Unit 5 Politics of Suburbia

Urban Migrations

Stage One (1841-1930)

• English, German

• Settled in cities, together with Americans

Stage Two (1890s to 1920s)

• Irish, Italian, Poles, Jews

• Ethnic minorities of Europe

• Discriminated, settled together

Stage Three (1910s to 1970s)

• In-migration, NOT immigration

• African Americans post reconstruction, Northern cities

• White Appalachian miners coming to city for work

Stage Four (1965-present)

• “Contemporary urban migrants” come for jobs and network of connections

• Hispanic/Latino persons

• Asians also settling into cities

• Refugees (seeking refuge)

• TPS - temporary protective status

Factors responsible for suburbanization

• Automobile

• New technology in road and residential construction

• Cultural dislike of big cities

• Invention of long-term, low down-payment mortgages

How did the federal government stimulate suburbanization?

Federal Highway Act (1965)

• Earmarked gas tax for interstate highway (by federal government)

• If you build it, they will come— Federal Government’s view on Roads

Federal Housing Administration

Veteran’s Administration

Post-War Demographic Trends

Dual Migration

• Racial minorities/poor move in, white/middle class move out

• Effect is biased

Decentralization of the Population

• Population is dispersed more broadly

Urban Gentrification

• Builders hoping to make more money. Raise property values

• Government focus: higher property = more taxes for schools, wealthy people, “cleaning things up”

• Bad: prices people out, displacement

Economic Transformation of Cities

• Cities must adopt and find newer things to bring people in. These cities recognize that the urban industrial focus won’t work out

• Pittsburgh was really slow for medical/tech rebirth

A More Class-segregated Metropolitan Area

• Less jobs for unskilled laborers

Less Promotion of the Social Mobility of the Poor

Problems with Metropolitan Government

Zoning, access to schools and housing remain major problems

• complex problems require complex solutions

Biased against citizen participation

• Not welcoming to input:

• Developers and bureaucrats are the ones running things

Reduces impact of minorities

• More minorities are spread across more districts

Metropolitan Planning Strategies

Councils of Government

• Federal funding in 1960s

• Voluntary

• Municipalities join together to address regional issues

• Success in upkeep/management

• Less/no success on “lifestyle issues” — disagreement, representing different constituencies

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)

• WMATA

• Succsesful, limited scope, mutually agreeable.

Sine the 1960s, the plurality of Americans live in…

Suburbs!

• Today, some of the “boomburbs” are larger than the nearby cities

Types of Suburbs

• “Bedroom” or “Dormitory Suburb”

• Blue Collar or Industrial Suburb

• Privatopias — CID (Common Interest Development)

• Bedroom Developing Suburbs

• Exurbs

• Minority Dominated Suburbs

• Disaster Suburbs

• Edge Cities

• Melting pot suburbs

“Bedroom” or “Dormitory Suburb”

• Ideal, “picturesque” suburb, with two parents, kids, the original suburb

Blue Collar or Industrial Suburb

• Built close to manufacturing plant

• Smaller lots, less idyllic, less extras

Privatopias — CID (Common Interest Development)

• People living in gated community think of yourself as taxpayers instead citizens— self focus instead of comunity

• Property taxes viewed as “I want something in return” directly instead of, “I live here so I help pay for community”

• Gated community. Could buy your way in

• Not all are gated communities: but all have rules

• Exclusivity is bottom line

Bedroom Developing Suburbs

• Lower middle class

• Lack the tax base for good services

Exurbs

• Located fair amount away from main city

• Their politics differ

• Distinct from urban center

Minority Dominated Suburbs

• Occur when historically these people couldn’t live in other places

Disaster Suburbs

• Blighted Communities

• Lack tax base

• Problems

Edge Cities

• Dense centers of commercial stuff

• On the cities edge

• Focuses is on offices, entertainment

Melting Pot Suburbs

• Where immigrants are settling

Lack of Heterogeneity In Suburbs (causes)

• Suburbs are often homogenous

• Often due to racial steering

  • When people want to buy a house, Realtors steer people to communities based on their race

  • Sometimes “linguistic profiling” based on accent

  • Show different homes

  • Illegal but rarely challenged: You don’t know, lawyer cost, hard to prove

  • Less frequent/blatant today

Schools in Suburbs

Reliant on Property taxes

• Education is really expensive.

• Local residents pay more in property taxes if their home is more exepsnive

• Wealthy areas will have better schools than poorer areas because there is a higher tax base

Serrano vs. Priest case (restricted the use of property taxes)

• CA Supreme Court 1971 said that unequal spending on schools violated state and federal equal protection clause

• Threat of Serrano-type challenges lead other states to find a solution to spending inequality: revenue schemes for schools

  • Lotteries for example

Rodriguez v. San Antonio

• 1973, US Supreme Court rules in 5-4 decision that school funding based on property taxes was NOT unconstitutional

  • Did not violate 14th Amendment

• Because “education” is not in US constitution, becomes a state level issue

Milliken v. Bradley (limits the use of busing)

• Suburbs do not have to join in region’s busing plans unless racial intent can be proven on part of suburbs

• It hasn’t become easier to do busing

Suburban Exclusion - (and Arlington Heights decision)

Exclusionary zoning

• Local zoning measures which keep out people who are different

• Most often occurs with prohibition of multifamily/apartments

Arlington Heights decision

• You can have discriminatory zoning

• Suburbs can state that exclusionary housing practices maintain property values. Hard to prove racial intent

Means of exclusion in Suburbs

• Prohibit multifamily housing

• Large-lot zoning

  • More expensive because property value and taxes are based off land

• Require expensive construction materials

  • Drives up prices

  • Case for “uniformity”

• Developer fees and access charges

• Design of “agricultural preserves”

• Delays and constantly shifting development standards

• Limited Growth and No Growth laws

Inclusionary Approaches for housing

Mt. Laurel Case

• NJ ordinance: Need to build a “fair share” of affordable housing

• New Case: developers can challenge communities for not building fast enough, win right to build their own, profit.

40-B Anti-snob Zoning law

• State sets at least 10% of community houses to be affordable. Deny funding to areas that don’t follow

• Modifications exempt smaller projects for the law.

• Some moderate income, little poor.

Government inclusionary programs

Density Bonuses

• Allow developer to build more units than usual with the guarantee that some are affordable

Metropolitan Fragmentation: Reason, Consequence, Remedy

Different parts of city do different things

• a lot of expensive overlap in services because city is not centrally planned or coordinated

• Everybody is doing their own thing.

Urban Sprawl

• Sprawl development is really expensive

• Duplication of services that are somewhere else

• Environmental Impact

  • More reliance on cars because no planning

Smart Growth as a Remedy

• Doesn’t take away previous destruction though.

Urban Growth Boundaries

• Developers can’t build beyond the lines

• Less houses and less land

• Portland, OR did this

New Urbanism

Create a suburb which emphasizes community: Planned

• Reduces dependency on automobiles

• Emphasizes Walkability

Annexation

Gives the city the ability to adopt another region: expand city limits

• State needs to decide to let the city do so

• Expands city to more taxable property. For example, an airport

• Water Imperialism: If you want water, you have to join LA city limits

Elastic and Inelastic Cities

• Some cities can expand. Others cannot

• Elastic Cities do well when fixing fiscal issues

City-Council Consolidation

Single tier. UNI-GOV

• Indianapolis: was done to erase black/democrat representation was up and coming

• Louisville: adopts more people, changed the way we’re counting, erases some votes

  • Doesn’t pan out in either of these cities

Merging City boundaries to be entire county

• Less Government

• People oppose

• Corporations oppose

  • The latter two want more arenas for input

Two-Tiered

• Miami: County Gov. does some things, City Gov does others

• Merges boundary: but divides duties, greater efficiency

  • Nobody else does this. Possibility a lot of work for small benefit

Three-Tiered

• Portland: multi-county regional government: elected. “METRO”

  • Handles management, successful in organizing public transportation.

  • However, too much power

• Twin Cities: appointed. MetCouncil. Less power

  • Regional TaxBase sharing. Redistributes Money. 40% of taxes

  • Mall of America

Machines Development and Downfall Review

• Machines were prevalent in many larger U.S. Cities

  • Provided tangible benefits

  • Also provided non-tangible benefits

• Reformers tried to provide “good government”

  • Non-partisan elections

  • Merit-based hiring

• Machines were also hurt by

  • Racial tensions

  • Polarization between whites and blacks

  • Growth of the Welfare State

  • Suburbanization

Suburbs development over time

• Late 19th century cities annexed the Suburbs

• Pre-21st century suburbs were non-diverse

  • Homogeneity was shaped by government policies

    • Home Owner Loan Corporation

    • FHA

    • VA

Factors affecting minority housing opportunities

• European Ethnic Groups assimilated after WWII, but not so for African Americans

• Civil Rights Act of 1964

• Urban Renewal destroyed much of the housing in the central cities

• Fair Housing Act of 1968, however biases toward whites remain

• Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

Washington DC Metropolitan Area Suburbs - Montgomery County

Montgomery County MD viewed as “liberal”

• Had a Black County Executive

• All 9 Council members are democrats

• Diverse Representation

Washington DC Metropolitan Area Suburbs - Fairfax

Fairfax VA has not had that liberal reputation

• Virginia has been more conservative and republican

• Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has members of both parties

Washington DC Metropolitan Area Suburbs - Multiethnic suburbs

Multiethnic suburbs in the DMV area are “spillover” suburbs

• found primarily in immigration zones

• Some immigrants and minorities are bypassing urban areas

• DC region has several high-income counties

Washington DC Metropolitan Area Suburbs - Multiethnic suburbs CBOS

By 2010 suburbs have rapidly increasing number of impoverished residents

• There are Community based organizations (CBOs) serving the needs of poor suburban residents in the DC area.

• Latino-serving CBOs in suburban DC have more power than those CBOs serving African Americans

• Not much success in forming alliances between these groups

Washington DC Metropolitan Area Suburbs - Electoral

• Obama’s strength in N. Virginia suburbs offsets his weakness in rural Virginia

• Obama’s strength was even seen in exurbs.

• Same for Biden in 2020

• Spanberger

Suburbs are getting stronger blue

Environmental Justice

Everyone has a right to the same quality and protections for the environment

• and everyone has a right to have a voice in policies that will affect them.

• Robert Bullard video: Houston is racially and economically in addition to environmentally segregated

Sustainable Development Triangle

← Environment ←→ Economy ←→ Social Equity →

Climate Change Metropolitan Challenges

Climate Change leads to rapid, unpredictable environmental changes

• Too much water = flooding

• Too little water = drought

• Unpredictable weather changes = impossible planning

Environmental impacts on city:

• Budgeting and Planning and Reactions

• Snow:

  • If you don’t budget at all and snow comes, people are angry and you have to spend money to fix it anyways

Federal Programs vs. State/Local programs for the Environment

Federal Programs can bring major change and big $

• But federal programs may be inconsistent — change based on Presidential priorities and views on environment

  • ex. Paris Climate Accords, Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump

  • Biden Infrastructure Bill = green energy → Trump BBB = cuts

State and local governments can tailor their programs to handle local issues

• Local leaders tend to support similar programs (agree on the problem), but is often limited because of balanced budgets for states

  • Would have to raise more money with taxes or fees