March 29, 2021|Affordable Housing, Fair Lending
Chicago’s neighbor Evanston
Reparations is definitely not a topic that folks can joke and shrug off as easily as picking sides in the wholesale mortgage media spin wars[1]. Rather, discussion of reparations tends to provoke a particularly emotional and divisive reaction regardless of whether you are for, against, or (like Chicagoans Bill Murray and Harold Ramis in Stripes) “willing to learn”. So, when Chicago’s[2]close by suburb, Evanston[3], announced last week that it was going to be the first place to offer “reparations” to address the Black homeownership gap, it certainly got my attention. As a university town bordering Chicago’s lakefront and north side, Evanston has long been a very liberal/progressive place; frankly, Evanston is much less deserving of a reckoning on its housing issues than its larger neighbor to the south with the Big Shoulders[4].
The homeownership gap redux
I have discussed the shameful issue of the racial homeownership gap many times in this blog. See e.g., here from 2020 and more recently here. The precise causes of the Black home ownership gap can be debated like the causes of global warming and the role of carbon emissions, but there is no doubt that: (i) a 30% racial gap has persisted for over 50 years, and (ii) racism played (or plays) a role. But, before I address Evanston’s program, given the sensitive nature of the reparations topic, I want to remind all of us of one of the things that makes us special as Americans. No, not barbeque, (but, that is quite special): it is a shared belief in free speech and the right to criticize the government.
Picking quarrels
In case anyone is confused, China, the country that brought you COVID-19, is no place to speak your mind. Recently, The Dispatch reported,
“A Chinese court handed down a four-year jail sentence to Zhang Zhan, a 37-year-old independent journalist who provided early coverage of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, in a closed-door trial widely regarded as illegitimate by the international community. Authorities convicted Zhang on the ambiguous charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” which are often assigned to human rights activists and critics of the Chinese Community Party (CCP).”
Books have been written about how politics are fracturing our nation, and even the political parties themselves, but, if nothing else, what separates us from China is that we all agree that the right to use speech to criticize the government is an essential part of what it means to be an American. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that doing so peaceably will not land you in jail for 4 years like it will for Ms. Zhan or any other Chinese citizen who criticizes the CCP.
Ta Nehisi Coates and reparations
Speaking of picking quarrels, Ta Nehisi Coates is probably the most prominent and articulate supporter of the concept of reparations in the United States. Coates’ seminal article, “The Case for Reparations”, published in the Atlantic magazine in 2014, discussed, among other things, how institutional and actual racism persisted in the housing markets (using Chicago’s North Lawndale neighborhood as an example) well after the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws of the 1960’s were enacted. Coates’ idea of reparations, however, is not merely about subsidizing survivors and victims of slavery, Jim Crow and discrimination with broad stroke economic justice. Rather, his concept of reparations is about the acknowledgement of injustices and acceptance of responsibility. Specifically, Coates said,
“What I’m talking about is more than recompense for past injustices—more than a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe. What I’m talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal.”
In a 2019 interview with the New Yorker, Coates elaborated,
“First you need the actual crime documented. You need the official imprimatur of the state: they say this actually happened. I just think that’s a crucial, crucial first step…, you have a commission…, to figure out how we pay it back. I think it’s crucial to tie reparations to specific acts. This is not ‘I checked black on my census, therefore….’” [emphasis added]
Coates is clear. Reparations need to be tied to specific acts and are not just a handout to anyone who says they are Black. Reparations need to be a catalyst for self-reflection and acceptance of responsibility for past injustices.
Evanston’s reparations?
So, what exactly is Evanston’s program and how does it work as reparations? According to NPR, the city claims the program will grant qualifying households up to $25,000 for down payments or home repairs and further that, “eligible Black residents must either have lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 or be a direct descendant of someone who did. According to program guidelines, people who do not meet these criteria may apply if they can prove they faced housing discrimination due to city policies or practices after 1969.” That seems consistent with Coates’ requirement to tie to specific acts and go beyond a census question on race.
Further, as Coates suggested, Evanston studied its historical housing issues and documented its history of racial segregation and discrimination. But, here’s where Evanston gets away from Coates’ concept of reparations. Evanston’s report[5]notes, “While black people were segregated …, black Evanstonians ‘were almost as likely to own their own homes as middle class and elite whites’.
Again, while I fully support targeted programs offering new solutions to ameliorate the homeownership gap, Evanston’s own report says its racial problems relate to segregation, not a homeownership gap. While it is a problem nationally, Evanston doesn’t actually have a homeownership gap, it has a segregation problem. Unfortunately, the Evanston program’s housing grants to eligible households are not at all targeted to address Evanston’s historical segregation issues. Frankly, if Evanston really wanted to do something about segregation or housing desirability and affordability generally arising from racial issues perhaps instead it could take a harder look at its NIMBY zoning laws[6].
Reparations or just a housing subsidy?
But the key revelation with Evanston’s program is how they plan to pay for it. What “reckoning” does Evanston expect to generate with a housing subsidy to be entirely paid by a new (regressive) tax on local marijuana sales? Given the demographics of Evanston and weed use, I would cynically suggest that’s just likely to mostly transfer money from minorities and NU students to the program recipients. “Woke”[7] college students and local minorities are probably not the folks needing the “reckoning” that Coates or other reparation proponents have in mind.
Evanston may only be wanting to kick start a conversation, but calling this program “reparations” is unnecessarily divisive. In my view, using the reparations label to describe the program unnecessarily shifts attention away from the laudable goal of lowering the homeownership gap towards Evanston’s performative progressivism. Reparation advocates are now criticizing Evanston saying that reparations must do alot more. I am still hopeful Evanston’s program helps some worthy people regardless.
[1] Between last summer’s Casa vs. Niemiec episode and the recent exclusionary contract issues, wholesale seems to have turned into WWF style pro-wrestling. Which is Hulk Hogan and which is Randy “Macho Man” Savage?
[2] I grew up in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood, just down Sheridan Road a bit from Evanston.
[3]Home to Northwestern University and many “Lakefront Liberals”.
[4] I always thought it was “broad shoulders”, but Carl Sandburg’s poem actually says “big shoulders”.
[5]Interestingly, the report available online is still labeled as “Draft” despite Evanston proceeding with its plan.
[6]Check out this YIMBY program in California that seems to be having good success.
[7]Woke and baked?