"The Miracle of Mpls", Local Responses & Racial Disparities

[RailBaronYarr]

As to your point of white people doing better here than in other places, that may be true but there's something that's holding people of color back. If white people are doing better here, people of color should be too. If they aren't, that means there are some obstacles here that don't exist in other places. And pleny of obstacles shared all over the country.

Yep. Even if the problem isn't that black people are doing poorly independent of context, it becomes an equally bad problem deeply ingrained, systemic racism preventing them from enjoying the same comparative success white Minnesotans do. I'm not sure either problem is lesser.

My first reaction is the same as twincitizen's - I want to really unpack the data to understand the situation, but I just haven't. But in other aspects of the economy, I generally hold that it's not a good thing if the ultra-rich get richer while everyone else just holds constant (adjusting for inflation or whatever), not necessarily worse. Why would this be any different?

[mulad]

That seems like a good point about the Somali refugee population -- a connection I've never managed to make before. When I saw twincitizen's comment about whites simply doing exceptionally well, I had to ponder it for a while. I just don't think it should be the case that one group gets left behind as everyone else speeds ahead. We should expect everyone to be lifted up by prosperity. It is reasonable to expect that first-generation immigrants to the country -- perhaps even people coming from elsewhere in the U.S. -- may not be able to catch that wave, but their children probably should.

That said, it still seems like the black population has done worse than other groups that have seen a large increase from immigration. And, well, we're in America, where practically everyone is descended from immigrants who arrived within the past few generations.

[seanrichardryan]

'If Minneapolis is so great, why is it so bad for African Americans?'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov ... ck-people/

[mplsjaromir]

I am in agreement that Minneapolis could be more proactive in ensuring that all people have access to opportunity.

The language difference may play a large factor. If you have an immigrant who knows an Indo-European language, learning English is hard, learning English from a Cushitic background is harder.

My guess is that in 20 years the Somali population will find its groove like the Hmong population has found.

[clf]

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... eport-says

[Realstreets]

Here's my take and I think this builds off the intrigue the author has about MSP. While the the metro area is "sprawly" as a recent study found, I think the metro council and the larger cities have done a lot to offset the impacts that the sprawl has on other areas. Or at least do more than other cities. For instance, by building up public transit, and as the Atlantic article indicates, through tax revenue share and affordable housing. This goes back to the point made by Nathan that some of use don't realize how good we have it. Look at other Midwest cities and what you see is one or several things: not enough affordable housing; crap public transit; no tax sharing. Combined with a neutered-MPO and a state legislature that doesn't give a sh*t about the scary, dirty cities, these places don't stand a chance.

[David Greene]

That seems like a good point about the Somali refugee population -- a connection I've never managed to make before.

Ditto. I would like to see some numbers, though, because I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of the increase in the black population from Somali immigrants. It's significant, certainly but I would like to know exactly how much. How do Somalis self-identify on census forms?

[David Greene]

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... eport-says

Orfield has been pushing this message for years and it's an important one. He sees an opportunity with the current Met Council to change housing priorities and it looks like the Met Council is taking some good proactive steps. I'm interested to see their new housing plan.

[WHS]

So here's one predictable response to the Atlantic "Miracle of Minneapolis" article: http://www.questionthepremise.org/new-b ... at-miracle

While there is obviously merit and truth to saying "Minneapolis is a great city for white people, but much less so for people of color", due to some pretty glaring racial disparities, at some point the constant race angle is really going to start turning off some allies. Even as a youngish urban person who considers himself to be pretty far left politically, the whole white guilt angle barely plays for me. Do the folks who bang that drum and write these types of pieces ever stop to think how this message is received in the blueish-purplish (barely left-of-center) suburbs which keep Minnesota in DFL-control? I dunno.


If that paragraph made your blood boil, maybe take a breath before continuing, because I've had a dangerous lingering thought about the whole "extreme racial disparities!" thing, and the above article provoked me enough to finally commit it to keyboard:

Is it possible that our greater-than-normal racial disparities (presumably based on statistics) are perhaps partially due to MSP's white people doing exceptionally well, relative to other metros, and not entirely due to MSP's people of color doing poorly?

Phrased differently, let's say hypothetically MSP's white people are doing really great, relative to St. Louis (or Denver or anywhere). And let's say MSP's people of color are doing about the same as those other places. Would that not statistically create the result of greater disparity than other cities?

I'm not even sure what I'm getting at there, but I've had that thought bonking around in my brain too long to hold it back any longer.

I know this was a well-meaning comment, but you're right: it's a genuinely dangerous avenue of reasoning.

First, there are different kinds of disparities, and what you're saying doesn't even parse with regards to many of them. The unusually high degree of residential segregation in the Twin Cities, for instance, doesn't have anything to do with the relative success of white people in the area.

Second, while I'm pretty sure what you're saying is true with regards to some indicators (e.g., income), how does it even matter? "You're still better off here than in Detroit or the rural South" is not an appropriate response to black families who want to avail themselves of the same opportunities that white people have access to. Disparities are indicators of discrimination, either intentional or structural, and larger disparities indicate a greater degree of discrimination. I don't think Minneapolis gets a pass for being a heavily discriminatory city just because, in absolute terms, life in Minnesota is pretty good.

I guess what I'm getting at is that your comment sort of implies that "black" and "white" are separable categories, and that all the talk about disparities conceals the "real" wellbeing of each group. In other words, it treats measures segregation and discrimination as a shorthand for describing measures of traditional socioeconomic indicators, like income or employment. But that's a mistake: segregation and discrimination reduce quality of life in their own right. Disparities are indicative of dynamics within society -- dynamics that impact happiness and livability -- that can't be captured by income or employment or education data.

None of which is to say we should pretend life is necessarily worse here for people of color than elsewhere. Minneapolis does not have the extraordinary violence or dysfunction of somewhere like Detroit. But I think characterizing the problem the way you did runs the risk of encouraging complacency about what I would describe as the region's greatest failing. While I'm sure this was not what you meant to do, describing the problem the way you did bolsters the idea that "black people," as a group, are naturally inclined to fall behind, that Minneapolis has done right by them, and that it's their own fault if they can't catch up with the majority. It's an idea that's insidious and dismayingly common, as briefly perusing the comments of the Atlantic article will reveal.

[Realstreets]

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... eport-says

Orfield has been pushing this message for years and it's an important one. He sees an opportunity with the current Met Council to change housing priorities and it looks like the Met Council is taking some good proactive steps. I'm interested to see their new housing plan.

So the problem I have with this analysis is that location-demand for a particular market-rate apartment is market-driven, for instance the demand for market rate apartments in Uptown (or Frogtown). On the flip side, demand for subsidized housing is a bit trickier to pinpoint. You look at waitlists for nearby subsidized apartments, etc. So what's the demand for subsidized housing in a neighborhood without subsidized housing...sort of a cart before the horse dilemma. I just don't think the location of subsidized housing should be heavily based on the racial makeup of the area. Furthermore, Haigh is right that often times residents will have easier access to public transit, resources in urban areas. But I do agree somewhat with Orfields take on residential development near LRT. Ok, we are veering a little off of the thread topic...

[twincitizen]

I just wanted to thank everybody for the extremely thoughtful responses. Kudos to all.

[David Greene]

Ok, we are veering a little off of the thread topic...

Yep, so I'll make this brief. The compelling part about Orfield's narrative for me is school segregation. It is damaging to kids of all colors to be in segregated schools. That alone calls out for housing reform. Of course that housing has to be placed strategically to maximize opportunity. This is why, historically, many suburbs enacted exclusionary and discriminatory zoning codes, to make it difficult for people without cars (i.e. poor people, generally of color) to live in their neighborhoods.

[David Greene]

But, in general the article used median affordability indexes, the type of high-level stuff that shows how good your average joe has it. Our regional affordability for the median household has definitely come from allowing mostly unfettered growth on the fringes

That's a fair point. I understand better what you're getting at now, thanks.

What's the solution? Limiting growth has killed affordable housing in places like San Francisco. Sure, we can build more high-rises but those need to have affordable units included and so far we have utterly failed at that.

[WHS]

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... eport-says

Orfield has been pushing this message for years and it's an important one. He sees an opportunity with the current Met Council to change housing priorities and it looks like the Met Council is taking some good proactive steps. I'm interested to see their new housing plan.

So the problem I have with this analysis is that location-demand for a particular market-rate apartment is market-driven, for instance the demand for market rate apartments in Uptown (or Frogtown). On the flip side, demand for subsidized housing is a bit trickier to pinpoint. You look at waitlists for nearby subsidized apartments, etc. So what's the demand for subsidized housing in a neighborhood without subsidized housing...sort of a cart before the horse dilemma. I just don't think the location of subsidized housing should be heavily based on the racial makeup of the area. Furthermore, Haigh is right that often times residents will have easier access to public transit, resources in urban areas. But I do agree somewhat with Orfields take on residential development near LRT. Ok, we are veering a little off of the thread topic...

Yeah, not to get too far off topic, but you're right that demand for subsidized housing is hard to determine. Waiting lists ARE longest in the suburbs, but of course that might be a feature of there being disproportionately few suburban subsidized housing units.


HOWEVER. One thing you can do -- and that has been done -- is poll subsidized housing residents and low-income families on the characteristics they want in a neighborhood. In the most recent poll conducted by the state housing agency, over 80 percent of residents said low crime and access to high-quality schools was a top priority. If memory serves, access to transit, public services, etc. were important to less than 50 percent.

[Elliot Altbaum]

HOWEVER. One thing you can do -- and that has been done -- is poll subsidized housing residents and low-income families on the characteristics they want in a neighborhood. In the most recent poll conducted by the state housing agency, over 80 percent of residents said low crime and access to high-quality schools was a top priority. If memory serves, access to transit, public services, etc. were important to less than 50 percent.

This is so important. Instead of just deciding where low income housing should go, we should just ask those who use it. Any good service should work hard to best serve their users' needs. Ask them and low and behold, they have different desires than those advocated by non-profit public housing directors (Susan Heigh).

So we can all be better informed, could you provide the source of this housing poll? I couldn't find it while searching quickly.

[WHS]

Sure: http://www.mnhousing.gov/idc/groups/adm ... 012251.pdf

The survey is far from perfect. The range for low-and-moderate income is much broader than I'd like -- for instance, it would tend to lump a lot of genuinely low-income families in with young professionals -- and you'd surely see the priorities shift a bit if you broke the groups down more narrowly. The samples for the subcategories are pretty small, too. But I do think it demonstrates that schools and low crime are really, really important, across the board.

EDIT: as a total aside, I love the way the results do show how people of any income don't actually care about big yards or "a suburban lifestyle." People go to the burbs for the schools and safety, basically.

[FISHMANPET]

I don't mean to come in as the white man that knows better than poor people, but surveys aren't always the best way to judge these things. Humans have a tendency to vastly overestimate the benefits of a "positive" and vastly underestimate the drawbacks of a "negative."

That's not to say that we should just ignore a survey like that that asks what people want, but it should be run through some kind of filter (though I don't know how to do this in a way that doesn't end up supporting the ideals of the person designing the filter).

Also I do agree that the "low income" needs to be stratified way more, because there's way more to a persons situation than how much money they have. I'd bet if you'd give that survey to a refugee in Cedar Riverside that speaks little or no English, they'd rate being close to family and services incredibly high, probably higher than an "average" low income person.

[WHS]

I don't mean to come in as the white man that knows better than poor people, but surveys aren't always the best way to judge these things. Humans have a tendency to vastly overestimate the benefits of a "positive" and vastly underestimate the drawbacks of a "negative."

That's not to say that we should just ignore a survey like that that asks what people want, but it should be run through some kind of filter (though I don't know how to do this in a way that doesn't end up supporting the ideals of the person designing the filter).

Also I do agree that the "low income" needs to be stratified way more, because there's way more to a persons situation than how much money they have. I'd bet if you'd give that survey to a refugee in Cedar Riverside that speaks little or no English, they'd rate being close to family and services incredibly high, probably higher than an "average" low income person.

This cuts both ways, though. There's plenty of evidence that low-income and nonwhite families are sometimes unaware of the opportunities that might be available outside of the concentrated neighborhoods where they already live -- this is why, historically, housing mobility programs have frequently been accompanied by housing counseling programs that help people compare and contrast different locations. And it's far from clear to me that the tendency is to overestimate the value of strong schools and underestimate the value of, say, transit or shopping. The lifelong consequences of the former are subtle but profound, and the qualitative distinction between different school systems is something most people aren't necessarily aware of.

[xandrex]

Gotta say, I'm pretty impressed with how positive this whole discussion has become. Unfortunately, many of my friends on social media have broken into two categories: The "rah-rah, look how great we are" folks (I won't give them a pass, but they typically are the types who are less versed in social justice issues, so that provides an explanation) and the social justice oriented folks, who have more or less gone on tirades about how all this article cares about are "ciswhitemen" and how the Twin Cities are a cesspool of racism (among other -isms).

It's quite depressing, because those who are the best equipped to tackle the challenges we face seem more intent on scoring points in some smug game they're playing.

Articles like this should really be a chance for us to say, "Wow, we're doing a lot of great things. Now how can we take what we're doing really well to make sure everyone in our region has the same opportunities?"

This New Yorker article on Scandinavia I was reading today actually has a lot of connections to what we're talking about here, especially given our cultural ties to Northern Europe. One thing the article points out is that much of the social contract made to ensure everyone succeeded has begun to fray in places like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark as they've seen an influx of immigrants. Obviously it's sometimes pure racism or xenophobia that plays into this, but I think it's also having institutions that simply have trouble transitioning from a one-size-fits-all model to one that needs to adapt to very different situations (in other words, a structural issue).

Food for thought. And, again, it's really awesome people are having a real discussion here!

[RailBaronYarr]

But, in general the article used median affordability indexes, the type of high-level stuff that shows how good your average joe has it. Our regional affordability for the median household has definitely come from allowing mostly unfettered growth on the fringes

That's a fair point. I understand better what you're getting at now, thanks.

What's the solution? Limiting growth has killed affordable housing in places like San Francisco. Sure, we can build more high-rises but those need to have affordable units included and so far we have utterly failed at that.

Not limiting growth. Saying no to growth that costs the Met Council a boat load of money to serve via sewer infra, new highways, etc. It not only costs us more for pavement and pipes, but then we become politically required to run buses and LRT out to these areas (see: Bottineau, SW Transit service/subsidy per rider, Gateway, etc). A Bloomington, while not as efficient as Lowry Hill East from a gov't services perspective, is not the problem. Every marginal subdivision in Carver, St Michael, etc costs a LOT to serve. We need the Hopkins and EPs and Crystals and Richfields of the metro to stay affordable while taking in additional residents, and have high job accessibility (yes, by both car and transit, though drivers may need to pay tolls at peak hours).

The best way to do that, as far as I see it, is for the Met Council to actually have a stronger presence in local zoning by forcing them to allow denser/different housing types (especially redevelopment) - an odd combination of a bigger gov't imposing more market-oriented policies (like Oregon requiring municipalities to allow TOD along transit lines). If given the choice, every block, neighborhood, or city will more than likely keep low-density zoning if they can, to the detriment of the market/the region's affordability/the region's spacial+racial equity/etc (especially when you include household transpo costs). We need the housing market to be the #1 driver of housing affordability with the Met Council playing a strong part in keeping accessibility to jobs cheap (and reliable/time-competitive/etc), and let subsidies (or incentives) fill in gaps.

A bit of "g-word" in areas wouldn't be 100% bad, if managed correctly. Mixing of incomes/races doesn't have to happen in a urban->suburban flow of people. A slow trickle of races into existing neighborhoods, boosting property values, local job access, school quality, reducing crime, etc could very well outweigh the drawbacks of displacement (which is less than usually believed in most parts of the country).

Land use/transpo is not the lever for every social ill. But if families are seeking housing in good school districts (which has little to no effect on existing students, contrary to the complaints of entrenched families) shouldn't be turned away. Nor should people looking to live close to their suburban industrial job. There's a ton of other work to be done, obviously. Just some thoughts.