Fifty Years After the Kerner Commission Report: Place,

Place, Housing, and Inequal ity Housing, and Racial Wealth Inequality in Los Angeles M elany De La Cruz-­Viesca, Paul M. Ong, Andre Comandon, William A. Darity Jr., and Darrick Hamilton

Fifty years after the national Kerner Commission report on urban unrest and fifty-thr­ ee years after Califor- nia’s McCone Commission report on the 1965 Watts riots, substantial racial disparity in education, hous- ing, employment, and wealth is still pervasive in Los Angeles. Neither report mentions wealth inequality as a cause for concern, however. This article examines one key dimension of racial wealth inequality through the lens of home ownership, particularly in South Los Angeles, where the 1965 Watts riots took place. It also analyzes the state’s role in housing development in codifying and expanding practices of racial and class segregation that has led to the production and reproduction of racial inequality in South Los Angeles com- pared with Los Angeles County.

Keywords: urban policy, racial wealth inequality, housing, immigration, Los Angeles

Melany De La Cruz-­Viesca is assistant director of the UCLA Asian American Studies Center and managing editor of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) Nexus Journal. Paul M. Ong is research professor at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs and director of the UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge.Andre Coman- don is a PhD student in the Department of Urban Planning at the Luskin School of Public Affairs.William A. Darity Jr. is Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, African and African American Studies, and Econom- ics and director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. Darrick Hamilton is director of the doctoral program in public and urban policy at the New School in New York, jointly appointed professor of economics and urban policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy and the Department of Economics at the New School, and co-­associate director of the Cook Center for Social Equity at Duke University.

© 2018 Russell Sage Foundation. De La Cruz-­Viesca, Melany, Paul M. Ong, Andre Comandon, William A. Darity Jr., and Darrick Hamilton. 2018. “Fifty Years After the Kerner Commission Report: Place, Housing, and Racial Wealth Inequality in Los Angeles.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 4(6): 160–84. DOI: 10.7758/RSF.2018.4.6.08. This research is made possible by the generous support of the Ford Foundation’s Building Economic Security Over a Lifetime initiative. We especially acknowledge our Ford Foundation Program Officers—Kilolo Kijakazi, Amy Brown, Leah Mayor, and John Irons. Funding was also provided by the UCLA In- stitute for American Cultures, UCLA Asian American Studies Center, UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy, and the Haynes Foundation. This research is also part of the UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge’s (CNK) Kerner Revisited project. We are grateful to CNK staff, Chhandara Pech and Alycia Cheng, for their re- search and technical assistance. Direct correspondence to: Melany De La Cruz-­Viesca at [email protected], UCLA Asian American Studies Center, 3230 Campbell Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Open Access Policy: RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences is an open access journal. This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-­NonCommercial-­NoDerivs 3.0 Unported Li- cense.

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 161

In its now well-­known report, the National Ad- neighborhood benefits in terms of added sta- visory Commission on Civil Disorders (the bility. Yet, for many communities of color, Kerner Commission, thus the Kerner report) homeownership is out of reach. Countless peo- cited the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles as an ple of color are unable to move from “bad” omen of violence before the summer of 1967 neighborhoods or purchase a home in their (Kerner Report 1968; Farley 2008). The commis- community. This issue has reached crisis levels sion noted, “The Los Angeles riot, the worst in in Los Angeles, which ranks near the top in the United States since the Detroit riot of 1943, homelessness and near the bottom in home- shocked all who had been confident that race ownership (Lansner 2017). relations were improving in the North” (Kerner Report 1968, 38). Fifty years after the Kerner T he McCone Report, Kerner Commission’s report and fifty-­three years after Report, and the 1965 Watts Riots California’s McCone Commission’s report on On Wednesday evening of August 11, 1965, an Watts, we examine the extent to which a key African American motorist was arrested for component of racial inequality has or has not speeding. A minor roadside argument broke been addressed and the limitations of the solu- out, and then escalated into a fight. The com- tions the two commissions put forth.1 munity reacted in outrage to allegations of po- The reports’ findings are not surprising, and lice brutality that soon spread, and six days of they mirror the findings of similar postmor- looting and arson followed. Los Angeles police tems into other large-­scale urban racial riots, needed the support of nearly four thousand massacres, and uprisings before and after the members of the California Army National 1960s, including the 1871 Chinese Massacre, Guard to quell the riots, which resulted in 1943 Zoot Suit riots, and the 1992 civil unrest in thirty- f­our deaths and more than $40 million Los Angeles.2 Both the Kerner and McCone re- in property damage (Kerner Report 1968; Hin- ports recommend addressing racial disparities ton 2016).3 The riots were blamed principally through emergency literacy and preschool pro- on police racism and brutality. It was the city’s grams, improved police-­community ties, in- worst civil unrest until the 1992 acquittal of the creased affordable housing, more job training policemen who assaulted Rodney King. projects, upgraded health-­care services, more The uprisings of 1967 in hundreds of cities efficient public transportation, among many across the nation involved blacks fighting suggestions. However, none of the original pro- against local symbols of white privilege in black posals mention wealth inequality as a cause for neighborhoods, rather than against white in- concern. dividuals. It was only after the Watts riots and This article examines one key dimension of the many black uprisings that took place across racial wealth inequality through the lens of America in the late 1960s that major municipal home ownership, particularly in South Los An- or federal commissions were appointed to in- geles, where the 1965 Watts riots took place. vestigate the depth of social and material in- Homeownership is the largest component of equality in urban centers, revealing a pervasive wealth for many Americans, particularly those lack of awareness of the scale of the issues in the middle class. Homeownership also has within government institutions and society.

1. A commission under California Governor Pat Brown, headed by former CIA director John A. McCone and thus known as the McCone Commission, investigated the Watts–Los Angeles riots. On December 2, 1965, it released a 101-­page report titled Violence in the City—An End or a Beginning? (McCone and Christopher 1965).

2. The attack on Chinese was the single largest racially motivated mass lynching in the United States (Johnson 2011). The Zoot Suit riots, a series of racial attacks on primarily Mexican youth by American military servicemen, occurred during World War II, when many migrants arrived for the defense effort and newly assigned servicemen engulfed the city.

3. The race of the thirty-­four individuals killed is not identified in either the McCone or the Kerner report.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 162 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

The reports document how social and eco- intuitions and the Federal Housing Authority nomic conditions in the riot cities represented consider the residential multiple unit in the a systematic pattern of severe disadvantage for curfew area an unattractive market because blacks relative to whites. Although racially bi- of difficult collection problems, high mainte- ased police practices were the precipitating nance costs, and a generally depreciating area factors largely responsible for igniting the 1965 resulting from the age of surrounding struc- Watts civil unrest, both the Kerner and Mc- tures” (1965, 79). Cone Commissions point to inadequate hous- The recommendations of the McCone and ing conditions as one of the most severe root Kerner reports focus on the preservation of and causes.4 increased presence of affordable rental units, The McCone Commission provided a more in large part by subsidizing private and non-­ detailed account of the conditions in Los An- profit investors and developers. Hypothetically, geles, uncovering how residents of the Watts this strategy could address the challenge of im- area lived in conditions inferior to the citywide proving the lack of decent and affordable hous- average and strikingly inferior to newer sec- ing, assuming that developers would signifi- tions of the city. The commission also noted cantly expand the supply, use government that conditions were not nearly as bleak as the support to lower rents, and continue to main- highly visible deterioration of northern slums. tain the housing stock. Assessing the issues required peeling away at There were three flaws with this approach. the structural differences in housing. Over- First, it was unlikely that funding would be ad- crowding stood out as one of the greatest equate, thus overall impact would be minimal sources of housing disparity. An average of 4.3 relative to the size of the housing problem. Sec- persons lived in each Watts household, versus ond, the reports do not offer any detailed mech- an overall county average of 2.94 per household anisms to ensure the desired outcome from pri- (Los Angeles County and City Human Relations vate developers; consequently the commissions Commissions 1985). Furthermore, 88.6 percent implicitly relied on a simplistic assumption that of the total black population lived in areas con- market forces would be sufficient, that more sidered segregated and concentrated within competition would keep rents low and force ab- South- ­Central Los Angeles (McCone and Chris- sentee owners to pass along savings from the topher 1965). subsidies. However, it was just as likely that the The McCone Commission, despite its as- housing market was operating to give the bal- sessment that the area was neither “gem nor ance of economic power to landlords. Under slum,” does express a major concern that a “se- these conditions, governmental support would rious deterioration of the area was in prog- end up in the developers’ pocket. ress.” Homes in the area were old and required Third, the recommendations do little to ad- constant maintenance to remain inhabitable, dress the lack of local ownership of land and and more than two-­thirds were owned by ab- housing, which meant that inequalities in asset sentee landlords (McCone and Christopher and wealth holding would remain, or become 1965). The barriers to homeownership resi- worse. Indeed, it would have been better had dents faced exacerbated this situation creating the commissions recommended or given more a general deficit in housing investments. The priority to increasing access to financial re- McCone report states, “Compounding the sources to residents, ending discriminatory problem is the fact that both private financial practices in mortgage lending, and encourag-

4. Although specific grievances varied from city to city, at least twelve deeply held grievances were identified and ranked into three levels of relative intensity. The first level of intensity consisted of police practices, unem- ployment and underemployment, and inadequate housing. The second level of intensity comprised inadequate education, poor recreation facilities and programs, ineffectiveness of the political structure and grievance mech- anisms. The third level included disrespectful white attitudes, discriminatory administration of justice, inade- quacy of federal programs, inadequacy of municipal services, discriminatory consumer and credit practices, and inadequate welfare programs.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 163 ing and providing incentives for home owner- years later, Los Angeles would witness a mas- ship at manageable fees. Not only would this sive second uprising—riots precipitated by the have increased local households’ wealth; it also failure of a jury empaneled in Simi Valley to could have generated the positive externalities convict policemen who had engaged in a taped and community stability that come with the beating of Rodney King.6 presence of more homeowners. The growing economic disparity in Los An- Unfortunately, many of the recommenda- geles caused by corporate restructuring and tions were either not implemented or only par- government deregulation produced a wide- tially implemented, and South Los Angeles re- spread feeling of frustration and powerlessness mained a marginalized community. Nineteen among communities of color. The King beating years after the 1965 McCone report, the Los An- verdicts, like the police force abuse of 1965, geles County and City Human Relations Com- acted as the spark that set off the cumulative mission found that housing remained one of resentment in a violent expression of collective the most critical problems in South Central Los public protest (Davis 1992b). One main differ- Angeles.5 The persistent socioeconomic prob- ence between the 1992 King riots and the 1965 lems and frustration felt by local residents Watts civil unrest was the multiethnic involve- eventually led to another sociopolitical explo- ment of Koreans and Latinos, demonstrating sion, the 1992 civil uprising. that tensions were not limited to segregated black neighborhoods (Pastor 1995). This shift T he Multiethnic Riots of 1992 reflected a new racial paradigm that was taking The 1985 Los Angeles County and City Human shape not only in Los Angeles, but throughout Relations Commissions report recommends America. This required a parallel shift in the that the mayor and city council request the City analysis of issues such as segregation and ac- Planning Commission to develop a plan, in- cess to decent housing from focusing solely on cluding legislation if necessary, to address the disparities between black and white people to critical housing problems of South-­Central Los one that is cross-­cutting and multidimensional. Angeles. The report concludes, “We cannot em- The history of civil unrest in Los Angeles from phasize too strongly the critical nature of the the Chinese Massacre of 1871 to the 1965 Watts problems described in this report and the im- civil unrest, the 1968 Chicano Blowouts, and plications of continued inaction. We should the 1992 Los Angeles uprising becomes part of not have to wait for a second Los Angeles riot a continuum of systematic oppression of com- to erupt to bring these problems to serious pub- munities of color that should spur renewed lic attention” (Los Angeles County and City critical conversations about race, economics, ­Human Relations Commissions 1985, 16). Seven and justice in America.7

5. The McCone Commission urged the immediate creation of a city human relations commission to develop comprehensive educational programs designed to enlist the cooperation of all groups, both public and private, in eliminating prejudice and discrimination in employment housing, education, and public accommodations.

6. On April 29, a trial jury acquitted four white officers of the Los Angeles Police Department of the use of exces- sive force in the videotaped arrest and beating of an African American, Rodney King. In response, South-Ce­ ntral Los Angeles was once again a site of protest, where protestors blocked freeway traffic and beat motorists, wrecked and looted numerous downtown stores and buildings, and set more than one hundred fires. The three days of rioting killed more than sixty people, injured almost two thousand, led to seven thousand arrests, and caused nearly $1 billion in property damage, including the burnings of more than three thousand buildings (Crogin 2002; Thomas 2016).

7. The East Los Angeles Walkouts, or Chicano Blowouts, were a series of 1968 protests by Chicano students against unequal conditions in the Los Angeles Unified School District high schools. The first protest took place on March 1, 1968. The students who organized and carried out the protests were primarily concerned with the quality of their education. This movement involved thousands of students in the Los Angeles area and was one of the first mass mobilizations by Mexican Americans in Southern California (Los Angeles Times 1968; Torgerson 1992).

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 164 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

T he Role of Place and Race in ing market-­based strategies that have specifi- Creating Homeownership cally targeted people of color (Kain and Quigley Disparities 1972; Sharp and Hall 2014, Massey 2005; Steil Unlike New York or San Francisco, Los Angeles et al. 2017). The exodus of many of the wealth- is decentralized in its structure. Its major com- ier and white households to the suburbs fur- mercial, financial, and cultural institutions ther contributed to marginalization as employ- are geographically dispersed rather than con- ment and commercial growth would follow, centrated in a single central urban core. This creating problems of spatial mismatch for poor ­spatial structure led to urban sprawl, which ar- residents of central cities (Davis 1992a; De Graaf guably intensified the creation of racially seg- and Taylor 2001; Pastor 2001b). regated neighborhoods (Le Goix 2005). How- A growing post–World War II economy cou- ever, the structure of segregation in Los Angeles pled with a severe labor shortage forced the was created through racial discrimination, re- federal government to finally abolish the na- strictions, and systematic displacement long tional origins formula that had been in place before the metropolis sprawled to its contem- since the 1924 Immigration Act and replace it porary limits. with the 1965 Hart-­Cellar Immigration Act In one of the more blatant uses of state (Chan 1991).8 This more open immigration pol- power to displace people of color, the City of icy coupled with the international episodes of Los Angeles used eminent domain with funds war and large-scale­ violence in which the from the Federal Housing Act of 1949 to acquire United States was involved opened the door land largely owned by Mexican Americans in both to more targeted programs, such as the Los Angeles’ Chavez Ravine (Normark 1999). Indochina Migration and Refugee Act of 1975, The city used California’s redevelopment law which provided refugees who fled from Cam- to justify massive “poor removal,” uprooting bodia and Vietnam with assistance in domestic more than one thousand Mexican Americans resettlement (Takaki 1989; Chan 1991; Ong, Bo- (Davis 1992b; Becerra 2012). The land then was nacich, and Cheng 1994), and to a greater influx used to construct Dodger Stadium. from Latin America following the political up- Federal subsidies for urban sprawl led to dis- heaval of the 1970s and 1980s, in particular in investment in the central city and increased the Central American nations of El Salvador, development of suburban areas, which, con- Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (Chin- comitant with the displacement of poorer res- chilla and Hamilton 2004). Moreover, the rati- idents and people of color, gave rise to contem- fication of the North American Free Trade porary patterns of segregation. This pattern Agreement in 1994 created favorable economic was reinforced through two mechanisms. Al- conditions and insourcing of immigrant labor though legalized housing discrimination and from Mexico for U.S. firms until the late 2010s practices by the Fair Housing Authority (FHA) (Kelly and Massey 2007). Together, these events ended with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the combined with Los Angeles’ size and strategic outcomes it gave rise to persist. For example, location have contributed to the region’s be- the systematic exclusion from the broader ap- coming home to some of the largest clusters of preciating housing market and exploitive hous- immigrant populations.9

8. The national origins formula was an American system of immigration quotas between 1921 and 1965 that restricted immigration on the basis of existing proportions of the population. It aimed to reduce the overall number of unskilled immigrants, to allow families to reunite, and to prevent immigration from changing the ethnic distribution of the population. The 1924 Immigration Act included the Asian Exclusion Act that barred specific origins from the Asia Pacific Triangle, which included Japan, China, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, Korea, Indonesia, Burma, India, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia (Office of the Historian 2016).

9. According to the 2015 American Community Survey five-­year estimates, the Los Angeles metro area was home to the most Salvadorians, 447,788, followed by Houston, 169,935.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 165

Los Angeles offers a wide range of opportu- through home equity (see also Hilber and Liu nities to immigrants that continues to make it 2008). an attractive destination despite the high cost The housing downturn that began in 2006 of life in the region (Ley 2007). Despite the dein- had distinctive geographic patterns. The Pew dustrialization of the late 1970s, Los Angeles Research Center reports that more than two in was able to thrive because of federal spending five of the nation’s Latino and Asian American on defense in the Reagan-Bush­ era. It became households lived in Arizona, California, Flor- a key center of the military industrial complex, ida, Michigan, and Nevada. These five states primarily creating low-­skilled assembly and had the steepest declines in home prices in manufacturing firms alongside higher-­tech 2005. In contrast, about one in five of the na- firms linked to electronics and media (Pastor tion’s white or black households lived in these 2001a). However, despite a relatively strong eco- five states and were not affected as severely nomic recovery following the withdrawal of the (Koch ­har, Fry, and Taylor 2011). defense industry (thanks in part to financial Nationally, Rakesh Kochhar and his col- investments from the Asia Pacific region and leagues estimate that the crisis cut the median labor from Mexico), this path to development net worth of Asian American households in promoted a strong economic bifurcation that half, from $168,103 in 2005 to $78,066 in 2009. reinforced the creation of lower- ­to middle-­ Hispanic households’ net worth was only a wage jobs (Ong, Bonacich, and Cheng 1994; third of what it was in 2009 ($18,359 to $6,325) Storper et al. 2015). while black households lost over half of their The preponderance of low-wage­ employ- wealth ($12,124 to $5,677). Derek Hyra and Jacob ment available to new migrants locked many Rugh find that black wealth was significantly in conditions that make acceding to homeown- reduced through systemic predatory lending ership or renting more difficult and promoted practices by major lending institutions and suboptimal housing conditions (Painter and mortgage brokers, who directed black borrow- Yu 2008). In general, differences in socioeco- ers into high-­cost, high-­risk loans that left nomic status are the main source of disparity them susceptible to default, foreclosure, and in homeownership between white households loss of home equity during the great recession and Asian and Latino households (Kuebler and (2016). In contrast, the white decline in median Rugh 2013). However, Latinos in Los Angeles in net worth was 16 percent, from $134,992 to particular have a large degree of heterogeneity $113,149 (Kochhar, Fry, and Taylor 2011). in nativity, citizenship, and legal status. Eileen In 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. had noticed McConnell finds that undocumented migrants the extreme levels of inequality unique to Los were substantially less likely to be homeowners Angeles. Commenting on the proximity of and that authorized noncitizens were also less Watts to affluent areas, he noted that the aver- likely than naturalized Latinos to be homeown- age black person in “Watts is closer to the af- ers (2015). fluence of our society and further away from it Although immigration status creates further than any other American community.” Indeed, barriers to homeownership, many of the same fifty years later, for every dollar of wealth held obstacles apply to all residents of segregated by the average white household, black and Mex- central cities. Casey Dawkins explains that for ican households have 1 cent, Koreans 7 cents, individuals working low-wage­ jobs, access to other Latinos 12 cents, and Vietnamese 17 cents transit is a necessity which creates a locational (De La Cruz-­Viesca et al. 2016). tradeoff (2005). Greater transit connectivity is The foreclosure crisis exacerbated the vul- required to access jobs, but such locations tend nerable position of people of color in Los An- to have higher rents that prevent acquiring a geles, but it also affected them differently. Afri- car and moving to a location with lower rent can Americans and Latinos were more exposed and better access to higher-payi­ ng jobs. This to foreclosure, joblessness, and home value de- trade- ­off also significantly delays ownership, clines than other groups (Bocian, Li, and Ernst further impeding the accumulation of wealth 2010; U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Asian Ameri-

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 166 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report cans experienced lower unemployment rates but also the complete shift in socioeconomic and home value declines than non-Hispanic­ structure. The year 1990, in addition to provid- whites, but shouldered increased housing cost ing an overview of pre-­1992 Los Angeles, shows burdens to avoid foreclosure (U.S. Census Bu- the effect of major transformations due to the reau 2011). national recession of the early 1990s, global re- structuring of the economy, and shifts in de- D ata and Methods mographic patterns. Finally, 2015 represents This study relies primarily on summaries of key contemporary Los Angeles. indicators pertaining to housing outcomes in South Los Angeles between 1960 and 2015. De- Demographic Changes tailed statistical analysis of the data is beyond Between 1960 and 2015, Los Angeles County’s the scope of this article, but we ran simple logit white population as a share of the county total regressions for homeownership to isolate the fell from 4,719,780 to 2,637,477 (from 80 percent effect of residing in South Los Angeles above to 27 percent). The black population remained and beyond its socioeconomic composition. relatively stable (at about 8 percent). The Asian All demographic and socioeconomic data population grew exponentially, from 2 percent come from the Integrated Public Use Microdata to 14 percent. Hispanics outpaced all groups, Sample for 1960 (Ruggles et al. 2017), the decen- from 11 percent in 1960 to 49 percent in 2015, nial U.S. Census Bureau public-­use micro sam- becoming the largest group by 1990 (see figure ples (PUMS) for 1990, and the five-y­ ear Ameri- 1 and figure A1 and table A1 in the appendix). can Community Survey PUMS for 2015. Home Meanwhile, the resident population of the equity data were derived from the 2011 and 2013 county as a whole increased from six to ten mil- Department of Housing and Urban Develop- lion. ment’s American Housing Survey (AHS), and The population of South Los Angeles grew the National Asset Scorecard and Communities more slowly, increasing by a third since 1960. of Color Survey administered by the Samuel Still, at more than seven hundred, it would be DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke the fifth largest city in California were it a mu- University, that report information on race, and nicipality. In 1960, South Los Angeles was 53 other key demographics such as income, edu- percent black with a substantial but far smaller cation, and housing information.10 white population (around a third of the area We use South Los Angeles as the focal area, total) and a smaller Hispanic population, a which we contrast to Los Angeles County as a stark comparison to Los Angeles County. At the measure of broader patterns. There are many time, South Los Angeles was geographically di- definitions of South Los Angeles and boundar- vided between the western half, where most ies are fluid. We use the definition of the Los whites resided, and the predominantly black Angeles Times because it fully encompasses the eastern half, with little overlap (see figure 1). historical curfew area which the McCone Com- By 1990, the growth of the Hispanic popu- mission relied on, allows for the gradual expan- lation in South Los Angeles (LA) and the rela- sion of the relevant area over time, and closely tive stability of the black population trans- matches the units within which data are avail- lated to a near complete disappearance of able (for details, see the appendix). whites from the area. Geographically, this Data availability and compatibility con- marked the largest extent of the black com- strained the analysis to the years 1960, 1990, munity in South LA. Most Hispanics were spa- and 2015. Nonetheless, each year corresponds tially clustered in the northeast corner of the to meaningful historical junctures: 1960 cap- area, and the neighborhood boundary ex - tures Los Angeles on the eve of the Watts riots, tended much further east and was moving

10. The NASCC survey was developed to supplement existing national data sets that collect data on household wealth in the United States but rarely collect data disaggregated in detail by race and ethnicity. The survey targets five metropolitan areas in order to collect data about the asset and debt positions of racial and ethnic groups at a detailed ancestral-­origin level.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 167

Figure 1. Residential Settlement by Race in South Los Angeles

1960 1990 2015

Baldwin Hills/ Crenshaw Historic South Central Vermont- Slauson

Westmont Watts

Share black Share hispanic Share all other 1960 1990 2015 residents residents race or ethnicity Black7.6% 11.0% 8.0% LA County Hispanic 11.0 36.6 48.2 0–50% 0–50% 0–50% White 79.7 39.7 26.9 50.01–100% 50.01–100% 50.01–100% Black 53.0 51.9 27.8 South LA Hispanic 9.3 41.9 64.3 Neighborhood Freeways LA Times South LA region White 33.02.4 3.3

Source: Author’s calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community ­Survey. gradually west. The expansion westward of the recruited and trained mortgage lenders, devel- Latino community made the area majority opers, and real estate appraisers in nearly 250 Hispanic (64 percent) by 2015. The black pop- cities to create maps that color-­coded credit ulation, after a dramatic relative decline from worthiness and risk on neighborhood and met- 53 percent to 28 percent, was clustered at the ropolitan levels (for map and details, see figure western edge of South LA. This decline was A2 in the appendix). Among other things, these not just relative: the number dropped by practices had long-term­ effects through the nearly one hundred thousand from 1960. erection of high barriers to either investing in These patterns are not solely the results of one’s neighborhood or moving out of neighbor- demographic pressures. Both the Kerner and hoods deemed too risky (Dymski, Veitch, and McCone reports explicitly state that the regula- White 1994). Redlining is no longer legal, but tions of the Federal Housing Administration, research shows that other nefarious practices such as redlining, were major factors in creat- have emerged, this time with the consequence ing substandard housing conditions in South of displacing many families (Pfeiffer et al. 2014; Los Angeles. Redlining practices emerged with Berg 2017).11 the first wave of the Great Migration from the South to northern and western cities in the Homeownership 1960, 1990, and 2015 1920s. They became institutionalized and sys- Homeownership is a primary asset for most tematically implemented in large cities through Americans with positive net worth. The federal the initiative of a set of institutions of which tax code also provides incentives for homeown- the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) ership by providing tax savings associated with was the central player. At its height, the HOLC mortgage interest deductions. Moreover, own-

11. Neighborhood upscaling is the combination of a decrease in low-inc­ ome households and an increase in high-­ income households due to luxury housing and transit orientated development.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 168 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

Figure 2. Homeownership Rates for Los Angeles County and South Los Angeles

60.0 54.6

48.2 50.0 45.7 40.5 40.0 33.2 31.8 30.0

20.0 Homeownership Rate

10.0

0.0 Los Angeles South Los Angeles South Los Angeles South County Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Los Angeles

1960 1990 2015

Source: Author’s calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community Survey.­ ing a home offers other benefits, such as access low by the national standard, dipping below 40 to a good public school district, convenient percent by 2015. shops, and parks. Finally, fairly or unfairly, the During this period, growth of the foreign-­ purchase of a home and regular on-ti­ me mort- born population in all major racial and ethnic gage payments leads to higher Fair, Isaac and groups was significant, but increases were Company (FICO) credit scores than families much higher among Asians and Hispanics. By that regularly make on-­time payments for rent. the 1960s, 35 percent of the Asian population As figure 2 shows, homeownership rates in and 19 percent of the Hispanic population in Los Angeles County have fallen from 55 percent Los Angeles County were foreign born (Ong et in 1960 to 48 percent in 1990 and again to 46 al. 2016). By the 1980s, these figures nearly dou- percent in 2015. The rate in South Los Angeles bled, to 62 percent of Asians and 45 percent of ran parallel to the declining trend in Los Ange- Hispanics (Ong et al. 2016). The share of black les County from 1960 to 2015. However, rates in and white immigrants also increased, but from South Los Angeles continually lagged behind much lower levels and peaking in 2014 at 18 county rates on average by 15 percentage points percent for whites and 7 percent for blacks (Ong and did not reach parity over fifty years. et al. 2016). In 1960, the black homeownership rate (36 As seen in figure 4, the overall homeowner- percent) was the lowest of all racial groups in ship rates in South Los Angeles decreased over South Los Angeles (figure 3). By 1990, the per- time, in particular the historic South-­Central, centage of blacks who owned homes improved Watts, and Westmont neighborhoods. In his- slightly, to 37 percent, the corresponding per- toric South-­Central, a high percentage of tracts centage of Hispanic population fell 19 points had homeownership rates between 26 percent to 22 percent. In 2015, blacks (33 percent), by a and 50 percent in 1960. By 1990 and 2015, home- slight margin, continued to have a higher ownership ranged between 0 percent and 25 homeownership rate than Hispanics (30 per- percent in much of the area. In Watts, the ma- cent) in South LA. Across all periods, whites jority of tracts had rates between 51 percent have the highest homeownership rates, though and 75 percent in 1960. By 1990, homeowner-

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 169

Figure 3. Homeownership Rates by Race in South Los Angeles

50.0 45.0 44.4 45.0 40.7 39.3 40.0 36.0 36.9 35.0 33.1 30.0 30.0

25.0 21.5 20.0

15.0 Homeownership Rate

10.0

5.0

0.0 19601990 2015

Black Hispanic Non-Hispanic white

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community Survey.­ ship decreased to between 26 percent and 50 whites (Ong, Pech, and Pfeiffer 2014). These percent and remains the same in 2015. In West- trends for the greater Los Angeles region pro- mont, the largest share of tracts had rates be- vide insights as to why homeownership rates tween 51 percent and 75 percent in 1960. The in South Los Angeles dipped in 2015. proportion declined to between 26 percent and To measure the impact of some of these 50 percent in 1990 and to between 0 percent hard-- ­to ­measure factors specific to South Los and 25 percent in 2015. Angeles, we ran a model of homeownership to The foreclosure crisis contributed signifi- control for life cycle, ethnoracial, education, cantly to the patterns of homeownership in and income variables on the likelihood of own- South Los Angeles by creating pockets of con- ing a home. We report the odds ratio to sum- centrated vacancies or rental conversions in marize the output (see table A2). In this case, distressed communities. Subprime lending in- the odds ratio is the odds that a household will creased for all racial groups, but blacks and own their home given that they live in South Hispanics were much more likely than whites Los Angeles rather than the county, after con- to receive higher-­cost mortgages. In 2005, more trolling for all other variables. In other words, than half of all loans to blacks and Hispanics an odds ratio of one indicates no difference in were subprime, versus only 16 percent for the odds of owning in South Los Angeles and whites. Moreover, black and Hispanic home- the county. A number higher or lower than one buyers were approximately 40 percent to 75 per- signifies that the odds of owning is higher or cent more likely than their white counterparts lower. to receive high-­risk loans during the 2005–2007 The gap in homeownership between South boom period. Throughout the 2007 to 2012 re- Los Angeles and the county remained fairly cession period, Hispanics had the highest rate constant, fluctuating between 14 and 15 per- of foreclosure (13 percent), followed by blacks centage points from 1960 to 2015. Over this half (12 percent)—three times higher than that of century, household attributes—particularly

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 170 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

Figure 4. Homeownership Patterns in South Los Angeles

1960 1990 2015

LA Times Homeownership rate 1960 1990 2015 South LA region Black 40.7% 36.2% 34.0% Freeways 0–33% LA County Hispanic 48.1 34.9 37.7 White 56.5 56.8 55.0 Neighborhood 34–66% Black 36.1 36.9 33.1 67–98% South LA Hispanic 40.7 21.5 30.0 White 44.7 44.4 39.3

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1960, 1970 decennial data and 2015 American Community Survey.­ race, nativity, and income—are the key drivers low homeownership rate in South Los Ange- of disparities in homeownership. However, the les, the property value gap relative to the odds of owning a home correlated with resid- county closed from 1990 to 2015. This is in part ing in South Los Angeles have had a large and due to an increase in values between 1990 and significant effect. In 1960, the ratio was 0.68, 2015 that far outpaced the county’s (South LA’s qualitatively lower than the rest of the county, values increased by 60 percent against 10 per- ceteris paribus. This same number decreased cent for the county). However, despite this rel- to 0.65 in 1990 but increased to 0.89 in 2016. ative convergence, over the entire period The role of South Los Angeles as a place has South Los Angeles trails the county. In 1960, therefore decreased over time in that more of the gap in median home value between South the gap is explained by the composition of the Los Angeles and the county was about $20,000. resident population. By 1990, the gap had widened considerably to more than $190,000, making home values in Home Values, 1960, 1990, and 2015 South Los Angeles approximately half that of The county’s median home values adjusted to the county. In 2015, thanks to the convergence 2015 dollars have risen over time from $131,000 in values, the gap shrank to approximately in 1960 to $383,000 in 1990 to $420,000 in 2015 $150,000. (see figure 5).12 In contrast to the consistently The Los Angeles housing market experi-

12. The data reported in this section suffers from a number of limitations due to differences in how property values were reported in 1960, 1990, and 2015. The main difference is that the 1960 and 1990 data are reported as ordinal data where each household belongs to a bin with a range of values. In contrast, the 2015 data is re- ported as a continuous variable. Thus, the values in 1960 and 1990 correspond to the midpoint of the bin within which the median household falls. See the appendix for a detailed discussion of the variable and the range of each bin (for a detailed discussion, see Collins and Margo 2003).

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 171

Figure 5. Median Home Values (2015 Dollars) in LA County and South LA

$450,000 $410,000 400,000 $388,000

350,000 $300,000 300,000

250,000 $218,000 200,000

150,000 $128,000 Median Home Values $108,000 100,000

50,000

0 Los Angeles South Los Los Angeles South Los Los Angeles South Los County Angeles County Angeles County Angeles

1960 1990 2015

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community Survey.­ enced a robust recovery following the 2006 fore- The combination of high barriers to achiev- closure crisis, and the concurrent lag in new ing homeownership with lower home values construction has created a growing housing creates stark disparities between nonwhite ra- shortage. In this context, it is to be expected cial and ethnic groups and whites. Figure 6 that South Los Angeles home values would in- demonstrates how the median home values of crease faster since it has a concentration of black households do not appreciate as greatly relatively affordable homes in proximity to ma- as those of white households in South Los An- jor job centers (downtown and El Segundo). geles. Median home value for blacks and whites However, this also means that home owners was similar in 1960: $91,000 and $111,000 re- are not benefiting equally from home equity. spectively. However, that $20,000 gap increased Home equity value is the main measure of to $96,000 in 1990 and $150,000 in 2015. In light the financial gains homeownership confers. Eq- of the lower equity levels found, these housing uity is the value of the home minus what is owed disparities between communities of color and on the property. Therefore, for homeowners whites in Los Angeles are even starker than they who own their home outright, the entire value appear. of the property is their equity, and equity will In terms of parity, the home value of blacks continue to grow as property values rise. On the and Hispanics in South Los Angeles failed to other hand, equity can be negative if owners catch up to whites in the county. For both owe more than the property is worth, a situa- groups, home values were about 80 percent of tion that became widespread during the 2006 non-­Hispanic whites’ home values in 1960, but crisis, leading to many people losing their entire by 2015 that figure had worsened to 67 percent wealth. In the early 2010s, black homeowners’ for blacks and 58 percent for Hispanics. In con- equity was only 54 percent of that of non-­ trast, non-Hispanic­ whites in South Los Ange- Hispanic white owners. Hispanic homeowners’ les did not experience a relative decline com- equity was only 45 percent of non-­Hispanic pared with non-­Hispanic whites in the county. white owners’; the statistics for Asians is only Median income trends help explain why the 66 percent of non-­Hispanic white owners. homeownership rate is low in South LA. House-

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 172 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

Figure 6. Median Home Values (2015 Dollars) by Race in South Los Angeles

$480,000 2015 $270,000 $300,000

$312,000 1990 $220,000 $216,000

Non-Hispanic white $116,000 Hispanic 1960 $99,000 Black $99,000

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 $600,000

Median Home Values

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community Survey. holds with limited income are unable to afford number of units have been bought up by cor- a mortgage, among many other high housing porate investors, such as Blackstone developers costs, and are more likely to be renters. Given (see figure A3), adding to the pressure on home the regional trends in housing, rents have also prices. Many of these units are being renovated increased, putting an ever-­growing number of and turned into luxury housing. Moreover, households under severe housing burdens and neighborhood upscaling spillover effects from locking them into not only renting but also the new University of Southern California vil- renting in locations that may not be optimal lage housing and commercial development, the for accessing jobs and educational opportuni- new Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park ties. Figure 7 shows the median income ad- in Inglewood, and the renovation of Crenshaw justed to 2015 constant dollars for blacks in Plaza with a new transit station are driving gen- South Los Angeles and how it decreases over trification in South Los Angeles, making the time. Given that housing costs have clearly out- prospects of a more accessible housing market stripped inflation in Los Angeles, the median all the fainter. household income decrease of $7,000 under- states the magnitude of the increasing de- W hat Worked and What mands housing puts on households. We see an Did Not Work even more pronounced trend among Hispanics As we reflect on the findings from the Kerner whose median income decreases by $11,000 Commission report, we focus on racial wealth over the half century. This is not a common inequality through the lens of homeownership trend. Although the drop in median income for and the role of place by studying South Los An- whites between 1960 and 1990 is consistent with geles, where the 1965 Watts riots took place. the trend for the area, by 2015 whites’ incomes Through our research, we fill the gap within recovered to levels $5,000 or higher than in the existing literature by examining how hous- 1960. ing influences wealth building, a clear compo- In addition, South Los Angeles became a hot nent missing in the recommendations from spot of speculative real estate investments in both the Kerner and McCone reports. The two the wake to the 2006 crisis. A disproportionate commission reports failed to adequately ad-

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 173

Figure 7. Median Household Income (2015 Dollars) by Race in South Los Angeles

45,000 $42,000 $40,000 $40,500 40,000 $37,000 $34,000 35,000 $33,000 $31,000 $30,000 30,000 $27,000 25,000

20,000

15,000

Median Household Income 10,000

5,000

0 1960 19902015

Black Hispanic White

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community Survey.

dress the paramount pathway toward economic commissions did not foresee. Thus, the two re- security via wealth accumulation including ports lacked the ability to predict the evolving homeownership. Mainly, the recommendations nature of racial inequality in Los Angeles. focused on increasing the supply of affordable However, the current state of South Los An- rentals. This is a policy failure that perpetuates geles is a mixed picture. The median home wealth inequality. Both reports document poor value data suggest an uptick in the area. This housing conditions and high housing burden is a positive development because it may in- as underlying causal factors, but both focused crease a homeowner’s equity and allow them on the rental sector. The solutions were to in- to gain wealth over time, but only for a minor- crease good and affordable rental units, but by ity of the households, and, as this article dem- and large ignore homeownership. In a sense, onstrates, home value appreciation rates are this silence means implicitly perpetuating the not equally shared across racial and ethnic lack of asset building through remedial policy, groups both across and within neighborhoods. thus the reproduction of wealth inequality. The Nonetheless, overwhelmingly, renters are miss- housing recommendations dealt with some ing out on gains across the board. If this is the symptoms but not the deeper roots of racial case, policymakers, advocates, and community economic inequality. leaders must develop new ideas on what can Another issue largely missed by both the be done to increase homeownership opportu- Kerner and McCone reports was the increasing nities and build wealth. racial complexity in Los Angeles that was so Overall, Los Angeles has failed to remedy nascent at the time of the release of the Kerner the housing problem in South Los Angeles de- and McCone reports. The 1968 Chicano Blow- spite the recommendations and political prom- outs and the 1992 Rodney King riots are exam- ises. If the high cost of housing (for example, ples of shifting demographics that challenged higher rents and home prices) and neighbor- the black and white relations binary. These hood upscaling continue to drive gentrification changes are embedded in the demographic and displacement, Los Angeles may be headed shift in South LA, again something that the two into a new round of problems given growing

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 174 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

Figure 8. White and Nonwhite Household Wealth and Family Income in Los Angeles

Median Net Wealth Median Family Income (U.S. dollars) (U.S. dollars)

Japanese $592,000 African black $115,000 Asian Indian $460,000 Asian Indian $100,000 Chinese $408,200 White $95,000 White $355,000 Filipino 80,000 Filipino $243,000 Japanese $75,000 African black $72,000 Chinese $70,000 Vietnamese $61,500 Korean $60,000 Other Latino $42,500 U.S. black $53,500 Korean $23,400 Vietnamese $50,000 U.S. black $4,000 Mexican $50,000 Mexican $3,500 Other Latino $40,000 0 50,000 100,000 $150,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 $800,000 Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2014 National Asset Scorecard and Communities of Color Sur- vey (De La Cruz-Viesca et al. 2016). economic inequality and declining housing af- is most likely attributed to higher incomes, fordability. The demographics may have stock ownership, and savings. Thus, not all changed dramatically, but South Los Angeles high wealth racial groups are homeowners. remains at the margins of the economy, as well Wealth is also derived from assets such as in- as society. tergenerational wealth transfers, savings, stocks, and retirement. W hat Are the Implications for the Moreover, when we examine differences by Twenty-­First Century nativity, a more nuanced picture emerges. Wealth is derived from taking the total market NASCC data revealed that for the Los Angeles value of all physical and intangible assets metro area, the median wealth for African im- owned, then subtracting all debts. Although migrants is $72,000. Figure 9 shows the median homeownership is a primary asset for the ma- wealth for Mexican immigrants is $3000 com- jority of Americans with positive net worth, it pared with $58,000 for U.S.-­born Mexicans (Biu is not a driver of wealth. Data from the National et al. 2017). Even more noteworthy is the differ- Asset Scorecard and Communities of Color ence in homeownership rates between Mexican (NASCC) collected in 2014 found that one of the immigrants (35 percent) and U.S.-­born Mexi- wealthiest ethnic groups in Los Angeles, Asian cans (63 percent) (Biu et al. 2017). The NASCC Indians, have a lower rate of homeownership data sheds light on within-group differences than blacks—whose low level of wealth indi- by nativity and ethnicity and demonstrates the cates a population overwhelmingly reliant great diversity that exists within each racial upon income (De La Cruz-­Viesca et al. 2016). As group. figure 8 shows, the median net worth for Asian Also, the socioeconomic status of immi- Indians is $460,000 in contrast with $4,000 for grants prior to entering the United States plays non- i­mmigrant blacks in Los Angeles and an important role in influencing the wealth po- homeownership rates are 40 percent and 42 sition of particular groups. The majority of im- percent, respectively (De La Cruz-­Viesca et al. migrants who arrived after the passage of the 2016). The median net wealth of Asian Indians 1965 Immigration Act are highly educated, pos-

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 175

Figure 9. U.S.-Born and Immigrant Household Wealth and Homeownership in Los Angeles

Median Net Wealth Homeownership Rate Japanese, U.S. $619,150 Chinese, Immigrant 72% Chinese, Immigrant $547,000 Japanese, U.S. 70% Asian Indian, Immigrant $460,000 White, U.S. 67% White, U.S. $407,999 Mexican, U.S. 63% Chinese, U.S. $285,000 Chinese, U.S. 57% Filipino, Immigrant $179,000 Filipino, Immigrant 56% Japanese, Immigrant $135,000 Vietnamese, Immigrant 54% African, Immigrant $72,000 Japanese, Immigrant 49% Vietnamese, Immigrant $61,500 Other Latino, Immigrant 47% Mexican, U.S. $58,000 African, Immigrant 44% Other Latino, Immigrant $45,000 Black, U.S. 42% Korean, Immigrant $15,100 Korean, Immigrant 40% Black, U.S. $4,000 Asian Indian, Immigrant 38% Mexican, Immigrant $3,000 Mexican, Immigrant 35% 0204060 80% 0 200,000 400,000$600,000

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2014 National Asset Scorecard and Communities of Color Survey (Biu et al. 2017).

sess higher levels of wealth than the average steadily in Los Angeles, segregation levels re- American, and are highly skilled professionals main high while increasing between Hispanics who are more likely to hold jobs with higher and non-­Hispanic whites (2016).13 Nonetheless, earnings levels (Lee and Zhou 2015). Thus, the we observe evidence that even in the same selectivity status of immigrants to Los Angeles neighborhoods, black and Hispanic homeown- has vital implications for how they are able to ership rates, home values, and appreciation accumulate assets over time, especially relative rates are lower than among their white neigh- to primarily native-­born populations. It is crit- bors. ical to understand how the nature of inequality The findings provide us with a better under- has been transformed by immigration and the standing of what might influence racial wealth overall growth of income and wealth inequal- disparities. A review of the economic literature ity. demonstrates that inheritances, bequests, and Furthermore, one study has shown that in- intrafamily transfers also account for more of come differences are only a small fraction in the racial wealth divide than any other demo- producing ethnoracial residential segregation graphic and socioeconomic indicators, includ- and that segregation is largely driven by ethnic ing education, income, and household struc- and racial differences (Ong et al. 2016). Though ture (Hamilton and Chiteji 2013; see also, for most social scientists point to individual preju- example, Blau and Graham 1990; Menchik and dices and structural racism, others counter that Jianakoplos 1997; Conley 1999; Charles and segregation is a mere byproduct of systematic Hurst 2003; Gittleman and Wolff 2007). Thus, economic differences. For example, some mi- it is important to understand the racial differ- nority groups are poorer and thus dispropor- ences in resource transfers across generations. tionately concentrated in low-i­ncome neighbor- It is beyond the scope of this article to iden- hoods. The Ong report indicates that although tify the causal mechanisms influencing racial black-white­ segregation has been decreasing wealth disparity in Los Angeles, but the find-

13. This is in part due to the white population share falling and in part to the Hispanic population rising.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 176 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report ings outlined in this paper do help us identify the United States or abroad. The Alliance for potential factors influencing wealth accumu- Stabilizing Our Communities found that lation. As discussed earlier, people of color about 22 percent of low-­ and moderate-­income were excluded from post-Depression­ and Asian American and Pacific Islander survey re- World War II (1939–45) policies that were spondents used remittances or wire trans- largely responsible for the asset development fers—a rate slightly higher than the 17 percent of an American middle class (for example, ra- of Latinos (2014). Moreover, some studies have cially discriminatory local implementation of shown that the Philippines, Tonga, Samoa, FHA loans and G.I. Bill benefits; see Katznel- and Fiji islands depend on remittances, where son 2005; Lui et al. 2005; Oliver and Shapiro family members are identified to work abroad 2006). Thus, explanations that attribute the so as to increase economic returns for the fam- lack of assets among minority groups to a rel- ily (Brown, Connell, and Jimenez-­Soto 2014). ative deficiency in current savings behaviors However, there are few studies that focus on are at the very least an oversimplification the how remitters in America are impacted in their problem.14 ability to build assets either in the United The staggering disparities identified in this States or abroad. analysis should urge us to find policies that can Finally, this analysis highlights the impor- help narrow racial wealth inequality by provid- tance of collecting wealth data at the local level, ing opportunities for asset development; ensur- including disaggregated information for spe- ing fair access to housing, credit, and financial cific national origin groups. Having access to services; ensuring equal opportunity to well-­ this type of data is an important step to help paying jobs regardless of race or ethnicity; shape policymakers’, practitioners’, and foun- strengthening retirement incomes; promoting dations’ responses to the enormous challenges access to education without overburdening in- communities of color experience across the dividuals with debt; and providing access to country. Wealth is perhaps more important health care while helping minimize medical than income in better understanding economic debt.15 All policies aimed at bridging the wealth inequality, and wealth is critical in ensuring gap also should consider the wide diversity financial security and opportunity for future among nonwhite populations and be targeted American families. or adapted accordingly. Policy solutions are More needs to be done to ensure that the complex and need to use a multifaceted ap- diverse voices of nonwhite groups are included proach that includes input from practitioners in public debates and to understand the rea- who are familiar with the unique needs and sons behind the enormous differences uncov- challenges that different communities of color ered in this analysis. More than ever, it is im- face. portant to include data and analysis of We also need to broaden the analysis of indigenous and communities of color that are how transnational capital has affected house- often overlooked in traditional studies in the hold assets. For example, the importance of development of a more inclusive, fair, and com- remittances for many immigrants inhibits prehensive narrative about racial inequality their ability to save or accumulate assets in and financial justice in America.

14. Economists ranging from Milton Friedman (1957) to Marjorie Galenson (1972), to Marcus Alexis (1971), have found that, after accounting for household income, blacks have a slightly higher savings rate than whites. More recently, Maury Gittleman and Edward Wolff (2007) using the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID) have found that, after controlling for household income, if anything blacks had a mild savings advantage compared to whites (Hamilton and Chiteji 2013).

15. Two of the authors of this report have previously proposed universal gradationally endowed based familial wealth position at birth child trust accounts, “baby bonds.” The accounts would be used as seed money to pur- chase an asset like a home or a new business that might appreciate over a lifetime (Hamilton and Darity 2010; Aja et al. 2014).

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 177

A ppendix to mitigate it. The main difference comes from In this section, we define key terms and techni- the format of the data. In 1960, home values cal documentation about the data used in this were coded into ten bins with ranges of $2,500 article. The variables are analyzed at the indi- (about $20,000 in 2015 dollars) between $5,000 vidual level for the entire sample. and $20,000. Then, $20,000 to $24,900, $25,000 Race and ethnicity. The questions asked to $34,900, and more than $35,000. In 1990, about race and ethnicity changed across the there were twenty-­five bins starting with less decades we examine (1960, 1990, and 2015) lead- than $10,000 as its lowest value. The values in- ing to some discrepancies in definition. In crease in $5,000 (a little less than $9,000 in 2015) 1960, the question that comes closest to the increments up to $80,000. Then, $10,000 incre- later definition of Hispanic relates to whether ments up to $100,000; $25,000 increments up the respondents have a Spanish surname. In to $200,000; $50,000 increments up to $300,000. later decades, the question about self-­identified The last two are $300,000 to $399,999 and Hispanic origin is used. Asian respondents in $400,000 and more. In 2015, the data are con- 1960 are identified by the categories Japanese, tinuous but granular in that values tend to be Chinese, and Filipino. Later decades are both rounded and recur at relatively high frequency. more comprehensive and consistent in their In handling the 1960 and 1990 data, we as- definition. In 1960, the share of respondents sign the midpoint of the bin within which the that were not black, white, or Asian was ex- household falls to calculate the median values. tremely small and is included with the white For example, a household falling in the bin population. $100,000 to $124,999 in 1990 would be assigned Household variable. For household variables, the value $112,500. This method has limitations data for all respondents belonging to the same given that the ranges can be quite wide. How- unit are aggregated. This is of particular rele- ever, no alternative data sources that would al- vance in 1960 when no household income vari- low us to replicate this analysis with greater able existed. In that case, the incomes of indi- accuracy are available. As an alternative, we fit- viduals belonging to the same household were ted the data to parametric functions and found added up to obtain the household value. In that the results were close to those obtained summarizing household data by race and eth- with the simpler estimation based on mid- nicity, no information regarding who owns the points. home is available. Therefore, following Collins However, in interpreting the values we pro- and Margo (2003), we assume that the home vide, rather than the single value we provide belongs to the head of household and his or for clarity and simplicity, median home values her race and ethnicity to subset the data. fall within the range of the bin containing that Property values. The data reported in this value. To use the same example, if the median section suffer a number of limitations due to home value in 1990 were $112,500, this value differences in how property values were re- should be interpreted as the median falling be- ported in 1960, 1990, and 2015. The main differ- tween $100,000 and $125,000. ence is that the 1960 and 1990 data are reported Home equity. The American Housing Survey as ordinal data where each household belongs (AHS) is funded by the U.S. Department of to a bin with a range of values. In contrast, the Housing and Urban Development and con- 2015 data are reported as a continuous variable. ducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Collected As such, the values in 1960 and 1990 correspond every two years, the AHS is a national longitu- to the midpoint of the bin within which the dinal survey that collects very detailed informa- median household falls. tion on housing units and their occupants. The Home values are reported differently in AHS is a reliable data source to examine hous- 1960, 1990, and 2015. In all three surveys, the ing assets because it includes questions on values were self-repor­ ted. This is a common is- home ownership, total mortgage, home value, sue about which evidence is contradictory as and basic demographic information such as to the potential bias, but not much can be done age, race, and place of birth.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 178 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

Table A1. Population Number by Race, Los Angeles County and South Los Angeles

1960 1990 2015

LA County South LA LA County South LA LA County South LA

Asian 102,560 25,360 921,768 16,992 1,379,767 18,536 Black 448,020 285,680 955,542 337,085 773,488 197,356 Hispanic 651,140 50,080 3,175,651 272,221 4,795,770 459,724 White 4,719,780 177,740 3,446,863 15,463 2,637,477 18,130

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community Sur- vey.

Table A2. Odds Ratio Based on Output of Logit Regression

Odds Ratio 1960 Odds Ratio 1990 Odds Ratio 2015

(Intercept) 0.001 0.001 0.001 Education in years 1.027 1.046 1.052 Age 1.152 1.163 1.147 Age squared 0.999 0.999 0.999 Married 2.948 2.645 1.979 Persons 1.372 1.019 1.113 Household income 1.204 1.217 1.154 Income squared 0.996 0.993 0.999 Black 0.828 0.503 0.421 Latino 0.776 0.763 0.890 Asian 0.721 1.094 1.243 Other 0.776 0.694 Female 1.480 1.190 1.134 Foreign born 0.980 0.805 0.746 English proficiency 1.219 2.367 2.215 Median PUMA Home value 1.028 0.736 0.823 South LA 0.681 0.647 0.894

Source: Authors’ calculations. Note: Dependent value is homeownership. All coefficients significant at the 5 percent level or higher.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 179

Figure A1. Percent of the Total Population by Race

100 2.4 3.3 90 26.9 33.0 80 39.7 41.9 70 9.3 64.3 60 79.7

50 48.2

Percent 40 36.6 53.0 30 51.9

20 8.0 27.8 11.0 11.0 10 7.6 10.6 14.0 0 1.7 4.7 2.6 3.0 Los Angeles South Los Los Angeles South Los Los Angeles South Los County Angeles County Angeles County Angeles

19601990 2015

Asian Black Hispanic White

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 1960, 1990 decennial data and 2015 American Community ­Survey.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 180 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

Figure A2. Federal Housing Administration Redlining Map of South Los Angeles

Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw Historic South-Central • •

Vermont-Slauson •

Westmont Watts • •

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyInd ia , © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Redlining zones Area A = Best Area B = Still desirable Area C = Definitely declining Area D = Hazardous LA Times South LA boundaries

Source: Home Owners Loan Corporation 1939. Note: Testbed for the redlining archives of California’s exclusionary spaces. Maps throughout this article were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of Esri and are used herein under license. Copyright © Esri. All rights reserved. For more information about Esri® software, please visit www.esri.com.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 181

Figure A3. Corporate Investor Hot Spots in Los Angeles

CORPORATE INVADERS outside investors in your neighborhood Downtown LA ¥10 ¥110 Santa Monica Corporate Invader “Hot Spots” ¥5 Warm Hot

A County-wide Problem: South Los Angeles and areas of the San Fernando Valley ¥405 among most heavily affected

Long Beach Center for Neighborhood UCLA Knowledge Luskin School of Public Affairs

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2013 DataQuick property data (CoreLogic 2013).

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 182 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

R eferences tion of Wealth Across Generations.” Journal of Aja, Alan, Daniel Bustillo, William Darity Jr., and Dar- Political Economy 111(6): 1155–82. rick Hamilton. 2014. “From a Tangle of Pathology Chinchilla, Norma Stoltz, and Nora Hamilton. to a Race-Fair America.” Dissent Magazine, 38– 2004. “Central American Immigrants: Diverse 42. Accessed April 30, 2018. http://www.dissent Populations, Changing Communities.” In The magazine.org/article/from-a-tangle-of-pathology Columbia History of Latinos Since 1960, edited -to-a-race-fair-america. by David Gutierrez. New York: Columbia Uni- Alexis, Marcus. 1971. “Some Negro-­White Differ- versity Press ences in Consumption.” In The Black Consumer, Collins, William. J., and Robert Margo. 2003. “Race edited by George Joyce and Norman A. P. Gov- and the Value of Owner-Oc­ cupied Housing, oni. New York: Random House. 1940–1990.” Regional Science and Urban Eco- Alliance for Stabilizing Our Communities. 2014. nomics 33(3): 255–86. “Banking in Color: New Findings on Financial Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America. Access for Low- ­and Moderate-Inc­ ome Commu- Berkeley: University of California Press. nities.” Washington, D.C.: National Council de La CoreLogic. 2013. DataQuick property purchase data. Raza. Irvine, Calif. Becerra, Hector. 2012. “Decades Later, Bitter Memo- Crogan, Jim. 2002. “The L.A. 53.” Los Angeles ries of Chavez Ravine” Los Angeles Times, April Weekly, May 2. Accessed April 30, 2018. http:// 5. Accessed May 4, 2017. http://articles.latimes www.laweekly.com/news/the-la-53-2134716. .com/2012/apr/05/local/la-me-adv-chavez Davis, Mike. 1992a. City of Quartz: Excavating the -ravine-20120405. Future in Los Angeles. London: Verso Press Berg, Nate. 2017. “What Are the Unintended Conse- ———. 1992b. “In L.A., Burning All Illusions.” The Na- quences of Building the City of Tomorrow?” tion, June 1. UCLA Magazine, April. Dawkins, Casey J. 2005. “Racial Gaps in the Transi- Biu, Ofronama, Darrick Hamilton, William Darity Jr., tion to First-­Time Homeownership: The Role of Ana Patricia Muñoz, and Rachel Marie Brooks Residential Location.” Journal of Urban Econom- Atkins. 2017. “Place, Race, and Immigration: As- ics 58(3): 537–54. sets, Debts, and Transfers Across Ethnic De Graaf, Lawrence, and Quintard Taylor. 2001. “In- Groups.” Paper presented at 32nd session of the troduction.” In Seeking El Dorado: African Ameri- OECD Working Party on Territorial Indicators, cans in California, edited by Lawrence De Graaf, Paris (May 17). Kevin Mulroy, and Quintard Taylor. Los Angeles: Blau, Francine D., and John W. Graham. 1990. Autry Museum of Western Heritage; Seattle, “Black-­White Differences in Wealth and Asset Wash.: University of Seattle Press. Composition.” Quarterly Journal of Economics De La Cruz-­Viesca, Melany, Zhenxiang Chen, Paul 105(2): 321–39. M. Ong, Darrick Hamilton, and William A. Darity Bocian, Debbie Gruenstein, Wei Li, and Keith S. Jr. 2016. “The Color of Wealth in Los Angeles.” Ernst. 2010. “Foreclosures by Race and Ethnicity: Durham, N.C. / New York / Los Angeles: Duke The Demographics of a Crisis.” Durham, N.C.: University / The New School / University of Cal- Center for Responsible Lending. Accessed April ifornia, Los Angeles. 30, 2018. http://www.responsiblelending.org Dymski, Gary A., John M. Veitch, and Michelle /mortgage-lending/research-analysis/fore White. 1994. “Taking It to the Bank: Race, Pov- closures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf. erty, and Credit in Los Angeles.” In Residential Brown, Richard P. C., John Connell, and Eliana V. Apartheid: The American Legacy, edited by Jimenez-­Soto. 2014. “Migrants’ Remittances, Robert D. Bullard, Charles Lee, and J. Eugene Poverty and Social Protection in the South Pa- Grigsby III. Los Angeles: University of Califor- cific: Fiji and Tonga.” Population, Space and Place nia, Center for Afro-­American Studies, UCLA, 20(5): 434–54. 1994. Chan, Sucheng. 1991. Asian Americans: An Interpre- Farley, Reynolds. 2008. “The Kerner Commission tive History. Boston, Mass.: Twayne Publishers. Report Plus Four Decades: What Has Changed? Charles, Kerwin, and Erik Hurst. 2003. “The Correla- What Has Not?” Population Studies Center Re-

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms place, hous ing, and inequality 183

search Report no. 08–656. Ann Arbor: University Academy of Political and Social Science 610(1) of Michigan Institute for Social Research. (March): 98–118. Friedman, Milton. 1957. A Theory of the Consump- Kerner Commission. 1968. Report of the National tion Function. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univer- Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Wash- sity Press. ington: Government Printing Office. Galenson, Marjorie. 1972. “Do Blacks Save More?” Kochhar, Rakesh, Richard Fry, and Paul Taylor. 2011. American Economic Review 42: 211–16. “Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Gittleman, Maury, and Edward N. Wolff. 2007. “Ra- Whites, Blacks and Hispanics.” Washington, D.C.: cial and Ethnic Differences in Wealth.” In Race Pew Research Center. and Economic Opportunity in the Twenty-Fir­ st Kuebler, Meghan, and Jacob Rugh. 2013. “New Evi- Century, edited by Marlene Kim. London: Rout- dence on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Home- ledge. ownership in the United States from 2001 to Hamilton, Darrick, and Ngina Chiteji. 2013. “Wealth.” 2010.” Social Science Research 42(5): 1357–74. In International Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, Lansner, Jonathan. 2017. “Half of Us Rent.” Orange 2nd ed., edited by Patrick L. Mason. New York: County Register, July 27. Accessed May 6, 2018. Macmillan. http://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/27/los Hamilton, Darrick, and William Darity Jr. 2010. “Can -angeles-orange-county-homeownership ‘Baby Bonds’ Eliminate the Racial Wealth Gap in -rate-2nd-lowest-in-u-s. Putative Post-Racial America?” Review of Black Le Goix, Renaud. 2005. “Gated Communities: Political Economy 37(3,4): 207–216. Sprawl and Social Segregation in Southern Cali- Hilber, Christian A. L., and Yingchun Liu. 2008. “Ex- fornia.” Housing Studies 20(2): 323–43. plaining the Black–White Homeownership Gap: Lee, Jennifer, and Min Zhou. 2015. The Asian Ameri- The Role of Own Wealth, Parental Externalities can Achievement Paradox. New York: Russell and Locational Preferences.” Journal of Housing Sage Foundation. Economics 17(2): 152–74. Ley, David. 2007. “Countervailing Immigration and Hinton, Elizabeth. 2016. From the War on Poverty to Domestic Migration in Gateway Cities: Austra- the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarcera- lian and Canadian Variations on an American tion in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni- Theme.” Economic Geography 83(3): 231–54. versity Press. Los Angeles County and City Human Relations Home Owners Loan Corporation. 1939. Redlining Commissions. 1985. “McCone Revisited: A Focus Map of South Los Angeles. Washington. on Solutions to Continuing Problems in South Hyra, Derek, and Jacob S. Rugh. 2016. “The U.S. Central Los Angeles.” Los Angeles: Los Angeles Great Recession: Exploring Its Association with County and City Human Relations Commissions. Black Neighborhood Rise, Decline and Recovery.” Los Angeles Times. 1968. “Student Disorders Erupt Urban Geography 37(5): 700–26. at 4 High Schools; Policeman Hurt.” March 7. Johnson, John, Jr. 2011. “How Los Angeles Covered Lui, Meizhu, Barbara Robles, Betsy Leondar-­Wright, Up the Massacre of 17 Chinese.” Los Angeles Rose Brewer, and Rebecca Adamson. 2005. The Weekly, March 10. Accessed September 6, 2017. Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the U.S. Racial http://www.laweekly.com/news/how-los-angeles Wealth Divide. New York: The New Press. -covered-upthe-massacre-of-17-chinese-2169478. Massey, Douglas. S. 2005. “Racial Discrimination in Kain, John F., and John M. Quigley. 1972. “Housing Housing: A Moving Target.” Social Problems Market Discrimination, Home-Owne­ rship, and 52(2): 148–51. Savings Behavior.” American Economic Review McCone, John A., and W. M. Christopher. 1965. Vio- 62(3): 263–77. lence in the City—An End or a Beginning? A Re- Katznelson, Ira. 2005. When Affirmative Action Was port. Los Angeles: California, Governor’s Com- White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in mission on the Los Angeles Riots. Twentieth-Century­ America. New York: W. W. McConnell, Eileen D. 2015. “Hurdles or Walls? Nativ- Norton. ity, Citizenship, Legal Status and Latino Home- Kelly, Patricia Fernández, and Douglas S. Massey. ownership in Los Angeles.” Social Science Re- 2007. “Borders for Whom? The Role of NAFTA in search 53(1): 19–33. Mexico-­U.S. Migration.” Annals of the American Menchik, Paul L., and Nancy Ammon Jianakoplos.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 184 fiftieth ann iversary of the kerner report

1997. “Black-­White Wealth Inequality: Is Inheri- ———. 2001b. “Looking for Regionalism in All the tance the Reason?” Economic Inquiry 35(2): 428– Wrong Places: Demography, Geography, and 42. Community in Los Angeles County.” Urban Af- Normark, Don. 1999. Chávez Ravine, 1949: A Los An- fairs Review 36(6): 747–82. geles Story. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. Pfeiffer, Deirdre, Karna Wong, Paul Ong, and Melany Office of the Historian. 2016. “The Immigration Act De La Cruz-­Viesca. 2014. “Pathways to Trouble: of 1924.” Washington: U.S. State Department. Homeowners and the Foreclosure Crisis in Los Accessed May 6, 2018. https://history.state.gov Angeles Ethnic Communities.” Los Angeles: Uni- /milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act. versity of California, Asian American Studies Oliver, Melvin, and Thomas Shapiro. 2006. Black Center. Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Ra- Ruggles, Steven, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Jo- cial Inequality, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. siah Grover, and Matthew Sobek. 2017. “Inte- Ong, Paul M., Edna Bonacich, and Lucie Cheng, eds. grated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 7.0” 1994. The New Asian Immigration in Los Angeles [dataset]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. and Global Restructuring. Philadelphia, Pa.: Tem- Sharp, Gregory, and Matthew Hall. 2014. “Emerging ple University Press. Forms of Racial Inequality in Homeownership Ong, Paul, Chhandara Pech, Jenny Chhea, and C. Exit, 1968–2009.” Social Problems 61(3): 427–47. Aujean Lee. 2016. “Race, Ethnicity, and Income Steil, Justin P., Len Albright, Jacob S. Rugh, and Segregation in Los Angeles.” Los Angeles: Uni- Douglas S. Massey. 2017. “The Social Structure versity of California, Center for Neighborhood of Mortgage Discrimination.” Housing Studies Knowledge. Accessed September 7, 2017. http:// published online November 3. DOI: 10.1080 www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr /02673037.2017.1390076. /ziman/ZimanSegregation-LA-Ong.pdf. Storper, Michael, Thomas Kemeny, Naji P. Makarem, Ong, Paul M., Chhandara Pech, and Deirdre Pfeiffer. and Taner Osman. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Ur- 2014. “The Foreclosure Crisis in Los Angeles.” In ban Economies: Lessons from San Francisco and California Policy Options, edited by Daniel J. B. Los Angeles. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Mitchell. Los Angeles: University of California, Books. Luskin School of Public Affairs. Accessed August Takaki, Ronald. 1989. Strangers from a Different 8, 2017. http://www.lewis.ucla.edu/wp-content Shore: A History of Asian Americans, rev. ed. Bos- /uploads/sites/2/2014/02/California-Policy ton, Mass.: Little, Brown. -Options-forInstructor1.pdf. Thomas, Dexter. 2016. “Three Black Journalists Talk Painter, Gary, and Zhou Yu. 2008. “Leaving Gateway About the L.A. Riots, 24 Years Later.” Los Ange- Metropolitan Areas in the United States: Immi- les Times, April 29. Accessed August 2, 2017. grants and the Housing Market.” Urban Studies https://medium.com/la-times/three-black-jour- 45(5–6): 1163–91. nalists-talk-aboutthe-l-a-riots-24-years-later- Pastor, Manuel, Jr. 1995. “Economic Inequality, La- d8dc2d72899e. tino Poverty, and the Civil Unrest in Los Ange- Torgerson, Dial. 1992. “‘Brown Power’ Unity Seen les.” Economic Development Quarterly 9(3): 238– Behind School Disorders.” Los Angeles Times, 58. July. ———. 2001a. “Poverty, Race, and Immigration in Los U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Facts for Features: Angeles County.” In Asian and Latino Immigrants Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month: May in a Restructuring Economy: The Metamorphosis 2011.” CB11-FF­ .06. Accessed May 6, 2018. http:// of Southern California, edited by Marta López-­ www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives Garza and David Diaz. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford /facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff06 University Press. .html.

rsf: the russell sage foundation journal of the social sciences

This content downloaded from 152.3.43.48 on Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms