Revisiting some work by Peter Rossi. In 1974, he published with others The Roots of Urban Discontent: Public Policy, Municipal Institutions, and the Ghetto. The Abstract:
The central concern of this volume is to examine the interrelationships between three levels of urban social structure: (1) local public policy-makers, comprised of elected public officials, the heads of major municipal departments, and "civic notables," or persons who play important roles in urban civic life; (2) "institutional agents," or persons who operate on the grass roots levels of important urban structures, for example, policemen, teachers, case workers, retail merchants, and personnel offices of major employers; and (3) rank-and-file black citizens. The design of the study is comparative. Fifteen cities were examined, representing 13 of the 15 major metropolitan areas of the U. S. The historical context is early 1968 when the field work for the study was undertaken. The research described in this volume tends to support three major conclusions: First, the central institutions of different cities treat their black citizens quite differently. Second, black citizens keenly appreciate those differences. Third, the different treatment of blacks from place to place depends on the political strength that they can muster. In cities where blacks are a large proportion of the electorate, municipal administrations tend to be more attentive to black leaders. In cities where blacks are poorly organized or constitute a small minority, black citizens tend to get short shrift. (Author/JM)
There seems an implied assumption that in all fifteen instances, blacks were a minority percentage of the City population. I wonder if that was the case?
Rossi's report focused on the fact that African-Americans were receiving different levels of service while they were minorities in those large cities.
That clearly and obviously is unacceptable where all citizens should have equal standing under the law and equal access to services.
I would assume that we have substantially tackled and resolved clearly race-based differentials in cities simply because that is such a rich lawsuit environment. I would also be confident that we still have substantial variances in city services but due to class rather than race.
Three quick spot-checks, Detroit, Baltimore, and Atlanta, confirms that all three of them were majority white in 1965 or 1970. Apparently Washington, D.C. was the first large city to become majority black, which occurred in 1957.
Today there is a long list of sizable cities which are majority black.
Detroit (82.70%)
Jackson, Mississippi (79.40%)
Miami Gardens, Florida (76.3%)
Birmingham (73.5%)
Baltimore (64.3%)
Memphis (61.4%)
New Orleans (60.2%)
Richmond, Virginia (57.2%)
Flint (56.6%)
Montgomery (56.6%)
Savannah (55.0%)
Augusta (54.7%)
Cleveland (54.3%)
Atlanta (54.0%)
Newark (53.5%)
St. Louis (51.2%)
Shreveport (50.8%)
Portsmouth, Virginia (50.6%)
Baton Rouge (50.2%)
Class discrimination is no less repugnant than race discrimination but it is also dramatically more complicated and therefore, to some degree, more easily obfuscated. (Some demographic history
here)
What interests me is this: if many (a plurality?) of our large cities are minority majority, how might that change the findings from 1974?
It is one thing to ensure that all citizens are receiving equal access to city services. It is an entirely different issue to ensure that all citizens are receiving the minimum acceptable services. And in many ways, a much more challenging objective.
It is no accomplishment if everyone has equal access to bad city services. We want them to have equal access to minimally acceptable city services.
But from public safety, to K-12 education, to public infrastructure, property security, to basic garbage collection, across the land complaints abound about declining services. In many cases, especially public safety and K-12 education, it is empirically clear that measured service has declined while cost has risen.
That is not a racial discrimination issue, that is a governance effectiveness issue. Yet we still seem wholly obsessed and monomaniacally focused on ensuring that bad services are equally distributed instead of ensuring that all citizens receive minimally acceptable services.
