Suchergebnisse

The One-Way Street of Integration examines two contrasting housing policy approaches to achieving racial justice. Integration initiatives and community development efforts have been for decades contrasting means of achieving racial equity through housing policy. Edward G. Goetz doesn't see the solution to racial injustice as the government moving poor and nonwhite people out of their communities, and by tracing the tensions involved in housing integration and policy across fifty years and myriad developments he shows why.Goetz's core argument, in a provocative book that shows today's debates about housing, mobility, and race have deep roots, is that fair housing advocates have adopted a spatial strategy of advocacy that has increasingly brought it into conflict with community development efforts. The One-Way Street of Integration critiques fair housing integration policies for targeting settlement patterns while ignoring underlying racism and issues of economic and political power. Goetz challenges liberal orthodoxy, determining that the standard efforts toward integration are unlikely to lead to racial equity or racial justice in American cities. In fact, in this pursuit it is the community development movement rather than integrated housing projects that has the greatest potential for connecting to social change and social justice efforts.

New Deal Ruins -- Contents -- Preface -- List of Abbreviations -- Introduction: Public Housing and Urban Planning Orthodoxy -- 1. The Quiet Successes and Loud Failures of Public Housing -- 2. Dismantling Public Housing -- 3. Demolition in Chicago, New Orleans, and Atlanta -- 4. "Negro Removal" Revisited -- 5. The Fate of Displaced Persons and Families -- 6. Effects and Prospects in Revitalized Communities -- Conclusion: The Future of Public Housing -- Appendix -- Notes -- References -- Index.

David Imbroscio's argument about exclusionary zoning contains several salient arguments that deserve the attention of those working on issues of housing justice, racial justice, and urban equity. Attention to Imbroscio's concerns can strengthen efforts to produce greater regional equity in American metropolitan areas. I find two main elements of his argument, however, unconvincing. First, his assertion that the anti-exclusionary zoning movement "is underlain by a deep commitment to neoliberalism" is a misreading of the greater history and aims of anti-exclusionist advocacy and scholarship. Second, his claim that anti-exclusionism is anti-democratic suffers from an overly narrow and process-focused concept of democracy that ignores historical and enduring power dynamics of local land-use politics as they are and have been expressed within a system of White racial domination.

This article offers a critique of developments within fair housing thought in the United States that have brought it into conflict with community development approaches to high-poverty, segregated urban neighborhoods. I argue that the spatial strategies of Fair Housing have expanded from an initial orientation toward opening up the suburbs to nonwhite occupancy to efforts aimed at breaking up communities of color in central areas. The shifting gaze of Fair Housing toward neighborhoods of concentrated poverty has manifest itself in both a criticism of and opposition to affordable housing programs in central areas and support for what Chicago Fair Housing Attorney Alexander Polikoff calls the "radical surgery" of displacement and demolition of existing communities of color.