CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS CHALLENGE
HOUSING DISCRIMNATION IN SACRAMENTO, 1950-1966
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of History California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
HISTORY
By
Lynell Hanzel White
FALL 2016
©2016 Lynell Hanzel White ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii
CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS CHALLENGE
HOUSING DISCRIMNATION IN SACRAMENTO, 1950-1966
A Thesis by Lynell Hanzel White
Approved by:
______, Committee Chair Paula Austin, Ph.D.
______, Second Reader Jeffrey Wilson, Ph.D.
______Date
iii
Student: Lynell Hanzel White
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for this thesis.
______, Department Chair ______Jeffrey Wilson, Ph.D. Date
Department of History
iv
Abstract of CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS CHALLENGE
HOUSING DISCRIMNATION IN SACRAMENTO, 1950-1966
by Lynell Hanzel White
In the 1950s, real estate agents and builders steered Sacramento residents of color to
the West End, an area that used to occupy much of downtown Sacramento. However, as
federal dollars became available for urban renewal programs, Sacramento officials
elected to tear down the West End, sending thousands of West Enders into the greater
Sacramento area. Many of these individuals were again steered into areas without racial
covenants, such as Del Paso Heights, Oak Park, and various areas within South
Sacramento. Some of these individuals held professional careers and could comfortably afford to live in areas of their choice. Not only this, many refused to allow anyone to dictate to them where they were to reside; and, thus attempted to purchase newer homes, which in many cases were in Sacramento suburbs, traditionally off limits to people of color. These individuals sometimes resorted to having white friends purchase homes for them in these areas, later transferring the deed into their own name. Others attempted to purchase homes in exclusively white areas and when experiencing racial discrimination, challenged home owners, builders, and real estate agents in court. By the late 1950s, the population of color in California had risen dramatically; however, the practice of placing
people of color in segregated areas had created a situation of congestion. Sensing the
need for action, local civil rights groups and California politicians aided people of color
by both equipping them with fair housing legislation and providing legal aid to challenge institutional discrimination in housing in court. In 1959, California lawmakers passed two key civil rights laws (Hawkins Act and Unruh Act) that outlawed discrimination in public housing and in business dealings. By 1963, the Rumford Fair Housing Act was passed, which prohibited housing discrimination by private parties. Civil rights groups in
Sacramento aided individuals in court as they used these newly created laws to secure the housing of their choice. This thesis examines the process of getting key housing legislation passed, explores the development and efforts of local civil rights groups, and discusses noteworthy individuals who worked tirelessly to create a level housing market in Sacramento. The sources that are used in writing this thesis include: newspaper articles, scholarly secondary literature, government committee minutes, magazine articles, primary sources from local organizations, speeches, documentaries, memoirs, digital media, maps, and photographs. The conclusion reached was that the collective efforts of California politicians, local organizations, and individual citizens effectively challenged housing discrimination in Sacramento, creating a more equitable housing market, while at the same time solving immediate housing needs.
______, Committee Chair Paula Austin, Ph.D.
______Date
vi
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this work to my father, Hanzel White, who taught me many valuable lessons about life. He passed away before completing my thesis. I would also like to dedicate this work to my mother, Chevelle Williams, for showing me an example
of a life-long learner. I would like to acknowledge my wife, Geneva White, for her hard
work in caring for our daughter while I worked on my thesis. I would also like to
acknowledge my daughter, Ohana White, for reminding me of why I work so hard in the
first place. And finally, I would like to thank Dr. Paula Austin and Dr. Jeffrey Wilson for
agreeing to sacrifice their time in helping me complete my thesis. Thank you all.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Dedication...... vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION……………………...... 1
2. CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS CHALLENGE HOUSING
DISCRIMINATION……………………………..…………………………...... 26
3. INDIVIDUALS CHALLENGE HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN
SACRAMENTO...... 52
4. LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS CHALLENGE HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
IN SACRAMENTO……………………………………………....……………...73
5. CONCLUSION ...... 96
Appendix A Map of Montgomery, Al...... 98 Appendix B Map of the West End…...... 99 Bibliography ...... 100
viii 1
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS CHALLENGE HOUSING DISCRIMNATION IN SACRAMENTO, 1950-1966
The United States Air Force transferred African-American civilian worker, Bill
Rutland, to Sacramento in 1952. He arrived at McClellan Air Force Base, coming before
his wife and children, and quickly began looking to purchase a home for their anticipated arrival. Newly built, affordable tract homes surrounded the base, enticing buyers to take advantage of the low down payment, which started at just $250. Rutland’s white colleagues relished this opportunity, quickly securing homes for their families, however upon attempting to purchase one himself, he experienced constant rejection. After several
unsuccessful attempts at purchasing a tract home surrounding the base, the exhausted
Rutland and his real estate agent decided to go to where “coloreds” could buy a home.1
His wife, Eva Rutland, explained in her memoir When We Were Colored, A Mother’s
Story (Originally titled, The Trouble with being a Mama) how the family eventually acquired their dream home in 1959:
I found a lot that I loved that was in South Land Park and I really wanted that lot. So I called Herman Madeira, a white friend who worked with dad, and I asked, I say, “Hern will you buy this lot for us?” He said, “Sure, I’d be glad to do that.” He bought the lot and immediately sold it to us. But when the white neighbors found that they had sold this house they began to call and they wanted to buy it
1 Eva Rutland, The Trouble with Being a Mama (New York: Abingdon Press, 1964), 42.
2
back, but of course this was our only opportunity to …have anything so we would not sell it of course.2
The Rutland family’s experience was not unusual in 1950s Sacramento. However, as
the military banned discrimination in its ranks years before Rutland moved to
Sacramento, the experience with housing segregation demonstrated the chasm between the military and civilian social landscape. Further, in 1948, President Roosevelt signed
executive order 8802, prohibiting racial discrimination within the defense industry. This
opened the doors for thousands of non-whites as many came to Sacramento, taking
advantage of open positions at both McClellan and Mather Air Force Bases.3 However,
like Rutland, many non-whites faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles when trying to
secure the home of their choice.
For the Rutlands and other people of color, racially restrictive covenants, de-facto
(customary or traditional) segregation practiced by local real estate agents, builders, and
private owners, and “steering” (discouraging a buyer from purchasing in certain areas)
served as common practice in the Sacramento housing market. These obstacles created a
heavily divided city, leaving Sacramento’s minorities with few options in choosing where
to reside. The vast majority of people of color in Sacramento lived in a neighborhood
located in downtown Sacramento, called the West End; this was an area without racial
covenants. However, civil rights agitation in the late-1950s and 1960s led to dramatic
2 Ibid., 42. 3 Andrew Hope, "Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation." (The California Department of Transportation Sacramento, California, 2011), 29. 3
shifts in Sacramento’s housing market. The efforts of several California politicians,
namely Democratic Governor Edmund “Pat” Brown, Democratic Assembly members
Jesse Unruh, Augustus F. Hawkins, and William Byron Rumford produced successful
top-down civil rights legislation that served as the legal basis for effectively challenging
housing discrimination, as realtors, builders, and private homeowners regularly blocked
people of color from living in the areas of their choice. The Rumford Civil Rights Act of
1963 informed court decisions until 1968, when U.S. Congress enacted the National
Housing Act, prohibiting housing discrimination by race, color, creed, and national origin. Furthermore, often using the Rumford Act as a legal foundation upon which to challenge housing discrimination, Sacramento’s local civil rights organizations grew especially effective in the 1960s. Individual citizens often took advantage of the Rumford
Act as well, successfully challenging housing discrimination in Sacramento courts.
Finally, the collective efforts of state legislation, local organizations, and individual citizens effectively challenged housing discrimination in Sacramento, creating a more equitable housing market, while at the same time solving immediate housing needs.
BACKGROUND: FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND LOCAL CLIMATES
The Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954, which declared separate but equal educational institutions unconstitutional, was a landmark event that would influence the trajectory of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. This singular court decision led to larger political gains through federal legislation and served as the catalyst for state-level efforts meant to create a more just republic. As the 1964 Civil 4
Rights Act ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination
based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin, federal legislation that challenged
housing discrimination did not arrive until 1968.4 Some states, for example California
with its growing minority population, refused to wait for federal legislation to combat
housing discrimination, quickly assembling legislation to confront the matter head-on.
During the same year as the “March on Washington” (1963), California Governor
Edmund G. Brown signed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, designed to end racial
discrimination in housing.
The signing of this act came after several decades of segregation, which peaked
during the 1950s. Landlords, homeowners, and real estate agents regularly refused to rent or sell homes to people of color. Los Angeles was the most segregated city in California in the 1950s and 1960s. The African-American population grew from 171,209 in 1950 to
334,916 in 1960; however, ninety-four percent of blacks resided in South Central Los
Angeles.5 In San Francisco, people of color faced segregation as well, forced to settle in
the central, oldest, and poorest part of the city. Although some non-whites earned enough
money to move into nicer areas, real estate agents and racial restrictions systematically
kept them from living in white neighborhoods. For example, between 1950 and 1958,
4 James T. Patterson, Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001), xxi.
5 Martin Schiesl, Residential Opportunity for All Californians: Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and the Struggle for Fair Housing Legislation, 1959-1963 (Report. August 2013), 1.
5
Bay Area developers constructed 335,000 new homes in the San Francisco Bay Area
counties, only 3,000 went to non-whites.6 Moreover, the level of housing segregation in
California cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento was comparable to that of Montgomery, Alabama, one of the most segregated Southern cities in the United
States during the 1950s and 1960s. In 1950, Montgomery’s urban population consisted of
106,525 people, of whom 60 percent were white and 40 percent were African American.
The organization of the city consisted of sections or wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 23.
White residential areas dominated the land of eastern and southern Montgomery, while blacks lived in the areas south and east of downtown Montgomery. Despite blacks and whites residing within an area seven miles wide by six and a half miles in length, the two groups lived almost completely separate from one another; even the poorest of blacks and whites segregated themselves from one another. According to Alison L. Murphy’s thesis
“Fifty Years of Challenges to the Colorline in Montgomery, Alabama,” blacks primarily lived in wards 2, 4, 6, and 7. She writes that “Most of the city’s African-Americans lived in two compact areas just south and east of downtown.” (see map).7
Sacramento’s housing market was equally segregated. In 1950, fifty-eight thousand
Sacramento residents lived in the area known as “central city,” commonly called the
6 Ibid., 2. 7 Alison L. Murphy, "Fifty Years of Challenges to the Colorline Montgomery, Alabama." (Thesis, Georgia State University, 2009), 19-20.
6
West End.8 The West End stretched as far east as Tenth Street. From north to south, the
area stretched from C Street to Broadway (see map). Largely a minority community, the
region housed 75 percent of the Asian-American population, 87 percent of the Mexican-
American population, and 60 percent of the African-American population, totaling 70
percent of the city’s inhabitants of color.9 The West End was overcrowded, while some
areas within the Central city contained dilapidated buildings due to age and neglect.
Restrictive covenants and wrong-headed financing practices, intended to keep certain
neighborhoods white, resulted in larger concentrations of people of color in the West
End. Fearing poor return on investment, financial institutions refused to extend credit to
West Enders who wished to renovate their homes.10 Sacramento’s highly controlled racial
composition, like that of other major California cities would suddenly change as
municipalities took advantage of the newly available funds allocated by the Federal
Housing Act of 1949, meant to address urban blight. Sacramento’s urban renewal
program in the 1950s and 1960s dismantled the West End, sending tens of thousands of
West End residents into the greater Sacramento area. This led to the integration of many
Sacramento neighborhoods. For example, the Oak Park area and South Sacramento
received a sizable percentage of people of color, while South Land Park Hills, Curtis
8 William Burg, Sacramento Renaissance: Art, Music and Activism in California's Capital City (The History Press, 2013) 7.
9 Jesus Hernandez. "Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in Sacramento 1930-2004." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33, no. 2 (June/July 2009): 299.
10 William Burg. Sacramento's Southside Park. Charleston (SC: Arcadia Pub., 2007), 8. 7
Park, William Land Park, East Sacramento, North Highlands, and Fair Oaks became only
minimally integrated. Individuals of color who attempted to enter these areas were often
met with fierce resistance. Furthermore, as many of these cities began tearing down
minority neighborhoods, for example, the black and Latino neighborhoods of East Los
Angeles and Boyle Heights in the 1950s, the need to create housing legislation became
more apparent.11 Nevertheless, like the Los Angeles and San Francisco housing markets, the Sacramento housing market began to change as California State efforts produced successful civil rights legislation, local organizations convened, and individual citizens challenged housing discrimination head-on.
THE WEST END AND SACRAMENTO’S URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
Residential segregation in Sacramento increased throughout the 1950s, especially as the minority population grew. Non-whites were customarily excluded from “white” neighborhoods and given few options in choosing where they could reside. People of color made up 8 percent of Sacramento’s total population in 1950, 10 percent in 1955, and 13 percent in 1960.12 Many resided in the West End, which occupied a large section
of downtown Sacramento and bordered on the west side by the Sacramento River. As
minority groups were continuously channeled into this area as it did not have racial
covenants, it became cramped, especially in the area known as Japan Town. This caused
11 Jacqueline Leavitt. "Urban Renewal Is Minority Renewal." Los Angeles Times, October 1996.
12 "California - Race and Hispanic Origin for Selected Cities and Other Places: Earliest Census to 1990". U.S. Census Bureau. 8
some Japanese Americans to search for housing outside of the West End, however they
were frequently turned away. Masako Yniguez, who moved to Sacramento to secure
employment at the Army Depot, recalls his experience with racial covenants:
In the fifties and early sixties there were a lot of places like that. [ A co-worker] took me to Arden, What’s that subdivision across from the State University…River Park, to a complex there, and the manager said it was available, but when I called, with my Japanese name, he said no… Sammy Yee, the Olympic swimmer, he wanted to buy a place in River Park but that was one of the white places, they would not allow him to buy there.13
Masako Yniguez’s experience was common for people of color attempting to rent or buy
housing in a white neighborhood in 1950s Sacramento.
Throughout the 1950s, most minorities who resided in Sacramento occupied the
West End and other areas without racial restrictions. Facing de-facto segregation,
redlining (the practice of denying services to residents of certain areas based on the racial
makeups of those areas) and limited economic options, residents of the West End
continued to take pride in their neighborhood, vigorously resisting the impending urban
renewal plan that threatened to destroy most of the West End neighborhood. While
developers and city officials were eager to tear down the region, hoping to generate
greater revenue streams from developments such as the Capital Mall and office buildings,
they constantly ignored the economic and cultural institutions that served residents of the
West End.14 Redevelopment commenced in 1950 and continued throughout the 1960s,
13 Burg, Sacramento Renaissance, 28.
14 African Americans in California’s Heartland - The Civil Rights Era. Produced by Bryan Shadden. Sacramento, 2011. DVD. 9
displacing tens of thousands of people. The majority of the homes were demolished,
although some were replaced with apartment buildings. Throughout the 1950s, residents
of the West End found themselves with little or no opportunity to move out and improve
their lives. However, in 1963 the Rumford Act passed, allowing non-whites to move into
suburban areas originally off-limits. The very next year, however, Proposition 14 passed,
nullifying the Rumford Act and legalizing housing segregation. But a year later, the
Supreme Court overturned Proposition 14, restoring the Rumford Act. By this time most
of the West End had been demolished, sending its residents to areas that did not have
racial covenants such as Oak Park, Del Paseo Heights, Glen Elders, Elder Creek, South
Sacramento, and Alkali Flats. Some, however, pursued homes in white neighborhoods,
choosing to take advantage of the Rumford Civil Rights Act when coming up against
housing discrimination.
THE HISTORY OF HOUSING IN SACRAMENTO
This work focuses on institutional racism in Sacramento’s housing market. More
specifically, it delves into the strategies employed by individuals, groups, and politicians,
while assessing the effectiveness of fair housing legislation. My work adds to the
historiography of housing discrimination in Sacramento, complementing the efforts of
local historians going back to the mid-twentieth century. I posit that the collective efforts
of individuals, groups, and lawmakers created a more equitable housing market; I also
acknowledge that socially elite individuals of color stood at the forefront of the struggle
for fair housing. 10
Furthermore, housing discrimination in Sacramento has been a largely underexplored topic within urban history. Within the past few decades, there has become a growing interest in California urban history as a topic; however, most historians have chosen to focus their studies on larger metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and the
San Francisco Bay Area. In many of these works, historians compare northern and
southern California’s social climate, ignoring Sacramento entirely. Moreover, unlike Los
Angeles and the Bay Area, the urban population in Sacramento has historically lagged
behind, possibly rendering Sacramento, to some historians, a less productive exploration.
Sacramento’s urban history, however, reflects many of the same social and political features as its neighboring cities, making the historical investigation into the city’s past just as fruitful an endeavor. Unlike other California cities, Sacramento is the capital of
California, and the very place in which legislators’ draft, defend, and create new laws. As of late, historians have taken notice of this fact, producing insightful works. My hope is that my own efforts would complement past scholarship and adds to the ever-evolving history of housing in Sacramento.
One of the earliest works on institutional racism in Sacramento’s housing market was
produced by Dr. Paul F.C. Mueller, who served as the president of the Sacramento
Committee for Fair Housing (SCFH). In 1966, Mueller published his book Effects of
Housing Discrimination on Residential Segregation Patterns in Sacramento 1960-1966,
investigating the degree to which housing discrimination blocked people of color from
securing housing and created segregated spaces. His scholarship also discusses the 11
progress made by local groups that formed to challenge housing discrimination in
Sacramento. Further, Mueller writes at a time when housing discrimination in
Sacramento was still active, although as a result of the passage of fair housing legislation,
the number of incidents in court became less frequent. Moreover, Mueller found that “de
facto segregation exist[ed] in Sacramento County with minority groups concentrated
mainly in a half dozen areas within the Sacramento city limits, while the suburban
residential areas are almost “lily-white.”15 He also observed that lawsuits filed against
builders and agencies have made it possible for “a few minority group members to obtain
desired housing.”16 Furthermore, he found that Proposition 14 weakened the ability of
opponents of housing discrimination to fight in court. Based on the extent of housing
discrimination in Sacramento, Mueller had a pessimistic view of the future of
Sacramento’s housing climate. He felt that despite the efforts of the Real Estate Board in
adopting a code of practices, it is likely that salesmen, real estate brokers, and apartment
house managers would continue to discriminate especially against “darker skinned ethnic
groups” as they attempt to reside in “white neighborhoods.”17 He concluded that the
various agencies coupled with the implementation of a full-time staff for the Sacramento
15 Paul F. C. Mueller, Effects of Housing Discrimination on Residential Segregation Patterns in Sacramento, 1960-1966. (Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Community Integration Project, 1966), 1.
16 Ibid, 1.
17 Ibid, 1.
12
City-County Human Relations Committee is the only way to combat housing
discrimination as those who discriminate are working full-time.
Written in 1967, Casstevens’ book Politics, Housing and Race Relations:
California’s Rumford Act and Proposition 14 discussed the problem of housing
discrimination in California. Further his work documents both sides of the housing fight
and provides a detailed analysis of the language of both fair housing legislation and
Proposition 14. His study “seeks to describe and illuminate the controversy, with a
political analysis of the legislative struggle from its origins in the late 1950’s to the court
decision of May 1966.” He is primarily concerned with the “background, culmination,
and consequences of the conflicts over the Rumford Act and Proposition 14.”18 He
concludes that the Supreme Court Case Reitman vs Mulkey, established the “status quo
ante,” returning California into a state that outlawed legalized housing discrimination.
Furthermore, his work is concerned with the legislative challenges of housing
discrimination and their impact on the housing market. He finds that the Rumford Act
placed the needs of the state and individual over what some perceived as a private right to
discriminate. In this way, California chose what kind of state it was to become. Like
Mueller, Casstevens wrote at a time when housing discrimination in Sacramento was
prevalent. Both authored works that addressed the issue of segregation; however, as
Mueller worked within an organization that aimed to assist people of color in finding
18 Thomas Casstevens, Politics, Housing, and Race Relations: California's Rumford Act and Proposition 14. (Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, U of California, 1967), 4. 13
housing, his work reported on his organization’s survey results, investigated the extent to
which segregation existed and gauged racial attitudes. Casstevens’ work dealt with
legislation, analyzing its impact on the housing market. Both works were vital in telling
the story of housing discrimination, while one work painted a picture of the problem of
housing discrimination, the other delved into the legislative solutions that would help
create a more equitable housing market.
Works by student Cathleen Williams, University of California, Davis Professor
Jesus Hernandez, historians Kevin Stein, Tram Nguyen, and geographer Dennis
Dingemans offer insight as to the nature of housing discrimination as it relates to the
credit market.19 Dingemans’ report “Redlining and Mortgage Lending in Sacramento,”
published in 1979, looked specifically at mortgage loan distribution by race and
geographic location. He finds that in 1976, areas with higher concentration of people of
color “did not receive equal amounts of mortgage loans.”20 He does not stop at race or
ethnicity as the chief reason of mortgage discrimination, however. He states that
“mortgage lending by banks and savings and loan associations varies with the social
status, ethnicity, and age of the neighborhood.”21 Furthermore, Dingeman attempts to
19 Cathleen Williams. "Segregation in Sacramento -- The Hidden History." Homeward Street Journal (2013): Sept. 2013; Jesus Hernandez. "Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in Sacramento 1930-2004." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (2009); Kevin Stein, and Tram Nguyen. "Mortgage Meltdown: Solutions to the Foreclosure Crisis." JSTOR 16.1 (2009): 51-54.
20 Dennis Dingemans. "Redlining and Mortgage Lending in Sacramento." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69.2 (1979): 225.
21 Ibid, 225. 14
make a connection between residential decline and mortgage lending. That is, banks
would traditionally use redlining tactics or refuse to lend money to people who lived in
areas with high concentrations of people of color, fearing a low return on investment.
Redlining would eventually become a factor in creating slums as homeowners did not
have access to monies through refinancing their homes, thus would not be able to
purchase much needed home upgrades such as a new roof, heating and cooling systems,
windows or other costly upgrades. Although Dingemans’ study investigates a different
aspect of housing discrimination, it nonetheless complements the work of Mueller. His
studies found that of the 779 loans that were given out in 1976, just 1.5% were given to
people of color, despite making up 15 percent of the population during that year.22 He
makes clear that the disparity in lending patterns between “white” areas and those with
people of color demonstrates a “lack of confidence in the long-term future of black and
Chicano neighborhoods.”23 As Dingemans’ work identifies segregated areas in the 1970s
and the lack of loans given to these communities, it essentially provides a clear picture of
the attitudes of lenders toward people of color; Mueller’s work, on the other hand,
investigates the racial attitude of individual homeowners and apartment building owners
toward the population of color. Combined, their works give a comprehensive view of the
22 Ibid, 235.
23 Ibid, 236. 15
problem of institutional discrimination as it was multifaceted, permeating Sacramento’s
social landscape.
Caesar’s thesis “An Historical Overview of the Development of Sacramento's
Black Community, 1850-1983,” published in 1985, gives equal attention to black social,
cultural, political, and business life. His work moves from a discussion of blacks during
the Gold Rush through the late twentieth century, where he provides a glimpse into
Sacramento’s modern black community. Much of his Chapter entitled, “Growth and
Maturation of Community (1940-1970)” discusses housing discrimination. Caesar, unlike
other Sacramento historians found that “block busting” was a key feature in creating
segregated spaces within Sacramento. Dishonest real estate agents would buy the homes
of fearful white families living in integrating neighborhoods for a fraction of their cost
and then resell the home to people of color at outrageous prices. He also cites builders
who violated fair housing legislation, along with developers, realtors, and homeowners
for creating a housing crisis in Sacramento.24 In addition to block busting, he identifies
restrictive covenants and redlining as tools that helped create segregated neighborhoods.
He recognizes the efforts of local civic organizations as instrumental in challenging
housing discrimination. For example, he discusses the tireless efforts of the NAACP and
CORE, coupled with the work of lawmakers such as William Byron Rumford in
24 Clarence Caesar. “An Historical Overview of the Development of Sacramento's Black Community, 1850-1983.” (Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, 1985. Sacramento: CSUS Thesis Collection, 1985), 176.
16
effectively challenging institutional discrimination. He also credits local attorney
Nathaniel Colley in taking on the Sacramento Housing Authority, aiding numerous
victims of housing discrimination, and fighting and winning the monumental Supreme
Court case, Mulkey vs. Reitman. He maintains that “the use of lawsuits was the most
powerful weapon available to black Sacramentans seeking to overturn unjust and
discriminatory institutions, laws, and practices during the 1950’s.”25 After the passage of
the Rumford Act, its repeal, and subsequent reinstatement, during the mid-1960s, Caesar
points out that “for Sacramento, the demise of Proposition 14 meant that a growing black
population could no longer be legally kept out of an expanding housing market.”26 He
finds that although previous forces effectively blocked blacks from moving freely
throughout Sacramento county, creating “ghetto” pockets, the Rumford legislation
allowed the black population in Sacramento to grow “unabated until this very day.”27
Furthermore, Caesar’s work builds on that of Mueller and Casstevens, as it both explores
the origins of housing discrimination and discusses the legislation that made an impact on
how institutional housing discrimination played out. Like Mueller and Casstevens, Caesar
identifies the extent to which racial attitudes kept people of color from living in certain
areas, identifying the various players in the real estate industry that perpetuated social
25 Ibid, 158.
26 Ibid, 178.
27 Ibid, 180.
17
inequality. He arrives at the same conclusion as Casstevens in finding that the Rumford
Act had a major impact on reducing the levels of housing discrimination in Sacramento.
Historians Brian Robert, James Williams, Kenneth Jackson, and Ronald Miller
each focus on Sacramento’s West End area during the 1950s and 1960s, at which time urban renewal programs were put in effect around the country destroying areas inhabited mostly by people of color.28 Each of their efforts paint a picture of the nature of
institutional racism in Sacramento and explain one of the reasons why Sacramento’s population of color relocated to other parts of Sacramento. Robert’s article
“Redevelopment at the Cross roads: How Sacramento Chose Between Two Priorities,”
published in 1989, discusses the decision and motivation behind Sacramento’s urban development project and the displacement of West End residents. He argues that
Sacramento had a choice between helping the people who lived in the West End district by using federal dollars for “people oriented programs” or using the aid for business
interest.29 Sacramento chose the latter, resulting in the displacement of thousands of
individuals. He finds that through a loophole in the Federal Housing Act, Sacramento
28 Brian Roberts. "Redevelopment at the Crossroads: How Sacramento City Chose between Priorities in the 1950s." Sacramento County Historical Society (1989); James Williams. WEST END BOYS: URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND THE ELIMINATION OF SACRAMENTO’S SKID ROW. (Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, 2013. Sacramento: California State U, Sacramento, 2013); Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985); Ronald J. Miller, The Demolition of Skid Row (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1982); William Burg. Sacramento Renaissance: Art, Music & Activism in California's Capital, (History Press Charleston, SC, 2013)
29 Brian Roberts. "Redevelopment at the Crossroads,” 1.
18
was able to forego creating low income housing and use the dollars for commerce.30 In
the end, the residents of the West End did not receive help in housing, but rather, were
forced to leave their homes and were not given aid in their transition in finding new
homes. James Williams, Kenneth Jackson, and Ronald Miller’s scholarship attest to this
fact. Williams’ work, which was published two decades after that of Robert’s, deviates in
that it looks particularly at the single men negatively affected by urban renewal. He
writes in his thesis “West End Boys: Urban Redevelopment and the Elimination of
Sacramento’s Skid Row,” that:
After abandoning plans to rebuild skid row, SRA relocated Sacramento’s skid row population in a manner typical of most American cities. As happened across the United States, the City condemned and demolished skid row and largely allowed its population to scatter without relocation assistance. While SRA executed its legal responsibility to assist hundreds of Sacramento families displaced by redevelopment, the agency left the majority of thousands poor and family-less Sacramento men responsible for their own unassisted relocation. This population gradually relocated independently to other impoverished areas in Sacramento and elsewhere.31
Robert’s quote demonstrates Sacramento city’s lack of regard for single male
Westenders, reflecting the city’s broader attitude toward minority populations. Each
authors’ work complements one another, as each arrives at the conclusion that the city
placed its own needs over that of its minority population.
30 Ibid, 7.
31 James Williams. “WEST END BOYS: URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND THE ELIMINATION OF SACRAMENTO’S SKID ROW.” (Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, 2013. Sacramento: California State U, Sacramento, 2013) 13.
19
Damany Morris Fisher’s dissertation “Far from Utopia: Race, Housing, and the Fight
to End Residential Segregation in Sacramento, 1900-1980,” published in 2008,
investigates housing and employment discrimination in Sacramento. His work examines
“structural racism and how it contributed to the residential segregation and economic
disadvantage of African Americans in Sacramento, California.”32 He finds that
employment discrimination lead to economic underdevelopment for people of color,
especially African Americans living in Sacramento before 1950. He points out that out of
fear of loss patronage of their white customer base, many black businesses and most
white business owners did not serve black customers.33 Furthermore, he ties employment
discrimination to lack of development within the black community. He explains that
regardless of educational level, the majority of well-paying jobs were off limits to blacks.
Not only this, in many cases blacks were barred from joining unions. Furthermore, like
Caesar, Mueller, and Dingeman, Fisher finds that housing discrimination in Sacramento
took the form of race restrictive covenants, racist federal housing policies, and foul play
by local forces (real estate board and local builders). Unlike Dingeman and Mueller,
Fisher focuses almost completely on the African-American community in Sacramento.
His work provides a more comprehensive rendering of particularly the African-American
experience. He uses interviews, census information, newspaper articles, government
32 Damany Morris Fisher. “Far from Utopia: Race, Housing, and the Fight to End Residential Segregation in Sacramento, 1900–1980.” (Diss. U of California, Berkeley, 2008. Berkeley: ProQuest Dissertations, 2008), ii.
33 Ibid, 15-17. 20
reports, and other sources to show convincingly the presence and extent of institutional
racism in employment and housing in Sacramento. Moreover, by his own admission, his
work was inspired by that of Clarence Caesar, former dean of African-American studies
at Sacramento State University.
Dr. Hernandez’s work "Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in
Sacramento 1930-2004," published in 2009, builds upon Dingemans’ scholarship,
investigating housing discrimination in Sacramento through lending inequalities. He
argues that “the American housing credit system continues to mirror long-standing
patterns of racial segregation and inequality.”34 He demonstrates in his scholarly article
that Sacramento’s lending patterns are a good example of historical racial inequalities as
people of color are more likely to receive subprime loans and continue to be the target of
such lending practices. Furthermore, Hernandez finds that subprime borrowers are “6-9
times more likely to be in foreclosure.”35 His work shows that throughout Sacramento’s
history, individuals of color faced four factors in determining where they would live.
That is, Sacramento’s racial geography is defined by the past or present features of “the
explicit use of racially restrictive covenants, the informal enforcement of those
covenants, central city urban renewal programs, and mortgage redlining.36 He
34 Jesus Hernandez. "Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in Sacramento 1930-2004." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (2009): 291.
35 Ibid, 292.
36 Ibid, 292.
21
demonstrates this fact by analyzing the language of the 1930s-1950s racist New Deal
programs designed to “prohibit non-white occupancy,” and the actions of faulty realtors
and real estate culture in general in Sacramento.37 He wraps up his study with a
discussion of twenty-first century housing issues in Sacramento, such as inequity in
subprime mortgage distribution and its devastating effect on people of color and
neighborhoods with high concentrations of people of color. He arrives at the same
conclusion as Caesar and Fisher, identifying government agencies as well as local forces
as responsible for housing disparities, although his work goes a step further in its scope.
Historians Martin Schiesl, Joyce Henderson, Robert O. Self, and Herbert Ruffin’s
scholarship examine the impact of California’s fair housing legislation on California
cities during the 1950s and 1960s.38 Further, Schiesl’s historical essay “Residential
Opportunity for All Californians: Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and the Struggle for
Fair Housing Legislation, 1959-1963,” published in 2013, discusses the problem of housing discrimination in California and how the Rumford Act paved the way for a more equitable state. He identifies the many culprits that perpetuated segregation in California, including real estate agents, builders, and even federal agencies. Furthermore, Schiesl
37 Ibid, 294. 38 Martin Schiesl, “Residential Opportunity for All Californians: Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and the Struggle for Fair Housing Legislation, 1959-1963.” Pat Brown Institute. N.p., 2013. Web. Oct. 2015; Joyce Henderson, William Byron Rumford: Legislator for Fair Employment, Fair Housing, and Public Health (Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California, 1973; Robert O. Self. American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2003; Herbert Ruffin, Uninvited Neighbors: Black Life and the Racial Quest for Freedom in the Santa Clara Valley, 1777-1968 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2007) 22
explores the obstacles in getting the Rumford act passed and the tireless effort of William
Byron Rumford, Governor “Pat” Brown, Attorney General Mosk and a host of civil
rights organizations including the NAACP and CORE. He argues that the passage of the
Rumford Act “provided African Americans and other racial minorities with an enormous
legal wall against housing discrimination and segregation.”39 Schiesl’s book Responsible
Liberalism: Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and Reform Government in California 1958-1967,
published in 2003, covers the same themes as his later work, outlining the legislation that
ushered in a more racially equitable California. Like Casstevens, Schiesl identifies the
Rumford Act as the single most effective housing legislation in challenging racial
discrimination. Unlike Casstevens, Schiesl acknowledges the importance of the Unruh
and Hawkin’s Acts as necessary civil rights legislation as they were effective in
combating discrimination before the Rumford Act passed.
Local Sacramento historian, William Burg’s book Sacramento Renaissance:
Art, Music and Activism in California’s Capital City, published in 2013, takes the
argument of West End writers such as Williams, Jackson, and Miller a step further. He
posits that the so-called deterioration of the West End neighborhood was a product of
institutional racism, as was its removal. He writes that the West End was a target of
redlining. He explains that FHA and VA loans were “not usable in downtown
neighborhoods, considered ‘redlined’.”40 He goes on to explain that the business interest
39 Schiesl, “Residential Opportunity for All Californians,” 4.
40 Burg, Sacramento Renaissance, 20. 23
in Sacramento attempted to paint the downtown area in a negative light in order to get
support for its redevelopment. He writes that “the term ‘blight’ was used to describe
neighborhoods that were not necessarily slums but seemed likely to become slums.”41
Thus, much of the West End remained livable and showed little evidence of neglect,
however, the region was promoted as containing “miserable holes where business is
transacted” and where “crime” and “disease” abounds.42 After gaining enough support,
the West End district would be torn down and instead of rebuilding new, low income
housing, the city used the money for commercial interest. Like other historians, Burg’s work provides a clear view of the nature of institutional discrimination in Sacramento and makes it clear that economic interest, and not simply fear, motivated the decisions of those who practiced discrimination.
Dr. Hernandez’s journal article “Race, Market Constraints, and the Housing
Crisis: A Problem of Embeddedness,” published in 2014, complements his earlier efforts,
by investigating the origins of segregation in Sacramento. This study discusses
Sacramento’s social climate as it relates to housing in the first decades of the twentieth
century and connect this early history to contemporary housing problems in Sacramento.
He posits, “as in other U.S. cities, the use of race covenants in Sacramento began with
41 Ibid, 20.
42 Ibid, 13.
24
homebuilders associated with the local real-estate board, which became affiliated with the
National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB) in 1918.”43 He goes on to explain
that in the 1920s, local builder, J.C. Carley, who served as the president of Sacramento’s
NAREB began putting race covenants on homes, starting the trend that resulted in what
would become common practice. This culture of institutional racism in housing lead to
“the city’s first legally recognized racial boundaries for residency.” He goes on to explain
that by 1928, “race covenants had become a standard practice expected by both residents
and local real-estate interest.”44 Over time, the practice of discrimination by race
manifested into the creation of the West End- a place where the majority of Sacramento’s
population of color would be confined until the 1950s. This work also investigates
Sacramento’s most recent housing crisis, which was an extension of the national housing
crisis in 2008. He contends in his work that areas such as Del Paso Heights, Oak Park,
Meadowview, and the greater South Sacramento “suffered the highest foreclosure in
1997” and again suffered disproportionately from subprime loans ten years later.45 For
Hernandez, this is no coincidence, but rather, a result of inequity in credit and housing
opportunities based on race that dates back to Sacramento’s inception.
43Jesus Hernandez. "Race, Market Constraints, and the Housing Crisis: A Problem of Embeddedness." Kalfou 1.2 (2014): 39.
44 Ibid, 40.
45 Ibid, 32. 25
Over the course of the past fifty years, scholars of Sacramento’s urban history have moved from a discussion regarding the prevalence and extent of institutional discrimination to an exploration of the effects of housing laws. Most recent scholarship has been centered on the credit market and exploitative tactics aimed toward people of color who reside in areas that were created by earlier discriminatory policies. In other words, before 1970, federal agencies such as the Federal Housing Authority and Veterans
Administration, along with builders and real estate agents were the main players in
confining people of color to segregated areas. Early scholars of Sacramento history such
as Dr. Mueller and Dr. Cain investigated the extent to which housing discrimination affected people of color and identified the key players who played a role in distorting the housing market. Later scholars, such as Dennis Dingeman and Jesus Hernandez, delved into the causes of Sacramento’s racial composition and how the credit market continues to create inequality for people of color. My work looks closely at the California politicians and the laws of the 1950s and 1960s and how they attempted to level the housing market. My work also focuses on several local civil rights groups that helped in this struggle. Lastly, my thesis looks particularly at the individual contributions made by noteworthy Sacramento citizens and how their efforts helped to pave the way for people of color in realizing their dream of owning a house in the area of their choice.
26
Chapter 2
CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS CHALLENGE HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
The Black Freedom Movement during the 1950s and 1960s aimed to challenge
U.S. social order, which legalized white supremacy. During this period, U.S. society was
largely segregated, fiercely holding on to the racist “separate but equal” doctrine.
However, in May of 1954, the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme-Court case overturned this policy, recognizing its inherent racial bias. This was one of many victories achieved by integrationist leaders such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, jr. and Philip Randolph who worked within organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Congress of Racial Equality (CORE),
Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and Southern Christian
Leadership Committee (SCLC) to end institutional racism in the United States.
Integrationists lead boycotts, mass campaigns, and demonstrations aimed at desegregation, finding wide success. The efforts of these groups in attempting to create a society that acknowledge the humanity of people of color spanned back to 1619, when black indentured servants labored within the colonies. Furthermore, their tireless labor was rewarded in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts.46
This movement, which was led by people of color, restructured U.S. race relations and afforded people of color with unprecedented legal protection within the U.S. Not only
46 Manning Marable and Leith Mullings. Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices of Resistance, Reform, and Renewal: An African American Anthology, (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), 367-376. 27
this, their efforts encourage politicians around the country to create legislation that
created a greater level of social justice within their own states. One such politician that
was greatly influenced by this movement was California Governor, Edmund “Pat”
Brown.
Perhaps his Irish-Catholic background gave Governor Edmond “Pat” Brown special
insight that influenced his moral resolve, commitment to social equality, and vision of racial unity. Before becoming the Governor of California, he made enemies when
vehemently speaking out against Japanese internment; he without a doubt made more
enemies as the tenor of his campaign for governor of California promised social
reconciliation and racial equality. Martin Schiesl recalls Brown’s unwavering
commitment to civil rights, describing in his essay Brown’s selfless desire to provide
legislation which would give “every Californian the right to live where he pleases.”47
Schiesl argues that Brown’s agenda while running for governor in 1958 was “partly devoted to racial reform,” immediately calling for “a law that would end employment discrimination.”48 According to Schiesl, one of Brown’s chief concerns was housing
discrimination, an issue in which Brown was uncompromising. Schiesl claims that as
some democrats in the 1960s were afraid that legislation in housing discrimination in
private housing would not pass and was content with “half the loaf,” Brown wanted “the
47 Schiesl, “Residential Opportunity for All Californians,” 4.
48 Ibid, 2.
28
whole loaf.”49 He claims that it was Brown who urged Augustus F. Hawkins to draft a bill that extended to publicly assisted housing, urged democratic organizations and
volunteers to fully commit to the housing struggle, and placed intense pressure on the
Government Efficiency Committee to push the Rumford bill forward.”50 Attesting to
Brown’s exceptional leadership, Executive Director of the Edmund Pat Brown Institute
of Public Affairs, Raphael Sonenshein, recalls “Governor Brown pushed hard for the law
[Rumford Act] even when others, even within his own camp, feared the political consequences.”51 Jerry Brown, remembers that his “father was a very optimistic person
when it comes to the ability of people through public institutions to create good. He was a
fair person, he didn’t have any sense of bias or prejudice, he had championed civil
rights.”52 Los Angeles Times writer, George Skelton, recalls the tireless effort, integrity, and commitment of Brown. He calls the tension over housing discrimination in California
during the early 1960s “arguably the biggest, bittersweet brawl ever in the California
Capitol. It was waged over whether homeowners and landlords should be allowed to continue to discriminate because of skin color in sales and rental housing.” Furthermore,
Skelton highlights the extent to which Brown sacrificed his own political career in order
49 Ibid, 2.
50 Ibid, 1-5.
51 Raphael Sonenshein. "Pat Brown Institute." Letter to Guests. Aug. 2013: Pat Brown Institute. Aug. 2013. Web.
52 “California State of Mind.” Dir. Sascha Rice. 2011. Documentary.
29
to create a more just society. He remembers that Pat Brown was unwavering in his
commitment for social justice, regularly “on the front line pushing, often at his political
peril.”53 Nevertheless, Brown was successful as he “proposed sweeping legislation to end
racial discrimination in housing.”54 Moreover, Brown demonstrated his commitment to
social justice as he quickly endorsed Jesse Unruh’s civil rights reform, Augustus
Hawkins’ Fair Housing bill, and later signed the ground-breaking Rumford Civil Rights
Act into law, creating a more equitable state for all Californians.55 Governor Brown likened housing discrimination to slavery while giving a speech at an event commemorating the centennial of the emancipation proclamation, during which time he was promoting the Rumford Civil Rights Act. He stated that segregation was not limited to the South; segregation “was the legacy of slavery. No man should be deprived of the
right of acquiring a home because of the color of his skin.”56 Brown’s desire for a racially
equitable society was not simply a tactic to align himself on the right side of history; he
had documented history of demonstrating his character despite possible backlash.
Further, the Rumford Act served as the legal foundation upon which most agitators found
success in court during the 1960s. Brown worked diligently with other politicians to pass
53 George Skelton, “Why the voters have worse access to the judicial system,” Los Angeles Times, July 29th, 2013
54 Ibid.
55 Ethan Rarick, California Rising: The Life and times of Pat Brown (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 178.
56 Ibid., 263. 30
the bill, however, the bill met with fierce opposition from both Republicans and conservative Democrats before and after its passage. Still, the bill, like the proponents of
fair housing themselves, found success in its mission to create a more equitable society.
BACKGROUND: THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING DILEMMA
California politicians challenged housing discrimination by drafting effective fair
housing legislation. Governor Brown and his allies worked together to successfully draft the Hawkins Act in 1959, which aimed to prevent builders who use public funding from engaging in housing discrimination. They also passed Unruh Act in 1959 that dealt specifically with barring discrimination in business transactions, including real estate.
Finally, they passed the Rumford Act in 1963, which addressed housing discrimination by private parties. Opponents of fair housing legislation successfully passed Proposition
14, which promoted the so-called right to discriminate, repealing the Rumford Act.
However, the initiative was deemed unconstitutional just two years after its passage, reinstating the Rumford Act.
This legislation aimed to tackle the very serious problems of housing discrimination in California, as 1950s was characterized by a racially biased housing industry that placed
people of color in unstable living situations. For example, in the 1950s, the Commission
on Race and Housing performed a study of California’s housing industry, finding that
suburban, white real estate agents were largely responsible for channeling people of color
into inner-city neighborhoods. These areas contained houses that were far older than 31
those in the suburbs that were enjoyed by whites; many were run down, and often
required a large capital investment to make habitable.57 This created a two-fold problem
in that the choice as to where to reside was stripped from California’s minority
population, and their income was heavily burdened in having to purchase in areas with
homes that constantly depreciated in value and required large sums of personal savings to
repair and maintain. To make matters worse, these areas were not always zoned
exclusively for residential use, forcing minority groups to reside in mixed-zoned areas or
industrial districts, further bringing down property values. This obviously affected the
ability of people of color to build wealth. Furthermore, these areas were sometimes far
from public services and usually overcrowded. California legislator William Rumford
recalled that “in Watts, a high density area, there was widespread discrimination in
housing and people were locked in because of their color. They could not break through
the barriers. It was evident that something had to be done, that the housing situation in
California nearly presented an explosive situation.”58 Rumford, having moved to
Southern California in 1915, experienced, along with his family, housing discrimination
first hand; his quote reveals the reality people of color found themselves in as they were
57 Fred E. Case and James H. Kirk, The Housing Status of Minority Families: Los Angeles, 1956 (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Urban League, 1956), 22, 38.
58 The Fair Housing Bill and Proposition 14, 1963-1964, Online Archive of California (Date of Interview: September 13, 1971, Berkeley. Interview conducted by Professor Edward France and Joyce Henderson.) 32
confined like prisoners in areas with limited space and rising numbers without the
possibility of escape.
In 1958, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown defeated Republican Senator William
F. Knowland in the California Governor’s race by one million votes and secured 54 of 58
counties.59 Immediately thereafter, he began working with politicians to produce a fair
housing bill. First, Brown worked alongside California’s only black legislators, Augustus
F. Hawkins and William Byron Rumford, to dismantle housing discrimination in
California. Their efforts initially aimed at ending discrimination in all publicly assisted housing, for the majority of houses located in suburban districts used Federal Housing
Administration and Veterans Administration financing through mortgage insurance.
However, real estate agents and builders customarily refused people of color from purchasing in these areas. In response to this abuse of public funds, Hawkins developed a fair housing bill prohibiting discrimination in publicly-assisted housing. In May of 1959, the Hawkins Act passed in the California State Assembly and Senate unanimously.60 The seeming ease in which the act passed can be attributed to its lack of strength. In other words, the act appeared on its face to resolve a crisis in housing by halting racial discrimination, but in reality it only accounted for about 20 percent of all real estate transactions. In other words, while it prohibited discrimination by builders who offered
59Martin J. Schiesl, Responsible Liberalism: Edmund G. "Pat" Brown and Reform Government in California 1958-1967, (Los Angeles, CA: Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs, 2003), 104- 107.
60 Ibid., 10. 33
housing secured by federal backing, it allowed the private individual who used federally
backed loans to continue to discriminate. Hawkins himself attested to this fact at a United
States Hearing on Civil Rights in 1960, stating that excluding private housing from the
act was tactical as he was “afraid that an act which included private housing would not
pass.”61 He admitted to settling for “half the loaf rather than losing everything.”62 His hope was that future acts would remedy the problem that up to that point existed in housing legislation. Hawkins himself explained why the act passed with seeming ease.
Thus, despite the bill’s passage, it failed to address the broad problem of private discrimination and biased real estate transactions, which proponents of fair housing came to understand as a major avenue used by racist real estate agents. Therefore,
Assemblyman Jesse Unruh drafted a bill that focused not only on securing equal public accommodations for people of color, but outlawed racially biased real estate dealings.
Democratic Assemblyman Jesse Unruh grew disillusioned with the prevalence of discrimination in California’s housing market and public accommodations, developing an act to counter discrimination. Unruh, the youngest of five children, was born to German and Russian immigrants who came to the United States to escape military service in the
Crimean War. His parents moved throughout Texas and Kansas growing wheat and cotton, barely surviving on their crop. As a teenager, Unruh worked alongside his family
61 Mark Brilliant, The Color of America Has Changed: How Racial Diversity Shaped Civil Rights Reform in California, 1941-1978. New York: Oxford UP, 2012), 164.
62 Ibid, 164.
34
as a sharecropper in Texas. He remembers “we were so poor that I didn’t know people
took baths on Saturday night until I was 10.”63 His father was illiterate and his mother had only a third-grade education, yet she taught young Jesse how to read. He continued working hard on the farm and in school, helping to support his family, while earning high
academic honors in school. Despite inadequate meals, clothing, and lighting needed to do
his homework and possessing a lisp, Unruh gained a scholarship to Wayland Baptist
College in Plainview, Texas.64 Historian Jackson K. Putnam claims that Unruh’s
background did not turn him against capitalism, however, “a sympathy for the underdog
would be a permanent part of his political make-up.”65 His background could explain his
interest in civil rights. According to Putnam, the event that pushed Unruh to producing
the landmark Unruh Civil Rights Act concerned a child of color who had been refused
admission to a school because of the color of her skin. He states:
The bill originated with Unruh’s outraged reaction to a Hollywood Professional school’s denial of admission to a five-year-old black girl solely on account of her race, an action which the state Supreme Court upheld in late 1958 as not contrary to any statue. Unruh, and his close associates, and his counsel decided to change that.66
63 Jackson K. Putnam, Jess: The Political Career of Jesse Marvin Unruh, (Lanham, MD: U of America, 2005), 2.
64 Ibid, 3.
65 Ibid, 2.
66 Putnam, Jess, 29.
35
The Unruh Civil Rights Act barred discrimination in all public accommodations and
business dealings, including real estate transactions. Further, the bill provided a legal
foundation in court where individuals who faced discrimination could sue for damages.
With full support of the bill by groups such as the NAACP and fellow politicians such as
Governor Brown, who placed civil rights high on his agenda, the bill face little difficulty
passing. Brown once said of Unruh that “Jesse made his reputation on my programs, and
I made mine on the way he handled it.”67 Martin Schiesl claims that “on racial affairs, on
the other hand, Unruh’s actions were at least equal to, if not more important than, those of the Governor.”68 Finally, in 1959, the bill passed by a wide margin.69 While Unruh and
Hawkins drafted noteworthy bills, discrimination in private housing remained a serious issue in California. Sensing that housing discrimination in California could once and for all be destroyed, Brown insisted that Hawkins draft a new bill that banned housing discrimination by private citizens.70
Despite the massive victories in outlawing discrimination in housing backed by
government funding and real estate dealings, proponents of fair housing understood that
housing discrimination by private individuals was the most significant hurdle in ending
67 Schiesl, Responsible Liberalism, 152.
68 Ibid, 153.
69 Lou Cannon, Ronnie and Jesse: A Political Odyssey (New York: Doubleday, 1969), 102-103; Rumford, “Legislator for Fair Employment,” 114.
70 Schiesl, “Residential Opportunity for All Californians,” 3.
36
housing discrimination in that the vast majority of houses did not rely on government funding, but rather privately owned. Governor Brown’s second inaugural addresses forecasts his commitment to aggressively tackle the issue of housing discrimination.
While delivering his address in 1963, he stated:
On January 1, 1863, an order signed by President Lincoln promised all slaves in warring states that they would be “forever free.” One hundred years and one week have passed since the Emancipation Proclamation became law. In conscience, we cannot say today that we have redeemed Lincoln’s promise…I ask you to strengthen and extend existing law against discrimination in housing by expanding the Fair Employment Practices Commission into a Human Rights Commission with authority to move against discriminatory practices in housing. In the same spirit, we must work to eliminate de facto segregation in our public schools and I promise to give the State Board of Education my full support in its efforts in that direction. This spring, I will issue an executive order to all state administrators in the form of a “Governor’s Code of Fair Practices.” Its intent will be to wipe out al vestiges of discrimination in state government. In addition, I urge you to require all persons and businesses licensed by the state to adopt strict policies against discrimination.71
Brown made it clear that housing discrimination had a crippling effect on many sectors of society, as it segregated groups who, as a result, were barred from participating in larger society. He also pointed to the power of law in stunting the growth of segregation, while
acknowledging that its origin is rooted in prejudice. Lastly, he committed himself to
fighting against segregation, punishing hate, and employing various legislative methods
to create an equitable California. Moreover, Brown and other anti-segregation politicians were eager to produce legislation that dealt specifically with private housing. Before
71 Edmund P. Brown "Second Inaugural Address." Pat Brown's Second Inaugural Address. Http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/32-Pbrown02.html. Web. 15 Oct. 2016. 37
committee members at the Civil Rights Hearing of 1960 in Washington, Brown eloquently communicated California’s housing crises, exposed misguided stereotypes, and outlined his plan to eradicate housing discrimination. He stated:
Segregation in housing is also a consequence of economic status which automatically condemns low-income groups to the poorest housing. Our long- range objective must be to raise the income level of minority groups. We have already banned discrimination in publicly-assisted housing. Beyond this, government at all levels has an obligation to use its influence so that economically qualified members of minority groups can live where they please, in freedom and decency and dignity. And government cannot, in this advanced age, hide any longer behind the reactionary and discredited folk tale that segregation and discrimination are natural and tolerable because minorities prefer to be restricted to the ghetto.72 Here Brown points out that minority groups have been prevented from living in decent
houses because a lack of economic opportunity. He points out that widely held false
belief endorsed by whites are also at the center of segregation. That is, many held that
people of color prefer to live within the same community as one another, even if it means
living in adverse poverty. Brown rejected this idea, calling it a folktale that whites used to
justify discrimination and segregation. For Brown, California could not function properly
if politicians continued to buy into unfounded stereotypes; instead, they would have to
acknowledge old stereotypes and work together to improve society by providing people
of color with not only decent employment, but opportunities to rent and purchase quality
housing.
72 Hearing Before the United States Commission on Civil Rights (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960), 633. 38
Agreeing with Brown that housing discrimination had adverse consequences for
Californians, Rumford’s developed a civil rights bill to outlaw discrimination by private
citizens. The Rumford Fair housing Act sparked an intense debate within the assembly, with some politicians aggressively dismissing the bill. A major point of contention centered on Brown’s insistence that the bill empower the Fair Employment Practices
Committee (FEPC) to enforce a discrimination ban, have power to investigate, and give injunctions upon discovering foul play. This aggressive bill reflected his commitment to end housing discrimination once and for all, which was a promise that he made his constituents upon winning re-election over former vice president Richard Nixon in 1962.
Once reelected, Brown focused squarely on a fair housing bill that would eliminate private discrimination.73 In 1963, he told the majority-democratic legislature that “when
discrimination exists in private housing, the disadvantages to our whole society are
obvious. Tensions are aggravated. Our American principles of equality are ignored.”74
His goal was to expand the Hawkins Act by including both rentals and sales and insisted that the FEPC have the same power in terms of housing as it did in respect to employment. To complicate matters, Hawkins left Sacramento upon election to the
United States House of Representatives, however, William Byron Rumford replaced him as Chief Legislative Strategist in Fair Housing. Rumford incorporated sections of the
Unruh and Hawkins Acts and applied them to a new fair housing bill before presenting
73 Schiesl, “Residential Opportunity for All Californians,” 2-3.
74 “Statement of Governor Edmund G. Brown on Civil Rights,” February 14, 1963, Journal of the Assembly, Legislature of the State of California, Regular Session, vol. 1, 7 January-21 June 1963, 625. 39
the Rumford Fair Housing Act to the California State Assembly.75 Moreover, the various
debates highlighted several thought-provoking arguments from both sides of the issue.
Democratic Assemblymen, William Byron Rumford, began with the opening argument, stating that “the time is now, today, to rid the state of an insidious practice, that of housing discrimination affecting a great number of American citizens in our state.”76
However, those who opposed Rumford, which equated to all but three Republicans made the following claims: “all minorities should be able to buy anywhere if they qualify financially, socially, and educationally, but property owners should have the right to negotiate, to select, and choose.” Another was more candid in denouncing the Rumford
Act, stating that “we feel a man who owns property has the right to be capricious.” In other words, a property owner has the right to change his mind, be unpredictable or discriminatory. Along the same vein, many Republican Assembly members claimed that with the passage of such a bill, property owners’ private rights were at stake, privileging minority groups. For example, one Republican posited that the Rumford bill is a form of
“class legislation which creates special privilege for a group while destroying the rights of another.”77 However, because the California Assembly consisted of mostly Democrats
who shared the vision of Governor Brown and William Rumford and who placed racial
equity and social equality above all else, the Rumford bill’s opponents failed to establish
75 Schiesl, “Residential Opportunity for All Californians,” 3.
76 Lawrence P. Crouchett, William Byron Rumford, the Life and Public Services of a California Legislator: A Biography, (El Cerrito, CA: Downey Place Pub. House, 1984), 65.
77Ibid, 65. 40
adequate momentum in blocking the bill. The assembly voted on the bill in April of 1963;
the bill won by a margin of forty-seven to twenty-five, with all Democrats and three
Republicans voting in favor of the bill, including future Defense Secretary Caspar W.
Weinberger. Each of the twenty-five votes against the bill was cast by Republicans,
including Don Mulford, who, like Rumford, represented Alameda County and former
California Governor George C. Deukmejian.78
Rumford’s bill provoked equally passionate debates within the California Senate in
1963. One of the leading voices within the spirited discussions was none other than the
bill’s creator, William Rumford. Complementing his efforts was Albert McKee, who
served as the head of the Associated Real Estate Board, an organization consisting mostly
of black real estate agents. Both Rumford and McKee’s efforts were instrumental in
several key hearings held by the Government Efficiency Committee, which was chaired
by Senator Luther Gibson who represented Vallejo and Benicia in the Legislature. During
one such hearing on May 27th, 1963, each argued persuasively for the passage of the bill.
Their arguments were met with contempt, however, by various members of suburban real
estate agencies, who were hoping to continue their practice of discrimination
unchallenged. They held that Rumford’s bill infringed upon the rights of the private
citizen. Gibson, who was perhaps the fiercest opponent of the bill, recommended that a
vote be taken during the next hearing. However, the hearing had been put off several
78 Ibid, 65; Journal of the Assembly, Legislator of the State of California, Regular session, Vol. 2, 5 Janueary-19 June 1963, 2525.
41
times by Gibson, greatly angering supporters of the bill. One such group was the
Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), staging an around-the-clock sit-in. CORE was so
adamant about the bill’s passage that they continued their protest efforts even after
Rumford pleaded with them to leave.79 Rumford believed that the sit-ins were
counterproductive as they would alienate moderate legislators.80
Governor Brown pressured Democrats to prioritize the bill, adding momentum to the efforts of Rumford and his allies. Several Democratic groups responded to the governor’s
promptings, such as the Democratic State Central Committee and the California
Democratic Council, together organizing a rally to promote the bill at the State Capitol
Building in Sacramento.81 During this event Governor Brown, Assemblymen Hawkins,
William Byron Rumford and NAACP director, Tarea Hall, each spoke to a crowd of state
delegates and supporters. Brown promised in his speech to “put the full power of
government behind the effort to eliminate discrimination in the field of housing.”82 These
efforts placed additional pressure on Gibson, who eventually scheduled a hearing on June
14th. Unlike the previous meeting, Gibson was one of the most vocal opponents of the
bill. He, like his allies, argued that the bill destroyed individual rights and recommended
79“Race Equality Sit-ins,” Sacramento Bee, May 29, 1963; “Brown Thanks Sit-in groups,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 31st, 1963
80 Daniel Hosang. “Racial Propositions: Genteel Apartheid in Postwar California.” Diss. U of Southern California, 2007.
81 Schiesl, “Residential Opportunity for All Californians,” 2.
82 Ibid, 2.
42
that it be revised and apply only to publicly-assisted housing. At one point, Luther
Gibson vehemently argued that his committee “would never approve a bill prohibiting
discrimination in private housing.”83 Rumford grew disillusioned with Gibson’s
unwillingness to budge, finding his recommendation insulting and short-sighted; in
response to Gibson’s recommendation, Rumford pointed out that publicly-assisted
housing made up only 25 percent of new single-family dwellings.84 For Rumford, reducing the bill to exclusively publicly assisted housing had already been done and would not be repeated in his bill; his aim was to influence the vast majority of the housing market and this could only be done by addressing the issue of private housing
discrimination. The hearing failed to advance the bill, with both sides failing to come to a
compromise. After the hearing, Speaker Jesse Unruh met with both Gibson and Rumford
hoping to work out their differences. However, even the private meeting was
unsuccessful. Disillusioned by the lack of progress with the bill, Governor Brown
pressured Gibson’s Government Efficiency Committee to continue to meet and negotiate
a resolution. To prevent the stalling of the Rumford Act, Unruh persuaded Rumford to
revise the penalty clause and reduce the power of the Fair Employment Practices
Commission (FEPC) to issuing restraining orders. While the FEPC was originally created
in 1959 to hold businesses accountable for discriminatory practices, applying specifically
to the Unruh Act, its enforcement powers later extended to the Rumford Act. Under the
83 Crochette, “William Byron Rumford,” 66; “Chances for Fair Housing Bill Collapse Amide Verbal Battle,” Sacramento Bee, June 14, 1963.
84 Schiesl, Responsible Liberalism, 111. 43
Rumford bill, plaintiffs seeking redress would file their complaint with the FEPC.85
Furthermore, Rumford also made the concession that the bill’s coverage be changed from
one single unit to no more than four units “occupied in whole or in part by the owner as
his residence.”86 This meant that that the Fair Housing Act did not apply to a single- family home sold or rented by a private individual, provided that the individual owned no more than four houses; the act also did not apply to the rental of a room or unit in a dwelling with up to four units, provided that the owner resided on the property. Gibson found these changes satisfactory and finally obliged, while making a minor amendment to the bill; still, Democratic leaders continued to place additional pressure on Gibson to put the bill before the full Senate.87 The bill was advanced to the Senate for a vote, passing by a margin of 22 to 13 and sent back to the lower house, where it passed by a vote of 63 to 9; the Rumford Act had now become California’s prevailing fair housing legislation.88 Governor Brown declared that the passing of the bill was a “historic step in
giving every Californian the right to live where he pleases.”89The Rumford Civil Rights
Act had passed, covering all publicly-assisted housing and seventy percent of private
85 Hosang, “Genteel Apartheid,” 163.
86 Crochette, “William Byron Rumford,” 65
87 Casstevens, Politics, Housing, and Race Relations, 34-36.
88 Journal of the Assembly, Legislature of the State of California, Regular Session, Vol. 3, 7 January-21 June 1963, 6289.
89 “Applause Resounds in Capitol,” Sacramento Bee, June 22, 1963; Rarick, “California Rising,” 265-267
44
housing. It eventually served as the legal basis on which many individuals and civil rights
groups relied, while battling housing discrimination in court during the 1960s.
Despite the success of California politicians in passing the Rumford Civil Rights
Act, opponents of the fair housing legislation continued to mount their campaign against
the law, eventually getting it overturned. The biggest and fiercest detractor of the bill was
the California Real Estate Association (CREA), which launched an all-out legislative
assault on the bill. CREA’s president, L.H. Wilson, asserted after the passage of the
Rumford Act that “selling or renting a home involves moral and economic factors that
government has traditionally committed to the individual property owner.” He continued,
“removing this power of decision through the force of law effectively destroys the
common right to govern the disposition of residential property.” 90 He, along with his
allies, including the California Apartment Owners’ Association began drafting a measure
to amend the constitution and repeal the Rumford Act. The initiative stipulated that
property owners alone reserved the right to refuse to sell or rent property to any person
and prohibited any locality within the state from adopting fair housing legislation. To
ensure the success of the cause, CREA and its allies developed a branch that would
broaden their reach in creating the Commission of Home Protection. This organization
90 “Our President’s Letter,” California Real Estate Magazine 43 (November 1963): 3.
45
began recruiting volunteers to circulate petitions, in hopes of securing enough signatures
to place proposition fourteen on the ballot.91
Proponents of the Rumford Fair Housing Act viewed the actions of CREA and its allies as divisive and counter to the principles of equality expressed in the U.S.
Constitution. One official, Edward Howden, head of the California Division of Labor, was particularly put off by CREA’s activities. During a meeting with the Apartment
Owners’ Association, he posited that “the right to secure and have property is a vital human right to which I wholeheartedly subscribe and even aspire.” He continued, “there is, however, a corollary which some of our friends seem to overlook these days. In a society as ours, which calls itself, and certainly strives to be, a free society, we cannot justify the denial of the same right, which we enjoy, to any person by reason of his race or ancestry.”92 Governor Brown was particularly vocal, echoing the sentiments of
Howden. In a fiery letter to CREA’s president, Brown demonized the actions of CREA.
He argued that the initiative was an attack on “inalienable rights which the constitution preserves for all citizens.” In his letter, he warned that the initiative would undoubtedly
“increase personal bitterness and hate rather than understanding and cooperation.”93
91 Schiesl, Responsible Liberalism, 113.
92 Edward Howden, “The Rumford Fair Housing Act and Proposed State Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Such Legislation,” San Diego California, 1 October 1963, Jesse M. Unruh Papers, California State Archives, Sacramento, California, LP 236-322, 11.
93 Edmund G. Brown to L. H. Wilson, 9 December 1963, Unruh Papers, LP236-322, 1. 46
CREA and its allies did not budge, however, instead launching an aggressive and openly racist scare campaign that played on the deep-seated fears of the white suburban population. CREA and its allies employed some of the scare tactics originally used by white realtors in the Midwest to create “white flight,” suggesting that the Rumford Act would drive minorities into their neighborhoods, resulting in adverse capital loss in the form of reduced property value. One disillusioned Democrat in Cudahy, a middle class suburb in Los Angeles, wrote Governor Brown a letter expressing his disapproval of
Brown and his endorsement of the Rumford bill. He wrote, “in view of your endorsement of the ‘Rumford Mongrelization Act’ sponsored by so-called minority groups, left wingers and genuine Communists, I will no longer vote for you on any issue or campaign you ever enter on.”94 As CREA continued to promote the idea of declining property
values, many suburban Democrats became concerned about what this could mean for
their own communities. To combat the Rumford Act, CREA and their allies developed an
initiative that allowed for the repeal of the Rumford Act, while ensuring the private
“right” to discriminate. They called this measure Proposition 14. According to Martin
Schiesl, “CREA and other sponsors of Proposition 14 frightened many of them [whites]
into believing that black entrance into white neighborhoods meant a considerable decline
in property values and a loss of community control.”95 According to William Rumford,
“the propaganda used up and down the state” suggested that “blacks were coming from
94 John F. Evans to Governor Edmund G. Brown, 29 April 1964, Brown papers, Carton 706.
95 Schiesl, “Responsible Liberalism,” 115.
47
all over the country to occupy homes in the state of California. The whole proposition was built on fear and discrimination and racism…”96 By February of 1964, CREA, the
Committee of Home Protection, and several real estate boards across California secured
over one million signatures, allowing Proposition 14 a spot on the ballot.97 From here,
CREA and its allies launched an expensive anti-Rumford campaign promoting overt and
covert racism and stereotypes. They used pamphlets, billboards, releases, resolutions, and
cartoons to advance their agenda.98
To ramp up their endeavors, CREA welcomed so-called conservative and extremist
groups as allies to help spread anti-Rumford sentiment. For example, CREA partnered
with the John Birch Society and the California Republican Assembly (CRA). The John
Birch Society, like the Ku Klux Klan, is associated with the extreme right, “seeking to limit the freedom of the left.”99 CRA promotes family values, believes that there should be small government, and holds that the country’s survival is dependent on Christian leadership.100 However, as they objected to the Rumford Act, which outlaws race
discrimination in housing, one has to question whether the group is pro-family or pro-
96 Rumford, “Legislator for Fair Employment,” 124.
97 “Petition Signers Set New Record, Qualify Initiative For Public Vote,” California Real Estate Magazine 44 (March 1964)
98 “The Realtors Attack Fair Housing,” San Francisco Chronicle,” 8 May 1964.
99 Roger Eatwell and Cas Mudde. Western Democracies and the New Extreme Right Challenge, (London: Routledge, 2004), 7.
100 "California Republican Assembly." RSS. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
48
white family. CRA holds that “the only answer to the current moral decline that our nation now faces is a return to the beliefs and standards of morality which our founding fathers placed into the Constitution.” However, the problem with the “moral standards” of the founding fathers is that they proclaimed God as the way to righteousness, but also unashamedly championed the right to enslave men for their own personal gain. Founding
Father, Thomas Jefferson, had children with his slave and allowed his own children to
remain in bondage. Moreover, in a speech promoting Proposition 14, CREA president,
Nolan Frizzelle, stated that “the essence of freedom is the right to discriminate.” Robert
Gaston, a member of the board of directors, plainly stated, “Negroes are not accepted
[into white neighborhoods] because they haven’t made themselves acceptable.”101 To further their cause, Proposition 14 advocates played on the public’s fear of Communism, suggesting in their literature that the Rumford Act was influenced by Communist forces.102
Opponents of Proposition 14 waged their own battle, rounding up allies across the
state. They welcomed the support of religious groups, civic organizations, professional
organizations, and scientific industries.103 These groups included the California
Democratic council, the Democratic State Central Committee, California Against
101 Joseph Lewis, “California: Wild Card in the Deck,” The Reporter, 22 October 1964, 29.
102Schiesl, “Responsible Liberalism,” 114.
103 Ibid, 114.
49
Proposition 14, and the Urban League. The Urban League, a group of mostly black
professionals, recruited volunteers to help distribute anti-Proposition 14 publications,
developed voter education programs, and assisted other anti-Proposition 14 groups in
promoting the cause of fair housing. California Against Proposition 14 was equally
effective in spreading anti-Proposition 14 propaganda and educating voters about the fair housing bill. The group’s head, Richard Kline, managed an aggressive fund-raising campaign for the cause, using the capital to promote their own advertising endeavors, circulating the message of fair housing on billboards and bumper stickers, while sponsoring anti-Proposition speeches for both radio and television. 104 Groups such as the
California Labor Federation, the Catholic Social Justice Committee, and Japanese-
American Citizens League among a host of others all stood behind this group.105
Governor Brown’s efforts were also instrumental in the fight against Proposition 14. In
May 1964, Brown gave a speech before an audience of religious leaders stating:
In recent years, we in government have worked hard to secure programs that would ensure the equality of opportunity in those areas most essential to a good and wholesome life. We have made constant progress, culminating eight months ago in a law prohibiting discrimination in housing. But now powerful forces are telling Californians that full citizenship to all somehow diminishes the rights of many.106
104 Ibid, 114.
105 Casstevens, Politics, Housing, and Race, 59-60.
106 Edmund G. Brown, an address delivered to the Sacramento Conference on Religion and Race, 27 May 1964, Unruh papers, LP236-323, 1.
50
Despite the efforts of Brown and his allies, Proposition 14 passed by a margin of two to
one, taking 57 of 58 counties.107 However, during the years immediately following the
passage of Proposition 14, countless minorities filed housing discrimination lawsuits. In
1966, just two years after Proposition fourteen’s success, one such lawsuit reached the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Proposition 14 violated the Fourteenth
Amendment guaranteeing equal protection. Proposition 14 was overturned and the
Rumford Fair Housing Act was reinstated, serving as the most comprehensive housing
legislation in California. And, despite Ronald Reagan’s promise to erase the bill, the
Rumford Act stands even today.
California politicians were instrumental in challenging housing discrimination in
drafting key fair housing legislation. Governor Brown, along with several notable allies
and organizations worked together to first tackle the issue of builder’s misappropriation of public funds in drafting the Hawkins’ Act and later addressed discrimination in real estate transactions in passing the Unruh Act. These two acts laid the foundation for individuals who would sue in court after experiencing housing discrimination before
1963. However, the most instrumental victory was in adopting the Rumford Fair Housing
Act. This fair housing bill made it illegal to discriminate in not only publicly-assisted housing, but prevented private individuals from overtly discriminating against people of color. Furthermore, despite the temporary success of Proposition 14, Brown and his allies were eventually successful in their battle against bigotry as the initiative was overturned
107 Casstevens, Politics, housing and Race Relations, 68-69. 51
only two years after its passage. The Rumford Fair Housing Act would be used
successfully in court to fight against housing discrimination during the 1960s.
52
Chapter 3
INDIVIDUALS CHALLENGE HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN SACRAMENTO
Civil Rights agitators challenged housing discrimination from the bottom-up and
top-down. Individuals, especially black elites, fought in local courts, lobbied
organizations for support, and worked alongside civil rights groups in later years. State
politicians aided the efforts of both individuals and civil rights groups with sweeping
legislation in the 1960s. Furthermore, professionals of color challenged housing
discrimination throughout the 1950s and 1960s, as many had the financial means to
reside in any area of their choosing. Thus, many elite blacks inevitably became
trailblazers in fighting discrimination in Sacramento. In some cases, individuals such as
Nathaniel Colley argued successfully in court, using the National Housing Act of 1934,
held by some courts as outdated. While individuals such as Virna Canson lobbied
organizations tirelessly to gain the support for the Rumford Act as Proposition 14
supporters began to gain momentum. As most individuals began to rely on the Rumford
Civil Rights Act of 1963 to challenge discrimination, it was imperative that agitators
protected the act at all costs. My research suggests that minority social elites such as
Attorney Nathaniel Colley, Dr. Samuel Elliot, and Dr. Arthur Lyman, among others, paved the way for people of color to secure housing of their choice and in some cases joined the efforts of larger civil rights organizations within Sacramento.
53
NATHANIEL COLLEY
Of all the individuals who fought for equal housing in Sacramento during the 1950s
and 1960s, it can be argued that no one did more for the cause than Nathaniel Colley.
Colley was born and raised in Snow Hill, Alabama, where he attended the Historically
Black College, Tuskegee University, graduating in 1941. He also served his country
valiantly, becoming a chemical warfare unit commander in the U.S. Army from 1943 to
1946. After an honorable discharge in 1946, Colley challenged the University of
Alabama law school’s admission policy, which excluded African Americans. In response
to the state’s and university’s discriminatory practices against people of color, Colley stated “I am aware of the fact that the law in Alabama makes my attendance at the State
University [which I help support] illegal.”108 He made it clear that his right as a citizen had been violated “since none of the fictional ‘separate-but-equal’ facilities in Alabama provides legal training.” He concluded that “the federal courts should have the opportunity to pass upon my specific right to attend the University at Tuscaloosa.”109
Colley went on to attend Yale Law School, graduating in 1948. He then migrated to
California with his wife, settling on the state’s capitol as his choice of residence. Passing
108 E. Culpepper Clark, The Schoolhouse Door: Segregation's Last Stand at the University of Alabama (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 12‐14.
109 Ibid. 14.
54
on teaching positions at the Universities of Texas, North Carolina, and University of
Stockholm, Colley decided to take the advice of a close friend who suggested that
Sacramento would offer ample opportunity, for the city lacked African-American
lawyers. According to Colley, “there had been lots of people here and there had not ever
been, to my knowledge, a black lawyer in the city. I thought I could make it, and wanted
to give it a try.”110 Remembering his ease of transition, Colley recalls not having gone
“through the stage of the young lawyer starving to death. I took the bar exam one day,
and began filing suits the next day.”111
Colley did not waste any time, quickly becoming Sacramento’s most prominent
black attorney. In one article, Colley was held as the “undisputed leader in the colored
community.”112 Already by 1954 a local magazine noted “it is no secret and it is
generally agreed among Sacramentans, both white and colored that much of the progress
of Sacramento’s colored community in the last three years has been largely due to the fact that a brilliant young attorney, Nathaniel S. Colley, came to the city in 1948, the year he finished Yale, and began his law practice.”113 Moreover, Colley was a member of the
local branch of the NAACP (founded in 1916), where he served as a chairman of the
110 Ibid, 14.
111 Ibid, 14.
112 Dylan McDonald. "Young Attorney Gives Leadership to Colored Community," Colorfornia magazine article, page 17; c.1954
113 Ibid, 17.
55
legal Committee. Belonging to dozens of civic organizations, Colley found time to serve
as a board member of the Federation of Civic Unity (CFCU), an interracial collection of
civil rights organizations. Colley also worked for the Sacramento Outlook, one of
Sacramento’s black newspapers, where he published numerous articles in the late 1940s
and 1950s. By the mid-1950s, Sacramento’s black community had come to admire and
respect Colley, regarding him as the most prominent leader in the capital city. One
magazine stated that “Sacramento’s colored citizens regard [Colley] as a fearless fighter for their rights and a leader on whom they can depend to reflect their opinions and creditably represent them in all civic affairs.”114
In the 1950s, Colley fought tirelessly for fair housing in Sacramento, experiencing himself the difficulty in securing the house of his choice due to his race. In 1954, Colley asked a white friend to purchase a home in South Land Park then transfer title to him, a strategy often used by African-Americans in Sacramento to undermine racist realtors who insisted on keeping neighborhoods racially homogenous. Alarmed, his white neighbors responded to his family’s presence with disgust and hateful tactics. One evening upon returning home, the Colley’s noticed a “barnfire” placed on their front lawn. Colley recalls being “the first black family to move into the area.” He continued, “from the welcome we got, it seemed a lot of people objected to our presence.”115
114 Ibid, 17.
115 Fisher, “Far From Utopia,” 139. 56
Just three years earlier, in 1951, Colley fought against customary segregation in
Sacramento’s River Oaks area. A new housing development began leasing apartments, however through de-facto discrimination they excluded people of color from procuring units. On discovering that of the 310 units, African Americans occupied just 16, Colley alerted the local chapter of the NAACP, asking for their support in filing a complaint against the Sacramento Housing Authority branch. He then assembled the Sacramento
Committee against Segregation in Public Housing, which consisted of over twenty organizations, including members of the NAACP, local clergymen, and local civil rights activists. Aiding Colley, Myra West, a member of the Committee against Segregation,
contacted the president of the Sacramento Housing Authority who informed her that he
would look into the problem. After weeks, West did not hear back from President Becker
and upon reaching him, Becker stated “the Housing Authority decided against sending a
letter. [And] There isn’t anything you can do in court. You can’t get anywhere. Legally,
you people haven’t a leg to stand on.”116 West immediately contacted the City Manager,
Bartley Cavanaugh. Colley, West, and Cavanaugh met and discussed a course of action.
After their meeting, Cavanaugh contacted the Housing Authority. A few weeks later,
Becker opened fifty-six units in River Oak for families of color. However, after
discovering that the complex placed all of the minorities in one section, thus remaining segregated, Colley took legal action. After a quick case, the court ruled on behalf of
116 William Mayer, "Sacramento's Housing Fight," The Crisis, Jan. 1953, 30
57
Colley and issued a cease and desist order, preventing the Sacramento Housing Authority from segregating its tenants.117 Unlike Southern cities, whose laws and tense social climate slowed integration, California’s liberal climate made it possible for immediate
gains in challenging housing discrimination. Still, despite Colley’s success de-facto segregation remained strong in the 1950s, restricting most non-whites to a few areas
within the city.
In a similar case, an African-American Sacramento native, World War II veteran,
and McClellan Air Force Base employee, Oliver Ming, used the local court to fight
housing discrimination, hiring Nathaniel Colley as his chief legal counselor. Ming sued
Milton G. Horgan (real estate broker), along with a host of his associates, in 1957. Each
of the defendants sold all of their units, which amounted to thousands, for ten years prior
to the suit in Sacramento County, using FHA and VA financing. Despite selling houses in
the areas of North Highlands, Tallac Village, Golf Course Terrace Village, Arden Vista
Oaks, Rancho Cordova, Parkway Estates, Freeport Manor, Hollywood Park, and
Swanson Estate, not “a single one was sold to a Negro.”118 This was not a coincidence, however, as the defendants had a strict racist policy to “not sell to a Negro [and] if any
Negro applied [for a house] the matter should be discussed with him in a diplomatic way
so as not to antagonize anyone.”119 According to Ming, the problem started in January of
117 "Groups Sue to Prevent Negro Ban in Housing," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 2, 1952. 118 Complaint, No. 97130, Superior Court in the State of California, County of Sacramento, 5
119 Memorandum Opinion, No. 97130, Superior Court in the State of California, County of Sacramento, 8. "Oliver A. Ming V. Milton G. Horgan, Et Al.," 693-700. 58
1954, when he read advertisements by Horgan’s company extending invitations to
purchase homes listed for sale in North Highlands, as he desired to be close to the local air force base. His company’s advertisement also noted the availability of Federal
Housing Authority (FHA) and Veteran Administration (VA) financing for potential
borrowers. However, upon attempting to purchase a home, Ming, “a ready and able
buyer,” experienced repeated rejection. Convinced that his race was the sole factor for his
rejection, Ming took action. The court case was lengthy with both sides arguing their
interpretation of the law. The defendants argued that they were engaged in a private business dealing as they disposed of their homes and had the “freedom of contract- a time
honored right that finds expression in and is protected by the fundamental law.”120 They argued that when Congress created the FHA in 1934, it did not “require such persons
[property owners, lenders, and developers] to refrain from discrimination.121 The
Plaintiff’s counsel disagreed with the defendants reading of the law. Ming’s legal counsel
argued that every law that Congress passed had an “implied covenants against racial
discrimination” and did not pass laws that “benefited any single race to the exclusion of
others, any more than it could enact a law benefiting only one religious sect.”122 Because
Horgan’s company signed an agreement with the Federal Housing Authority stipulating
that they would adhere to the National Housing Act, which specified that builders could
120Memorandum Opinion, 9. "Oliver A. Ming V. Milton G. Horgan, Et Al.," 696.
121 Memorandum, 9-10. Ibid.
122 Memorandum Opinion, 10-11. Ibid 59
not refuse housing based on race or color, his company had breached their legal
agreement. Colley and his colleagues effectively argued this point and defeated Horgan
and his associates.123124 On June 23, 1958, Judge Oakley found that blacks were excluded
from suburban homes that used FHA/VA financing based not on their income, but “on
the basis of race.” Oakley found that:
The result has not been to deny colored people housing in the Sacramento area; indeed, it has been shown possible for such people to acquire the same or similar property on second sales or by other devious means, but it has resulted that Negroes have been and are turned away from original sales of most tract homes in the area despite an increase in the percentage of Negro population in the last few years and an increase in their rate of income as compared with members of the white race. The inference that is bound to be drawn from this is that there is no economic or financial reason to deny eligibility to colored people as such and there is every reason to believe that housing for them of the nature referred to is, and was, in demand.125
In the end, the court sided with the plaintiff, issuing an injunction against the defendants
who regularly used FHA/VA financing, yet practiced racial discrimination. The
defendants were forced to accept and process the applications of Ming and other persons
of color who applied for a house using FHA and VA financing.126 Because Ming
123 Sacramento Outlook, “Oliver Ming Sues Real Estate Men for $5,000,” The Colley Papers, accessed November 23, 2015, http://colley.omeka.net/items/show/22.
124 "Group Charge Housing Project Still Segregates Negroes," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 18, 1952
125 Memorandum Opinion, 2. "Oliver A. Ming V. Milton G. Horgan, Et Al.," 694.
126 NAACP West Coast Region, "N.A.A.C.P. West Coast Region I Annual Report, 1958," National Association for the Advancement of Colored People West Coast Region I Papers, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. 60
challenged biased developers, he paved the way for people of color to purchase homes in
the areas of their choice.
1963 marked a critical year for individuals, such as the black state employee (name
was not released) whose story follows, who challenged housing discrimination as the
Rumford Civil Rights Act, which incorporated many of the protections of the Unruh Act,
passed, providing a strong legal foundation. In 1963, Sacramento Bee writer Clark Biggs
wrote a two-part article entitled “Buying Home in Sacramento is 6 Months of
Humiliation” chronicling the experience of an African-American state employee
repeatedly turned down by a builder as he tried to purchase a home listed for sale in a
white community. After seeing the for-sale sign in the front yard, the state worker
contacted the listing agent and negotiated the purchase of the home, leaving him with a
$500 deposit. A few days later, the agent informed him that the builder-owner rented it to
a relative. Seeing that the sign remained on the lawn a week later, the man contacted the
agent and left him a deposit of $1,200; shortly thereafter, the agent again refused him. To
his astonishment, a month later the state worker noticed the house listed for sale in a local
newspaper. After driving by the home, he noticed the real estate agent showing the home
to a white couple. When confronted, the agent said that there “had been a change in
plans.”127 He then offered to give the real estate agent a check; the broker requested they
meet at his office. The state worker arrived at the office with an agent from the Fair
127 “Buying Home in Sacramento is 6 Months of Humiliation. “The Sacramento Bee. December 19, 1963.
61
Housing Committee. Not surprisingly, the real estate agent informed him that the builder would not “sell to a Negro.” After many delays, the Fair Housing Committee members
and the state worker eventually met with the builder. During this meeting, the committee member revealed records indicating each of the state worker’s failed attempts at buying the house. The builder then replied that he did not in fact say that he would not sell to a
“Negro”, explaining that the house was a model home and not for sale; he also made it clear that he could not build a house for “the Negro because of the construction strike going on at the time.”128 After the committee informed the builder that he was in
violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, he agreed to sell the original home to the state
worker. After consummating the sales contract, the state worker did not receive the keys
and had to wait six months before moving into the home; the state worker moved in only
after hiring a locksmith to change the locks on the house. Had the state employee
challenge the builder in court, he more than likely would not have had to go to the extent
of changing the locks himself. Despite the inconvenience of having to wait six months
and change the locks before moving into his home, the case of the state worker is a good
example of the strength of fair housing legislation as the threat to sue enabled him to both
avoid a potentially costly court case and still obtain the house of his choice. The Rumford
Act of 1963 would serve as additional legal support for people of color in similar cases of
discrimination.
128 Ibid. 62
The following case illustrates the extent to which racism influenced housing
discrimination; this case is one of over a dozen during the year of 1962, sparking the
Attorney General, Stanley Mosk, to investigate housing discrimination in Sacramento.129
Not only this, Mosk investigated Sacramento’s real estate board itself for apparently
refusing to accept black real estate brokers.130 Moreover , in 1962, Mr. and Mrs. Edgar
W. Duff, jr. sued Mr. and Mrs. Lee McCoy (home owners) for $65,000 in damages for
refusing to perform their contract. The Duff family also sued the McCoy’s neighbors, Dr.
Campbel and Dr. Endelberger and their wives, the McCoy’s title insurance company, and
the real estate brokers representing them for pressuring the McCoy family to breach their
contract because of the Duff’s race. The listing price of the home located in Carmichael
was $18,500. Duff informed the judge during his Superior Court trial that the McCoy’s
confided that they were under intense pressure from their neighbors not to sell the home
to them. According to the McCoy’s, this pressure led them to contact the title company
and cancel the contract. The Duffs won the court case on April 18, 1963. The defendants
were ordered to each pay $1000 in general damages and $500 in punitive damages.131
By the late 1960s, the Rumford and Unruh Acts produced many victories for individuals of color; the following two cases demonstrate this fact, while showing the
129Mosk Is Checking Housing Discrimination in Capital." The Sacramento Bee, September20, 1962.
130 "Racial Discrimination in Housing Probed." The Sacramento Bee, September 21, 1962.
131 “Trial Opens in $65,000 Blocked Home Sale.” The Sacramento Bee. June 5, 1962; "Negroes Win Court Round over House Purchase," Sacramento Bee, April 18, 1963; "Negro Pair Win Suit," Sacramento Union, April 19, 1963. 63
corruption of a singular realty company as it attempted to keep multiple qualified people
of color from purchasing homes in the white neighborhood it serviced. In 1967, an
African-American dentist, Dr. Samuel C. Elliot, sued Frank Skover and his wife, along
with a host of Lyon Real Estate agents for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which
prohibited discrimination by “all business establishments,” allowing victims of housing discrimination to sue for damages. Dr. Elliot contended that Skover refused to sell him a
South Land Park Hills home because of his color. Skover argued that the house was not for sale and only advertised to attract business to Lyon’s Realty Company. In response,
Elliot’s lawyer pointed out that the home had a for-sale sign on the lawn and that his
client made an offer of $30,500 quoted by the owners. The case was eventually sent to
the Superior Court.132 During the Superior court trial, L.L. Cook, a loan underwriter for
Elliot testified to Judged B. Abbot Goldberg that it was his opinion that Elliot’s race was
the singular factor in him being denied the home. Cook also informed the court that the
real estate agent representing the seller asked him if Elliot was Caucasian.133 In a similar
case, an African-American physicist working for Aerojet-General, Arthur L. Lyman, filed a suit against William L. Lyons, et al; William Lyon was the owner of Lyons Realty.
Lyon apparently rejected Lyman’s bid for a home in the predominantly white South Land
Park Hills neighborhood, after finding out that Lyman was African American.134 In these
132 “Owner Denies Sale Intent of House in Rights Case.” Sacramento Bee. August 22, 1967.
133 “Realty Agent Testifies.” The Sacramento Union. August 24, 1967.
134 “Two Home Suits Filed.” The Sacramento Union. June 8, 1962.
64
cases, both the Unruh and Rumford Acts were key in providing the plaintiffs with legal support in challenging segregation; unlike the 1950s, individuals of color regularly took their housing grievances to court confidently and often found success. Like many other cases that involved persons of color fighting housing discrimination in local courts, the plaintiffs were often professionals who could afford to purchase homes in any subdivision.
VIRNA CANSON
Vernon Jarrett, a Chicago journalist and historian, once said of Virna Canson that
“of all the pioneer-type people who have made black America great that most people don’t know about, she is one of the most unheralded of the unheralded.”135 Virna Mae
Canson was born in Bridgeport, Oklahoma in 1921. She learned early on what it meant to
be politically active as her father was the mayor of the small black city of Lima,
Oklahoma. Erudite and studious, Canon graduated from high school in 1938 as the
valedictorian and began her collegiate studies at Tuskegee University. While studying
home economics at Tuskegee, she met Clarence Canson and they soon married. In 1940,
she and her husband moved to California, which was his home state, settling in
Sacramento where her father-in-law was one of the chief leaders in Sacramento’s branch
of the NAACP. She began managing the NAACP’s credit union, while thrusting herself
135 “Virna Canson -- NAACP leader for Western U.S.” SF Gate. April 18, 2003.
65
into direct activism within the NAACP, choosing to focus on the issue of housing
discrimination.136
Few activists fought harder than Canson to promote the Rumford Act in 1964 when
proponents of Proposition 14 staged an expensive public campaign based on race fear. To
counter the efforts of Prop. 14 supporters, Canson began lobbying the Sacramento City-
County Human Relations Committee, a privately funded, civil rights agency dedicated to
ensuring equal housing opportunities for all races, Sacramento City Council and
Sacramento Board of Supervisors to support Rumford’s fair housing bill. Working as the
NAACP’s chairman of a special committee of council of Democratic Clubs of 9th
Assembly District, Canson worked alongside several other civic organizations including the Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing to gain support for the Rumford bill and to reverse the momentum of Proposition 14. Unable to gain support from then Sacramento
Mayor, James B. McKinney, Canson did convince him to call for a hearing to allow
“both sides an opportunity to explain their position in the controversy.”137 McKinney did
not feel that the council should adopt a side on the issue itself. During the meeting,
Canson made clear what was at stake explaining that the Rumford Act placed the rights
of humans over that of property rights. She asserted that appealing the Rumford Act
would essentially equate to “the right to harbor prejudice” and “produce racial tension of
136 Ibid.
137 "No Action Favored by Wood," Sacramento Union, December 19, 1963.
66
the kind the Sacramento community has managed to avoid.”138 However, the Sacramento
County Board of Supervisors were unconvinced of the necessity to support the Rumford
Act, refusing to denounce Proposition 14.
Undeterred, Canson met with the North Sacramento City Council (North Sacramento
was incorporated in 1924 and separate from Sacramento until merging in1964), finding
the group a welcome ally in supporting the Rumford Act. The council gathered and voted
unanimously “against discrimination in housing and in favor of the Rumford Act.”
Canson’s next mission was to get the Sacramento Human Relations Committee to openly
support of the Rumford Act and reject Proposition 14. After several months, she was
successful, however one committee member, realtor Frank LaBella, denounced the
Rumford Act in support of Proposition 14. He eventually explained that he was “still
searching [his] soul to say whether [the Rumford Act] is right or wrong.”139
Canson’s next attempted to convince the Sacramento City Council of the merits of the Rumford Act, gaining support from California Attorney General Stanley Mosk. While some council members were concerned with the Rumford Act’s infringement on individual citizens “right” to discriminate, others feared that supporting Proposition 14 could disrupt the city’s redevelopment efforts by creating a rift between the Federal and
138 "County Board Shuns Taking Position on Rumford Issue," Sacramento Bee, December 23, 1963. 139 "North City Council Votes 4-0 in Backing for Rumford Housing Law," Sacramento Bee, December 24, 1963. "Labella, Realtor, Dissents on Endorsing Fair Housing Act," Sacramento Observer, December 25, 1963.
67
State government, resulting in the withdrawal of funds. Councilman Richard Marriott
found deep problems with the initiative to repeal the Rumford Act. First, he voiced his
concern with Proposition fourteen’s potential for disrupting the city from zoning at its
discretion and feared that funds allocated for future redevelopment efforts would be
withheld by the federal government. He stood against Proposition 14, asking other
council members to “express opposition to a measure which contained a broad challenge
to the city’s authority to legislate.”140 The administrator of the Housing and Home
Finance Agency express a similar concern telling General Attorney Mosk that “the
proposed amendment would appear to prohibit any agency of the state from requiring
non-discrimination in the sale or lease of real property by private persons or entities.”141
Because California stood to potentially lose out on $264.8 million dollars in
redevelopment funds, local government agencies took note of the gravity of the initiative.142 Mosk hinted at the possible effects of losing these funds stating that “the moral decay of racial discrimination and physical decay of our cities” would go hand in hand.”143 For this reason, along with efforts of activist such as Virna Canson, Proposition
14, although initially passing, would be overturned, forever placing the Rumford Act at
the center of housing legislation. The very reason Proposition 14 was eventually decided
140"City Council Tables Motion on Rumford Law Petition," Sacramento Bee, January 3, 1964
141 "Rumford Nullifier Offers Moral, Physical Decay," Sacramento Bee, February 21, 1964.
142 "Anti Rumford Vote Will Peril Urban Renewal," Sacramento Bee, April 8, 1964.
143 "Rumford Nullifier Offers Moral, Physical Decay." Sacramento Bee, February 21, 1964.
68
by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional was due to the efforts of civil rights workers (in the case of Mulkey v. Rieman) in continuing to bring housing discrimination cases to court.
DR. LEONARD CAIN
Sacramento State University (then California State College) sociology professor and founding member of the Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing (SCFH), Dr.
Leonard Cain, offered empirical evidence that race-based segregation shaped
Sacramento’s urban and suburban landscape during the 1950s and 1960s. Because of his
professional background, his claims could not easily be dismissed by the public, bringing
greater awareness to the problem of housing discrimination in Sacramento. He
accomplished this by conducting a study of Sacramento’s housing market. This report
was the first of its kind in that it provided a detailed analysis of residential segregation,
looking at various sources including census reports. Of the Oak Park community, which
grew rapidly in size after the West End neighborhood was dismantled, he stated, “it is
abundantly clear that Oak Park has replaced the redeveloped West End as Sacramento’s
new downtown Negro Community, with a concentration of Negroes not previously
experienced in the West End.”144 In a Sacramento Bee article, he cites the perpetrators of
housing discrimination, pointing to real estate agencies, lending institutions, and private
144 Leonard D. Cain, Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan Sacramento (Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, 1961), 3;"S.S.C. Prof Says Segregation in City Increases," Sacramento Bee, May 22, 1961.
69
citizens as being guilty of “keeping many Negroes from exercising a wider choice in the
purchase or rental of homes.”145
Cain’s census data showed that people of color, particularly African Americans, had been channeled into three areas after being removed from the West End and that residential segregation increased between 1950 and 1960. First, after the annexation of various subdivisions in the 1950s, Sacramento’s black population grew from roughly four thousand to twelve thousand African Americans. In the 1950s, the vast majority of
African Americans were living in the West End, making up approximately one quarter of
the residents there. In 1960, the black population in Oak Park grew by nearly three-
thousand African American residents, making up nearly 74 percent of the blacks added to
the African-American population during the decade. These blacks were essentially
“transferred” from one part of the city to another. Oak Park census tract reflected an
increase of its black population from just over 6 percent to just over 40 percent.146
Del Paso Heights and Glen Elder experienced a similar trend from 1950 to 1960. By
1960, the black population in Del Paso Heights grew from 1160 to 4060. The once integrated Glen Elder community became predominately black by 1960 with a population
145 Ibid.
146 Cain, Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan Sacramento, 2-4. Clark Biggs, "Viewpoint Makes Difference in Fair Housing Law Issue," Sacramento Bee, December 18, 1963. Clark Biggs, "Capital Segregation Is Fact; Extent Is the Only Question," Sacramento Bee, December 23, 1963.
70
of nearly 2,000 or 78 percent of the area.147 These three tracts accounted for nearly 50
percent of blacks in the city of Sacramento.
Cain’s study pointed out that the suburbs in Sacramento and even the many neighborhoods that would become inner-city pockets would remain nearly all white. Cain investigated the Arden-Arcade, Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights, and Orangevale areas, finding that of the population of just over seventy-one thousand, just forty-two blacks or .06 percent resided within these areas. They had in fact become less integrated within the 1950s.148 Ironically, the same was true for areas that were closer in proximity
to Oak Park, including Curtis Park, Land Park, and East Sacramento. Census tract 25
showed that only one black resided within the area between 1950 to 1970. In Land Park
and East Sacramento between 1950 to 1970, the black population did not grow beyond 1
percent.149
To provide further evidence of Sacramento’s problem of housing discrimination and
to counter the argument of some who believed that people of color did not have the
capital to move into better neighborhoods, Cain dispatched the help of Sacramento State
147United States Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1960 Census Tracts, Sacramento, California, (D.C. Washington: Government Publishing Office, 1960).
148 Cain, “Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan Sacramento,” 3-4. Biggs, "Capital Segregation Is Fact; Extent Is the Only Question."
149 United States Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1950-70 Census, Census Tract, Sacramento, California, (D.C. Washington: Government Publishing Office, 1970).
71
College’s real estate research board. In a Sacramento Bee newspaper article entitled,
“S.S.C. Prof Says Segregation in City Increases,” Cain stated that:
The local Negro has made economic gains during the last decade. Although his earning power remains considerably below that of whites, a sizable middle class Negro population has developed in Sacramento due to employment opportunities with the state of California, on military bases in both military and civilian capacities, and with the Aerojet-General Corporation and some local businesses and industries. It is this group that has been effectively blocked from movement into new subdivisions and many other middle class neighborhoods.150 The Real Estate Research Board at SSC reinforced the findings of Dr. Cain in that
people of color have been denied the choice as to where to reside within Sacramento.
Their study covered the years between 1962 and 1965 and involved several surveys. The
study found that “although there is some evidence of improvement in Negro opportunities
in housing… many homes are, practically speaking, still not available.”151 Over 12
percent of black who responded to the survey stated that subdivisions without racial
restrictions was a factor in determining their residence. Also, 14 percent of black
respondents stated that they were unhappy with their neighborhood, compared to 2.8
percent of white respondents.152 20 percent of black respondents were unhappy with the
condition of their homes, compared to 11.8 percent of white respondents.153 Finally, Dr.
Cain’s research and publication provided empirical proof that housing discrimination in
150"S.S.C. Prof Says Segregation in City Increases."
151 Tsagris, “Housing Market Analysis: Sacramento Metropolitan Area, 1962-1965,” 43.
152 Ibid.
153 Ibid., 46-47. 72
Sacramento was alive and well in the 1950s and 1960s. Because his report used census
data, careful analysis, and was circulated through Sacramento’s premier newspapers, it
gave notice to the public that a serious problem existed within their city. Cain’s
commitment to fair housing and tireless efforts opened up a public conversation and
evidence that would be used by local and state governments as proof of foul play in
Sacramento’s housing industry.
73
Chapter 4
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS CHALLENGE HOUSING
DISCRIMINATION IN SACRAMENTO
The influx of African-American military personnel entering the city for
employment and the large number of displaced West-End residents created a crisis that
was swiftly met by the creation and collaboration of local civil rights organizations.
Individuals such as Nathaniel Colley eventually joined the Sacramento branch of the
NAACP, and served as its lawyer, while aiding other civil rights organizations around the
city. Some groups such as the Sacramento Fair Housing Committee employed a series of
tactics to shed light on the issue of housing discrimination, including creating pamphlets
meant to inform white home owners and dispel myths and stereotypes about people of
color, conducting social experiments to gauge racial bias against potential home buyers
of color, and assisting military personnel stationed at Mather and McClellan Air Force
Bases to secure housing. The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento Union, and Sacramento
Observer newspapers joined the fight as well, reporting injustices and urging local real
estate organizations to relinquish their unjust practices. These and other local
organizations were instrumental by themselves, however, as they pooled their resources
as a collective force in the 1960s, their momentum created a powerful weapon against
housing discrimination in Sacramento. 74
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had long been an advocate for equal housing opportunities and active in fighting against
housing discrimination. Nathaniel Colley, the chair of the NAACP’s legal committee,
won a ruling against Sacramento’s Housing Authority in 1952.154 In 1957, the NAACP
aided Oliver Ming, with Colley as his chief legal counselor, in suing local builders who
refused him housing because of the color of his skin. This case was contested at the
Superior Court level in Sacramento, resulting in the ruling forbidding builders who
received government aid from the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans
Administration from engaging in discrimination.155 Receiving national attention, the New
York Times declared African Americans “scored a legal victory with far reaching
implications in California.”156 These victories added momentum in the effort to end open
housing discrimination in Sacramento. Adding to the momentum and serving as the
culminating victory was the passage of the Rumford Fair Housing Act in 1963, which
made not only public, but also private housing discrimination illegal. However, in 1964, local and state real estate companies and their allies successfully passed Proposition 14, which not only reversed the Rumford Act, but made housing discrimination legal in
California. Furthermore, Proposition 14 gave property owners the power to refuse to sell
154 "Groups Sue to Prevent Negro Ban in Housing," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 2, 1952.
155 NAACP West Coast Region, "N.A.A.C.P. West Coast Region I Annual Report, 1958," National Association for the Advancement of Colored People West Coast Region I Papers, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley
156 "Negroes on Coast Win Housing Case," New York Times, June 29, 1958. 75
to anyone for any reason and barred the state or any locality from adopting fair housing
measures. The amendment’s key section was clear in its language, giving a license to
discriminate:
Neither the state or any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit, abridge, directly or indirectly the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, he chooses.157
The language of Proposition 14 outlined the extent to which individuals could discriminate. Not only did it grant sellers the absolute power to discriminate, but barred localities from instituting fair housing legislation which would reduce the power of the seller. This meant that all the gains by civil rights workers and politicians would be nullified.
Furthermore, the amendment was a damaging blow not only to proponents of fair housing, but those who supported social equality in general. Because of how the amendment was framed, it appeared that the right to discriminate was in fact a fundamental right superseding the Fourteenth Amendment, which offered equal protection. Proposition 14 was also in direct opposition to the Unruh Act, which banned discrimination by “business establishment of every kind.” In fact, the California Supreme
Court ruling made clear in the Unruh Case that “the activities of real estate brokers and
157“The Supreme Court: Saying No to Proposition 14,” New York Times, June 09, 1967; Casstevens, Politics, Housing and Race Relations: California's Rumford Act and Proposition, 14, 48.
76
all businesses selling or leasing residential housing” are included under the act.158 Thus,
Proposition 14, if left uncontested, would dismantle every key equal rights legislation that the state of California produced during the 1950s and 1960s.
After Proposition 14 passed, the NAACP fought an uphill battle as they continued aiding individuals who had experienced housing discrimination. In one such case, involving Clifton Hill, an African-American man who was evicted from his single-family residence because of the color of his skin, Proposition 14 secured a victory for the defendant. Hill sought help from the NAACP, which swiftly came to his aid, commissioning Nathanial Colley as Hill’s chief legal counsel. Colley and Hill took the case to the Superior Court in Sacramento on the eighth day of June, 1966. Hill, the plaintiff in the case argued for injunctive relief to restrain the defendant from evicting him due to his race. The defendant served the complainant with a notice to terminate tenancy, acknowledging that it was solely because of the tenant’s race. He claimed that he was entitled to discriminate in renting his property by right of the fourteenth amendment. The court concluded that the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendant indeed discriminated against him and intends to discriminate against “negroes generally in the rental of defendant’s resident property.”159 Further, the court found that the
fourteenth amendment “does not impose upon the state the duty” to prohibit private
citizens from discrimination in single rental units as the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits
158 Bill Boyarsky. Big Daddy: Jesse Unruh and the Art of Power Politics, (Berkeley: U of California, 2008), 10.
159 Hill v. Miller, 64 Cal. 2d 757 - 1966 77
discrimination in business establishments and the Rumford Fair Housing Act only in
situations involving publicly assisted housing and private housing containing more than four unites. As a result, the court did not award Hill with his sought after injunction.
Thus, despite the help of the NAACP, Hill was unable to maintain his housing as proposition 14 effectively blocked previous Fair Housing legislation.160161
For the NAACP this was a serious matter, again challenging Proposition 14 on
Lincoln Mulkey’s behalf. In the Mulkey vs Reitman case the plaintiff sought an
injunction as the owner of an apartment refused to rent to him because of the color of his
skin. The case went to the California Supreme Court which held that the Unruh Act
forbade the alleged discrimination. Furthermore, they ruled that the amendment itself,
Proposition 14, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case was not ultimately decided by the California Supreme Court in 1966 as the
state court’s decision against Proposition 14 was appealed to the United States Supreme
Court. On May 29, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Proposition 14’s legality.
The U.S. Supreme Court eventually arrived at the conclusion that:
Here the California Court, armed as it was with the knowledge of the facts and circumstances concerning the passage and potential impact… [Proposition 14], and familiar with the milieu in which that provision would operate, has determined that the provision would involve the state in private racial
160 Ibid.
161 Bettye, Collier My Soul Is a Witness: A Chronicle of the Civil Rights Era, 1954-1964 (New York: Henry Holt, 2015), 10.
78
discrimination to an unconstitutional degree. We accept this holding of the California Court.162
In the end, both courts found that Proposition 14 robbed citizens of equal protection as
well as localities and the State itself from creating fair housing laws that insured protection for all of its citizens. In the state rejecting Proposition 14, it rid itself of the responsibility of protecting the so-called right of the individual to discriminate based on race. In rejecting Proposition 14, the state also effectively rejected a social climate mirroring many of the states in the southern United States. Moreover, the NAACP and
Lincoln Mulkey had found success first in the California Supreme Court with a vote of five to two and then in the U.S. Supreme Court with a vote of five to four.163 As a result,
Proposition 14 was voided and the Rumford Fair Housing Act remains in effect today.
The NAACP fought vehemently outside the courtroom for fair housing. On May
17-19, 1963, the association held a three-day legislative conference in Sacramento
centered on passing the Rumford Fair Housing Act. During the conference delegates
spoke with legislators urging support of the bill and the association organized a luncheon
honoring the creators of the bill. During this event, Governor Pat Brown delivered a
riveting speech reiterating the importance of passing the bill.164
162 Thomas W. Casstevens, Politics, Housing, and Race Relations: California's Rumford Act and Proposition 14. (Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, U of California, 1967), 84.
163 Ibid, 84.
164 “NAACP is to Gather, Push for Bill” May 16, 1963; “Brown Calls Housing Bill Main Part of Program” May 20, 1963.
79
The Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing (SCFH) was one of the most
instrumental groups in challenging housing discrimination in Sacramento. The SCFH was created in 1961, aiming to “help ensure equality of opportunity for housing for all persons of Metropolitan Sacramento without regard to race, religion, or national origin.”165 The first board of directors shared a singular commitment, despite their diverse backgrounds. The board included Dr. Paul F.C. Mueller, Mrs. Jean Salmon, Alberta
Mellor, Grace Catterall, CSUS Professor, Dr. Leonard Cain, Jr., Rev. David Macmord,
Ed Bussey, and Robert Tyler. Further, Dr. Mueller was employed by the California
Department of Corrections, serving as a research technician. Ed Bussey was one of few
African American Realtors who was part of the Sacramento Real Estate Board (SREB).
Robert Tyler was the President of the Sacramento Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).
Furthermore, the SCFH identified the Sacramento Real Estate Board and the real estate industry itself as the entities responsible for high levels of housing discrimination.
The SREB was determined to convinced the public that claims of housing discrimination, such as Dr. Cain’s report, were false. Ken Stuart, SREB’s president, minimized Cain’s report, calling it “arm waving.”166 He continued, “there’s always the interference that there’s some sort of conspiracy by lending agencies and real estate
groups to prevent members of minority groups from getting proper housing. This is
165"Fair Housing Committee Plans to Elect Officers," Sacramento Bee, April 26, 1961.
166 "'Arm-Waving' Charged in Local Housing Bias," Sacramento Bee, June 1, 1961.
80
factually untrue and we categorically deny it.”167 To better illustrate his point that
housing discrimination did not exist in Sacramento, he pointed out that many African-
American families resided in South Land Park Hills. However, he failed to delve into the
surreptitious methods blacks were often forced to use to enter white neighborhoods and
neglected to mention the white sympathizers that helped make this integration possible.
Furthermore, in 1961, local public television station-KVIE- held a panel discussion
related to the minority housing problem. During the discussion, Stuart stated that the real estate board’s policies were free of discrimination, although individual agents “may sometimes stray from this path.”168 Douglas Greer, President of the NAACP, disagreed
with Stuart. He informed the panel that a white realtor told him that “he’d be afraid of his
organization [SREB]” if he sold a home to black clients in a white neighborhood.169
Ed Bussey, who was part of the majority white SREB, made it clear that local real estate agents were at the center of the problem. He stated that “the real estate men are responsible. Don’t ever kid yourself.”170 Furthermore, the SCFH cited the high rate of
government foreclosures as one of the main reasons integration into white areas was even
possible, certainly not because white realtors found houses for black families in white
167 Ibid.
168 "Realtor Says He Finds No Proof of Negro Blight," Sacramento Bee, June 2, 1961.
169 Ibid.
170 Clark Biggs, "Capital Segregation Is Fact; Extent Is the Only Question," Ibid., December 23, 1963.
81
areas. That is, foreclosed homes reached the market without restrictions, making them
accessible to anyone regardless of race. In these cases, blacks were able to move into
areas that were customarily off limits. Bussey cites unscrupulous agents as the reason for high foreclosure rates, for white agents regularly refused willing and able minority buyers
from purchasing in white areas. Thus, these realtors reduce the selling market
significantly. Bussey stated that “they care no more for white sellers than Negro buyers.
It’s cold hard cash. The buyer and seller have no control.”171 These realtors refused to
accept offers from qualified buyers, despite having knowledge that their seller’s home
faced impending foreclosure. In these cases, local real estate agents did not honor their
fiduciary responsibility to their clients. In this way, local realtors caused injury to their
sellers, while practicing discrimination against people of color, thus contributed to the
foreclosure rate.
The SCFH believed that pressure from the SREB and retaliation from white
neighbors influenced high levels of housing discrimination. Bussey, who served on the
SREB, recalls a board meeting where a white realtor was viciously criticized for selling a
home to a black family in South Land Park Hills, causing other blacks to later enter the
neighborhood. Bussey explains, “I don’t know what they wanted me to do or how they
think I felt.”172 Here, Bussey reveals the truth about SREB’s covert policy of
discrimination; Bussey explains that he was caught between loyalty toward his own race
171 Ibid.
172 Ibid. 82
and the racist policies of SREB. Bussey, who was more than likely shocked at the blatant
racism he witnessed, was at a loss for words and did not know how to respond in this tense situation.
The SCFH identified white fear as the source of the housing problem in Sacramento,
and as a result, created and published a pamphlet regarding integration and the housing
market. Successful Integration in Sacramento chronicled the experiences of black
families that had moved into white neighborhoods such as Golf Course Terrace,
Riverside Estates, Tallac Village, Parkway North, Rancho Cordova, and Land Park Hills.
In great detail, the report indicated that despite minorities purchasing homes in the area,
the “neighborhood remained stable in every respect.” Furthermore, the report assured
white home owners that “FHA property valuations show that no loss in value has taken
place. The neighbors have not panicked and home sales continue to be made to white
buyers.”173 The report also showed that in a university study, many neighborhoods in
Northern California, where integration occurred, did not have a negative effect on
property values.174
Throughout the 1960s, The Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing was also active in helping military personnel of color who had experienced housing discrimination find homes. The SCFH worked tirelessly in assisting personnel working within
Sacramento’s Air Force bases. Mather and McClellan Air Force Bases housed 10 percent
173 Edmund B. Bussey, jr., Successful Integration in Sacramento (Sacramento: Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, 1962), 1-5.
174 Ibid,6. 83
of their African American military personnel, however as officers began settling into
Sacramento and desiring homes, many found it difficult to secure housing. The first
client to solicit the help of the Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing was an officer
stationed at McClellan Air Force Base. Wanting to settle in Sacramento, he began
searching for a home in the area surrounding the base; however, he was constantly
refused housing. In 1961, countless African-American families experienced housing
discrimination, turning to the committee for help securing rental and home purchases.
Not only racial covenants, but real estate agents, builders, and banks turned away
minorities.175
Sacramento activists, groups, and committees converged in 1963 to combat
discrimination in housing, using the passage of the Rumford Act as inspiration. This year marked a turning point in the movement as various organizations began working together as a singular unit for the first time. 1963 was also the year in which Governor Brown
signed the Rumford Act into law, providing these groups with much needed legal support as they assisted individuals in winning court cases. The Sacramento Committee for Fair
Housing held meetings with representatives from the local housing industry, the
President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in Armed Forces, the Department of
Defense and both McClellan and Mather Air Force bases. These meetings aimed at
eliminating the problem of housing discrimination that had permeated Sacramento,
175 Paul F. C. Mueller, Effects of Housing Discrimination on Residential Segregation Patterns in Sacramento, 1960-1966. (Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Community Integration Project, 1966), 4.
84
leaving minority groups without adequate lodging. At these meetings, African-American
military personnel lamented their constant denial by real estate brokers, apartment
managers, and subdivision sales agents operating in the region surrounding the air force
base. Working with the Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, a civilian employee of
McClellan Air Force base sued a builder for refusing to sell him a property that he
expressed interest in for years. In April of 1963, the complainant won his case and the
court ruled that the builder sell the house to the McClellan employee and his wife.176 The
Rumford Act proved its value this year.
The mission to desegregate the Sacramento housing market continued throughout
1964, as local Sacramento newspapers complimented the efforts of local civil rights
agitators; however, these agitators met fierce opposition. As 1963 ushered in valuable
gains, Proposition 14 passed in 1964, rendering the Rumford Act powerless. One could
argue that the passage of Proposition 14 halted the progress of civil rights agitators;
however, it proved to strengthen their resolve as the mission to create a fairer housing
market expanded its reach in attracting the support of local newspapers. Local
Sacramento newspapers such as the Sacramento Bee, Sacramento Union, and
Sacramento Observer (African-American newspaper) supported one another in shaping
public opinion and shedding light on the issue of housing discrimination. For example,
one editor of the Sacramento Bee wrote in support of fair housing that “there can be no
176 Edgar W. Duff, “Federal Employee Sues for Blocked Home,” in Research Bulletin Number 6, of the Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, May 1963. 85
logical objection [to A.B. 1240]. No one is deprived of any ‘rights’ through the
achievement of equal treatment by a group of his fellow citizens…No one has any ‘right’
to deny equal treatment because of racial prejudice. The passage of this legislation would
have a healthy effect on those who have been exercising this fraudulent ‘right.’177 Here, the Sacramento Bee got on board with fair housing advocates, pushing for the passage of
Rumford; it continued to support the cause in 1964 with careful reporting on the developments of the housing struggle, despite the success of Proposition 14. The
Sacramento Union shed light on Sacramento’s problem with housing discrimination in publishing various articles addressing the issue. One article entitled “Negro in
Sacramento is Subject to Some Subtle Discrimination” highlighted the frustrations of
African-American house hunters who experienced repeated rejection. The Union interviewed several individuals who expressed their experiences in attempting to secure housing in Sacramento.178
“The big problem is housing. Housing is always a problem.” “There’s prejudice in housing, employment and education, but at McClellan I’m treated the same as everyone else.” “I looked at 14 places until finding housing.” “Sacramento has less housing discrimination than any other city in California.” “There’s more mobility within the city. I know discrimination exist here in real estate.”179
177 Sacramento Bee, June 20, 1963
178 Leonard Finder, “De Facto Segregation in Sacramento?” Sacramento Union, December 1963 and January 1964
179 Ibid.
86
Here the interviewees lamented Sacramento’s discriminatory housing policies, while one
acknowledged that Sacramento’s housing problem is “not as bad” as some of the other
cities in which he lived. During this time, Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area
counties were the only other regions in California with as storied a history in housing
discrimination as Sacramento. In an article published in 1964 by The Sacramento Union
entitled “Negroes to be Found Throughout the City,” the author made clear that “Within
the city, large concentrations of Negro families reside in Oak Park and Elder Creek area.
Northward in the county they are virtually banned from most of the ‘better’ communities,
and their largest concentration is around Del Paso Heights.”180 This article highlights the
degree to which segregation is harmful as individuals of color are both robbed of the
freedom to choose where they will reside and forced to rent or purchase in neighborhoods
that have lower property values, affecting their ability to build wealth through housing
appreciation.
The Sacramento Observer was equally helpful in shedding light on each new
development of housing in Sacramento, writing a series of articles that provided up-to-
date coverage on the local and state developments surrounding Proposition 14. One such
article, entitled “Plans of New Political Action Group Noted," reported on the meeting
held in Berkeley where over 100 African-American public officials developed the Negro
Political Action Association of California. The group leaders included Assemblyman
Rumford and Congressman Hawkins; the chief aim of the group was to increase black
180 Ibid. 87
influence in California politics.181 The Observer also reported on local developments
concerning Proposition 14. After the success of Proposition 14, one article provided a
detailed analysis of what areas in Sacramento voted for and against the initiative. The
Observer noted that Proposition 14 was highly successful even in Sacramento, however, it was easily defeated in the “predominately Negro districts” of Oak Park, Glen Elder,
and Del Paso Heights.182 Finally, the Observer captured the mood of proponents of fair housing, especially those of color after the defeat of the Rumford Bill. One Observer
article stated that “California today has no fair housing law. It has in reality legalized
second-class citizenship. It is truly a sad day in California’s history.”183 In a letter to the
observer, one Sacramento citizens wrote:
About dozen years ago, in leaving my home state of Ohio, I picked what I expected to be in our time the foremost of the then 48 states in most of the categories which were meaningful to me: economic conditions, race relations, climate, housing……Thus, what in fact happened served as a near psychic trauma to me. California, which had recently become the foremost in the nation population wise, emerged from the election with a somewhat lesser claim to sociological advance. By an overwhelmingly vote of 2 to 1, the California electorate chose not merely to legalize, but to constitutionalize, if you please, the right to [discriminate] as it manifests itself in housing and other segregation.184
181 "Plans of New Political Action Group Noted," Sacramento Observer, August 6, 1964.
182 "Local Results Show Negro Districts Voted against 14," Sacramento Observer, November 12, 1964.
183 "Salvaging the Good," Sacramento Observer, November 12, 1964.
184 "California Secedes from the Union," Sacramento Observer, December 10, 1964. 88
This letter captured the sentiment of many Sacramento residents and probably all of
California’s citizens of color. The Observer was effective in publishing letters such as
this one, which allowed for a collective mourning. It also gave citizens valuable news,
provided analysis of political developments, and shed light on the conditions of mid-
twentieth century California. Moreover, during this year, civil rights agitators not only
continued to organize and commission the help of local newspapers, they collected
critical information about their opposition. Civil rights agitators countered the move of
segregationists by taking Proposition 14 to the Supreme Court and getting it overturned
shortly after its passage (1966).185
The year of 1965 was a monumental year as local civil rights groups, religious
institutions, real estate agents, and government agencies developed the Sacramento
Community Integration Project (SCIP). The Sacramento Community Integration Project
consisted of the following committees: Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, State
Employees for Equality, Congress of Racial Equality, Catholic Council of Human
Relations, and the Sacramento Board of the California Association of Real Estate
Brokers. These civil rights agitators fought segregation head on, organizing an effective strategy in fighting Proposition 14. Moreover, perhaps the most effective weapon against discrimination that Sacramento produced came in the year of 1965 in developing the
Sacramento City-County Human Relations Committee. Although the Sacramento City-
County Human Relations Committee originated in 1963 as a non-profit, human relations
185 "Supreme Court Rules Prop. 14 Unconstitutional," Sacramento Observer, June 1, 1967 89
organization, after gaining wide support, it evolved into a fully-funded, government
institution, combating housing discrimination. Moreover, despite the Rumford repeal,
agitators relied on the earlier Unruh Civil Rights Act, which did not have the same power as the Rumford Act, but nonetheless was partially effective at combatting discrimination.
In the summer of 1965, local civil rights organizations continued working with
government agencies to fight housing discrimination. For example, the Sacramento
Congress of Racial Equity (CORE) contacted the Department of Defense, voicing their
concerns of a potential housing crisis as five thousand civilian employees of African-
American descent scheduled to transfer to McClellan Air Force Base. As the suburb
surrounding the base prevented African Americans from purchasing homes in the past,
McClellan officials began conducting meetings to prevent an ensuing housing crisis. In
August, CORE teamed up with the Sacramento Integration Project (SCIP) to assist
McClellan’s civilian employees with housing. They conducted several surveys, finding
that of 110 rental advisors surrounding McClellan Air Force Base only 11 would lease
spaces to African Americans. A similar survey focusing on downtown-Sacramento
housing found that of the 142 apartment buildings in 8 downtown areas, only 10 percent
“would rent to negroes.”186
186 State Employees for Equality, Racial Exclusion in Apartment Houses in Downtown Sacramento (Sacramento, 1965), 2.
90
Upon receiving the survey results, the Sacramento City-County Human Relations
Committee took action, combining their efforts with local, state, and federal bodies. First,
the committee petitioned the city and county to grant funds so as to expand the powers
and produce a full-time staff. Second, they requested that the city and county produce a
public statement addressing the issue of segregation. Third, they petitioned the city and
county to offer financial support to the Sacramento Board of Education who voted in
favor of executing a plan to eliminate de-facto segregation. Lastly, they organized a
meeting with the local real estate association to eliminate the discriminatory practices,
which its members maintained within the housing market.187 The Sacramento Bee
assisted in the effort to eliminate discrimination, denouncing the discriminatory practices
of the Sacramento Apartment House Owners Association, while urging governmental
bodies to intervene and not be complicit in bigotry and building ghettoes.188 Moreover, in
August of 1965, the Federal Housing Administration and the U.S. Post Office
Department conducted a survey to reveal the vacancies within Sacramento. They found
that the majority of vacancies were in Sacramento suburbs with an overall rate of 18
percent and as high as 33 percent in Northeastern Sacramento. Apartment vacancy rates
in Oak Park and Del Paso Heights, two areas with large concentrations of people of color,
were 7 percent and 11 percent, respectively.189 This survey demonstrated that property
187 "Rights Group Terms Housing Bias Rampant in Capital Urges Action," Sacramento Bee, May 22, 1966. 188 “A Healthy City Requires an End to Racial Bia”, Sacramento Bee, Oct. 9, 1965.
189 “Sacramento, California, Area Postal Vacancy Survey”, U.S. Post Office, Sacramento Office of Federal Housing Administration, October 1965. 91
owners were willing to lose revenue in order to keep areas segregated and that white neighborhoods had the most vacancies.
A number of local organizations began working together in the fall of 1965, producing equitable by-laws within their institutions; however, the problem of segregation within Sacramento continued. The Equal Rights Committee of Sacramento
Real Estate Board reported to the Sacramento City-County Human Relations Committee that their organization established benchmarks that would produce equity in housing.
They formulated a code of equitable by-laws that real estate professionals could adhere to in order to prevent their own biased influence on the selling or renting of housing. They also created a committee that allowed victims of discrimination to voice their complaints and receive assistance in procuring housing. Furthermore, they found that only 1 percent of the 6,300 houses listed had racial covenants, pointing to foul play by the local real estate establishment.190 A turning point came when in October of 1965, the Sacramento
Apartment House Owners Association (group originally behind prop. 14) issued a
statement along with the Sacramento City-County Human Relations Committee
bemoaning the outrageous level of discrimination within Sacramento and produced a
committee to aid minority groups in securing housing in the areas of their choice.191 For
190 Mueller, Effects of housing Discrimination, 11.
191 Willis D. Zimmerman, “Apartment House Owners and Human Relations Committee Joint Statement on Discrimination in Housing,” October 1965.
92
the first time, local civil rights organizations came to a compromise with their political
enemies to produce social equity.
The California State Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC), along with
the Sacramento City-County Human Relations Committee held open discussions at
McClellan Air Force Base, listening to complaints of victims of discrimination and developing solutions to further combat discrimination in Sacramento’s housing market.
During one of the two meetings, 40 African Americans recounted their experience with rejection by subdivision salesmen, real estate professionals, apartment managers, and motel operators. During the same month, the Sacramento City-County Human Relations
Committee set up a similar forum. They invited 70 representatives of various organizations around Sacramento to discuss solutions in eliminating housing discrimination that dramatically affected students, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans and African Americans. The Director of Personnel at McClellan expressed that the level of discrimination increased especially as the base received transfers and suggested forming a full-time agency that worked exclusively to solve the housing problem. The meeting came to a screeching halt, when members of the meeting came to a unanimous consensus to establish the Sacramento City-County Human Relations Committee as a full-time, paid agency, as the attorney of the Sacramento Apartment House and Property
Owners Association became disgruntled at the decision and threatened to end ties with the organization.192 That is, the Sacramento City-County Human Relations Committee
192 Mueller, Effects of Housing Discrimination, 12. 93
was an active group, but it lacked both a full-time staff and regular funding. Again, the
civil rights groups and their traditional enemies divided themselves.
The turning point came as Congressmen, high ranking officers, local agencies, and
the Sacramento Bee pushed for creating a full-time, paid staff to address the issue of
segregation, eventually finding success. In the final month of 1965, U.S. Congressman
John E. Moss decried the discriminatory practices against military personnel in
Sacramento, arguing that the practice would jeopardize both the economy and the
successful functioning of the military itself at McClellan and Mather Air Force Bases.
Moss contended that he, along with Major C.W. Cecil, and Colonel Robert Sauer agreed
to support the Sacramento City-County Human Relations Committee, especially as the
increase of minority employees in the coming year required adequate housing. The
Sacramento Bee extended support for the staffing and financing of the Sacramento City-
County Human Relations Committee, urging the Sacramento City Council and County
Board of Supervisors to approve the committee. Finally, at the end of December of 1965, the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce gave approval on paid staffing for the City-
County Human Relations Committee, suggesting the “immediate creation of a city human relations commission, endowed with clear cut responsibility, properly staffed and
adequately funded. This commission should develop comprehensive programs designed
to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in employment, housing, education, and public 94
accommodations.”193 With so many groups working together, the momentum for
establishing an adequate regulatory body to combat discrimination was stronger than
ever. The Sacramento City-County Committee quickly identified problems within
Sacramento’s housing market and made significant progress in the years following their inception.
1966 was a pivotal year in that civil rights groups defeated Proposition 14, as the
Supreme Court rendered the proposition unconstitutional; this court decision also
reinstated the power of the Rumford Civil Rights Act. It was the NAACP that brought the
case of Mulkey vs. Reitman to court. The case, which was first tried in the California
State Supreme court, yielded a decision against Proposition 14, and a year later upheld by the U.S. Supreme. The Sacramento City-County Committee received continued financial support in 1966 for their work in dismantling segregation within the city, working with local agencies to successfully established housing for new military personnel. In addition, opponents of segregation won victories both in the courtroom and in media support. For example, the court ordered operators of a swimming pool who violated the Unruh Civil
Rights Act to pay $2,250 to four African American boys denied access to a public pool.
Also, Channel 13 investigated the discriminatory policies affecting access to
Sacramento’s housing market in a week-long series.194 Furthermore, the Sacramento
193 “Violence in the City an End or a Beginning?”, Report by the Governor’s Commission on the Los Angeles Riots, December, 1965.
194 Mueller, Effects of Housing Discrimination, 15.
95
Community Integration Project, the Equal Rights Committee of the Sacramento Real
Estate Board, and military personnel at McClellan Air Force Base put on a grand
orientation and reception for transferees from Norton AFB in San Bernardino to the
Sacramento Air Force Bases.195 Opponents of segregation won big in the year of 1966.
The year came to a close, but not without more than twenty organizations against
segregation cementing their allegiance and extending their support for the Sacramento
City-County Relations Committee. The Sacramento City-County Relations Committee
received a budget of $39,999, allowing the committee to hire an additional staff member.
Finally, Governor Edmund Brown, the Sacramento Area Council of Churches, Bishop
Clarence Haden of the Episcopal Diocese, the Jewish Community Relations Council,
Rev. Ford Lewis of the First Unitarian Society, the Unitarian Town and Country
Fellowship, the State Employee’s Union Local 411, AFL-CIO, the American Civil
Liberties Union, the Land Park Democratic Club, and the Sacramento Women Lawyers each extended financial support to ensure that the Sacramento City-County Committee had adequate funding.196 Together, local organizations, including newspapers and
military personnel worked together and successfully challenged housing discrimination in
Sacramento during the 1960s.
195 "McClellan Transferees Given Party," Sacramento Observer, September 23, 1965.
196 Mueller, Effects of Housing Discrimination, 15. 96
CONCLUSION
So-called urban renewal in Sacramento served as the catalyst that propelled the
city’s population of color into areas that had been previously restricted, although most of
this population was again directed to new segregated environments. During the 1950s, the
vast majority of the population of color remained in these areas as racial covenants,
customary segregation, and redlining continued to dictate housing choices. However, in the 1963, the Rumford Civil Rights Act served as the most important legislation in
fighting housing discrimination, leading to the integration of many of Sacramento’s
suburbs. Minority elites led the charge in fighting housing discrimination as they battled
builders, real estate agents, and home owners in court. These individuals often gained
injunctive orders, won damages, and sometimes received the property of their choice.
Local civil rights groups such as the NAACP, CORE, Sacramento City-County Human
Relations Committee, the Sacramento Community Integration Project, the Equal Rights
Committee of the Sacramento Real Estate Board, and a host of other key organizations
played a major role in meeting with discriminatory organizations to establish equitable
dealings, helping people of color find housing, and conducting research to better
understand the housing crisis. State politicians like Governor Edmund Brown, Jesse
Unruh, Augustus F. Hawkins, and William Byron Rumford worked diligently in passing
bills that would become foundational in challenge housing discrimination. Moreover, the
collective efforts of California politicians, civil rights groups, and local agitators like
Nathaniel Colley created a powerful alliance that eventually made progress in integrating 97
neighborhoods. And, while the efforts of civil rights agitators during this period did not produce the desired abolition of discrimination, they certainly made an impact in how
discrimination played out through housing in Sacramento.
98
Figure A Map of Alabama
99
Figure B Map of the West End
Sacramento Redevelopment Survey Map of 1949. Highlighted borders indicate West End areas impacted by the urban renewal program.197
197 Jesus Hernandez. "Connecting Segregation to Contemporary Housing Credit Practices and Foreclosures: A Case Study of Sacramento." (September 9, 2008), 7. 100
BIBILIOGRAPHY Secondary Sources
Avella, Steven M. Sacramento: Indomitable City. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub., 2003.
Boyarsky, Bill. Big Daddy: Jesse Unruh and the Art of Power Politics. Berkeley: U of California, 2008. Print.
Brilliant, Mark. The Color of America Has Changed: How Racial Diversity Shaped Civil Rights Reform in California, 1941-1978. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Burg, William. Sacramento Renaissance: Art, Music and Activism in California's Capital City.
Burg, William. Sacramento's Southside Park. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub., 2007
Caesar, Clarence. An Historical Overview of the Development of Sacramento's Black Community, 1850-1983. Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, 1985. Sacramento: CSUS Thesis Collection, 1985. Print.
Cannon, Lou. Ronnie and Jesse: A Political Odyssey. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969. Print.
Casstevens, Thomas W. Politics, Housing, and Race Relations: California's Rumford Act and Proposition 14. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, U of California, 1967. Print.
Clark, E. Culpepper. The Schoolhouse Door: Segregation's Last Stand at the University of Alabama. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1993. Print.
Cole, Cheryl L. A History of the Japanese Community in Sacramento, 1883-1972: Organizations, Businesses, and Generational Response to Majority Domination and Stereotypes. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates, 1974.
Collier, Bettye. My Soul Is a Witness: A Chronicle of the Civil Rights Era, 1954-1964. New York: Henry Holt, 2015. Print.
Covin, David. Black Politics after the Civil Rights Movement: Activity and Beliefs in Sacramento, 1970-2000. 101
Crouchett, Lawrence P. William Byron Rumford, the Life and Public Services of a California Legislator: A Biography, (El Cerrito, CA: Downey Place Pub. House, 1984
Dingemans, Dennis. "Redlining and Mortgage Lending in Sacramento." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69, no. 2 (June 1979): 225-39.
Durant, Bill E., and Silas N. Ragster. Housing Sacramento's Invisible Man: Farm Workers, Hustlers, and Misfits. Davis, CA: Dept. of Applied Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis Campus, 1970.
Eatwell, Roger, and Cas Mudde. Western Democracies and the New Extreme Right Challenge. London: Routledge, 2004. Print.
Fisher, Damany Morris. Far from Utopia: Race, Housing, and the Fight to End Residential Segregation in Sacramento, 1900–1980. Diss. U of California, Berkeley, 2008. Berkeley: ProQuest Dissertations, 2008. Print.
Gelfand, Mark I. A Nation of Cities: The Federal Government and Urban America, 1933- 1965. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Helper, Rose. Racial Policies and Practices of Real Estate Brokers. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969.
Henderson, Joyce. William Byron Rumford: Legislator for Fair Employment, Fair Housing, and Public Health (Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California, 1973
Hernandez, Jesus. "Race, Gender Power, and The US Subprime Mortgage and Foreclosure Crisis: A Meso Analysis." Feminist Economics 19, no. 3 (2013): 124- 51.
Hernandez, Jesus. "Race, Market Constraints, and the Housing Crisis: A Problem of Embeddedness." Kalfou 1, no. 2 (2014): 30-58.
Hernandez, Jesus. "Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in Sacramento 1930- 2004." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33, no. 2 (June/July 2009): 291-313.
102
Hernandez, Jesus. "The Residual Impact of History: Connecting Residential Segregation, Mortgage Redlining, and the Housing Crisis." Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, 2009, 1-25.
Hernandez, Jesus Campos. Race, Market Constraints and the Housing Crisis Critical Links to Segregation and Mortgage Redlining in Sacramento. PhD diss., University of California, Davis, 2012.
Jesus Hernandez. "Connecting Segregation to Contemporary Housing Credit Practices and Foreclosures: A Case Study of Sacramento." (September 9, 2008)
Hosang, Daniel Racial Propositions: "Genteel Apartheid" in Postwar California. Diss. U of Southern California, 2007. N.p.: Universit, n.d. Print.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Kruse, Kevin Michael, and Thomas J. Sugrue. The New Suburban History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Marable, Manning and Leith Mullings. Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices of Resistance, Reform, and Renewal: An African American Anthology, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000
Moore, Shirley Ann Wilson. To Place Our Deeds: The African American Community in Richmond, California, 1910-1963. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Murphy, Alison L. "Fifty Years of Challenges to the Colorline Montgomery, Alabama." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2008
Patterson, James T. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001
Putnam, Jackson K. Jess: The Political Career of Jesse Marvin Unruh. Lanham, MD: U of America, 2005. Print
Rarick, Ethan California Rising: The Life and times of Pat Brown (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005),
103
Roberts, Brian. "Redevelopment at the Crossroads: How Sacramento City Chose between Priorities in the 1950s." Sacramento County Historical Society (1989): n. pag. Web.
Ruffin, Herbert. Uninvited Neighbors: Black Life and the Racial Quest for Freedom in the Santa Clara Valley, 1777-1968 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2007)
Sacramento's Elmhurst, Tahoe Park, and Colonial Heights. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub., 2008.
Schiesl, Martin. Residential Opportunity for All Californians: Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and the Struggle for Fair Housing Legislation, 1959-1963. Report. August 2013.
Schiesl, Martin J. Responsible Liberalism: Edmund G. "Pat" Brown and Reform Government in California 1958-1967, (Los Angeles, CA: Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs, 2003
Self, Robert O. American Babylon: Race and the Struggle for Postwar Oakland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2003
Simpson, Lee M. A. Sacramento's Oak Park. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2004.
Sonenshein, Raphael. "Pat Brown Instiute." Letter to Guests. Aug. 2013. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Pat Brown Institute. Aug. 2013. Web.
Skelton, George “Why the voters have worse access to the judicial system,” Los Angeles Times, July 29th, 2013
Stein, Kevin and Tram Nguyen. "Mortgage Meltdown: Solutions to the Foreclosure Crisis." JSTOR 16.1, 2009
Taylor, Quintard, and Shirley Ann Wilson Moore. African American Women Confront the West: 1600-2000. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.
Tom, Lawrence, and Brian Tom. Sacramento's Chinatown. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub., 2010.
Williams, Cathleen. "Segregation In Sacramento -- The Hidden History." Homeward Street Journal (2013): n. pag. Sept. 2013
104
Williams, James. WEST END BOYS: URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND THE ELIMINATION OF SACRAMENTO’S SKID ROW. Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, 2013. Sacramento: California State U, Sacramento, 2013. Print.
“Real Property. Developers of Private Homes Approved for FHAVA Financing May Not Refuse to Sell to Qualified Negro Buyer”. 1958. “Real Property. Developers of Private Homes Approved for FHAVA Financing May Not Refuse to Sell to Qualified Negro Buyer”. Virginia Law Review 44 (7). Virginia Law Review: 1173–76. doi:10.2307/1070943.
African Americans in California’s Heartland - The Civil Rights Era. Produced by Bryan Shadden. Sacramento, 2011. DVD.
California State of Mind. Dir. Sascha Rice. 2011. Documentary.
Hope, Andrew. "Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation." The California Department of Transportation Sacramento, California, 2011, 1-208.
Rarick, Ethan. California Rising: The Life and times of Pat Brown. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
The Telegraph. Accessed December 14, 2015. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/photography/11512135/Life-under- segregation-in-the-deep-south-of-the-1950s.html?frame=3254744.
Murphy, Alison L., "Fifty Years of Challenges to the Colorline Montgomery, Alabama." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2009.
Leavitt, Jacqueline. "Urban Renewal Is Minority Renewal." Los Angeles Times, October 1996.
Primary Source Documents
Brown, Edmund. "Second Inaugural Address." Pat Brown's Second Inaugural Address. Http://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/32-Pbrown02.html. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.
Case Fred E., and James H. Kirk, The Housing Status of Minority Families: Los Angeles, 1956. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Urban League, 1956 105
Duff, Edgar W. “Federal Employee Sues for Blocked Home,” in Research Bulletin Number 6, of the Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, May 1963
Rutland, Eva. When We Were Colored: A Mother's Story. Sacramento, CA: IWP, 2007.
Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, 1965
"The City of Sacramento in 1938." Map. TRACES (Testbed for Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces).http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/colormap.html.
"California - Race and Hispanic Origin for Selected Cities and Other Places: Earliest Census to 1990". U.S. Census Bureau.
Mueller, Paul F. C. Effects of Housing Discrimination on Residential Segregation Patterns in Sacramento, 1960-1966. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Community Integration Project, 1966.
Sacramento Outlook, “Oliver Ming Sues Real Estate Men for $5,000,” The Colley Papers, accessed November 30, 2015, http://colley.omeka.net/items/show/22.
“Two Home Suits Filed.” The Sacramento Union. June 8, 1962.
“Trial Opens in $65,000 Blocked Home Sale.” The Sacramento Bee. June 5, 1962
“Two Home Suits Filed.” The Sacramento Union. June 8, 1962.
“Realty Agent Testifies.” The Sacramento Union. August 24, 1967.
“Buying Home in Sacramento is 6 Months of Humiliation.” The Sacramento Bee. December 19, 1963.
“Owner Denies Sale Intent of House in Rights Case.” Sacramento Bee. August 22, 1967.
"Mosk Is Checking Housing Discrimination in Capital." The Sacramento Bee, September20, 1962.
"Racial Discrimination in Housing Probed." The Sacramento Bee, September 21, 1962.
"Urban Renewal Is Minority Renewal." Los Angeles Times, October 1996. 106
“Race Equality Sit-ins,” Sacramento Bee, May 29, 1963
“Brown Thanks Sit-in groups,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 31st, 1963
“Chances for Fair Housing Bill Collapse Amide Verbal Battle,” Sacramento Bee, June 14, 1963
“Applause Resounds in Capitol,” Sacramento Bee, June 22, 1963
"Negroes Win Court Round over House Purchase," Sacramento Bee, April 18, 1963
"Negro Pair Win Suit," Sacramento Union, April 19, 1963.
“Our President’s Letter,” California Real Estate Magazine 43, November 1963
“Petition Signers Set New Record, Qualify Initiative For Public Vote,” California Real Estate Magazine 44, March 1964
“The Realtors Attack Fair Housing,” San Francisco Chronicle,” 8 May 1964.
“California: Wild Card in the Deck,” The Reporter, 22 October 1964
"Sacramento's Housing Fight," The Crisis, Jan. 1953
"Groups Sue to Prevent Negro Ban in Housing," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 2, 1952
“NAACP is to Gather, Push for Bill,” Sacramento Bee, May 16, 1963
“Brown Calls Housing Bill Main Part of Program,” Sacramento Bee, May 20, 1963
"Fair Housing Committee Plans to Elect Officers," Sacramento Bee, April 26, 1961
"'Arm-Waving' Charged in Local Housing Bias," Sacramento Bee, June 1, 1961
"Realtor Says He Finds No Proof of Negro Blight," Sacramento Bee, June 2, 1961
“Oliver Ming Sues Real Estate Men for $5,000,” Sacramento Outlook, The Colley Papers, accessed November 23, 2015, http://colley.omeka.net/items/show/22.
"Group Charge Housing Project Still Segregates Negroes," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 18, 1952 107
"No Action Favored by Wood," Sacramento Union, December 19, 1963
"County Board Shuns Taking Position on Rumford Issue," Sacramento Bee, December 23, 1963
"North City Council Votes 4-0 in Backing for Rumford Housing Law," Sacramento Bee, December 24, 1963
"Labella, Realtor, Dissents on Endorsing Fair Housing Act," Sacramento Observer, December 25, 1963
"City Council Tables Motion on Rumford Law Petition," Sacramento Bee, January 3, 1964
"Rumford Nullifier Offers Moral, Physical Decay," Sacramento Bee, February 21, 1964
"Anti Rumford Vote Will Peril Urban Renewal," Sacramento Bee, April 8, 1964
Leonard D. Cain, Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan Sacramento. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, 1961
"S.S.C. Prof Says Segregation in City Increases," Sacramento Bee, May 22, 1961
"Viewpoint Makes Difference in Fair Housing Law Issue," Sacramento Bee, December 18, 1963
"Capital Segregation Is Fact; Extent Is the Only Question," Sacramento Bee, December 23, 1963
"Groups Sue to Prevent Negro Ban in Housing," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 2, 1952.
"Negroes on Coast Win Housing Case," New York Times, June 29, 1958.
“The Supreme Court: Saying No to Proposition 14,” New York Times, June 09, 1967
“De Facto Segregation in Sacramento?” Sacramento Union, December 1963 and January 1964
"Plans of New Political Action Group Noted," Sacramento Observer, August 6, 1964
108
"Local Results Show Negro Districts Voted against 14," Sacramento Observer, November 12, 1964
"Salvaging the Good," Sacramento Observer, November 12, 1964
"Rights Group Terms Housing Bias Rampant in Capital Urges Action," Sacramento Bee, May 22, 1966
“A Healthy City Requires an End to Racial Bia”, Sacramento Bee, Oct. 9, 1965
"McClellan Transferees Given Party," Sacramento Observer, September 23, 1965
“Sacramento, California, Area Postal Vacancy Survey”, U.S. Post Office, Sacramento Office of Federal Housing Administration, October 1965
"California Secedes from the Union," Sacramento Observer, December 10, 1964
"Supreme Court Rules Prop. 14 Unconstitutional," Sacramento Observer, June 1, 1967
“Violence in the City an End or a Beginning?”, Report by the Governor’s Commission on the Los Angeles Riots, December, 1965
Bussey, Edmund B, Successful Integration in Sacramento. Sacramento: Sacramento Committee for Fair Housing, 1962
NAACP West Coast Region, "N.A.A.C.P. West Coast Region I Annual Report, 1958," National Association for the Advancement of Colored People West Coast Region I Papers, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley
United States Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1960 Census Tracts, Sacramento, California, D.C. Washington: Government Publishing Office, 1960
United States Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1950- 70Census, Census Tract, Sacramento, California, ( (D.C. Washington: Government Publishing Office, 1970).
NAACP West Coast Region, "N.A.A.C.P. West Coast Region I Annual Report, 1958," National Association for the Advancement of Colored People West Coast Region I Papers, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
109
State Employees for Equality, Racial Exclusion in Apartment Houses in Downtown Sacramento Sacramento, 1965
The Fair Housing Bill and Proposition 14, 1963-1964, Online Archive of California (Date of Interview: September 13, 1971, Berkeley. Interview conducted by Professor Edward France and Joyce Henderson.)
Hearing Before the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960
“Statement of Governor Edmund G. Brown on Civil Rights,” February 14, 1963, Journal of the Assembly, Legislature of the State of California, Regular Session, vol. 1, 7 January-21 June 1963,
Howden, Edward, “The Rumford Fair Housing Act and Proposed State Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Such Legislation,” San Diego California, 1 October 1963, Jesse M. Unruh Papers, California State Archives, Sacramento, California Edmund G. Brown to L. H. Wilson, 9 December 1963, Unruh Papers John F. Evans to Governor Edmund G. Brown, 29 April 1964, Brown papers Edmund G. Brown, an address delivered to the Sacramento Conference on Religion and Race, 27 May 1964, Unruh papers McDonald, Dylan "Young Attorney Gives Leadership to Colored Community," Colorfornia magazine article, page 17; c.1954 Memorandum Opinion, No. 97130, Superior Court in the State of California, County of Sacramento, 8. "Oliver A. Ming V. Milton G. Horgan, Et Al.," Hill v. Miller, 64 Cal. 2d 757 – 1966