# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Segregation is one of our nation's most enduring and intractable problems. More than 60 years since the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision denounced racial segregation in primary and secondary public schools, and 50 years since the enactment of the federal Fair Housing Act, our neighborhoods and schools have yet to reflect the rich diversity of our nation as a whole. In far too many cases, racial segregation is as severe or worse today than a generation ago. Racially segregated neighborhoods and schools are visible in every part of the United States.

Segregation seems embedded in our nation's fabric while, simultaneously, the United States has become a more diverse country. Paradoxically, demographic changes since the 1960s complicate our understanding of segregation. The San Francisco Bay Area is a case in point. 1 The Bay Area is roughly 39 percent white, 6 percent Black, 26 percent Asian, 24 percent Latino and 5 percent "other," including Native American, Pacific Islander, and multi-racial. 2 While the region is overall diverse, there are few neighborhoods or cities in the region that reflect that diversity. Racial diversity within the region, however, makes measuring and understanding the patterns of racial segregation more challenging. 3 The most popular and widely used measures of segregation only measure segregation between two racial groups at a time. 4

Given the seriousness of the problem of racial segregation as a cause of racial inequality and the complexities in understanding the nature of this problem, the Haas Institute is launching a series of briefs that will attempt to illuminate these patterns and demystify the reality of segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many organizations have published maps that indicate the distribution of specific racial groups across space. 5 Sometimes, these racial composition maps are used to suggest the level or changes in racial residential segregation. 6 In some of our own reports, we have produced maps that illustrate the percentage of people of color or people of particular racial groupings throughout the Bay Area to imply as much. 7 But racial composition and racial segregation are not the same thing. This is the first report, to our knowledge, that will map and illustrate residential racial segregation itself for multiple racial groups simultaneously within the Bay Area. We attempt to fill a gap in the reporting on race in the Bay Area by refocusing on this important but difficult issue.

In this first brief, we present a series of detailed maps illustrating segregation across the region, within each of the nine Bay Area counties, and in its major metropolitan areas. Our goal is that readers in the Bay Area, for the first time, will have a clear portrait of the reality and extent of the racial segregation in their communities. We will highlight and discuss the varying levels of residential racial segregation within the region and show which communities and neighborhoods are the most segregated, and the most integrated. 8 Unfortunately, integrated communities are the exception that proves the rule, as we will show. Only a handful of cities in region are both diverse and highly integrated.

In our second brief we will disaggregate and untangle patterns of segregation into specific patterns of racial demographics. We will examine the unique patterns of racial distribution in the San Francisco Bay region, and across major metropolitan areas. In particular, part two of this series will illustrate the distribution of white, Black, Latino, and Asian populations across each large metropolitan area and many counties. We will also examine specific areas of racial clustering and concentration, not simply segregation, and examine how these demographic changes have occurred over time. Thus, we will better understand how patterns of residential change, migration and displacement contribute to segregation today and as a matter of historical fact.

Our third brief will focus on the complicated issue of how best to measure segregation, with a review that describes various measures of racial segregation used by demographers, geographers, and social scientists, including the dissimilarity index, the isolation and exposure indices, as well as more novel measures that are both quantitative and qualitative. We will weigh their advantages and disadvantages, and explain why we settled on the Divergence Index as the best measure for the Bay Area. In the process, we will compare results from different indices to form a more vivid and rounder portrait of segregation in the Bay Area. Part three will then examine longitudinal patterns of segregation using some of those measures over time within the Bay Area, using different segregation metrics to better describe how these patterns have changed over time. Each measure is a partial glimpse into a multi-faceted reality. Only by juxtaposing the best measures can we best understand the underlying reality of racial segregation.

The fourth brief will explain the significance of the problem of segregation, and delve more deeply into the harms of segregation. Without being exhaustive, we will briefly survey an immense social science literature. We will illustrate how racial segregation is a principal mechanism that isolates too many people of color, especially children, from life-enhancing resources, and is a critical determinant of racial inequality in areas such as educational performance and attainment, health outcomes, and upward economic mobility. 9 Segregation, as we will show, is not just a separation of particular groups of people from each other, but from opportunity and resources. As such, segregation is the root cause of racial inequality in the United States.

The fifth and final brief in this series will suggest and advance a number of policy principles that have the potential to alleviate the problem of segregation and reduce measurable segregation. This brief will examine the Bay Area's projected level of racial residential segregation going forward, and suggest targets for changing that trajectory. Segregation is the product of historical and contemporary policy and systems/structures, as well as private action. Without describing specific bills or measures, the focus of this brief will be to offer specific policy principles that have the potential to improve the enduring problem of segregation.

Our immediate purpose in this brief is to illustrate vividly patterns of segregation within the Bay Area utilizing compelling maps and data analysis, thereby drawing greater and more detailed attention to a problem that has remained stubbornly persistent. We also provide the divergence index calculations by census tract to facilitate applied research using our data. Our hope is that these maps and our accompanying analysis will convey an undeniable fact of life in the San Francisco Bay Area, and by doing so will spur and advance policy and advocacy discussions on how to mitigate or ameliorate them.

Segregation in the Bay Area

The San Francisco Bay Area, like most of the United States, is deeply segregated. The Bay Area is visibly segregated at the regional, county, metropolitan, municipal, and neighborhood levels. Each of the nine counties as well as the two major "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" (MSAs) is marked by high levels of racial segregation. 10 To illustrate this, we present the following maps of the Bay Area using a multi-racial measure of segregation using data from 2010 decennial census, supplemented, with data from the more recent American Community Survey (ACS) estimates where noted. 11

To measure and represent segregation spatially, we employ the Divergence Index, a decomposable measure of segregation which measures the difference between the overall proportion of a group in a region and the proportion of each group in a local area within that region. 12 Unlike many other measures of segregation, the Divergence Index can measure a region's segregation for multiple racial groups simultaneously. A comparison of this measure with alternative measures of segregation will be presented in the third brief in this series.

Immediately below is a map of the entire Bay Area. This map illustrates the degree of racial segregation across the region. The region, and each of the county and MSA maps presented in this brief, are shaded into three categories illustrating the degree of segregation measured for that geography: high, moderate, or low. In each map, census tracts are shaded based upon their divergence index score. 13 Each map also contains a pie chart indicating the racial breakdown of the larger geography presented. In the county and MSA maps, some tracts are encircled by a boundary color indicating a racial group that predominates, corresponding to the pie chart.

The San Francisco Bay Area is a racially, geographically, and economically diverse region of more than seven million people and more than 100 incorporated municipalities contained within nine counties. The demographic profiles and levels of racial diversity in each of the counties vary considerably from the region as a whole, especially those further from the core of the region or major urban centers. For that reason, the regional map above and the individual county maps below illustrate the divergence between census tracts and each county as a whole rather than census tracts and the entire region as a whole. 14 This allows us to observe the degree of divergence from a more appropriate context, especially for the whiter and more rural counties. 15

As the map above suggests, we find racial segregation in every county and MSA in the region. 16 Despite the racial diversity that exists through most of the Bay Area, segregated neighborhoods exist in every part of the region, from north to south, and east to west. As we will indicate, far too few census tracts in the region resemble the populations in the Bay Area as a whole, let alone of the counties or MSAs in which they reside.

As a byproduct of this research, we found two general forms of segregation in the region: inter-municipal and intra-municipal. Most of the traditionally recognized "segregated neighborhoods," where people of color were historically restricted on account of redlining and other forms of housing discrimination, are typically found within the larger, broadly diverse municipalities such as San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and mid-sized cities such as Berkeley and Richmond. The displacement of many people of color from these communities and the corresponding in-migration of white families over the last twenty years has diversified the municipal populations in these cities, but has not always resulted in more integrated neighborhoods. 17 Thus, although these cities are diverse in aggregate, they tend to contain some of the most racially segregated non-white neighborhoods in the Bay Area.

Much of the racial segregation observed in the Bay Area, on the other hand, exists between municipal boundaries. That is, the segregation of one group into a particular municipality or maintenance of historically segregated residential patterns has as a corollary the segregation of many members of other racial groups into other racially segregated cities and or neighborhoods in other cities. Inter-municipal or inter-district segregation is why, as many educational experts have noted, American schools remain stubbornly segregated. 18 This also why, although a majority of the most highly segregated neighborhoods for people of color are found in the largest cities in the region, the most segregated white neighborhoods are in small or mid-sized cities.

Although only suggested by the above map, we find that whites are the most segregated racial group in the region. 19 Although whites are just under 40 percent of the population of the Bay Area, 184 census tracts (of 1582) are more than 75 percent white, 359 tracts are more than 66 percent white, and 663 tracts are more than 50 percent white. Some of this is explained by the fact that the more rural counties of Marin, Sonoma, and Napa have proportionally much larger white populations than counties such as Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco. But whites are the most segregated group even in counties where they are a racial plurality and/or a minority, and have less exposure to members of other racial groups than any other racial group has to each other. 20

It may seem strange to describe whites as the most segregated racial group, but it is a byproduct of the segregation of people of color. The more effective whites are at segregating themselves from people of color, the more segregated people of color will be overall. The segregation of non-whites into disproportionately non-white neighborhoods results in whites residing in disproportionately whiter neighborhoods. Non-white and white segregation are reciprocal; they are flip sides of the same coin. The fact that whites are the most segregated racial group reflects this, but it also suggests that people of color are less segregated from each other than they are from whites.

Although Asians are just 26 percent of the population of the Bay Area, they are a majority of the population is 181 census tracts, more than 66 percent in 50 census tracts, and compose 75 percent or more in 18 census tracts.

Latinos are 24 percent of the population in the Bay Area, but are 50 percent or more of the population 143 census tracts, more than 66 percent of the population in 50 census tracts, and more than 75 percent of the population in 20 census tracts.

African Americans are just 6 percent of the population of the Bay Area, but are more than 25 percent of the population in 93 census tracts, more than 40 percent of the population in 40 census tracts, and more than 50 percent of the population in 18 census tracts. African Americans are the most racially concentrated group in the Bay Area, with 75 percent of the Bay Area's Black residents residing in just 26 percent of the region's census tracts.

As we will show in future briefs, these patterns of racial segregation are not "natural," or simply the result of individual housing preferences, but the byproduct of exclusionary policies as well as private housing discrimination. The extreme segregation of whites into cities such as Piedmont, Lafayette, Atherton, Menlo Park, and Walnut Creek is the result of processes that also segregate people of color in other places. As a result, for example, African-Americans are segregated into neighborhoods such as Hunter's Point in San Francisco, and East Oakland and West Oakland, as you can see in the Alameda County map below.

Segregation by County in the Bay Area

Featuring one of the most vibrant and diverse metropolitan areas in the nation, Alameda County contains the city of Oakland and surrounding suburbs and much of what is regarded as "the East Bay." Yet, as this map vividly illustrates, its racial diversity is not reflected in most of the communities within the county. Less than one in five census tracts reflect the demographics of the county for any racial group. Just 19 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 19 percent, 15 percent, and 18 percent, respectively.

Overall, the diversity of the county is spread into particular, racially identifiable cities and enclaves within the county. Only a few places like Newark, which is 26 percent white, 30 percent Asian, 5 percent black, and 34 percent Latino, and San Leandro (26 percent white, 37 percent Asian, 8 percent black, and 22 percent Latino) approximates the demographics of the county as a whole. Dublin and Emeryville are among the more integrated cities, although they are predominantly and more heavily white.

Cities such as Piedmont just north of Oakland, and Pleasanton and Livermore in the eastern reaches of the county typify the heavily white suburb, with populations that are roughly two-thirds white (30 percent greater than the county as a whole), 1-3 percent Black, and the remainder Latino and/or Asian. As we will see in the next brief in this series, these patterns of racial segregation are historical in nature, and not of recent origin.

The cities of Albany, Alameda, Castro Valley are (moderately) segregated and predominantly white, although less intensely than the cities just mentioned, largely on account of heavier Asian minority populations. These cities are roughly 44-48 percent white, with 19-27 percent Asian, and 13-20 percent Latino, and 4-9 percent black.

Cities like Fremont and Union City in the southern and southwestern part of the county illustrate another expression of segregation. Asians constitute 61 percent of the demographics of Fremont, with whites at 19 percent, and Latinos at 13 percent, and just 2 percent African-American. Union City is 56 percent Asian, 15 percent white, 5 percent black, and 18 percent Latino. Both cities are diverse, but also with strong Asian majorities and therefore segregated. Hayward similarly expresses this type of segregation, but with a heavy Latino plurality.

Although most of the segregation within Alameda County is inter-municipal -- meaning that the segregation of whites and non-whites is reciprocal, a number of cities exhibit a strong degree of intra-municipal or neighborhood segregation. Although the city of Oakland is exceptionally diverse (27 percent white, 15 percent Asian, 28 percent Latino, 23 percent Black), it contains some of the most segregated neighborhoods in the Bay Area. As the map above illustrates, African Americans in particular are racially segregated in the eastern flatlands of Oakland and west Oakland, while the Oakland hills are disproportionately white. In fact, 8 of the 10 most segregated census tracts in the entire Bay Area for African Americans are located in Alameda County. 21

The city of Berkeley also reflects this basic pattern, while not as diverse as Oakland. Berkeley is 52 percent white, and 48 percent people of color, but the white population is segregated into the northern part of the city, and a sizable racially segregated Black population wedged into census tracts in the southern part of the city. This pattern, like most of the segregation found in the Bay Area, is a continuation of historical patterns set decades ago. 22

Contra Costa County is home to nearly two dozen cities of varying size and demographics. 23 Like Alameda County, it is a county of stark racial segregation. Just 20 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 16 percent, 20 percent, and 9 percent, respectively.

The most segregated and heavily white cities in the county are Walnut Creek, Lafayette, and Martinez, which epitomize the affluent white suburb. In fact, two of the most racially segregated white neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area are located in Walnut Creek, which is 63 percent white. Martinez is 69 percent white, and Lafayette is a scale topping 77 percent white, a remarkable instance of white exclusivity.

Along with these three cities, the communities of Clayton, Danville, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, and Orinda are also segregated, heavily-white cities. These cities are 63-78 percent white, 1-3 percent Black, 6-11 percent Latino, and 7-20 percent Asian. These are followed by the less intensely segregated, but still heavily white cities such as Concord and Brentwood, which are 52-53 percent white, 3-6 percent Black, 8-14 percent Asian, and 26-27 percent Latino.

At the extreme western side of the county is the city of Richmond and the unincorporated area of North Richmond. Richmond is home to the Chevron refinery, but was also a hub for factory workers during World War II, and recruited thousands of African Americans to its shipyards. Richmond's neighborhoods are highly segregated by race, especially for Latinos and African Americans. Although the Black population has declined in numbers substantially in recent years, partly as a result of displacement and gentrification, Richmond is currently 18 percent African American, 17 percent white, 13 percent Asian, and 48 percent Latino.

Richmond, like Pittsburg and San Pablo, are segregated communities that are heavily Latino, much like Hayward in Alameda County. San Ramon and Hercules are the most segregated, but predominantly Asian communities in Contra Costa County, and the analogs to Fremont and Union City in Alameda County

Pinole is the most integrated city in Contra Costa County, with a population that is 35 percent white, 26 percent Latino, 22 percent Asian, and 8 percent Black. Antioch, the second largest city in the county, is the next most integrated, although more heavily Black and Latino, with a population that is 26 percent white, 34 percent Latino, 19 percent Black, and 13 percent Asian. These communities are the near mirror opposites of cities in the eastern and central reaches of the county.

Home to Silicon Valley, Santa Clara County is one of the most economically prosperous counties in the United States. It is also home to many traditional working-class communities and neighborhoods and even contains rural communities such as Gilroy. Given the diversity of people residing in Santa Clara County, its neighborhoods and communities remain remarkably segregated. In fact, two of ten the most segregated Latino neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area are in Gilroy.

In general, however, each racial group is about equally segregated from one another within Santa Clara County. Just 19 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 19 percent, 19 percent, and 20 percent, respectively.

San Jose is one of the largest and most diverse cities in the Bay Area. Its population is 26 percent white, 32 percent Latino, 35 percent Asian, and 3 percent Black. However, like Oakland, its neighborhoods do not reflect the diversity found across the metropolitan region, let alone within the city limits. Two of the census tracts in north San Jose are among the five most segregated for Asians in the entire Bay Area. Latinos are also incredibly segregated into the neighborhoods of San Jose. Six of the 10 most segregated neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area for Latinos are found in Santa Clara County, in places like Gilroy and the environs of San Jose.

Monte Sereno city, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Campbell, and Palo Alto are the most segregated, heavily white cities in the county, with populations that range from 55-78 percent white, 0-2 percent black, 2-18 percent Latino, and 14-33 percent Asian. They are followed by predominantly white, but more Asian cities like Morgan Hill and Saratoga.

Gilroy is a highly segregated and 60 percent Latino community in the southeastern part of the county, while Milpitas and Cupertino are mirror opposites for Asians, but with 62 and 66 percent Asian populations, respectively.
There is no truly integrated city in Santa Clara County like Pinole or Newark in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, but the most diverse and integrated cities are Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.

San Francisco County has almost the exact same boundaries as with the city of San Francisco. For that reason, the city and county can be described interchangeably. A richly diverse place, there is a surprising degree of racial segregation which belies its inclusive reputation. Few census tracts reflect the demographics of the county for any racial group. Just 29 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. 24 For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 14 percent, 23 percent, and 9 percent, respectively.

Although African Americans are just 5 percent of the population (as of 2017), they are intensely clustered into the Hunter's Point/Bayview neighborhoods and some parts of the downtown area. This is a consequence of the extremely high cost of housing and rents in San Francisco, but it is also a result of historical patterns of segregation which prevented blacks from moving into other neighborhoods.

A similar story could be told about Asians during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries regarding San Francisco's famous Chinatown which carefully restricted where Asians could live. The Mission, once an overwhelmingly Latino neighborhood, has been radically gentrified in recent years with many of its original and long-term residents pushed out by rising costs. Whites are disproportionately concentrated in the northern and central parts of San Francisco, especially the Presidio.

San Mateo County extends south of San Francisco to encompass the San Francisco airport and suburbs and the northern part of Silicon Valley. It is therefore one of the most affluent places in America and home to a number of corporate campuses for Fortune 500 and 100 companies. It is also a highly segregated county. Few census tracts reflect the demographics of the county for any racial group. Just 24 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 21 percent, 15 percent, and 15 percent, respectively.

Research shows that regions with higher levels of municipal fragmentation tend to be more segregated. 25 Like Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties, San Mateo County is municipally fragmented with nearly two dozen relatively small incorporated jurisdictions, and many smaller unincorporated ones. It differs from those counties however, in that it lacks an urban core.

The small but extremely wealthy city of Atherton, which is 75 percent white, 14 percent Asian, 5 percent Latino, and less than 1 percent black, epitomizes the segregated, exclusive community. This segregation is the corollary of the segregation of places like East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto is also a historically significant site of racial segregation, and remains so today, but for Latinos rather than African Americans. Additionally, Redwood City has roughly 40 percent of whites and Latinos, which seems more diverse but racial groups are segregated in their own enclaves.

Millbrae and Daly City are moderately segregated, and have a predominantly Asian population.

San Bruno is the most diverse and racially integrated city in the county, with a population that is 35 percent white, 2 percent black, 28 percent Asian, and 28 percent Latino. Although San Mateo City also has a disproportionately small Black population, it is also one of the more integrated cities in the county.

Marin County is one of the most scenic counties in the Bay Area, featuring miles of shoreline, parks, and other pastoral views. Despite its reputation as a bastion of progressivism and environmentalism, it is one of the most segregated counties in the Bay Area, especially for whites. In fact, it might be fair to say that the entire county is segregated. The large number of whites may mask this. Sixty percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. On the other hand, for Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 15 percent, 29 percent, and 7 percent, respectively.

Although Sonoma is the 'whitest' county in the Bay Area, five of the 10 most segregated census tracts in the entire Bay Area for whites are located in Marin County as is visible above. A small number of clustered public housing or affordable housing communities are home to many of the people of color in the county. Anti-development policies strictly regulate where new or affordable housing can be built, helping maintain patterns of racial segregation. As we will see in the next brief in this series, however, many people of color have left or been displaced from Marin county in recent decades.

A neighborhood in San Rafael, as highlighted in the map, is the most segregated tract for Latinos in the entire Bay Area, where more than 90 percent of population is of this group. Novato also contains a substantial number of Latinos, with a 19 percent Latino population.

A viticultural and agricultural hub, and the largest wine producer in California, Sonoma County is another scenic part of the Bay Area. Despite its rural character, Sonoma's diversity - which is greater than Marin's -- is not reflected in its neighborhoods. Fifty-one percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 23 percent, 26 percent, and 13 percent, respectively.

In many respects, Sonoma is a counterpart to Marin in that it is a place where white families are exceptionally segregated from people of color. Three of the six whitest segregated neighborhoods in the Bay Area are found in Sonoma, neighborhoods in or around Santa Rosa.

Although Sonoma is 62 percent white, just 2 of the 9 incorporated cities in Sonoma have more than an 80 percent white population: Sebastopol and Sonoma City, and are therefore the most segregated cities for whites. On the flip side, just two cities have less than a 60 percent white population, Santa Rosa and Cloverdale.

The largest minority group in Sonoma are Latinos, which are overrepresented and clustered in Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, and Windsor town.

Petaluma and Rohnert Park are the most integrated cities in the county.

With 400 wineries, Napa County is most famous as a wine growing region along with its neighbor, Sonoma County. Both counties have similar demographics featuring a majority white population. Despite the large white population, just 40 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 23 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent, respectively.

There are communities in Napa County that are predominantly non-white. American Canyon city is predominantly Asian, whereas Calistoga is predominantly Latino.

Yountville is the most segregated, heavily white city in Napa County. St. Helena is moderately segregated, by comparison.

Notably, Napa city is the most integrated city in the county with a population that is 55 percent white, 39 percent Latino, 3 percent Asian, and less than 1 percent black.

One of the oldest counties in the state, Solano County is much more diverse than its neighbor, Napa. It may also be the most integrated county in the Bay Area. Although still a low number, a higher than average number of census tracts have a similar proportion to the racial composition of the county as a whole. Twenty-seven percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 31 percent, 17 percent, and 23 percent, respectively, the highest numbers we've seen for Latinos and Blacks. This also suggests the unusual fact that Asians may be the most racially concentrated group in the county.

Solano has the lowest percentage of highly segregated census tracts of any county in the Bay Area. Exemplifying this pattern, both Suisun City is highly diverse and integrated, with nearly perfectly even breakdowns of each racial group. Fairfield and Vacaville are a mixture of integrated and only moderately segregated.

Solano also has a sizable and historic black community. Cities like Vallejo, however, are diverse, but not as well integrated. Its population is 24 percent white, 19 percent black, 23 percent Asian, and 28 percent Latino, illustrating another textbook example of how an unquestionably diverse community can nonetheless be segregated.

Rio Vista and Benicia are the two most segregated, and heavily white cities of Solano County.

Segregation in the Metropolitan Areas

Several major metropolitan regions cut across counties in the Bay Area. Therefore, another useful perspective on racial segregation is to see the segregation that exists within the region's major metropolitan regions. The San Jose MSA is the most integrated metropolitan region, and is substantially more integrated than the Oakland of SF MSA.

Demographics of this MSA are marginally different from the Bay area as a region. However, segregation is as pronounced in this four county MSA as it was in the Bay area. Considering that whites are the most segregated racial group in the region, there are 124 tracts in this MSA that have non-Hispanic whites more than 75 percent. As discussed earlier, Marin County is predominantly white, so it is no surprise that the top ten tracts with high segregation due to non-Hispanic whites are in Marin County. The 18 tracts that have 50 percent or more of African Americans are the same as those in the Bay area. Thus segregated areas for blacks are mainly concentrated in this MSA region. Six out of 10 of these highly segregated tracts are in Alameda County, three in San Francisco and one in Contra Costa County.

As shown on the map, there are 8 tracts that have 75 percent or more of Latinos. Four of these are in Contra Costa County, out of which three are in the city of Richmond. Three of those 8 tracts are in the city of Redwood City in San Mateo County. The remaining one tract is in Marin County in the city of San Rafael. Mentioned earlier, 90 percent of this tract's residents are Latino.

Six out of the top 10 segregated tracts with 75 percent or more of Asians are in Alameda County, five primarily in Fremont and Union cities, and one in the city of Oakland. Three are in San Francisco.

This MSA seems to be the most diverse based on the demographic data as shown above. However, the map above illustrates how segregated are some of its neighborhoods are with clearly demarcated areas of racial concentration. Eight of 9 tracts with white population 75 percent or above are in the town of Los Gatos and beyond, while one is in the city of San Jose. According to our metric, there doesn't seem to be any segregated neighborhoods with African Americans in this MSA.

On the other hand, 4 out of 8 tracts with 75 percent or more of Asians are in San Jose. Of the remaining 4, 2 are in Milpitas and 2 in Cupertino. High tech industry in Silicon Valley is the main source of employment of IT professionals from Asian countries such as India and China, and thus it is not surprising to find neighborhoods with such high concentration of Asians.

Latinos have the highest number of segregated neighborhoods in this MSA. Ten out of 15 such neighborhoods are in San Jose, two in Gilroy, and the remaining three in and around the city of Hollister in San Benito County.

Whether seen from the regional perspective, the county level or the metropolitan level, the San Francisco Bay Area is simultaneously diverse but also notably and starkly segregated. The diversity of the region masks considerable levels of racial isolation and historical, persistent segregation. The measure of segregation we have employed here, the Divergence Index, helps us identify areas that are segregated despite a high degree of overall diversity. It also helps us see which communities are particularly segregated as a way of beginning to understand the problem we must confront and address.

More than half a century after the enactment national Fair Housing Act and nearly six decades since California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, the state remains racially segregated, with the Bay Area as a vivid case study. These segregated residential patterns shape the life chances of its residents, who not only reside in racially segregated neighborhoods, but attend racially segregated schools and have racially differentiated access to a plethora of public and private resources as well. Racial segregation, as we will show in more detail in part three, shapes life chances and is the main instrument of racial inequality.

Our next brief in this series will examine current and historical patterns of racial demographics which underlay these segregation maps. These maps will suggest how these communities became segregated by showing how racial change occurred in the Bay Area.

We anticipate that our briefs will generate a range of responses, including questions about how we define or conceptualize racial segregation. These briefs are presented in sequence so that we might also collect feedback and incorporate suggestions before compiling the briefs into a final report, so please send us your questions or ideas to HousingOBI@berkeley.edu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This map shows the lands in Solano County that are protected by policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With neo-Nazi, skinhead and Ku Klux Klan groups becoming increasingly visible with the Saturday violence and the death of a counterprotester in Charlottesville, Virginia, the question arises: Are any of those hate groups active in our area?

As far as I know, the answer is no. But it wasn't always that way.

Sam Matthews, Tracy Press publisher emeritus, can be reached at 830-4234 or by email at shm@tracypress.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sam Matthews recalls a time when local neo-Nazis drove around town.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.njchamber.com/index.php/about/nj-chamber-history/30-about/nj-chamber-history/230-thomas-a-edison

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Edison and New Jersey: A Shared Legacy of Innovation

A celebration of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce Centennial Anniversary would not be complete without a celebration of perhaps its most famous and influential founder - Thomas Alva Edison.

A petition signed by hundreds of New Jersey's most prominent businessmen in 1911 led to the formation of the state Chamber and the Chamber's original executive leadership invited Edison, by that time one of the nation's and the state's most prominent personalities, to serve as a vice president. Edison readily agreed.

As an innovator, Edison's impact on American life cannot be overstated. He was awarded 1,093 patents in his lifetime. That number was recently superseded by the owner of a floral business in Illinois who has thought up an incredible diverse number of ways to package and present flowers.

Total number of patents aside, no one supersedes Edison in his impact on modern American life. His most famous innovations -- the practical electric light bulb, the phonograph, and the motion picture brought this country into the 20th century technologically. These innovations also created whole new industries and millions of new jobs in New Jersey and across the globe.

New Jersey - The Patent State

New Jersey is a comfortable partner to Edison's legacy of innovation. The state has been awarded the fourth most patents in history.

Shortly after World War II, New Jersey researchers at Bell Laboratories gave the world the transistor, the building block for modern solid state electronics. Our state also gave the world the technology for the telephone network, broadcast and cable television and FM radio. New Jersey was birthplace and nursemaid to the laser, radar, sonar, solar panels, speech synthesis, bar codes and an equally dizzying array of medical and public health breakthroughs including water chlorination, blood pressure medicines, antibiotic creams, anti-arthritis drugs and the coronary artery stent.

New Jersey continues to build on this legacy today. Our state is home to corporate headquarters and significant R&D centers for many of the world's most innovative companies. Our state is second to California in the amount of R&D activity, and 7 percent of all U.S. dollars spent on R&D are spent here in New Jersey.

Innovation creates demand and demand creates markets. It remains a sure-first remedy out of an economic downturn, as Edison was quick to remind his contemporaries.

"Be courageous," he advised his countrymen during a tough economic stretch, "whatever setbacks America has encountered, it has always emerged as a stronger and more prosperous nation. Be brave as your fathers before you. Have faith and go forward."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The is the primary website of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Current U.S. Census statistics show that Vallejo is one of the most diverse cities in the nation. But it wasn't always that way, due to various discriminatory factors. This column focuses on one key element - race-restricted housing projects built in the 1930s and 1940s across a broad swath of our community.

Research into newspaper real estate ads and Solano County deed records covering those years shows that restrictions in at least a dozen large developments limited the sale or rental of homes only to Whites. Such restrictions, eventually found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable, were commonplace throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and the rest of the nation at the time.

All told, plans for these 12 developments called for about 3,500 homes. More research is likely to reveal still more restricted Vallejo-area subdivisions and push that home site total higher.

The newspaper ads and county records show that on the east side of Interstate 80, race-restricted Vallejo-area subdivisions built in the 1940s on what had been mostly ranch and farmland included Steffan Manor, Liberty Heights, Hiltons Addition and Castlewood Gardens. Another restricted project, the Highway Homes subdivision, was located on both sides of the highway.

On the west side of Interstate 80, subdivisions with Caucasian-only restrictions included Vista de Vallejo, Winslow Terrace, Greenfield Terrace, Fairmont Gardens, Leachman Park, Vallejo Highlands and Morningside Addition. The construction time frame on these developments was longer, dating to the early 1900s for Leachman Park and the early 1930s for the Vista.

Examples of the Jim Crow-type of wording that home-buyers in those subdivisions had to accept include this one from the Highway Homes project: "Neither said real property nor any interest therein, nor improvements thereon, shall be used or occupied by any member of other than Caucasian Race, but persons not of Caucasian Race may be kept thereon by a Caucasian occupant strictly in the capacity of servants of such occupant."

In the case of the Vista de Vallejo subdivision, a 1932 Times-Herald newspaper ad stated that "premises and each and every structure erected thereon shall not be sold, leased or conveyed to or occupied or inherited by any person whose blood is not that entirely of the Caucasian race."

The wording was included in lists of obligations, typically restrictive covenants or homeowner association bylaws, that home-buyers assumed. Their use was endorsed in a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stood until 1948 when the high court held it was unconstitutional to enforce them.

The court's 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer decision was unanimous, 6-0. Three of the nine justices excused themselves from participating because their objectivity might have been challenged - there were racial restrictions covering the homes in which they lived.

Despite the court's ruling, author Richard Rothstein, in his 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, wrote that the Federal Housing Administration and other federal agencies evaded and subverted the 1948 ruling, helping to preserve discriminatory "redlining" in housing for many more years. That appears to have been the case in Vallejo.

In 1960, 12 years after the Supreme Court decision, the U.S. Census showed that Vallejo was about 80 percent White and 16.5 percent Black. A breakdown shows that on the heavily race-restricted east side of Interstate 80 it was 95 percent White and only 3.3 percent Black. In one of the east-side developments, Castlewood Gardens, it was 99.4 percent White. The opposite was true on the north side of Vallejo for Country Club Crest, developed in the 1950s and marketed to African Americans: In 1960 it was 91.5 percent Black and 6.9 percent White.

The changes since then have been dramatic. A January 2022 report by National Demographics Corp., done as part of Vallejo's redistricting and based on the 2020 Census, showed much of the greatly expanded East Vallejo area with a current voting-age population that's 27 percent White, 16 percent Black, 11 percent Hispanic-Latino and 43 percent Asian-Pacific Islander.

The same report shows that the north side of Vallejo, which also has seen major growth over the years, now has a voting-age population that's 16 percent White, 25 percent Black, 33 percent Asian-Pacific Islander and 23 percent Hispanic-Latino. For the entire city of Vallejo, the current cultural and racial melting-pot aspect is clear: the voting-age population is 31 percent White, 23 percent Black, 18 percent Hispanic-Latino and 26 percent Asian-Pacific Islander.

The Whites-only wording in covenants and homeowner association bylaws now may be unenforceable, but Rothstein and other experts say they contributed to a longstanding wealth gap that hurt minorities. Those excluded from the housing market years ago were prevented from building home equity, often a stepping stone to wealth that can be passed down over generations.

The racial restrictions can still turn up in a home's title report, with a disclaimer saying they are void. In 2000, California established a process for homeowners who want to go a step further, allowing them to add a document to their file with the racial language deleted. The redacted documents sit atop the original but do not replace it. However, the Solano County Assessor-Recorder's office says there has been no rush by local homeowners to submit the necessary paperwork to modify their property records.
- Vallejo and other Solano County communities are treasure troves of early-day California history. My Solano Chronicles" column, running every other Sunday, highlights various aspects of that history. If you have local stories or photos to share, email me at genoans@hotmail.com. You can also send any material care of the Times-Herald, 420 Virginia St.; or the Vallejo Naval and Historical Museum, 734 Marin St., Vallejo 94590.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brendan Riley's Solano Chronicles: Racial redefining in Vallejo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Current U.S. Census statistics show that Vallejo is one of the most diverse cities in the nation. But it wasn't always that way, due to various discriminatory factors. This column focuses on one ke...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our mission is to bring awareness to the impact of historical systemic racism (in the form of redlining) in marginalized communities within Sacramento that still have major impacts today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our mission is to bring awareness to the impact of historical systemic racism (in the form of redlining) in marginalized communities within Sacramento that still have major impacts today.

# data[].attributes.body
"Since the Chamber's founding, New Jersey's economy has evolved and transitioned many times over, to the point where the founders would have a difficult time recognizing their state today."

"A petition signed by hundreds of New Jersey’s most prominent businessmen in 1911 led to the formation of the state Chamber and the Chamber’s original executive leadership invited Edison, by that time one of the nation’s and the state’s most prominent personalities, to serve as a vice president. Edison readily agreed."

# data[].attributes.headline
Segregating Sacramento Article: Oak Park, Land Park, etc

# data[].attributes.subject
Segregating Sacramento Article: Oak Park, Land Park, etc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Segregating Sacramento: How racial agreements shaped neighborhoods and quality of life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Sacramento region is built on race covenants that prevented people of color from living or purchasing property in certain neighborhoods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Segregating Sacramento:  How race covenants built neighborhoods | Part One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thanks for the website Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America, I have better copies of the Sacramento redlining map, which was produced in 1937 by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and th…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Redlining is the systematic practice of denying services to people in specific areas, generally along racial lines. This happened nationwide, but has had a large impact on Oakland over the years. The specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, ¹ but segregation and discrimination had of course existed long before that in Oakland. Racially restricted covenants such as the Lakeshore Homes Association's dating from 1917, explicitly barred selling or renting to Black or Asian people until such covenants became unenforceable through federal law.

In particular, people living in red areas of the map usually couldn't get home loans, and through restrictive covenants and direct discrimination, people of color often were not allowed to live anywhere else. Additionally, people of color paid more for lower quality homes in the redlined areas. This resulted in more white homeowners (even for comparable incomes), and "urban decay" in red areas. Business owners were also denied loans.

Links and References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Redlining is the systematic practice of denying services to people in specific areas, generally along racial lines. This happened nationwide, but has had a large impact on Oakland over the years. The specific practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, 1 but segregation and discrimination had of course existed long before that in Oakland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

VACAVILLE, Calif. (KTXL) - A property on Leisure Town Road in Solano County may soon be the location of a tiny home shelter project. But it's causing problems as residents say they only recently found out about the project. The Tiny Tuff Shed Project, originally approved by the Solano County Board of Supervisors, was supposed to break ground in 2018 on Brown Street in Vacaville. But now, Supervisor Skip Thompson confirms the tiny shelter project is being considered at a different location. Neighbors living near the proposed site said they recently found out about plans to relocate the project through their local newspaper. "Everybody who has lived here and tried to buy a house here have tried to improve their properties," resident Bob Dunn told FOX40. Dunn has lived next door to the property for four and a half years, which was formerly a group home named Hope House, and he says he now worries about his family's safety. "It turned our world upside down. Everything we that we wanted and that we thought we were going to come here for is gone," Dunn said. The previous location for the project in Vacaville was supposed to house 10 people, but residents were concerned about proximity to schools, diminishing property values and overall safety. "They didn't get their way over there, and it's not that this is an empty lot that no one wanted. There's people that want this lot," Dunn said. But according to staff reports, the county is hoping to purchase 6996 Leisure Town Road for $550,000. Thomson, who spearheaded the Brown Street Tuff Shed Project, confirmed over the phone that the Tiny Home Project is included in the new shelter plan. "It's concerning to not know the people that are going to be here," resident Roy Stockton said. "Are they sex registrants? Do they have mental health issues? Do they have substance abuse issues?" Residents say they want to help those in need of shelter, but they're asking for more transparency from the county. "Everybody that lives in this area deserves to know what the plan is so that they can make sure that their families are safe," Stockton said.

Supervisor Thompson released the following statement in response to the concerns:

"Using the Brown Street property for the tiny shelters project would have been most ideal due to the services that were needed being located next door. However, with the increasing NIMBY issues coming from the neighborhood, there was a safety concern for the individuals that would be staying in the tiny shelters. Leisure Town Road was a property that was chosen by the City Council and Mayor as a good location to house people due to the property having previously been a group home in which there doesn't appear to have been any problems. Transportation to services and other needs is still a concern, but it is my hope that when the County issues a request for proposals to run the project, transportation will be included in the contract. 6996 Leisure Town Road is a good compromise. It gives the County a chance to house even more people with individuals starting in the tiny homes and being able to graduate up into the home, and then on to permanent housing and is a property that the Mayor and City Council of Vacaville put forward as an ideal location."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vacaville residents worried about Tiny Homes project on Leisure Town Road

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
VACAVILLE, Calif. (KTXL) - A property on Leisure Town Road in Solano County may soon be the location of a tiny home shelter project. But it's causing problems as residents say they only recently found out about the project. The Tiny Tuff Shed Project, originally approved by the Solano County Board of Supervisors, was supposed [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
High cost of homes. Lack of affordable housing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Palo Alto is a city located in 137th 602nd Santa Clara County California. With a 2023 population of 63,210, it is the largest city in California and the largest city in the United States. Palo Alto is currently declining at a rate of -2.64% annually and its population has decreased by -7.7% since the most recent census, which recorded a population of 68,486 in 2020. Spanning over 26 miles, Palo Alto has a population density of 2,650 people per square mile.

The average household income in Palo Alto is $232,529 with a poverty rate of 6.7%. The median rental costs in recent years comes to - per month, and the median house value is -. The median age in Palo Alto is 42.6 years, 40.8 years for males, and 44.6 years for females.

Palo Alto is located in Santa Clara County within the Bay Area. This city is known for having one of the highest costs of living in the United States, as well as having one of the most educated populations in the nation.

Palo Alto Population Statistics

Palo Alto is home to over 7,000 businesses which provide jobs to over 98,000 people. Notable businesses in the area include the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Amazon's A9.com, HP, Houzz, and Xerox.

Palo Alto Population Growth

Palo Alto experienced substantial growth in its early years, although that growth has slowed in recent years. The population in 1920 was climbing toward 6,000 and more than doubled at the time of the next census in 1930. The population in 1950 surpassed 25,000 before doubling again in 1960. It was about this time that growth slowed before declining by 1.5% in 1980. However, the next census in 1990 showed that the population was on the rise again and has continued to grow ever since. Recent population estimates show that it has increased over 4% since the last census in 2010, indicating that while growth has slowed, it should be expected to continue.

The region that is now Palo Alto was originally inhabited by the Ohlone. The city was not explored by the Europeans until 1769, according to written records. It was in 1777 when Father Junipero Serra established Mission Santa Clara de Asis, which was under the control of Spain. After the Mexican War of Independence, Mexico was made an independent country, and the land sold or granted.

Following the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexican citizens could choose to become U.S. citizens, and their land grants count be recognized. The grant Rando Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito was granted in 1841 and was sold in 1849. A hacienda was constructed that was the site of bullfights and fiestas but was destroyed during an earthquake in 1906.

In 1855, a township by the name of Mayfield was established. The San Francisco and San Jose railroad was extended to Mayfield in 1863. In 1875, a French financier purchased land that came to be known as Ayrshire Farm. Another man, Leland Stanford, began purchasing property and established the Palo Alto Stock Farm. He also bought Ayrshire Farm, which sold to Leland Stanford St., the founder of Stanford University. Before founding the university, Stanford wanted to build the college in Mayfield but had a condition that alcohol was to be banned from the town. However, this didn't happen and led to the establishment of Temperance Town. Stanford University was established, and a train stop was located in the area. The area was initially known as University Park but upon its incorporation in the late 1900s was named Palo Alto.

Palo Alto quickly grew to be as large as Mayfield, and in the 20th century, Mayfield was annexed to become part of Palo Alto. More land was annexed as the city continued to grow, both in terms of development and population.

Today, the city's economy revolves around the tech industry, as it is a focal point of Silicon Valley. It also has a large student population because of Stanford University. The residents of Palo Alto are some of the most educated in the country. However, Palo Alto has become known as a city with one of the highest costs of living in the nation.

Palo Alto Demographics

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Palo Alto was:

White: 56.33%

Asian: 33.34%

Two or more races: 6.54%

Black or African American: 1.9%

Other race: 1.39%

Native American: 0.41%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.08%

The current population of Palo Alto, California is 63,210 based on our projections of the latest US Census estimates.The last official US Census in 2020 recorded the population at 68,486.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The New Deal
In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the New Deal - a series of programs aimed at economic recovery during the Great Depression. Two of the programs focused on increasing homeownership by #1 insuring home loans and #2 financially supporting the development of new suburban neighborhoods. Those home loans, issued through the Federal Housing Act (FHA), were generally only given to white home buyers, resulting in Redlining. Additionally, the developments that received federal financial support during this time were subsidized under the condition that the homes could not be sold to Black home buyers, resulting in racist Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Consequently, while these programs helped the economy, they also resulted in federally sponsored housing segregation. These federal practices, and many others, were reinforced at state and local levels - including here in San Leandro, where African Americans were intentionally excluded from buying homes and renting.

What is Redlining?
Today, the word redlining is often used as an umbrella term for many forms of racist housing discrimination. The term comes from maps the Federal government created for 142 urban areas across the country in 1934. Parts of cities were color-coded to identify where it was safe to insure mortgages. Red was the lowest rating, indicating areas too risky to insure loans. Green, (generally the newer, white neighborhoods) indicated areas ideal for home loans. The basis for determining the color of a neighborhood was predominantly racial makeup, along with income level and occupation of those living there.

The maps were part of a government home loan manual that stated: "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities." To achieve this desired segregation, the government denied insured home loans to African Americans. The justification for this was the thought that Black residents caused property value to decline and, in turn, would hurt federal investments. Even though there was evidence that opposed this theory, without the ability to get a government insured loan, most African American families had to buy homes on contract - building no equity and not allowing for any type of financial or upward mobility.
Side Notes:
Asian Exclusion
The 1924 Immigration Act went beyond the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act by excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and restricting immigrants from other Asian countries including Japan. For Asian immigrants already in the U.S., this forced them to create a society of their own, living separate from the surrounding community. So, the Chinatowns and Japantowns that we now celebrate for their cultural heritage, were created because of systematic discrimination.

Home Ownership
The birth of the American, single-family ideology came from a government campaign to promote home ownership that started after World War I. The government viewed home ownership as a way to combat communism in the U.S. - if you "owned a home, you couldn't be a Communist." (Richard Rothstein, "Color of Law")

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please consider joining more than 2,200 other Oaklandside readers and chip in to support our work. And your donation will be matched!

Thank you for supporting The Oaklandside and being part of our community. If you can chip in something extra, your donation will be matched!

Yes, I'll chip in today!

Yes, I'll chip in today!

Most neighborhoods in East Oakland are considered highly segregated, according to a new interactive study by UC Berkeley researchers. Credit: Amir Aziz

Oakland is the 14th most segregated major city in the U.S., according to a new project from UC Berkeley researchers. Different racial groups tend to be isolated in different neighborhoods, resulting in dramatic racial disparities in access to resources and poorer health outcomes for people of color.

While Oakland is among the cities at the top of the list, the Roots of Structural Racism project, from the Othering & Belonging Institute, found that more than 80% of the country's metropolitan areas have become more segregated since 1990, contrary to the popular assumption that fair housing laws led to more integrated cities and neighborhoods-and despite rising diversity in many of those locations.

"Oakland is one of the most diverse places in the world," said Stephen Menendian, the project's lead author, during a press conference. Yet the project, which includes an interactive map, reveals that Oakland has been considered "highly segregated" since 1980, the first year of data the research includes. In 2019, Oakland was in the 92nd percentile of segregation, and compared to all other U.S. cities with populations over 200,000, Oakland ranked 14th most segregated.

In order to track segregation rates, researchers used a new measure, called the "divergence index," that's understood to be much more precise than typical measures. The divergence index calculates how much the demographics of a given area, like a neighborhood, "diverge" or differ from a larger geography, like a city or county. The study authors say this paints a much more accurate and nuanced picture of segregation, compared to less sophisticated metrics that look at the diversity of a neighborhood in isolation. It also includes more racial groups than, say, just segregation between Black and white people.

The map allows users to zoom in to look at the segregation rates and racial makeup of neighborhoods, cities, or metro areas, based on census data. You can toggle between years to see how locations have changed over time, and look at numerous different measures of segregation. Note that as of publication time, overuse of the map was reportedly causing intermittent glitches.

Very few Oakland neighborhoods are integrated, according to a new UC Berkeley study. Credit: Othering & Belonging Institute (screenshot)

Hardly any neighborhoods in Oakland are considered "racially integrated" by these metrics. Just a few census tracts in the Dimond and Laurel districts, above I-580 and directly above Highway 13, as well as the Cleveland Heights tract, received low divergence scores and thus are not considered segregated.

By contrast, a deep East Oakland tract that borders San Leandro has remained around the 95th percentile of segregation since 1980. The map doesn't only say whether an area is segregated or not, but drills down further to show whether its segregation is due to white people living in concentration with each other, or people of color living in concentration. The East Oakland tract has "high POC segregation," though the racial demographics have changed tremendously over time: In 1980, the tract was 76% Black, whereas now it's 65% Latino.

North Oakland's Longfellow neighborhood is also considered to have "high POC segregation," but it's become less segregated in recent years, shifting from the 97th percentile in 1980, to the 91st in 2010, to the 79th in 2019. But sometimes increased integration can be a harbinger of gentrification, say researchers.

A neighborhood's segregation level influences everything from residents' average lifespans to incomes.

"Segregation remains one of the principal causes of group-based inequality, by separating people from life-enhancing resources, such as good schools, healthy environments, and access to jobs," the UC Berkeley researchers wrote in an extensive report about their findings.

"These things are at the core of what we mean by systemic and structural racism in the U.S.," said Menendian at an Othering & Belonging Institute event.

"Median household income, home value, and ownership rates in segregated white communities are much higher than in segregated communities of color," added co-author Samir Gambhir. He noted that Black and Latino people who are raised in segregated white neighborhoods end up earning higher incomes as adults, confirming a "structural problem" related to access to resources and opportunity, not one associated with race itself.

The study also reveals the detrimental decades-long impacts of historical racist housing policies. The project allows users to map formerly redlined areas-the areas considered hazardous or declining by the federal government, and thus denied access to mortgage loans in the 1930s-against current segregation rates. Researchers found that 83% of neighborhoods formerly redlined, such as much of East and West Oakland, were still "highly segregated communities of color" in 2010.

The project creators say they hope the mapping tool will be used by regular community members seeking to understand more about their communities, as well as groups compiling local histories, and "grassroots organizations and fair housing advocates" working on policy change.

While recent police killings and the unequal impacts of the pandemic have increased societal awareness of racial disparities and systemic racism, the authors say, "there remains a surprising lack of appreciation for the centrality of racial residential segregation in forming and sustaining these disparities."

The report doesn't propose specific integration policies to undo segregation, but the project builds on previous work by the Othering & Belonging Institute that highlighted segregation in the Bay Area and focused on the role of single-family zoning and other restrictive land-use policies in isolating communities. Oakland is among the cities that have recently pledged to allow more density in residential neighborhoods.

Before you go...

Can you help us make a difference?

The reporters and editors on The Oaklandside are dedicated to sharing the mic, reporting on systems, not symptoms, and providing you with the information you need to be an informed resident of our city. If you value what you get from The Oaklandside, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can continue doing the local reporting that matters to you.

A generous group of supporters are matching all new donations. They've pledged $50,000 in matching funds and are matching donations dollar-for-dollar through our December 31 deadline. Will you chip into The Oaklandside today and double the impact of your donation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How segregated is your Oakland neighborhood?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please consider joining more than 2,200 other Oaklandside readers and chip in to support our work. And your donation will be matched! Thank you for supporting The Oaklandside and being part of our community. If you can chip in something extra, your donation will be matched! Yes, I'll chip in today!

# data[].attributes.headline
"Across West Oakland, there are more than 130 active toxic sites. West Oakland grew up as an industrial powerhouse some 150 years ago when the transcontinental railroad ended its long journey here. Over time, shipbuilding, metal foundries, auto yards and dry cleaners filled this corner of Oakland. Racist home lending policies like redlining relegated Black people to this neighborhood."

# data[].attributes.subject
"Across West Oakland, there are more than 130 active toxic sites. West Oakland grew up as an industrial powerhouse some 150 years ago when the transcontinental railroad ended its long journey here. Over time, shipbuilding, metal foundries, auto yards and dry cleaners filled this corner of Oakland. Racist home lending policies like redlining relegated Black people to this neighborhood."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rising sea levels are a danger in West Oakland, Calif., where some residents and activists believe climate justice is a form of reparations.

SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST:

Now to Northern California and the threat one community of color faces because of rising sea levels. KQED climate reporter Ezra David Romero takes us to West Oakland in the San Francisco Bay Area. Those rising sea levels make residents there vulnerable to flooding and to toxins that have long polluted surrounding areas. And residents say protecting them from that threat, or what's known as climate justice, is a form of reparations.

EZRA DAVID ROMERO, BYLINE: Thousands of people live in West Oakland, a bridge away from San Francisco, boxed in by freeways, a port and numerous industries. Margaret Gordon shows me around the northern edge of the neighborhood.

So where are we going to go?

MARGARET GORDON: OK. We're going to go over the overpass.

ROMERO: We pass charcoal-gray and white condominiums about a half mile from San Francisco Bay. As seas continue to rise. Gordon, who founded the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, foresees a looming disaster.

GORDON: These will be the first victims of a sea level rise.

ROMERO: And not only from surface flooding. Between these homes and the bay are hazardous sites like an old army base contaminated with petroleum and other chemicals. That contamination can move around as water under the ground rises.

GORDON: Those toxic soils will be a hindrance to the community.

KRISTINA HILL: There are going to be surprises, and they're going to be real health risks.

ROMERO: Kristina Hill directs the Institute for Urban and Regional Development at UC Berkeley. Rising seas move inland on top of the land and underneath it.

HILL: The seawater actually comes under the land, almost like it's sticking its toe under the freshwater.

ROMERO: That seawater pushes the freshwater up, where it can mix with contamination. As the pollution loosens, it can release poisonous gases in and around sewer and water pipes.

HILL: The gas can enter buildings, workplaces, schools and homes through cracks in the concrete slab foundation.

ROMERO: Across West Oakland, there are more than 130 active toxic sites. West Oakland grew up as an industrial powerhouse some 150 years ago when the transcontinental railroad ended its long journey here. Over time, shipbuilding, metal foundries, auto yards and dry cleaners filled this corner of Oakland. Racist home lending policies like redlining relegated Black people to this neighborhood.

DOROTHY LAZARD: It is a lesson in discrimination and disregard and diminishment of a population that is helping build a city.

ROMERO: Dorothy Lazard grew up in West Oakland. She retired two years ago as the managing librarian of the Oakland History Center. Lazard said the policy of eminent domain decimated Black neighborhoods and business districts, allowing governments to seize land and destroy homes, to build freeways and a commuter train line.

LAZARD: Claiming eminent domain is, to me, kind of commensurate to colonialism. You know, it's kind of like we can use this as our dumping ground because we've already devalued this space.

ROMERO: Lazard says racist policies exposed residents to life-threatening environmental pollution without their consent.

LAZARD: Those impulses are still there.

ROMERO: Margaret Gordon sits on a park bench in front of her apartment as semi trucks crawl the street and a commuter train zips by. She tells me climate justice must mean reparations.

GORDON: To me, the reparation movement is the next level of civil rights.

ROMERO: For Gordon, reparations mean more than payment to the descendants of slaves. They mean actions that restore consent to the community, like cleaning up toxic sites, economic opportunities and power and planning decisions about climate resilience.

GORDON: We would have long-standing sustainability. I would know that there's going to be housing for my children, grandchildren. There's going to be a job for them.

OLUFEMI TAIWO: Climate change and reparations in terms of a response to the history of racial injustice have the same roots.

ROMERO: Olufemi Taiwo is an associate professor at Georgetown University. He's the author of the book "Reconsidering Reparations" with a chapter on climate reparations.

TAIWO: Even if you didn't buy the historical story about why reparations and climate crisis are linked, there is a straightforward, practical story of if you want to actually change who faces what level of death, disease and displacement, this is something that you should pay attention to.

ROMERO: He says climate justice and reparations are the same project. For NPR News, I'm Ezra David Romero in West Oakland.

Copyright © 2023 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Toxic sea level rise threatens a West Oakland community

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rising sea levels are a danger in West Oakland, Calif., where some residents and activists believe climate justice is a form of reparations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New government rules will require all cities and towns receiving federal housing funds to assess patterns of segregation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ms. Whitby was new to the dormitory. Not long before she moved in, the Richmond Housing Authority, who managed the apartments, had finally been forced by civil rights advocates to open its doors to Black women. Despite the order, the housing authority was intent on limiting the number of Black tenants, and where that failed, segregating and harassing them

For people in Ms. Whitby's situation, finding alternative safe housing was not easy. The real estate market was filled with racial housing covenants : contracts written into deeds forbidding future owners from selling to, renting to, or at times even letting Black people onto their property. As Ms. Whitby's case shows, public housing wasn't much better. The San Francisco Housing Authority kept tightly segregated facilities and only allowed Black people to live in one low-income building.

The ACLU News archive, dating back to 1945, documents the various forms of legalized housing discrimination leveled at Black people in Northern California, and also charts severe backlash to progress, whenever it was made. It provides a snapshot of the ways that businesses, the state, and individuals partnered to exclude Black people from the accumulation of wealth through dispossession and the denial of their means to secure a home.

California's policies of housing discrimination prevented the accumulation of generational wealth and was part of the systemic racism that drained Black communities of opportunities and resources. According to the Public Policy Institute of California , Black people are "two times more likely to be earning at low income levels than at high income levels." White families, by contrast, are more than twice as likely to be earning at the highest income levels. The racial disparities are even greater when you measure wealth instead of income . According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank, Black households in the L.A. metro area have about 1% of the household wealth as white households.

The criminalization of the houseless continues to this day. We have seen a recent resurges up and down state: in , in , and in . Wherever these policies are passed, they cause great harm: attacking people's dignity, jeopardizing people's health, and keeping those most in need of support and stability living on a knife's edge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the ACLU News Archive: The Fight Against Housing Discrimination in California is a Story of Progress and Backlash | ACLU of Northern CA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ms. Whitby was new to the dormitory. Not long before she moved in, the Richmond Housing Authority, who managed the apartments, had finally been forced by civil rights advocates to open its doors to Black women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years, racist housing deeds and covenants explicitly banned people of color from living in certain housing tracts and certain neighborhoods all over the country, including in Monterey County.

Assistant County Planner Taylor Price says housing deeds found in places like Salinas, Pacific Grove and Pebble Beach explicitly banned Chinese and Japanese people from living in certain neighborhoods. A sample deed from Pacific Grove the reported on in 2013 read, "The premises herein described... shall not be in any manner used or occupied by Asiatics or Negroes;... [buyers] agree not to sell or lease the said property... excepting to persons belonging to the Caucasian race; and agree not to lease, sell... to any person born in the Turkish empire, nor to any lineal descendant... except that persons of said races may be employed as household servants."

While discriminatory language like this is now illegal, in many places, it is still on the books. Passed into law last year, California Assembly Bill 1466 seeks to rectify that by requiring local governments to remove racist language from housing deeds and property records.

On Oct. 4, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors agreed to take a step beyond the new law's requirements, and to work toward creating an educational project that will outline the history of housing covenants and segregated housing in the county.

"It's really important because residents oftentimes don't realize that these covenants affected communities and how they look," Price says. "Awareness is one of those first steps to get people to make significant changes to their lives."

Price expects that it will take the county's Recorder's Office about four to five years to locate racist language used in deeds stretching back to the 1860s across the county. For historical purposes, the original unedited copies will be kept on file, as well as the updated editions.

Price is part of a multi-agency county group - including the Clerk/Recorder's Office, the Housing and Community Development Department and the County Health Department - that is now working on a project to research the history of racist housing covenants and segregated housing in Monterey County. Beyond developing that work, a critical step will be sharing it with the public in order to not just educate, but to "keep us on a more equitable course going forward," Melanie Beretti, the principal planner for the county, told the board before they voted on Oct. 4.

Price and other members of the group were inspired by Marin County's Restrictive Covenant Project, that county's response to AB 1466, which pulled research from multiple county agencies to create a history of discriminatory housing practices in Marin County. That includes an interactive map that shows the location of subdivisions which had racist housing covenants.

Marin County's project goes beyond just reflecting on the past and goes on to address the effects of those housing covenants on contemporary housing inequity issues in the county, including the lack of affordable housing, generational wealth inequities and zoning issues.

"It's kind of the long-lasting effects of red-lining from 80 to 90 years ago. It's amazing what resides with us in terms of policy from that long ago," says Jodi Olson, the chief deputy recorder-county clerk for Marin County.

Price says Monterey County's project could potentially include similar information to Marin's, but since the effort is just beginning, they haven't gotten that far.

Explicitly racist housing covenants that prevent people of certain ethnicities from living in certain housing have been banned by federal law for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1948 ruled in the case Shelly v. Kraemer that housing covenants banning people of a certain race were unenforceable. Then the Civil Rights Act of 1968 forbade property owners from refusing to sell or rent housing to people based on their race, color, religion or place of national origin. More recent regulations include bans on explicitly discriminating against LGBTQ+ people.

Even with prohibitions on exclusionary language, effects of the past still linger today.

"Who you are and where you live matters in terms of your overall health. Things that happened decades ago, we're still seeing the results of it," says Vicente Lara, the Health In All Policies director for the county Health Department. "The way communities developed over time, the built environment, was really laid decades ago and we're still seeing the results of the disproportionate allocation of resources to those communities' health."

Lara hopes that the project will help people realize that these disparities didn't just pop up overnight, and that county leaders can look to the group's work to understand and address the current housing crisis by understanding its historical roots.

"As local leaders make decisions as to how to address the housing crisis, I think it's important they have this information to inform them about how to make housing more equitable," Lara says. "Hopefully this can add to the conversation so we don't continue with some of these disparities that we've seen."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A new group sets out to explore the history of racist housing covenants in Monterey County.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For years, racist housing deeds and covenants explicitly banned people of color from living in certain housing tracts and certain neighborhoods all over the country, including in Monterey County.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Rumsen Ohlone Peoples (the true first people of the land that is now Carmel)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Rumsen Ohlone Peoples (the true first people of the land that is now Carmel)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Omesia Teyoc, a Rumsen woman born and baptized at Mission San Carlos Borroméo de Carmelo

The Rumsen (also known as Rumsien, San Carlos Costanoan, and Carmeleno) are one of eight groups of the Ohlone, an indigenous people of California. Their historical territory included coastal and inland areas within what is now Monterey County, California, including the Monterey Peninsula. Today, like other Ohlone, Rumsen do not have federal recognition but continue to sustain their culture and community presence in central California. This is despite the fact the Rumsen signed a treaty with the United States: the Treaty of Camp Belt, signed May 13, 1851. The treaty was then taken to Washington DC and hidden for 30 years while the US government attempted to learn if the land and water sources they "gave" to these tribes had gold in their streams or rivers.[citation needed ]

The Rumsen historically shared a common language, Rumsen, which was spoken from the Pajaro River to Point Sur, and on the lower courses of the Pajaro, as well as on the Salinas and Carmel Rivers, and the region of the present-day cities of Salinas, Monterey and Carmel Valley.

The Rumsen tribe held the lower Carmel River Valley and neighboring Monterey Peninsula at the time of Spanish colonization. Their population of approximately 400 to 500 people was distributed among at least five villages within their territory. An early 20th-century mapping of a specific village called Rumsen on the Carmel River, several miles inland from the Mission in Carmel, may or may not be accurate. Mission registers indicate that " Tucutnut", about three miles upstream from the mouth of the Carmel River, was the largest village of the Rumsen local tribe.

Rumsen individuals lined up at Mission San Carlos Borroméo de Carmelo

The Rumsen were the first Costanoan people to be seen and documented by the Spanish explorers of Northern California, as noted by Sebastian Vizcaíno when he reached Monterey in 1602. Since this first Spanish contact, Manila galleons may have occasionally ventured up the California coastline and stopped in Monterey Bay between 1602 and 1769.

Graves of the Rumsen who died at Mission San Carlos Borroméo de Carmelo

During the era of Spanish missions in California, the Rumsen people's lives changed when the Spaniards came from the south to build the Mission San Carlos Borroméo de Carmelo and the Monterey Presidio in their territory. The baptism of many was coerced between 1771 and 1808. Once baptized, the Rumsen people were enslaved and forced to live in the mission village and its surrounding ranches. They were taught as Catholic neophytes, also known as Mission Indians, until the missions were secularized (discontinued) by the Mexican Government in 1834. Some Mission San Carlos Indian people were formally deeded plots upon secularization, only to have those plots stolen during the Rancho Period.

At least since the mission era, the people of the Esselen Nation claim close association with the Rumsen Ohlone, through Mission integration and intermarriage.

Dialects of the Rumsen language were spoken by four independent local tribes, including the Rumsen themselves, the Ensen of the Salinas vicinity, the Calendaruc of the central shoreline of Monterey Bay, and the Sargentaruc of the Big Sur Coast. The territory of the language group was bordered by Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Awaswas Ohlone to the north, the Mutsun Ohlone to the east, the Chalon Ohlone on the southeast, and the Esselen to the south.

Linda Yamane is an Ohlone scholar and basket weaver who traces her heritage to the Rumsen Ohlone. She has spent more than 30 years researching and reviving Rumsen language, stories, songs, basketry, and other Ohlone cultural traditions.

Hinton, Leanne (2001). "The Ohlone Languages". The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 425-432. ISBN 0-12-349354-4.

Levy, Richard (1978). Robert F. Heizer, William C. Sturtevant (ed.). Costanoan. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8 (California). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. pp. 485-495. ISBN 0-16-004578-9.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Rumsen (also known as Rumsien, San Carlos Costanoan, and Carmeleno) are one of eight groups of the Ohlone, an indigenous people of California. Their historical territory included coastal and inland areas within what is now Monterey County, California, including the Monterey Peninsula.

# data[].attributes.headline
From the city of Carmel's website: The history of Carmel began with Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo’s first sighting of the white-sand beach and pine forest of Carmel 50 years after Columbus discovered America. In 1602, another venturesome Spaniard, Sebastian Vizcaino, and three Carmelite friars found a river valley that they named “El Rio Carmelo.” 

# data[].attributes.subject
From the city of Carmel's website: The history of Carmel began with Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo’s first sighting of the white-sand beach and pine forest of Carmel 50 years after Columbus discovered America. In 1602, another venturesome Spaniard, Sebastian Vizcaino, and three Carmelite friars found a river valley that they named “El Rio Carmelo.” 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The history of Carmel began with Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo's first sighting of the white-sand beach and pine forest of Carmel 50 years after Columbus discovered America. In 1602, another venturesome Spaniard, Sebastian Vizcaino, and three Carmelite friars found a river valley that they named "El Rio Carmelo." On June 3, 1771, Father Junipero Serra founded the second California mission, which still stands on the edge of present day Carmel-by-the-Sea. The mission was secularized in 1833 and the City of Carmel incorporated on October 31, 1916.

The small village of Carmel-by-the-Sea represents a microcosm of everything that has contributed to the California dream - independence, creativity and tireless spirit. Carmel's early residents, which included authors George Sterling, Jack London and poet Robinson Jeffers, settled in Carmel in tents, built smoky fires in the woods, picnicked on the beach and cooked abalone stew in the fireplace.

These early inhabitants were determined to create an intellectual oasis on the inspiring, sparsely populated Central Coast of California. Further prompted by the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906, members of the city's cultural community decided to make Carmel their permanent home. Their migration firmly established Carmel as a progressive artistic and cultural hub in Northern California.

Intent on promoting an environment conducive to creativity, Carmel's founders fought to ensure the proliferation and appreciation of art, drama and literature. By 1915, the Outdoor Forest Theater was presenting celebrated performances and the theater became a central part of Carmel life.

The Carmel library boasted almost 3,000 volumes - proof that the village maintained a special appreciation for history and the arts. Additionally, every issue of the local paper, the Carmel Pine Cone, featured original poetry, and local theater productions often commanded the lead story on page one.

By the time Carmel-by-the-Sea became a city in 1916, the population had grown to almost 450. The village was composed of luminaries such as authors Sinclair Lewis, Mary Austin and Lincoln Steffens. At one point, local writers Grace Sartwell Mason, Frederick Becholdt and Harry Leon Wilson all appeared in the same week's edition of the Saturday Evening Post. And, legend has it that Robert Louis Stevenson received his inspiration for Treasure Island while walking on the beach near Point Lobos.

The natural environment was also of primary concern to the residents of Carmel, who were dedicated to the preservation of the sparkling blue seas and majestic Monterey pine trees. To that end, in 1917, Ordinance No. 7 was adopted, which made it a misdemeanor to "cut down, remove, injure or mutilate any tree, shrub or bush growing or standing on any of the streets, squares, parks or public places." The law is still on the books and is strictly enforced. Their efforts have resulted in a legacy of external harmony where the ocean, land and native creatures have remained relatively untouched.

During the 1920s, Carmel-by-the-Sea, like the rest of the nation, flourished in an economy run rampant. But as the Great Depression took hold, real estate prices tumbled for the first time. Some locals bemoaned the fact that grocers no longer offered personal credit to Carmel's starving writer class. Said one wag, "Time was when the Carmel grocer was big brother to many a writer and artist struggling toward fame and a check that would pay for ham and eggs." The economic situation improved when Roosevelt took over the Presidency, and 50 local writers found jobs with the Federal Writing Project, whose office occupied a small cubby next to the village post office.

Having weathered its way through World War II, during the 1960s, Carmel-by-the-Sea continued on the forefront of creativity. Lucky tourists could watch Donald Teague demonstrate the development of his illustration for Sergeant Houck, a story in Colliers. Or for those who preferred photography, Edward Weston's work was displayed at the New Group Gallery's first photographic exhibition. Isaac Stern thrilled music lovers with a program for the Carmel Music Society.

During the 1960s and '70s, Carmel strengthened and grew, with an increasing amount of business activity taking place downtown. Artists continued to reside in the village, quite often transcending modern changes in the city. The list of creative residents was endless: impressionist artist William Ritschel, noted psychologist Dr. Eric Berne and Leon Uris, author of Exodus.

Carmel was introduced into the international spotlight during the mid-1980's, when motion-picture star, Clint Eastwood, served a two-year stint as mayor. Through the years, Carmel's small-town charm and appreciation of art and culture has remained intact. Today, there is a new breed of artist who may be more private, but the feeling of those who create from the unknown still abounds. Carmel-by-the-Sea continues to provide locals and visitors with a taste of history, past and present, and a glimpse toward tomorrow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Carmel * Carmel-by-the-Sea * Carmel Chamber of Commerce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The history of Carmel and its early residents include Father Junipero Serra, authors George Sterling and Jack London and poet Robinson Jeffers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Most Segregated Communities in the Bay Area

# data[].attributes.subject
Most Segregated Communities in the Bay Area

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

From 2018 to 2020, we undertook a five-part investigation of racial residential segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area. We studied the nature and extent of racial residential segregation, demographic change, and harmful effects, using different measures of segregation. Our final brief of the series offered possible policy solutions.

Although our study was focused on neighborhoods (census tracts) and regions (Metropolitan Statistical Areas and counties), we separately examined city-level segregation in an addendum. In that addendum, published in November of 2020, we ranked every city in the Bay Area from most to least segregated internally and in terms of segregation from the surrounding region.

Using the recently-released 2020 Census data, we now update these findings and lists. In addition, we rank the top 10 most segregated neighborhoods in the Bay Area for every major racial group. This is the first time we will have presented this analysis (although we identified specific racial concentrations in Part 2 of our original series).

To contextualize this information, we report that, according to the 2020 Census, the nine-county Bay Area region is 36 percent white, 28 percent Asian, 24 percent Latino, 6 percent Black, and 6.5 percent "other," including American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN), Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (NHPI), and multi-race populations.
Key Findings:

Two of the three most segregated Black neighborhoods are in San Francisco's Bay View/Hunter's Point region

Six of the 10 most segregated Black neighborhoods are in Oakland

The most segregated Latino neighborhood is in San Rafael's Canal region, with the next four in Oakland

The most segregated Asian neighborhood is around San Francisco's Chinatown, with the next three in Fremont

The most segregated white neighborhoods are in small, sparsely populated areas like Ross, Belvedere, Mill Valley, and Los Gatos

The most segregated (intra-municipal) city is Oakland, followed by San Rafael, San Jose, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Francisco, Richmond, South San Francisco, Union City, and Dublin

The most segregated (inter-municipal) city is East Palo Alto, followed by San Anselmo, Mill Valley, San Pablo, Tiburon, American Canyon, Los Gatos, Gilroy, Lafayette, and Orinda

The most integrated (inter-municipal) cities are Rohnert Park, Windsor, Petaluma, Pinole, Suisun City, and Cloverdale

Three counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in 2010: Marin, Napa, and Sonoma, with Marin being the most segregated county in the region by far.

Although 7 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.

Defining Segregation

Segregation is the separation across space of one or more groups of people from each other on the basis of their group identity. Racial segregation is the separation of people from each other on the basis of race. Racial residential segregation is the separation of people on the basis of race in terms of residence, rather than some other form, such as occupational or educational segregation, or the segregation of public accomodations, such as buses, trains, or theaters. These forms of segregation can occur together or not. Places of worship may remain segregated, for example, even as schools and workplaces integrate. We discuss the definition of segregation in more depth in Part 3 of our Bay Area segregation report series.

Change in Racial Segregation, 2010-2020

Like most of the country, the Bay Area's racial demographics and residential patterns continue to evolve. Figure 2 below is a map that illustrates changes in the "divergence score," our preferred measure of segregation, across the Bay Area from 2010 to 2020. Light blue areas show relative declines in racial residential segregation while red shades show relative increases.

In Part 3 of this series, we presented tables indicating the change in Divergence Index values over the decades by County as well similar change-over-time maps (specifically, we presented a map showing change in Divergence Index scores from 1980 to 2010). In part 5 of our series, "Remedies, Solutions and Targets," we presented a table projecting the level of racial residential segregation into the future, all the way to 2030. Using 2020 Census data, we now present the updated change, showing county-level divergence scores from 1970 through 2020, in Figure 3 below.

The good news is that, as a region, the San Francisco Bay Area is slightly less segregated as of 2020 than it was in 2010. Not only have overall regional levels of segregation slightly declined, but only three counties are also more segregated as of 2020 than they were in 2010: Marin, Napa and Sonoma. The other six counties had declines in divergence scores. Even better, 5 of the 8 counties for which we made projections and set numerical targets for 2020, 2025 and 2030 (in Table 4 of Part 5) outperformed not only our projections but also the target goals we set, which we argued could be achieved if deliberate desegregative policies, such as those we recommended there, were pursued. Alameda and Santa Clara's divergence scores were not only below projections, but below 2020 targets if such policies were implemented. Solano, Sonoma and Napa's scores were not only lower than projections, but lower than the targets we set for 2020, 2025, and 2030. In each of these cases, either our projections were too pessimistic or efforts towards greater desegregation are succeeding in those counties. Overall, racial residential segregation appears to have peaked around 2000.

The bad news is that the Bay Area is significantly more segregated than it was in 1970, 1980, or even 1990. Eight of the 9 counties are more segregated as of 2020 than they were in 1970, and 7 of the 9 are more segregated in 2020 than they were in 1980. And some counties, like Marin and Napa, are significantly more segregated than they were in previous decades - as shown in Figure 4 below. Three counties, Contra Costa, San Francisco and San Mateo disappointingly yielded divergence scores that were higher than we projected for 2020, even though their overall scores declined. The decline in measured levels of segregation was not as steep as we had anticipated, suggesting more work needs to be done to address this problem.

Finally, we present a time-lapse map in Figure 5, immediately below, in which users can observe these changes from a holistic, birds-eye perspective of the 9-county Bay Area.

The Most Segregated Communities in the Bay Area

As we described in our 2020 addendum and in Part 3 of our series, there are two types of measurable segregation: neighborhood or "intra-municipal" segregation, and regional segregation, or "inter-municipal" segregation. The former measures the degree of segregation internal to a city or municipality. The latter measures the degree of segregation experienced by this community in relation to the larger region.

Large cities like Oakland tend to have much more neighborhood segregation than regional segregation, since they are so diverse. In contrast, heavily white suburbs or exurban towns tend to have very little internal segregation, but are highly divergent in terms of their racial demographics from the surrounding region.

There are 101 cities in the Bay Area, but this time, our segregation measure excludes those with fewer than 10,000 people, giving us a total of 86 cities we can rank. A complete list, alphabetically ordered, is available for download here.

Here are the top 20 cities with the highest levels of "inter-municipal" or regional segregation in the Bay Area:
Table 1: The 20 Most Segregated Cities in the Bay Area
There are 101 incorporated municipalities in the Bay Area, and so it is a simple matter to rank all of them by their divergence score. Looking at inter-municipal segregation first, which compares the demographics of the cities against that of the Bay Area, we find clear patterns.

Once again, and unsurprisingly, we find that East Palo Alto is the most segregated city in the Bay Area. East Palo Alto was a historically Black community created from redlining and racial exclusion that limited where Black families could live in the region. Although East Palo Alto remains 10 percent Black, in recent decades it has become majority Latino (64.4 percent). It is also one of the more relatively affordable areas in the region. San Pablo, Gilroy, and Richmond stand out as three cities on the list with similar demographics, and an extremely high proportion of Black and Latino residents relative to the region.

In contrast, San Anselmo, Mill Valley, Tiberon, Los Gatos, Lafayette, Orinda, Clayton, and Piedmont all stand out as highly affluent and heavily segregated (and exclusionary) white municipalities, primarily in the suburban fringe of Oakland or in Marin County. These are cities that are more than 60 percent white in a region that is closer to 40 percent white. Most of these cities have fewer than 1 percent Black populations.

Fremont, Cupertino, Daly City, Union City, and to a lesser extent Canyon City and Los Altos, stand out as areas of extremely high concentrations of Asians relative to the region, helping explain why they score so high in terms of segregation. Figure 6, below, is a map of these cities, which illustrates the pattern.

The Most Internally Segregated Cities in the Bay Area

Highly diverse cities tend to be far less segregated from their surrounding region, but can be highly segregated internally. This matters because it means that diverse places can produce racially isolated schools, neighborhoods, recreational areas, and lived experiences. A low level of "divergence" from the surrounding region can thus mask considerable internal segregation.

For that reason, we present the top 10 most internally segregated cities (cities with the highest levels of neighborhood segregation) in the Bay Area, as measured by "intra-municipal" divergence:
Table 2: Cities with the Highest Levels of Neighborhood Segregation in the Bay Area
As expected, this table tells a very different story. Once again, Oakland is at the top, a reminder that the city of Oakland is both highly diverse and extremely balkanized into racially identifiable neighborhoods. The two other largest cities in the nine-county region, San Jose and San Francisco, also make this list for similar reasons, although they are not as extreme as Oakland.

The only city to make both lists, somewhat notoriously, is Richmond, demonstrating how a city can be highly segregated both from its surrounding region, as well as internally between its neighborhoods.

The Most Segregated Neighborhoods in the Bay Area

Understanding the level of segregation visible across our cities and towns is helpful to understand the harmful effects that may be occurring in these places or the policies that may be sustaining this segregation. However, it is also important to understand what is happening at the neighborhood level. For that reason, we present the top 10 most segregated neighborhoods (census tracts) for each of the four major racial groups in the Bay Area.
Table 3: The 10 Most Segregated Black Neighborhoods in the Bay Area
It is notable that six of the 10 most segregated Black neighborhoods in the Bay Area are in Alameda County, and specifically Oakland neighborhoods. Although the numbers have been declining over the past few decennial censuses, these remain historically Black neighborhoods, segregated from the start. Interestingly, we earlier identified eight of the 10 most segregated Black neighborhoods in Oakland using 2010 Census data. The two San Francisco census tracts on this list, both in Bayview Hunter's Point, remain the most segregated Black neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area.
Table 4: The 10 Most Segregated Latino Neighborhoods in the Bay Area
As was the case for African Americans, half of the most segregated Hispanic neighborhoods are also in Oakland. As the table above indicates, these are neighborhoods with large Black populations as well, making them essentially segregated Black and Brown neighborhoods in places like the Fruitvale district of Oakland and flatlands of East Oakland. These segregated neighborhoods also point to the demographic shift in the last decade. Though the majority of these segregated neighborhoods were in Santa Clara County as per 2010 data, the Hispanic population seems to have moved towards Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

By far the most segregated Hispanic neighborhood in the Bay Area, however, is the Canal neighborhood of San Rafael, a place that is more than 90 percent Hispanic, an enormous concentration for a heavily white county. This neighborhood was found to be highly segregated using 2010 census data as well.

Two neighborhoods in Richmond and two more in Gilroy and East Palo Alto round out the list.
Table 5: The 10 Most Segregated Asian Neighborhoods in the Bay Area
Although Asians (especially Chinese and Japanese) were historically segregated by law and custom in the Bay Area, this list tells a very different story than the preceding two tables. Unsurprisingly, both San Francisco and Oakland's Chinatowns appear on this list (with San Francisco's Chinatown taking the top spot), but most of these neighborhoods are located in suburbs, not ethnic enclaves. Fully half of them are located in Fremont, a suburb in southern Alameda County. These tracts highlight the demographic shift since 2010 where four tracts each were in Alameda and San Francisco counties, while two were in Santa Clara County. With six highly segregated Asian neighborhoods in Alameda County in 2020, and one in Napa County, the segregation pattern points to changing demographics within the Bay area.
Table 6: The Top 10 Most Segregated White Neighborhoods in the Bay Area
Once again, a clear pattern emerges. Eight of the 10 most segregated white neighborhoods are in Marin County, the overall most segregated county in the Bay Area. They are not, as one might have expected, in Napa, Sonoma, or Solano, the more rural and exurban counties in the Bay Area. In fact, the other two neighborhoods on this list are in Santa Clara County, in parts of Los Gatos. Compared to 2010 where half of the top 10 segregated white tracts showed up in Marin County, more tracts now show up as segregated in this county. Subsequently, two tracts in Sonoma County that were highly segregated in 2010 are no longer on the top 10 list.

The Most Integrated Cities in the Bay Area

The persistence of racial residential segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area is an issue that distorts the region's economic future and long-run vitality. It undermines the life chances of too many families and children, isolating them from the opportunity that is so richly on offer in this region.

But there are some bright spots. Using the novel definition of integration developed for our national report this past June, we identified six cities as "racially integrated," not simply those with the lowest measured level of racial residential segregation:
Table 7: The Integrated Cities in the Bay Area
The most integrated cities, unsurprisingly, are places that are relatively small or mid-sized suburbs in the Bay Area. Notably, they aren't concentrated in a single county, but pretty well dispersed across the Bay.

Summary

Despite its reputation as a progressive and inclusive region, the Bay Area remains, like the rest of the country, highly segregated. The most segregated cities in the Bay Area are those that are either historically places where people of color were permitted to live, when locked out of other places, or are highly exclusionary and heavily white mid-sized to smaller suburbs and towns in places like Marin. In contrast, the most integrated places are places where different race people have settled over time, and where the exclusionary mechanisms are either weaker or non-existent.

Click to download an excel sheet with the rankings of all Bay Area cities by level of segregation. Read our multi-part analysis of segregation in the Bay Area here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Most Segregated Cities and Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introduction From 2018 to 2020, we undertook a five-part investigation of raci

# data[].attributes.headline
Brian Copeland's family was one of the first Black families to move to San Leandro.

# data[].attributes.subject
Brian Copeland's family was one of the first Black families to move to San Leandro.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When California lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 to promote construction of duplexes, triplexes and accessory-dwelling units in single-family neighborhoods, Palo Alto was in the vanguard of opposition.

In its letter opposing Senate Bill 9, the City Council argued that state-driven, by-right housing approvals "fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements." Since then, the city has adopted a set of "objective standards," new design rules that SB 9 projects would have to meet to win approval. It has also begun to explore the designation of dozens of old homes as "historic," which would shield them from SB 9 provisions. And in March, Mayor Lydia Kou devoted a large share of her "State of the City" speech to attacking a host of recent housing bills that restrict local rights.

But in an ironic twist, the city may soon rely on SB 9 to preserve its local control over land-use decisions. Palo Alto is in the midst of preparing its response to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which is in charge of approving the city's Housing Element. In a March 23 letter, the state agency indicated that the city's submitted Housing Element - which lays out its plan to accommodate 6,086 more dwellings between 2023 and 2031 - falls well short of the mark.

The HCD letter required Palo Alto to make a host of revisions to its Housing Element, including a more thorough analysis of regional and local housing trends; more evidence that nonvacant sites can be redeveloped for residential use; and a list of "quantified objectives" for new housing construction for each income levels, according to a letter from Melinda Coy, proactive housing accountability chief at the HCD.

The state also ordered Palo Alto to add goals and actions pertaining to a new requirement that cities "affirmatively further fair housing" by addressing historic patterns of discrimination based on race, religion, sex and other characteristics.

"For example, the element could examine past land use practices, investments, quality of life relative to the rest of the City and region and then formulate appropriate programs to promote more inclusive communities and equitable quality of life," the letter stated.

That's where SB 9 comes in. Palo Alto has 10 census tracts that are currently classified as " racially concentrated areas of affluences" (RCAA), a designation for communities that are disproportionately affluent and white when compared to the broader community.

A new report from the Department of Planning and Development Services notes that these areas are "a result of historic discriminatory redlining practices," a reference to banks and other financial agencies that had denied mortgages and loans to black individuals, effectively barring most of them from buying homes in Palo Alto.

To address this and respond to HCD concerns, Palo Alto staff is now proposing to loosen local zoning laws to enable larger homes as a result of SB 9 lot splits. Under the proposal, floor area limitations for homes on SB 9 lots would be raised from 800 to 1,200 square feet per unit, enabling them to accommodate one- and two-bedroom units. The idea behind the proposed policy is to create more opportunities for new residents in the city's most exclusive neighborhoods.

According to the city's assessment, these areas include Crescent Park, Duveneck/St. Francis, Old Palo Alto, College Terrace, Evergreen Park, Barron Park and portions of downtown and Midtown.

"Leveraging SB 9, the program will increase the floor area limitation that will allow for more units on a single family lot," the report states. "This will also help promote housing mobility throughout the City, especially in the City's lower density areas. And it will also provide greater housing opportunities for more segments of the community."

The council and the Planning and Transportation Commission plan to discuss this proposal and other aspects of the Housing Element during a joint meeting on Monday, May 8.
Potential consequences of delay
For Palo Alto, getting the HCD to approve its housing plan is key to ensuring its ability to preserve local control over zoning. Like most other Bay Area cities, Palo Alto is now out of compliance with the Housing Accountability Act, a state law that requires municipalities to have certified Housing Elements, documents that lay out local plans for meeting housing quotas under the Regional Housing Allocation Process. Palo Alto's last Housing Element expired on Jan. 31 and until a new one is adopted and certified by the state, the city is vulnerable to "builder's remedy" projects that can override local zoning regulations.

The city had already received one project under the "builder's remedy" provision: a 45-condominium development proposed for 300 Lambert Ave. Other cities in the area, including Mountain View and Los Altos Hills, have likewise been subject to builder's remedy applications.

Planning staff plan to release a matrix of local responses to HCD concerns next week, in advance of the May 8 meeting. In addition to the SB 9 proposal, the next draft will include greater exploration of local zoning laws that create constraints to new housing; a more thorough examination of local and Bay Area housing patterns; and new programs to support residents with special needs, according to the report.

While advancing its new housing plan, Palo Alto is also part of a group of cities that are trying to fend off a lawsuit from housing advocates for not having a compliant Housing Element. The nonprofit groups Yes In My Backyard and California Housing Defense Fund are seeking a court order that would force the city to rezone sites for housing by a specified deadline and that would limit Palo Alto's ability to deny housing projects until they have a certified Housing Element.

On April 19, the city's attorneys filed their response to the lawsuit from the nonprofit groups Yes In My Backyard and California Housing Defense Fund. In the response, the city strongly disputed the groups' assertion that the city had run afoul of state law and repeatedly asserted that the claims in the lawsuit "misstate, mischaracterize or misinterpret" state statutes.

The city's response also claims that Palo Alto has "acted in good faith in all matters pertaining to the petition, including preparing and adopting a Housing Element" and that any delay in formal adoption of the document is due to factors outside of its control.

"The City's adoption process is in progress, and because of time constraints in the Government Code and delays at the Department of Housing and Community Development due to an overload of submissions, any failure to comply with statutory deadlines has been impossible to avoid and outside the control of the City," Celia Lee, an attorney at Goldfarb & Lipman LLP, wrote on behalf of the city.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Housing law SB 9, once opposed by Palo Alto, could be city's tool for encouraging diversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seeking state approval for its housing plan, Palo Alto may loosen zoning restrictions on homeowners who want to split their lots and build additional dwellings in some of the city's most affluent neighborhoods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to Zucktown. Where Everything Is Just Zucky. (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Menlo Park, Calif., Facebook is building a real community and testing the proposition: Do people love tech companies so much they will live inside them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facebook built a virtual community that linked more than 2 billion people, an achievement with few precedents. Now the social network is building a real community, the kind you can walk around.

Share story

MENLO PARK, Calif. - John Tenanes, Facebook's vice president for real estate, is showing off the company's plans for expansion. It will have offices for thousands of programmers to extend Facebook's fearsome reach. But that is not what Tenanes is excited about.

He leans over a scale model of the 59-acre site, which is named Willow Village. "There will be housing there," he points. "There will be a retail street along here, with a grocery store and a drugstore. That round building in the corner? Maybe a cultural center."

In just a few years, Facebook built a virtual community that linked more than 2 billion people, an achievement with few precedents. Now the social network is building a real community, the kind you can walk around.

Facebook, Tenanes says, has a dual mission: "We want to balance our growth with the community's needs."

Willow Village will be wedged between the Menlo Park neighborhood of Belle Haven and the city of East Palo Alto, both heavily Hispanic communities that are among Silicon Valley's poorest. Facebook is planning 1,500 apartments, and it has agreed with Menlo Park to offer 225 of them at below-market rates. The most likely tenants of the full-price units are Facebook employees, who already receive a five-figure bonus if they live near the office.

The community will have 8 acres of parks, plazas and bike-pedestrian paths open to the public. Facebook wants to revitalize the railway running alongside the property and will finish next year a pedestrian bridge over the expressway. The bridge will provide access to the trail that rings San Francisco Bay, a boon for birders and bikers.

Tenanes contemplates the audacity of building a city.

"It's a good thing, right?" he says.

Depends how it goes. Facebook is testing the proposition: Do people love tech companies so much they will live inside of them? When the project was announced last summer, critics dubbed it Facebookville or, in tribute to company co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, Zucktown.

The company has not warmed to these names. "I owe my soul to the company store," Tennessee Ernie Ford sang. But Facebook's ambitions are now confronting a more urgent problem: an escalating crisis over the company's power to sway elections, its casual approach to data privacy and its susceptibility to Russian manipulation. If Facebook's image is permanently sullied by the furor over Cambridge Analytica, the data firm hired by President Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign, Zucktown will falter before it is finished.

The social-media colossus is not the only Big Tech company in the complicated position of dressing up its expansion as a gift to its neighbors.

A few miles down the 101 highway, another new civic-corporate partnership is underway in the city of Mountain View. Google is promising to place the public "in the very heart of Google's vibrant community."

The search company plans a 600,000-square-foot office building with a roof that melts up into soft peaks, kind of like a meringue. It will have stores, cafes, gardens and even a space for theatrical performances, as well as a place for consumers to test-drive new Google technology.

Google will build 5,000 homes on its property under an agreement brokered with Mountain View in December. Call it Alphabet City as a nod to Alphabet, Google's corporate parent. The company said it was still figuring out its future as a landlord and declined further comment.

Zucktown and Alphabet City, as well as similar projects being contemplated across Silicon Valley, could at a minimum have consequences for the startup culture that transformed fruit orchards into the world's greatest tech hub. Silicon Valley was built by engineers jumping from company to company. That drove the innovation that sped the rise of some firms and hastened the demise of others.

As workers begin to literally live at the office, they will inevitably be more beholden to bosses who also collect the rent. After all, it is much harder to find a place to live in Silicon Valley than a new job. Turnover may slump, and so might the turnover in ideas.

The push into the physical also has implications for the 1.2 million people in Silicon Valley who are teachers, fitness instructors, clerks, baristas - all those who hold jobs that do not come with stock options. As they inch down the clogged streets and bid money they don't have on miserable houses, they will hear the siren call of Big Tech: We can fix broken communities by building new ones. Trust us.

"Corporations are paying for things that the city or county and state used to pay for," said Cecilia Taylor of Belle Haven Action, a community-advocacy group. "They have a lot of money. A lot of money. More than the city does. And a lot more power."

On a wall in the Facebook division charged with the company's growth there is a poster with a classic tech admonition: "Go Big or Go Home." Facebook is in essence tweaking that to "Go Big at Home." About 12,000 of its 25,000 employees work in Menlo Park. In a decade, it will have space for 35,000 - slightly more than the city's current population.

Facebook's move toward openness and community engagement is recent. Its current campus, which it moved into in 2011, is a ring of buildings with a "street" in the middle that has restaurants, pop-up shops, a book exchange and other amenities, but only employees can go there.

Across the street, the company opened in 2015 an office designed by Frank Gehry. It is basically one enormous room - the largest open-floor plan in the world, Facebook says. On the landscaped roof is a garden, a walking loop and many trees. The neighbors cannot see any of this.

In Zucktown, this notion of firmly separated insiders and outsiders will be deliberately blurred.

"The retail stores will not be managed by Facebook. But we have the mechanism, we are the property owner," says Tenanes, the real-estate chief, adding that he doesn't know exactly how it will work in practice. "It is a bit new."

Menlo Science & Technology Park, a decaying office park that will be torn down for Willow Village, is not exactly a beloved part of the city, and neither are the other sites on which Facebook has been building. They were in an industrial zone. That has helped insulate the company from criticism, which nonetheless simmers beneath the surface in Belle Haven.

The Peery Foundation, a grantmaker based nearby in Palo Alto, made a short video two years ago documenting how the area around Facebook's headquarters was changing. It interviewed dozens of local residents, including one woman who referred to landlords who had been renting to low-income families and were now selling their properties. "Eventually," she said, "there's going to be nobody here but Facebook."

Facebook, in a comment at the end of the film, acknowledges, "We still have a lot of work to do." The company has increased its efforts in the community. So has the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a limited-liability company set up by Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan for philanthropy. At the same time, Facebook has continued to expand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to Zucktown: Facebook shows off its plans to build a city

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook built a virtual community that linked more than 2 billion people, an achievement with few precedents. Now the social network is building a real community, the kind you can walk around.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
var _ndnq = _ndnq || []; _ndnq.push(['embed']);

Concerned about rising housing costs, police activity and tech companies not hiring enough East Palo Alto residents, some Bay Area activists are taking aim at two major tech firms: Amazon and Facebook.

About 50 people attended a candlelight vigil Thursday night at 2100 University Ave., the location where Amazon leased space for a large office complex that would add 1,300 jobs.

The group, called the Real Community Coalition, is worried that rising housing costs will displace low-income residents, tech companies aren't doing enough to hire locally and more police funding could lead to racial profiling.

"There's a dark cloud that's being cast by this abuse and oppression. We're just trying to bring light to it and make people aware about what's going on and have a peaceful resolution," said JT Faraji, an East Palo Alto artist and activist who organized the candlelight vigil. "Hopefully, the tech companies will open up and want to talk to the coalition."

As tech firms expand their workforce in the Bay Area, some residents are concerned that the companies and local governments aren't doing enough to help those in the community.

Facebook, though, said that it's been doing its part to be a good neighbor. The company is investing $20 million to create affordable housing, economic opportunity and tenant assistance in East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, held job fairs and partnered with nonprofits to install solar power systems for low-income East Palo Alto residents.

"Our intent is to add social value and develop initiatives based on what our neighbors tell us is important to them," a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement. "We have a long-term commitment to Menlo Park and we want it to remain a safe and inclusive environment for the people who call this city home."

While Faraji applauded these efforts, he said that Facebook funded the salary of a police officer and a new substation in Menlo Park. The tech firm has also offered to pay $9.1 million over five years to fund a new police unit made up of five officers and one sergeant.

That proposal hasn't been approved by the Menlo Park City Council yet, but the city projects that it could need as many as 17 new officers as the workforce and number of residents in the area grow.

Faraji said he fears that could lead to more racial profiling and unjust arrests.

But the Menlo Park Police Department denied that would happen.

"We do not racial profile; that's just not true," said Commander Dave Bertini of the Menlo Park Police Department. And how you connect these two? I just don't see it."

Bertini said that police actually watched videos of an arrest with residents to understand what they thought an officer did wrong.

The Real Community Coalition, which passed out thousands of flyers for the event, also opposes a decision by the East Palo Alto City Council to set aside a rule that would have required Amazon to make a good-faith effort to hire 30 percent of its new employees locally.

Instead, Amazon and developer The Sobrato Organization agreed to fund an employment specialist to help link East Palo Alto residents to job opportunities.

The group is not only speaking out against the tech companies, but city governments as well.

"There's a real opportunity to employ people in the city, and we're missing it," said Pemberton Gordon, who is part of the coalition.

Amazon did not respond to a request for comment. The East Palo Alto mayor couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Menlo Park, East Palo Alto residents rally against Facebook, Amazon amid gentrification concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A coalition made up of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park residents held a candlelight vigil to raise concerns about how Facebook and Amazon are impacting their neighbors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CEO Zuckerberg is already facing plenty of troubles across the globe, including questions about Russian interference on Facebook during the 2016 election. At home, in East Palo Alto, residents say he and his company are causing high rents and displacement.

Share story

EAST PALO ALTO, Calif. - Adrian Bonilla lived in a shared house in this Silicon Valley town with his wife and two grandchildren until this year, when the rent for their bedroom jumped to $1,200 from $900 a month. Bonilla attributed that rise to Facebook, which is based nearby and was growing.

So Bonilla, 43, a mechanic and Uber driver, bought a 1991 recreational vehicle and joined a family-oriented RV community on a quiet cul-de-sac. His family lived there until last week, when Bonilla received an eviction notice.

This time, Bonilla said, the reason he had to move was because the city wanted to clear the way for "the Facebook school." That school is funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a limited-liability company set up by Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, to work on social-change endeavors. Chan is a co-founder of the school, a private institution for low-income children called the Primary School.

"The school is a Facebook school. It's not a city school," Bonilla said, adding that he knew he would have to move again when he heard about it. "When Facebook comes, everybody moves everywhere."

Zuckerberg is already facing plenty of troubles across the globe, including questions about Russian interference on Facebook during the 2016 election. The skirmish between the couple's initiative and the RV community, which city officials said was becoming a flood hazard, is a reminder of how the billionaire also faces difficulties on his own doorstep.

For many in East Palo Alto, just blocks from Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park, California, no CEO and company have come to embody the anxieties of the modern tech boom more than Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. At a meeting last Wednesday at East Palo Alto's City Hall, about 100 residents and protesters gathered with city staff to discuss their housing, and some invoked Zuckerberg's name.

"I want to talk about the elephant in the room," said Zach Kirk, 20, a Stanford University student who grew up in Palo Alto. "Actually, he's not in the room, he's in some mansion: Mark Zuckerberg."

Wherever Zuckerberg goes in Silicon Valley, he seems to generate a housing problem. In 2014, after the tech mogul bought a house in San Francisco, neighbors complained about construction, his security detail, the parking and how his presence would inflate prices. This year, protesters marched in East Palo Alto to denounce the displacement of residents because of big tech companies like Facebook.

The battles are likely to grow as Facebook continues its expansion in Menlo Park, with 1.75 million square feet of new office space expected to be built. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has also been growing, staffing up as it prepares to invest Zuckerberg's enormous fortune in efforts like his stated goal to "cure, prevent, and manage all disease."

Company's role

Community members expect more tension this month at an East Palo Alto town hall hosted by Real Community Coalition, a local citizens group, and featuring Facebook. At the meeting, residents will have the opportunity to ask Facebook executives about the company's role in the community.

"Connections are at the core of everything we do at Facebook and our relationship with residents of East Palo Alto is no different," Juan Salazar, a public-policy manager for Facebook, said in a statement.

The social network has been lobbying to build more housing in the region, which Silicon Valley cities, worried about traffic and preferring a commercial over residential tax base, have fought. In East Palo Alto, Facebook has invested $18.5 million in the Catalyst Housing Fund, an affordable-housing initiative; the company has set a goal to grow the fund to $75 million.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which is also writing grants for affordable housing, said working with local communities was "core to our work." In a statement, the Primary School said the episode with the RV residents was "frustrating and emblematic of larger housing issues in the Bay Area," but that it was not aware of East Palo Alto's action to evict those residents and had not engaged with city officials on the matter.

East Palo Alto's residents have long felt disempowered against change brought by tech leaders like Zuckerberg. A 2.6-square-mile town where one-third of the schoolchildren are homeless, it has stood as a sign that Silicon Valley's wealth might not spread to those beyond its tech campuses. And so even as Zuckerberg's limited liability company seeks to build a school, many residents are skeptical.

"CZI's just walking into something with a lot of baggage," said Daniel Saver, a lawyer with Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, which receives funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. "People here have been pushed around by very big interests and have been taken advantage of for decades. "

Paul Bains, a pastor and president of Project WeHope, a local organization funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, said the initiative needed to figure out how to interact with wary residents. "They have to learn how to communicate with communities of color," Bains said.

The recent evictions at the RV enclave were not requested by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, said Donna Rutherford, an East Palo Alto City Council member and a former mayor of the town. Instead, city officials said the area had become a flood hazard as rains were coming and the vehicles had spilled wastewater into storm drains.

"Let me just walk you through the gross part," said Michelle Daher, an environmental-management analyst for East Palo Alto, heading to a storm drain last week where she said 6,000 gallons of waste from RVs had to be pumped one day.

Daher pointed out the future site of the school, an empty lot surrounded by a chain-link fence. "This obviously is the Chan Zuckerberg location," she said. She added that the flood-prone street would be rebuilt for the school, so the RVs would have had to move in any case.

Squeezed by wealth

Sean Charpentier, East Palo Alto's assistant city manager, said the region had been squeezed by the wealth around it and that the homeless population had grown. "We're a receptacle for the externalities around us," he said. "It's felt more deeply here because this city was formed to provide safe and affordable housing."

Patricia Lopez, 48, who owns a home on the street where the RVs were parked, said the trouble for the RV residents began after a community meeting that Facebook executives attended.

"They didn't introduce themselves, but the organizer said, 'Facebook is in the house,' and they waved. And ever since then, it's been heavy harassment, heavy policing," she said, which ultimately led to the evictions.

At last week's meeting, residents and protesters expressed support for the school but anxiety over the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

"The first step is to make sure quasi-affiliated supposed philanthropic organizations don't set the policy," said Johannes Muenzel, 28, a software engineer who is the co-chairman of Silicon Valley's Democratic Socialists of America chapter.

By 11 p.m., protesters and city staff were getting agitated and tired. Eventually, the Public Works and Transportation Commission recommended that city staff pursue a long-term solution for the RV community by working with nonprofit organizations and by looking into a ban on oversize vehicles parking overnight.

Facebook said a senior executive attended the meeting. Nearly 50 community members spoke that night. The Facebook executive did not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook expands, neighbors kicked out in California

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CEO Zuckerberg is already facing plenty of troubles across the globe, including questions about Russian interference on Facebook during the 2016 election. At home, in East Palo Alto, residents say he and his company are causing high rents and displacement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Four years ago, Facebook announced that they were decamping to Menlo Park from their longstanding home of Palo Alto. Just last month, the company finally cut the ribbons on a beautiful 430,000-square foot building designed by Frank Gehry that is basically one giant, open-air room with an enormous park on top.

The effect on the prices of surrounding real estate has been profound.

If you look at the chart below, published last week in the Almanac and Palo Alto Weekly, the price increases are mainly concentrated in Menlo Park and the neighboring city of East Palo Alto.

East Palo Alto is a historically black and now majority Latino community that took shape more than half a century ago through a legacy of racially discriminatory practices in Bay Area housing markets. Given that it is the most affordable community left in Silicon Valley, the city's economy also supplies low-wage labor to the neighboring affluent suburbs of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton. It has a resilient, but sometimes painful history.

An East Palo Alto musician named Freddy Lopez and a group of teenagers from the neighborhood recently made the music video and documentary above about what it's like to constantly live in fear of being priced out of the community you've always known. (Some of them are affiliated with Live in Peace, the non-profit that Facebook chief product officer Chris Cox backed with $1 million earlier this year.)

It's no surprise, but those who quite literally live on the margins of capital are the most vulnerable to its swings and busts. The price surges in East Palo Alto are more extreme because one-third of the city's homes went into foreclosure after the subprime crisis, only to be bid and bought back up again during the new tech boom.

There is no reason that the prodigious level of job creation over the last few years here has to negatively impact low-income communities throughout the Bay Area - except for the fact that the peninsula and South Bay suburbs are clinging to a mid-20th century suburban model of development that is no longer suitable for the kind of economy we have in Northern California.

The peninsula and South Bay suburbs are clinging to a mid-20th century suburban model of development that is no longer suitable for the kind of economy we have in Northern California.

The Wall Street Journal had a story on this yesterday: space is so tight that tech companies are paying north of $90 a square foot in Mountain View. Those are Manhattan skyscraper prices for 1980s-era suburban office parks. It is like running the entire industry on the physical equivalent of MS-DOS.

You can either scale the physical infrastructure of the region or you can move the jobs. I favor doing both, but it seems obvious that the world is on an inexorable path towards mass urbanization and that the type of creative and collaborative work done in the industry today favors density.

The younger generation in tech understands that in a knowledge-based economy, the value of what is created in Silicon Valley both economically and culturally is in the network. It depends upon who we can bring and include here - not in physical assets like a piece of land or a home.

But the peninsula cities have majority homeowner voting bases, and their elected political bodies are incentivized to protect these assets through slow-growth policies and exclusionary zoning.

This approach has paid off handsomely. Palo Alto home prices, for instance, have outperformed the S&P 500 by almost 2X over the past 16 years with significantly lower volatility.

And while San Francisco was the second worst metro area in the country for producing housing in the earlier part of this decade, some of the richer peninsula suburbs have done an even crappier job. Menlo Park permitted 22 percent of its state-mandated housing projections from 2007 to 2014, while Palo Alto did 37 percent and Atherton, one of the wealthiest towns in the entire country, did 1 percent. Menlo Park was even sued by three non-profits for not producing enough affordable housing back in 2012

Even more troubling, the scaffolding that all of these cities and the state of California have erected over the last 40 years to make 1960s suburban ranch homes a fantastic store of value also perversely makes them attractive to non-resident overseas capital. This has been more pronounced over the last three years after the Chinese property market plateaued and Xi Jinping embarked on an anti-corruption campaign, which are both driving capital offshore into foreign real estate markets and into a relatively obscure U.S. visa program called EB-5 that was maxed out for the first time in its 24-year history last fall. EB-5 might be OK if it's an alternate source of financing for big projects that may not otherwise get built like the thousands of proposed homes in San Francisco's Hunters Point.

But not if overseas capital ends up being parked in empty homes, pricing would-be community members out of homeownership. In San Francisco, it appears relatively limited; a study from the regional think tank SPUR using 2012 data found that only 2.4 percent of housing units were left vacant by non-resident owners for seasonal use.

However, the phenomenon may be larger in the suburbs where property isn't subject to the same stringent tenant laws. It's hard to quantify because the region is split between dozens of suburbs, but anecdotally, real estate agents have told the Chronicle that more than one-quarter of current buyers in Palo Alto are from China, fueling concerns about a spate of "ghost homes" inside the tony suburb. We need a new region-wide approach to monitoring this with data.

In aggregate, the costs of this rent-seeking and zoning abuse are enormous to both Silicon Valley and the U.S. economy. Because the infrastructure and housing stock is not expanding with population growth, people are either getting forced out or are going to areas that have fewer job opportunities and weaker social mobility. UC Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti and Chang-Tai Hsieh calculated in a paper last year that if the country's most economically productive regions like Silicon Valley, New York and Boston had a more elastic housing supply, the aggregate output of the U.S. economy since 1964 would be 13.5 percent larger. That is the equivalent of $2 trillion per year, or $10,000 per American.

Menlo Park thankfully has engaged in some changes, with 202 units being planned for downtown and by allowing a 394-unit complex near Facebook's headquarters.

But this is not imaginative enough. Facebook has grown its headcount by 48 percent in the last year to just north of 10,000 employees, with roughly half of them in Menlo Park.

A few hundred units is not going to cut it.

Given its market capitalization and position, Facebook is the company in the best position to re-imagine what new urbanism looks like in the old heart of Silicon Valley. In February, they acquired a 56-acre piece of property in Menlo Park for an estimated $400 million and have signaled that they are open to doing more with it than just office space.

So far, they've had to go and assure nearby residents in low-income neighborhood of Belle Haven that they are not going to be erecting nine-story buildings on it.

But they should build high and they should offer meaningful concessions - in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars - for appropriate infrastructure or permanently affordable housing in a quid pro quo deal for dense, tall and walkable workforce housing in a mixed-use, mixed-income environment. If they're successful, they could demonstrate to the surrounding communities that post-suburbia isn't so scary after all. That would be the real Facebook effect.

While it isn't ideal to have a single for-profit corporation influence so much of a city's development policy like Google in Mountain View or Apple in Cupertino, the current system of governance has produced a short-sighted, fragmented (and frankly selfish) approach that has not kept pace with population growth. This is partly why the tech industry has expanded north into San Francisco, with ripple effects impacting the Latino community in the Mission and the black community in Oakland.

And if the suburban local governments in the south need to extract financial concessions out of these enormous publicly-traded companies to support this density, so be it. In an ideal world, in-fill development should pay for itself through more resident taxpayers. But unfortunately, California's municipal and public school financing systems are kind of messed up given the property tax caps that home-owning voters gave themselves under 1978's Proposition 13 and then the requirement of a majority vote for any new revenue-generating fees or taxes under 1996's Proposition 218.

These deals should also be logistically easier to work out down in the suburbs than in San Francisco, where it's likely impossible because the tech workforce comprises only roughly 7 percent of the population, is split between 1,800 or so companies and doesn't have a company with the market capitalization, profitability and dominance of a Google, Apple or Facebook yet.

Anyway, if you are a younger tech worker that favors market-based solutions and is generally dismissive of government for being incompetent or inefficient, remember that public institutions are only as good as the public that holds them accountable. The current system is tilted to favor older commercial and residential property interests, which are extremely organized and which can actually consistently turn people out to vote. Can you?

And remember that you are already paying an extraordinary tax to be here that doesn't really do anything for infrastructure, transit or education. It is among the highest in the nation.

It is called rent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Facebook Effect (On Real Estate Prices) | TechCrunch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Four years ago, Facebook announced that they were decamping to Menlo Park from their longstanding home of Palo Alto. Just last month, the company finally cut the ribbons on a beautiful 430,000-square foot building designed by Frank Gehry that is basically one giant, open-air room with an enormous park on top.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Is There Another City Inside Of Oakland?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hey Area is where we find answers to questions you ask. This one comes from New York staff writer Jelani Cobb. He asks, “How did there get to be an entirely separate city inside of Oakland?”

# data[].attributes.headline
Redlining and Racial Covenants in Piedmont

# data[].attributes.subject
Redlining and Racial Covenants in Piedmont

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Racial Restrictions

Redlining in Piedmont, California before 1968

"A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act" (SZEA) was a model law for U.S. states to enable zoning regulations in their jurisdictions. It was drafted by a committee of the Department of Commerce and first issued in 1922. This act was one of the foundational developments in land use planning in the United States. Landmark U.S. Supreme Court zoning cases, such as Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company (1926), supported strongly exclusionary views toward African Americans and European immigrants. These exclusionary views prevailed, despite the fact that Buchanan v. Warley (1917) declared racial zoning unconstitutional in 1917. Unchallenged discriminatory ordinances allowed residential segregation to become entrenched (Haar and Kayden 1989: 41-42). Another method of maintaining racial segregation was the use of restrictive covenants, which are private contracts forbidding home sales and rentals to blacks or Jews. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a restrictive covenant in Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), the same year that it upheld Euclid v. Ambler (Randle 1989). For the purposes of racial control and segregation, zoning and racially restrictive covenants effectively perpetuated segregation by limiting housing opportunities for people of color.

One of the primary FHA criteria in judging whether investments should be insured was the racial composition of the neighborhoods. FHA's underwriting manuals described "the infiltration of inharmonious racial and nationality groups" as "adverse" to neighborhood stability. Appraisers were, therefore, advised to lower the rating of properties in mixed neighborhoods, often to the point of encouraging lending institutions to reject any loan applications from those areas. From 1937 to 1948, racially restrictive covenants helped secure and incentivize the ongoing activities of homeownership for whites. The FHA financed three out of every five homes purchased in the United States, yet less than 2 percent of FHA loans were made to nonwhite home buyers (Tobin 1987: 235; Rothstein 2017).

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was established in 1937. HOLC developed the rating system to evaluate loan risks. The lowest of the four categories was outlined in red . The vast majority of mortgages went to the top two categories (blue and green), the highest of which included areas that were categorized by HOLC as "new" and homogenous. The second category consisted of areas that had reached their peak, but were still desirable and could be expected to remain stable (Massey and Denton 1993: 51; Jackson 1987: 196).

When the U.S. Congress abolished the PWA and adopted the Housing Act of 1937, the U.S. Housing Authority took over the development of public housing, this time by making subsidies to developers rather than by directly constructing and managing the housing units. The principle of segregation continued to be applied. Often, integrated neighborhoods were replaced with housing projects that were for whites only. That meant the African American residents were displaced and had to look for housing in more crowded neighborhoods. Thus, the federal government actively created a housing crisis for African Americans at the time it was solving the crisis for whites.

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as the Fair Housing Act) may be the most viable solution to remedy the unconstitutional federal housing polices and procedures that created residentially segregated communities and homeownership opportunities for African Americans.

Fair Housing Act read in part (24 CFR §100.50 (b):

It shall be unlawful to (1) Refuse to sell or rent a dwelling ... because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, or to discriminate in the sale or rental of a dwelling because of handicap (2) Discriminate in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling .... (3) Engage in any conduct relating to the provision of housing which otherwise makes unavailable or denies dwellings to persons .... Or (6) Engage in blockbusting practices in connection with the sale or rental of dwellings because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

Blockbusting is a practice by which real estate agents and mortgage brokers have profited from racism (Heiman 1987). For decades after World War I, agents were restricted by laws or by covenants in deeds from showing houses in white neighborhoods to black clients. But when restrictive covenants became illegal in the 1950s, the real estate industry adopted a new tactic. If a black family moved into a white neighborhood, some agents and brokers would engage in scare tactics to convince other white homeowners to sell their properties at a deep discount below market value. The buyer would then sell the same house to a black family at a price above market value, which the black family would pay because of restrictions on the neighborhoods in which they could live.1 The practice not only cheated both white sellers and black buyers, it also led to rapid resegregation of neighborhoods. Blockbusting became illegal in 1968 as part of the Fair Housing Act (24 CFR §100.85). Despite the law, the practice still continues (Oleen 2016).

​

The History of Residential Segregation in the United States, Title VIII, and the Homeownership Remedy

Teran McGrew MS, PhD First published 29 October 2018 link here

"Piedmont, according to a 1937 document from the Home Owner's Loan Corporation, was a "favorable" place to build and make loans because of characteristics such as "landscaped streets" and "Racial restrictions." That year, Piedmont had no Black residents. Although the practice was outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the city was, and remains, predominantly white. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Piedmont is approximately 72 percent White, 17 percent Asian, almost 4 percent Hispanic or Latino, and 2 percent Black/African-American. By contrast, in the surrounding city of Oakland, White, Hispanic/ Latino and Black/African-American each make up about one quarter of the population. Asians are 16 percent."

​

From Piedmont Exedra's Will Callan | January 25, 2020

​

​

ST. JAMES WOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION;

Clause XIV

LIMITATION OF USE AND OCCUPANCY
No persons, except persons of the Caucasian race, shall be allowed to use or occupy said property, or any part thereof, except in the capacity of domestic servants of the occupant thereof.

Piedmont Deed with redlining covenant from 1945:

AGREEMENT RESTRICTING USE AND OCCUPANCY OF REAL PROPERTY

This agreement, made this 1st day of May, 1945, by and between the undersigned, who are owners of the parcel of parcels of land hereinafter particularly described opposite their respective signatures, said parcels of land being situate in the City of Piedmont, County of Alameda, State of California.

WITNESSETH: That whereas, the parties hereto desire for their mutual benefit and for the benefit of the land of each of them hereinafter: described, to improve and further the interests of the neighborhood and community and ;

WHEREAS, the parties are mutually desirous of restricting the use and occupancy of all of the property in the district above described, solely and exclusively to persons wholly of the "White Caucasian or White Race".

THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other valuable considerations, each of the parties hereto does mutually covenant, promise and agree with each and all of the other parties hereto as follows:

That prior to the 1st day of May 1980, no part or parcel or parcels of land hereinafter described opposite the signatures of the respective owners thereof, or the improvements thereon, shall be used or occupied by any person or persons not of the White Caucasian or White Race with the exception that domestic servants who are members of other races and who are in the actual employment as domestic servants of the occupants of said land, or any part thereof, may use and occupy so much of the land and improvements in which their employers reside as may be reasonably necessary.

It is further understood and agreed that should say parcel embraced within the afore described district be now occupied by a person or persons other than of the "white Caucasian or White Race" and should such a person or persons become a signatory to this agreement, this agreement shall not be construed that such person or persons or his immediate family shall be required to remove from or cease occupancy of the parcel or parcels of land now occupied by such family, not of the Caucasian Race; but that upon cessation of such occupancy by then, the restrictions herein set forth as to the occupancy by those other than of the "White Caucasian or White Race" shall apply and become immediately effective.

Abandonment Disaster Demonstration Relief Act of 1975

​

Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, First Session on S. 1988

Oakland, Calif., August 28, 1975, Los Angeles, Calif., August 29, 1975 By United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs · 1975 Full read here

The San Francisco Examiner - Thu, Aug 6, 1992

Piedmont Advertising Race Restrictions

"Build-back and race restrictions"

​

Ad in the Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California)

"Building and race restrictions"

​

Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California)

# data[].attributes.headline
Documentary about racist housing practices in San Leandro.

# data[].attributes.subject
Documentary about racist housing practices in San Leandro.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Suburban Wall/The Oakland San Leandro Border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
ISUH - International Society for Urban Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While maps cannot draw direct causal links between discriminatory policies and community outcomes, they can show trends. For example, maps can show that communities that were denied access to supportive resources and opportunities - including access to quality schools, grocery stores, and financial capital for home ownership - experience higher rates of premature death and chronic diseases like asthma and diabetes. Unsurprisingly, West Oakland fits all of these trends, due in large part to its history as a redlined community.

Similarly, maps can show how neighborhoods with greater access to opportunities, needed resources, and green spaces and less exposure to environmental pollution tend to have better health outcomes, such as longer life expectancy. Previously greenlined and bluelined neighborhoods in the Oakland hills benefited greatly from these types of structural and environmental advantages.

Unless formerly redlined cities like Oakland enact carefully considered policy changes to counteract the harmful legacy of racist planning practices, it is highly likely that measurable inequities in wealth, health, and opportunity associated with redlining will persist for future generations.

Addressing the Drivers of Inequity

ChangeLab Solutions has identified five fundamental drivers of health inequity: (1) structural discrimination, (2) income inequality and poverty, (3) disparities in opportunity, (4) disparities in political power, and (5) governance that limits meaningful participation.

Most laws and policies - including discriminatory policies like redlining - intersect with all five of these drivers of inequity in one way or another. Redlining is a clear example of a policy that encompasses all five drivers of inequity. However, because redlining derives from specific policy decisions made by government agencies and powerful businesses, it is primarily symptomatic of the first fundamental driver: structural discrimination. Solutions aimed at mitigating the inequitable consequences of redlining should take into account the needs and perspectives of the communities that have been most harmed.

How, then, can policymakers engage with historically excluded communities to inform proposed planning policy changes? ChangeLab Solutions' answer is our suite of resources for planners and other decision makers who participate in the planning process.
Solutions aimed at mitigating the inequitable consequences of redlining should take into account the needs of the communities that have been most harmed.
Our recent publication The Planner's Playbook equips planners and policymakers with tools and step-by-step instructions for centering equity in every phase of the planning process. The playbook emphasizes the need for substantive, equity-informed community engagement efforts throughout the development of plans, with special attention to incorporating input from community groups that have been excluded from public policymaking in the past.

The injustices and harms of redlining and other discriminatory place-based policies must not be ignored or forgotten. With the right tools - and the right people at the table - communities across the United States can begin the crucial work of creating a healthier built environment that serves all community members.
The Planner's Playbook is a practical guide that offers concrete steps, resources, and examples to help planners engage community members and center equity at every stage of their planning practice.
Photo credits: Dan Brekke, National Archives, ChangeLab Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Tale of Two Neighborhoods in Oakland, California - Exploring Equitable Planning Solutions Through Mapping - ISUH - International Society for Urban Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visually representing the impact of policies past and present can help us better grasp the causal pathways between policy actions and results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Current U.S. Census statistics show that Vallejo is one of the most diverse cities in the nation. But it wasn't always that way, due to various discriminatory factors. This column focuses on one key element: race-restricted housing projects built in the 1930s and 1940s across a broad swath of our community.

Research into newspaper real estate ads and Solano County deed records covering those years shows that restrictions in at least a dozen large developments limited the sale or rental of homes to white residents. Such restrictions, eventually found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable, were commonplace throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and the rest of the nation at the time.

All told, plans for these 12 developments called for about 3,500 homes. More research is likely to reveal still more restricted Vallejo-area subdivisions and push that home site total higher.

The newspaper ads and county records show that on the east side of Interstate 80, race-restricted Vallejo-area subdivisions built in the 1940s on what had been mostly ranch and farmland included Steffan Manor, Liberty Heights, Hiltons Addition and Castlewood Gardens. Another restricted project, the Highway Homes subdivision, was located on both sides of the highway.

On the west side of Interstate 80, subdivisions with Caucasian-only restrictions included Vista de Vallejo, Winslow Terrace, Greenfield Terrace, Fairmont Gardens, Leachman Park, Vallejo Highlands and Morningside Addition. The construction time frame on these developments was longer, dating to the early 1900s for Leachman Park and the early 1930s for the Vista.

Examples of the Jim Crow-type of wording that home-buyers in those subdivisions had to accept include this one from the Highway Homes project: "Neither said real property nor any interest therein, nor improvements thereon, shall be used or occupied by any member of other than Caucasian Race, but persons not of Caucasian Race may be kept thereon by a Caucasian occupant strictly in the capacity of servants of such occupant."

In the case of the Vista de Vallejo subdivision, a 1932 Times-Herald newspaper ad stated that "premises and each and every structure erected thereon shall not be sold, leased or conveyed to or occupied or inherited by any person whose blood is not that entirely of the Caucasian race."

The wording was included in lists of obligations, typically restrictive covenants or homeowner association bylaws, that homebuyers assumed. Their use was endorsed in a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stood until 1948 when the high court held it was unconstitutional to enforce them.

The court's 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer decision was unanimous, 6-0. Three of the nine justices excused themselves from participating because their objectivity might have been challenged - there were racial restrictions covering the homes in which they lived.

Despite the court's ruling, author Richard Rothstein, in his 2017 book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, wrote that the Federal Housing Administration and other federal agencies evaded and subverted the 1948 ruling, helping to preserve discriminatory "redlining" in housing for many more years. That appears to have been the case in Vallejo.

In 1960, 12 years after the Supreme Court decision, the U.S. Census showed that Vallejo was about 80 percent White and 16.5 percent Black. A breakdown shows that on the heavily race-restricted east side of Interstate 80 it was 95 percent white and only 3.3 percent Black. In one of the east-side developments, Castlewood Gardens, it was 99.4 percent white. The opposite was true on the north side of Vallejo for Country Club Crest, developed in the 1950s and marketed to African Americans: In 1960 it was 91.5 percent Black and 6.9 percent white.

The changes since then have been dramatic. A January 2022 report by National Demographics Corp., done as part of Vallejo's redistricting and based on the 2020 Census, showed much of the greatly expanded East Vallejo area with a current voting-age population that's 27 percent white, 16 percent Black, 11 percent Hispanic-Latino and 43 percent Asian-Pacific Islander.

The same report shows that the north side of Vallejo, which also has seen major growth over the years, now has a voting-age population that's 16 percent white, 25 percent Black, 33 percent Asian-Pacific Islander and 23 percent Hispanic-Latino. For the entire city of Vallejo, the current cultural and racial melting-pot aspect is clear: the voting-age population is 31 percent white, 23 percent Black, 18 percent Hispanic-Latino and 26 percent Asian-Pacific Islander.

The whites-only wording in covenants and homeowner association bylaws now may be unenforceable, but Rothstein and other experts say they contributed to a longstanding wealth gap that hurt people of color. Those excluded from the housing market years ago were prevented from building home equity, often a stepping stone to wealth that can be passed down over generations.

The racial restrictions can still turn up in a home's title report, with a disclaimer saying they are void. In 2000, California established a process for homeowners who want to go a step further, allowing them to add a document to their file with the racial language deleted. The redacted document sits atop the original but do not replace it. However, the Solano County Assessor-Recorder's office says there has been no rush by local homeowners to submit the necessary paperwork to modify their property records.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How decades of racist housing policies shaped modern Vallejo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Racist housing restrictions in the first half of the 20th century contributed to present-day wealth inequities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Vacaville Reporter published an article Feb. 16, written by Janie Har of The Associated Press, on page one of the business section titled "California Latinos make up small fraction of mortgage market."

In this story, she quotes from a study done by Reveal, The Center for Investigative Reporting on conventional loan applications in California. She states that nearly half the population of the Los Angeles area is Latino and only 18 percent of the conventional loan applications are from Hispanic applicants and even in the more affordable Fresno market, which is also 50 percent Latino, only 25 percent of the loan apps are Latino homebuyers.

The study did not include data on FHA or VA loan applications, but the story insinuated that mortgage lenders steered Latino and African-American borrowers toward FHA over conventional loans because FHA is easier to obtain even though they claim FHA is more costly.

The article also claims that in the Vallejo-Fairfield area of the San Francisco Bay Area, where residents have flocked in recent years in search of cheaper homes, African-Americans were 2.6 times more likely than whites to be denied and calls this evidence of "modern day redlining." The study also claims similar numbers in the rural Northern California communities of Salinas and Chico, where the article states Latinos are 1.7 and 2.5 times as likely than whites to be declined.

It has taken me more than a month to write this column because of the subject matter being so sensitive and because of my love and respect for my community and my Solano County real estate market.

It was 50 years ago that the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending. I was offended by the article because I felt like me and my loan officer team and other local lenders and credit unions were being falsely accused of racist discrimination.

I have no doubt that there are people in the lending business that are racist and I have clearly seen predatory behavior from individual loan officers as well as huge Wall Street companies in Solano County over the years, but to say that "modern day redlining" is going on here, locally, today by local lenders is just not true.

Yes, it is harder to qualify for a conventional loan than a VA or FHA loan because debt ratio, credit rating, down payment and cash reserve requirements, along with the automated underwriting systems (artificial intelligence) are programmed to be more flexible, forgiving and inclusive on government-backed loans.

The last thing our industry should do is repeat our mistakes from the past.

From 2004 to 2007 thousands of African-American, Hispanic, Asian and Caucasian borrowers bought houses in Solano County they could not afford at artificially inflated prices that caused our beloved market to become one of the top 10 counties in the country for foreclosures. We had more foreclosures and home losses from 2008 to 2013 than the previous 50 years combined.

Solano County is a target for predators selling financial products because we are a blue-collar, middle-class population of correctional officers, active duty and retired military, refinery workers and retail workers along with warehouse and manufacturing workers. Most of our population, including me has no more than a high school education, making us vulnerable to making financial mistakes or following in our parents' footsteps and living paycheck to paycheck. Sixty-two percent of the nation's population has less than $1,000 in the bank and 52 percent of the folks over 55 have no retirement other than social security.

Local mortgage lenders and Solano County as a whole need a strong middle class and African-American and Latino families are vital to our success. There is only one way to improve the denial rates for African-Americans and Latino folks and that is to financially educate our community like my company is trying to do along with many local lenders and credit unions.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and one reason for this is financial intelligence and education levels. Start early with your kids in high school because time can be your friend or your enemy. This country will not survive as a democracy if 90 percent of the wealth (money and equity) is owned by 10 percent of the population.
Jim Porter, Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System No. 276412, is the branch manager of Solano Mortgage, a division of American Pacific Mortgage Corporation, Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System No. 1850, licensed by the Department of Business Oversight under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. Equal Housing Opportunity. Jim can be reached at 707-449-4777.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Solano Real Estate Scene: Modern day redlining

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Vacaville Reporter published an article Feb. 16, written by Janie Har of The Associated Press, on page one of the business section titled "California Latinos make up small fraction of mortgage market." In this story, she quotes from a study done by Reveal, The Center for Investigative Reporting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Segregation is one of our nation's most enduring and intractable problems. More than 60 years since the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision denounced racial segregation in primary and secondary public schools, and 50 years since the enactment of the federal Fair Housing Act, our neighborhoods and schools have yet to reflect the rich diversity of our nation as a whole. In far too many cases, racial segregation is as severe or worse today than a generation ago. Racially segregated neighborhoods and schools are visible in every part of the United States.

Segregation seems embedded in our nation's fabric while, simultaneously, the United States has become a more diverse country. Paradoxically, demographic changes since the 1960s complicate our understanding of segregation. The San Francisco Bay Area is a case in point. 1 The Bay Area is roughly 39 percent white, 6 percent Black, 26 percent Asian, 24 percent Latino and 5 percent "other," including Native American, Pacific Islander, and multi-racial. 2 While the region is overall diverse, there are few neighborhoods or cities in the region that reflect that diversity. Racial diversity within the region, however, makes measuring and understanding the patterns of racial segregation more challenging. 3 The most popular and widely used measures of segregation only measure segregation between two racial groups at a time. 4

Given the seriousness of the problem of racial segregation as a cause of racial inequality and the complexities in understanding the nature of this problem, the Haas Institute is launching a series of briefs that will attempt to illuminate these patterns and demystify the reality of segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many organizations have published maps that indicate the distribution of specific racial groups across space. 5 Sometimes, these racial composition maps are used to suggest the level or changes in racial residential segregation. 6 In some of our own reports, we have produced maps that illustrate the percentage of people of color or people of particular racial groupings throughout the Bay Area to imply as much. 7 But racial composition and racial segregation are not the same thing. This is the first report, to our knowledge, that will map and illustrate residential racial segregation itself for multiple racial groups simultaneously within the Bay Area. We attempt to fill a gap in the reporting on race in the Bay Area by refocusing on this important but difficult issue.

In this first brief, we present a series of detailed maps illustrating segregation across the region, within each of the nine Bay Area counties, and in its major metropolitan areas. Our goal is that readers in the Bay Area, for the first time, will have a clear portrait of the reality and extent of the racial segregation in their communities. We will highlight and discuss the varying levels of residential racial segregation within the region and show which communities and neighborhoods are the most segregated, and the most integrated. 8 Unfortunately, integrated communities are the exception that proves the rule, as we will show. Only a handful of cities in region are both diverse and highly integrated.

In our second brief we will disaggregate and untangle patterns of segregation into specific patterns of racial demographics. We will examine the unique patterns of racial distribution in the San Francisco Bay region, and across major metropolitan areas. In particular, part two of this series will illustrate the distribution of white, Black, Latino, and Asian populations across each large metropolitan area and many counties. We will also examine specific areas of racial clustering and concentration, not simply segregation, and examine how these demographic changes have occurred over time. Thus, we will better understand how patterns of residential change, migration and displacement contribute to segregation today and as a matter of historical fact.

Our third brief will focus on the complicated issue of how best to measure segregation, with a review that describes various measures of racial segregation used by demographers, geographers, and social scientists, including the dissimilarity index, the isolation and exposure indices, as well as more novel measures that are both quantitative and qualitative. We will weigh their advantages and disadvantages, and explain why we settled on the Divergence Index as the best measure for the Bay Area. In the process, we will compare results from different indices to form a more vivid and rounder portrait of segregation in the Bay Area. Part three will then examine longitudinal patterns of segregation using some of those measures over time within the Bay Area, using different segregation metrics to better describe how these patterns have changed over time. Each measure is a partial glimpse into a multi-faceted reality. Only by juxtaposing the best measures can we best understand the underlying reality of racial segregation.

The fourth brief will explain the significance of the problem of segregation, and delve more deeply into the harms of segregation. Without being exhaustive, we will briefly survey an immense social science literature. We will illustrate how racial segregation is a principal mechanism that isolates too many people of color, especially children, from life-enhancing resources, and is a critical determinant of racial inequality in areas such as educational performance and attainment, health outcomes, and upward economic mobility. 9 Segregation, as we will show, is not just a separation of particular groups of people from each other, but from opportunity and resources. As such, segregation is the root cause of racial inequality in the United States.

The fifth and final brief in this series will suggest and advance a number of policy principles that have the potential to alleviate the problem of segregation and reduce measurable segregation. This brief will examine the Bay Area's projected level of racial residential segregation going forward, and suggest targets for changing that trajectory. Segregation is the product of historical and contemporary policy and systems/structures, as well as private action. Without describing specific bills or measures, the focus of this brief will be to offer specific policy principles that have the potential to improve the enduring problem of segregation.

Our immediate purpose in this brief is to illustrate vividly patterns of segregation within the Bay Area utilizing compelling maps and data analysis, thereby drawing greater and more detailed attention to a problem that has remained stubbornly persistent. We also provide the divergence index calculations by census tract to facilitate applied research using our data. Our hope is that these maps and our accompanying analysis will convey an undeniable fact of life in the San Francisco Bay Area, and by doing so will spur and advance policy and advocacy discussions on how to mitigate or ameliorate them.

Segregation in the Bay Area

The San Francisco Bay Area, like most of the United States, is deeply segregated. The Bay Area is visibly segregated at the regional, county, metropolitan, municipal, and neighborhood levels. Each of the nine counties as well as the two major "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" (MSAs) is marked by high levels of racial segregation. 10 To illustrate this, we present the following maps of the Bay Area using a multi-racial measure of segregation using data from 2010 decennial census, supplemented, with data from the more recent American Community Survey (ACS) estimates where noted. 11

To measure and represent segregation spatially, we employ the Divergence Index, a decomposable measure of segregation which measures the difference between the overall proportion of a group in a region and the proportion of each group in a local area within that region. 12 Unlike many other measures of segregation, the Divergence Index can measure a region's segregation for multiple racial groups simultaneously. A comparison of this measure with alternative measures of segregation will be presented in the third brief in this series.

Immediately below is a map of the entire Bay Area. This map illustrates the degree of racial segregation across the region. The region, and each of the county and MSA maps presented in this brief, are shaded into three categories illustrating the degree of segregation measured for that geography: high, moderate, or low. In each map, census tracts are shaded based upon their divergence index score. 13 Each map also contains a pie chart indicating the racial breakdown of the larger geography presented. In the county and MSA maps, some tracts are encircled by a boundary color indicating a racial group that predominates, corresponding to the pie chart.

The San Francisco Bay Area is a racially, geographically, and economically diverse region of more than seven million people and more than 100 incorporated municipalities contained within nine counties. The demographic profiles and levels of racial diversity in each of the counties vary considerably from the region as a whole, especially those further from the core of the region or major urban centers. For that reason, the regional map above and the individual county maps below illustrate the divergence between census tracts and each county as a whole rather than census tracts and the entire region as a whole. 14 This allows us to observe the degree of divergence from a more appropriate context, especially for the whiter and more rural counties. 15

As the map above suggests, we find racial segregation in every county and MSA in the region. 16 Despite the racial diversity that exists through most of the Bay Area, segregated neighborhoods exist in every part of the region, from north to south, and east to west. As we will indicate, far too few census tracts in the region resemble the populations in the Bay Area as a whole, let alone of the counties or MSAs in which they reside.

As a byproduct of this research, we found two general forms of segregation in the region: inter-municipal and intra-municipal. Most of the traditionally recognized "segregated neighborhoods," where people of color were historically restricted on account of redlining and other forms of housing discrimination, are typically found within the larger, broadly diverse municipalities such as San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and mid-sized cities such as Berkeley and Richmond. The displacement of many people of color from these communities and the corresponding in-migration of white families over the last twenty years has diversified the municipal populations in these cities, but has not always resulted in more integrated neighborhoods. 17 Thus, although these cities are diverse in aggregate, they tend to contain some of the most racially segregated non-white neighborhoods in the Bay Area.

Much of the racial segregation observed in the Bay Area, on the other hand, exists between municipal boundaries. That is, the segregation of one group into a particular municipality or maintenance of historically segregated residential patterns has as a corollary the segregation of many members of other racial groups into other racially segregated cities and or neighborhoods in other cities. Inter-municipal or inter-district segregation is why, as many educational experts have noted, American schools remain stubbornly segregated. 18 This also why, although a majority of the most highly segregated neighborhoods for people of color are found in the largest cities in the region, the most segregated white neighborhoods are in small or mid-sized cities.

Although only suggested by the above map, we find that whites are the most segregated racial group in the region. 19 Although whites are just under 40 percent of the population of the Bay Area, 184 census tracts (of 1582) are more than 75 percent white, 359 tracts are more than 66 percent white, and 663 tracts are more than 50 percent white. Some of this is explained by the fact that the more rural counties of Marin, Sonoma, and Napa have proportionally much larger white populations than counties such as Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco. But whites are the most segregated group even in counties where they are a racial plurality and/or a minority, and have less exposure to members of other racial groups than any other racial group has to each other. 20

It may seem strange to describe whites as the most segregated racial group, but it is a byproduct of the segregation of people of color. The more effective whites are at segregating themselves from people of color, the more segregated people of color will be overall. The segregation of non-whites into disproportionately non-white neighborhoods results in whites residing in disproportionately whiter neighborhoods. Non-white and white segregation are reciprocal; they are flip sides of the same coin. The fact that whites are the most segregated racial group reflects this, but it also suggests that people of color are less segregated from each other than they are from whites.

Although Asians are just 26 percent of the population of the Bay Area, they are a majority of the population is 181 census tracts, more than 66 percent in 50 census tracts, and compose 75 percent or more in 18 census tracts.

Latinos are 24 percent of the population in the Bay Area, but are 50 percent or more of the population 143 census tracts, more than 66 percent of the population in 50 census tracts, and more than 75 percent of the population in 20 census tracts.

African Americans are just 6 percent of the population of the Bay Area, but are more than 25 percent of the population in 93 census tracts, more than 40 percent of the population in 40 census tracts, and more than 50 percent of the population in 18 census tracts. African Americans are the most racially concentrated group in the Bay Area, with 75 percent of the Bay Area's Black residents residing in just 26 percent of the region's census tracts.

As we will show in future briefs, these patterns of racial segregation are not "natural," or simply the result of individual housing preferences, but the byproduct of exclusionary policies as well as private housing discrimination. The extreme segregation of whites into cities such as Piedmont, Lafayette, Atherton, Menlo Park, and Walnut Creek is the result of processes that also segregate people of color in other places. As a result, for example, African-Americans are segregated into neighborhoods such as Hunter's Point in San Francisco, and East Oakland and West Oakland, as you can see in the Alameda County map below.

Segregation by County in the Bay Area

Featuring one of the most vibrant and diverse metropolitan areas in the nation, Alameda County contains the city of Oakland and surrounding suburbs and much of what is regarded as "the East Bay." Yet, as this map vividly illustrates, its racial diversity is not reflected in most of the communities within the county. Less than one in five census tracts reflect the demographics of the county for any racial group. Just 19 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 19 percent, 15 percent, and 18 percent, respectively.

Overall, the diversity of the county is spread into particular, racially identifiable cities and enclaves within the county. Only a few places like Newark, which is 26 percent white, 30 percent Asian, 5 percent black, and 34 percent Latino, and San Leandro (26 percent white, 37 percent Asian, 8 percent black, and 22 percent Latino) approximates the demographics of the county as a whole. Dublin and Emeryville are among the more integrated cities, although they are predominantly and more heavily white.

Cities such as Piedmont just north of Oakland, and Pleasanton and Livermore in the eastern reaches of the county typify the heavily white suburb, with populations that are roughly two-thirds white (30 percent greater than the county as a whole), 1-3 percent Black, and the remainder Latino and/or Asian. As we will see in the next brief in this series, these patterns of racial segregation are historical in nature, and not of recent origin.

The cities of Albany, Alameda, Castro Valley are (moderately) segregated and predominantly white, although less intensely than the cities just mentioned, largely on account of heavier Asian minority populations. These cities are roughly 44-48 percent white, with 19-27 percent Asian, and 13-20 percent Latino, and 4-9 percent black.

Cities like Fremont and Union City in the southern and southwestern part of the county illustrate another expression of segregation. Asians constitute 61 percent of the demographics of Fremont, with whites at 19 percent, and Latinos at 13 percent, and just 2 percent African-American. Union City is 56 percent Asian, 15 percent white, 5 percent black, and 18 percent Latino. Both cities are diverse, but also with strong Asian majorities and therefore segregated. Hayward similarly expresses this type of segregation, but with a heavy Latino plurality.

Although most of the segregation within Alameda County is inter-municipal -- meaning that the segregation of whites and non-whites is reciprocal, a number of cities exhibit a strong degree of intra-municipal or neighborhood segregation. Although the city of Oakland is exceptionally diverse (27 percent white, 15 percent Asian, 28 percent Latino, 23 percent Black), it contains some of the most segregated neighborhoods in the Bay Area. As the map above illustrates, African Americans in particular are racially segregated in the eastern flatlands of Oakland and west Oakland, while the Oakland hills are disproportionately white. In fact, 8 of the 10 most segregated census tracts in the entire Bay Area for African Americans are located in Alameda County. 21

The city of Berkeley also reflects this basic pattern, while not as diverse as Oakland. Berkeley is 52 percent white, and 48 percent people of color, but the white population is segregated into the northern part of the city, and a sizable racially segregated Black population wedged into census tracts in the southern part of the city. This pattern, like most of the segregation found in the Bay Area, is a continuation of historical patterns set decades ago. 22

Contra Costa County is home to nearly two dozen cities of varying size and demographics. 23 Like Alameda County, it is a county of stark racial segregation. Just 20 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 16 percent, 20 percent, and 9 percent, respectively.

The most segregated and heavily white cities in the county are Walnut Creek, Lafayette, and Martinez, which epitomize the affluent white suburb. In fact, two of the most racially segregated white neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area are located in Walnut Creek, which is 63 percent white. Martinez is 69 percent white, and Lafayette is a scale topping 77 percent white, a remarkable instance of white exclusivity.

Along with these three cities, the communities of Clayton, Danville, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, and Orinda are also segregated, heavily-white cities. These cities are 63-78 percent white, 1-3 percent Black, 6-11 percent Latino, and 7-20 percent Asian. These are followed by the less intensely segregated, but still heavily white cities such as Concord and Brentwood, which are 52-53 percent white, 3-6 percent Black, 8-14 percent Asian, and 26-27 percent Latino.

At the extreme western side of the county is the city of Richmond and the unincorporated area of North Richmond. Richmond is home to the Chevron refinery, but was also a hub for factory workers during World War II, and recruited thousands of African Americans to its shipyards. Richmond's neighborhoods are highly segregated by race, especially for Latinos and African Americans. Although the Black population has declined in numbers substantially in recent years, partly as a result of displacement and gentrification, Richmond is currently 18 percent African American, 17 percent white, 13 percent Asian, and 48 percent Latino.

Richmond, like Pittsburg and San Pablo, are segregated communities that are heavily Latino, much like Hayward in Alameda County. San Ramon and Hercules are the most segregated, but predominantly Asian communities in Contra Costa County, and the analogs to Fremont and Union City in Alameda County

Pinole is the most integrated city in Contra Costa County, with a population that is 35 percent white, 26 percent Latino, 22 percent Asian, and 8 percent Black. Antioch, the second largest city in the county, is the next most integrated, although more heavily Black and Latino, with a population that is 26 percent white, 34 percent Latino, 19 percent Black, and 13 percent Asian. These communities are the near mirror opposites of cities in the eastern and central reaches of the county.

Home to Silicon Valley, Santa Clara County is one of the most economically prosperous counties in the United States. It is also home to many traditional working-class communities and neighborhoods and even contains rural communities such as Gilroy. Given the diversity of people residing in Santa Clara County, its neighborhoods and communities remain remarkably segregated. In fact, two of ten the most segregated Latino neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area are in Gilroy.

In general, however, each racial group is about equally segregated from one another within Santa Clara County. Just 19 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 19 percent, 19 percent, and 20 percent, respectively.

San Jose is one of the largest and most diverse cities in the Bay Area. Its population is 26 percent white, 32 percent Latino, 35 percent Asian, and 3 percent Black. However, like Oakland, its neighborhoods do not reflect the diversity found across the metropolitan region, let alone within the city limits. Two of the census tracts in north San Jose are among the five most segregated for Asians in the entire Bay Area. Latinos are also incredibly segregated into the neighborhoods of San Jose. Six of the 10 most segregated neighborhoods in the entire Bay Area for Latinos are found in Santa Clara County, in places like Gilroy and the environs of San Jose.

Monte Sereno city, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Campbell, and Palo Alto are the most segregated, heavily white cities in the county, with populations that range from 55-78 percent white, 0-2 percent black, 2-18 percent Latino, and 14-33 percent Asian. They are followed by predominantly white, but more Asian cities like Morgan Hill and Saratoga.

Gilroy is a highly segregated and 60 percent Latino community in the southeastern part of the county, while Milpitas and Cupertino are mirror opposites for Asians, but with 62 and 66 percent Asian populations, respectively.
There is no truly integrated city in Santa Clara County like Pinole or Newark in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, but the most diverse and integrated cities are Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.

San Francisco County has almost the exact same boundaries as with the city of San Francisco. For that reason, the city and county can be described interchangeably. A richly diverse place, there is a surprising degree of racial segregation which belies its inclusive reputation. Few census tracts reflect the demographics of the county for any racial group. Just 29 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. 24 For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 14 percent, 23 percent, and 9 percent, respectively.

Although African Americans are just 5 percent of the population (as of 2017), they are intensely clustered into the Hunter's Point/Bayview neighborhoods and some parts of the downtown area. This is a consequence of the extremely high cost of housing and rents in San Francisco, but it is also a result of historical patterns of segregation which prevented blacks from moving into other neighborhoods.

A similar story could be told about Asians during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries regarding San Francisco's famous Chinatown which carefully restricted where Asians could live. The Mission, once an overwhelmingly Latino neighborhood, has been radically gentrified in recent years with many of its original and long-term residents pushed out by rising costs. Whites are disproportionately concentrated in the northern and central parts of San Francisco, especially the Presidio.

San Mateo County extends south of San Francisco to encompass the San Francisco airport and suburbs and the northern part of Silicon Valley. It is therefore one of the most affluent places in America and home to a number of corporate campuses for Fortune 500 and 100 companies. It is also a highly segregated county. Few census tracts reflect the demographics of the county for any racial group. Just 24 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 21 percent, 15 percent, and 15 percent, respectively.

Research shows that regions with higher levels of municipal fragmentation tend to be more segregated. 25 Like Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties, San Mateo County is municipally fragmented with nearly two dozen relatively small incorporated jurisdictions, and many smaller unincorporated ones. It differs from those counties however, in that it lacks an urban core.

The small but extremely wealthy city of Atherton, which is 75 percent white, 14 percent Asian, 5 percent Latino, and less than 1 percent black, epitomizes the segregated, exclusive community. This segregation is the corollary of the segregation of places like East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto is also a historically significant site of racial segregation, and remains so today, but for Latinos rather than African Americans. Additionally, Redwood City has roughly 40 percent of whites and Latinos, which seems more diverse but racial groups are segregated in their own enclaves.

Millbrae and Daly City are moderately segregated, and have a predominantly Asian population.

San Bruno is the most diverse and racially integrated city in the county, with a population that is 35 percent white, 2 percent black, 28 percent Asian, and 28 percent Latino. Although San Mateo City also has a disproportionately small Black population, it is also one of the more integrated cities in the county.

Marin County is one of the most scenic counties in the Bay Area, featuring miles of shoreline, parks, and other pastoral views. Despite its reputation as a bastion of progressivism and environmentalism, it is one of the most segregated counties in the Bay Area, especially for whites. In fact, it might be fair to say that the entire county is segregated. The large number of whites may mask this. Sixty percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. On the other hand, for Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 15 percent, 29 percent, and 7 percent, respectively.

Although Sonoma is the 'whitest' county in the Bay Area, five of the 10 most segregated census tracts in the entire Bay Area for whites are located in Marin County as is visible above. A small number of clustered public housing or affordable housing communities are home to many of the people of color in the county. Anti-development policies strictly regulate where new or affordable housing can be built, helping maintain patterns of racial segregation. As we will see in the next brief in this series, however, many people of color have left or been displaced from Marin county in recent decades.

A neighborhood in San Rafael, as highlighted in the map, is the most segregated tract for Latinos in the entire Bay Area, where more than 90 percent of population is of this group. Novato also contains a substantial number of Latinos, with a 19 percent Latino population.

A viticultural and agricultural hub, and the largest wine producer in California, Sonoma County is another scenic part of the Bay Area. Despite its rural character, Sonoma's diversity - which is greater than Marin's -- is not reflected in its neighborhoods. Fifty-one percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 23 percent, 26 percent, and 13 percent, respectively.

In many respects, Sonoma is a counterpart to Marin in that it is a place where white families are exceptionally segregated from people of color. Three of the six whitest segregated neighborhoods in the Bay Area are found in Sonoma, neighborhoods in or around Santa Rosa.

Although Sonoma is 62 percent white, just 2 of the 9 incorporated cities in Sonoma have more than an 80 percent white population: Sebastopol and Sonoma City, and are therefore the most segregated cities for whites. On the flip side, just two cities have less than a 60 percent white population, Santa Rosa and Cloverdale.

The largest minority group in Sonoma are Latinos, which are overrepresented and clustered in Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, and Windsor town.

Petaluma and Rohnert Park are the most integrated cities in the county.

With 400 wineries, Napa County is most famous as a wine growing region along with its neighbor, Sonoma County. Both counties have similar demographics featuring a majority white population. Despite the large white population, just 40 percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 23 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent, respectively.

There are communities in Napa County that are predominantly non-white. American Canyon city is predominantly Asian, whereas Calistoga is predominantly Latino.

Yountville is the most segregated, heavily white city in Napa County. St. Helena is moderately segregated, by comparison.

Notably, Napa city is the most integrated city in the county with a population that is 55 percent white, 39 percent Latino, 3 percent Asian, and less than 1 percent black.

One of the oldest counties in the state, Solano County is much more diverse than its neighbor, Napa. It may also be the most integrated county in the Bay Area. Although still a low number, a higher than average number of census tracts have a similar proportion to the racial composition of the county as a whole. Twenty-seven percent of its tracts have a similar proportion of white people to the county's population. For Latinos, Asian, and Black people, those percentages are 31 percent, 17 percent, and 23 percent, respectively, the highest numbers we've seen for Latinos and Blacks. This also suggests the unusual fact that Asians may be the most racially concentrated group in the county.

Solano has the lowest percentage of highly segregated census tracts of any county in the Bay Area. Exemplifying this pattern, both Suisun City is highly diverse and integrated, with nearly perfectly even breakdowns of each racial group. Fairfield and Vacaville are a mixture of integrated and only moderately segregated.

Solano also has a sizable and historic black community. Cities like Vallejo, however, are diverse, but not as well integrated. Its population is 24 percent white, 19 percent black, 23 percent Asian, and 28 percent Latino, illustrating another textbook example of how an unquestionably diverse community can nonetheless be segregated.

Rio Vista and Benicia are the two most segregated, and heavily white cities of Solano County.

Segregation in the Metropolitan Areas

Several major metropolitan regions cut across counties in the Bay Area. Therefore, another useful perspective on racial segregation is to see the segregation that exists within the region's major metropolitan regions. The San Jose MSA is the most integrated metropolitan region, and is substantially more integrated than the Oakland of SF MSA.

Demographics of this MSA are marginally different from the Bay area as a region. However, segregation is as pronounced in this four county MSA as it was in the Bay area. Considering that whites are the most segregated racial group in the region, there are 124 tracts in this MSA that have non-Hispanic whites more than 75 percent. As discussed earlier, Marin County is predominantly white, so it is no surprise that the top ten tracts with high segregation due to non-Hispanic whites are in Marin County. The 18 tracts that have 50 percent or more of African Americans are the same as those in the Bay area. Thus segregated areas for blacks are mainly concentrated in this MSA region. Six out of 10 of these highly segregated tracts are in Alameda County, three in San Francisco and one in Contra Costa County.

As shown on the map, there are 8 tracts that have 75 percent or more of Latinos. Four of these are in Contra Costa County, out of which three are in the city of Richmond. Three of those 8 tracts are in the city of Redwood City in San Mateo County. The remaining one tract is in Marin County in the city of San Rafael. Mentioned earlier, 90 percent of this tract's residents are Latino.

Six out of the top 10 segregated tracts with 75 percent or more of Asians are in Alameda County, five primarily in Fremont and Union cities, and one in the city of Oakland. Three are in San Francisco.

This MSA seems to be the most diverse based on the demographic data as shown above. However, the map above illustrates how segregated are some of its neighborhoods are with clearly demarcated areas of racial concentration. Eight of 9 tracts with white population 75 percent or above are in the town of Los Gatos and beyond, while one is in the city of San Jose. According to our metric, there doesn't seem to be any segregated neighborhoods with African Americans in this MSA.

On the other hand, 4 out of 8 tracts with 75 percent or more of Asians are in San Jose. Of the remaining 4, 2 are in Milpitas and 2 in Cupertino. High tech industry in Silicon Valley is the main source of employment of IT professionals from Asian countries such as India and China, and thus it is not surprising to find neighborhoods with such high concentration of Asians.

Latinos have the highest number of segregated neighborhoods in this MSA. Ten out of 15 such neighborhoods are in San Jose, two in Gilroy, and the remaining three in and around the city of Hollister in San Benito County.

Whether seen from the regional perspective, the county level or the metropolitan level, the San Francisco Bay Area is simultaneously diverse but also notably and starkly segregated. The diversity of the region masks considerable levels of racial isolation and historical, persistent segregation. The measure of segregation we have employed here, the Divergence Index, helps us identify areas that are segregated despite a high degree of overall diversity. It also helps us see which communities are particularly segregated as a way of beginning to understand the problem we must confront and address.

More than half a century after the enactment national Fair Housing Act and nearly six decades since California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, the state remains racially segregated, with the Bay Area as a vivid case study. These segregated residential patterns shape the life chances of its residents, who not only reside in racially segregated neighborhoods, but attend racially segregated schools and have racially differentiated access to a plethora of public and private resources as well. Racial segregation, as we will show in more detail in part three, shapes life chances and is the main instrument of racial inequality.

Our next brief in this series will examine current and historical patterns of racial demographics which underlay these segregation maps. These maps will suggest how these communities became segregated by showing how racial change occurred in the Bay Area.

We anticipate that our briefs will generate a range of responses, including questions about how we define or conceptualize racial segregation. These briefs are presented in sequence so that we might also collect feedback and incorporate suggestions before compiling the briefs into a final report, so please send us your questions or ideas to HousingOBI@berkeley.edu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Piedmont residents wrestle with how to add more housing to exclusive enclave

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Piedmont — which has a median household income of nearly $225,000 per year and is 74%…