On Arbitrary Lines by Nolan Gray

Writing this review a couple months behind...

Author M. Nolan Gray comes on strong with his initial introduction of zoning as a "stodgy rule book" that runs contrary to our "national ethos," (p.1). I appreciated that much of Arbitrary Lines reinforced the things I feel- that zoning restrictions as they stand are actually bad for the environment and confusing. The book overall addresses a valid issue, that there is no way government (or any other entity) can reasonably protect individual investments and freeze a neighborhood in time, unless it has a special designation. While this makes sense in isolation, the reality of today is that density for density's sake is not enough. We must also provide adequate public facilities to our residents. It is always important to take every book, and its financial backer, with a grain of salt. The author of the book is trained by a Libertarian-leaning think tank. But, I appreciate the free-market perspective as something different, but not polarizing. Additionally, I think Gray really only addresses single-family zoning, not necessarily all the things like setbacks, clearance for fire, etc. that are good for society as a whole.

The most compelling argument Gray makes is that, if we are going to address zoning, we should address actual quality of life issues like "noise, smells, smoke, or traffic," (p.139). It is also apparent to me that the State of Florida needs to improve our comprehensive planning process, like the good old days of Governor Bob Graham.

Thanks to YIMBY for getting this book together. This was our first book club book. 

Some additional notes: 

On first read, I really liked the homevoter hypothesis from Nolan Gray, that "a mixture of rapid inflation and generous federal tax policy" cemented the desire of homeowners to oppose any new construction which would lower their home values (p.64). Now, after reading The Color of Law, I have more context for the racial and social lead-up to the Red Scare-era "Own-Your-Home" means patriotism mindset. 

One of the arguments made by Gray that stuck with me was the idea that cities make a country rich. Often, people treat cities and density as a blight with loads of negative externalities. But, they are a hub for culture, diversity, economic vibrancy, and labor. 

On diversity and zoning, Gray cited some hard-hitting numbers, "Simply allowing apartments on a block - rare in most zoned cities - is associated with a 5.77 percent increase in the local Hispanic population and a 3.35 percent increase in the local Black population," (p.89). I do wonder how such a study could have been conducted and over what time frame. Nevertheless, Gray makes a compelling argument that zoning reinforces segregation that many people in housing space see as thinly veiled racism. However, re-reading this information I think it actually reinforces the thesis of the Color of Law, which asserts that the segregation we see and live today was deliberate de jure, not de facto. 

On Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein

 Color of Law was fantastic introduction to a history of US government-sponsored segregation. The thesis of the book is that "today's residential segregation...is not the unintended consequence of individual choices and of otherwise well-meaning law or regulation but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the United States," (Preface, p.VIII). 

The author, Richard Rothstein doesn't spend time arguing the morality of such laws, but rather the *unconstitutionality* of them. To me, that's what makes this book unique. Its evidence is so clear and its focus on legality leaves no room for moral judgements or sensitivities. The book plainly proves that the federal government played an active and illegal role in segregating our society on a purely racial basis. What is new about this book is its focus on the thirteenth amendment to our Constitution, which abolished slavery but additionally asked Congress to "pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States." This is where it gets interesting as the interpretation of housing discrimination as a badge of slavery could be argued, but Rothstein asserts that the discrimination we see today is a relic of the widely-agreed upon subjugation of African people and African-Americans. 

A note for context, integration between races had largely begun in the 19th century. Segregation picked up in 1880 when, after Reconstruction, President Rutherford B Hayes removed federal troops from the South, who had been there to protect African Americans (p.39), a first sign of diminished commitment to African Americans.

I think, at this point in society, many people have at least heard of "redlining," a practice where banks would mark certain areas where African Americans lived in red to ensure no financial assistance was given. What isn't always discussed is the active role the federal government took in creating, promoting, and enforcing this practice. The Federal Housing Authority, created and endorsed segregation where it did not otherwise exist. An example of the painful irony: "Rosewood Courts, Austin's Eastside project for African Americans, was built on land obtained by condemning Emancipation Park, the site of an annual festival to commemorate the abolition of slavery," (p.24). Through its housing policy, "the federal government [had] in effect been planting the seeds of Jim Crow practices throughout the region under the guise of 'respecting local attitudes," (p.37). This is what we see today as thinly-veiled racism through NIMBYism.

So many of the feelings around housing and racial justice today were justified by this book. The American Concrete Institute promoted highways to President Truman as a way to remove slums, which were created by other federal housing policy. Around 1917 (Red Scare), the US Department of Labor sent out "Own-Your-Own-Home" pamphlets implying it was a patriotic duty to invest in a single family home. The things we see today which still damage black communities were rooted in deliberate and explicit policy.

Rothstein also popped my FDR bubble. Apparently, Sec. of Commerce Herbert Hoover worked with a Frederick Law Olmsted Jr affiliate, VP Calvin Coolidge, and president of the American Construction Council, FDR. The group created explicit manuals which were later used by the Federal Housing Authority, realtors, banks, etc. to enforce specific segregation laws. Realtors went so far as to hire black people to walk on the sidewalks to scare white people into selling low, so that realtors could sell high to black families (p.95). This practice was called blockbusting. Further, "once African Americans were pushed into the Eastside...services declined." School boards relocated good schools into white neighborhoods and relocated existing schools that were integrated into black-only neighborhoods: "it constructed a new high school for African American students near a glue factory and city dump, far from white area," (p.133). Once again, it's further proof that government officials, police, realtors, and land use practitioners all need to meaningfully reckon with the shameful history each profession bears in regard to race relations.

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in a history of racial policy in the US. It is comprehensive in its documentation and forward looking.

Other notes:

Morally strong" "under our constitutional system, government has not merely the option but the responsibility to resist racially discriminatory views, even when- especially when- a majority holds them," (p.216). 

Central Florida got a shoutout: "The Orlando suburb of Apopka adopted an ordinance banning blacks from living on the north side of the railroad tracks and whites from living on the south side...until 1968," (p.47).

The fact remains the same today as it did then: far-right white men are the most violent population in our country. Citing a series of firebombings in Chicago in 1919, "policemen at the scene refused to arrest the attacker. Subsequent battles between whites and blacks left thirty-eight dead (twenty three of whom were African American)," (p.144).  

As a sidenote reflection on the state of livable wages and workers rights in our country, the author had an interesting footnote on p.181 explaining that factory jobs were no better than service jobs are in principle, but it was the unionization of factory jobs which allowed those workers to enter into the middle class. 

Something unique about this book is the entire chapter on potential solutions and the subsequent FAQ, both of which I liked. One creative suggestion was that Congress could use our tax code to effectively penalize suburbs which are not taking steps toward integration through mortgage rates. I am not sure that this is the answer, but I like the idea of using tax code to get creative. 

On Freakonomics

This was a fun read. This is part of my economics mini-series of reading. Freakonomics was a good read because it was a lot of socioeconomic trends. This post is a placeholder for a more thought out review. Written 7/12/22..whoops!

The book reviewed informational disadvantages (p.73)

Funny right now - p.76 in reference to the success of civil rights and feminist movements, "It has become so unfashionable to discriminate against certain groups that all but the most insensitive people take pains to at least appear fair minded, at least in public,"

"We associate truth with convenience," (p.86) quote from John Kenneth Galbraith. 

The chapter about abortion and crime, Chapter 4, explained how through the 1980s and 1990s, crime struck the country. "Between 1980 and 2000,  there was a fifteenfold increase in the number of people sent to prison on drug charges," and many other sentences were longer than typically directed (p.121). Between years of philosophical explanations of why crime began to decrease, abortion's legalization caught up. About 20 years after abortion became legal, crime in America decreased. People who are able to plan for their families and create a safe, healthy environment for a child are far less likely to produce a child who commits crime than one who does not have access to family planning services.