Racism and Housing

Housing advocates frequently claim that racism explains the large gap in home ownership between whites and non-whites. To overcome this racism, they call for government programs to help non-whites purchase homes.

It is true that past racism did deter home ownership among non-whites, but that fact must be considered in the full context. The source of that racism was government policy.

As one example, in the 1930s, the United States Federal Housing Administration (FHA) would provide mortgage insurance only for homes in white neighborhoods. This policy, which became known as “redlining,” severely restricted the ability of non-whites to obtain a mortgage. Further, FHA loans prohibited the sale or lease of a property to non-whites.

As another example, zoning was used by many cities to segregate races. In the early 1900s, California cities used zoning to prohibit laundries, which were mostly owned by Chinese, from residential neighborhoods. In 1910, Baltimore used zoning to prohibit blacks from living in white neighborhoods and vice versa.

Widespread racism can only occur when government mandates it. Only government can restrict the ability of non-whites to obtain a mortgage or prohibit them from living in a particular neighborhood.

Certainly, individuals and businesses can engage in racism. A bank can refuse to offer mortgages to non-whites. But a racist bank cannot prevent other, more enlightened, banks from doing business with non-whites. Rational bankers are more concerned with an individual’s ability to repay the loan than the color of his skin.

Government has been the primary instigator and enforcer of racism, particularly in regard to housing. The cure for these past evils is not more government programs. The cure is for government to protect the freedom of rational people to be rational.

As for the relatively small number of racists still living among us, government should let them discriminate if they so choose. Government should let them suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Abusing Statistics

    Mark Twain popularized the phrase “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The essential meaning of the phrase is that statistics can be misrepresented to support a particular position. A recent report from Housing for All Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is an example of abusing statistics. In the Introduction, the authors claim, This report……

  • |

    A Lesson from Rental Aid

    After throwing millions of Americans out of work with lockdowns, the government discovered that many of those individuals could not pay their rent. The government responded with a moratorium on evictions. And then, when landlords began to face economic hardship, the government responded with rent assistance. But according to CNBC, only $5 billion of the…

  • The Elephant in the Room

    Housing activists frequently proclaim that a household earning the minimum wage cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment. This is the elephant in the room that housing activists refuse to address. As an example, the executive director of the Capital Area Housing Partnership in Michigan writes, The fair market rent for a modest two-bedroom apartment in the…

  • |

    A Cautionary Tale

    Those with a political agenda often distort facts to suit their purpose. Opponents of rezoning in New York City are an example. They claim that rezoning displaces people of color and are citing a report published by the Churches United for Fair Housing (CUFFH). That report concluded that, While displacement trends existed before the zoning…

  • Profiteering and Property Taxes

    When a landlord raises the rent, he is often accused of profiteering—making an “excessive” or “unfair” profit. Those making such claims seldom present any evidence, other than pointing out that some corporate landlords generate billions in revenue. However, revenue is only one factor in determining profitability. Expenses—insurance, maintenance, mortgage payments, and property taxes—must also be…