Categories
News

Horrible history: New report details racist past, next steps for Charlottesville housing

 

Charlottesville has an affordable housing crisis: that’s not exactly breaking news. Local activists have been working for years to elevate the issue, and the city government has become more and more responsive. The most recent city budget devotes $31.2 million over five years to various affordable housing initiatives. (The city has announced it will have to delay the budget process and find $5 million to cut to account for the economic effects of the coronavirus.)

The work is far from over, though, as evidenced by a new report from the Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition. The Impact of Racism on Affordable Housing in Charlottesville chronicles the past, present, and future of this crisis. (The full 93-page report can be viewed here.)

“More than 50 people have touched this report at some point,” says Elaine Poon, an attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center and one of the document’s co-authors. “It’s been a pretty big labor of love for the group.”

The report’s most moving component is an extensive survey of residents of historically black neighborhoods in town. Their testimonies lay bare the causes and effects of gentrification: “I work three jobs every day, pay taxes, and can’t seem to purchase a home in a place that is supposed to be an affordable housing area,” one anonymous respondent said.

“The waiting lists for housing are really long. Me and my baby were basically homeless, even though I was working full-time. It took a really long time for us to find anything,” says another.

“The Black population has to move because they don’t make enough to sustain themselves in the city,” says another commenter.

“Sixty years later we are still being treated like we’re prisoners. But our only crime is that we didn’t invest our money, because we didn’t have any money to invest.”

The list of quotes like these goes on and on.

Gloria Beard, who has lived in 10th and Page for 46 years, echoes the anonymous comments in the report.

“You know the price that they put on these houses once they remodel them? If I left today or tomorrow, I could never come back to this neighborhood—which I called mine at one time,” Beard says. “Now it doesn’t even feel like a neighborhood. I come from a time when we knew our neighbors. We sat on the porch and hollered at each other. That doesn’t happen anymore.”

The report includes a section that traces the racist history of the housing crisis over the last century. Charlottesville voted to legally segregate the city in 1912. Once that was declared unconstitutional, individual deeds prohibiting the sale of houses to non-caucasian people became the norm. An early Charlottesville zoning map, which has not changed much in the last 60 years, was drawn by the design firm of Harland Bartholomew, a well-known and influential city planner whose strategies legally entrenched segregation in cities across the nation. In 1964, the city razed predominantly black Vinegar Hill, citing “slum clearance.”

“Charlottesville has a long history of intentionally zoning neighborhoods to segregate based on race and class and to limit the ability of low-income people of color to build wealth through property ownership,” the report says.

“[10th and Page] became a black neighborhood because the white people didn’t want us to live in their neighborhood,” Beard says. “Now here they come, all of them coming, from miles around, out of town, buying these houses.”

Poon says the report will be handed over to the consultants who have been charged with rewriting Charlottesville’s zoning code, and she thinks it will show them the “journey we’ve already been on as a city.” She also says aspiring local activists have often asked her group for “somewhere I can look to catch up to speed” on the thorny and complicated issue, and thinks this report will provide a good starting point.

“People know this information. At this point it’s really just a compendium, just putting it all in one place,” Poon says.

The report’s final section suggests steps that Charlottesville can take to continue to address the issue. Some of them are relatively straightforward—it re-emphasizes that members of low-income communities need to be involved in decision-making about low-income housing. The report also says the city ought undergo an internal staff review of all new projects from an equity lens, and include that information in councilors’ packets about new projects. In addition, the city is urged to define “affordable” more narrowly, targeting relief to those most affected.

At the same time, this huge problem will need huge solutions, and the report asks for those, as well. It advocates for various forms of reparations for black families. It says the zoning code rewrite should include “restricting by-right development to affordable units for extremely low-income people,” meaning in most of the city, all new construction that wasn’t low-income housing would need council approval. The report advocates for pro bono representation in eviction hearings as a way of combating homelessness, and pushes Charlottesville to institute rent control.

Some of these policies, like rent control, will not be possible without state approval or a repeal of the Dillon Rule. “Enacting rent control might be possible in Charlottesville someday, though it will take an immense amount of advocacy,” the report says.

Poon thinks this document can be part of that advocacy. “The community at large needs to understand the why, so that those big picture issues are more understandable,” she says. “When someone reads some of the history, it’s very difficult for me to imagine not wanting dramatic change after reading that.”

 

Categories
News

Back to the drawing board: Protest over City Council revisions to CRB proposal

Nearly two years after appointing the initial Police Civilian Review Board, Charlottesville City Council inched closer to making a permanent oversight board a reality at their October 21 meeting, with a first reading of the CRB’s ordinance and bylaws.

But members of the initial CRB were not pleased, saying councilors had severely weakened the proposal they’d spent a year crafting. In a press conference held outside City Hall and during public comment, they and supporters criticized council’s changes, including limiting the board’s authority and removing transparency in the selection process.

“For us to give them the proper bylaws and ordinance but for them to water it down, after so much work…I’m very disappointed,” says board member Rosia Parker.

After the CRB presented its proposal on August 5, City Council members met in small groups with the city attorney and published their own version on October 16. At the October 21 meeting, Mayor Walker noted that it was the first time all the councilors had met together and reviewed the complete proposal.

“It’s a little bit frustrating,” CRB member Guillermo Ubilla told council at the meeting. “All of the questions and things you talked about tonight we spent a year tackling. And we have ideas and suggestions for all of them, and they’re in the packet that we sent you, so I really really hope you guys take a second look at that, maybe a third look, just to kind of see what’s in there.”

Local attorney and longtime CRB supporter Jeff Fogel says the board had created its proposal to accommodate anticipated concerns from the city, as well as state law. “I don’t think the city understands that that document already represents somewhat of a compromise,” he says. “[The council] is now looking for a compromise when it’s built into this proposal.”

City Council created the initial CRB with a resolution on December 18, 2017, in the wake of the Unite the Right rally, in an effort to improve trust between the Charlottesville Police Department and the community.

CRB members met for a year to create bylaws and an ordinance establishing the permanent board’s composition, staff members, and authority. “We did our homework,” says CRB member Gloria Beard, noting the board researched other civilian review boards to inform their work. Its proposal included two staff positions (a police auditor and an executive director), as well as a budget of no less than 1 percent of the police department’s budget. The board would have seven members, four coming from historically disadvantaged communities or public housing.

The initial proposal also allowed the CRB to review any complaint against the Charlottesville Police Department, review the internal investigation into the complaint, and (in certain circumstances) conduct an independent investigation, having access to personnel files, internal investigation files, and other department data.

The board would send any disciplinary recommendations to the police chief and city manager.

City Council’s version differed from the CRB’s initial proposal in multiple ways.

“There was an expectation that we were going to basically take exactly what was given to us,” says Councilor Heather Hill. But she says councilors, who met in small groups “for the sake of efficiency,” had some concerns.

In the new proposal, board members would be appointed by the council in a closed session, rather than the originally proposed public process. Hill says councilors feared a public interview process would deter candidates.

Instead of hiring an auditor right away, the council proposed requiring the board’s executive director to present a report about whether the city should hire a full-time (or part-time) auditor, or contract with an auditing firm instead. And the council’s proposal did not include a budget for the CRB.

Hill says the council understands the auditing role must be filled and a budget created, but that these steps can come later.

“Right now we have to agree on an ordinance and bylaws. That’s going to help them determine our budget,” Hill says.

The council’s ordinance also changed the board’s membership requirements, proposing that it has three members from disadvantaged communities and one from a racial or social justice organization, and eliminating the initial proposal’s requirement that a councilor serve as an additional nonvoting member. And it specifies that the board would only be able to review internal affairs investigations that are ruled as unfounded, exonerated, or not resolved (not those that are sustained). It would also be able to review an investigation if a request is filed with the executive director, and initiate its own review of internal affairs investigations.

The councilors will take into account all of the comments made during the meeting, says Hill. They plan to make revisions to their proposal before next month’s meeting.

“We hope and pray they are going to change their minds,” says Beard. “We need transparency between the police force and the community…to create relationships with the people, so they can have real trust again.”