May 17, 2007
District Won't Be Majority-Black for Much Longer
From the front page of this morning's Washington Post, it seems the last person anyone expected to be right about anything, perennial whack-a-doo mayoral candidate Faith, wasn't actually that far off the mark during last year's campaign: Chocolate City is rapidly becoming Vanilla Villa. The District of Columbia will likely no longer be majority-African American within the next 13 years.
The 14 percent increase in non-Hispanic white District residents and 6 percent decrease in blacks from 2000 to 2006 are probably the result of the gentrification of once-affordable city neighborhoods, demographers said.
The impact on the city's racial makeup is noticeable. In 2000, blacks made up 60 percent of the District's population. By 2006, that figure was 55 percent.
If the trends continue, the city will almost certainly cease to be majority black by 2020, said Robert E. Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. "It will wind up more like a Los Angeles or a New York, with no clear majority."
The history of Washington, D.C. is inextricable from its identity as a place that a significant population of African Americans calls home. African Americans were 25 percent of the population of the city in 1800, the majority of them enslaved. By 1830, most D.C. blacks were free people despite slavery still existing, and during the Civil War (1861-1865) and Reconstruction (1865-1877), a huge influx of freed slaves from other parts of the country moved to Washington. By 1900, the city had the largest African-American population in the country, a fact which paved the way for the Shaw/U street area becoming a booming cultural and social center for the black community in the early 20th century. It wasn't until 1957 that Washington's African American population became the majority ethnic group in the city, making it the first predominantly black major city in the United States. By the 1970s, the city's black population topped 70 percent, and they were clearly leading the politics and cultural make-up of the city, as they do still today.
Of course, the increased costs associated with living in the District of Columbia in recent years have meant that many lower-income African Americans have since moved to cheaper suburban locations in Virginia and Maryland. It's a demographic trend that no one, but perhaps especially longtime residents who see the changes happening right before their eyes, can ignore. The racial tension that accompanies gentrification is a frequent topic of conversation on this site, and the numbers suggest the same trends will continue over the next 20 years. D.C. will become less black, while the suburbs will become more so. Nothing could change the significant role African Americans have and will continue to play in leading this city -- but it does seem it's time to once again revisit one of our favorite topics: what exactly the city ought to be doing to ensure that longtime residents aren't displaced by the march of economic growth?
Photo by Ronnie R.
Historical information from Marya Annette McQuirter, Ph.D. on the Cultural Tourism DC site as well as ExploreDC.org.
|
"Vanilla Villa??" Seriously, guys, not only is that a stupid appellation, but it completely contradicts both what's written in the Post story and what appears later in your own damn posting. Specifically, that DC will likely end up with no one predominant racial group.
I for one welcome our new gay and latino overlords. Hello Appletinis and Chimichangas! Goodbye malt liquor and halfsmokes!
Black talk radio will resound with discussions of THE PLAN today. This is the conspiracy theory, certainly active since the 80s, purporting a concerted effort by the white political and business establishment to remove the African American population of the District.
I'm puzzled that the article in the Post doesn't mention this well-known concept.
The Post article has some funny math. If the rate of AA population decreases by 1% per year (as from 2000-2006), it will cease to be majority black in just five years, not thirteen.
And... keep in mind that many of those AA's leaving the city are not being "forced out". They are taking advantage of rising real estate prices and selling out. Seniors in particular are largely protected from real estate tax increases, and are leaving voluntarily.
All Post articles have funny math. The newspaper has extremely low journalistic standards.
The Post story's online comments are full of nuts. I am amazed - but not surprised - that some people actually believe THE PLAN exists. Do they really think city government officials are smart enough to actually carry out anything like this? This city can't even figure out how many employees it has, yet it supposedly has a secret plan for forcing out black residents and bringing in white residents? Oy vey. It reminds me of the utterly loony Arab conspiracies that "the Jews" knew beforehand about 9/11 and that's why they all took the day off from work at the World Trade Center.
A bigger question about this story is: So what? Should the government play ANY role in ensuring long-time residents stick around? Shouldn't the government's focus be on providing services to its residents, not trying to play sociology overlord? Cities change. It's the way it goes. Georgetown used to be a black enclave; Anacostia used to be nearly all-white. So? People move because of various factors: jobs, crime, affordable housing, big back yards for kids, nicer climate, etc. Once the government gets involved in plans to make sure this or that group stays in town, look out b/c there's going to be all sorts of lobbyists looking for handouts.
What surprises me is that Hispanics haven't yet stepped up to claim their share. It could be that many aren't citizens - or legal resident. I dunno. But city politics is going to be very different in a decade.
JM: Do not underestimate pressures on older African American homeowners in DC. Tax and utility costs are rising for all, as has the cost of maintenance for older housing stock. Many African American seniors worked extremely hard in the bad old days to become homeowners, and their emotional investment in those houses cannot be overstated. They hope to live out their years in dignity in those homes, but are now under pressure from younger family members to sell out and share the wealth now. The fact that seniors will have to find new housing in an expensive market is not considered by the younger generation.
DC Bubble hates the defensiveness and guilt surrounding these numbers. While some African American fear there is a "masterplan" to turn Chocolate City into a place only for the blonde-and-blue eyed, many whites engage in hand-wringing because they are forcing out black families. How many blacks have been forced out of Noma or downtown where the condos were built on brownfields? Or sorry can you feel for the black family that moved from DC to PG county where the schools are better?
If the rate of AA population decreases by 1% per year (as from 2000-2006), it will cease to be majority black in just five years, not thirteen.
A 1% decrease of 60% does not result in 59%. It results in 59.4%. A 1% decrease from 59.4% results in 58.81%, and so on and so forth.
Much like increasing the sales tax from 5% to 6% doesn't increase the sales tax "1%", it increases the sales tax by 20%.
When people have this debate it always reminds me of Chocolate City by P-Funk.
But seriously who cares. Y'all make it sound like a city is a static thing. Washington DC breathes, moves and reacts to the movements of people.
JM, you are misinterpreting the numbers. The Asian popualtion is now 3%, up 20%. That doesn't mean that it was -17%. It means it is 120% from its previous number (which if it is now 3%, was 2.5%).
Cranky, I couldn't agree with you more. The city shouldn't DO anything about changing racial demographics. It should try and make the city a better (subjective, I know) place to live.
Milk Chocolate City
The areas in DC losing the largest amount of black residents are Wards 7 and 8, which have seen almost no gentrification and where housing prices are still low for the surrounding area. Large movements out of here have been going on for decades. Its not accurate to label gentrification and rising housing prices as the sole cause of blacks leaving the city. Black suburbinization has been a trend here and throughout the country since the riots. Many people simply don't want to live in Anacostia and have been moving to the suburbs when they can afford it.
I do care in that I don't want DC to become another soulless city. And believe me, I am NOT saying that white people are soulless (being white myself). I just think that you can't buy out old houses (and force out the residents, regardless of race) and either renovate the place and sell it for over a million dollars, or knock it down and build a condo.
There has to be something about DC that makes it worth living in other than the political scene. There HAS to. If a vibrant black population is going to leave, then what do we have left? Drunk college kids in GTown and Adam's Morgan?
Sommer, I know you're white, but this could have been written a bit more inclusively. "They"?
By the 1970s, the city's black population topped 70 percent, and they were clearly leading the politics and cultural make-up of the city, as they do still today.
I never understood how THE PLAN was supposed to work? Isn't the DC government overwhelmingly black? If so, the whole idea of the DC government advancing THE PLAN to get rid of blacks through forcing gentrification, rising taxes, etc., is, well, stupid.
Even if there were some secret white cabal of business and political types, they'd have to have the active cooperation of the DC government to pull it off.
And thank you, JM, for pointing out that DC has special exemptions for the poor and elderly so they aren't displaced by real estate taxes.
Yes, utilities are rising as well. But DC has very low utility costs as it is, and again there are numerous programs for low income / elderly residents for utility bills.
Sure, I hate to see anyone lose a house they love. But to suggest it's anything other than the natural cyclical nature of cities is unsupportable.
Blah, if you are correct about Wards 7 and 8, the movement of African Americans has more to do with bad schools and crime than anything else.
Mocha Sunrise Metropolis?
Burnt Sienna Burg?
Here we go with the PC police.
It's funny how the Post and others will decry the District becoming more white, yet they won't show the same emotion for the loss of whites in Prince George's County. The county was nearly 85% white in the early 70s and now is something like 60–70% black.
To clarify my previous comment: Even if the author were African American, it would be a stretch to assume that she were part of the 1970s black population who led the politics and cultural make-up of the city. Sorry if I came off a bit snarky, but I don't see the problem here.
At least 2/3 of this city is rundown crap. If demographic trends coincide with city-wide improvements to previously unliveable neighborhoods, I'm all for that.
Thanks for the clarification James.
The "they still do today" sounds to me like an assumption that "we" here reading this are all white. To my ears it's exclusionist -- literally, "us vs them" -- and the concept could have been phrased neutrally. Sue me for caring.
Let's be honest, techne -- 99% of DCist readership is white.
Finally, we have proof that THE PLAN works! Also, the Klan owns KFC, Marlboro, and Snapple, so every time you buy their products you're contributing to genocide.
Who cares? Three-hundred years ago, DC was majority Native American and swamp. Thirty-years from now, it'll be majority Asian, Indian, and Latino. I don't see how any of these people will be "forcing out" those who already live in DC: you sell them your house, you get their money, they go someplace nicer, dcist and the Post gets to write a handwringing article about how people are free to go wherever they can afford.
And they forgot to mention that DC's loss is P.G. County's gain. Don't see the tax collectors in Annapolis crying over this one.
I tell y'all white folk why 99% of yo' readers be white is coz' y'all ain't talkin' 'bout nothin' worth really reading. This stupid ass site is like watching The damn Weather Channel.
Y'all know this stupid ass blog be for bored ass white folk sitting on they ass at work.
Vanilla Villa? Okay y'all white folk need to come up with something better coz' y'all really stupid.
I know y'all white folk think it's all cool and shit to be pushing black folk out they neighborhoods and then complainin out loud and on tv when those same black folk be returning to the neighborhood to go to the same church.
When all the black folk is out of DC then maybe y'all white folk can throw a block party or whatever it is that you wonderbreads do.
Y'all white people got some issues with shit.
i don't care what races are in DC as long as it's majority gay!
Rainbow: What about bi? Do they count? And I don't mean the countless "I've never done this before" Republican staffers that are still claiming bi status years later.
Male bisexuality is exceedingly rare outside of Canada, its natural habitat.
Let us not forget those august words of enlightenment from the mouth of Ray Nagin: "How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink."
O sage, bestow upon us your wisdom and your clever flavored beverage metaphors.
I've always distrusted the 'twelve pack bi' guys if they are beyond college age. They inevitably want to blame you the next day (not that I would know personally..... I'm only going by what I hear on the internets tubes). Being a big ho and blaming it on alcohol and/or your sex partner's inherent sluttiness/comehitherness - fun in college, annoying as an adult.
What does this have to do with DC become a frothy mix of mocha cinnamon goodness instead of delicious deep black chocolate? Nothing really.
Let's be honest, techne -- 99% of DCist readership is white.
99.9% is more like it, I feel like a fly in the buttermilk here.
I have been amazed at the sheer number of guys in this city trolling for gay sex but who claim they're really bi. In my entire life, I've met all of one guy who might have been a true bisexual, in that he really was into both guys and women. He was engaged to a woman, who was also bi (I'm more willing to believe in female sexual flexibility than male), she knew about it, and they had their rules for play on the side. The fact that he was upfront about it and it wasn't a secret between him and his soon-to-be wife makes me believe him. This was in NYC, FWIW. But people are more fun there generally, though.
I guess it's the Republican influence, and the fact that so many people in DC are from the South, but gay people here are sexually repressed to a degree I've never seen since I was in college.
Cities are now attractive playgrounds of sophistication rather than necessary destinations for the menial labor class. Masses of Blacks, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese etc that came here to find...ahem.."work" had better learn Microsoft Office or get a Law degree.
"I never understood how THE PLAN was supposed to work? Isn't the DC government overwhelmingly black? If so, the whole idea of the DC government advancing THE PLAN to get rid of blacks through forcing gentrification, rising taxes, etc., is, well, stupid."
Hillman: I actually very much believe that a variant of "The Plan" exists. Moreover, it is open and public. The DC Government makes no bones about wanting to attract demographics with a higher income. And, if one looks at income by race, it's clear that a disproportionate number of blacks will lose.
The key distinction is that at the core the issue is not one of race, but one of money and resources. It should be no surprise that race, class, etc, are what is discussed instead. That's, like, the story of the world.
But THE PLAN is specific to blacks (often called "Negro Removal"). Those that believe in it never talk about economics. They talk of it in terms of race.
I guarantee you that if most DC officials had their druthers the new middle class would be black, not white.
Attracting demographics of middle income is reasonable, given that a city can't survive on the income from liquor stores taxes, very poor people's taxes, and the occasional baseball ticket sale, given the stunning social program burdens we have (not to mention the lack of commuter tax, the tax free property in DC, etc.).
With higher incomes come better manners, taste and usually more local civic responsibility. The people who claim that we will have a "soulless Urbia" are advocating tax breaks for people based on their ethnic charisma value.
And for anyone that thinks DC is magically turning upper and middle class, I'd say you need to get out more.
Yes, a FEW relatively small neighborhoods are turning, fairly dramatically. But huge sections of the city are not. There is some middle class east of the Anacostia, but it's a fair statement to say there's also tons of affordable housing there. Ditto for literally miles in NE and parts of NW.
It always cracks me up how many well-meaning liberals will go on and on about how a ten block radius in Logan is turning expensive while ignoring areas 20 times that size in parts of town they've never heard of, much less been to.
That's not to say affordability isn't an issue. More correctly, reasonably safe affordability is an issue.
We have a public safety crisis in DC (if you can call a forty year continuation a crisis). We do not have an affordability crisis. There are plenty of affordable areas. It's just that they are often unsafe.
How DARE you suggest that the poorer sections of this city are unsafe sir. If marauding bands of YUPPIES that are ruining our town!
How DARE you suggest that the poorer sections of this city are unsafe sir. It's marauding bands of YUPPIES that are ruining our town!
I think if more middle class blacks moved back into the city from PG and Charles county, you would not have as much debate over the racial aspect of gentrification.
I think the same thing that is happening to DC has been happening to Brooklyn for a long time. Housing sky rockets and it makes way for more whites to move in. Who would have thought that you would see whites walking around Fort Greene in 2007. Talk about a school plan, I think Washington has stole the art of gentrification from none other than the Big Apple. It once felt good to be say "Im from D.C. or Brooklyn, we got our own way of talking, walking, partying, etc.... " Now it's just wow I can't believe that white people are moving to my 'hood. But people of color are not openly accepted in parts of say Far NW or Tribeca(Jay-Z). It's just hilarious thinking about the whole thing. "You're not home you're just guest, remember that!"
Long and the short of it is the Masterplan is working...working...working...ha ha ha
It's cyclical. The dream of people living thru the industrial revolution was to leave the dirty tenements, overcrowding and crime of city life to live in a proper house like their upper class overlords. They left behind any individual or ethnic group that couldn't make it to the Middle Class and get out to the burbs. Now kids that have a couple of generations behind them want the excitement of cities that have become much safer in the last couple of decades (though still not quite safe enuff to raise kids).
Yes, my apologies. I seem to forget how many yuppies are out there jacking people up in the street.
As for people of color not being accepted in far NW, that's just not the case, by and large. I'm sure there are examples of racism in upper NW, but this is a very cosmopolitan city, with people of a trillion different races calling Upper NW home (in large part because of the embassies in NW).
Is some gangbanger with pants drooping around his knees going to get stares in Woodley Park? Yes. Is a distinguished middle-aged black gentleman from an embassy going to be harassed in the same neighborhood? Probably not by the residents.
I still have not met this mythical upper middle class white guy racist who freaks out when he sees a "gasp" negro, I have met ghetto thugs who jack white folks for fun though.
Jesus, techne, do we need a lesson in basic sentence diagramming? "They" is a pronoun that replaces to the compound noun "the city's black population," which appears earlier in the sentence. If she doesn't use the word "they" the sentence would read, "By the 1970s, the city's black population topped 70 percent, and the city's black population was clearly leading the politics and cultural make-up of the city, as the city's black population still does today."
And that would just be poor writing.
To look at it from another angle, let's take a hypothetical sentence from a nonexistent sports article:
"They" is a pronoun that replaces "The Detroit Pistons' offense". But if the Detroit Pistons' offense is primarily black, and I, the writer, am white, is my use of the word "they" racially motivated and a sign of lack of inclusivity in my writing?
Let's try to keep the idiotic knee-jerk reactions to a minimum and think before we speak, shall we?