Nora Priede von Herber
Edited by Veronica Rhoten (Senior Editor) and Leah Dutcher (Junior Editor)
Abstract:
This essay analyzes the legal and social foundations of racial and economic inequality in housing, using the Minneapolis 2040 Plan as a contemporary case study. At the heart of the analysis is the legacy of racial covenants and redlining – once legally sanctioned, now illegal under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 – which created deeply segregated urban landscapes and a lasting racial gap in homeownership. The essay explores how opposition to the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, particularly from white, upper-middle-class neighborhoods, echoes these historical patterns of exclusion, now reframed as concerns over property values and neighborhood character. Drawing on legal precedents like Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) and housing scholarship from theorists Jim Kemeny and Peter Saunders, the essay argues that the privatization of housing reinforces wealth inequality and spatial segregation. It further critiques the limitations of existing legal reforms, highlighting the need for stronger welfare policies and zoning reforms to dismantle the structural barriers to equitable housing. Ultimately, the essay advocates for sustained, equity-focused housing policies that confront historical injustices and promote access to stable, affordable housing for marginalized communities. The Minneapolis 2040 Plan represents a step toward these goals, but its long-term impact remains to be seen.
During the summer of 2018, red lawn signs started popping up throughout my neighborhood. I grew up in Tangletown, a middle class neighborhood in south Minneapolis, Minnesota, now at the epicenter of national debates around racial equity. White letters shouted, “DEVELOPERS WIN! NEIGHBORHOODS LOSE! STOP MPLS 2040.” Quickly, talk spread throughout Tangletown as residents shared their opinions – most of them negative – about a new policy called Minneapolis 2040. These perceived threats from my neighbors made it into my conscience. I feared losing the tranquility of my neighborhood, decorated with manicured lawns, repaved roads, and pedestrian friendly sidewalks. As more signs appeared, I learned what Minneapolis 2040 entailed.
Minneapolis 2040 is a policy initiative to make housing, public transit, education, and other institutions more accessible to a growing population. One of its aims is to decrease racial gaps in homeownership. In Minnesota, there is a 36 percentage point homeownership gap between white people and people of color. This disparity can be traced back to racial covenants and redlining, both now illegal. Racial covenants, also called restrictive covenants, were created in the early twentieth century. White elites thought that families of color decreased property values and property deed clauses barring ownership by non-white persons became widespread. During the same time period, sections of the city were labeled as either desirable or not desirable in order to create white-only neighborhoods, known as redlining. Neighborhoods were redlined because they were lower income and/or non-white, and thus were destined to remain so. They also tended to have a mix of single-family houses and apartment buildings. This is in direct contrast to neighborhoods that were thought of as desirable to live in by white families. The process included imposing single-family zoning regulations. By requiring their owners to come up with a down-payment for a single-family home instead of paying monthly rent for an apartment, lower income families were barred from entering those neighborhoods. Today, these neighborhoods have higher property values, which correlates with better school districts, access to resources, and public safety.
Minneapolis 2040 was threatening to my neighbors because it negated what they considered rights to private property, and at the heart of that was the prospect of falling property values. The motivation of redlining was to protect areas of high property values, which would ensure that white communities continue to own or have disproportionately high access to resources. Home ownership is essential to increasing one’s wealth, which is what makes the racial home ownership gaps in Minnesota so stark. This gap is hard to close, as it can be assumed that property values will continue to rise (the 2008 financial crisis is an exception to this generations-long trend). As property values increase, property taxes rise which affects the quality of neighborhoods, including their public schools. Additionally, after one’s mortgage is paid off, they will profit from rising property values. An op-ed in the New York Times in 2014 reads, “Homeownership has long been central to Americans’ ability to amass wealth… the net worth of
homeowners has significantly outpaced that of renters.” Central to the 2040 Plan was the elimination of single-family zoning, in order to open up suburban spaces for multi-unit, rental dwellings. These dwellings would be more likely to have non-white tenants, due to renting being cheaper than owning. The negative reaction to the 2040 Plan perpetuated the same racist attitudes that fueled redlining almost a century before, although this time they could be rationalized in the guise of protecting property values.
Jim Kemeny, a British sociologist in the field of housing studies, argues that owner-occupation is “founded upon the privatization of housing consumption” and thus is“anti-collectivistic” and “discourages cooperation.” He argues that housing privatization leads to the privatization of society, due to it being the most profitable form of tenure. Housing privatization exacerbates wealth gaps between the rich and the poor. As housing is resold, its value continues to rise, making it harder for first time buyers to enter the market. This then perpetuates wealth inequalities; the rich get richer from their investments and the poor get poorer because they have to allocate more of their income to their housing budget. These concepts are reflected in the spatial arrangement of housing in Minneapolis; some areas of the city are in significantly worse condition than others.
Racial covenants faced significant backlash throughout the twentieth century until their prohibition in 1968. One such example is Shelley v. Kramer (1948). In 1945, a Black family, the Shelleys, unknowingly bought a house with a restrictive covenant in St. Louis, Missouri. It stated that the house could not be “occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race.” Their purchase was challenged by the Kraemers, a white family, who sought to enforce the covenant. After being upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court, it was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court who ruled that the restrictive covenant violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although a step in the right direction, Shelley v. Kramer did not prevent the existence of racial covenants and only prohibited their enforcement by the state. They could still be enacted in private agreements and up until the Fair Housing Act of 1968, they continued to be added to property deeds. Racial covenants came to an end with the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination in the financing, renting, or selling of a house. It has been amended several times to add other protected characteristics, such as a familial status, sex, and religion.
Despite this legislation, most U.S. cities are still spatially segregated by race and income. A 2016 project by the University of Minnesota titled “Mapping Prejudice” aimed to bring awareness to the history of housing discrimination in Minnesota, identifying and mapping racial covenants still existing in property deeds. This was an important step in acknowledging the prevailing racism in Minnesota and a push for systemic change. The 2040 Plan aims to reduce these inequalities by using zoning and taxation to bend incentives toward diversifying housing types and promote mixed land use. This would be a progressive step in making Minneapolis
more affordable and accessible for historically marginalized communities, such as Black and Brown residents. The proposed measures were perceived by many white, upper-class residents to threaten the structure and foundation of single-family, predominantly white neighborhoods.
My entire life has benefitted from my parents’ status as homeowners, and thus from the privatization of my house from the public rental sector. In a few years, my parents will pay off their mortgage and will have more money to renovate the house. This will reduce the strain of paying for my college education, opening up more opportunities and resources for me. Because my parents own our house, I will always have access to that house as a fall back. Living where I did gave me access to a quality public school education, equipping me with academic resources many others are not afforded. In 2019, Minnesota was ranked the worst in the nation for racial education gaps. In an effort to combat this, public school districts were redrawn in 2021 to include more white families at what the district considers “racially isolated schools” i.e schools that have 86% or more students of color. These efforts from the district indicate an awareness of the benefits that homeownership brings, but demonstrate an inability to address them at the root of the issue and provide a stronger welfare state in Minneapolis. The reactions to both Minneapolis 2040 and redistricting were varied and can be traced back to the segregation of neighborhoods.
Peter Saunders, a British academic focusing on welfare reform and housing studies, writes, “The interface between the household and the wider society is a critical boundary in social life, for it marks the distinction between private and public, self and society, the individual and the state. The dark image of the ‘knock on the door in the middle of the night’ is so terrifying precisely because it negates our belief in the sanctity of our own homes.” Using Saunders’ framework, the 2040 Plan was a knock at the door, threatening the private sphere of my neighborhood. Kemeny, on the other hand, would counter this by saying this division between the private and public spheres is a product of weakening welfare states, turning housing from a natural right into a commodity. Historical barriers to homeownership and their long lasting effects are becoming more visible, thus increasing the potential for policy makers to pass legislation to make affordable housing more accessible. This knowledge about housing privatization provides a lens with which to view the housing market and those who have been disadvantaged because of it, opening up avenues for systemic change in Minneapolis.
After being passed in 2019 and a several-years-long court battle due to environmental lawsuits, legislation was passed in 2024 that allowed the 2040 Plan and subsequent housing development to continue. The City of Minneapolis stated that the city has seen high levels of affordable housing in recent years and low rents compared with the rest of the country, but it is unclear if that is due to the 2040 Plan or other factors. More research is needed in the coming years to see if the promised benefits of the 2040 Plan are seen, such as increased Black home ownership and housing affordability. In order to create more equitable cities, it is necessary to investigate the historical discrimination and legislation that our cities are built on. Much of this starts with housing. Stable and affordable housing allows for access to resources such as employment, education, the Internet, harm reduction, and more, all of which contribute to eliminating wealth gaps. By continuing to advocate for housing policy and legislation that targets the needs of all residents, U.S. cities will become more equitable and safer for all.
Bibliography
“About Mapping Prejudice | Mapping Prejudice,” n.d. https://mappingprejudice.umn.edu/about-us/project.
“Access to Housing,” n.d. https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/access-to-housing/.
“Eliminate Disparities,” n.d. https://minneapolis2040.com/goals/eliminate-disparities/.
Kemeny, Jim. “Home ownership and privatization.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 4, no. 3 (September 1980): 373–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1980.tb00812.x.
Mervosh, Sarah. “In Minneapolis Schools, White Families Are Asked to Help Do the Integrating.” The New York Times, November 27, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/27/us/minneapolis-school-integration.html.
Minneapolis, City Of. “City Moving Forward With Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan,” n.d. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/news/2024/june/2040-plan/.
Saunders, Peter. A Nation of Home Owners. Routledge, 1990.
LII / Legal Information Institute. “Shelley V. Kraemer (1948),” n.d. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shelley_v_kraemer_(1948).
Shultz, David. “Improving Minnesota education: What does the evidence say really works?” Minnesota Reformer, March 14, 2023. https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/03/14/improving-minnesota-education-what-does-th e-evidence-say-really-works/#:~:text=Minnesota%20Department%20of%20Education%20statistics,the%20nation%20for%20racial%20disparities.
The Editorial Board. “Homeownership and Wealth Creation.” The New York Times. November 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/homeownership-and-wealth-creation.html.
“The Fair Housing Act,” June 22, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1.
Thompson, Cheryl W. “Racial Covenants, a Relic of the Past, Are Still on the Books Across the Country.” NPR, November 17, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-housing-discrimination.
University of Minnesota. “About Mapping Prejudice | Mapping Prejudice.” mappingprejudice.umn.edu. University of Minnesota, n.d. https://mappingprejudice.umn.edu/about-us/project.
“What Is a Covenant? | Mapping Prejudice,” n.d. https://mappingprejudice.umn.edu/racial-covenants/what-is-a-covenant.