Metropolitan Conflict Lecture Series

Outline prepared and written by: Dr. Jason J. Campbell:

http://jasonjcampbell.org/home.php Youtube Playlist Link:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLba_fOJviSOJjTqQhnJ8RSv0xa_lJo3EP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.0: The Theoretical Basis for Conceptualizing the Metropolitan G. Ross Stephens, Nelson Wikstrom: Metropolitan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. Background Definitions and Concepts: Chester Maxey writes, “The city as a political entity is not identical with the metropolitan community as a social and economic fact,” p.34.

1. “The 1920 Census marked the first time a majority of the US population (51%) resided in urban areas, but not until the 1930s did metropolitan area residents become a majority of the population,” p.14.

2. Annexation: “involves the core city incorporating adjacent urbanized suburban territory and providing the newly incorporated area with city services,” p.29.

3. Merger of Municipalities: “…the creation of an entirely new municipality through the merger of two or more cities or towns,” 29-30.

4. City-County Consolidation: “the merger of core city government with…the county,” p.30.

5. City-County Separation: “…separates the city from the surrounding county,” p.30.

Assumptions: 1. Central City: “should constitute the sole governing unit and be the

general service provider for the entire metropolitan area,” p.30. 2. Problems of Government: “could be corrected by appropriate

structural changes,” p.31

1

3. Administration/Politics distinction: Woodrow Wilson writes [KEY]: “[A]dministration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political question,” p.31.

a. Under this assumption, funding the US government is an administrative not a political function.

b. Gridlock: could be effected by the political influence on primarily administrative functionalities. Woodrow’s emphasis on the separation of administrative and political functionalities is an effort to prevent systemic failures.

Three Problems Confronting Metropolitan Areas: Advanced by Luther Halsey Gulick p. 42

1. “inadequate services in parts of the region,” [Explain]. 2. “the absence of a comprehensive metropolitan community program

for development,” [Explain]. 3. “the lack of regionwide democratic machinery for teamwork, for

thinking about and dealing with the common problems…” [Explain].

The Three Extensions: “It is clear that all “extensions” of the American government must take a hand in dealing with our rising metropolitan problem,” p.43.

1. The Federal Government: Argued for the “increase[ed] role of the federal government…in terms of interstate highways, urban renewal…crime syndicates, etc…”p.43.

2. State Government: “He argued that the states could play a major role in…providing expanded education…law enforcement…recreation programs, etc,” p.43.

3. Local Government and their People: “nothing can be done without” the assistance of the local government.

2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.1: The Theoretical Basis for Conceptualizing the Metropolitan G. Ross Stephens, Nelson Wikstrom: Metropolitan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. Three Versions of Metropolitan Government:

1. Unitary: AKA Consolidated. Advanced by Chester Maxey, Thomas H. Reed, et al.

a. “one general-purpose government for the entire metropolitan area, and the abolishment of all prior existing cities, towns, and special districts,” p. 29.

b. Defends the claim that “the metropolitan area is a single economic and social community, which should be governed and functionally provided for by a single areawide government,” p.35.

c. Initially defended by the Committee for Economic Development (CED) in their 1966 Modernizing Local Government publication.

d. [Assumption]: “the fundamental problem of the metropolis was the decentralized or fractured nature of local governments,” p.35.

2. Federative: Advanced by Luther Halsey Gulick a. “…the only sensible way we can deal with the metropolitan

problem is to agree that the responsibility for action now falls on all three extensions:

b. The unitary/consolidated position was then abandoned by the CED in their 1970 publication Reshaping Government in the Metropolitan Area, which advanced a federative, two-tier approach to “metropolitan governmental structure,” p.118.

c. unlike the unitary system the federative “retains existing cities and towns [and]…provid(es) for…regionally oriented “system-maintenance” services, such as water, sewers, and mass transportation,” p.29.

d. The Committee for Economic Development (CED) “endorsed a federative governmental structure for

3

metropolitan areas: To gain the advantages of both centralization and decentralization…”p. 44-45.

3. Polycentric: Advanced by Vincent Ostrom, Charles M. Tiebout and Robert Warren.

a. “sharply criticize(d) the consolidationist argument and defended the plurality of governments…in the metropolis,” p. 105.

b. “allows and stimulates competition between local governments,” p.105

c. “voting with your feet” (p.105), Phrase attributed to Charles M. Tiebout: [Assumption]: that individual choice is not conditioned.

i. As a empirical means of assessing the “effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability” (p.45) of metropolitan government, citizens will “choose their place of residence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.2: The Public Choice Model PART ONE G. Ross Stephens, Nelson Wikstrom: Metropolitan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. 4 Assumptions Concerning the Principle of Self-Government: p. 107 [KEY]: these “assumptions about the importance and character of human behavior” p. 107 itself assumes the universality/generalizability of human behavior. [Potential Problem]

1. “individual behavior should constitute the basic unit of analysis,” a. Pro: The regulation of the metropolitan community is

inherently a regulation of people. i. [KEY]: Justification: Gulick writes, “We are not

dealing with a city at all. We are dealing with people…[which] involve kaleidoscopic patterns of movement for people and ideas and good in production,” p.43.

b. Con: The assumption pertains to the “unit of analysis” itself, which is the behavior, but IF that behavior is externally

4

conditioned, one is NOT studying the individual but those external factors influencing the individual’s actions.

i. Black Friday as basic example [Brief]. 2. [KEY]: “individuals are primarily motivated by rationality and

self-interest,” a. Pro: [???] I don’t know what this means. [Ask for feedback] b. Con: Talk about the many conceptual flaws with this claim.

3. “individuals adopt maximizing strategies to realize their private and public goals,”

a. Pro: Hobbesian benefits (coordinated actions in conjunction with others), Nietzschean (education, power, strength, beauty).

b. Con: only a “problem”, depending on POV, when the “goal” seeks to harm/disrupt the collective “good” or is directed toward the usurpation of existing political power.

i. [Disclaimer]: obviously I’m not suggesting that the attempt to usurp political power is inherently problematic. It’s problematic for exiting power and creates a condition for exclusion.

4. “the level of information that an individual has pertaining to a decision varies considerably from complete certainty to uncertainty,”

a. Pro: It is undeniable that all decision making strategies emphasize informational acquisition.

b. Con: The assumptions from 1, i.e., that of external influence, and “rationality”, as opposed to huge Super Political Action Committee Super PAC investments in advertisement.

The Public Choice Model: 1. Based on the polycentric approach and the principle of self-

government. a. The weaknesses and assumptions informing both the

polycentric approach and the principle of self-government influence vulnerabilities within the public choice model.

2. Preference Position: [Assumption: Economic Motivation, could be Ethnical, Racial, Religious, Sexual Preference etc]

5

a. Population has a preference position based on the perceived desirability of a community, whose economic expenditures are “more or less set,” (p.108)

b. [Assumption]: this fixed, “more or less set” expenditure is the means of establishing preference.

c. [Problem]: the merger of municipalities potentially destabilizes the “expenditure patterns” p.107 for the former local government and thus shifts preference away from locality.

i. [Theoretical Justification]: This shift in preference position would likely be a potential source for metropolitan conflict where (1) In local area [A] there existed tax revenue [X], which provides benefit [Y] (2) benefit [Y] is desirable and informs “consumer-voters’” decision to move to local area [A], (3) any merger of municipalities where benefit [Y] is threatened or lost because of a decrease in [X], as a consequence of the merger, “consumer-voter” preference for [A] will shift to an area providing [Y], hence “voting with your feet”.

Preference Position

The Public Choice Argument: p.117.

1. “a variety of local governments is more responsive to diverse citizen service needs and preferences than a single metropolitan government,”

2. “citizens…are able to “vote with their feet” to reside in a community that best meets their service and tax preferences,”

6

3. “services may be delivered by a variety of governments and private vendors…[increasing]…efficien[cy], effective[ness], and responsive[ness]…”

4. [KEY]: “multiple…government and private vendors…diminishes the problems associated with monopoly providers, facilitates competition in terms of service delivery, and underscores the role of government as both service producer and provider,”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.3: The Public Choice Model PART TWO G. Ross Stephens, Nelson Wikstrom: Metropolitan Government and Governance: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. Public and Private Preference:

1. Public: a. “the preference of an individual for a public good is made

evident through voting, lobbying, and mechanisms of opinion,” p.114.

2. Private: a. “The willingness of an individual to pay the cost of a private

good substantiates a preference,” p.114. Public Choice and Coproduction:

1. [DEF]: “coproduction involves a mixing of the productive efforts of regular (public or private) and consumer producers,” p.115.

2. “best facilitated by the polycentric metropolis,” p.115. 3. Offers citizens a participatory role in the production of public

services received. 3 Examples of Coproduction:

1. Citizen requested governmental assistance: a. EG: Citizen requested “increase in the frequency of police

patrols,” p.115. 2. Citizen provided governmental assistance:

a. EG: “citizens alert their fire department of a potential fire hazard,” p.115.

3. Citizen/government negotiations with agreement on public policy decision:

7

a. EG: Citizen/government agreement on “a local zoning change,” p.115.

6 Benefits of the Public Choice Model: 1. It “directed our attention away from…preoccupation with formal

structures and toward a focus on individual needs and preferences,” p.117.

Public Services and the 4 Needs of the Citizenry i. Coproduction of Public Services

ii. Efficiency iii. Effectiveness iv. Responsiveness to Public Needs and Demands

2. It, i.e., the Public Choice Model “eroded the legitimacy of total consolidated metropolitan government,” p.117.

3. It “stress[ed]…the polycentric…decentralized governmental structure…and…the multiplicity of local governments…”

a. [KEY]: which offered citizens the opportunity to “assist in the production of services,” p.118

i. [Rhetorical Question]: Is there a sense of ownership and community associated with coproduction?

ii. [Rhetorical Question]: has there been a systematic contemporary attempt to facilitate coproduction in impoverished urban communities?

a. It serves as the “best guarantee for limiting the rise and effects of governmental monopolies, which tend to be marked by inefficiency, ineffectiveness and a lack of responsiveness to citizen concerns and demands,” p.118.

4. Distinction between regional and local public service deliveries. a. Regional: are “capital-intensive services, e.g., water, sewage

and mass transportation, interstate waste trade, etc p. 118. i. [Problem]: As our metropolitan areas increase in

population density regional resource sharing and investments will assume a greater dependency on pooled or consolidated tax-revenue streams, as a consequence of the merger of municipalities, which

8

potentially complicates the polycentric model and thus the public choice approach.1

ii. “voting with your feet” presupposes the following: An inherent dependency on the correlation between geographical location and income generation (job/industry), which has changed.

1. That metropolitan areas are subject to “voting”, i.e., country specific, [it presupposes that the “voter” stays within the country, which has also changed, especially where the country is incapable of satisfying consumer-voter preference positions.

a. See this discussion on Eduardo Saverin 2. Increased metropolitan density and size will

likely delimit choice, with reference to taxes as the regional burden for capital-intensive services will require greater centralization and appropriations of funds.

b. Local: schools, local roads, local policing etc 5. Production and Provision Functionality in Public Services:

[REF] 1 Justification: Allan Wallis “Developing Regional Capacity to Plan Land Use and Infrastructure” in Urban and Regional Policies for Metropolitan Livability. “state tax policies often serve as a significant disincentive for regional cooperation since local governments are effectively placed in competition with one another to capture tax base.” p.107.

9

[REF]

6. The Public Choice Model identifies the “[p]olitical alienation…among…the urban citizenry” and defends the organization of neighborhood governments.

a. [Problem]: this position is too idealistic for me and in no sense addresses the realities of gerrymandering districts to ensure partisan representation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.4: Developing Regional Capacities Allan Wallis “Developing Regional Capacity to Plan Land Use and Infrastructure” in Urban and Regional Policies for Metropolitan Livability. Regionalism: “The fundamental premise of regionalism is that places have relationships and connections to other places that should not be ignored.’’ These relationships cross jurisdictional boundaries and are said to require cross-jurisdictional solutions through new forms of regional coordination, land-use planning and governance. These themes are said to constitute a new regionalism”2 Core Values in Regionalist Revival:3

1. Functional Regionalism: a. Efficiency: (in the delivery of services)

2. Economic Regionalism:

2 Gerda R. Wekerle, Teresa V. Abbruzzese “Producing regionalism: regional movements, ecosystems and equity in a fast and slow growth region” in GeoJournal (2010) 75: p. 583. 3 Gerda R. Wekerle, Teresa V. Abbruzzese “Producing regionalism: regional movements, ecosystems and equity in a fast and slow growth region” in GeoJournal (2010) 75: p. 583.

10

a. Competitiveness: (for global capital and urban restructuring) 3. Redistributive Metropolitanism:

a. Equity: (between inner city and suburbs) and community. Challenges to Regionalism: “A challenge of regional growth is that it generates the need to accommodate an increasing number of undesirable but essential land uses,” p. 93.

1. NIMBY: “Not in my backyard” 2. LULU: “Locally undesirable land uses”

Problems with Sprawl: [Idea]: Q: Does the distinction between collectivist and individualistic societies also presuppose varying conceptions of special/class-based “needs” as associated with acceptable qualities-of-life? A: [Potential Answer]: “A community organizer commented that the association of the smart growth movement with fair housing issues had been interpreted by some suburban homeowners ‘‘as a form of communism’’ dictating an alternative lifestyle that did not fit the spatial vision or class-based aesthetic of elite groups,”4 p. 589. [Spatial-vision???]

1. Sprawl has, “resulted in higher costs of constructing and maintaining infrastructure for an ever more dispersed population,” p.585

2. “suburban sprawl was portrayed as the new face of urban segregation,” p.588.

3. The mall/strip mall as a translocated economic engine for suburbs, “for every mall created, whole urban commercial districts will be devastated,”5

2 Waves of “Old” Regional Development: General Purpose: “…infrastructure investments to enable the region to achieve…the ‘good life’…”p.99. The ‘Good Life’ is devoid of nuisances and thus requires the identification and systematic management of said nuisances.

4 Gerda R. Wekerle, Teresa V. Abbruzzese “Producing regionalism: regional movements, ecosystems and equity in a fast and slow growth region” in GeoJournal (2010) 75:581–594 5 Gregory A. Galluzzo, “Organizing Against Urban Sprawl: A New Model” in Race, Poverty & the Environment, Vol. 15, No. 2, Race and Regionalism (Fall 2008), pp.13-15

11

1. The Central City Hegemony: (Form of Old Regionalism): 1870-1910

a. Urban growth as a consequence of annexation. i. City/County consolidation, e.g., San Francisco

b. Urban central/city growth, however, became limited by the appeal of the suburbs, which included: (1) decongestion, (2) autonomy, (3) enforced ethnical/racial exclusion.

2. Fragmentation and Experimentation: (Form of Old Regionalism): 1920s

c. Defined by the establishment of a regional authority/district, e.g., the establishment of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

d. Regional Authority: facilitated (1) planning, (2) building, (3) operation, and (4) coordination.

i. “Districts and authorities facilitated development of regional physical infrastructure and associated services without encroaching on local sovereignty over land use decisions,” p.98.

e. Zoning: Emphasized during this wave. Based on the “concept of nuisance” [KEY] which held that “one person may not use property to the detriment of a neighboring property owner” p.98.

i. Held that the “most protected use [of land] is the single-family development” p.98.

1. [Me]: (1) one of the most significant factors to the problem of “sprawl” (2) Restructuring how single-family houses are developed to accommodate the need for increased density and capacity is key to sustainable metropolitan development, require social changes in perception.

ii. Pro: added “a degree of predictability to the development process,” p.99.

iii. Con: “nuisance was being interpreted broadly to include social class along with use segregation,” p.99.

12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.5: Developing Regional Capacities Allan Wallis “Developing Regional Capacity to Plan Land Use and Infrastructure” in Urban and Regional Policies for Metropolitan Livability. 3 Waves of “New” Regional Development:

1. Federally Induced Regionalism: 1960s f. “Establishment of regional governmental coordinating bodies

moved from a voluntary to an obligatory basis,” p.100. g. [KEY]: Federally funded transportation “investments

ended up increasing sprawl and accelerating the depopulation of the central cities,”p.102.

i. Established regional structure, which would be central city surrounded by suburbs, connected by highways and mass transportation.

ii. Factors Influencing the Depopulation of Central City: 1. “Availability of low-interest mortgages” p.102

a. In surrounding suburban areas 2. The newly “constructed highway system” p.102

a. Connecting the surrounding suburbs to the Central-City.

3. “the spread of auto-dependent suburban communities” p.102-3, created the means of leaving the central-city.

4. When coupled with zoning laws, minority and poor communities were resigned to the central-city and Anglo-Americans moved to the suburbs and became auto-dependent.

2. State Growth Management and Regionalism: 1970s-earily 80s h. Emphasized managing growth via “compatibility

requirements,”6 which are to accord with “the comprehensive plan”7 to limit or prevent intergovernmental developmental nuisances.

6 104 7 105

13

i. The Adoption of State Growth Management Policies: 1. Management includes both expansion and

limitation. 2. The implementation of “multijurisdictional

review” as a means of assessing “developments of regional impacts” (DRIs). p.103.

3. DRI [KEY]: “takes the concept of nuisance and expands it to apply to land use decisions made by neighboring governments.” From micro/personal to macro/regional.

4. The satisfaction of comprehensive planning becomes the means of accessing/maintaining state funds, OR limited incentives for nonconformity, e.g., “Tennessee…established statewide growth management that…requires every county to file a comprehensive plan or lose access to state transportation funds,” p.105.

5. the importance of “benchmark(ing) progress toward achieving,” planning goals.

3. [KEY]: Coalition-based Regionalism: mid-1980s i. Grounded in the recognition that the “problems…were

regional in scale,” p.107. j. Existing “citizen involvement,” which confers legitimacy to

coalition formation and thus mobilization. i. “citizen involvement…provide(s) legitimacy to the

planning process,” p.106. 1. “the city of Rochester’s urban-led campaign to

limit sprawl and mobilize for regional equity floundered in the absence of support from suburban residents,”8

ii. “A widely perceived threat lends further legitimacy to a coalition’s efforts…” p.107-8.

8 Gerda R. Wekerle, Teresa V. Abbruzzese “Producing regionalism: regional movements, ecosystems and equity in a fast and slow growth region” in GeoJournal (2010) 75: p.582

14

k. The formation of a coalition as a potential means of attaining [Me]: “collective preference position”

l. Coalition formation yields mobilization, which requires, however, “a catalytic event…[which is] provided by a threat to the economic, environmental, or social well-being of the region,” p.107.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.6: Regional Economic Development PART ONE Beverly A. Cigler, “Economic Development in Metropolitan Areas,” in Urban and Regional Policies for Metropolitan Livability. Four Era of American Economic Change:

i. Initial Economic Growth: 1750s-1850s 1. Dependencies on: (1) physical resources:

agriculture/natural, (2) slave labor, (3) export ii. Great City Ascendancy: 1850s-1950s

2. Dependencies on: (1) manufactured resources, (2) capital in procuring MOP, (3) transportation network to facilitate shipment, (4) production

iii. Intrametropolitan Economies: 1950-2000 3. Dependencies on: (1) shared suburban/urban labor

market, (2) commercialism, (3) personal consumption

iv. Globalization: 2000+ 4. Dependencies on: (1) “less need for labor,” p.297,

(2) service orientation, (3) internet and global communication, (4) intangible.

Globalization and 6 Regional Economic Needs: 1. “We have not yet developed integrated public systems that are

aligned with the realities of laborsheds. Too few regions have a shared economic vision or set of priorities,” p.301.

b. Coordinated intrametropolitan workforce programs. 2. Balance between [former] locally generated business tax revenues

and [latter] regional labor-markets, typical error to overinvest in the former rather than the latter.

15

3. Regional Partnerships: “offer single points of contact for businesses seeking relocation or wanting to expand in a region,” p.301. See North Carolina’s Department of Commerce as an example.

c. State consolidates counties (proximally) into regional business access points, which are identified by their regional name.

d. These regions have specializations, contingent on any number of factors, e.g., high tech, food, film, real-estate etc.

i. Goal: variety in specialization proximally between regional access points, to minimize cannibalization.

e. Businesses expansion/relocation is streamlined through these regional access points, which necessitates competition between regional access points.

4. Regional/National Coordination of Specializations: f. Since “National prosperity is locally and regionally

dependent,” p.298. Coordinating regional specializations would (1) facilitate national interests and (2) could

16

operationalize “voting with your feet,”: consumer-voters would gravitate toward those regions that specialized in those areas of business/education/industry that satisfied their preference positions, (3) minimize cannibalism, (4) increase regional competition.

5. Sustainable Economic Development: g. “Vibrant regional economies fuel macroeconomic growth so

the US’s economy ability to compete globally is increasingly determined by how well individual regions of the nation compete,” p296.

h. “National prosperity is locally and regionally dependent,” p.298.

i. Possible benefits from regional specialization, “it is in the region that companies access and influence the development of specialized infrastructure that supports their particular economic cluster,” p.298.

6. Regional/National Enforcement Agency: a. “Communities focused on recruitment of single firms,

frequently offer incentive packages…tax incentives and subsidies…to induce…relocation to a metropolitan area…subsidy policies, however, lack transparency and public participation, and traditionally have lacked any binding requirements regarding benefits a company must produce for workers or the community,”p.310.

17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.7: The City's Possessives: Maier, Henry W. "Conflict in Metropolitan Areas." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science 416, no. ArticleType: research-article / Issue Title: Intergovernmental Relations in America Today / Full publication date: Nov., 1974 / Copyright © 1974 American Academy of Political and Social Science (1974): 148-57.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Problems with the Central City:

1. "Central cities…are twice as poor as their suburbs" p. 150. 2. "A large percentage of central city residents can be counted among

the near-poor." p. 150. 3. "Much of the burden of paying the costs of poverty in the central

city falls on the near-poor." p. 150. 4. Central Cities have "older housing, higher crime rates, more

money spent for social services and less money for education." p. 150.

“Managing” Poor Communities:

1. The central city, as a singularity, is inherently associated with a plurality of suburbs. [contrast], "[C]entral cities contain the concentrations of the poor in the metropolitan area because of the lack of low income housing outside the city" p. 148.

2. It's important to note the terms "contain" and "outside," in the preceding citation, both reference poor communities, i.e., the management of potential conflict is situated around the management of poor communities. [Explain].

18

3. "Heavy reliance on the property tax leads central city and suburb to compete…" p. 148., [Explain].

4. [Economic Redistribution]: Role of property taxes defines much of the ensuing conflict.

a. [KEY]: “Inequalities in resource allocation across districts are related to the tradition of funding public schools through local property tax…”9

b. [Problem]: The super-concentration of middle income housing in the suburbs means a greater potential for tax revenue generated from the suburbs than the central city.

c. [Potential Solution]: the "metropolitan-wide sharing of the burden of social [and tax] problems,” p.148.

i. [Potential Benefit]: Equality in Resource Allocation ii. [Explain]: Transition from “Equality” to

Opportunity/Accessibility iii. [Potential Problem]: The politicization of "sharing" i.e.,

in terms of "socialism". 5. [Infrastructural Redistribution]: Instead of the reappropriation

of tax dollars from the suburbs into the central city, which is --whether justly or not-- generally interpreted as "the redistribution of wealth," a better option might be a redistribution of middle income residential housing within central cities, as infrastructural redistribution, RATHER than economic redistribution.

a. [Potential Problem]: Cites are largely sedentary infrastructural networks, which aren't amenable to physical change,

i. Cities were created in a time where the physical transportation to work was the only means of earning a wage.

9 Vincent J. Roscigno, “Family/School Inequality and African-American/Hispanic Achievement” Social Problems, Vol. 47, No. 2 (May, 2000), pp. 266-290, p. 268.

19

ii. Now, however, many are earning their wages without the same emphasis on transportation and proximity, which may warrant a physical redesign.

iii. [See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdadZ_KrZVw] and the reference to "zones".

6. [Mobility Programs]: a. “Research findings indicate that a productive strategy for ensuring a better quality

of life for the inner-city poor, often mired in concentrations of poverty, is to substantially expand the use of “housing choices” or “mobility programs,” further facilitating larger numbers of the disadvantaged to reside in the more desirable section of the metropolitan area. Anthony Downs…argued that policymakers need to…ensure suburban housing opportunities for minorities,”10 p. 47

7. Policy and Federal Subsidies: “agricultural policy…helped…drive the marginal worker off the farm…into the city, a federal housing policy…promoted the building-up of sub-urban tracts, and a federal highway program…bulldozed vast areas of the central city, but also made it easier for the suburbanite to live…a greater distance from his job in the city and facilitated the movement of industry from,” (p. 151).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § 1.8: Forced Concentration:11 Forced concentration: the attempt to artificially influence conditions in the housing market to create a concentration of targeted/selected group members. For example, the intent to create a condition in violation of Section 804 of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, which is listed below:

1. (a) to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. 0;Civil Rights Act of 1968---Title VIII,>

2. (b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

10 Nelson Wikstrom “Central City Policy Issues in a Regional Context” in Urban and Regional Policies for Metropolitan Livability. 11 Maier, Henry W. "Conflict in Metropolitan Areas." Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science 416, Nov., 1974. p. 148-57.

20

3. (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

4. (d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is…available.

5. (e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

6. (f)(1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of

[REFERENCE] Effects of Forced Concentration:

1. Note: the act of targeting a group based on any of these listed characteristics is also an act of selection, i.e., it is inherently implied that the rental/dwelling is being "reserved" for individual of an "accepted" or "proper" social, racial, ethnical, religious, political demography.

2. [KEY]: The effects, then, of forced concentration are twofold. a. (1) It keeps the "right" people from living in the "wrong"

place. b. (2) It keep the "wrong" people from living in the "right"

place. Regulating and Localizing Social Demography:

1. In the former, the "wrong place" typically becomes identified with the ghetto, i.e., the inner city. And the "wrong" people are procedurally forced into localized undervalued and often destitute neighborhoods. Thus, they are systematically concentrated into an identifiable geographical area.

2. In the latter, keeping "them" out of the "right" place is also an attempt to preserve the social demography of the "right" communities by procedurally excluding these persons from inclusion.

21

a. [Me]: Within the context of genocide: “The attempt be state officials to artificially construct and regulate the natural dispersion of demographic identifiers is the political construction of the social…[which]…unfolds as those in political power attempt to forcefully regulate demographic identifiers within the population with hopes of achieving a homogeneous social demography,”12 p.93 [Explain]

3. "In many central-city neighborhoods, poverty and deprivation are over-whelming because of their dominance of the local environment" p. 151.

4. [Structural Integration of Poverty]: All of the maladies associated with an over-saturation of localized poverty brings with it the usual social problems. Thus, prior to 1968 the institutionalized practice of discrimination, particularly racial discrimination, within the context of "forced concentration" resulted in the "dominance of [poverty in some] local environment"

5. [Infrastructural Persistence of Poverty Despite 1968 Civil Rights Act]: Since many of these communities were formally established before 1968 the means with which they were established [irrespective of the now functional legal prohibition] preserves the strategic design to forcefully concentrate local environments with typically low-income minorities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1.9: Disproportional Influences on Urban Criminality:13 The Migration of Poverty to the Suburbs:

1. The forced concentration of minorities into minority neighborhoods prior to 1968 may in fact be offset by recent developments in the US housing market. New findings indicate:

More poor people live in the nation's suburbs than in urban cities because of affordable housing, service-sector jobs and the increased use of housing vouchers…14

12 Jason J. Campbell, On the Nature of Genocidal Intent 13 "Report Says Poor Are Moving to Nation's Suburbs." Associated Press: US News Online,

2013.

22

2. If the correlation between poverty and criminality is strong, then one can reasonably predict a rise in crime in the suburbs. If there is no rise in crime within the suburbs and the nation's poor now live with more prevalence in the suburbs than urban cities, then the correlation should be reconsidered. [Explain].

a. Assessing this correlation would make a good contribution to social science research.

3 Disproportional Influences on Urban Criminality: 1. Urban Zoning Laws:

“Most African Americans were confined to the decaying cores of large cities during the pot-World War II era by governmental and private housing policies; and as a result, they were denied access to jobs, schools, and housing enjoyed by white Americans who moved to the suburbs.”15

a. Since zoning law obviously regulate the physical location of business and homes, and the proximities of each-to-each, the obvious correlation demands that where zoning laws decrease the proximity between housing and businesses where both are densely populated there is a clear potential conflict for the business community IF the surrounding housing population is "low income".

i. See this reference to Ice Cube's song "Black Korea": [REF]

ii. You can read the article to get greater insight into the nature of the grievance, which generally pertains to (1) perceived/real injustice(s) and (2) horizontal violence. [Explain].

b. 3 Misuses of Zoning Laws: 16

14 "Report Says Poor Are Moving to Nation's Suburbs." Associated Press: US News Online, 2013. 15 American Ethnicity: The Dynamics and Consequences of Discrimination p. 7. 16 Silver, Christopher. "The Racial Origins of Zoning in American Cities." In Urban Planning

and the African American Community: In the Shadows, edited by Thomas Manning et. al. Thousand Oaks Sage Publications, 1997.

23

i. Containment: "Blacks should be quarantined in isolated slums in order to reduce the incidents of civil disturbance, to prevent the spread of communicable disease…and to protect property value".

ii. Control: used zoning laws as an "effective social control mechanism for Blacks and other "undesirables".

iii. Segregation: AKA "reconstruction". "Robert Whitten's Atlanta Zoning Plan of 1922 was a prominent post-Buchanan attempt to link legalized residential segregation to comprehensive planning."

c. The initial purpose in zoning ordinances were to protect the "expanding residential areas from industrial nuisances". Soon, however, city planners recognized that zoning laws could be used "for social reform as well as land use". And attempts were made to seek "legally defensible way(s) to use zoning to control Black residential change".

2. Institutional Injustices and Economic Grievances: a. A community without money --generally-- surrounded by

business with money is a potential breeding ground for crime, including especially robbery, assault, extortion etc.

b. Middleman Minority Theory: i. The intra-communal conflict is exacerbated by "Other

minority groups,” i.e., non-dominant minority groups, [Explain], that assume control of the surrounding businesses. Thus, in a Black urban low income community surrounded by Korean business owners the inevitable Black-on-Korean crime rate is sure to manifest.

a. “Some researchers point to nonblack merchants' positions as middleman minorities who provoke resentment because they serve poor black customers,”17 p. 79.

17 Lee, Jennifer. "From Civil Relations to Racial Conflict: Merchant-Customer Interactions in Urban America." American Sociological Review 67, no. 1 (2002): 77-98.

24

ii. For Example: “tensions have emerged between African American residents and Korean business owners in ghetto areas, As demonstrated by the attacks on these businesses during the [LA riots],” p.39. [Korean business owners as the Go-betweeners affording economic accessibility to the “ghetto”].[See my lecture series on Ethnic Conflict for a more detailed explanation]

3. Racial Profiling and Police Brutality:

a. After the Rodney King Police Beating video aired:

and the subsequent riots that unfolded as a consequence of his beating, these signs became prevalent as a means of safeguarding black-owned business:

b. The combination of two competing minority groups, one

defined by the saturation of low income housing, the other by the business products and services provided to this

25

26

community [via middleman minority theory] served as a continual source for community grievances.

c. NOTE: There is a possibility that despite the migration of the nation's poor into the suburbs, crime rates do not dramatically elevate [within the suburbs] because the proximal insulation of suburban housing [by means of zoning laws] insulates the suburban communities from the temptations that are more prevalent in urban communities, via proximal access to local businesses.

Potential Research Topics: Future Research: relation between differences in zoning laws and

comparative crime rates. Relationship between dominant minority group [in urban space]

and minority groups facilitating business needs.

THE END