When one studies the situation of housing segregation and attempts to promote open, inclusive, and diverse communities, one tends to find some issues that are hard to deal with when it comes to strategies of integration.

One such dilemma is that when polled about the types of integrated communities that people want to live in, African Americans often say they prefer a neighborhood that is 50% white and 50% black. (These surveys are too often disregard that there are other races and ethnicities to consider so we have to stick with the black/white dichotomy here.) Whites feel that 50/50 is something to flee. They prefer a much smaller amount -- approximately 10% Black.

In reality, the population of the United States is breaks down as follows:

White: 211 million (75%)
Black: 35 million (12%)

(Btw, the US is also 4% Asian, 2% Multiracial, 6% Other. Of the total population, approximately 13% are Latino across al races but mostly white.)

Obviously we have a mathematical conundrum. If African Americans all lived in 50/50 neighborhoods then that would mean 83% of whites would live in exclusive neighborhoods. Even if all Latinos were white and the other races lived in 50/50 situations 52% of non-Latino whites would live in exclusive communities) lived I don't think that's such a good situation. But, if it takes a 50/50 neighborhood for African Americans to feel comfortable living in an integrated community what is an integrationist to do? It seems unfair to ask an extremely disenfranchised group to accept less than the ideal requested.

My current thinking: If the 50/50 model were to become reality (we're not even close to that yet), there is no guarantee that those neighborhoods will offer the same opportunities as the 100/0 neighborhoods. So, maybe the 50/50 model is just a first step. But, the ultimate goal should be 75/12. Then there are no exclusive communities for whites.

The Tribune has picked up the story on suburban fair housing ordinances -- complete with quotes from your humble host.

UPDATE: Here's the Daily Herald's article as well.

The Bush Administration is planning on cutting the HUD budget drastically. You can read the story in the Washington Post.

This is an extremely serious attack on the poor and minorities in our country. While it's not perfect, HUD is one of the few federal departments with "people oriented" policies and procedures. The movement of some of its programs to the Commerce Department is, on that front, appalling.

Some HUD programs are to be cut entirely. One such program is the rural housing program. Others are going to be moved or cut in dramatic fashion. To no surprise, these changes will likely benefit the housing, lending, and insurance industries to the detriment of the actual people who need help with housing.

When taken with the Community Reinvestment Act dilutions and the previous proposed changes in HUD's support for public housing and Housing Choice Vouchers, this is beginning to look like very dark news.

I will post on some advocacy actions as soon as they are available.

In contrast to Denver - a city and region with future oriented planning policies, Los Angeles is witness to a fight pitting bad ideas against one another. The two candidates for mayor of LA are arguing over commuter issues. As this article in the Los Angeles Times retails, the challenger, Bob Hertzberg, has announced a "Commuters Bill of Rights" that proposes 10 points all about cars and highways.

In response, current mayor James Hahn bellyached about Hertzberg's role in the Sacramento budget mess. He claims that all of Hertzberg's ideas need money from the state to be feasible. Hertzberg is a State Assemblyman so it's his fault that there isn't more money for roads.

Now it should be noted that Denver's movement toward a mass transit system is primarily driven by planners -- people who actually care about making cities and metropolitan areas work better. LA's debate is between politicians -- people who mostly just care about saying what they think people want to hear. But, those two statements aren't as judgmental as they might first appear. One might ask then, why don't politicians think people want to hear about mass transit. I think there are a few of reasons for this political perception. Briefly:

1. People in many cities think mass transit is about as likely as the flying car or the jet pack. They've been hearing about it for years but nothing ever happens. Actually, in bigger cities where there is a rail system, the same is true for any expansion. In Chicago, talks about new rail lines have been ongoing for decades but there is never any action on building new or expanding existing lines.

Of course, experiences in Denver, Washington, and Seattle seem to be signaling a possible end to this trend of "all talk and no action." It might be that the day of the rail line is approaching. I'm not holding my breath though.

2. People are told that rail lines will cost too much or that they are not sustainable. In some cases it's true. Any city with fewer than a million people probably can't support a rail line. Some with populations over a million still can't support them because of density issues. But, alternatives such as rapid bus lines (where buses get automatic green lights through intersections) are probably viable in some of these cities.

People are also oblivious to how much it costs to maintain and build roads and highways. Although, they do complain about toll roads.

3. The people who would benefit most from mass transit are the least likely to have their voices heard. Not that rich and middle class people don't benefit from mass transit. I'm middle class and I take the El daily to work. It saves me a lot of money and time compared to driving. But, I have the option of driving if the El were to cease functioning. Many poorer people, seniors, and the disabled do not have that option. And, their voices are usually not heard or they need to use their political capital on other issues that are just as threatening (i.e. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid).

You'll notice that I did not include that "people just love their cars" or "Americans need to have the freedom of a car" etc. I think if you polled a thousand Chicagoans about the issue you'd find only a few who stated these things. Chicagoans are more likely to complain that "I have to drive because the trains and busses don't go where I'm going." Or, "It takes to long if you have to transfer from one system to another so I drive instead." Or, "I'd be pleased to see more transit options because I'm really tired of getting up at 5am to get to work at 9."

What LA's commuters (and all large metropolitan areas) really need is a decent mass transit system. Where is that in either candidates recommendations? Or, more generally, where is that in the American discourse at all?

FYI: The Leadership Council just released a report on how most suburban Chicago municipalities fail in their fair housing obligations co-authored by yours truly. You can read a summary and download a .pdf copy here if the spirit moves you.

Part of the reason we released this report now is that it is MLK Day Monday. Dr. King came to Chicago in 1965-66 and lived here for a year while working with local leaders to promote an open housing environment in Chicago and the region. By the time he left a lot of organizations were in place to deal with the racial tensions of Chicago. One was the Leadership Council. In 1968, in the wake of Dr. King's assassination, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act. 37 years later there is still a lot of work ahead of us.