A slight cavil—the author inaccurately describes redlining as “[making] it nearly impossible for a black applicant to get a mortgage for a house outside black neighborhoods.”
My understanding is the practice of redlining was designating certain neighborhoods too high-risk for mortgage insurance—almost all African-American neighborhoods—th…
A slight cavil—the author inaccurately describes redlining as “[making] it nearly impossible for a black applicant to get a mortgage for a house outside black neighborhoods.”
My understanding is the practice of redlining was designating certain neighborhoods too high-risk for mortgage insurance—almost all African-American neighborhoods—thus making home ownership much more difficult for African-Americans and pushing them into public housing. It applied within, not outside, majority-minority neighborhoods, so it would have had no direct effects on an African American’s ability to purchase housing OUTSIDE of redlined neighborhoods.
[edit: as a response to this comment pointed out, redlining did occur in lower-income neighborhoods that were predominantly white. Stated with more precision, the point I wanted to make above is: redlining applied in disproportionately Black neighborhoods (even if whites were still a majority in many or most of those neighborhoods—a neighborhood that is 15% Black is still disproportionately Black if the overall Black population in that area is 5%), which often made out proportionally more difficult for Black families to own homes. The author’s claim—that redlining kept Black families OUT of disproportionately white neighborhoods—could only be true if the neighborhoods that were white were to ones that were disproportionately redlined. I am not aware of any historian who would make that claim, while the opposite claim—that the neighborhoods redlined were disproportionately Black—is a common one and one that is pretty widely accepted. So the author’s understanding of the practice is backwards.)]
While other features of the residential real-estate market would have made it difficult for most Black families to get a house in a white neighborhood, redlining was not one of them.
It wasn't almost all African-American neighborhoods. Most red-lined neighborhoods were majority white. If you said disproportionately African-American neighborhoods, you would be correct.
You’re right. LiterateDog pointed this out in an earlier comment, and I added another paragraph to clarify that in response to his comment. Apologies for not stating it with sufficient precision the first time; there is a lot of nuance on this issue.
I have a cavil with your cavil, good sir. Redlining actually applied to not just majority-minority neighborhoods. While the definite majority of black neighborhoods were red-lined, the majority of neighborhoods that were red-lined where non-black neighborhoods. Redlining affected a much higher percentage of potential black homeowners, but the decided majority of victims of redlining were good ol' white people. I ask rhetorically, are these white victims eligible for reparations? I can imagine not.
Black home ownership is a lagging indicator. Currently Black ownership is 44% compared to 73% for whites, 63% for Asians and 51% for Hispanics. Asians have the highest average income by a good bit, but lag Whites by 10% in home ownership. That will change going forward. Black incomes have been rising consistently and now they are proportionally representative in the middle 60% of income earners. But they are overrepresented in the bottom half of that middle 60% and underrepresented in the top half. Unfortunately, housing prices have skyrocketed in the last 20 years keeping many of the middle group of income owners from being able to buy a home most acutely in that bottom half. However, on the positive side, Blacks have moved steadily into the suburbs (with its better schools) over the last generation and now are proportionally represented in the suburbs. As Blacks move into the top half of the middle 60% going forward home ownership will increase. The housing market is really screwed up presently as corporations moved hard into ownership in many states and drove up prices beyond what the "average" income can buy. We are already seeing some decreasing prices in the West, especially the mountain west and would expect the east to follow soon. Don't know, with the cost of construction, how low it can go unless we fall into a recession which as of today doesn't look imminent. Most places have a housing shortage to add on to the problem.
Glad someone posted this to clear the record. The author’s view is an incredibly common myth about redlining (I find people across the political spectrum who have been taught it incorrectly).
It sounds like you are a conservative. If so, you should appreciate the point I made, which is that redlining is not as far-reaching as the author suggests.
And yeah, agree that NPR sucks. Wikipedia doesn’t, though.
A slight cavil—the author inaccurately describes redlining as “[making] it nearly impossible for a black applicant to get a mortgage for a house outside black neighborhoods.”
My understanding is the practice of redlining was designating certain neighborhoods too high-risk for mortgage insurance—almost all African-American neighborhoods—thus making home ownership much more difficult for African-Americans and pushing them into public housing. It applied within, not outside, majority-minority neighborhoods, so it would have had no direct effects on an African American’s ability to purchase housing OUTSIDE of redlined neighborhoods.
[edit: as a response to this comment pointed out, redlining did occur in lower-income neighborhoods that were predominantly white. Stated with more precision, the point I wanted to make above is: redlining applied in disproportionately Black neighborhoods (even if whites were still a majority in many or most of those neighborhoods—a neighborhood that is 15% Black is still disproportionately Black if the overall Black population in that area is 5%), which often made out proportionally more difficult for Black families to own homes. The author’s claim—that redlining kept Black families OUT of disproportionately white neighborhoods—could only be true if the neighborhoods that were white were to ones that were disproportionately redlined. I am not aware of any historian who would make that claim, while the opposite claim—that the neighborhoods redlined were disproportionately Black—is a common one and one that is pretty widely accepted. So the author’s understanding of the practice is backwards.)]
While other features of the residential real-estate market would have made it difficult for most Black families to get a house in a white neighborhood, redlining was not one of them.
Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
It wasn't almost all African-American neighborhoods. Most red-lined neighborhoods were majority white. If you said disproportionately African-American neighborhoods, you would be correct.
You’re right. LiterateDog pointed this out in an earlier comment, and I added another paragraph to clarify that in response to his comment. Apologies for not stating it with sufficient precision the first time; there is a lot of nuance on this issue.
I have a cavil with your cavil, good sir. Redlining actually applied to not just majority-minority neighborhoods. While the definite majority of black neighborhoods were red-lined, the majority of neighborhoods that were red-lined where non-black neighborhoods. Redlining affected a much higher percentage of potential black homeowners, but the decided majority of victims of redlining were good ol' white people. I ask rhetorically, are these white victims eligible for reparations? I can imagine not.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/06/the-truth-about-redlinings-history/
Thanks. I edited my comment in a way that I believe addresses your point.
Thank you for posting this link. Very educational though, at the same time, very depressing.
Black home ownership is a lagging indicator. Currently Black ownership is 44% compared to 73% for whites, 63% for Asians and 51% for Hispanics. Asians have the highest average income by a good bit, but lag Whites by 10% in home ownership. That will change going forward. Black incomes have been rising consistently and now they are proportionally representative in the middle 60% of income earners. But they are overrepresented in the bottom half of that middle 60% and underrepresented in the top half. Unfortunately, housing prices have skyrocketed in the last 20 years keeping many of the middle group of income owners from being able to buy a home most acutely in that bottom half. However, on the positive side, Blacks have moved steadily into the suburbs (with its better schools) over the last generation and now are proportionally represented in the suburbs. As Blacks move into the top half of the middle 60% going forward home ownership will increase. The housing market is really screwed up presently as corporations moved hard into ownership in many states and drove up prices beyond what the "average" income can buy. We are already seeing some decreasing prices in the West, especially the mountain west and would expect the east to follow soon. Don't know, with the cost of construction, how low it can go unless we fall into a recession which as of today doesn't look imminent. Most places have a housing shortage to add on to the problem.
Glad someone posted this to clear the record. The author’s view is an incredibly common myth about redlining (I find people across the political spectrum who have been taught it incorrectly).
Yeah, hopefully they will maintain their high standards and issue a correction.
It sounds like you are a conservative. If so, you should appreciate the point I made, which is that redlining is not as far-reaching as the author suggests.
And yeah, agree that NPR sucks. Wikipedia doesn’t, though.