Several years ago, a developer petitioned my hometown for a zoning waiver. He was building an affordable housing development of fewer than 50 units under a program started by the Obama administration.
I was upset. We didn't live on a typical suburban street. The lots were 50 by 100, and a third had three-family homes. It was designed in the 1930s. It was a narrow street. Two cars couldn't pass if someone was parked at the curb. No-never-mind. Cars were a luxury at that time. People walked to work. Families were lucky to own one car. In the 1960s, the south end of the street was cut off from the rest of town by I-95.
Jobs no longer are a walk away. Cars are necessities. Some families had four cars, so members could get to school and work. The new units would bring approximately 75 more cars to a street that was only a tenth of a mile long.
I researched the developer. It had several affordable housing projects in the county and all were well managed. I went to town hall and saw the plans. The developer wanted a waiver that I thought troublesome, a reduction in the mandatory number of parking spaces. I presumed it would cause problems. I wanted the zoning committee only to deny the parking variance. At a town meeting, the developer argued that experience said it would not be a problem.
At meetings and in curbside conversations, my neighbors did not care about the parking issue. They talked in vagueries. I realized that their protest was about race. They assumed affordable housing would change the racial makeup of the neighborhood, an already mixed-race neighborhood
A journalist visited me, asked a few questions, and took notes. I got the distinct impression he did not understand the tight focus of my position. He took a picture. A neighbor put a no affordable housing sign on the edge of her property. The reporter identified it as mine.
The developer received his waiver. My neighbors were terrified. The developer built the apartment complex. Its contractors moved their vehicles and supplies across the narrow street with as much courtesy as possible. It was finished and units were rented. As the developer promised, there were no issues with parking.
I was glad.
A developer tried a similar project in a wealthier section of town. Wealth provided greater access to power and attorneys. The developer ran into the stone wall of Not-in-My-Backyard (especially if it involves people of color).
These are the people who foster and perpetuate inequity in America. They don't see. They don't want to see how their shortsighted selfishness limits the futures of their children, towns, and America.
The value of real estate acts as a segregation force in most states. The artificial world of suburban America, with its unjustifiable lot requirements, drives up the value of land, making it unaffordable for 60% of the American population. Combine that with the racist real estate and banking practices of the 1960s and 1970s, which created poverty zones, and in some cases, they facilitated the decline of neighborhoods, even cities, and you get an innovative Jim Crow system.
This confluence created unparalleled education inequity.
Real estate taxes support education. The wealthier the neighbor, the greater the tax revenue, the more money for schools. The poorer, less revenue, less for schools. The difference in money allocated per student can vary as much as 33% among school districts. Which student has a better chance of receiving a quality education? The kids from the wealthier neighborhoods. It's not much different than the "separate but equal" education programs of the Jim Crow South.
Connecticut's lame affordable housing program was an attempt to rectify this problem. The idea is simple. Spread affordable housing in all of Connecticut's towns. The program hopes to give more students an equal opportunity to succeed, enabling the students, their families, and the state to improve. People will be happier, more productive, wealthier.
It's not the best program, but it's a damn sight better than what the Don wants. Our jester of a president has "painted a false picture of the suburbs as under siege and ravaged by crime, using fear-mongering language...Mr. Trump said on Twitter that 'people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream' would 'no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low-income housing built in your neighborhood.' The president was referring to the administration’s decision last week to roll back an Obama-era program intended to combat racial segregation in suburban housing."
He has finally donned his racist crown, showing the world his disregard for what amounts to 30% of the nation's population. He doesn't give a lick for the well-being of some 99 million Americans. In doing so, he hurts the future of 330 million Americans.
It might be time for Donny to stop wearing black suits. He might look more natural wearing a white cone.
P.S.: As appeared in the New York Times: “'In the presidential campaign of 1968, my father, Governor George Wallace, understood the potential political power of downtrodden and disillusioned working class white voters who felt alienated from government,' his daughter, Peggy Wallace Kennedy, said by email the other day. 'And Donald Trump is mining the same mother lode.'"
No comments:
Post a Comment