In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

En Pocas Palabras II The Battle for Chapita Hills Catalina Burillo and Ann V. Millard Among the farms and rolling hills of Oceana County, not far from the broad, sandy beaches of Lake Michigan, near the small town of Shelby, a winding road leads to a set of neat, two-story apartments. With wellkept lawns and neatly placed sidewalks, the apartments fit in with local architecture. They are surrounded by children playing. Teenagers come home from high school and afternoon jobs; adults return from work and grocery shopping. It is hard to believe that this tranquil place was the subject of a community battle two decades ago. Burillo, field notes The fight over Chapita Hills Apartments exemplifies one of the explosive issues in the rural Midwest: low-income housing for Latinos. Chapita Hills Apartments were built in Shelby, Michigan, as transitional housing for agricultural workers who were moving to the area to live year-round. The farmworkers were nearly all Mexicans and Mexican Americans, and local Anglos misconstrued the apartments as reserved for Hispanics. This Anglo perception , common in many Midwestern towns regarding government programs to assist farmworkers, tended to play into local political struggles, as in the case of Chapita Hills. We assembled this account from newspaper reports, editorials, letters to the editor, and interviews about the proposal to build the apartments. Those eligible for housing as “agricultural laborers” were to be people moving to the area to work in fields, orchards, vegetable and fruit packing houses, and food processing factories. Throughout the Midwest, nearly all of these jobs are filled by Latinos—Mexican Americans and Mexicans. Although many are factory workers, they are classified as agricultural workers under some government programs, as long as their factory is on a farm that produces crops. Controversy over Chapita Hills began in the early spring of 1981, when a nonprofit organization, Michigan Economics for Human Development (MEHD), produced plans to build the apartments. MEHD applied for 41 02-T3109 41 02-T3109 41 9/29/04 6:51:13 AM 9/29/04 6:51:13 AM $900,000 in federal grants and loans to build the housing. Opposing residents formed the Shelby Concerned Citizens Committee (“the committee” or “CCC”). These organizations led the opposing factions in the battle over the project. A Shelby farm owner, William Field, began the opposition with a letter to the editor saying, “The data presented by the MEHD [to justify building the apartments] was one-sided and obtained from sources that they knew would be beneficial to their application” (Oceana Herald Journal, March 5, 1981). Field invited farmers to contact him and express their opinions of the housing plan. The committee soon conducted a survey of farmers and farm laborers who lived year-round in the county. Field tried to disprove the need for the housing with the survey results. Also, the committee’s lawyer sent a letter to the village council that pointed out various discrepancies in zoning procedures . In addition, the committee questioned the tax status of the housing complex. They argued that Chapita Hills was a waste of taxpayers’ dollars because there would not be enough tenants. Furthermore, they argued that Shelby already had sufficient housing for farm laborers and their families. At a meeting held February 13, 1981, in the Shelby Village Hall, some residents objected to the Chapita Hills plan, claiming there was a high local unemployment rate and a decreasing need for farm help due to mechanization . They argued that it was illogical to encourage people to stay in an area where there was no work (Oceana Herald Journal, March 17, 1981). The Shelby Concerned Citizens Committee also stated that the duplexes were not consistent with the single-family dwellings in the neighborhood, and they expressed concern that property values might drop. Whether the storm-water holding ponds at the project would be safe and reliable was another concern of the Chapita Hills opponents. Grover Merrill, a Shelby business manager, claimed that a housing complex only for farm laborers would be discriminatory and stated, “There are low income people working in small local factories who too should be considered ” (Oceana Herald Journal, March 12, 1981). During the 16-month battle between the Shelby Concerned Citizens Committee and MEHD, funds for the housing project were halted several times. The Oceana County Board of Commissioners asked for a temporary halt of the federal funds in response to two resolutions. Those attempting to halt the project also...

Share