Solutions for potential response to Modesto’s past residential racial inequality

In his Second Treatise of Government, renowned Enlightenment philosopher John Locke asserted that all governments are inextricably bound to a social contract with their constituents, wherein the rulers derive authority from the consent of the governed in exchange for the protection of their “inalienable natural rights,” among which are the right to life, liberty, and property (“The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights”). Locke’s ideas established the moral and philosophical precedent that the United States, then just a loose coalition of colonies, would follow, first in justifying its Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, and subsequently, in the establishment of its Constitution. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution proclaims that the federal government shall not deprive anyone of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment applies this obligation to the states (“Due Process”). Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment articulates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws,” fundamentally prohibiting unfair or discriminatory practices by state governments (“14^th Amendment”). Yet, despite these Constitutional provisions, lawmakers at the state and federal levels have on multiple occasions adopted policies and practices that strip citizens of their aforementioned right to life, liberty, and property. This is especially evident in the case of racially restrictive real estate covenants (CC&Rs), which explicitly prevented members of certain minority groups from purchasing homes in selected neighborhoods, thus serving as an insidious tool of oppression and discrimination. Because these real estate covenants directly implicated both the state and federal government, and because they entrenched minority families in a perpetual cycle of poverty and degradation, our community is obligated to take action and make reparations for the wrongs of the past. Somewhat paradoxically, however, our solution to the situation must inevitably exclude the race card from the equation in order to remain within the confines of what is just and constitutional.

In considering our community’s obligation to respond, an important distinction must be made between de jure, or legally mandated, segregation, and de facto segregation, which is the product of factors outside the scope of the government. Opponents to government-led intervention often argue that the observed racial inequality is de facto, and cannot be directly attributed to state or federal action, thus rendering the Fourteenth Amendment intact. If the government did not produce a pattern of segregation, it has no legal obligation to correct it. This difference between de jure and de facto segregation was a primary point of contention in the 2007 Supreme Court Case Parents Involved in Community Schools vs Seattle School District No. 1, in which the plurality decided against voluntary school desegregation, on the grounds that “the discrimination in question did not result from de jure actions. And when de facto discrimination is at issue … the remedial rules are different” (“Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1”). However, this conclusion, which ascribed racial inequality in schools to ‘geographical differences’ in student residence, failed to consider the role of the government in generating said differences. As researcher Richard Rothstein explains in his critical review of the PICS case, “State action played not a minor, but the major role,” in the segregation of metropolitan areas, with “builders [receiving] federal loan guarantees on explicit condition that no sales be made to blacks and that individual deeds include restrictive covenants prohibiting resales to blacks” (Rothstein 2014). Additionally, practices like redlining, which restricted home loan access to people of color, were common in federally and state-chartered banks (Rothstein 2014). The role that federal and state agencies played in instituting the racially restrictive covenants classifies the resulting segregation as de jure, violating the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly declares “no State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (“14^th Amendment”). Although the Fair Housing Act of 1968 ultimately prohibited many of these discriminatory practices, the segregated condition of our community can still be traced to the unconstitutional actions of the government; therefore, it is the government’s responsibility to take action.

In addition to the state government’s blatant violation of the Equal Protection clause, local governments are also obligated to intervene because unfavorable living conditions in low-income, ethnic minority neighborhoods have reduced residents to a subpar standard of living. Many local residents affected by discriminatory housing practices are clustered in administrative islands known as “unincorporated areas” which are not formally included in any municipality and are thus cut off from city services. These pockets of land are seemingly ubiquitous in Modesto. Modesto Bee opinions editor Garth Stapley estimates that Stanislaus County contains 3,900 acres of unincorporated land, with over 20,000 people in unincorporated neighborhoods, many of which have inadequate access to basic amenities, infrastructure, and emergency services (Stapley 2019). These communities signify the collective failure of local, state, and federal governments to fulfill the conditions of the social contract. As articulated in the Preamble to the Constitution, the government has a fundamental responsibility to “promote the general welfare,” which encompasses the quality of life of its constituents (U.S. Const. pmbl). Additionally, the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“14^th Amendment”). However, because residents in unincorporated neighborhoods have been unlawfully deprived access to basic needs like drinking water and sewage systems, which are undeniably essential to life, the government has failed to uphold the inherent rights of its constituents. In doing so, it also fails to promote the general welfare of its people, especially the threat to public health posed by such unsanitary living conditions. Compounding the issue is evidence that, even within unincorporated regions, racial minorities fare worse. Data gathered in Modesto from 2002 to 2004 found that “911 personnel took 7.2 minutes on average to dispatch deputies to Latino islands, compared with 5.5 minutes in predominantly white unincorporated islands” (Stapley 2009). These racial disparities are a testament to the pernicious aftereffects of restrictive housing covenants, 70 years after being rendered obsolete in Shelly v. Kramer (“Shelly v. Kraemer”). As a result of diminished access to public services, inhabitants of unincorporated neighborhoods are particularly vulnerable to illness and injury, amplifying the strain on an overburdened public healthcare system. Thus, the poverty cycle has incurred significant costs not only for low-income families, but for society as a whole.

Considering much of the segregation we observe today is the product of past racially discriminatory practices, an intuitive solution might be to directly offer reparations to the minority groups affected. While proponents of this approach are morally sound in their reasoning, when it comes to constitutionality, the end does not justify the means. The provision of aid on the basis of race would contradict the principles of equality outlined in the Constitution, thus creating the very same problems it sought to correct in society. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, state governments “must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances” unless such distinction is necessary to achieve a “legitimate government objective” (“Equal Protection”). Past judicial rulings like Brown v. Board of Education complied with this stipulation; although race was an obvious focal point in mandatory desegregation, considerations of race were acceptable because segregation was an injustice universally experienced by people of color, albeit to varying degrees of severity. This meant that federally mandated desegregation represented equal treatment of individuals in “similar conditions and circumstances.” Unfortunately, socioeconomic inequality does not fall so evenly along racial or ethnic lines. Statistics from the U.S Census Bureau in 2017 found that roughly 14% of Modesto’s white residents live under the poverty line, compared to 20% of its Hispanic residents and 25% of its black residents (United States Census Bureau). While this data certainly highlights socioeconomic differences between demographics, it also reveals the large extent to which poverty (and subsequently, segregated living conditions) can affect all people, regardless of race. Economic status, not race, is the common denominator among victims, so only by extending the same opportunities to all low-income families can our community simultaneously uphold the tenets of equal protection and improve residents’ quality of life.

In an attempt to improve conditions in segregated neighborhoods, some local governments have already begun to allocate funding for infrastructure development in unincorporated islands. While these policies represent a step in the right direction, they will never be able to alleviate the mass poverty and de facto segregation that plague the community. Combating socioeconomic disparity is much like battling the mythical hydra: just as severing one head will result in the regeneration of another, merely addressing the symptoms of poverty, rather than its root causes, will fail to catalyze meaningful change. Instead, government policies should aim to enable and empower victims of the vicious cycle to liberate themselves.

With these conditions in mind, local governments would best be served with a two-pronged approach to the crisis. The first prong? Reincorporation. Although some “islands” within Stanislaus County have been annexed in recent years, approximately 898 acres remain outside city limits (Stapley 2019). If city jurisdictions expanded to include these unincorporated areas, hundreds of families would gain access to public services and amenities. Formal annexation would also enfranchise residents of these areas, enabling them to vote for representatives of their respective municipalities. Thus, incorporation would generate a substantial improvement in the standard of living for low-income families, and lend them the democratic tools they need to ensure the continuation of those benefits. Moreover, because it targets geographic regions, not specific individuals or demographics, incorporation factors out any consideration of racial or ethnic background.

Another essential tool at the government’s disposal is the provision of loan assistance and aid to the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Federal programs like the Federal National Mortgage Association, colloquially termed “Fannie Mae,” practice lenient lending policies that favor low-income borrowers, allowing clients to “secure financing and purchase a home with a low down payment” and reducing interest rates on homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure (Connett 2019). Programs like Fannie Mae grant low-income families greater mobility and alleviate their financial burdens, allowing them to purchase homes in safer neighborhoods without stressing over monthly mortgage payments. This proactive approach enhances community diversity while avoiding the controversy and inefficient use of resources that would arise from the reservation of property for minority families. Alternatively, the federal government can provide community development block grants (CDBGs) that finance “economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale physical development projects” in underserved neighborhoods, ultimately increasing the value of the surrounding property and catalyzing an economic revival (“Community Development Block Program – CDBG”). By framing poverty and segregation as problems of income, rather than race, these financial aid programs abide by the Constitutional standard of equal protection, all while accommodating the needs of the poor.

The socioeconomic disparities that pervade our community exemplify the age-old aphorism, “Two wrongs do not make a right.” Although the segregated condition of our neighborhoods traces its origins to past de jure discrimination, by defaulting to the same tactic, modern governments will only succeed in traveling full circle. Real change will commence when policymakers address poverty like a treatable medical condition. Latino and African-American families are not born with a genetic disposition for poverty, nor are white families immune to poverty. The only fair and constitutional way to treat poverty stemming from past wrongs is through education, and through implementation of financial assistance programs whereby families qualify based on need, rather than by their racial or ethnic background.

Nicholas Panyanouvong is a senior at Enochs High School in Modesto. He was awarded a $2,000 scholarship.

Works Cited

“Community Development Block Grant Program- CDBG.” The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development. Web. Accessed 1 Oct. 2019. <https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs>.

Connett, Wendy. “Fannie Mae: What It Does and How It Operates.” Investopedia. 24 June. 2019. Web. Accessed 27 Sept. 2019. <https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/091814/fannie-mae-what-it-does-and-how-it-operates.asp>

“The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights.” Constitutional Rights Foundation. Web. Accessed 22 Sept. 2019. <https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html>.

“Due Process.” Legal Information Institute. Web. Accessed 22 Sept. 2019. <https:///www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process>.

“14^th Amendment: Citizenship Rights, Equal Protection, Apportionment, Civil War Debt.” National Constitution Center. Web. Accessed 22 Sept. 2019. <https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv>.

“Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)”. Justia Law. Web. Accessed 22 Sept. 2019. <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/701/>.

Rothstein, Richard. “What Have We – De Facto Racial Isolation or De Jure Segregation?” American Bar Association. 1 July. 2014. Web. Accessed 22 Sept. 2019. <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/2014_vol_40/vol_40_no_3_poverty/racial_isolation_or_segregation/>

“Shelly v. Kraemer, 334 U.S 1 (1948).” Justia Law. Web. Accessed 25 Sept. 2019. <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/1/>

Stapley, Garth. “Ruling Revives Latino Lawsuits Treatment of Four County ‘Islands’ At Center of Dispute.” The Modesto Bee. 9 October. 2009. Web. Accessed 25 Sept. 2019.

Stapley, Garth. “2019 American Heritage Scholarship Program.” Lecture. 2019 American Heritage Scholarship Program. Beyer High School, Modesto. Web. Accessed 24 Sept. 2019. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR38WjPtm8o>

United States Census Bureau. 2017. Web. Accessed 25 Sept. 2019. <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF>

U.S Constitution. Preamble.