Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T19:05:40.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Government, Suburban Segregation and Litigation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

R. J. Johnston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A major characteristic of the social and spatial morphology of urban areas in advanced capitalist societies is the residential segregation of different socioeconomic, life style, and ethnic groups. The basic rationale for this segregation is common to most societies, as is its production via the operation of housing markets. In addition, however, each country has its own particular characteristics which accentuate the general processes. One such characteristic in the United States is the nature of the local government system in most States.

The aim of this paper is to identify die main features of that system as they apply to the geography of residential separation. The discussion is set within die context of the general processes of American local government and indicates how these have encouraged segregation. The paper then turns to a discussion of the use of the courts and die Fourteendi Amendment to challenge the amalgam of housing market and local government processes, and evaluates the likely outcome of the series of challenges.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , August 1981 , pp. 211 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

R. J. Johnston is Professor of Geography at the University of Sheffield.The work on which this paper is based was financed in part by a grant from the Nuffield Foundation Social Sciences Small Grants Scheme

1 Herbert, D. T. and Johnston, R. J. (eds.), Social Areas in Cities (London: J. Wiley, 1976, two volumes)Google Scholar.

2 Johnston, R. J., City and Society: An Outline for Urban Geography (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1980)Google Scholar.

3 Pahl, R. E., Whose City? (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1975)Google Scholar.

4 Palm, R., “Financial and Real Estate Institutions in the Housing Market: A Study of Recent House Price Changes in the San Francisco Bay Area,” in Herbert, D. T. and Johnston, R. J. (eds.), Geography and the Urban Environment, Vol. 2 (London: J. Wiley, 1979), pp. 83–124Google Scholar.

5 Boal, F. W., “Ethnic Residential Segregation,” in Herbert, D. T. and Johnston, R. J. (eds.), Social Areas in Cities: Processes, Patterns and Problems (London, J. Wiley, 1978). pp. 57–96Google Scholar.

6 Flowerdew, R., “Spatial Patterns of Residential Segregation in a Southern City,” American Studies, 13 (1979), 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Duncan, O. D. and Duncan, B., The Negro Population of Chicago (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

8 Berry, B. J. L. and Kasarda, J. D., Contemporary Urban Ecology (New York: Macmillan, 1976)Google Scholar.

9 Gordon, D. M., “Class Struggle and the Stages of American Urban Development,” in Perry, D. C. and Watkins, A. J. (eds.), The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities (Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1977), pp. 19–54Google Scholar; Nelson, H. J., “The Vernon Area, California: A Study of the Political Factor in Urban Geography,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, 42 (1952), pp. 177–91Google Scholar.

10 Danielson, M. N., The Politics of Exclusion (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1976)Google Scholar.

11 Sagalyn, L. B. and Sternlieb, G., Zoning and Housing Costs (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1973)Google Scholar; James, F. J. and Hughes, J. W., Modelling State Growth: New Jersey 1980 (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1973)Google Scholar.

12 James, F. J. and Windsor, O. D., “Fiscal Zoning, Fiscal Reforms, and Exclusionary Land Use Controls,” Journal, American Institute of Planners, 42 (1976), pp. 130–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Williams, O. P. and Ekland, K., “Segregation in a Fragmented Context: 1950–1970,” in Cox, K. R. (ed.), Urbanization and Conflict in Market Societies (London: Methuen, 1978), pp. 213–28Google Scholar.

14 Cox, K. R. and Nartowicz, F. Z., “Jurisdictional Fragmentation in the American Metropolis: Alternative Perspectives,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 4 (1980), pp. 196–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Castells, M., The Urban Question (London: Edward Arnold, 1977)Google Scholar.

16 The case was Buchanan v Warley – 245 US 60 – (1917): see Vose, C. E., Caucasians Only (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1959)Google Scholar.

17 There were several cases; the key one was Shelley v Kraemer – 334 US 1 (1948): sec Kellogg, C. V., N.A.A.C.P. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

18 Baratz, J. C., A Quest for Equal Opportunity in a Major Urban School District: The Case of Washington D.C. (Washington, D.C.: 1975)Google Scholar.

19 Lupu, I. C., “Untangling the Strands of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Michigan Law Review, 77 (1979), 981–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar (quote from pp. 991–92).

20 Clark, W. A. V., “Residential Mobility and Neighbourhood Change: Some Implications for Racial Residential Segregation,” Urban Geography, 1 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Clotfelter, C. T., “Spatial Rearrangement and the Tiebout Hypothesis: The Case of School Desegregation,” Southern Economic Journal, 42 (1975), 263–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Quotes taken from Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Supreme Court (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1979), p. 606Google Scholar.

23 California State Department of Education, Beyond Serrano: Paying for California's Public Schools (Sacramento, 1977)Google Scholar. The relevant sections of the California Constitution state that “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement” and “The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools.”

24 Johnson, M. B. and Collins, J. N., “Fiscal Equity and the Wisconsin School Finance Reform: Nonnegative Aid Constraints,” Land Economics, 55 (1979), 334–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 For an extended discussion, see Pearlman, K., “The Closing Door: The Supreme Court and Residential Segregation,” American Institute of Planners Journal, 44 (1978), 160–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Lamb, C. M. and Lustig, M. S., “The Burger Court, Exclusionary Zoning, and the Activist-Restraint Debate,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 40 (1979), 169–226Google Scholar.

27 Rose, J. G., “The Courts and the Balanced Community: Recent Trends in New Jersey Zoning Law,” American Institute of Planners Journal, 39 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Bisgaier, C. S., “Notes on Implementation,” in Rose, J. G. and Rothman, R. E. (eds.), After Mount Laurel: The New Suburban Zoning (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1977), p. 146Google Scholar.

29 Rose, J. G. and Levin, M. R., “What is a “Developing Municipality?” Real Estate Law Journal, 4 (1976)Google Scholar.

30 Interestingly, one result of the growth control plan appears to be that house prices in Petaluma have increased more rapidly than in surrounding settlements: Schwartz, S. I. et al. , The Effect of Growth Management on New Housing Prices: Petaluma, California (Davis, California: Institute of Government Affairs, University of California, Davis, 1979)Google Scholar.

31 See Anon, “Developments in the Law – Zoning,” Harvard Law Review, 91 (1978), pp. 1227–708Google Scholar.

32 Rose, J. G. “Myths and Misconceptions of Exclusionary Zoning Litigation,” Real Estate Law Journal, 8 (1979), 99–124Google Scholar.

33 Slonim, M. and Lowe, J. H., “Judicial Review of Laws Enacted by Popular Vote,” Washington Law Reviews, 55 (1979), 175–209Google Scholar.

34 Sager, L. G. “Insular Majorities Unabated: Warth v Seldin and City of Eastlake v Forest City Enterprises, Inc.,” Harvard Law Review, 91 (1978), 1373–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Lamb and Lustig, p. 208.

36 Lamb and Lustig, p. 225.

37 Lamb, C. M., “Presidential Fair Housing Policies: Political and Legal Trends,” Cumberland Law Review, 8 (1978), 619–60Google Scholar.

38 Taylor, P. J. and Johnston, R. J., Geography of Elections (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1979), pp. 350–59Google Scholar.