Integrating Schools in a Changing Society: New Policies and Legal Options for a Multiracial Generation

18. Linking Housing and School Integration to Growth Management

302 MYRON ORFIELD Linking Housing and School Integration to Growth Management School desegregation efforts are presently being dismantled. Where they are occurring, they are unlikely to be related to housing desegregation efforts. To the extent that white suburbs are today building affordable housing, this is much more likely to be occurring under growth management law than civil rights law. It is time to renew the civil rights commitment to integration in housing and schools and to link those efforts both to one another and to a growing movement toward growth management or “Smart Growth.” In the early 1970s, federal antisegregation policies for schools and housing tentatively began to move forward together. It seemed possible that these efforts might be bolstered by a “quiet revolution” occurring in state growth management as several states—now almost half the states—have adopted some form of growth management statute. At least three court decisions in this period outline this hopeful moment: (1) Shannon v. HUD (1970), a decision outlining the civil rights siting rules for federally subsidized housing; (2) Keyes v. School District No. 1 (1973), the first city school desegregation case outside the South; and (3) South Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel (1975), a state court case interpreting the housing obligation of cities and suburbs in a metropolitan area under New Jersey’s general welfare clause. These cases have not been overruled, and they could still serve as a judicial or legislative framework for more racially integrated metropolitan schools and neighborhoods . Federal Court Victories in the 1970s In Shannon v. HUD, the third circuit declared that building governmentsponsored affordable housing in segregated or unstably integrated neighborhoods was prohibited prima facie.1 The suit was brought by multiracial plaintiffs in a neighborhood of Philadelphia where integration remained fragile. The plaintiffs wanted to remain integrated and believed that building a sig- GROWTH MANAGEMENT 303 nificant housing project in their neighborhood would cause it to tip or resegregate . The court agreed, declaring that it was the responsibility of HUD and recipients of federal funds to prioritize the placement of such housing in neighborhoods with strong elementary schools, racially stable housing markets , lots of jobs, and strong, well-financed local governments.2 The rules that implemented Shannon restated these principles but provided loopholes that have been too frequently exploited by central cities and housing developers eager to build low-income housing in segregated or unstably integrated neighborhoods .3 In Keyes v. School District No. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that housing and school segregation were “reciprocally” related and that school and housing desegregation should be harmonious in order to create stable school and housing integration.4 Next Keyes created a constitutional presumption of segregative intent based on factors5 that were almost always present in racially segregated school districts.6 Moreover, it found that a constitutional violation in one part of a local district would support a court-ordered districtwide remedy to judicially redraw the attendance boundaries that had been created by the local school board.7 While antisegregation advocates found the decision imperfect in many ways, the ubiquitous nature of Keyes violations would dramatically, if temporarily, increase racial integration in school districts across the country. Mount Laurel Developing Affordable Housing in Suburban Growth Keyes and Shannon interpreted federal law and were national decisions. However , the 1975 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel, viewed in concert with a sudden wave of state growth management laws in a 10 or more states (and a general welfare clause in nearly every state constitution), almost instantly had doctrinal implications that were national in significance.8 While its plaintiffs also brought federal civil rights claims, Mount Laurel’s importance lies in delineation of the limits of the police powers delegated to local governments with land-use planning powers for zoning in light of the meaning of the state general welfare clause from whence these powers come. While Mount Laurel’s remedy was solelyclass-based, and hence disappointing with respect to race-based integration , it is a tourde force through the minefield of an intricate American system of highly fragmented local government and land-use planning laws, rules, pre- 304 MYRON ORFIELD sumptions, and practices. In this hazardous terrain, as will be outlined below, many efforts toward stable metropolitan racial integration have perished. Several implications of Mount Laurel for stable racial integration in housing and schools should be noted...