The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America

The Color of Law argues that racism was entrenched in US law, not just the result of natural separation of people. The argument starts out very strongly, but fades to less-supported arguments. It also does little to account for what role personal decisions did play. There seems to be an underlying assumption that black people would prefer to live in an integrated neighborhood if given a chance. However, how much is that true? There does seem to be a desire for homogeneity that needs to be accounted for also. The strongest argument relates to the government backed mortgages. The government would only guarantee mortgages if the home was in an all white neighborhood. These restrictions ended up locking Blacks out of housing opportunities. When they could find housing, the rates were often more expensive. This became even worse with the post-war housing boom. The government would allow builders to take the backing for a the entire development if they would meet the criteria. The only way the home builder could build up the subdivision was if it prohibited blacks. The rationale for prohibiting non-whites was circular. If non-whites were allowed, the property values would go down. However, these would go down because they could not get cheaper mortgages. (In reality they would often go up because there was now more competition.) 

Some real estate agents took advantage of the situation and engaged in "block busting". They would try to make it appear that a neighborhood was turning black. They would sometimes even engage in subterfuge, advertising properties for sale to blacks in order to attract people to the neighborhood. The existing white owners would sell out at a low price, and the brokers would flip the property to a black family at a higher price. 

Public housing was also initially restricted to whites only. Initially government money was primarily used to get housing developed quickly at market rates. Separate housing would be constructed for blacks. However, there would often be cases of vacancies in white housing while there were waiting lists in black housing. "Integrated" housing was often a code word for black-only housing. Eventually, the government was primarily building low-income housing projects that targeted black populations in poor, primarily black communities. The "remedies" to housing discrimination were a new form of segregation.
Attempts to "work around" race restrictions have also led to under-handed ways to prevent blacks in neighborhoods. These have often resulted in net damage to the society at large. Roadway construction was used as a way to eliminate vast swaths of minority or integrated housing. These communities almost never were restored. Localities enacted various zoning restrictions to keep poor minorities out. These restrictions often required excessive minimum lot sizes or segregated usages. This has resulted in less walkable communities and limited housing stocks. 

The book then explores various secondary ways in which the government has encouraged segregation. Some are a stretch. (The IRS did not remove tax deductions of churches where the pastor advocated segregation.) Others have scary parallels to today. There were many cases of the police turning a blind eye to outright hostility towards a black family moving in to a previously white neighborhood. (Today, police are encourage to turn a blind eye towards protestors occupying blocks in Seattle or getting a little violent protesting police brutality. Just like in the past, the "society" has determined that the "positive" goals of the extra-legal activities justify not enforcing the law.)

I do wish the author would have explored the economic and personal-choice aspects of housing segregation. He is attempting to refute the argument that segregation has resulted natural from individual choices by presenting the ways that government has encouraged segregation. However, he does little to explore what way other factors are involved. What would things look like today if there had been no restrictive covenants in the past? The author criticizes middle class black communities because they are not integrated. However, would we have more of those communities if not for government-encouraged segregation?  The author spends a lot of time discussing the battles for integration in Milpitas, California. Today, however, both black and white populations there are small minorities as the city has an overwhelming Asian majority. 

Remedies for past discrimination are a tricky thing that the author saves for another argument. The money lavished on subsidized housing appears to be an abject failure. It has only encouraged more segregation. School integration schemes also only touch the surface of the issue. (After all, schools are segregated because the community is segregated.) Should we really be targeting integrated communities? Would people prefer to live in a community that mirrors the larger metropolitan area or would they prefer an enclave of people "similar to themselves"?