Race, Rent and Housing
in Montclair
by AJ Faas with Richard P. MacDonald
The following text is a discussion and outline of racial
concentrations in Montclair, particularly areas that exceed 50% concentration
of either black/African American or white. Because of the particular
relevance much of this has to the Community
Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) and its efforts, emphasis is placed
on the racial concentrations, housing structure, infrastructure, and local
ideologies regarding all of these in the COPC partner neighborhoods around
Pine Street and Glenfield Park. What is more, because census data at the
block level has not been available for Montclair since 1980, the neighborhoods
around Pine Street and Glenfield Park are frequently discussed by outsiders
as if they were interchangeable with their respective census tracts, 167
and 171. Research that has included unstructured interviews with
neighborhood experts and building owners, as well as walking tours, maps,
data from the US Department of Labor, Yahoo!RealEstate, local historical
documents, and relevant literature have been compiled herein to ammend
the demographic profile of the neighborhoods around Pine Street and Glenfield
Park with a closer look at its component parts and variations within and
between them. Furthermore, historical data has been collected to
illustrate social, economic, and real estate patterns that set the stage
for current patterns in housing distribution and racial dispersement throughout
Montclair.
Contents
A.
First a Look at the Demographics
1. Racial
Concentrations
2.
Neighborhoods in census tract 167 and their characteristics
B.
Housing
1.
The Changing Rents and Real Estate Values
2.
Section 8 and the Poor
3.
The 'Blighted Perception' of Pine Street and Glenfield Park
4.
Housing Solutions
C.
The Montclair Connection
D.
The History-an introduction to zoning and the civil rights audits
1.
Zoning
2.
The Civil Rights Audits
E.
Conclusion and suggestions for further research
F.
Links
G.
References Cited
A.
First a look at the Demographics
1. Racial concentrations.
-
While 33.06% of Montclair's population is black or African American (12,497
out of 38,977), the concentration in 167 is 59.5% and in 171 it is 77.1%.
-
Census tracts 167 and 171 account for 12.84% of Montclair's total population
but 28.71% of all of Montclair's black residents live in these two tracts.
-
65.8% of all white residents in Montclair live in tracts that are 75% white
or greater. 52.65% of all white residents of Montclair live in tracts
that are 85% white or greater.
-
72.99% of all black or African American residents of Montclair live in
tracts that are at least 45% black or African American. 35.77% of
all black or African American residents of Montclair live in tracts that
are more than 77% Black or African American.
-
Currently, 82.65% of all Black or African American residents of Montclair
live in the areas that were zoned residence class B, C, or D according
to 1921 Montclair towniship ordinances. For a detailed discussion
of the qualifications and implications of the 1921 ordinances see our section
on zoning.
-
11.74% of all families in tracts 167 and 171 were living below the official
poverty level in 1990. Of all the township's families below the poverty
line, 35.55% live in these two tracts.
-
Click here
to view Excel tables and graphs with all current Census 2000 data on all
census tracts in Montclair as well as pie graph comparisons of racial concentration
by tract.
2. Neighborhoods in Census Tract 167 and their
Characteristics.
It is our opinion that there are distinct
neighborhoods within both census tracts 167 and 171. Neighborhoods
that are distinct from one another geographically, economically, structurally,
demographically, and, most importantly, socially.
-
Click here
to view a map of census tracts 167 and 171 with a breakdown of the areas
within tract 167 into relatively distinct neighborhoods that we have observed
as distinct geographically and structurally and which we subsequently suspect
indicates economically, demographically, and socially different neighborhoods.
-
Click here
to read notes that accompany the map.
We do not presume to draw our lines around community borders
within the tract, as we recognize community as a social reality rather
than a geographic reality, which is how we see neighborhoods. We
have observed geographic and structural variation within the tract, but
at this point we have not had the necessary exposure to community social
life to even begin to draw conceptual borders of social networks within
the tract. We do however suggest that it is likely that neighborhood
and community borders within the tract will correlate highly. The
narrative of structural and geographic observations attached is batched
by number to indicate its geographic location on the attached map of the
tract.
-
Click here
for a table of recent real estate sale prices in census tracts 167 and
171, which further illustrates socioeconomic variation within the tracts.
Summary
We are well aware that our breakdown
has it faults, but we feel that it's a good beginning. To begin with,
it is our belief that residents of neighborhoods 1, 2 and 7 have little
or nothing structurally similar with the remaining neighborhoods.
It is also highly unlikely that residents of these neighborhoods play active
roles in the daily lives of residents in the remaining neighborhoods.
As the attached map and the above narrative illustrate, they are clearly
separated from one another by gates and major roadways which restrict the
potential informal encounters characteristic of community life. Neighborhoods
3, 4, 5 and 6 are structurally similar, but the new train connection clearly
cut neighborhood 6 off from its surrounding neighborhoods, making it a
cumbersome and unlikely occasion that residents of neighborhood 6 will
encounter residents of 3, 4, or 5 in their informal encounters characteristic
of community life. The intersection of Pine Street and Claremont
Avenue, which is also the intersection of neighborhoods 3, 4, and 7, once
housed the local ACME supermarket that was a focal point of community interaction
for residents of 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, but it is no longer there. Mountainside
Hospital is clearly a barrier separating 6 from 7, though it may not be
entirely preventative of common interaction between neighborhoods.
Our agenda in this section is to begin
to illustrate the ways in which the census tract 167 data is far from being
representative of the Pine Street neighborhood. Our adjustments may
not be much better, but it's a step in the right direction. In regards
to COPC and the efforts of potential community building projects in the
area we believe it is worth considering the ways in which territories within
the census tracts are actually peripheral to the central characteristics
of the neighborhoods they are concerned with. We believe that this
will become increasingly important as the projects proceed and begin to
concern themselves with accurate impact assessments.
B. Housing
This section is a compilation of the
input received from two building owners in the neighborhoods around Pine
Street and Glenfield Park, with additional information gained through an
interview with the director of HOME Corp., a local non-profit corporation
that provides permanently affordable housing for low to moderate income
families in the neighborhood around Glenfield Park.
Key to this discussion are points
raised by residents at an open public meeting held at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel
Church on Pine Street on March 15th, 2001. Click here
to view the Institute for Community Studies' web page devoted to early
research in the neighborhoods around Pine Street and Glenfield Park, with
an excellent summary of points raised by residents at the open public meeting.
Here residents indicated a concern about change in the neighborhoods.
There were expressions of needs for change on certain fronts and expressions
of fears of changes that could prove to be detrimental to those who presently
call the neighborhoods around Pine Street and Glenfield Park home.
Residents expressed fears of rents going "through the roof”; fears
of gentrification and fears of urban removal. Additionally, residents
expressed a need for change, invoking a need for a greater level of respect
for the community from both within and without. After feeling a "disconnection
for 30 years" some residents feel that theirs can be a "great community
once again". These residents want to re-instill respect for the neighborhood.
Reflecting on the state of public service, local pride and local cosmetics,
one resident posed the question "Who wants to live here?" The group
of residents assembled expressed a need for sustained, affordable housing
and other ways to keep the residents in the neighborhood, not push them
out for redevelopment.
With these concerns about the
potential changing face of the neighborhoods around Pine Street and Glenfield
Park in mind I set about interviewing building owners and other neighborhood
experts. Key questions revolved around how these local experts characterize
the neighborhoods and what, if any, changes they witnessed over the last
ten years, particularly in the wake or anticipation of the new Montclair
Connection.
When asked about the changes he may have witnessed
in the neighborhood in the last 10 years, Michael Purdue*,
a building owner with residential properties near Mission and New Streets
in Glenfield Park, responded that, in addition to more white people renting
and owning, he saw more Latino people moving in as well. He spoke
of a young white couple that recently bought, renovated and sold a house
on Washington Street. Mr. Purdue feels that white residents have
been increasing over the past five years. When asked why he said
he felt that the real estate market is hot in this area he answered that
Montclair is progressive, diverse and because of the reputation of the
school system (magnet). In his words, "the neighborhoods are “yuppifying”.
He asserts that there has been a boom in Montclair business and real estate
since 1996.
Marvin Hunter* is a building
owner in the Pine Street neighborhood, with multi-unit residential properties
since about or around 1980. Mr. Hunter "dropped out of corporate
life," as he puts it, in 1980, and then bought, gutted and renovated all
of his buildings. When asked if he had experienced any changes in
the population of the neighborhoods around Glenfield Park and/or Pine Street
over the past 10 years, Marvin Hunter responded that he has seen more hispanic
and white residents move in. He also noted that some of the people
who lived here in the past now want to come back.
John Schadegg, a white resident of the Pine
Street neighborhood since 1982, who was also a member of the Ad Hoc Advisory
Board for the Montclair Connection as early as 1984 took advantage of a
chance to characterize the neighborhood. "I would characterize it
as a lower income, working class neighborhood. Here there are mixed
minorities surrounded by great affluence, soon to be overwhelmed by great
affluence. I would have said that 18 years ago too. I have
had one break-in in my apartment in 20 years, and only one break-in in
my car in that time as well. If this was really a bad neighborhood,
these break-ins would have happened a lot more often." Why 18
years ago? "I moved back to NJ after law school thinking that
I was going to see a great revival of American urban areas. Out west
things were good, but urban areas stayed terrible in the 1980s. Poor
people were being screwed. Revival just started reaching these areas
in the 1990s, but then there was the recession. This neighborhood
is a microcosm of all of these greater changes and forces. This neighborhood
expanded with poverty and stagnated here ever since. This has been
a cheap neighborhood until about a year or two ago.
"Building owners think that the neighborhood
will be full of suited yuppies any day. Landlords are raising rents
and running people out. They are making no new improvements or services.
Improvements are made when old tenants are forced out by rising rents,
then improvements are made and the rents are even higher for the new tenant."
Have you noticed any changes in the neighborhood,
however significant, in the last ten years?
"Well, in ’83 there were broken windows all over the place. There
were many 'welfare mother' types in the neighborhood. There were
assumptions that male were living off of women. In the past ten years
the cars have gotten better. There are no cars in the lots in the
morning. This has become a working class neighborhood. Prosperity
has been slowly going up. There has been no real change in racial
or ethnic composition of the neighborhood. Prosperity has increased
for natives, not only newcomers to the neighborhoods. The neighborhood
has been intact. There has been continuity, but that is beginning
to change. I am afraid that this will become a yuppie neighborhood.
I don't have a lot of respect for yuppies. I like the neighborhood
the way it is. Once the train line is running it will be a great neighborhood
for a yuppie lifestyle. People think of this as a black neighborhood.
I don't think that scores of white people will move in like many landlords
think. During white flight from these neighborhoods the white residents
left and the white landlords stayed. Black residents just got screwed
then. We now have new “Hoboken, yuppie type” speculators who do cost
benefit analyses and envision a new neighborhood, more like Hoboken.
This is the second attempt to “yuppify” the neighborhood. The first
attempt was is 1985, but the recession killed it."
Beverly Riddick, the director of HOME Corp., characterized
the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods as hosting the largest
proportion of multi-family housing in Montclair and the largest proportion
of houses with deferred maintenance. She feels that these two factors
are decreasing over the past 10 years because there is more competition
for properties. Mr. Hunter said that when he first purchased his
properties aroun 1980 it washis philosophy to fix them up as nice as possible
so that when and if the area turned around his properties would compete
effectively.
Michael Purdue says he was one of the first building
owners to be active in the Glenfield Park neighborhoods. Mr. Hunter
says he is the first landlord to initiate change in the Pine Street neighborhood.
He spoke of his early efforts that banished drinking and loitering on the
street or in front of his buildings. He recalls the police knowing
of him before they met him because of his reputation for cleaning up.
Mr. Hunter feels that the neighborhoods around Pine Street and Glenfield
Park are the main areas in Montclair that most blacks can afford.
The
Changing Rents and Real Estate Value
After all of this talk about real
estate speculations and people's expectations I tried to get a sense of
the actual financial changes that are already underway. I asked Michael
Purdue* if rental rates have been affected in
the past ten years. He responded that rents in the neighborhoods
around Glenfield Park and Pine Street are rising but not as much as the
rest of Montclair. He explained that many landlords have dropped
out of Section 8 (a federally funded rent subsidy) because they were not
being allowed to get fair market rent increases. He conceded that
rents are not rising nearly as much as the local hype. If gentrification
persists, in Michael's opinion, Montclair will lose a vital part of its
community and diversity.
Mr. Hunter* feels
that in anticipation of the railroad many more are willing to move in to
the neighborhoods around Pine St/Glenfield Park either because of
affordability or convenience. There are other factors driving up
the rents as well, such as the scarcity of housing in general. Mr.
Hunter reported that he has heard rumors about evictions in order to bounce
rents up, though he knows those rumors come without substantial evidence.
The night before I met with Mr. Hunter I had driven down Pine
Street and noticed that the 2
red brick buildings that have been boarded up for years are now opened
with lights on and renovations seemed to be in the works. I asked
Mr. Hunter what he knew of this and he explained that those buildings were
going for $110,000 one year or so ago and now he heard that they were selling
for around $300,000.
When I asked Beverly Riddick of HOME Corp. why Montclair
is difficult to afford she explained the popularity of Montclair's school
system, diversity, and history as major factors in the township's housing
economy.
-
Click here
for a table of real estate sale prices in census tracts 167 and 171.
Section 8 and the Poor
The neighborhoods around Pine Street
and Glenfield Park presently host the largest concentration of Section
8 subsidized rental units in Montclair. According to 1990 census
data census tracts 167 and 171 housed 522 and 568 individuals who were
living below the official poverty line. In my interviews with neighborhood
experts I found an interesting complex of opinions about both Section 8
and the poor.
I asked Marvin Hunter*
how the neighborhoods' poor would be affected by all the change we had
been discussing. He remarked that he felt that the smattering of
poor in Pine Street neighborhood will be displaced within 5 years.
Marvin Hunter has very few Section 8 tenants. He feels that white
Section 8 applicants get better deals than black applicants. Mr.
Hunter himself grew up poor and expressed a sincere empathy with the neighborhood
residents. I have had other landlords tell me that they are now avoiding
Section 8 tenants because the Section 8 program makes it difficult to impossible
for them to get fair market rent increases. When I asked Mr Hunter
if he had experienced this trouble himself he replied that he only had
about a half dozen Section 8 tenants over the years and all of them were
problems in some way. He believes that the tenants make Section 8
undesirable by over-crowding apartments and not caring for facility among
other things.
When I spoke with Beverly Riddick
of HOME Corp. I explained to her that I had been told by one landlord that
Section 8 policy and management make it increasingly difficult or impossible
to welcome Section 8 tenants. Another, when I phrased the question
similarly, lost me and suggested that it was the tenants themselves who
were the problem. I then asked her what her experiences and/or impressions
were.
Beverly Riddick feels that the landlords
are shifting away from the tenants. She suggested that housing discrimination
is still a factor in Montclair. HOME Corp. has a number of Section
8 tenants. They have had good and bad Section 8 and non-Section 8
tenants. She sees no correlation between Section 8 and problem tenants.
She knows that it is tougher for landlords to get rid of Section 8 tenants,
largely because the rent money is guaranteed with them. Some Section
8 tenants are home all day, and that is perceived as trouble by many landlords.
She believes that perceptions of Section 8 and tenants are misleading and
that promotes ill will toward prospective Section 8 tenants. She
has heard allegations of steering from the Section 8 office. Incoming
HOME Corp. renting applicants have complained that Section 8 is not welcomed
elsewhere in town, while it is common for many Pine Street and Glenfield
Park apartment ads to print “Section 8 Welcome”.
The 'Blighted Perception' of Pine Street and Glenfield
Park
Dr. Jerry Kloby asked Marvin Hunter*
about his opinions of the “Street on the Run” (Montclair Times Link)
article that ran in the Montclair Times in (DATE). He responded that
it centered around the opinions of a well meaning guy who is fed up.
The main antagonist of the article is a man who lost his son to drugs.
Mr. Hunter's opinion was that Montclair's “bad” is not like Newark or New
York’s “bad”. He feels that the people observed congregating on the
street "do on the street what others do behind closed doors." He
asserted that Valley Road has the highest crime rates in Montclair, not
Pine Street (at this point the necessary crime data is not available to
confirm or deny this report) and that much of the blighted perception of
Pine Street neighborhoods is because of cosmetics. He thinks that
this will change with the train station and other improvements to the neighborhoods
and that Montclair will benefit from the train.
HOUSING SOLUTIONS
Resident discussions at the
3/15/01 open public meeting not only discussed problems with the changing
neighborhoods, but also sought solutions. They advocated affordable
housing for current residents so that the residents could remain.
They did not want to see rents get out of control. The residents
spoke of working together to find ways to maintaining affordable housing.
They expressed an interest in invoking redevelopment powers of the township
to aid in the maintenance of affordable housing. What follows is
a look at a nonprofit corporation, HOME
Corp., through they eyes of its director, Beverly Riddick, that is
working to do much of this in Glenfield Park, HOME Corp.
HOME Corp. is a local nonprofit corporation,
funded largely by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
via state and county appropriations, whose mission is to provide permanently
affordable housing in Montclair to low-moderate income families.
By permanently affordable they mean housing below market value that is
made specially available to qualified applicants of low-moderate income.
Contracts are made with buyers to ensure that rents are held down.
What is the process of obtaining housing through HOME Corp.? You must fall
within a certain income bracket, determined by HUD, to qualify. For
example, the income bracket for a family of four is approximately $52,000/yr
or less for household, though this is only one of many income brackets
along a scale. Applicants can wait up to five years before anything
comes up.
HOME Corp. acquires its properties by first
becoming aware of a house, then they contact the owner and negotiate a
price. They then request financing from local government bodies.
They sub-contract repairs and renovations to contractors. Volunteers
may help with a yard clean-up, but contractors do the job. Once the
building is ready they refer to their waiting list. Applicants are
then interviewed by a representative. Applicants must get their own
mortgage for the house. The arrangement is certified by the state
and is considered contractual. It is arranged so that the buyer does
not spend more that 30% of their income on the house.
For rentals through HOME Corp. it is a similar
process. There is the same application and certification. HOME
Corp. currently rents 22 units. Rental payments support HOME Corp.'s
bottom line. Rents are restricted for buyers who want to rent space
out. The owner must occupy one unit in house or building, and cannot
charge an excess of 30% of tenant’s household income. Restrictions
apply for 20 years. Violations lead to immediate payment on junior
leans (the initial discount).
HOME Corp. also advocates for tenants rights
and responsibilities as well as sponsoring neighborhood development in
the form of home buyer and tenant education, which has been stepped up
with COPC. A fine example of this form of home buyer and tenant education
co-sponsored by COPC, the Township of Montclair and HOME Corp. is the Home
Ownership Workshop Series (HOWS) as well as the Tenant Education Workshop
Series (TEWS). Hosted in six sessions (11/27/01, 12/4/01, 12/11/01,
2/12/02, 2/19/02, and 2/26/02) at the Glenfield Park House, these workshops
have brought in economics and human ecology professors from Montclair State
University and consultants from local realtors and financial institutions.
These workshops were free for all to attend and they addressed issues such
as opening and using bank accounts, budgeting, fixing credit problems,
working with realtors, finding the right type of mortgage, the homebuyer
search process, sales contracts, job searching, leases, rent increases,
evictions and housing safety. A few dozen people attended each night
and most were enthusiastic about the content of the workshops.
Aside from counseling, there is also work
with the Glenfield Middle School. After certain academic achievements
are accomplished, a student is given the opportunity to travel to study
a US city as part of a Glenfield School program. Typically the travel
expenses are left up to the student's family, but HOME Corp. will subsidize
students, who then volunteer in the HOME Corp. office for the year.
The money is considered a scholarship and is funded by the Julius W. Foster
Fund. Julius W. Foster himself was once a Mission Street resident.
HOME Corp. also supports a community garden. It has 9 plots, plus
a children’s garden on Miller Sreet, where the Montclair Child Development
Center works with HOME Corp. Tenants rent the plots seasonally.
The gardens are also under the care of senior volunteers.
When I asked Beverly Riddick, the director
of HOME Corp., why she thought there was a need for HOME Corp. she explained
that homes have become increasingly difficult to afford since the late
1980’s. It’s not just newcomer residents that need HOME Corp., but
tenured residents as well. Property taxes are tough.
Beverly estimated average rents in the area as ranging
from $1000 to $1400 for a two bedroom apartment. $300,000 is the
average for a house upon market entry, but multiple bids will drive it
up in excess of $400,000. Althoough it is not uncommon for those
who can't afford property or rent to move on, while those who can move
in, Beverly feels that Montclair is a town that prides itself on diversity
and HOME Corp. wants to help maintain it. The neighborhoods around
Pine Street and Glenfield Park are the last affordable part of town in
her opinion. Because they are historically black they were perceived
as less desirable to live in for many people. Property value in the
neighborhoods is lower than the town aggregate. The rest of Montclair
has become out of reach. She noted that previously Real Estate agents
steered white people away from the southeast corner of Montclair, but now
affordable property has adjusted the population with more white and interracial
presence. To her knowledge, regardless of race, income levels have
increased.
Although HOME Corp. is the only nonprofit
working for affordable housing in Montclair there is also a publicly funded
housing project at 50 Greenwood Avenue and the apartments across from Nicolo’s
bakery on Baldwin Street are all subsidized, low-moderate income houses.
60% of HOME Corp. buyers have been existing Montclair residents, though
their policy is to be open to all. For HOME Corp. and Beverly Riddick
it is good to be doing their work for the local community. However,
in the opinion of Beverly Riddick and other neighborhood experts, there
is still more work to be done to save affordable housing in Montclair.
Local Ideologies
Beverly Riddick thinks that
HOME Corp. has taken on a responsibility for affordable housing in conjunction
with the township and other government agencies. She knows that the
town council has a long term goal to address affordable housing, and feels
that Community Development Organizations must step in to augment the government
efforts so that private citizens are not held responsible to fend for themselves
in a challenging housing market. Rent control is difficult and undesirable
considering local property taxes. She believes that local and state
government must aid these initiatives, given the large demand. Additionally,
Michael Purdue* suggested that the local and
state government should play a larger role in subsidising low-moderate
income housing and encouraging creative approaches to affordable housing.
C.
The Montclair Connection
The Montclair Connection, now nearing its completion,
is not nearly as new as the discussions that revolve around it today.
John Schadegg is a resident of the Pine Street neighborhood for 18 years
now, and it was within the first two years of his residence that he was
asked to participate in the Montclair Connection Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
The committee was called into session by the Montclair Township council
in 1984. At the time the Montclair Township and NJ Transit were discussing
five optional ways for the connection to bisect the Pine Street Neighborhood
(click here
to view a map of proposed train routes, circa 1984). The discussions
primarily focused on residential and environmental impacts of the various
train routes. It was NJ Transit that conducted the environmental
analyses and subjected them to the scrutiny of the Ad Hoc Committee, while
the committee worked to reconcile a complex of residential opinions about
the trainmline itself. An early alternative proposed by a member
of the committee suggested that a light rail, similar to the Newark City
Subway take the place of the proposed connection plans. This would
minimize the environmental impact in terms of noise and construction and
minimize the social impact in terms of commuter population, which would
presumably lead to the influx of Real Estate competition and rising rents.
John Schadegg today recalls that he, a white male, working professional,
may have been the only resident of the Pine Street neighborhoods to be
invited to join the committee. At the time he says it was not long
before he realized that the committee was "just for show," as he put it,
and that the rail line was going to be added according to NJ Transit's
perrogative.
NJ Transit promptly denied the light rail option
as it would have been contrary to their primary goal of establishing a
mainline that would usher an increasing population into direct service
to New York. At this point the discussion of bisection options was
narrowed to options #1 and #4 and it was ultimately an approximation of
options 3 and 4 that was chosen.
In the words of John Schadegg, "The train line cut
the neighborhood in half. Bay Street is now cut off from Pine Street.
Bay Street doesn't have enough population and housing to become a neighborhood
in its own right, so it is wide open to redevelopment. Mountainside
Hospital may own some houses in the Bay Street neighborhood because of
plans for expansion."
-
Link to overhead map of the actual route that bisected the Pine St neighborhood,
option #4.
-
Links to photos:
-
angles 1 and
2
from 3rd floor balcony at 86 Bay Street looking over the new connection
tracts.
-
looking at Bay Street building from Pine Street side of tracks.
-
Bay Street station.
Michael Purdue* believes that now, in
anticipation of the railroad many more are willing to move in to the Pine
St/Glenfield Park neighborhoods either because of affordability or convenience.
This is what was predicted, and feared by residents voicing their opinions
18 years ago and it is now becoming a reality. Beverly Riddick and
Marvin Hunter* feel that the connection will
be good for the community in terms of enterprise. The 27 families
that were moved for train line are not really complaining. They were
given compensation for their move, the purchase of new homes, and rent
subsidies when necessary.
Back to the Poor
Again I asked Beverly Riddick about
how she thought the changes coming along with the train line would effect
the poor. "The jury is still out," she responded. She explained
that low-moderate income housing allocations are currently being made in
market rate developments. The houses that were bulldozed for train?
She feels that the homeowners did pretty well, although renters may have
had it tough. She is hoping for an increase in economic activity
that will aid local residents and that there are "plus’s and minus's to
the whole thing."
D. The History
Zoning and The Civil Rights Audits
In the early days of Montclair a wealthy
elite settled along the geographical rise that runs north and south along
the town's western border. Restrictive zoning ordinances that began
in 1921 further solidified the class makeup of the town. Lot size
and dwelling size restrictions decided who could live where in Montclair.
This was based on income needed to acquire such property. According
to Schwartz (1977) the trolley revolution threatened to shorten the distance
between the social classes, which upper income commuters had taken for
granted in their escape to the suburbs. The wealthy hill people who
had grown accustomed to riding from the hill to the train by carriage disdained
the trolley. The areas flanking the trolley thoroughfare is where
the lower classes of blacks and immigrants had settled and were settling
throughout the late 1800s and through the turn of the century. As
the poorer ethnic whites were assimilated into mainstream white society,
Montclair's black population was on the rise. It was at this time
that race became of increasing significance in Montclair's residential
class segregation.
New Jersey communities such as Englewood,
Hackensack, and Montclair used zoning to keep large black populations in
well defined multiple dwelling reserves. Montclair developed four
distinct residence classes for zoning, residence classes A, B, C, and D
in 1921. These ordinances were ammended in 1928. In this ammended
ordinance the planning board established the use of properties regarding
the four residence classes. In this zoning ordinance class A is the
standard and makes up the largest percent of residential property.
Residence classes B and C are considerably smaller and residence class
D is the smallest (Montclair Town Planning Board, "Zoning Ordinance 1928").
A policy of containment can be visualized while looking at the geographical
disbursement. residence class B is spread out across town and located
on the fringes for the most part. It exists within residence class
A. Classes C and D are located strictly along Bloomfield Avenue,
seperated by a thin layer of the business zone (a term changed to "commercial"
in 1944). Bloomfield Avenue was the route of the trolley mentioned
above. Residence class D is located in the lowest area of town in
terms of geographical rise and it accounts for 90% of what is now census
tract 171. At the time of these initial ordinances the Pine St neighborhod
was not strictly zoned, though it was zoned as an apartment and general
business area by 1943.
Residence class A set the social standard
for the following classes. The following are use regulations taken
from the amended zoning ordinance put forth by the planning board in 1928:
In Residence A zone, no building or structure shall be erected,
altered or used, except as a one-family detached dwelling; In a Residence
B zone no building shall be erected, altered, or used except as a one-family
detached, a two-family detached or a two-family semi-detached dwelling;
In Residence C zones and Residence D zones dwellings may be erected, altered
or used for the purposes permitted in Residence A zones and residence B
zones, and for residences of three or more families.
(Montclair Town Planning Board, "Zoning Ordinance 1928")
Currently 82.65% of all black or African American residents
of Montclair live in the areas that were zoned residence class B, C, or
D by the 1921/28 zoning ordinances. Schwartz (1983) suggested that
"Montclair used zoning to keep large Negro populations in well defined,
multiple dwelling reserves (510)". Massey and Denton (1993) describe
how the Federal Housing Administration followed the Home Owners' Loan Corporation
(HOLC) in racial matters when evaluating neighborhoods. "...it too manifested
an obsessive concern with the presence of what the 1939 FHA Underwriting
Manual called "inharmonious racial or nationality groups." According to
the manual, "if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary
that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial
classes (54)."
The HOLC is the organization
that invented the practice of redlining, whereby financial institutions
bar certain geographic locations from eligibility for financial assistance.
Banfield (1974) says the the FHA (created in 1934) and the Veterans Administration
subsidized the movement of the white middle class out of the central cities
and older suburbs. The poor, especially blacks, did not receive any benefits.
New homes were almost always built in the suburbs. "These were almost always
zoned so as to exclude the relatively few Negroes until late 1962 (when
a presidential order barred discrimination in federally aided housing).
The FHA acted on its own to encourage all-white developments by instructing
its appraisers to make low ratings of properties in 'inharmonious racial
or nationality groups' and by recommending a model racial restrictive covenant
(151)."
The Civil Rights Audits.
In the 1940's Montclair's black population
was growing in pace with massive black migrations to the north. In
1947 a coalition of community groups both black and white came together
to conduct the first of many civil rights audits. When some residents
of Montclair heard of President Truman's Committee on Civil Rights they
decided to do something about it. The Montclair Civil Rights Audit
was born as a result. Mr. Leo Nejelski, a leading citizen of Montclair,
was responsible for initiating the idea of a community audit. He
had heard through personal connections a few weeks before the publication
of the President's Committee's report, of its pending publication.
This led him to discuss the possibility of an audit linked to the President's.
Mr. Nejelski was the general chairman
of the Montclair Forum, a loose organization of leading Montclair citizens
that had been holding various discussion groups for twenty years at the
time. The ground was well prepared for Mr. Nejelski's ideas at the
time. Almost a year earlier the American Youth for Democracy picketed
the local roller-skating rink that excluded blacks. While many citizens
felt that this was an undesirable practice, they did not consider picketing
a suitable counteraction. The Montclair Inter-Group Council was set
up consisting of various church groups, a number of liberal-minded teachers,
a neighborhood council, and the local chapter of the American Veteran's
Committee. The Forum and the AVC took official combined responsibility
for the audit. Apart from the two sponsoring bodies, the NAACP, the
Inter-Group Council, and the Intercultural Club of Teachers College participated
in collecting the information that made up the audit (Your Human Relations;26-27).
In conducting the Montclair Civil
Rights Audit the Housing Committee had been asked to survey whether equality
of opportunity exististed in housing in Montclair. The following
is an excerpt from a report presented at The Forum on December 11, 1947,
where the Housing Committee presented its initial findings:
25% of the population of Montclair live in an area comprising
8.7% of the total land area. There are in Montclair 356 substandard
homes; 347 of these are in this area. This situation has existed
over a long period of years. The people in this congested area are
principally Negroes and persons of Italian origin. The purpose of
our survey was to determine the causes for this congestion and whether
these persons had an equality of opportunity in the matter of housing.
(Montclair Civil Rights Audit as Presented at the Forum, 12/11/47)
The "Montclair Community Audit: Here's a Project for Your
Town" was presented to the public and provided the results in the form
of a balance sheet that listed the findings in the form of assets and liabilities.
Housing was presented as a liability and it conferred to the public that
real estate operators had a tacit agreement to keep members of certain
racial and religious groups out of certain areas. Out of the 170
deeds examined, 40 contained restrictive covenants, prohibiting the sale,
lease, or gift of property to groups for periods from 1 to 25 years.
Minorities most often paid the premium prices. The following accounts
are reports of what happened when the Housing Committee undertook its fact-finding
project:
A dark skinned man entered a real estate office to inquire
about a house advertised "for sale", and approached one of the persons
in the office with a query, "I'm interested in purchasing a house.
It can be either one or two-family, in a price class between 10 and $15,000."
The answer was, "I'm sorry we do not have a single item that you would
be interested in. As a matter of fact, we haven't anything less than
$25,000 just now. But I'll take your name and as soon as we have
something suitable, I'll contact you." The prospective buyer asked,
"What about the two homes advertised in the Montclair Times this morning?"
The agent's answer was, "I'm sure you wouldn't be interested in those and
as a matter of fact they were sold or at least they are being looked at
now and I'm sure he'll buy them."
Another agent, when asked about a house advertised for sale at a bargain
price, $11,000, by another dark skinned man, answered, "You wouldn't be
interested in that, that's in a white neighborhood. Wouldn't you
rather buy a nice piece of property in a nice quiet colored neighborhood?"
The would-be buyer retorted, "I don't intend to live in the neighborhood;
I rather intend to live in the house."
Another time a man went in to rent a house and was finally informed,
"I'm sorry I can't rent you that place, and I can't sell it to you.
There are certain places I can't sell or rent to you people, so there is
no need in taking my time showing it to you. If I get something suitable
I'll get in touch with you immediately."
(all three excerpts are taken from The Montclair Civil Rights Audit
as Presented at The Forum 12/11/47)
Our reason for bringing bringing up all
of this history lies in our attempt to argue that the stark contrast of
social classes in the early development of Montclair served as a catalyst
for the developing racial composition of the town, as more blacks moved
in, which was subsequently represented in housing distribution. Today
Montclair has an international reputation as a ethnically diverse and racially
integrated town despite the fact that the housing distribution and residence
patterns have scarcely changed at all since they were laid out in the 1921/28
zoning ordinances (remember: currently 82.65% of all black or African American
residents of Montclair live in the areas that were zoned residence class
B, C, or D by the 1921/28 zoning ordinances.).
E. Conclusion
What
has been illustrated above most clearly is that Montclair's aggregate demographic
profile is far from being representative of its component parts.
In the wake of the civil rights audits in 1947 dialogue about race, housing
and the social nature has changed, but as the present demographic breakdown
illustrates, in the actual structural layout of Montclair, class and racial
compositions remain the same as they were eighty years ago when racism
was far more oveert than it is today. We spoke with building owners,
residents and a local nonprofit director who all suggest that the effects
of zoning, steering and segregation on the housing market of Montclair
continue today. Further, we have been given several indications that
steering by a number of different agencies that play roles in the housing
market quietly continues today.
We spoke with a resident who, being
totally unrepresentative of the Pine Street neighborhood in almost every
way, was the only resident invited to join a committee advising the Montclair
Connection that would forever alter the environment and lives of those
who call the Pine Street neighborhood home. Further, this resident
claimed, and much evidence suggests, that the committee itself was nver
endowed with any real decision making power or influence. None of
their advisements were ever taken into serious consideration and no committee
was ever convened when the construction of the Montclair Connection became
an imminent reality again in the late 1990's. This is just another
example of the many ways in which residents with vested interests in the
changing nature of the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods have
been overlooked in crucial decision making processes and determinations
have been made for them by outside individuals, agencies and organizations.
We were, however, fortunate to meet
with Beverly Riddick of HOME Corp., the only nonprofit working for affordable
housing in Montclair, and get a sense of their efforts, methods and successes.
But their efforts could never solve the unbalance in housing conditions
and orchestrated concentrations of populations in Montclair alone.
Rent control seems to be a taboo subject in Montclair, largely because
of property taxes that are restrictive on that front, but many have suggested
that government subsidies and low-moderate income housing allocations in
market rate developments could be added to the efforts of HOME Corp. and
perhaps begin to effect change in the unbalance of housing distribution.
The present work is certainly not
without its gaps. In fact, in order to become complete some new research
must be done. To begin with we were only able to begin to deconstruct
census tract 167 and begin a discussion of the distinctive nature of its
component parts. Our discussion of the component parts of the tract
can certainly be amended more thoroughly. Additionally, because of
time constraints we have not given equal effort to mapping the component
neighborhoods of census tract 171. We began with 167 because it seemed
as if it had obvious inconsistencies within it and time only allowed us
to map one tract in greater detail.
Our discussion of contemporary housing
conditions could be amended by a generalized map of the distribution of
Section 8 housing in Montclair that simply indicates the number of Section
8 subsidised residencies within each of the 11 census tracts of Montclair.
The 'blighted perception' of the neighborhoods
around Pine Street and Glenfield Park could be better entertained with
current and accurate maps of crime distribution in Montclair and our section
on ideologies could become more impressive as interviews with local residents
accumulate.
Discussions of the Montclair Connection
will become more clear as it becomes active and more of the data on NJ
Transit impact assessments become organized.
Finally, the ways in which all of
the challenges and rewards of the changing face of the neighborhoods around
Pine Street and Glenfield Park become realities and effect the daily lives
of those that call it home will become evident as more of us become increasingly
familiar with the residents as individuals beyond their demographic representation.
The residents know clearly the issues that face them. They want solutions.
F. Links
