We Don't Like Your Type Around Here

[Richard Brand]

                People often think of discriminatory housing policy and zoning as a problem of the past, something used to oppress people during the tumultuous sixties (www.fsu.edu/journal). True zoning was an easy and handy practice to keep “undesirables” out of neighborhoods, and possibly cities all together. In 1968 the federal government created the Fair Housing Act aimed at eliminating discriminatory housing regulations and practices. In 1979 the Supreme Court case Gladstone Realtor v Village of Bellawood the Court gave power to the Act by enforcing their penalties to anyone that violated the rights of minorities seeking to purchase a home. In the Court opinion written by Justice Powell, the focus of the Fair Housing Act was to maintain “racial balance and stability,” (www.oyez.org) He argued that the integrated neighborhoods held intrinsic value that America needed. In one fell swoop the Fair Housing Act eliminated  exclusionary housing zoning, right?

                A few weeks ago I introduced a blog about urban sprawl, the idea that people are escaping the confines and cramped condition of populated and dense urban and suburban life for the outskirts and rural communities. The problem is that the rural commute has been the realm of the more affluent class. The continued sprawl over the last several decades has brought housing communities and developed neighborhoods to areas that were once quiet and secluded. Even subdivided mobile home parks are being thrown together dotting the once clean landscape. It seems that anybody with a few acres are portioning off and selling land for houses and littering the once peaceful land that drew people out of the city. Several communities are now playing around with zoning once again. There are many who feel as if this practice dangerously resembles the racially excluding zoning practices of the 50’s and 60’s. There have even been lawsuits brought up to halt the progression of the “secluded houses.” The question to ask, however, is, are they right?

                These zoning practices that are under question are not drawn along racial lines, but rather along economic lines. The municipality that wishes to keep the population of a certain area open for higher income classes have several tools at their disposal; simply increasing the amount of land required for each house to a minimum of one acre or better has been the most effective zoning practice so far. It might include following a certain, more expensive building pattern, requiring certain, high dollar, building materials on the outside, or even having a minimum square footage requirement can stop the building of lower priced more affordable homes. These zoning requirements are carefully crafted and laid out as to have no hint of racial discrimination. Anyone who can afford these homes and meet the financial requirements may occupy these homes and are a welcomed addition to the community. What is discriminatory about these practices?

                Many people will argue that the socio-economic standards required for these kinds of zoning laws are by their very nature pointed against minorities. The idea of the protractors are that the idea image of those who can afford high dollar houses are the rich white people. Therefore the zoning must be trying to keep out minorities, which are historically the poorer income base, from integrating into these dens of opulence. This is not the case however. These homeowners and city planners claim that the use of these practices are not designed to be “exclusionary” limiting the access into a community, but rather a limitation to the risk of devaluing a home’s value and thereby is actually inviting anyone who wishes to invest in their home without fear of losing the investment over new, and lesser, valued housing being built next to their home.

                The question being asked in not about how has what, or who is discriminated, but rather does the government have the right to force social equity on people. Does the person who attains a higher income level, and is willing to work toward affluence have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor? There are already in place certain assistance programs and housing programs that can ensure that anyone can have a place to call home. The idea of an inclusionary housing policy does not further the push of helping the poor, but rather penalizing anyone with a desire to better themselves and seeks a more affluent life.

                In a paper by Dr. Mueller of the University of Texas, she applauds the idea of a more socially equitable “inclusionary” zoning policy. She claims there should be no areas that have a minimum land or value requirement. In her paper she claims that these houses should be offset by the government, if needed, for a period of  35 to 40 years. “Some cities are exploring ways to extend this period with the purchase of land grants and such.” Her plan is to give builder density bonuses rewarding builder for compacting the neighborhoods, and rewarding smaller individual units. If you decide to read this paper, please keep in mind the principles of Marxism and you will be frightened by the similarity. She is appalled by the fact that the Texas legislature since 2005 voted down laws calling for inclusionary zoning and is one of only two states that has passed laws outlawing required “inclusionary zoning.”

                We are a Christian school and we are trying to view life through a lens of Christian Ethics. The question I pose to you is simply this, does Christian ethics call for communal, socio-economic equality? Is there a requirement for anyone professing Christian faith to give up any form of wealth and live in a beehive-style housing unit? The quick answer is “of course” see to the poor, and my favorite, a rich man must give up his wealth to enter heaven. One question, how does one explain Abraham? Job? David, Solomon? They were wealthy by all accounts. There are others whose wealth was displayed in the old scriptures. These men were Godly and prosperous at the same time.  

                The second question is just as simple, do we as potential city planners owe an obligation to the poorer citizens? Is it equitable all people involved to use either “exclusionary” or “inclusionary” zoning practices? Do we plan a city more integrated at the risk of losing certain residents, or create certain zoning areas that encourage a wealthier populace?

Please remember that there are no right or wrong answers and that the point of all of these exercises is to create open, scholarly debate, please feel free to leave comments. I would love to hear your thoughts.

[3pks5gsm8csbe]

Since we are a Christian school, we do our best to understand and apply Christian ethics; however, we cannot assume that such practices are held across the country. Our government itself should be seen as influenced by many Christian ideals but it cannot simply apply them to every government practice. Some programs and ideas are free of Christian ethics and are based on what is right for the people. In my opinion, the idea of re-zoning areas centered around socio-economic lines provides security for the investments of others. As I see it, it is more unfair for my house to lose the value in which I paid, or am paying, because of the freedom of others to destroy it by building something of lesser value. 

The re-zoning procedures are not calling out a certain minority, but rather a certain socio-economic group as stated. Therefore, it is not the fault of the government if the minority is affected. At this point in our history as a nation, it becomes less important to not allow certain monetary zones to become implemented because of possible minority fall out. There are many homes in affluent neighborhoods owned by government subsidized programs such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which make it possible for all socio-economic groups to retain housing in those areas.  

The problem is not the question of whether we treat people as economically equal, but rather realizing the fact that people are simply not. Also, we should not assume that all rich people are going to abide by Christian ideals because that is just not so. A city planner’s only obligation is to develop a city that meets the needs of the people in it or the people they wish to bring to it and should be without emotion.

[27a5kggx4ujf5]

                The second question is just as simple, do we as potential city planners owe an obligation to the poorer citizens? Is it equitable all people involved to use either “exclusionary” or “inclusionary” zoning practices? Do we plan a city more integrated at the risk of losing certain residents, or create certain zoning areas that encourage a wealthier populace?

I agree that Christian ethics definitely calls us to have no divisions among social class.  The Bible stresses over and over again, our mandate to help those in need and to show no partiality towards those with money.  As far as whether or not wealth is necessarily a bad thing - this question is certainly not black and white (like most in the Bible).  It's clear that God does not want us to make money, possessions, or blessings an idol.  He is a God who is concerned with the heart and therefore makes Him the only one who is able to judge our motives and sins.  Matthew 6:24 state, "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."  With men like Job, Abraham, David, and Solomon, God was constantly testing where their loyalties lay.  All of those men proved learned that regardless of the blessings they had been giving, when the Lord calls you to lay them at His feet, or rather takes them away from us, He remains the one true constant we can lean upon.  I think God blesses some people abundantly and and those with a giving, open-handed heart, know that what they have does not belong to them, but importantly, it is not where they find their joy.  God many times blesses people with success and money in order that they might use it to further their kingdom.  He is capable or reaching us and teaching us lessons and doesn't always do that through financial stresses.  God loves the poor equally regardless of how much money, possessions, wealth, or power he blesses them with.  I think both groups can be followers of Christ who love him with the things they have been given. 

Luckily, we live in a country like America where there is potential for those in poverty to work their way up and gain more opportunities than the generation before them experienced.  Although through exclusionary zoning, this seems in possible, we don't like with a caste system where you are trapped in the life you were born into.  I do think it is much more difficult to rise above your situation if you were born poor, have a poor family, and live in a poor area but there are certainly people who can do it.  As a social worker, I am definitely in favor of giving the poorer citizens equal opportunity.  I do think there are many children who do not get the opportunity to see anything other than the city they are surrounded by.  Many urban kids who live in apartment complexes because their parents cannot afford a house, or live in more run down neighborhoods or trailer parks have only witnessed the lifestyle of other poverty-stricken children.  All they know is gang activity, dysfunctional homes, abuse, drug use, lack or parenting, etc.  I can certainly see a positive side to inclusionary zoning where these children would have the opportunity to grow up next to a family who can set a good example.  I think that could be revolutionary. 

 

[Chelsea Nelson]

I think that city planners have the obligation to build a city according to the specific needs that the city needs and that more often that not includes building specific areas that are split in accordance with their socio-economic group but I do think that as Christians we are called to a higher standard than that of the norm.  I know that in my life I want to make the decision to give God glory through the decisions I make and while I know that realistically not everyone agrees or does that I can only draw upon what I believe to be true.  And that is that God created us equal and that means every man and women have the right to live where they want and conduct themselves how they want.  I think that there is no need for "re-zoning" of any kind.  If someone is unable to purchase a house in an affluent area then they won't be living there.  Socio-economic groups often do dictate the status you have in life but constitutionally (and biblically) we are equals.  I think that we should allow people to live where they choose to live and not to place a road block block to prevent them from living in a certain area of town or specific gated community.  While being a Christ follower is most likely the driving force behind why i believe that I also would like to believe that it is justice and freedom that propels my ideals forward.

[Luisa Gutierrez]

I earnestly do not believe in socio-economic equality even though the bible teaches us not to make others less than we are. I am the type of person who believes that God rewards people. My reason for this is Gods “good for goods” system. If I pursue godliness, witness and testify to people, God will most likely reward me for my work in the ministry. Now just because God has blessed me with a nice house, and a car does not mean that I should give away 99% of my wealth and go live somewhere in a small beat-up apartment. We all deserve to live in a good area but as Proverbs 14:23 says, “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.” Without work, I and other minorities will not succeed in life nor have the economic status that we desire.  It is reasonable to give a small portion of my theoretical wealth to the less fortunate, but donations can only go so far in this world.

Now concerning the zoning of citizens, I would like to start by saying that I find that morally wrong. One because we are shooting people down and diminishing them by blocking their entrance into a community that is better off in economics and crime rates. With that, it also is unfair to the wealthy if they are forced to have their ten acre mansion on the same street as a simple and dreary log cabin on an inferior looking piece of land. If they spend extra money to live in a beautiful neighborhood, they deserve the right to appeal the construction of the small house. For example, how would a gentlemen’s club with look in Dallas’s Highland Park?  I assume that you believe it appears quite deranged, right? Therefore zoning is not the nicest thing to do, but this is the land of the free and one can choose how to live and where to live wherever they want considering they have the economic funds.

City Planners are only there to provide need and create a city that will attract money. We have to be realistic that is the goal of every city and, I don’t believe that for money governments and city planners are willing to sacrifice for couple of residents who aren’t able to afford it. City planners are trying to do what is best and make sure that whatever they are planning will bring money and will be of great use. As we know the rich are influential in government decisions so really there is not much we cannot do but I do know that everyone has a choice to make progress in life.

 

[0z87rm8mahiji]

Approaching this from a Christian point of view, I believe one is blessed according to his/her walk and sacrifice with God. Yes, there are people that are unfortunate in this life and do not have the same means and goods others have. Yet, i do not see the harm of the idea of a more socially equitable “inclusionary” zoning policy. As long there are other housing programs for the poor, which there are.

Some times i think we over analyze the scriptures where we limit ourselfs to do something. Because in my believes the bible encourages believers to persue better in life. Richard gives a great example in the lifes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc. These were great leaders that were wealthy. However, the other Isrealites where living simple, but they were taken care of. I believe it is just like that today, as long if we take care of the one's that do not have the provision as the others have it is ok.

I do believe city planners have a obligation to the poor. As a city planner one cannot only think abouth the wealthy, but also needs to consider the middle class, and the poor. Economically seen all three classes contribute to the its city economy. One cannot exclude a social class based on the contribution it adds to the economy. As a city all socio- economic groups are needed. This is how one creates a wealthier city populace. Do they need to integrade these groups, yes. We can learn from one another as people. If there is segregation of these socio-economic groups there is no comprehention of one another's value of life, and one has a harder time to develop himself better. I believe that having money does not make one better than another person. Although I do believe it provides one with better opportunities. As I mentioned in my first statement I do not see no harm if they would apply these zonning policies.