For those policies that have not yet been considered by the County, a summary of the implementation will be provided, past precedent of its use by other cities or counties, and pros and cons. This portion of the research considered documents the County released on past projects, in addition to interviews of local authorities involved in these processes.

History of Residential Segregation in the United States

Originally, residential segregation was not simply the unfortunate byproduct of inevitable stratification of resources; it was consciously invented and maintained by governments and financial institutions. Douglas S. Massey, professor of sociology at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, has been an eminent scholar of the origins and evolution of residential segregation in the United States, and provides a

comprehensive description of the many factors that led to marked segregation. He argues that by the 1960s, there had already been unprecedented residential segregation among blacks, in both severity (a quantification of how segregated) and permanence (a measure of how entrenched and long-lasting). He definitively contends that this state came about from a series of conscious decisions by whites to discriminate. The principal agents of this segregation were the federal government’s programs and discriminatory practices and real estate agents and bank policies. Massey summarizes that this inescapably led to “economic deprivation, social isolation, and psychological alienation.”6

While the early 1970s showed hope for the prospect of the achievement of racial integration following the recession, with many believing that economic recovery would close the gap for lower-income citizens, it became sufficiently clear by the end of the decade that institutional segregation would continue to remain intact and stable. Segregation was the most poignant in central cities, which remained and became even more highly segregated and isolated. While on face it appeared promising that middle-class African Americans began to move to suburbs in large numbers, closer inspection shows that discrimination followed them even when they escaped the worst concentration of poverty in inner cities; the suburban areas that blacks moved to often became replicas of the inner-cities that many desperately hoped to avoid.

Furthermore, the emergence of hypersegregation within the largest metropolitan cities, measured by five variables - evenness, lustering, exposure, centralization, and concentration - evidenced that legal changes in banning segregation through policies like the Fair Housing Act had little effect in stopping widespread segregation in the real world.7

The federal government engaged in multiple well-accounted practices to establish ingrained segregation on the macro level, within and between cities. While segregation and

discrimination were prevalent before the National Housing Act of 1934, this policy brought into existence the Federal Housing Administration, which exacerbated the decay of inner-city neighborhoods through methodically denying investment and capital to deteriorating areas in a practice referred to as “redlining.” In 1935, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation was commissioned to survey over 200 cities and assess the safety of making investments in each city.8 These maps color-coded areas based on the determined security of making loans there, with the most undesirable, and predominantly black, neighborhoods marked red for its perceived riskiness. These maps continued to be used for decades by banks, who then systematically denied mortgage support to families living in these communities, worsening the decline and degradation of these regions. While redlining should have been eradicated in 1968 along with the passage of the Fair Housing Act, even in 2015 the Department of Housing and Urban Development settled with the largest bank in Wisconsin for claims that the bank had discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers by disproportionately rejecting applications for loans among neighborhoods with minority residents in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Minneapolis.9 Along with the trend Morgan Stanley predicted in 2011 that America is transitioning from a nation of “ownership” to a nation of “rentership,” Wall Street investors have bought over 200,000 foreclosed homes, with the desire to convert these units to profitable rental properties.10 Disturbingly, however, most people moving into these single-family rental units are people of color; in Los Angeles, the proportion is an astonishing 96 percent.11 Simultaneously, Wall Street’s race to flood the housing market with offers has driven up the price of housing, crowding out owner-occupants who are unable to pay upfront with cash. The paradox is that impoverished people of color are condemned to a system in which they must pay higher rents than they would pay in mortgages. Once again, a parallel

housing market to that of whites exists, though hidden and obscured. Thus, to this day, many financial institutions continue to make decisions in the interest of profit based on racial biases.

A map of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, Piedmont, Emoryville, and Albany, used by banks in the practice today known as “redlining,” in which high-risk communities were sectioned off and labeled as such, thus ensuring that these neighborhoods would not receive homeownership loans. This system denied African-Americans from capital for decades.12

Steering was another practice used by many real estate agents to guide prospective home buyers and renters away from affluent neighborhoods on the basis of their race. Further, agents often intentionally kept buyers away from homes that were well within their budgets and descriptions. Indeed, Jan Ondrich, a professor at Syracuse University, quantified in 2001 that black members of auditor pairs posing to be interested in advertised rental units were 12 percent less likely to be shown units than white members, a clear signal that the Fair Housing Act in many ways was still unable to stop sweeping practices.13 Indeed, as late as 2004, Housing and

Urban Development statistics show that between 2000 and 2004 there were an average of over 1.6 million acts of rental discrimination against African American each year and an additional 190,000-plus cases of housing sales discrimination each year.14

Racially restrictive covenants were a similar widespread nationwide practice used in the early 20th century in which contractual agreements prohibited the purchase, lease, or occupation of a piece of property by a group of people, most typically African Americans. In fact, by 1940, 80% of property in Chicago and Los Angeles had restrictive covenants bound in place that prevented black families from ever moving in.15 While the Supreme Court prohibited racial restrictions by 1948, institutional racism in terms of enforcing segregation had become so fixed and unshakable that the roots of the problem remained irremovable.16

Another mechanism, zoning, or a city or county’s control and regulation over how land is used, was often abused to reinforce racial segregation. Exclusionary zoning often entailed maximum-density regulations that excluded low-income groups and maintained superficially high housing costs. While this may at first glance seem to be merely a tool for upholding class segregation, Jonathan Rothwell and Douglas Massey’s 2009 paper entitled The Effect of Density

Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas confirms that anti-density zoning continues to have the effect of increasing black residential segregation in metropolitan areas by reducing the quantity of affordable housing in white jurisdictions, stymieing efforts towards desegregation.17 Because jurisdictions with on average higher incomes and higher populations of whites are usually more likely to adopt land-use restrictions, lower-income groups are in practice blocked from certain areas entirely.18

Finally, seemingly beneficial projects at the local level under the category of urban renewal that made removing blighted areas a priority in the 1950s and 1960s in practice

bulldozed 20 percent of housing units that were occupied by African Americans. 90 percent of these units were never replaced, leading to mass displacement from these projects. 60 percent of those who were displaced from urban renewal projects were people of color.19 Interestingly, housing activists are divided on whether modern urban renewal projects tend to segregate further or create affordable housing units that integrate.

When low-income people did search for housing, they were left with a stark reality of highly segregated and isolated housing. Public housing until the 1970s was characterized by densely concentrated “projects,” often in the form of high rise buildings constructed in impoverished and segregated communities. In not actively searching for solutions to the low standard of living in these buildings, both as a result of their physical composition and their location, the government was, as Henry Cisneros put it when he testified before Congress, “complicit in creating isolated, segregated, large-scale public housing.”20 While we might hope that this type of enforced segregation has died out over the decades, all evidence seems to point to a solidification of the magnitude of segregation in public housing, with consistently more African Americans and fewer whites living in public housing.

Massey’s observations led him to conclude that racial segregation, rather than the outmigration of the middle class, an explanation favoring socioeconomic factors in the creation of systematic segregation, were responsible for spatially concentrated poverty. Indeed, most notoriously, the Kerner Commission Report, appointed by Lyndon Johnson, described a stark reality regarding segregation in the United States: it was becoming “two nations – one White, one Black – separate and unequal.”21 The legacy of residential segregation continues to live in the spirit of subtle racism that may not be malignant in intent but certainly dire in effect. In 2012, Lawrence D. Bobo et al published The Real Record on Race Relations, which corroborated that

whites continue to support integration in principle, but not in practice. In the study, respondents were each shown a card with a 15-house neighborhood, with their own hypothetical home in the middle, and asked to design their idea of a perfect neighborhood with regards to race demographics. While blacks showed a significantly larger propensity to have a 50-50 split neighborhood, whites largely preferred white-dominant communities.22

On a theoretical level, racial segregation amplified economic changes. Any localized economic shock devastated communities. Any increase in black poverty was confined to only a small number of black neighborhoods absorbing the shock, leading to a more severe concentration of resulting poverty. Racial segregation ensured that while some whites were better off, since they had the ability to insulate themselves from societal problems associated with poverty and integrate with those of better socioeconomic standing, all blacks ended up worse off with a greater concentration of poverty, since poverty among blacks even today is uniformly about double the rate of holistic poverty. Moreover, when combined with high or rising poverty rates, segregation assures that blacks will face a more austere environment as a result of urban desertification, in which black communities become depopulated and devoid of stable social institutions.23

The impacts of any kind of segregation are severe. Any determinant of opportunity, such as education, is a clear and obvious indicator of the pervasive harms of housing segregation. Russell Rumberger and Douglas Wilms of the University of California Santa Barbara argue that racially segregated neighborhoods are inextricably tied with underachievement.24 Intuitively, students in downtrodden neighborhoods attend schools that are similarly underprivileged and are unable to provide an adequate baseline of education, because these communities as an aggregate have a smaller tax revenue base to draw from, less experienced faculty, and inadequate

resources. Moreover, these students lack the opportunity to interact with peers and adults with different backgrounds who may act as role models for youth to aspire to. The overall quality of education is then comparatively much lower, since the demographic composition of those surrounding the student in the environment likely mirrors his or her own.25 This lack of opportunity is especially evident since black children are four times more likely to grow up impoverished than white children.26 Among the urban poor, black children are three times more likely to live in segregated low-income neighborhoods 27

Historical Segregation in the Larger Santa Clara County Area

Patrick Bayer surveyed six contiguous areas of the San Francisco Bay Area in 2001 and found that levels of school quality, public safety, average neighborhood income, and the fraction of college-educated residents were each more than two standard deviations greater in highincome neighborhoods when compared to low-income neighborhoods.28 Perhaps the most clearcut evidence of the impact of neighborhood settings on long-term opportunity was captured in the Moving to Opportunity study, which tracked the earnings of millions of people who had underwent a move in their childhoods. Findings demonstrated that “[e]very extra year of childhood spent in a better neighborhood seems to matter,” as all else controlled, low-income boys who are raised in large metropolitan cities earn an average of 35% less than otherwise, with a similar 25% gap for girls.29 Clearly, the rearrangement of housing location can have a lifechanging effect on adults, and especially children.

Historically, a case study that is relevant to an investigation of patterns of housing in Santa Clara County is the racial and socioeconomic segregation of East Palo Alto, a city in the Silicon Valley that has been often recognized for its high rates of crime and violence, and as somewhat of an anomaly in a region largely defined by its economic success. Kim Mai-Cutler’s

comprehensive historical documentation of segregation in East Palo Alto explores the evolution of the dynamics of race in this community for the past seventy years. She contends that around 1954, East Palo Alto began to form its identity as a predominantly black community. Following the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, discriminatory practices were prohibited legally, but implementing abstract objectives of equality were more difficult in practice. When an evaluation by the Office for Civil Rights found in 1970 that all six schools in East Palo Alto were not desegregated, and efforts to improve the quality of public schooling failed, East Palo Alto students were ordered to be bussed to 18 different schools outside the city, a practice which continues today.30 Bob Hoover, a local who was one of the original black residents of East Palo Alto, commented that integration may have actually been detrimental to the local community, explaining that “Before blacks could live anywhere else outside East Palo Alto and Belle Haven [in Menlo Park], everybody lived in the same community… But once integration came, the middle-class and professionals left. So you were left with a low-income, poorly educated community with opportunities only for very low-wage jobs. Not only are your role models and economic engine gone, your leadership is too.”31

Beginning in the 1970s, growth controls were also implemented, both in order to protect the environment and maintain high housing prices. A series of anti-development legislation served to raise the relative cost of housing in coastal California above that of the rest of the nation, further segregating East Palo Alto culturally and economically from its neighboring cities. After drugs, gangs, and violence proliferated in East Palo Alto, the adjoining cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto finally decided to pitch in, contributing police officers and law enforcement officials. Private companies also began to donate money to improve the devastated

neighborhood. Ever since, crime has dropped substantially, and the community is no longer known by its pervasive crime issues.32

Today, the defining challenge for East Palo Alto is gentrification, as it is the community with the lowest average property value when compared to its adjacent cities. A form of contemporary redlining that hit the community hard was predatory lending, in which subprime loans were lent to East Palo Alto residents, only to face default and eviction. Reportedly, property buyers have been scoping out the city’s properties, as part of a quest to flip homes to tech workers who also need housing.33 As times have changed, the nature of the threat has also evolved, from one triggered explicitly by race to one today facially based on socioeconomic status. As Kimberly Johnson warns, residential segregation is threatening to transform great American cities into “an urban core of wealth surrounded by a broad ring of poverty.”34

As the nation is slowly moving towards less apparent and less entrenched structural reinforcements of racial segregation, the new mechanism through which modern racism has continued to infiltrated its way into the housing system is the inherent relationship between property values in a certain neighborhood and the socioeconomic status of residents. Kendra Bischoff’s 2013 paper entitled Residential Segregation by Income, 1970-2009 concludes that nationally, segregation of families by socioeconomic status has grown significantly in the last forty years.35 This is unsurprising given trends in wealth and income inequality and the notorious explosion of wealth holdings of the 1 percent in the 2000s. Alarmingly the proportion of families living in both poor and affluent neighborhoods has doubled from 15 to 33 percent, reflecting the concentration of both extreme poverty and extreme wealth at both ends of the spectrum at the cost of the middle class. Indeed, paralleling this development is the decline of the proportion of families living in middle-income neighborhoods from 65 to 42 percent. She finds that there was a

substantial increase over a 40-year period of 1.2 standard deviations when measuring the growth of overall income segregation, or approximately 29 percent.36

Bischoff identifies four other factors that may increase levels of segregation independent of race; metropolitan family income inequality, size of the metropolitan area, whether families have children or not, levels of educational attainment inequality, and percent of workers in a metropolitan area employed in the manufacturing sector.37 Intuitively, Bischoff explains that income inequality is a necessary but insufficient prerequisite for income segregation. Supposedly, as the size of a city increases, the potential for segregation rises, as people become more able to create subcommunities based on wealth or ethnicity. The hypothesis is that families with children engage in a greater level of self-segregation, since parents are more sensitive to the community in which their children are raised. Factors like crime and education matter more when parents look out for their children in comparison with childless individuals. It is believed that the higher the percentage of workers employed in the manufacturing sector, the lower the potential for income inequality and hence income segregation, since this employment historically pays relatively high wages for lower educational attainment, breaking the curse of low-income poverty paired with low levels of opportunity early in life.

Is income segregation the root cause of racial segregation, or does racial segregation entrench inequalities in wealth? The two variables are so hopelessly intertwined that it is impossible to label one the chicken and the other the egg; the best we can do is recognize that both factors are deeply unfortunate enablers of the other. Bischoff’s research undoubtedly indicates that Black and Hispanic families increasingly live in income-segregated communities more so than members of other racial groups. Moreover, trends in income segregation among black communities tend to consistently be much starker than those among white or mixed

communities. Surprisingly, income segregation among black families was actually lower than among white families in 1970, though still high overall given the prevalence of black poverty. Between 1970 and 2009, though, income segregation skyrocketed four times as much, and by 2009, was 65 percent higher among black families than white families.38 Hispanic families shared a similar experience, albeit at lower rates compared to the dramatic increase in income segregation black communities faced.

Even more worrisome, income segregation that works concurrently with racial segregation exacerbates the plight of those who are susceptible to both evils. Bischoff explains, “Increasing income segregation among black families means that poor black families have fewer middle-class black neighbors in 2009 than in 1970… In short, racial segregation coupled with income segregation means that low-income black and Hispanic families will tend to cluster in communities that are disadvantaged along a number of dimensions, such as average educational attainment, family structure, and unemployment.”39 This phenomenon is illustrated by the buyup/buy down explanation. While low-income whites are surely affected by income segregation, the average income of their neighborhoods will frequently be much higher than a black or Hispanic family with the exact same yearly income.

Demographics of Silicon Valley

Income inequality, which is high in the Silicon Valley, has a strong and consistent positive association with income segregation, in terms of “segregation of affluence,” or the unique formation of communities defined by a hyper accumulation of wealth. Moreover, following Bischoff’s predictions, areas with large proportions of children tend to have higher levels of income segregation on average. This correlation corresponds to the idea that parents would be more sensitive to neighborhood characteristics and amenities like school.

Santa Clara County has a high diversity index, as is the predominant trend throughout the Bay Area, though it ranks consistently higher than even many of its surrounding counties. Moreover, Santa Clara County has the largest percentage of Latinos in the Bay Area.

Encouragingly, the dissimilarity index of blacks is the lowest of the Bay Area counties, at 32.64, meaning that 32.64 percent of blacks would have to move out in order create equilibrium. This statistic may however represent the relatively low population of African Americans in Santa Clara County rather than full integration. Latinos ranked a 42.39 on the index, surpassed in terms of integration only by Solano County among the counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Asians ranked a 36.62, surpassed only by Marin County and Contra Costa County. Latinos and Asians are forecasted to rise in proportion significantly by 2040, while non-Hispanic whites and African-Americans are expected to drop in proportion.40

The segregation indices are comparatively healthy indicators of racial segregation in Santa Clara County, though there is clearly still room for improvement. Statewide, California is not integrated racially, especially in schools. In fact, a University of California, Los Angeles study found that Californian students are now more likely than ever and more likely than other students in other states to attend racially isolated schools. While the Bay Area’s schools are more integrated than many schools in Southern California, it follows the same basic trend. For example, the average white student in the Union Elementary District in San Jose attends classes that are 19 percent black and Latino, while the average Latino student across town in the Alum Rock Union District attends schools 82 percent black and Latino.41

Bayer’s paper mentioned in the previous section is especially pertinent because it analyzes many of the causes and consequences of residential segregation specifically using empirical figures from the Bay Area. Across the spectrum, Bayer finds large discrepancies in the

amount each racial group is willing to spend for certain neighborhood characteristics. This could imply that much of the segregation, at least for those who are relatively affluent, is triggered by choice and the matching of consumer desires to the market on the high end. For example, Bayer finds using willingness-to-pay measures that Asian households in the Bay are willing to pay $100 more per month in rent for a standard deviation increase in the local school’s average test score. While his conclusions are preliminary, his approach of measuring the potential of racebased desirability of certain neighborhood characteristics in spurring larger patterns of segregation is unique and potentially revealing.42

As a whole, the mean age is expected to rise, while diversity continues to flourish through 2040. A pressing concern is that the population of the Bay Area at large is projected to grow from 7.2 million to 9.3 million by 2040, with the number of households expected to rise 27 percent and the number of housing units expected to rise 24 percent. The demand for housing is dire, as skyrocketing housing and rent prices are demonstrating.43 Because employment will continue to be generated for the foreseeable future, attracting human capital from other regions, economic growth will be accompanied by job growth, and the housing market will have to keep up. Research dictates that the healthy balance between employment and housing mandates is one new residential unit per 1.5 jobs created.44 A historical example of a failure to meet this balance occurred in 1996 in Santa Clara County; the boom period for the Californian economy created ten jobs per one housing unit constructed. Such inability to plan with foresight by local officials may prove disastrous this time around.45 Intriguingly, rather than technology or business-related employment at high-tech firms for young adults fresh out of college, a large portion of the jobs that are anticipated to be created in the future will not fit into the start-up or tech-giant culture that pervades the area. The Silicon Valley Housing Trust estimates that over half of the new jobs

created in Santa Clara County over the next decade will pay less than $11 per hour, barely above minimum wage.46 This will raise important questions about the availability of affordable housing that accommodates the needs of not only workers taking home six-figure checks but also lowwage workers unable to buy into the pricy housing market. At this crucial juncture, the importance of developing sustainable policies that will meet the needs of residents in the area without compromising integration is key.

An even more preliminary concern to policymakers today without even considering future housing demand is current homelessness. In Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley, the most exhaustive report currently in the United States compiled on the public costs of homelessness, over 100,000 homeless individuals were followed over a total of six years. Santa Clara County spent about $520 million per year providing services for homeless residents over six years, as a result of health care, social service, and justice system costs. Prioritizing housing for just 2,800 persistently homeless individuals would obtain savings that more than offset the cost of housing.47

In the face of high and constantly soaring market demand for housing, Plan Bay Area, a “long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area,” approved by local governments, transportation agencies, and business interest groups, is planning to construct 600,000 new homes by 2040. The overall prediction is that market demand will skew towards townhomes, condos, and apartments – more compact forms of living and more affordable options as single-family homes become a luxury many families will be unable to afford. Moreover, these forms of housing will be more accessible as they will be situated closer to transit, shops, and services.48

The trend of income inequality in Santa Clara County may undoubtedly have an effect on segregation patterns. Income inequality has generally been rising over several decades in the United States, but even more specifically so in the Bay Area. According to the Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies in 2015, since 1981, the Gini coefficient, a basic measure of the inequality of income and wealth, of the Bay Area has increased by 20 percent. Throughout the distribution, Bay Area incomes are roughly 40 percent higher than average national per-capita income. The average incomes among the top 5 percent of households in the Bay Area are 31.5 times higher than average incomes in the bottom quintile, and the share of middle-income households has decreased by 3.7% in the Bay Area.49 At a surface-level, the polarization of wealth accumulation and the shrinking middle class must affect the dynamics of segregation and the possession between groups of different patches of housing.

Sean Reardon, a professor of Poverty and Inequality in Education at Stanford, confirms and summarizes Bischoff’s findings, stating that there is a robust relationship between income inequality and income segregation, with an even stronger effect for black families than white families. More frighteningly for the San Francisco Bay Area, he stipulates that these results come as a product primarily of large-scale spatial segregation of affluence, rather than spatial segregation of poverty or “small-scale patterns of income segregation.” He explains that this is true because when advantaged families do not have to physically share place-based physical resources with the less advantaged, they will feel more compelled to hold back support for investments in shared resources.

Insofar as there are two large crises that must be addressed – a generic crisis of segregation and unequal distribution of opportunity with perhaps less urgency to attend to presently, and a more specific crisis of meeting housing demands in a market that is struggling to

keep pace – how should government policies be designed to give both problems priority? In attempting to solve one problem, is it possible that policies in place may be hindering the achievement of the other? How can policies be designed to maximize progress on both fronts? The next section will explore common approaches that have been taken at the local and county levels in Santa Clara County and how effective they have been at achieving either one or both goals. Then, looking more broadly, policies implemented elsewhere that may be suitable for consideration in Santa Clara County will be examined.

Local Policies Meant to Expand Housing Supply: How Have They Improved or Exacerbated the Situation of Housing Segregation?

Both politically and practically, tackling pressing issues concerning meeting the continually growing housing demand will always be higher on the agenda than the less insistent and more abstract problem of unequal distribution of resources affecting long-term opportunity. Thus, many policies that have been undertaken in the past by county and city officials may have been more shortsighted in having been inherently completed with a necessary short-term objective in place. This is all the more prevalent given that community members may be disinclined to embark even on projects with immediate need; voters have on many incidents vociferously opposed measures to expand affordable housing, often because of negative stigmas surrounding the population of incoming tenants who live in these units. Because voters often delay the process of making a decision about housing until it becomes something that can no longer be postponed, housing policies are then often hasty and not well thought-out in relation to community characteristics.

In aggregate, the California state government has a minimal role in encouraging the construction of affordable housing. To a certain extent, high housing prices and short supply is

an issue common to all Californians, since the problem of high housing prices is not unique to just the Bay Area. The average California home costs two-and-a-half times the average home in America and high land and construction costs are widespread statewide.50 Moreover, housing supply problems in major coastal areas like San Jose and San Francisco are not localized problems. While typically markets are flexible at adjusting to shifting dynamics and increasing demand, this has not occurred in the case of California coastal cities. Construction of new housing in Californian coastal cities has been consistently much lower than other areas with comparable characteristics in terms of economic growth and climate. For example, Seattle, a city which is in many ways comparable to other Bay Area cities, is creating housing units at twice the rate of San Jose.51 This is arguably a problem that affects the entire state, because while inland cities like Fresno, Sacramento, and San Bernardino are constructing housing at a healthy, comparable rate to the rest of the nation, the high housing prices and low supply of housing in coastal cities spills over to surrounding areas in California. Those households and businesses that are unable to settle in coastal areas eventually move to inland areas, and the displaced demand then creates a ripple effect in housing price and demand there as well. A report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in 2015 found that a 10 percent increase in housing costs in a county is associated with an approximate 5 percent increase in housing costs in neighboring counties. Yet historically, the state government has contributed a minimal amount towards subsidizing affordable housing, and has played a near insignificant role in spurring the construction of new housing.52

Cities and local governments play the greatest role in planning housing. As the LAO report puts it, “Cities and counties generally decide when, where, and to what extent housing development will occur.”53 Unfortunately, multiple constraints at the city level may hinder or

completely kill any prospects of future housing proposals. While fortunately no city within Santa Clara County currently has growth controls, which are common to many coastal cities, bureaucratic processes of approval can be cumbersome and severely damaging to housing prices. Requirements for review by different agencies and boards in a city are all likely to vastly lengthen the processing time for any housing plan. California coastal cities perform particularly poorly with respect to efficient city government approval when it comes to housing, taking on average two and a half months longer to issue a permit than typical inland California communities. This is particularly concerning given that a study in the Bay Area reported that “each additional layer of independent review was associated with a 4 percent increase in a jurisdiction’s home prices.”54

What is the reason behind the especially slow growth in housing in coastal cities in California? One of the most frequent inhibitors of development has been community resistance to the construction of new housing. City and local governments are beholden to the views, legitimate or not, of local citizens who may feel as if building new housing will jeopardize the quality of education, increase traffic congestion, or change crime and safety dynamics within a community. Moreover, what may be usually viewed as more democratic may just add to the barriers that need to be overcome to achieve small increases in the housing supply. Californian voters have greater control over land use initiatives than voters in other states. A November 2000 review of election results across the country indicated that almost half of all measures nationwide regarding land use and growth originated in California.55 Indeed, Director of City Planning Kevin Riley explained that in planning new housing, opponents against housing and growth are a consistent political hurdle, who often complain about traffic and harms to their quality-of-life, while typically people fail to see improvements brought about by expanding housing including

retail and economic growth. He even recounted the experience of hearing an angry citizen at a town hall meeting complain about a degraded group of people who would now walk their dogs in the same neighborhood as him.56 Because the harms of additional housing are incurred upon existing residents while the benefits accrue to the new residents moving in, local communities can be very resistant towards accepting proposals for new housing. Whatever the reason, animosity towards potential new inhabitants can be strong and can often thwart substantive and high-potential discussions early on.

Additionally, an unfortunate reality is that low-income or affordable housing is simply unappealing to build. In California, as in most of the rest of the country, cities and counties are attracted to ventures for economic development, such as zoning land for small businesses, auto malls, retail stores, restaurants, and hotels, because such developments bring the greatest returns to cities through generating economic activity and tax revenue. In fact, in most cases, these businesses often return more to the city in benefits than the city must spend on them in costs, leading to an increased incentive in the future for cities to zone a greater portion of land towards these uses. A city can further lure these establishments by directly subsidizing them or providing tax incentives to them. In contrast, public housing is often seen to be a drain on city coffers, generating little in property tax that is far outweighed by the cost the city must pay to provide this service to the community. As such, cities have little motivation to expand affordable housing politically, while they have all the incentive to expand the supply of commercial activity, often at the cost of potential housing.57

Another point is that there may be a limit to how much developers may even do even if they were given free reign to construct solely affordable housing units. One survey of land in California in 2006 seemed to indicate that only 1 percent of land in coastal urban cities was

available and developable.58 Even land in outlying areas has twice the housing density as anywhere else in the country. Depending on how zoning laws are decreed in the city, these regulations can constrain the construction of new housing, as many cities require that new housing be built at the same density as existing housing in the city. This then makes it impossible for new developers to counter short supply by building at higher densities on limited land. Of course, as mentioned above, community members can often halt progress on the construction of high-density buildings even after they are vetted; furthermore, community members are predisposed to allocate any portion of remaining land towards commercial rather than residential use. Surely enough, the LAO finds that in Santa Clara specifically, while recent growth has been occurring at the density of 4 to 5 units per acre, the amount of growth necessary to sustain housing demand and keep housing prices reasonable is on the magnitude of 7 to 9 units per acre. A more concrete representation of what this would entail would be the construction of small lot homes and duplexes instead of typical homes.59

The impact of high housing costs hits every Californian given its extremely high cost, since housing is the highest singular cost of any household, but disproportionately burdens the low-income segment of the community. While low-income households spend a lesser absolute amount per month on housing, they spend a greater net proportion of their income on housing. California households with the lowest 25% of income spend four times more of their income on housing than the households with the highest 25% of income. Adding to the strain, renters typically also shoulder more of a burden than homeowners, and renters also tend to fall into the low-income category since upfront purchasing costs can often be exorbitantly high, especially in Santa Clara County. The median renter must allocate about 10 percent more of her or his income on housing. 60 In response to high housing costs, low-income households either have the choice

to move somewhere where housing costs do not dominate such a large part of their income, or to simply cut back on other expenditures. While higher-income individuals may simply reduce their spending on luxury goods or other desirable but unnecessary goods and services, housing costs do not have just a trivial influence on low-income families. A Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies paper found that low-income households who spend more than half of their income on housing, as do the lowest quartile of Californians who spend 67 percent of their income on average on housing, spend 39 percent less on food.61 Moreover, because homeownership is so expensive and impractical for many families especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, individuals resort to renting even though homeownership is ideal. Californians rent at a 10% higher rate than anywhere else in the country.62 This can also be concerning for prospects of equalizing opportunity since homeownership helps households build. This may further generate wealth inequality since economically-speaking, those individuals who start out life with capital are already leaps and bounds ahead in terms of asset accumulation. Finally, high housing prices contributes to crowding, in which there are far too many people living per room than standard. This again affects opportunity as those who live in crowded housing have worse educational and behavioral health outcomes, and in general have a lower quality-of-life.

The continuation of affordable housing developments is important. It may not be altogether impossible to garner the support necessary to push forward with projects, as 56 percent of Santa Clara County residents supported the construction of higher-density housing and 58 percent of Santa Clara County residents accepted new housing in their own neighborhoods. Furthermore, 65 percent of Bay Area residents as a whole support decreased fees and regulations when it comes to building new housing.63

Looking most generally, it actually seems as if policies in the last ten years may have hurt the construction of affordable housing more than they have helped. Both Kevin Riley, director of planning in Santa Clara, and Katherine Harasz, executive director of the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, pointed out that in recent years the greatest setback has been the slashed funding for redevelopment agencies on the state level.64 Redevelopment agencies had been in place statewide since the end of World War II, serving an important role in funding of the continual building of new affordable housing. Redevelopment agencies granted local governments, including city and sometimes county governments, the power to retain a greater portion of property taxes after an area was declared as “blighted” or in need of redevelopment. Once this was true, a share of property taxes that would usually flow to schools and local agencies would be temporarily reduced as the revenues would instead be collected by redevelopment agencies for use in the redevelopment area.65 Governor Jerry Brown pushed to kill redevelopment agencies in 2012 on California Legislation AB 26, which laid the groundwork for how redevelopment agencies would be disbanded. Brown contended that amidst questions of certain examples of abuse and whether cities have been appropriately using the funds to diminish blight, the funding would be better appropriated towards local schools and community programs directly. This has allowed the California state government to take control of billions of dollars in property tax revenue from city governments, and in effect local governments have been in many ways incapacitated in addressing local housing crises in the face of nonexistent funds.66 For example, in San Jose, redevelopment agency (RDA) housing has accounted for 23 percent of the total affordable housing built per year in the city. In 2013 and 2014, redevelopment agencies were supposed to fund approximately 1,096 RDA units, yet these have failed to materialized in the midst of agency funding that no longer exists. Before RDA assistance was cut, new

affordable units were projected to cover 90 percent of the growth in low- and moderate-income households, while now only 80 percent of the demand can be met.67

In the light of even greater current urgency to solve problems of limited housing given the need for it, certain proposals have been made. Most promising is the recently passed Assembly Bill 2 in September 2015. This legislation once again allows local governments to take control of some property tax revenue that they may then use at their disposal to fund public works, affordable housing, and economic revival. In tandem with this legislation, Governor Jerry Brown also signed Senate Bill 107, which would allow cities to hold onto funds used for affordable housing programs. These measures would hopefully lessen the blow suffered in 2012 with the complete elimination of redevelopment agencies.68

Besides just satisfying the immediate need for affordable housing, for every 100 units of additional housing, an approximate 32 jobs are created in response to consumer demand.69 Moreover, city housing prices are often seen to be a barrier to a city’s attractiveness in luring businesses, even though it is not the most important factor. While affordable housing is often seen as a force that decreases local housing prices, studies are actually more likely to show that affordable housing either has no net effect or even a positive effect on the prices of surrounding houses. To many local residents who see affordable housing as detracting from commercial activity in a zero-sum environment, the literature actually points to affordable housing spurring the private market to generate more residential, retail, and commercial activity in the surrounding space. These positive spillover effects address not just the immediate concern for housing but the greater challenge of integrating this housing into a hospitable environment that is acceptable to existing local residents. Additionally, this would point to affordable housing as a net-positive on both the micro and macro level.

Does adding housing contribute to segregation or alleviate it? On a micro-level, within the county, inequalities may be more stark as a previously more homogenous neighborhood becomes more diverse, albeit with clear lines between “better” neighborhoods and “worse” ones.

On a more macro-level, looking between multiple counties, however, the decision to build affordable housing within one neighborhood should dilute segregation between counties, diluting the concentration of impoverished or affluent households. How policies expanding the supply of housing affect the local community are crucial, though, because that determines the level of support these policies may garner and how segregation may manifest.

Urban renewal has historically often been proposed as a solution to housing shortages, through often bulldozing an existing area and reconstructing it to be either more economically appealing or more densely built so as to encourage efficient land use. However, detractors assert that urban revitalization projects amplify inequality rather than alleviate it, since political concerns often mean these projects result from the demolishing undesirable, impoverished communities, in favor of developments that are more popular among the wealthy who are powerful. For example, the aforementioned Plan Bay Area project aimed at developing denser urban areas close to transit routes has been criticized heavily by critics who believe this is simply a modern form of blight elimination that will serve to hurt marginalized communities. Richard A. Marcantonio of the activist group Public Advocates: Making Rights Real maintains, “in Oakland and elsewhere in the Bay Area, the [transit-oriented development] areas slated for gentrifying development are located primarily in low-income neighborhoods of color.”70 Any policy that may have the good intention of expanding housing supply must take into consideration the neighborhood it is displacing, and should make reasonable arrangements for the housing and employment that may be lost in the process of renewal.

San Jose’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is in many ways well-equipped to control the likely concentration of the stratification of wealth in housing. The ordinance requires new developments with over 20 units to construct at least 15 percent of units as low-income units, and in so doing can target increasing the supply of affordable housing, which is often not intentionally sought out by housing developers, while creating mixed-income neighborhoods. Implemented in 2010, the ordinance was upheld by the California Supreme Court after a legal challenge was posed by the California Building Industry Association, suing that the ordinance was an unconstitutional taking of property. San Jose’s ordinance is remarkable as San Jose is the largest city in the nation with this kind of ordinance; about 170 other municipalities have similar ordinances. The counterargument proposed by the plaintiff in the California Supreme Court case is that restrictions on property rights for builders may act to only further disincentivize construction that is so vital now.71 In University of California Santa Cruz Alexandra Holmqvist’s thesis, she finds that in Davis there is a modest relationship between inclusionary zoning policies and integration. Inclusionary zoning has specifically succeeded in situating affordable housing units in tracts with below mean concentrations of income, creating progress in integration efforts in city center areas. As a whole, inclusionary zoning has succeeded in creating a supply of affordable housing in the majority of tracts in the city of Davis, while also establishing social services in these areas. She concludes, “Non-White Hispanic, Asian, African-American, lowincome, and very low-income groups experienced integration, many potentially as a result of inclusionary zoning policy.” However, she explains that integration efforts still have room for improvement, as they may be more lacking in wealthier areas or in market rate development given programs and provisions that provide more flexibility for the City’s developers. The less

developers have the ability to skirt these requirements through in-lieu fees or land dedication, the more integration that is likely to follow.72

Importantly, inclusionary zoning breaks the cycle of inequality of opportunity, offering the chance for impoverished households to send their children to schools in low-poverty environments where they are more likely to succeed. The potential for improvement is high. A study conducted in Montgomery County encouragingly found that students who were beneficiaries of inclusionary zoning and attended low-poverty schools were able to halve their math achievement gap from 17 percent at enrollment in elementary school to 8 percent after completion. A more comprehensive look at 11 counties and cities together showed that holistically, inclusionary zoning policies were effective at making low-poverty schools and neighborhoods accessible to those who would not otherwise be able to afford housing in these affluent neighborhoods. Since inclusionary zoning is a strategy designed to be employed in wealthier communities, it is an especially relevant policy in Santa Clara County.73

Housing segregation is an entrenched problem in American society, its roots stretching back for decades and the causes in part explained by class division and racism. There is no one neat solution to such a deep and pervasive policy problem, but undoubtedly the intent and implementation of certain legislation may either mitigate or aggravate the stark inequalities that are currently in place. For example, unique to California was the statewide experience of the elimination of redevelopment agencies that were previously a great tool used for the purpose of ameliorating housing supply shortfalls. Similarly, there is both logical and empirical evidence suggesting that inclusionary zoning policies at the city and county levels have helped reduce segregation and promote interclass and interracial neighborhoods. While it may be obvious that housing is in high demand in Santa Clara County, what may be less obvious is the existing

segregation and potential for increased divergence of upper versus lower-class neighborhoods, and Hispanic and black versus Asian and white neighborhoods. This trend should be equally treated as a priority by local and state governments, who must seek to protect equal opportunity for the next generation of Californians. The alternative is to leave a legacy of socially and racially stratified cities, with dissimilar provisions of opportunity.

Notes

1 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. et al, 576 U.S. (2015). Accessed June 28, 2015. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf.

2 John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner, "Aversive Racism," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 36 (2004): accessed April 5, 2016, http://www.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/392F'06/Dovidio&Gaertner.pdf.

3 Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, Race Relations in the United States (Poughkeepsie: Marist College, 2015), Page 16.

4 Robert Reich, "Antitrust in the New Gilded Age," HuffPost Business, last modified April 17, 2014, accessed April 5, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/comcast-timewarner_b_5166292.html.

5 Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, "Income Inequality in the San Francisco Bay Area," Joint Venture, last modified June 2015, accessed December 10, 2015, https://www.jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/income-inequality-2015-06.pdf.

6 Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), [Page 72].

7 Massey and Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making, 82.

8 Jack Dougherty, Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) Residential Security “Redlining” Map and Area Descriptions(Hartford, CT: Division of Research & Statistics, 1937), 1, accessed April 6, 2016, http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/magic_2/vector/37840/primary_source/hdimg_37840_064_1937_holc _national_archives_trinity.pdf.

9 Emily Badger, "Redlining: Still a Thing," Washington Post, last modified May 28, 2015, accessed April 6, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/28/evidencethat-banks-still-deny-black-borrowers-just-as-they-did-50-years-ago/.

10 Rebecca Burns, "They're Still Redlining," Jacobin, last modified November 3, 2014, accessed April 6, 2016, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/11/theyre-still-redlining/.

11 Burns, "They're Still Redlining," Jacobin.

12 Map of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, Piedmont, Emeryville, Albany, photograph, Tech Crunch, December 2014, accessed April 6, 2016, https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/oakland.jpg?w=1360&h=1004.

13 Jan Ondrich, Stephen Ross, and John Yinger, Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Why Do Real Estate Agents Withhold Available Houses from Black Customers?, Department of Economics Working Paper Series (Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, 2001), 30, accessed April 6, 2016, http://web2.uconn.edu/economics/working/2001-01r.pdf.

14 John Rummel, "Segregated Housing Rooted in Government Policy, Panel Shows," People's World, last modified January 24, 2011, accessed April 6, 2016, http://peoplesworld.org/segregated-housing-rooted-in-government-policy-panel-shows/.

15 The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston, "1920s–1948: Racially Restrictive Covenants," Boston Fair Housing, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html.

16 The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston, "1920s–1948: Racially Restrictive Covenants," Boston Fair Housing.

17 Jonathan Rothwell and Douglas S. Massey, "The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas," Urban Affairs Review (Thousand Oaks, California) 44, no. 6 (July 1, 2009): 779, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083588/.

18 Rothwell and Massey, "The Effect of Density," 779.

19 The Leadership Conference, "The Future of Fair Housing: Report of the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity," The Leadership Conference, last modified December 2008, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/fairhousing/historical.html?referrer=https://www. google.com/.

20 The Leadership Conference, "The Future of Fair," The Leadership Conference.

21 Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 47.

22 Lawrence D. Bobo et al., "The Real Record on Racial Attitudes," in Social Trends in American Life, ed. Peter V. Marsden (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), 65, accessed June 30, 2015, http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bobo/files/2012_real_record_on_racial_attitudes_social_trends_i n_american_life_0.pdf.

23 Bobo et al., "The Real Record on Racial," in Social Trends in American, 70.

24 Russel W. Rumberger, "The Impact of Racial and Ethnic Segregation on the Achievement Gap in California High Schools," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14, no. 4 (Winter 1992): 377, accessed April 6, 2016, http://epa.sagepub.com/content/14/4/377.full.pdf.

25 Rumberger, "The Impact of Racial," 377.

26 Kim Forde-Mazrui, "Taking Conservatives Seriously: A Moral Justification for Affirmative Action and Reparations," California Law Review, May 2004, accessed April 6, 2016, https://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/repara28a.htm.

27 Forde-Mazrui, "Taking Conservatives Seriously: A Moral.”

28 Patrick Bayer, Robert McMillan, and Kim Rueben, "The Causes and Consequences of Residential Segregation: An Equilibrium Analysis of Neighborhood Sorting," Yale, last modified June 2001, accessed September 21, 2015, http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/IndustrialOrganization/bayer-011004.pdf.

29 Bayer, McMillan, and Rueben, "The Causes and Consequences," Yale.

30 Kim-Mai Cutler, "East of Palo Alto’s Eden: Race and the Formation of Silicon Valley," Tech Crunch, last modified January 10, 2015, accessed April 6, 2016, http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-palo-altos-eden/.

31 Cutler, "East of Palo Alto’s," Tech Crunch.

32 Cutler, "East of Palo Alto’s," Tech Crunch.

33 Cutler, "East of Palo Alto’s," Tech Crunch.

34 Cutler, "East of Palo Alto’s," Tech Crunch.

35 Kendra Bischoff and Sean F. Reardon, "Residential Segregation by Income, 1970-2009," Brown, last modified October 16, 2013, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report10162013.pdf.

36 Bischoff and Reardon, "Residential Segregation by Income," Brown.

37 Bischoff and Reardon, "Residential Segregation by Income," Brown.

38 Bischoff and Reardon, "Residential Segregation by Income," Brown.

39 Bischoff and Reardon, "Residential Segregation by Income," Brown.

40 Alejandra Lopez, "Racial/Ethnic Diversity and Residential Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area," Stanford, last modified September 2001, accessed December 10, 2015, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/csre/reports/report_1.pdf.

41 Sharon Noguchi, "Report: California among Worst in the Nation in School Segregation," Mercury News, last modified May 14, 2014, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_25762891/report-california-among-worst-nationschool-segregation.

42 Bayer, McMillan, and Rueben, "The Causes and Consequences," Yale.

43 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, The Bay Area in 2040 (n.p.: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, n.d.), accessed April 6, 2016, http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2The_Bay_Area_In_2040.pdf.

44 Atlanta Regional Commission, Jobs-Housing Balance (Atlanta, GA: Atlanta Regional Commission, 2002), 14, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.atlantaregional.com/File%20Library/Local%20Gov%20Services/gs_cct_jobshousing tool_1109.pdf.

45 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing: California's Foundation for Economic Growth, 6, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housingpolicy-development/housing-resource-center/reports/state/foundation.pdf.

46 Pete Carey, "Silicon Valley: Report Says Big Fund Increase Needed to Meet Region's Affordable Housing Shortfall," Mercury News, last modified December 3, 2013, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24640449/report-says-big-fund-increaseneeded-meet-silicon.

47 Daniel Flaming, Halil Toros, and Patrick Burns, "Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley," Destination: HOME, last modified 2015, accessed December 1, 2015, http://destinationhomescc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/er_homenotfound_report_6.pdf.

48 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, The Bay Area in 2040.

49 Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies, "Income Inequality in the San Francisco Bay Area," Joint Venture, last modified June 2015, accessed December 10, 2015, https://www.jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/income-inequality-2015-06.pdf.

50 Mac Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences, March 17, 2015, accessed February 17, 2016, http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housingcosts.pdf.

51 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs.

52 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs.

53 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs, 15.

54 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs, 17.

55 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs, 17.

56 Kevin Riley, interview by the author, Santa Clara City Office, CA, October 28, 2015.

57 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs.

58 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs.

59 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs.

60 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs.

61 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, America's Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs (Boston, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2013), accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_americas_rental_housing_2013_1_ 0.pdf.

62 Taylor, California’s High Housing Costs, 27.

63 George Avalos, "Bay Area Housing Crisis May Cause NIMBY Attitudes to Wane," San Jose Mercury News Business, last modified June 25, 2015, accessed October 20, 2015, http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_28378843/housing-crisis-may-cause-nimby-attitudeswane.

64 Riley and Harasz, interview by the author.

65 Casey Blount et al., Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure (n.p.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014), accessed February 18, 2016, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Redevelopment_WhitePaper.pdf.

66 Cy Musiker, "Did the End of California’s Redevelopment Agencies Hurt Affordable Housing?," KQED News, last modified February 26, 2014, accessed December 10, 2015, http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/02/24/redevelopment-hurt-affordable-housing/.

67 Blount et al., Redevelopment Agencies in California, 8.

68 David Siders, "Jerry Brown Signs New Post-Redevelopment Bill," Sacramento Bee, last modified September 15, 2015, accessed February 18, 2016, http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article36193152.html.

69 Keith Wardrip, Laura Williams, and Suzanne Hague, The Role of Affordable Housing in Creating Jobs and Stimulating Local Economic Development: A Review of the Literature (n.p.: Center for Housing Policy, 2011), 2, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www2.nhc.org/media/files/Housing-and-Economic-Development-Report-2011.pdf.

70 Richard A. Marcantonio, "What's Planning Got to Do with Civil Rights and Income Inequality? (Pt 2)," Public Advocates, last modified January 17, 2014, accessed April 6, 2016, http://www.publicadvocates.org/2014-01-17/what-s-planning-got-to-do-with-civil-rights-andincome-inequality-part-2.

71 Emily Badger, "Housing Segregation Is Holding Back the Promise of Brown V. Board of Education," Washington Post, accessed June 16, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/housing-segregation-isholding-back-the-promise-of-brown-v-board-of-education/.

72 Alexandra Holmqvist, The Effect of Inclusionary Zoning on Racial Integration, Economic Integration, and Access to Social Services: A Davis Case Study (Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Santa Cruz, 2009), accessed April 6, 2016, http://communitydevelopment.ucdavis.edu/docs/Theses/Holmqvist_Alexandra.pdf.

73 Heather Schwartz, Can Housing Policy Be Good Education Policy? (n.p.: Pathways, 2013), accessed April 6, 2016, http://inequality.stanford.edu/_media/pdf/pathways/spring_2013/Pathways_Spring_2013_Schwa rtz.pdf.

Bibliography

Atlanta Regional Commission. Jobs-Housing Balance. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta Regional Commission, 2002. Accessed April 6, 2016.

http://www.atlantaregional.com/File%20Library/Local%20Gov%20Services/gs_cct_jobs housingtool_1109.pdf.

Aud, S., Fox, M., and KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Avalos, George. "Bay Area Housing Crisis May Cause NIMBY Attitudes to Wane." San Jose Mercury News Business. Last modified June 25, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2015. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_28378843/housing-crisis-may-cause-nimbyattitudes-wane.

Badger, Emily. "Housing Segregation Is Holding Back the Promise of Brown V. Board of Education." Washington Post. Accessed June 16, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/housing-segregation-isholding-back-the-promise-of-brown-v-board-of-education/.

. "Redlining: Still a Thing." Washington Post. Last modified May 28, 2015. Accessed April 6, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/28/evidencethat-banks-still-deny-black-borrowers-just-as-they-did-50-years-ago/.

. "What Happens When the Government Tries to Help Poor People Move to Better Neighborhoods?" Washington Post. Accessed June 16, 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/24/what-happens-whenthe-government-tries-to-help-poor-people-move-to-better-neighborhoods/.

Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim Rueben. "The Causes and Consequences of Residential Segregation: An Equilibrium Analysis of Neighborhood Sorting." Yale. Last modified June 2001. Accessed September 21, 2015. http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/IndustrialOrganization/bayer-011004.pdf.

Bischoff, Kendra, and Sean F. Reardon. "Residential Segregation by Income, 1970-2009." Brown. Last modified October 16, 2013. Accessed December 10, 2015. http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report10162013.pdf.

Blount, Casey, Wendy Ip, Ikuo Nakano, and Elaine Ng. Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure. N.p.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2014. Accessed February 18, 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Redevelopment_WhitePaper.pdf.

Bobo, Lawrence D., Camille Z. Charles, Maria Krysan, and Alicia D. Simmons. "The Real Record on Racial Attitudes." In Social Trends in American Life, edited by Peter V. Marsden, 38-83. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Accessed June 30, 2015.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bobo/files/2012_real_record_on_racial_attitudes_social_tr ends_in_american_life_0.pdf.

Burns, Rebecca. "They're Still Redlining." Jacobin. Last modified November 3, 2014. Accessed April 6, 2016. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/11/theyre-still-redlining/.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. Housing: California's Foundation for Economic Growth. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resourcecenter/reports/state/foundation.pdf.

California Housing Partnership Corporation. How Santa Clara County's Housing Market Is Failing to Meet the Needs of Low-Income Families. Accessed October 5, 2015. http://www.chpc.net/dnld/HousingNeedSANTACLARAdraftFinal070314.pdf.

Carey, Pete. "Silicon Valley: Report Says Big Fund Increase Needed to Meet Region's Affordable Housing Shortfall." Mercury News. Last modified December 3, 2013. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24640449/reportsays-big-fund-increase-needed-meet-silicon.

Cutler, Kim-Mai. "East of Palo Alto’s Eden: Race and the Formation of Silicon Valley." Tech Crunch. Last modified January 10, 2015. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-palo-altos-eden/.

Dougherty, Jack. Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) Residential Security “Redlining” Map and Area Descriptions. Hartford, CT: Division of Research & Statistics, 1937. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/magic_2/vector/37840/primary_source/hdimg_37840_064_19 37_holc_national_archives_trinity.pdf.

Dovidio, John F., and Samuel L. Gaertner. "Aversive Racism." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 36 (2004): 1-52. Accessed April 5, 2016. http://www.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/392F-'06/Dovidio&Gaertner.pdf.

Economist Newspaper. "The Fire and the Fuel." The Economist. Last modified May 9, 2015. Accessed July 3, 2015. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21650533-whatdead-white-man-can-teach-america-about-inner-city-decay-fire-and-fuel.

The Editorial Board. "Forcing Black Men out of Society." New York Times. Last modified April 25, 2015. Accessed June 30, 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/opinion/sunday/forcing-black-men-out-ofsociety.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0.

The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. "1920s–1948: Racially Restrictive Covenants." Boston Fair Housing. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html.

Flaming, Daniel, Halil Toros, and Patrick Burns. "Home Not Found: The Cost of Homelessness in Silicon Valley." Destination: HOME. Last modified 2015. Accessed December 1, 2015. http://destinationhomescc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/er_homenotfound_report_6.pdf.

Forde-Mazrui, Kim. "Taking Conservatives Seriously: A Moral Justification for Affirmative Action and Reparations." California Law Review, May 2004, 683-753. Accessed April 6, 2016. https://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/repara28a.htm.

Gibson, DW. "‘I Put in White Tenants’: The Grim, Racist (and Likely Illegal) Methods of One Brooklyn Landlord." New York. Last modified May 12, 2015. Accessed June 30, 2015. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/grim-racist-methods-of-one-brooklynlandlord.html.

Grant, Benjamin. "Tech Campuses as Cities: The Solution to the Housing Crisis?" SPUR. Last modified February 21, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2015. http://www.spur.org/blog/201402-21/tech-campuses-cities-solution-housing-crisis.

Hearing Draft Santa Clara County Housing Element Update 2015-2022. Accessed October 5, 2015. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/HousingElement_20140327_H earing2015Draft.pdf.

Holmqvist, Alexandra. The Effect of Inclusionary Zoning on Racial Integration, Economic Integration, and Access to Social Services: A Davis Case Study. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Santa Cruz, 2009. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://communitydevelopment.ucdavis.edu/docs/Theses/Holmqvist_Alexandra.pdf.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. America's Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs. Boston, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2013. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_americas_rental_housing_2 013_1_0.pdf.

Kurhi, Eric. "Santa Clara County Panel Unveils $26 Million Wish List for Homeless Services." MarinIJ.com. Last modified August 14, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2015. http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20150814/santa-clara-county-panel-unveils-26million-wish-list-for-homeless-services.

The Leadership Conference. "The Future of Fair Housing: Report of the National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity." The Leadership Conference. Last modified December 2008. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/fairhousing/historical.html?referrer=https: //www.google.com/.

Leonhardt, David, Amanda Cox, and Claire Cain Miller. "An Atlas of Upward Mobility Shows Paths out of Poverty." New York Times. Last modified May 4, 2015. Accessed July 3, 2015. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/upshot/an-atlas-of-upward-mobility-showspaths-out-of-poverty.html?referrer.

Lopez, Alejandra. "Racial/Ethnic Diversity and Residential Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area." Stanford. Last modified September 2001. Accessed December 10, 2015. http://web.stanford.edu/dept/csre/reports/report_1.pdf.

Map of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, Piedmont, Emeryville, Albany. Photograph. Tech Crunch. December 2014. Accessed April 6, 2016. https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/oakland.jpg?w=1360&h=1004.

Marcantonio, Richard A. "What's Planning Got to Do with Civil Rights and Income Inequality? (Pt 2)." Public Advocates. Last modified January 17, 2014. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.publicadvocates.org/2014-01-17/what-s-planning-got-to-do-with-civil-rightsand-income-inequality-part-2.

Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. Race Relations in the United States. N.p.: n.p., 2015.

Massey, Douglas S. "Ferguson and the Meaning of Race in America." Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Spring 2015, 14-16. PDF.

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Meacham, Jody. "How San Jose Home Prices Compare to Other U.S. Cities." Silicon Valley Business Journal. Last modified August 12, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2015. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/08/12/how-san-jose-home-pricescompare-to-other-u-s.html.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Bay Area in 2040. N.p.: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, n.d. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2-The_Bay_Area_In_2040.pdf.

Mohsen, Raania, Kevin Zwick, and Shannon McDonald. "Affordable Housing Funding Landscape and Local Best Practices." Last modified December 2, 2013. PDF.

Musiker, Cy. "Did the End of California’s Redevelopment Agencies Hurt Affordable Housing?" KQED News. Last modified February 26, 2014. Accessed December 10, 2015. http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/02/24/redevelopment-hurt-affordable-housing/.

Noguchi, Sharon. "Report: California among Worst in the Nation in School Segregation." Mercury News. Last modified May 14, 2014. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_25762891/report-california-among-worstnation-school-segregation.

Ondrich, Jan, Stephen Ross, and John Yinger. Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Why Do Real Estate Agents Withhold Available Houses from Black Customers? Department of Economics Working Paper Series. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, 2001. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://web2.uconn.edu/economics/working/2001-01r.pdf.

Orfield, Gary, and Jongyeon Eu. "Segregating California's Future." Civil Rights Project. Last modified May 2014. Accessed December 10, 2015. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-anddiversity/segregating-california2019s-future-inequality-and-its-alternative-60-years-afterbrown-v.-board-of-education/orfield-ee-segregating-california-future-brown-at.pdf.

Player, Kimberley. "Corporate Perk or Company Town?" Urban Land. Last modified September 25, 2015. Accessed December 1, 2015. http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-marketstrends/corporate-perk-company-town/. Kimberley Player's article surveys Silicon Valley tech companies and their ventures into housing.

Power, Garrett. "Apartheid Baltimore Style: The Residential Segregation Ordinances of 19101913." Maryland Law Review 42, no. 2 (1983): 289-328. PDF.

Reardon, Sean F., and Kendra Bischoff. "Income Inequality and Income Segregation." Penn State University. Last modified January 2010. Accessed December 10, 2015. http://web.pop.psu.edu/projects/mss/income_inequality_and_income_segregation_jan201 0.pdf.

Reich, Robert. "Antitrust in the New Gilded Age." HuffPost Business. Last modified April 17, 2014. Accessed April 5, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/comcasttime-warner_b_5166292.html.

Riley, Kevin. Interview by the author. Santa Clara City Office, CA. October 28, 2015. Kevin Riley is the director of city planning for Santa Clara City. We discussed some aspects of his job like planning housing, business, and transportation coherently and sustainably.

Rothwell, Jonathan, and Douglas S. Massey. "The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas." Urban Affairs Review (Thousand Oaks, California)

44, no. 6 (July 1, 2009): 779-806. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083588/.

Rumberger, Russel W. "The Impact of Racial and Ethnic Segregation on the Achievement Gap in California High Schools." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14, no. 4 (Winter 1992): 377-96. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://epa.sagepub.com/content/14/4/377.full.pdf.

Rummel, John. "Segregated Housing Rooted in Government Policy, Panel Shows." People's World. Last modified January 24, 2011. Accessed April 6, 2016.

http://peoplesworld.org/segregated-housing-rooted-in-government-policy-panel-shows/.

Samuels, Alana. "The Supreme Court Is about to Decide the Fate of Housing Segregation." The Atlantic. Accessed June 21, 2015.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/supreme-court-inclusivecommunities/396401/?utm_source=SFFB.

Schwartz, Heather. Can Housing Policy Be Good Education Policy? N.p.: Pathways, 2013. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://inequality.stanford.edu/_media/pdf/pathways/spring_2013/Pathways_Spring_2013 _Schwartz.pdf.

Seitles, Marc. "The Perpetuation of Residential Racial Segregation in America: Historical Discrimination, Modern Forms of Exclusion, and Inclusionary Remedies." Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law. Accessed July 30, 2015. http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol141/seit.htm#FNT4.

Siders, David. "Jerry Brown Signs New Post-Redevelopment Bill." Sacramento Bee. Last modified September 15, 2015. Accessed February 18, 2016. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article36193152.html.

"Silicon Valley Employers’ New Development: Housing." How Housing Matters. N.p., 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <http://howhousingmatters.org/articles/ silicon-valley-employers-new-development-housing/>. How Housing Matters explains the Silicon Valley Leadership Group's recent efforts and research in housing, and hints at possible public/private partnerships on housing in the future.

Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies. "Income Inequality in the San Francisco Bay Area." Joint Venture. Last modified June 2015. Accessed December 10, 2015. https://www.jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/income-inequality-2015-06.pdf.

Steffensmeier, Darrell, Ben Feldmeyer, Casey T. Harris, and Jeffery T. Ulmer. "Reassessing Trends in Black Violent Crime, 1980–2008: Sorting out the “Hispanic Effect” in Uniform

Crime Reports Arrests, National Crime Victimization Survey Offender Estimates, and U.S. Prisoner Counts." American Society of Criminology 49, no. 1 (2011): 197-251.

Taylor, Mac. California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences. March 17, 2015. Accessed February 17, 2016. http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housingcosts/housing-costs.pdf.

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. et al, 576 U.S. (2015). Accessed June 28, 2015. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_m64o.pdf.

Wardrip, Keith, Laura Williams, and Suzanne Hague. The Role of Affordable Housing in Creating Jobs and Stimulating Local Economic Development: A Review of the Literature. N.p.: Center for Housing Policy, 2011. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www2.nhc.org/media/files/Housing-and-Economic-Development-Report-2011.pdf.

The Harker School | 500 Saratoga Ave., San Jose CA 95129