1 Corinthians 12:12-27, 12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
For decades, many banks in the U.S. denied mortgages to people, mostly people of color in urban areas, preventing them from buying a home in certain neighborhoods or getting a loan to renovate their house. The practice — once backed by the U.S. government — started in the 1930s and took place across the country. That includes in many of the nation's largest cities, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Tampa and others with large minority populations. The term “redlining” was coined by sociologist John McKnight in the 1960s and derives from how the federal government and lenders would literally draw a red line on a map around the neighborhoods they would not invest in based on demographics alone.
Black inner-city neighborhoods were most likely to be redlined. Investigations found that lenders would make loans to lower-income Whites but not to middle- or upper-income African Americans. Unable to get regular mortgages, Black residents who wanted to own a house often were forced to resort to exploitatively priced housing contracts that massively increased the cost of housing and gave them no equity until their last payment was delivered. In recent years, redlining has come to mean racial discrimination of any kind in housing or shorthand for many types of historic race-based exclusionary tactics in real estate — from racial steering by real estate agents (directing Black home buyers and renters to certain neighborhoods or buildings and away from others) to racial covenants in many suburbs and developments (barring Black residents from buying homes). All of which contributed to the racial segregation that shaped the way America looks today.
The origins of the term come from government homeownership programs that were created as part of the 1930s-era New Deal. The programs offered government-insured mortgages for homeowners — a form of federal aid designed to stave off a massive wave of foreclosures in the wake of the Depression. During this time, the federal government began redlining real estate, marking “risky” neighborhoods for federal mortgage loans on the basis of race. The result of this redlining in real estate could still be felt decades later. In 1933, faced with a housing shortage, the federal government began a program explicitly designed to increase — and segregate — America's housing stock. Author Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a "state-sponsored system of segregation." Federal housing policies created after the Depression ensured that African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.
As these programs evolved, the government added parameters for appraising and vetting properties and homeowners who would qualify. They used color-coded maps ranking the loan worthiness of neighborhoods in more than 200 cities and towns across the United States. The government's efforts were primarily designed to provide housing to white, middle-class, lower-middle-class families while African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.
Neighborhoods were ranked from least risky to most risky — or from “A” through “D.” The federal government deemed “D” areas as places where property values were most likely to go down and the areas were marked in red — a sign that these neighborhoods were not worthy of inclusion in homeownership and lending programs. Not coincidentally, most of the “D” areas were neighborhoods where Black residents lived. Though the maps were internal documents that were never made public by the federal government, their ramifications were obvious to Black homeowners who could not get home loans that were backed by government insurance programs. Usage of the term redlining became more common during the Civil Rights movement, especially in the era leading up to the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited housing discrimination, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, which required the release of lending data.
In 1976, the historian Kenneth T. Jackson discovered one of these government maps of St. Louis. “When Jackson discovered this map, it was the smoking gun,” said Matthew Lasner, an associate professor of urban studies and planning at Hunter College. (Mr. Jackson says he discovered the map somewhat by accident while searching for other housing records.) Mr. Lasner says the neighborhoods redlined by the government varied in all sorts of ways — age of the homes, average home values, proximity to industrial areas — but they typically had one thing in common: Black people lived there. (“Integrated” areas, where Black residents lived alongside other racial groups were also rated as a “D” on these maps).
Rothstein's new book, The Color of Law, examines the local, state and federal housing policies that mandated segregation. He notes that the Federal Housing Administration furthered the segregation efforts by refusing to insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods. At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans. Examples of redlining can be found in a variety of financial services, including not only mortgages but also student loans, credit cards, and insurance. Although the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 to help prevent redlining, critics say discrimination continues to occur. Redlining has been used to describe discriminatory practices by retailers, both brick-and-mortar and online. Reverse redlining is the practice of targeting neighborhoods (mostly non-white) for higher prices or lending on unfair terms such as predatory lending of subprime mortgages.
Federal law prohibits home lending discrimination, notably the 1968 Fair Housing Act and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The first of these laws bans discrimination based on someone's race when the person is trying to rent or buy a home, as well as apply for a mortgage. The act also makes it illegal to impose predatory interest rates or fees. Under the CRA, lenders must track how often they approve and deny loans to people in low-income households. Based on their records, lenders are assigned a rating on their compliance with the law: "outstanding," "satisfactory," "needs to improve" or "substantial noncompliance."
Although banks deny engaging in redlining, some housing advocates and lawyers say the practice continues, though in different form. "You're not going to see someone with a map on a wall with red lines around it," said Stuart Rossman, director of litigation for the National Consumer Law Center. "Although we rarely see redlining, what we do see is a lot of reverse redlining." In 1996, homes in redlined neighborhoods were worth less than half that of the homes in what the government had deemed as “best” for mortgage lending, and that disparity has only grown greater in the last two decades. In reverse redlining, banks may engage in predatory lending in the same neighborhoods that were once marked as off limits for borrowers, Rossman said. In the years leading up to the 2008 housing crash, mortgage lenders peddled hundreds of thousands of risky subprime loans, including "no doc" and balloon-payment loans, on low-income borrowers. Many communities in cities like Detroit and Newark have yet to recover.
For decades, many banks in the U.S. denied mortgages to people, mostly people of color in urban areas, preventing them from buying a home in certain neighborhoods or getting a loan to renovate their house. The practice — once backed by the U.S. government — started in the 1930s and took place across the country. That includes in many of the nation's largest cities, such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Tampa and others with large minority populations. The term “redlining” was coined by sociologist John McKnight in the 1960s and derives from how the federal government and lenders would literally draw a red line on a map around the neighborhoods they would not invest in based on demographics alone.
Black inner-city neighborhoods were most likely to be redlined. Investigations found that lenders would make loans to lower-income Whites but not to middle- or upper-income African Americans. Unable to get regular mortgages, Black residents who wanted to own a house often were forced to resort to exploitatively priced housing contracts that massively increased the cost of housing and gave them no equity until their last payment was delivered. In recent years, redlining has come to mean racial discrimination of any kind in housing or shorthand for many types of historic race-based exclusionary tactics in real estate — from racial steering by real estate agents (directing Black home buyers and renters to certain neighborhoods or buildings and away from others) to racial covenants in many suburbs and developments (barring Black residents from buying homes). All of which contributed to the racial segregation that shaped the way America looks today.
The origins of the term come from government homeownership programs that were created as part of the 1930s-era New Deal. The programs offered government-insured mortgages for homeowners — a form of federal aid designed to stave off a massive wave of foreclosures in the wake of the Depression. During this time, the federal government began redlining real estate, marking “risky” neighborhoods for federal mortgage loans on the basis of race. The result of this redlining in real estate could still be felt decades later. In 1933, faced with a housing shortage, the federal government began a program explicitly designed to increase — and segregate — America's housing stock. Author Richard Rothstein says the housing programs begun under the New Deal were tantamount to a "state-sponsored system of segregation." Federal housing policies created after the Depression ensured that African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.
As these programs evolved, the government added parameters for appraising and vetting properties and homeowners who would qualify. They used color-coded maps ranking the loan worthiness of neighborhoods in more than 200 cities and towns across the United States. The government's efforts were primarily designed to provide housing to white, middle-class, lower-middle-class families while African-Americans and other people of color were left out of the new suburban communities — and pushed instead into urban housing projects.
Neighborhoods were ranked from least risky to most risky — or from “A” through “D.” The federal government deemed “D” areas as places where property values were most likely to go down and the areas were marked in red — a sign that these neighborhoods were not worthy of inclusion in homeownership and lending programs. Not coincidentally, most of the “D” areas were neighborhoods where Black residents lived. Though the maps were internal documents that were never made public by the federal government, their ramifications were obvious to Black homeowners who could not get home loans that were backed by government insurance programs. Usage of the term redlining became more common during the Civil Rights movement, especially in the era leading up to the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited housing discrimination, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, which required the release of lending data.
In 1976, the historian Kenneth T. Jackson discovered one of these government maps of St. Louis. “When Jackson discovered this map, it was the smoking gun,” said Matthew Lasner, an associate professor of urban studies and planning at Hunter College. (Mr. Jackson says he discovered the map somewhat by accident while searching for other housing records.) Mr. Lasner says the neighborhoods redlined by the government varied in all sorts of ways — age of the homes, average home values, proximity to industrial areas — but they typically had one thing in common: Black people lived there. (“Integrated” areas, where Black residents lived alongside other racial groups were also rated as a “D” on these maps).
Rothstein's new book, The Color of Law, examines the local, state and federal housing policies that mandated segregation. He notes that the Federal Housing Administration furthered the segregation efforts by refusing to insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods. At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans. Examples of redlining can be found in a variety of financial services, including not only mortgages but also student loans, credit cards, and insurance. Although the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 to help prevent redlining, critics say discrimination continues to occur. Redlining has been used to describe discriminatory practices by retailers, both brick-and-mortar and online. Reverse redlining is the practice of targeting neighborhoods (mostly non-white) for higher prices or lending on unfair terms such as predatory lending of subprime mortgages.
Federal law prohibits home lending discrimination, notably the 1968 Fair Housing Act and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The first of these laws bans discrimination based on someone's race when the person is trying to rent or buy a home, as well as apply for a mortgage. The act also makes it illegal to impose predatory interest rates or fees. Under the CRA, lenders must track how often they approve and deny loans to people in low-income households. Based on their records, lenders are assigned a rating on their compliance with the law: "outstanding," "satisfactory," "needs to improve" or "substantial noncompliance."
Although banks deny engaging in redlining, some housing advocates and lawyers say the practice continues, though in different form. "You're not going to see someone with a map on a wall with red lines around it," said Stuart Rossman, director of litigation for the National Consumer Law Center. "Although we rarely see redlining, what we do see is a lot of reverse redlining." In 1996, homes in redlined neighborhoods were worth less than half that of the homes in what the government had deemed as “best” for mortgage lending, and that disparity has only grown greater in the last two decades. In reverse redlining, banks may engage in predatory lending in the same neighborhoods that were once marked as off limits for borrowers, Rossman said. In the years leading up to the 2008 housing crash, mortgage lenders peddled hundreds of thousands of risky subprime loans, including "no doc" and balloon-payment loans, on low-income borrowers. Many communities in cities like Detroit and Newark have yet to recover.
Comments