Zoning and segregation

M

Matthew

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
3,583
Reaction score
6
Haven't seen any discussion about a new paper from a Harvard researcher:

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/resseger/files/resseger_jmp_11_25.pdf

The Impact of Land Use Regulation on Racial Segregation: Evidence from Massachusetts Zoning Borders

Local zoning regulations such as minimum lot size requirements and restric-
tions on the permitting of multi-family housing may exacerbate racial segrega-
tion by reducing in some neighborhoods the construction of units that appeal to
prospective minority residents. Although this hypothesis has long been recog-
nized by urban economists and other social scientists, the lack of uniform land
use data across jurisdictions has made empirical progress dicult. Using de-
tailed spatial data available for all municipalities in Massachusetts I investigate
the impact of density zoning regulation on location choices by race. Capital-
izing on the geographic detail in the data, I focus on variation in block-level
racial composition within narrow bands around zone borders within jurisdic-
tions, mitigating omitted variable concerns that arise in studies focusing on
larger geographic units. My results imply a large role for local zoning regula-
tion, particularly the permitting of dense multi-family structures, in explaining
disparate racial location patterns. Blocks zoned for multi-family housing have
black population shares 3.36 percentage points higher and Hispanic population
shares 5.77 percentage points higher than single-family zoned blocks directly
across a border from them. Using the results to simulate an equalization of
zoning regulation across the metro area suggests that over half the di erence
between levels of segregation in the stringently zoned Boston and lightly zoned
Houston metro areas can be explained by zoning regulation alone.
Click to expand...

Plus this 2009 paper from Princeton.

There's some light holiday reading for ya!
 
Ugh. Never ending, hand-wringing racial hysteria marches on. Barring any actual discrimination, let people live where they want (and can afford) to live (and most often that's with others they perceive to be similar to themselves.) I believe that's called freedom of association.
 
The point is that there is actual discrimination. Segregation lives on, even after red-lining was outlawed.

It's just anecdotes, but I have definitely heard people whisper about zoning rules "keeping THOSE people out."

It's nice to have some actual data and statistical evidence of that effect.
 
There are those undertones at points but I think that is the part that is heard but less impactful.

What did happen is that the suburbs grew a lot during the period of white flight and redlining. As they were populated more and more zoning became more onerous. Lots need to be minimum sizes, you have to be able to often afford to cars to get around. So now there is no overt discrimination but you need to have a lot of money to buy into the established towns with good schools, etc. I think this is less about overt racial discrimination at this point in mass history, but it maintains both class and therefore a lot of racial segregation in place through non- racial zoning policy. Zoning keeps costs artificially high, and keeps legacy separations in place. The fact is, if mass had more affordable housing across the entire state there would be more integration. I feel this. Post and convo could get very rush limbaughy, and my point isn't that anything should be done because of some white guilt legacy, but something should get done because a more affordable housing stock will be better for the entire state economy, rich homeowners and working class people of all races.
 
Are there any studies which show that zoning for multi-family use decreases nearby property values?

That, to me, is the crux of the underlying assumption made by many NIMBYs. My gut tells me that the truth may actually be the opposite.
 
Another thing to consider that probably doesn't come up in these studies is the differences in values and aspirations of certain ethnic minorities. Do all ethnic groups, whether white, black, yellow, orange or green share identical values when it comes to achieving wealth and in particular, how that wealth is earned and spent? Do they each want to live in an integrated community or would they rather be amongst those of their own race? It's an inherent fact that people desire to live where they feel comfortable and that is often defined as living around people of similar means, values and yes, to an extent, race and ethnicity.
 
kmp1284 said:
Another thing to consider that probably doesn't come up in these studies is the differences in values and aspirations of certain ethnic minorities. Do all ethnic groups, whether white, black, yellow, orange or green share identical values when it comes to achieving wealth and in particular, how that wealth is earned and spent? Do they each want to live in an integrated community or would they rather be amongst those of their own race? It's an inherent fact that people desire to live where they feel comfortable and that is often defined as living around people of similar means, values and yes, to an extent, race and ethnicity.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and my impression is that the racial interpretation is easy, and misses too much of what's really going on (and so is wrong).

There's no doubt that place and people interact through all kinds of mechanisms, with the two big ones being home-type (correlated with zoning) and schools (details below) and education and race and income.

So it seems to me that the zoning-and-race correlation is just a real-but-missing-the-point correlation in the much larger and more powerful forces described in The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart

The Big Sort says that our clusters are much more specific than race. White/Black/Etc is an extremely gross cut at what's going on. People are being waaay pickier (either consciously or "accidentally") than skin color...its as much something that people of the same color are "doing to each other" as it is a racial thing.

My own micro-neighborhood of a dozen homes is extremely homogeneous (family size, parent's age, age of children, education level, income, hobbies, and yes, race...its waaay more like "micro-targeting" than it is race. If you asked people why they moved "here" it was because of proximity to job (near Cambridge..but couldn't afford to live there with kids), type of house (1920s cottage/bungalow in what was the single-family end of a streetcar line), yard big enough for a swing set and a tomato garden but not much else. And someplace to park both cars, one of which is an SUV/Minvan for hauling kids. And really those common "practical" desires--none of us knew or cared who the other neighbors were, but were surprised (though perhaps should not have been) that we all liked the same things, worked at the same kind of jobs and envisioned the same kind of family life.

Its the Big Sort, if you ask me. Sure, race and zoning are part of it, but the race-and-zoning link is the kind that make a publishable scientific paper with high R-squared and good t-tests to reject the null hypothesis, but that totally miss the point of what's happening.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I'm a bit disappointed that someone on this forum would actually try to pretend that "zoning" has anything to do with "freedom." Zoning is the antithesis of freedom, it's government regulation that interferes with your private property rights.

Moving on, I think it's pretty well accepted that certain types of zoning regulations (a.k.a. snob zoning) are intended to make homes more expensive and difficult to obtain. For example, minimum lot sizes: if you can't afford a half-acre then you can't live here. Or setback requirements: if you can't afford to waste half your lot, then you can't live here. Or minimum parking quotas: we'll make you pay for the parking of two cars, whether or not you have them. Etc.

It's a more difficult question to answer whether those kinds of rules have any bearing on continued racial segregation, because of effects like "the big sort" and other such explanations which can be deployed easily. That's why the paper is significant: finding a correlation which suggests that about half the difference in segregation may be explained due to zoning regulation.

Honestly, I think that most snob zoning regulations are a bad idea to begin with, because they stifle housing supply and rip apart the natural process of urban neighborhood formation. I don't think it's any accident that the introduction of zoning codes in the early 20th century coincided with the decline and death of many American cities. That was the intention of many zoning codes: to spread out development over a wide area, to mitigate traffic, to separate people.

Pre-Civil Rights act era, rules and regulations were also explicitly designed to separate people by race. Although explicit segregation like that was banned, it seems unlikely that the country magically transformed into a place where racism did not exist (despite GOP insistence to the contrary). Those who were still looking to do "legal segregation" were still able to make changes to zoning regulations that would implicitly accomplish the same goal. I believe that many otherwise-senseless snob zoning rules were designed with economic segregation in mind, with the intention behind it being that it would lead to racial segregation as well.

It is, as I said, a difficult matter to prove because it's not obvious like explicit segregation written into the law. And there's lots of contributing effects. That's why it requires a lot of data and hard work by statisticians to sort out. But I really don't see the point of dismissing that work because "it's a publishable scientific paper." That's just being anti-scientific.
 
@kmp
Your lack of self awareness is amazing. Scientists should be studying it.
 
This is not an easy question, let alone something with a clear answer as to who is on the side freedom and progress.

If small polities democratically chose to write their rules to favor "more like us" they *inside* that community may feel more free and empowered and supported. Do I really want to support The State when it takes away that power and gives it to "regional" planners (or abolishes democratically-chosen controls?)

Personally, I like regional planning. I think it is better. I think it would allow neighborhoods to change more easily and serve affordability. These are ancient progressive goals.

But if each little neighborhood is happier walling out people they consider "beyond the pale", well, I'm never going to have the votes on my side. Then where would a mandate to change things come from in a democracy?
 
Hmm? Ideally, neither the state nor the municipal governments would have the power to "write the rules which exclude people." Because zoning is an intrusion on private property, so if that principle was really respected, then all zoning regulations would be struck down except for those pertaining directly to public safety.

Seeing that Americans don't really believe in property rights and free markets (when push comes to shove) then, at least, the city should try to be more inclusive within its own borders. Even if outer suburban towns continue to practice exclusionary zoning with dubious intent, that's no reason for Boston to imitate them. Gathering the neighborhoods of Boston into a city municipal government is supposed to provide the political will to overcome provincialism. In theory, anyway...
 
Matthew said:
Hmm? Ideally, neither the state nor the municipal governments would have the power to "write the rules which exclude people." Because zoning is an intrusion on private property, so if that principle was really respected, then all zoning regulations would be struck down except for those pertaining directly to public safety.\...
Click to expand...
But you'd be OK if a homeowners' association did it by covenant? There are plenty of free/private covenant-based restrictions available that work just like zoning but which happen by free contract (see Seaside Florida)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaside,_Florida
 
Much more OK with it, as long as it doesn't violate civil rights legislation, and it's not forced on you involuntarily. Basic contract law.

For example, rather than vague ranting about shadows from a new development, it would be nice if neighbors actually got together and put money down to purchase the rights regarding the property in question, or at least an easement.
 
I knew it would be a matter of time before race-baiting made it's way to planning...
 
Sadly, American city planning has been tied up with racial issues from the beginning of the modern city planning movement, about a century ago. Ever since officials decided to use it for "slum clearance" and getting rid of "undesirable peoples", really.

The question at hand is whether city planning has been able to put that sordid legacy behind it, after 50 years of civil rights legislation.
 
Matthew said:
Sadly, American city planning has been tied up with racial issues from the beginning of the modern city planning movement, about a century ago. Ever since officials decided to use it for "slum clearance" and getting rid of "undesirable peoples", really.

The question at hand is whether city planning has been able to put that sordid legacy behind it, after 50 years of civil rights legislation.
Click to expand...

Many cities and even suburbs have begun to implement zoning/code policies that require affordable housing be included in new developments. I have no specifics on what percentage of towns/cities include these but there the modern day planning community has been far more involved in promoting safe quality and affordable neighborhoods. The real challenge continues to be creating vibrant mixed-income neighborhoods.
 
^Affordable housing itself is somewhat a haze. Obviously, it's pretty easy to be for in principal. In practice it is much harder- look at any 40B proposal in the state. Affordability is also very much relative. For 40B I think it is 80% of AMI (Area medium Income), which in towns like Hingham and Cohasset mean that even affordable housing can be expensive.

I think this is an interesting conversation and find many takes presented on it here interesting.
 
OSUPhantom said:
I knew it would be a matter of time before race-baiting made it's way to planning...
Click to expand...

Has it? I find the tone of this thread fairly thoughtful and ambiguous. Did I miss something?

Anyway, we don't like segregation by pernicious categories, but free people do a lot of self-segregating. Its not clear what is cause and what is cure and which is worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top