This article was downloaded by: [Southern Illinois University]On: 18 December 2014, At: 04:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Sociological Spectrum:Mid-South SociologicalAssociationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usls20

Suburbia under siege:Low‐income housingand racial conflict inmetropolitan Kansas City,1970–1990Kevin Fox Gotham aa Department of Sociology , Tulane University ,220 Newcomb Hall, New Orleans, LA, 70118,USA E-mail:Published online: 30 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Kevin Fox Gotham (1998) Suburbia under siege:Low‐income housing and racial conflict in metropolitan Kansas City, 1970–1990,Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 18:4, 449-483, DOI:10.1080/02732173.1998.9982207

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732173.1998.9982207

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.

The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

SUBURBIA UNDER SIEGE: LOW-INCOME

HOUSING AND RACIAL CONFLICT IN

METROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY, 1970-1990

KEVIN FOX GOTHAMDepartment of Sociology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana,

USA

This article examines racial conflicts over efforts to build low-incomegovernment-subsidized housing in Kansas City suburbs from 1970 to1990. Drawing on public documents, housing reports and analyses, andlocal newspaper accounts, I examine how suburban residents havereacted to and organized against government attempts to constructhousing for low-income people outside the inner city. I argue that themobilization of suburban Whites against low-income housing has beendue to the perceived threat state-led integration efforts have posed toWhite privileged access to, and control over, suburban housing prac-tices (i.e., single-family homeownership, racially exclusive neighbor-hoods, etc.). An analysis of the racial conflicts and struggles overhousing integration illustrates the social construction of White racialidentity and the constructed identity of the suburban homeowner. Inconclusion, I discuss how single-family homeownership, a fundamentalcharacteristic of American suburbs, imputes distinct social meaning tourban space and serves as a basis of political mobilization along raciallines.

The purpose of this article is examine the crucial role sub-urban opposition to, and mobilization against, low-incomegovernment-subsidized housing plays in reinforcing and per-petuating racial segregation and inequality in Kansas City. Inrecent years, the Kansas City metropolitan area has been identi-fied by scholars as one of the nation's 13 hypersegregated met-ropolitan areas owing to the high degree of segregation in

Received 10 March 1997, accepted 22 May 1997.I wish to thank William G. Staples, Joane Nagel, Alice O'Connor, three anonymous reviewers,

and the editors of Sociological Spectrum for comments on drafts of this article.

Address correspondence to Kevin Fox Gotham, Department of Sociology, Tulane University,220 Newcomb Hall, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA. E-mail: kgotham@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu

Sociological Spectrum, 18: 449-483,1998Copyright © 1998 Taylor & Francis

0273-2173/98 $12.00 +.00 449

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

450 K. F. Gotham

housing patterns on a range of indices* (Dentón 1994; Masseyand Dentón 1993; 75-7). I argue that a major contributing factorto this high degree of racial segregation has been exclusionarysuburban housing practices that have confined public and low-income housing to inner cities while promoting the constructionof new single-family housing in suburban areas (Squires 1993;Massey and Kanaiaupuni 1993; Bickford and Massey 1991).Drawing on evidence from Kansas City during the past twodecades, I argue that the mobilization of suburban Whitesagainst low-income housing has been due to the perceivedthreat state-led integration efforts have posed to White privi-leged access to, and control over, suburban housing practices(e.g., single-family homeownership, racially homogenous neigh-borhoods, etc.). I show that state efforts to ameliorate the dele-terious effects of living in highly concentrated poverty areas bydispersing low-income housing into suburban areas has, attimes, sparked increased racial identification, conflict, and mobi-lization by suburban Whites.

In recent years, much research has examined how nationaland global forces interact with local processes and conflicts tocreate and sustain patterns of urban poverty and racial segrega-tion (Yinger 1995; Quadagno 1994; Feagin 1994, Massey andDentón 1993). This examination of racial conflict over housing inKansas City shows how housing desegregation policies canportend substantial changes in relationships between poorminorities and Whites by bringing these heretofore spatially iso-lated groups into contact and competition with each other foraccess to quality suburban housing. By threatening to redistrib-ute resources across racial boundaries, housing integration poli-cies can upset existing patterns of resource control anddestabilize meanings of racial and class identity. I suggest thatsuburban opposition to state-led efforts to disperse public andlow-income housing into outlying communities has been an

* The intensity of resulting residential segregation is demonstrated by the fact that nearly 4out of every 10 Kansas City inner-city residents are African American compared with fewer than1 in 10 in the suburbs. More than 70 percent of the Kansas City metropolitan region's AfricanAmericans live in poor areas of the inner city—areas where at least 20 percent of the populationlive below the poverty line. According to the 1990 Census, the medium value of housing in theinner city is half that of the suburbs, whereas unemployment in the inner city is more than twiceas high as the percentage rate found elsewhere in the Kansas City metropolitan region (Mid-American Regional Council 1993).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 451

important as large-scale structural forces in reinforcing and per-petuating urban poverty and segregation. By focusing on theconsequences of White attitudes and racist housing practices, Iwish to expand on the work of Feagin and Vera (1995), Feagin(1994), Quadagno (1994), and others who have emphasized thecontinuing role racial prejudice and discrimination plays inreproducing residential segregation and inequality.

I begin by discussing the various responses of suburbanresidents to government attempts to locate low-income housingin their neighborhoods. I identify the dominant themes, sym-bolic devices, and interpretive motifs articulated by suburbanresidents, neighborhood leaders, and political elites to preventlow-income housing from being constructed in the suburbs. Ifocus on the interaction of state authorities, suburban residents,and property owners to illustrate how local meanings and inter-pretations of race, residence, and homeowner identity structurepolitical action and sustain metropolitan-wide racial segregationin Kansas City. As I show, in almost every case suburbanresidents frequently drew on contemptuous language andmuted references to race to accuse state officials of attemptingto destroy their neighborhoods. Despite unsubstantiated claims,suburban residents feared that housing integration would invari-ably lead to increased crime and poverty, falling propertyvalues, poor schools, and housing deterioration. These fearstended to generate a siege mentality that cast various suburbanneighborhoods as homogenous, pure, and stable. Finally, Iexamine how suburban reactions to low-income housing illus-trate the social construction of White racial identity and theconstructed identity of the suburban homeowner. I wish toillustrate the ways in which meanings local people assign tourban space (i.e., values and beliefs about neighborhoodand residence) can serve as a source of collective identity andsustain metropolitan-wide patterns of spatial segregation andinequality. At issue is how single-family homeownership, a fun-damental characteristic of American suburbs, imputes distinctsocial meaning to urban space and serves as a basis of politicalmobilization along racial lines.

RACE, SPACE, AND HOUSING

From the end of the Second World War through the 1970s,two theoretical perspectives dominated research on racial con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

452 K. F. Gotham

flict and identity: class models and assimilationist models (Park1950; Wilson 1978; Bonacich 1980; Gordon 1964). Despite differ-ences, both perspectives assumed that racial inequality and seg-regation generated racial conflict, and integration policiesreduced racial conflict (e.g., collective action and protest, overtprejudice and discrimination, racial riots and violence, etc.). Inaddition, both models tended to depict race as fixed in content,static, and derivative of inequalities in power, income, and otherrewards. Since the 1970s, however, the continuing reality ofheightened racial identification, racial conflict, and grass-rootsbacklash movements in the contemporary United States hascaused scholars to become dissatisfied with these two conven-tional theories of race. Much research in the past decade hasshown that integration policies may incite racial animosity,intensify the salience of racial boundaries, and lead to thecountermobilization of dominant groups (i.e., Whites) alongracial lines (Olzak 1992: 6-7; Burstein 1991 ; Bobo 1983; Lo 1982;MottM980).

This resurgence of racial conflict and backlash has led manyscholars to emphasize the "fluid, situational, volitional, anddynamic character of [racial] identification, organization, andaction" (Nagel 1996:1; Omi and Winant 1986; Winant 1994,chapter 3). Recent perspectives, such as resource competitiontheory and racial formation theory, have emphasized race as anemergent and variable quality rather than a fixed or immutablegroup characteristic. What unites these recent perspectives isthe assumption that race "is best conceived as a system ofintergroup boundaries whose strength and salience are deter-mined, in part, by the extent of contact and resource com-petition among [racial] groups" (Winant 1994: 24; Nagel 1995).Racial identity is understood as a socially negotiated and sociallyconstructed status that varies according to situation and audi-ence (Nagel 1994). Racial groups are socially and politically con-structed and exist as the outcome of diverse historical practices(e.g., programmatic organization of social policy, modes of poli-tical participation, etc.) that are "continually subject to chal-lenge over definition and meaning" (Omi and Winant 1986:4-5). Racial categories and meanings are seen as politically con-structed through official racial designations, racially based rulesand structures of political access, and racially based linkedresource distribution (Nagel 1986). To the extent that politicallycontrolled resources (schools, housing, employment, etc.) are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 453

organized along racial (as opposed to class, gender, or age) lines,increased competition for access to these resources can lead toincreased racial identification, conflict (e.g., violence, discrimi-nation, etc.), and mobilization.

One powerful incentive for racial identification and racialgroup formation is when housing resources are distributedalong racial lines. Many scholars have identified the existence ofa dual housing market in U.S. cities where racial minorities(especially Blacks) are served by a different set of housing andreal estate practices than are Whites (Squires 1993; Masseyand Dentón 1993; Feagin 1994; Molotch 1972). Much researchhas examined how this dual housing market has reinforcedand perpetuated racial segregation and inequality throughthe use and enforcement of restrictive covenants, racialsteering, blockbusting, federal home mortgage programs of theFederal Housing Administration and the Veterans Admini-stration, and the redlining activities of private and public mort-gage lending agencies and real estate firms (Orser 1994; Hirschand Mohl 1993; Darden et al. 1987; Darden 1987; Squires et al.1987; Hirsch 1983). Moreover, it has been found that housingprices and rents are generally higher for Blacks than forWhites (even when income is controlled for) and that con-ventional loans for home purchases and remodeling areavailable to Whites, whereas Blacks are forced to buy withcash, on contract, or through federal loan programs (Squires1993; Squires, Velez, and Taeuber 1991; Squires and Velez1987; Schmidt and Lee 1978; Helper 1969). Similarly, a vastarray of housing data indicates that Whites are the overwhel-ming beneficiaries of single-family suburban housing, andblacks and other racial minorities are likely to be restrictedto multifamily projects, conventional public housing units,and deteriorating and substandard housing in inner cities(Department of Housing and Urban Development 1990; Masseyand Kanaiaupuni 1993; Bickford and Massey 1991).

Existing housing policy and practices not only determinewhere Blacks and Whites live but also how Blacks and Whitesperceive social reality, other racial groups, and the causes andconsequences of social change and policy decisions. Forexample, Massey (1990) and Massey and Dentón (1993) haveshown how the racial distribution of housing operates to rein-force negative racial stereotypes by concentrating high rates ofminority poverty in inner-city neighborhoods plagued by violent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

454 K. F. Gotham

crime, drugs, poor schools, welfare "dependency," and out-of-wedlock child-bearing. This connection between racial segrega-tion, minority poverty, and deviant behaviors tends to shapeaffluent and White perceptions and interpretations of socialreality that may lead to the acceptance of prejudiced attitudes,minority scapegoating, and individualistic explanations of socialinequality that focus on the so-called pathological behaviorsand moral values of disadvantaged persons. By embracing suchattitudes, White prejudice toward inner-city minorities makesdiscrimination more likely and thereby maintains the impetusand rationale for continued segregation (Feagin 1994; Feagin andVera 1995). Thus, the programmatic distribution of housingresources along racial lines not only reinforces spatial segrega-tion and inequality but influences how minorities and Whitesinterpret social reality and each other.

This examination of racial conflict over low-income housing inKansas City views competing social groups as operating within"socially produced territories of resources" (Wilson 1993: 580).These socially produced territories are marked by "a distinctlydaily fabric whose networks of institutions act to transmit levelsof mobility, life chances, and types of political and socialconsciousness" (p. 580). Thus, when politically controlled re-sources, such as housing, are distributed along racial lines,they create spatial effects (i.e., racial segregation) that, in turn,can operate as a basis of neighborhood identity and mobil-ization. Thus, attempts to alter the spatial effects of housingdistribution and production can lead to increased racial con-flict, intensify the salience of racial boundaries, and affect pat-terns of group identification. The designation of a specificplace for a low-income housing project can affect meaningsof neighborhood identity and cause the mobilization of localresidents opposed to such a policy. In the United States,housing desegregation policies can promote racial conflictinsofar as they bring heretofore isolated racial groups—forexample, Whites and poor minorities—into competition witheach other for access to valued resources (such as qualityhousing). This analysis of housing desegregation in Kansas Cityshows that such policies can foster racial conflict rather thanalleviating it. I show that attempts to redistribute housingresources across racial lines can upset existing patterns of re-source control and cause increased racial identification andpolitical mobilization by suburban Whites.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 455

DATA AND METHODS

I use the urban case study method (Bahr and Caplow 1991;Orum, Feagin, and Sjoberg 1991) and data from three sources toexplore the racial conflicts over efforts to scatter low-incomehousing into suburban areas of metropolitan Kansas City. First,three local newspapers (e.g., the Kansas City Times, Kansas CityStar, and the Kansas City Call) and a number of local archiveswere searched for material about suburban opposition to low-income housing in metropolitan Kansas City. Local newspapersand archival data were explored to identify the various socialforces, key actors, and tactics used to prevent low-incomehousing from being built in suburban areas. My familiarity withthe racial conflicts surrounding low-income housing was alsobased on numerous informal conversations with suburbanresidents and local planning officials and my experience as alifelong resident of metropolitan Kansas City. Studying actualhuman events and actions through direct observation provideda means of contextualizing specific actions and social processesin the surrounding world in which they were embedded.Through local study and direct observation, I was able toexamine specific individuals and groups in relation to other indi-viduals, webs of social interaction and situations, and formal andinformal organizations. My knowledge and familiarity with thelocal context enabled me to directly observe specific individuals'motivations for action and to explore and develop claims ofhow personal as well as collective ties were forged over time.Such an approach provided a means of articulating the relation-ship between racial conflicts over low-income housing to thesurrounding world in which they were located.

Second, I examined numerous transcripts of public meetingsbetween local housing authorities and suburban residents overefforts to build low-income housing in specific areas. In addition,I accessed hundreds of pages of minutes from the meetings ofthe following housing authorities over a period of two decadesfrom the late 1960s into the 1980s: the Housing Authority ofKansas City, Missouri (HAKC); the Housing Authority of KansasCity, Kansas (HAKCK); the Housing Authority of Independence,Missouri; the Housing Authority of Liberty, Missouri; and theHousing Authority of Lee's Summit, Missouri. I accessed theminutes of housing authority meetings to find out how housingofficials formulated and implemented low-income housing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

456 K. F. Gotham

scatter plans and perceived and reacted to the suburban protestagainst these plans. Last, I examined numerous public docu-ments and housing reports issued by the above housing authori-ties. Data on suburban opposition to low-incoming housingwere also gathered from the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD).

The advantage of using multiple data sources is that it pro-vides a way to uncover the locally specific racial conflicts overhousing and urban space that ordinarily elude statistical andquantitative studies of race and segregation. Most sociologicalstudies of racial conflict, poverty, and segregation tend to relyon sophisticated statistical analyses of specific groups and indi-viduals that can be more easily generalized to other settings orpopulations (Orum et al. 1991). However, historical case studiessuch as this do not lend themselves so readily to this kind of"scientific" handling as the object of research is to ferret outnovel qualities and provide fresh insights into existing debates(Monti 1990). It follows that this study of racial conflict in KansasCity does not examine an urban population from which sta-tistical generalizations can be made. I do not seek to draw uni-versal statistical conclusions but instead wish to understand thedynamics of racial conflict over housing and urban space inKansas City. I also desire to comprehend how suburbanresidents in Kansas City construct their identities as homeow-ners, mobilize to exclude unwanted groups, and create andmaintain practices of racial exclusion and homogeneity.

LOW-INCOME HOUSING AND RACIAL CONFLICT INMETROPOLITAN KANSAS CITY, 1970-1990

Racial conflicts over housing and urban space in Kansas Cityshould be understood in the context of the metropolitan-widesystem of racially segregated public housing that local housingauthorities have maintained. For example, from the early 1950sto the mid-1960s the HAKC built and managed seven familyoccupancy projects containing approximately 2,500 units. Upuntil 1964, the HAKC segregated its public housing units by race,with Whites being steered to projects "for Whites" (e.g., River-view and Guinotte) and Blacks being steered to projects "forNegro families" (e.g., T. B. Watkins and Wayne Miner). The HAKCdid not build another public housing project after 1964, andbeginning in the late 1960s and continuing into the 1970s the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 457

FIGURE 1 Housing authority of Kansas City: Multifamily public housingdevelopments. 1 = Guinotte Manor, 2 = Riverview, 3 = Chouteau Court,4 = Heritage Court, 5 = T. B. Watkins Homes, 6 = Wayne Minor Court,7 = Pennway Plaza, 8 = West Bluff, 9 = Dunbar Gardens, 10 = Brush CreekTowers, 11 = Pemberton Heights.

racial composition of all family projects shifted to almost allBlack. Today, the HAKC directly owns and manages 2,058housing units, including eight multifamily projects and threescatter-site elderly occupancy projects. All of these units are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

458 K. F. Gotham

concentrated in a 16-square-mile area. The HAKC is the onlyhousing authority in the Kansas City metropolitan area thatowns and manages two or more multifamily or elderly occu-pancy projects. The HAKCK manages two public housing pro-jects, Juniper Gardens (400 units) and St. Margaret Park (100units). Both of these are less than 6 miles from the HAKC pro-jects. All other local housing authorities rely almost exclusivelyon rental assistance payments (e.g., Section 8 certificates andvouchers) to assist the housing needs of low-income residents.Figure 1 shows the location of HAKC's publicly owned multi-family projects in the Kansas City, Missouri, area. Table 1 gives aprofile of each of these HAKC housing projects, showing the

TABLE 1 Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, Multifamily

and Elderly Housing Projects

Public housing project

Cuinotte Manor (1954)

Riverview (1952)

Chouteau Court (1959)

Heritage House (elderly)

Wayne Minor Court (1954)

T. B. Watkins Homes (1954)

Pen nway Plaza (1960)

West Bluff (1964)

Dunbar Gardens (elderly)

Brush Creek Towers (elderly)

Pemberton Heights (elderly)

Type of housing development

Two-story townhouses(1-4 bedrooms)

Two-story townhouses(1-3 bedrooms)

Two- and three-storywalk-ups(1-5 bedrooms)

High-rise(studio and 1 bedroom)

Three-story walk-ups(1-5 bedrooms)

Three-story walk-ups(1-5 bedrooms)

Low-rise, two-story(1-5 bedrooms)

Low-rise, two-story(1-5 bedrooms)

Bungalow type(studio, 1-2 bedrooms)

High-rise(1-2 bedrooms)

High-rise(studio, 1 bedroom)

Totalunits

418

232

140

80

74

288

222

100

65

135

120

Noie. The vacancy rate of the above units stood at 48% on October1, 1993.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 459

type of housing development and total units. Figure 2 shows thedistribution of poor Blacks and poor Whites throughout theKansas City metropolitan area according to 1990 Census data.Comparing Figure 1 with Figure 2 indicates that all HAKC-ownedand managed units are concentrated in predominantly Black,low-income areas.

Since the 1970s, public officials in Kansas City have attempt-ed, at times, to formulate and implement policies to dispersepublic and low-income housing into the suburban areas. Forexample, in May 1971, Mayor Charles B. Wheeler recommendedto the city council that Kansas City adopt a "policy of dispersalof minority housing." Among other things, he suggested that"public and privately subsidized housing and non-subsidizedhousing" be used to achieve integrated housing in Kansas Citysuburbs (Wheeler 1971). In 1972, 1976, and again in 1977, theMid-American regional Council, Kansas City's regional planningcouncil, attempted to formulate and implement plans to dis-perse low-income housing throughout the metropolitan area(Kansas City Times June 1, 1972, May 21, 1977; Kansas City StarOct. 31, 1976). In the 1990s, Kansas City, Missouri, MayorEmanuel Cleaver has suggested that government subsidizedhousing be used to create multiracial neighborhoods in the pre-dominantly White suburbs (Kansas City Times Jan. 26, 1990).

Nevertheless, since the 1970s and continuing to today, vir-tually every attempt to disperse low-income subsidized housingoutside the inner city has met with fierce opposition from sub-urban residents, property owners, and political elites. From 1970to 1972, suburban residents mobilized against HUD-sponsoredlow-income housing plans in Lee's Summit, Blue Springs, Inde-pendence, Clay and Platte Counties, Shawnee, Lenexa, andKansas City, Kansas (see Figure 3, Kansas City Star Aug. 24,1972:W-1, Aug. 31, 1972:N-1). During the 1970s, the HAKC pre-sented HUD with proposals for nine subsidized housing projectsat widely dispersed sites around the city. HUD rejected all ninesites on the basis of asserted deficiencies after local residents inthe areas targeted for the low-income housing units voicedopposition to them.1 In the 1980s and 1990s, attempts by HAKCand other local housing authorities to scatter low-incometenants throughout metropolitan Kansas City have been frus-trated by continued opposition from suburban Whites, mort-gage and insurance redlining, and exclusionary zoning andland-use controls (Civil Rights Consortium 1993; Department of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Plait«

Joftnscn

Plan«

•

1• •Oay

' ' ' • ' • ' / ' • I

Jaduon

Johnjon I IU.lI'

FIGURE 2 Poor Blacks live in concentrated poverty, whereas poor Whites do not. Source: Mid-American Regional Council 1993.Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 461

FIGURE 3 Metropolitan Kansas City.

Human Relations 1989; Kansas City Star Oct. 31, 1990, Jan. 23,1991, Oct. 6, 1993). Up until the late 1970s, only 12 out of 79local governments in the metropolitan area had establishedhousing authorities to coordinate low-income housing programsand construct subsidized and public housing (Kansas and Mis-souri Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights1977). Many suburban governments did not establish housingauthorities until the 1980s, thereby preventing the constructionof low-income and public housing in outlying areas. Even today,low-income housing for poor minorities remains scarce in sub-urban areas. The overwhelming beneficiaries of low-incomehousing in suburban areas are Whites (Department of Housing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

462 K. F. Gotham

and Community Development 1995; Olathe Daily News Dec. 23,1994, Aug. 27, 1993).

Like suburban residents, public officials and elected represen-tatives have openly opposed local and federal attempts toscatter public housing throughout the Kansas City metropolitanarea. In 1972, Kansas City, Kansas, Mayor Richard F. Walshstated that he would oppose any federal effort to "requiresuburbs to provide some homes for low and middle incomefamilies" (Kansas City Kansan Mar. 5, 1972). Although someKansas City, Missouri, councilmen have given tacit support forlow-income housing dispersal, others such as Arthur Asel, VictorSwyden, and Robert M. Hernandez have declared their oppo-sition when HUD or the HAKC have proposed housing projectsin their districts (Kansas City Times Aug. 18, 1989). In 1979, Mis-souri State Representative Harold Lowenstein (R-Kansas City),under pressure from constituents to oppose subsidized housing,announced, "I'm in favor of subsidized housing, but not in mydistrict." "Not 20 percent of people in my district are in favor ofdispersed housing. They're scared to death of it" (Kansas City StarMar. 19,1979).

Throughout the past two decades it has been propertyowners, neighborhood leaders, and elected officials who havebeen the key actors leading the charge to prevent low-incomehousing from being constructed in the suburbs. These eliteshave attempted to mobilize opposition against low-incomehousing through petitions, protest groups, letter writing, andlobbying neighborhood organizations and community groups. Invirtually every public meeting between housing officials andsuburban residents, angry opponents have charged that the dis-persal of low-incoming housing into outlying areas will threatenthe socioeconomic status of neighborhoods and lead to adecline in property values. For example, when 243 homeownersin a neighborhood of the eastern suburb of Blue Springs, Mis-souri, signed a petition in 1970 opposing a 150-unit subsidizedhousing complex, their attorney stated, "Regardless of how wellbuilt and how beautifully designed the units might be, they willstill be federally subsidized housing and thus devalue the sur-rounding property" (Kansas City Star Aug. 24, 1972:W-1). In 1972,Kansas City, Missouri, Councilman Arthur Asel declared that theoutcome of HUD scatter policies "will be that property values inthe suburban area will be adversely affected in the immediatearea of any project [and] result in further deterioration of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 463

inner city" (Kansas City Star Feb. 25, 1972). In 1974, opponents ofa proposed HUD-subsidized housing project raised fears that "ifthis project were to be built the neighborhood would becomeall black and there would be a severe economic loss in propertyvalues."2 According to one resident opposing attempts in 1981by HAKC to locate low-income residents outside the KansasCity, Missouri, school district,

I have invested my life savings into the purchase of a moderatehome so that my son could go to school in a district that wasn'tovercrowded by low income housing. I have paid double taxesto live in the Center School District. Being a one parent family,certainly I have to work very hard to maintain my property andbe an active part of my community and 1 feel that anyonecoming into this area in a low housing development will not takethe care and concern that I do with little or no investment inarea or schools. Low income housing always has and always willdecrease the properties around it and I do not want my propertyvalues decreased by the building of undesirable low incomehousing six blocks from my residence.3

In addition to a decline in property values, opponents fearedthat rapid racial turnover, crime, and housing deteriorationwould inevitably follow if low-income people moved to thesuburbs. In 1989 and 1990, the local area office of HUD reportedthat it was receiving dozens of letters from south Kansas Cityresidents opposed to the HAKC's purchase of residential proper-ties under a scattered-site acquisition plan. According to oneopponent opposed to the HAKC's plan,

We feel this will depreciate our property and turn our wonderfulneighborhood into a high-crime area. Also our neighborhood iskept up. This does not happen when you have low-incomehousing in your neighborhood. These houses are never kept up,and it makes the rest of the neighborhood look run-down(Kansas City Times Jan. 19, 1990:B3).

In the early 1970s, attempts by HUD to locate Section 236subsidized rental housing in the southeast suburb of Lee'sSummit, Missouri, met with fierce resistance from residents whocharged that such housing would devalue their single-familyhomes. Begun in 1968, the objective of the Section 236 programwas to provide federal subsidies to private lenders for the con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

464 K. F. Gotham

struction or rehabilitation of rental or cooperative multifamilyhousing. According to Merle Siler, city planner of Lee's Summit,

The council chambers were full of people who were against 236-type housing. It was to be the first in Lee's Summit. People justbucked up against that type of construction coming into thecity. They raised the normal complaint about overloading theschools, that Lee's Summit was just not the place for such aproject, that it would lower property values—the normal com-plaints (Kansas City Star Aug. 24,1972).

A dominant theme undergirding suburban opposition to low-income housing was the threat of "undesirable" people movinginto White neighborhoods. Prejudice and outright racism againstracial minorities, especially Blacks, appears throughout varioustranscripts of public meetings, newspaper reports, and publicdocuments. Ronald Katz, developer of a 30-unit subsidizedhousing project in south Kansas City, Missouri, reported in 1978that residents told him they do not want "colored people orpoor people" in their neighborhood. 'That's the kind of protestwe're getting" (Kansas City Star July 13, 1978:1). Attempts byHAKC to build 30 two-story subsidized apartments at 99th andLocust in south Kansas City, Missouri, in 1981 met with oppo-sition from one resident who stated, "I want to say I'm not abigot. Every man has the right to a decent place to live, but theycan't always pick it" (Kansas City Star July 29, 1981). A neighbor-hood group calling itself Stabilize Our Neighborhood voicedtheir opposition to the project at 99th and Locust by assertingthat low-income people were an "element" they "wanted tokeep out."4 In 1974, Councilman Asel sided with opponents insouth Kansas City, Missouri, who feared low-income housingwould "only bring problems" to their neighborhood. Accordingto Asel,

With lower rentals, less affluent members of society will bethere. I can appreciate those fears. They are mostly economic.But there are those who feel that it would bring in a lower cul-tural person. I'm more inclined to think they are right thanwrong. (Kansas City Times Dec. 18, 1978:1 OB)

Marvin R. Yarmo, partner of a firm that proposed a 217-unitsubsidized project that was rejected in the western suburb ofShawnee, Kansas, commented, 'The issue in Johnson County is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 465

the same. It's racial and economic exclusion, pure and simple"(Kansas City Star Aug. 24, 1972).

Although fear of minority intrusion may have motivated sub-urban residents to resist low-income housing, opponents fre-quently used the seemingly neutral language of class and socialmobility to disguise ostensibly racist sentiments. In 1990, onesuburban resident opposed to low-income housing stated, "Idon't think it's a matter of race. It's a matter of dollars. We'velived in the area for six years and have worked hard to accumu-late what we have, and we don't want to see it jeopardized. Wealready have a good balance" (Kansas City Times Jan. 22, 1990).The same year, Kansas City, Missouri, City Councilman EmanuelCleaver referred to opponents of low-income housing as "closetbigots" who were attempting to sabotage efforts by the HAKCto disperse low-income minorities into suburban areas. Accord-ing to Cleaver, "I wish we could use a magnet that could pullthe bigots out of the closet to deal with this issue" (Kansas CityTimes Jan. 26, 1990:B-1). In 1990, opponents of low-incomehousing in the southeast suburb of Hickman Mills, Missouri,responded to charges of racism that "people in Hickman Millswho have been working to distribute the scattered houseprogram in a more even basis are by no means racist. Our realconcern is to prevent our neighborhood from becomingresegregated" (Kansas City Star Oct. 10,1990).

To counter charges of racism, suburban residents oftenframed their opposition in terms of "fairness" and opposition topreferential treatment for a particular group. Slogans such as"no more than our share" and poor minorities should "learn tostand on their own feet" were often voiced by opponents tocounter efforts to locate low-income housing in suburban neigh-borhoods (Kansas City Star Aug. 24, 1972:W-1, Kansas City TimesJan. 24, 1990:A10). In 1972, Donald R. Capper, administrativeassistant for the southwest suburb of Lenexa, Kansas, remarked"I'd hate to see 100 families just picked up from the inner cityand dumped out here. This subsidized stuff leaves me a littlecold. Everyone should pay his own way" (Kansas City Star Aug.24, 1972). At a August 1981 public meeting concerning HAKCefforts to build 30 duplexes in south Kansas City, one opponentremarked that he was against low-income housing because heresented having to "subsidize a lot of people who don't contrib-ute anything to society."5 Another opponent at this samemeeting felt that "If those people want to live in the Center

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

466 K. F. Gotham

School District, they can do the same thing I did—work hardand pay their bills." In 1990, South Kansas City suburbanresidents mobilized to halt attempts by the HAKC to purchase19 homes to rent to low-income people. According to news-paper accounts, residents opposed HAKC efforts because theythought their neighborhood was integrated enough and anyadditional influx of racial minorities would ruin the racialbalance of the area. According to one opponent,

We believe our neighborhoods are already over populated withminority and low income housing. We do not feel this is fairwhen our neighborhood is on the verge of being a place whereaverage income families are beginning to think about moving toa less minority-populated area. (Kansas City Times Jan. 19,1990:B3)

Although suburban residents stressed fairness and repeatedlydenied that racism motivated their opposition to low-incomehousing, the effect on poor people was the same and just asdegrading. Property owners and anti-subsidized housing activ-ists exploited White prejudices and racial stereotypes throughthe use of themes ranging from "undeserving" dependents to"tax-consuming" chiselers. In turn, activists attempted to galva-nize public sentiment and unify neighborhood residents byarguing that low-income housing residents would not take careof their property "like we do" (Kansas City Star Feb. 4, 1990).Opponent comments ranged from "keep them on the otherside of the river" to 'They're going into an area where they'renot welcome" (Kansas City Star Aug. 24, 1972; Kansas City TimesJuly 19, 1978:B-1). One low-income housing resident com-mented on why she felt some suburban homeowners object toopening their neighborhoods to federally assisted apartments,

They're afraid of the class of people who live in apartments likethese. They've never been out here, never seen how we live.They figure all low income people are messy and too lazy totake care of children. But they're wrong. It's just a stereotype.(Kansas City Star Aug. 24, 1972:W-1)

Personified as slothful, criminalistic, trashy, intellectually infe-rior, and unruly, poor minorities came to be seen as an unam-biguous threat to suburban neighborhoods and ways of life.Although none of these stigmas and typifications were new,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 467

opponents focused attention on and amplified selected beliefsand characterizations that had been historically associated withpoor people so as to generate increased resistance and neutral-ize countervailing interpretations. Attempts to build low-incomehousing were portrayed as a significant threat to the ideal worldof the White neighborhood and to traditional values.Responding to suburban attacks on low-income housingresidents, Betty Scott, representative of the HAKC board andlow-income housing resident, commented in 1990, 'They don'twant any of us out there. They feel we will destroy the area"(Kansas City Times Jan. 19, 1990:B3). According to another low-income resident, "You know what it is. It's the fact that thosepeople are so near Overland Park and Prairie Village [two afflu-ent suburbs] and they don't want low income people living nextdoor. That's pretty obvious" {Kansas City Star Aug. 24, 1972:W-1).

Opponents of low-income housing dispersal often definedsuburban residents as an embattled, homogenous group, unifiedin defense of a traditional way of life. In 1972, Kansas City,Kansas, Mayor Richard F. Walsh commented that

The blue-collar worker has labored all his life to earn a goodliving. Most of them first of all want a home usually now in thesuburbs. He saves to make that investment which is probablythe largest single purchase he'll ever make. Quite frankly, if heprotests the building of a housing development near his home Ican sympathize and would do the same were I put in the sameposition. {Kansas City Kansan Jan. 6, 1972)

Similar comments came from Edward Wunk, a Kansas City, Mis-souri, realtor, former presiding judge of the Clay County Court,and anti-subsidized housing activist,

These people are demanding homes of middle-class people whohave worked and toiled all their lives to save and buy. This is notthe American way. We are always going to have economic dif-ferences. You can't just put the poor in with the middle classand force them to stay there when they can't sustain that typeof life. (Kansas City Star Aug. 31, 1972:1-N)

A particularly salient theme was the belief that the rights ofsuburban homeowners and traditional ways of life were underattack by the federal government. For example, on June 1, 1978,a coalition of community groups and neighborhood organiz-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

468 K. F. Gotham

ations called the South Side Coalition held a public meetingattended by over 600 people to protest HUD efforts to constructa 50-unit low-income subsidized housing project. According tonewspaper accounts of the meeting, HUD officials could notconvince a hostile crowd that the project would be racially inte-grated and built by a private developer. Despite assurances ofneighborhood stability, residents believed that, in the words ofone, "this project will have an extremely adverse social and eco-nomic impact on our neighborhoods." Opponents complainedthat the project was being considered without their knowledgeand "without consultation with local community leaders andhomes associations." Audience response to the project rangedfrom angry suburban residents calling for an end to "govern-ment playing with our lives" to City Councilman Arthur Aselinsisting that such projects "should be insulated from the rest ofthe community" (Kansas City Times lune 1, 1978; Kansas City StarJune 1,1978).

Other suburban neighborhood groups and community organ-izations took similar oppositional and conspiratorial stances. In1979, the Broadway Heights Homeowners Association wascreated to fight a proposal to build 183 HUD-subsidized town-houses for low-income families on a 25-acre site in north KansasCity, Missouri. Although opponents insisted that they did notobject to the concept of low-income housing, they did object togovernment attempts to introduce multifamily housing into theirneighborhood. According to Jim Popplewell, president of theBroadway Heights Homeowners Association, 'The permanentresidents are being displaced by transients. We're concernedthat city government, . . . has lost touch with our neighbor-hood" (Kansas City Star July 12, 1979). Referring to what hedescribed as government indifference to the concerns of localresidents, Popplewell remarked that HUD and the city councilwere undermining homeowner rights and freedoms by taking a"jam-it-down-your-throat-approach" (Kansas City Star Sept. 23,1979). Similar comments came from Tom Burgdorf, a localresident opposed to efforts by HAKC to construct 30 two-storyduplexes for low-income people at 99th and Locust in southKansas City, Missouri: "It seems like the city, HUD, and every-body else has stepped on our face, and we're sick of it" (KansasCity Times Aug. 7,1981).

Underlying the theme of the "embattled suburban home-owner" was the assumption that inner-city schools, neighbor-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 469

hoods, and public housing were inferior and dangerous. In 1972,one building inspector stated that private developers were notbuilding low-income housing in the north Kansas City suburb ofGladstone, Missouri, because "You can't put that crud up here.Builders are putting up only nice stuff (Kansas City Star Aug. 24,1972). The decaying and crime-plagued Wayne Miner publichousing high-rise in the inner city was consistently referred toby opponents as an example of what would inevitably becomeof low-income and subsidized housing if located in the suburbs.For example, in 1990, a coalition of community groups under anumbrella organization called the Southern Communities Coali-tion filed a suit to prevent the HAKC from acquiring propertiesin the southeast suburb of Hickman Mills. According to CityCouncilman John A. Sharp, a supporter of the fight in HickmanMills to keep low-income housing out of the area. 'The biggestobjection that residents have is not about the tenants, its abouttheir landlord. The Kansas City Housing Authority has a welldeserved reputation of being the biggest slumlord in KansasCity" (Kansas City Star Feb. 4, 1990; Kansas City Times Jan. 18,1990, Jan. 19, 1990:B3; Jan. 22, 1990, Feb. 22, 1990:C-1).

The following quote reveals one person's fear of what shebelieved would inevitably occur if a 30-unit low-income housingcomplex was built near her home at 99th and Locust in KansasCity, Missouri.

At the last meeting it was stated by the man from Wayne Minerthat there are two kinds of monies. New building money and fixup money. Right now there is no money to fix Wayne Miner butthere is plenty of money to build new low housing in the CenterSchool District. In 4 or 5 years, it will be the same thing here,there will be monies to build more low housing projects but nomonies to keep the property at 99th and Locust repaired and inlivable condition. I must keep my own property repaired and ingood condition because I have a considerable investment. Thesepeople will have nothing invested. When this project begins tolook like Wayne Miner they can simply move out and move intoa new low income housing leaving those of us who remained tolook at the mess and put up with the undesirable that will movein at that time. Personally I feel that even the thought of dis-rupting our neighborhood with another Wayne Miner is totallyridiculous and incomprehensible to anyone with average intelli-gence.6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

470 K. F. Gotham

The possible intrusion of poor minorities caused suburbanWhites to perceive their otherwise socially diverse neighbor-hoods as unified, cohesive, and homogenous communities. Forexample, in 1980 north Kansas City, Missouri, residents mobi-lized to oppose the construction of 14 three-bedroom HUD-subsidized units. Although there was no evidence of theexistence of a formal neighborhood organization or communitygroup, residents stated they were opposed to the projectbecause "Our schools are crowded, our streets are not well-maintained, it will worsen a bad situation we already have"(Kansas City Star ¡au. 8, 1980). In 1981, City Councilman VictorSwyden went on record as opposing a HUD-subsidized low-income housing project in south Kansas City, Missouri, statingthat the proposed project would be a threat "to the stability ofthe neighborhood" and therefore the "neighborhood's integ-rity."7 On November 29, 1978, 150 persons attended a CenterPlanning and Development Council meeting to protest attemptsto locate low-income housing in the proximate area. Opponentsemphasized the threat low-income housing posed to the stabil-ity of the neighborhood and the quality of life. According to apetition signed by opponents,

The objections of the community and this council are that theuse of this land is not compatible with the fine homes within theimmediate area as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Theselow income structures are totally out of keeping with the area,and if allowed, would lead to the decline in property values, thestability of the neighborhood and would have a long lastingaverse and damaging effect on the quality of life of the taxpaying residents of this community. We find the fact extremelydisturbing that a development of this nature can be approvedwith absolutely no input from those immediately affected by itand without the knowledge of the elected officials of KansasCity, Missouri. This is not proper representative government.7

Despite claims of racial impartiality and tolerance, the phrases"our homes," "our neighborhood," "our schools," and "like us"functioned as coordinating symbols to unify opposition andfocus public sentiment on the impending loss of community andthe threat minority intrusion supposedly posed to values associ-ated with family, schools, and neighborhood. The assumptionthat property values would automatically decline as a functionof integration and that all housing projects would resemble

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 471

slums imposed uniformly negative characteristics on all low-income residents. Underlying this assumption was the theme ofthe existence of stable, traditional institutions (e.g., families,neighborhoods, and neighborhood schools) that were con-sidered to be under threat from the government and poorminorities. In an effort to generate neighborhood opposition tothe proposed location of a low-income housing project,opponents and activists repeatedly portrayed such housing as abearer of extreme poverty, criminal elements, and immoralpersons. Opponents and activists appealed to prospective con-stituents by evoking idealized myths such as traditional familyvalues, neighborhood integrity, and harmonious schools. Oncesuch sentiments were validated, amplified, and diffused, mobi-lization of neighborhood residents to oppose low-incomehousing became unproblematic.

In almost every case of suburban opposition to low-incomehousing, neighborhood residents frequently drew on contemp-tuous language and muted references to race to accuse poorminorities, HUD, and other housing officials of attempting todestroy their neighborhoods. By framing their mobilizationappeals in the language of cherished values and beliefs (e.g.,family, quality schools and neighborhood, etc.), neighborhoodleaders and political elites sought to define suburban residentsand communities as victims of intrusive government and poorminorities. The validation and amplification of stereotypicalbeliefs about inner city public housing, low-income housingresidents, and government housing policy frequently functionedas unambiguous coordinating symbols that helped to activatelatent fears and focus the sentiments of White suburbanites.Despite unsubstantiated claims and contrary evidence, sub-urban residents feared that low-income housing would invari-ably lead to increased crime and poverty, falling propertyvalues, and housing deterioration. Moreover, resistance to theintrusion of poor minorities into White neighborhoods was com-pounded by the widespread belief that schools in the KansasCity, Missouri, School District were inferior and substandard.White suburbanites resisted state-led attempts to scatter low-income housing because they believed housing desegregationwould inevitably lead to school desegregation. This would inturn threaten their privileged access to, and control over, qualityeducation resources for their children.

In many cases of resistance to low-income housing, conflict

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

472 K. F. Gotham

and opposition reflected a dispute between suburban leaders,property owners, and state officials over who had the legitimateauthority to control who lived where. HUD and HAKC officialsreferred to the necessity of scattering low-income peoplethroughout the metropolitan area to relieve the deleteriouseffects of living in crime-plagued poor areas of the inner city.These officials also attempted to accentuate the positive attrib-utes of racial integration, reliance on private sector control overlow-income housing construction, and the aesthetic attractive-ness of low-income projects. Despite assurances, suburbanresidents felt that their property rights, quality of life, schools,and neighborhood were being threatened by HUD and theHAKC.

More important, White fears of racial change tended to gen-erate a siege mentality that cast various suburban neighbor-hoods as homogenous, autonomous, and unified. Whitesperceived that low-income housing and th concomitant intru-sion of racial minorities would mean an end to their homoge-nous neighborhoods, schools, and social identity. To maintainexisting racial boundaries and social identity, various neighbor-hood organizations and coalitions attempted to define sociallydiverse and unconnected neighborhoods as sovereign andautonomous in an effort to create the impression of widespreadmembership and unified opposition to low-income housing.Once a proposed low-income housing project was announced,neighborhood organizations usually reacted by drafting and dis-tributing information advising residents to oppose the project(i.e., writing letters to state representatives and city officials),obtaining signatures on petitions, holding public meetings, andappealing to other community organizations to block state-ledattempts to build low-income housing in suburban areas. Theobjective of neighborhood mobilization against low-incomehousing was to thwart state efforts to define who should livewhere, reassert neighborhood control over existing practices ofracial exclusion and homogeneity, and protect White racialidentity and solidarity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this article, I have examined local racial conflicts over state-led efforts to locate low-income housing in Kansas City suburbssince the 1970s. I have identified the dominant themes, symbolic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 473

devices, and interpretive motifs articulated by suburbanresidents, neighborhood leaders, and political elites to galvanizesentiment against efforts to locate low-income housing in thesuburbs. As this analysis has shown, the threat of low-incomehousing in suburban Kansas City caused racial animosity, inten-sified the salience of racial boundaries, and led to the mobi-lization of suburban Whites along racial lines. Efforts to locatelow-income housing in suburban areas promoted fierce racialconflict by attempting to bring heretofore spatially isolatedracial groups—Whites and racial minorities—into competitionwith each other for access to valued resources (i.e., quality sub-urban housing in affluent neighborhoods). Rather than alleviat-ing racial conflict, efforts to desegregate housing fostered racialconflict by attempting to redistribute housing resources acrossracial boundaries, thus upsetting existing patterns of resourcecontrol and destabilizing meanings of racial identity.

As research has shown, although desegregation policies cangenerate racial conflict, there is nothing inevitable in the formu-lation or implementation of such policies that suggests oppo-sition and backlash will always occur (Nagel 1995, 1994; Olzak1992). The Gatreaux program in Chicago and federal householdmobility programs (e.g., Section 8 housing vouchers andcertificates) suggest that modest (though limited) housing deseg-regation can be carried out in ways that ameliorate the dele-terious conditions of living in concentrated poverty withoutgenerating intense racial conflict (Keating 1994; Härtung andHenig 1997). As this study and others have indicated, efforts tolocate public housing or high-density project-based subsidies insuburban areas can generate racial conflict and backlash amongresidents because of the high visibility and associated negativestereotypes associated with such housing (Henderson 1995;Hirsch 1983; Keating 1994; Mottl 1980). In contrast, housingvouchers and certificates and, to a lesser extent, low-densityproject-based subsidies, tend to be more successful at lesseningracial conflict, and thereby at deconcentrating minorities andthe poor, because they rely on individual assistance, market-centered dynamics, and housing mobility (Härtung and Henig1997). As this analysis suggests, White opposition to housingdesegregation in Kansas City was not necessarily due to anti-Black hostility or racial prejudice but was motivated by the fearthat low-income housing would funnel a large proportion oflow-income residents and minorities into specific suburban

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

474 K. F. Gotham

neighborhoods. Suburban fears that low-income housing wouldcontribute to increased crime and poverty, falling propertyvalues, neighborhood deterioration, and poor schools were notnecessarily unfounded, mean spirited, or based on racially pre-judiced attitudes. The HAKC's poor record of managing publichousing projects and the Kansas City, Missouri, School District'shistory of discriminatory school policies helped to activate andreinforce the negative fears suburban Whites harbored aboutpublic and low-income housing.

In Kansas City, the mobilization of Whites along racial linesinvolved around the constructed identity of the suburbanhomeowner. Homeownership in an economically stable, raciallyhomogenous neighborhood was interpreted as a reflection andoutcome of discipline, thrift, upward mobility, and materialsuccess. Underlying this image of hard work and prestige wasthe perception that homeownership in an affluent communitywas a source of neighborhood protection and security. Whitesuburbanites presumed that the presence of poor minoritiesthreatened neighborhood social or economic status becausetheir presence supposedly lowered property values and wouldlead to increased crime and inferior schools. Moreover, Whitesfeared that the construction of low-income housing in suburbanareas would invalidate their belief that homeownership con-ferred moral superiority and socioeconomic achievement. Theprotection and promotion of the status value and economicvalue of housing thus became a source of racial identity andpolitical mobilization for Kansas City suburban homeowners.

The results of this study suggest three important points. Thefirst is that protecting the quality of life in suburban com-munities is closely related to political issues surrounding housingand race. Much research has shown how space (i.e., neighbor-hood and residence) has become a source of identity andsecurity, a basis of political mobilization, and "a definition ofwho a person is and where she or he belongs in society"(Marcuse 1993:361; Brooks-Gunn et al. 1995; Katznelson 1981).People's actions are organized according to how they view par-ticular places. The meanings people impute to neighborhoodspace and homeownership derive from the social interaction ofpeople living there and in interaction with outsiders. Space isseen as helping to generate the "habitus" of everyday life forsuburban residents and the factor that produces place-specificforms of identity and consciousness (Wilson 1993). This analysis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 475

has shown that the social factors influencing forms of racial con-flict over housing are also linked to particular spaces. Race andclass relations and conflict, for example, are acted throughspatial as well as social means. Thus, space has an influence onsocial processes as it conditions the distribution of valuedresources (i.e., housing and quality schools), shapes forms ofracial conflict and identity, and can determine life chances andsocioeconomic mobility (Gottdiener 1993; Bundgaard 1992;Andersen and Engelstoft 1992). Neighborhoods, like houses andschools, embody the collective values and beliefs of the sur-rounding community and thus represent racial territory andsocial status. Thus, a core reason suburban Whites resisted racialminorities moving into their neighborhoods was because theyknew residential integration would threaten their claim to whatthey perceived as their exclusive right to their racial space.

Second, this analysis has attempted to show how racializedmeanings and interpretations people assign to residence andneighborhood intersect with large-scale structural forces tosustain residential segregation, poverty concentration, anduneven development. Large-scale social, economic, and politicalprocesses determine spatial patterns of urban development (e.g.,minority poverty concentration, White suburbanization, etc.).These spatial outcomes, in turn, determine patterns of invest-ment and disinvestment, thus worsening the condition ofpoverty and generating increased wealth and affluence in sub-urban areas. Moreover, spatial patterns and outcomes shape,and to a large extent determine, the socioeconomic environ-ment experienced by poor minority families and affluent Whites.The contrasting sociospatial environments experienced byWhites and racial minorities tend to isolate Whites from thesocial problems of inner-city minority poverty and to reinforcenegative racial stereotypes and White prejudices. Segregationnot only concentrates poor minorities in a few highly visibleneighborhoods, it also concentrates the deleterious social condi-tions typically associated with minority poverty such as poorschools, violent crime, drugs, and chronic unemployment(Massey 1990:353). This geographic association between minor-ity poverty and deviant behaviors tends to sustain prejudicedattitudes and maintain the impetus for discrimination and con-tinued segregation. Thus, spatial patterns are both outcomesand causal factors in urban change and development. Thisanalysis has attempted to show that local meanings and inter-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

476 K. F. Gotham

pretations of residence, neighborhood, and homeowner identityare both an important cause and an effect of the spatial separa-tion and isolation of Whites and poor minorities.

This sort of dynamic relationship is interpretable in terms ofthe distinctive political issues and concerns tied with suburbanneighborhoods and communities. The protection and promotionof high-density housing, exclusionary zoning, economic growthand development, and racial and class homogeneity inspire col-lective action and political mobilization by suburban homeow-ners. These issues are rooted in the access to, and control over,suburban housing and other resources (e.g., single-familyhomeownership, quality schools, affluent neighborhoods, etc.).One's home and neighborhood conveys social meaning aboutthe owner's

social status in a community, the type of people they associatewith, and their style of life. This information serves as a basis onwhich family, friends, and acquaintances evaluate the ownersand is also used by the owners to evaluate themselves. (Gayk1991:282)

Thus, protecting and maintaining the social value of one's home,neighborhood, and community can serve as a basis for the con-struction of a distinctive political consciousness. Suburban poli-tics reflect homeowner politics because most of the issues thatmobilize suburban residents concern their interest as homeow-ners. Thus, the suburban community both produces its own dis-tinctive issues and serves as the setting in which othermetropolitan-wide and national-level issues are expressed anddebated. As this case study of Kansas City has demonstrated,suburban access to and control over quality housing resourceshelps generate and sustain a distinctive set of beliefs and valuesabout neighborhood, self, and community that reinforces theracial distribution of housing in the metropolitan area.

Third, the results of this study corroborate previous researchshowing that perceived threat to tangible economic and poli-tical resources is the strongest predictor of Whites' oppositionto integration and desegregation policies (Bobo 1983; Rubin1972; Kluegel and Smith 1983). Much research has focused onthe so-called paradox of White support for the general prin-ciples of racial equality and White opposition to specific integra-tion policies such as busing, residential desegregation, andaffirmative action (Kluegel and Smith 1982, 1983; Bobo 1983;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 477

Sniderman and Hagen 1985; Schuman, Steel, and Bobo 1988;Firebaugh and Davis 1988; Schuman and Bobo 1988; Kluegel1990; Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Sniderman and Piazza 1993). Thisanalysis suggests that White opposition to housing desegrega-tion policies is due to the perceived threat these policies pose toWhite privileged access to, and control over, suburban housingresources (e.g., single-family homeownership, racially exclusiveneighborhoods, etc.). Integration policies and other race-specificand preferential policies portend substantial changes in relation-ships between racial minorities and Whites. It is in this sensethat White support for the general principle of racial equality isnot likely to be translated into concrete practice or policyinsofar as Whites view racial minorities as challenging politicaland economic resources they possess and value (Bobo 1983).This examination suggests that suburban Whites are in partresponding to low-income housing as a threat to their lifestylesand positions that they feel they have earned and do not ques-tion. The racial privilege of "Whiteness" ¡s a lived, but notactually seen, aspect of the suburban experience, given raciallysegregative material and discursive environments that mitigateagainst conscious attention to racial exclusion and homo-geneity. This suburban lifestyle and culture represents a world ofpervasive social insularity, cultural homogeneity, and racialexclusion and explains why residential segregation representsthe structural linchpin of American race relations, urbanpoverty, and metropolitan development (Pettigrew 1977; Masseyand Dentón 1993; Dentón 1994; Massey 1990; see also Polen-berg 1981; Jackson 1985). As this analysis has demonstrated,Kansas City suburbs are sites both for the reproduction ofracism and segregation and for challenges to racial dominationand exclusion. Race, racism, and Whiteness emerge as complex,lived experiences that are politically constructed and historicallysituated rather than timeless in their meanings and effects.

It is significant that in the past two decades almost all of thelow-income housing built in Kansas City suburbs has been con-structed not by HUD or public housing authorities but byprivate developers with federal aid. Nevertheless, oppositioncontinues to persist despite the fact that many outlying suburbswelcome new shopping centers and warehouses but not thelow- and moderate-income, semiskilled or low-skilled workerswho contribute to that economic growth. In fact, no low-income housing project has ever created the "instant slums"

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

478 K. F. Gotham

predicted by opponents. Instead of attracting minorities fromthe inner city, the vast majority of projects have filled up almostentirely with White suburbanites. There is no evidence that agiven low-income housing project has depressed propertyvalues, created deteriorating neighborhoods and schools, orincreased crime in Kansas City suburbs. Interestingly, two low-income housing projects, Parvin Estates in North Kansas Cityand Parade Park Homes in Kansas City, Missouri, have beencited by HUD as exemplars of well-managed and qualityhousing developments in the United States (Department ofHousing and Community Development 1995). However, eventoday in the suburban areas of Kansas City, public hearing afterpublic hearing on public and low-income housing continues toamount to little more than a ritual of exclusion. The stigmas ofintrusive government and lazy, criminalistic, and immoral low-income housing residents are readily employed by public offi-cials and elite property owners to create a perception in theminds of suburban Whites that their neighborhoods are undersiege. The constructed identity of the suburban homeowner andthe idealized myth of a homogenous neighborhood continue tomobilize suburban residents deeply fearful of neighborhoodracial change without referring specifically to race. Consideringthe tenacity and persistence of these themes, suburban areaswill likely remain sites for racial conflict when racial or economichomogeneity are endangered.

NOTES1 Kansas City Star. 12/4/79, p. 1; Letter from Ray S. James, to James I. Threatt, Assistant, City

Manager, Kansas City, Missouri. RE: Public Housing Project, 9/18/79. Box 480. KC 250. Arthur A.Benson, II. Legal Papers. Western Historical Manuscript Collection-Kansas City. Letter fromWilliam R. Southerland, Area Director, HUD, to Lounneer Pemberton, Chairman, HAKC. 5/29/74;Letter from John E. Bridges, Executive Director, HAKC, to William R. Southerland, Area Director,HUD. 6/7/74; Letter from William R. Southerland, Area Director, HUD, to John Bridges, ExecutiveDirector, HAKC. 6/21/74. X1596SS. Box 332. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WesternHistorical Manuscript Collection-Kansas City (WHMC-KC).

2Letter Jim Haff, Operations Division, 7.1P, HUD, to File. 8/5/74. RE: Mo, 2-17. 69th and Cor-rington, Kansas City, Missouri. Box 332. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

3 Transcript of Meeting. Summary. Housing Review Committee Meeting. 8/17/81. RE: 99th andLocust and 46th and Elmwood. Box 332. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

4 Transcript of Meeting. Summary. Housing Review Committee Meeting. 8/17/81. RE: 99th andLocust and 46th and Elmwood. Box 332. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

5 Transcript of Meeting. Summary. Housing Review Committee Meeting. 8/17/81. RE: 99th andLocust and 46th and Elmwood. Box 332. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 479

6 Transcript of Meeting. Summary. Housing Review Committee Meeting. 8/17/81. RE: 99th andLocust and 46th and Elmwood. Box 332. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

7 Letter from Victor Swyden, Councilman at large, 6th District, to James I. Threatt, AssistantCity Manager, Office of Housing and Community Development. 8/18/81. Box 332. KC 250. ArthurA. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

8 12/14/78. Letter from Lloyd A. Hamrick, Chairman, Center Planning and DevelopmentCouncil, to James I. Spainhower, Missouri State Treasurer. RE: Indian Creek Manor, a Low IncomeMissouri Housing Development Commission Project at 99th and Locust, Kansas City, MO. Box332. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II. Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

REFERENCES

Andersen, Hans Thor and Sten Engelstoft. 1992. "Material Production and the UrbanConcept." Pp. 273-95 in Gentrification and Urban Change, vol. 2, Research in UrbanSociology, edited by Ray Hutchison. New York: JAI Press.

Bahr, Howard M. and Theodore Caplow. 1991. "Middletown as an Urban Case Study."Pp. 80-119 in A Case of the Case Study, edited by Joe R. Feagin, Anthony Orum,and Gideon Sjoberg. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Bickford, Adam and Douglas S. Massey. 1991. "Segregation in the Second Ghetto:Racial and Ethnic Segregation in American Public Housing, 1977." Social Forces69(4) :1011-36.

Bobo, Lawrence. 1983. "Whites' Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or RealisticGroup Conflict." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1196-1201.

Bobo, Lawrence and James R. Kluegel. 1993. "Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-interests, Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes." American Sociological Review58:443-64.

Bonacich, Edna. 1980. "Class Approaches to Ethnicity and Race." Insurgent Sociologist10.

Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela Kato Klebanov, and Naomi Sealand.1995. "Do Neighborhoods Influence Child and Adolescent Development?" Amer-ican Journal of Sociology 99:353-95.

Bundgaard, Frank. 1992. "Space and the Analysis of Social Processes." Pp. 213-337 inGentrification and Social Change, vol. 2, Research in Urban Sociology. JAI Press.

Burstein, Paul. 1991. '"Reverse Discrimination' Cases in the Federal Courts: LegalMobilization by a Countermovement." Sociological Quarterly 32(4):511 -28.

Civil Rights Consortium. 1993. Race and Mortgage Lending in Kansas City. Kansas City:Kansas City Civil Rights Consortium.

Darden, Joe T., ed. 1987 Divided Neighborhoods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Darden, Joe T., Richard Child Hill, June Thomas, and Richard Thomas. 1987. Detroit:Race and Uneven Development. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Denton, Nancy A. 1994. "Are African-Americans Still Hypersegregated?" Pp. 49-81 inResidential Apartheid: The American Legacy, edited by Robert D. Bullard, J. EugeneGrigsby, III, and Charles Lee. vol. 2, CAAS Urban Policy Series.

Department of Housing and Community Development. 1995. Kansas City, Missouri's1995 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan, A Report to theU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Kansas City, MO.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

480 K. F. Gotham

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1990. Who Benefits? Civil RightsData on HUD Program Applicants and Beneficiaries, Office of the Assistant Secre-tary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Annual Report to Congress. Washing-ton, DC: Government Printing Office.

Department of Human Relations. 1989. Report on a Survey of Housing Discriminationin Kansas City, Missouri. Kansas City, MO.

Fainstein, Susan S. and Norman I. Fainstein. 1986. "Regime Strategies, CommunalResistance, and Economic Forces." Pp. 245-288 in Restructuring the City: The Poli-tical Economy of Urban Redevelopment, edited by Susan S. Fainstein, Norman I.Fainstein, Richard Child Hill, Dennis R. Judd, and Michael Peter Smith. Rev. ed. NewYork: Longman.

Feagin, Joe R. 1994. "A House Is Not a Home: White Racism and U.S. Housing Prac-tices." Pp. 17-48 in Residential Apartheid: The American Legacy, edited by RobertD. Bullard, J. Eugene Grigsby, III, and Charles Lee. CAAS Urban Policy Series. LosAngeles: Center for African American Studies.

Feagin, Joe R. and Hernan Vera. 1995. White Racism: The Basics. New York: Routledge.Feagin, Joe R., Anthony M. Orum, and Gideon Sjoberg. 1991. "Conclusion: The

Present Crisis in U.S. Sociology." Pp. 269-78 in A Case for the Case Study, edited byJoe R. Feagin, Anthony Orum, and Gideon Sjoberg. Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press.

Firebaugh, Glenn and Kenneth E. Davis. 1988. 'Trends in Antiblack Prejudice, 1972-1984: Region and Cohort Effects." American Journal of Sociology 251-72.

Gayk, William F. 1991. "The Taxpayers Revolt." Pp. 281-300 in Postsuburban California:The Transformation of Orange County Since World War II, edited by Rob Kling,Spencer Olin, and Mark Poster. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

. 1993. "Marxian Urban Sociology and the New Approaches to Space." Pp.209-30 in Urban Sociology in Transition, vol. 3, Research in Urban Sociology. NewYork: JAI Press.

Gottdiener, M. 1994. The Social Production of Urban Space. 2nd ed. Austin: Universityof Texas Press.

Hartung, John H. and Jeffrey R. Henig. 1997. "Housing Vouchers and Certificates as aVehicle for Deconcentrating the Poor: Evidence from the Washington, D. C., Met-ropolitan Area." Urban Affairs Review 32(3) :403-19.

Helper, Rose. 1969. Racial Polices and Practices of Real Estate Brokers. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Henderson, A. Scott. 1995. "A Better Home in a Nice Neighborhood: Housing, Race,and Residential Conflict." Pp. 83-94 in Contested Terrain: Power, Politics, and Par-ticipation in Suburbia, edited by Marc L. Silver and Martin Melkonian. Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.

Hirsch, Arnold R. 1983. Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago,1940-1960. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hirsch, Arnold R. and Raymond A. Mohl, eds. 1993. Urban Policy in Twentieth CenturyAmerica. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 481

Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States.New York: Oxford University Press.

Kansas and Missouri Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1977.Crisis and Opportunity: Education in Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, MO: Kansasand Missouri Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Katznelson, Ira. 1981. City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in theUnited States. New York: Pantheon Books.

Keating, Dennis, W. 1994. Suburban Racial Dilemma: Housing and Neighborhoods.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kluegel, James R. 1990. 'Trends in Whites' Explanations of the Black-White Cap inSocioeconomic Status, 1977-1989." American Sociological Review 55:512-25.

Kluegel, James R. and Eliot R. Smith. 1982. "Whites' Beliefs About Blacks'Opportunity." American Sociological Review 47:518-32.

. 1983. "Affirmative Action Attitudes: Effects of Self-interest, Racial Affect, andStratification Beliefs on Whites' Views." Social Forces 61(3):797-824.

Lo, Clarence Y. H. 1982. "Countermovements and Conservative Movements in theContemporary U.S." Annual Review of Sociology 8:107-32.

Marcuse, Peter. 1993. "What's So New about Divided Cities?" International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research 17(3):355-65.

Massey, Douglas. 1990. "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of theUnderclass." American Journal of Sociology 96:329-57.

Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation andthe Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Massey, Douglas and Shawn N. Kanaiaupuni. 1993. "Public Housing and the Concen-tration of Poverty." Social Science Quarterly 71 (1):109-22.

Mid-American Regional Council. 1993. Metropolitan Kansas City's Urban Core: What'sOccurring, Why It's Important and What We Can Do. A Report of the Urban CoreGrowth Strategies Committee. Kansas City, MO: Mid-American Regional Council.

Molotch, Harvey Luskin. 1972. Managed Integration: Dilemmas of Doing Good in theCity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Monti, Daniel J. 1990. Race, Redevelopment, and the New Company Town. Albany:State University of New York Press.

Mottl, Tahl L. 1980. 'The Analysis of Countermovements." Social Problems 27(5) :620-35.Nagel, Joane. 1986. 'The Political Construction of Ethnicity." Pp. 93-112 in Compara-

tive Ethnic Relations. New York: Academic Press.. 1994. "Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and

Culture." Social Problems 41 (1):152-76.. 1995. "Resource Competition Theories of Ethnicity." American Behavioral

Scientist 38:442-58.. 1996. American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Red Power and the Resurgence of

Identity and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formation in the United States from

the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

482 K. F. Gotham

Orser, W. Edward. 1994. Blockbusting in Baltimore: The Edmondson Village Story.Louisville: University of Kentucky Press.

Orum, Anthony M. and Joe R. Feagin, 1991. "A Tale of Two Cities." Pp. 121-147 in A

Case for the Case Study, edited by Joe R. Feagin, Anthony Orum, and GideonSjoberg. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press.

Orum, Anthony, Joe R. Feagin, and Gideon Sjoberg 1991. "Introduction: The Nature ofthe Case Study." Pp. 1-25 in A Case for the Case Study, edited by Joe R. Feagin,Anthony Orum, and Gideon Sjoberg. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress.

Park, Robert. 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Pettigrew, T. 1977. "Racial Change and Racial Policy." Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 44:114-31.Polenberg, Richard. 1981. One Nation Divisible: Class, Race, and Ethnicity in the United

States since 1938. New York: Penguin Books.Quadagno, Jill. 1994. The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on

Poverty. New York; Oxford University Press.Rubin, Lillian B. 1972. Busing and Backlash: White Against White in a California School

District. Berkeley: University of California Press.Schmidt, Charles G., and Yuk Lee. 1978. "Impacts of Changing Racial Composition

upon Commercial Land Use Succession and Commercial Structure: A Compara-tive Neighborhood Analysis." Urban Affairs Quarterly 13(3) :341 -53.

Schuman, Howard and Lawrence Bobo. 1988. "Survey-Based Experiments on WhiteRacial Attitude Toward Residential Segregation." American Journal of Sociology94:273-90.

Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steel, and Lawrence Bobo. 1988. Racial Attitudes inAmerica: Trends and Interpretations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sniderman, Paul M. and Michael Gray Hagen. 1985. Race and Inequality: A Study inAmerican Values. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Sniderman, Paul M. and Thomas Piazza. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Squires, Gregory D. 1993. "The Political Economy of Housing: All the Discomforts ofHome." Pp. 129-57 in Urban Sociology in Transition, vol. 3, Research in UrbanSociology, edited by Ray Hutchison. New York. JAI Press.

Squires, Gregory D., Larry Bennett, Kathleen McCort, and Philip Nyden. 1987. Chicago:Race, Class, and the Response to Urban Decline. Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress.

Squires, Gregory D. and William Velez. 1987. "Neighborhood Racial Composition andMortgage Lending: City and Suburban Differences." Journal of Urban Affairs9(3) :217-32.

Squires, Gregory D., William Velez, and Karl E. Taeuber. 1991. "Insurance Redlining,Agency Location, and the Process of Urban Disinvestment." Urban Affairs Quarter-ly, 26(4):567-88.

Wheeler, Charles B., Jr. 1971. The Need for a Policy of Dispersal in Minority Housing in

the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. X1198. Box 250. KC 250. Arthur A. Benson, II.Legal Papers. WHMC-KC.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Suburbia Under Siege 483

Wilson, David. 1993. "Everyday Life, Spatiality, and Inner City Disinvestment in a USCity." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 17(4):578-94.

Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

. 1987. Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Winant, Howard. 1994. Racial Conditions: Politics, Theory, Comparisons. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Yinger, John. 1995. Closed Door, Opportunity Lost: Continuing Costs of Housing Dis-crimination. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:08

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14