Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

Met Council takes on metro-area’s inequality

Susan Haigh
Susan Haigh

The fashionable political buzzword for 2014 seems to be “inequality.” Every public figure from newly inaugurated Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges all the way up to POTUS, who is slated to address the nation Tuesday night, has declared or plans to wage a war on it.  

Following the trend, Susan Haigh, chair of the Metropolitan Council, struck the theme in her annual State of the Region address delivered Monday at Macalester College in St. Paul. After itemizing the Twin Cities’ considerable pluses — a low unemployment rate (4.6 percent in December), the presence of 18 Fortune 500 corporations, general prosperity, a low crime rate, beautiful parks and trails and a robust cultural scene — she went on to point out that not everybody in every neighborhood enjoys this well-being: “Our region has some of the most shocking race-based disparities the country.” We fall behind Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Seattle and Washington, DC. “I am pretty embarrassed that our region is at the top of a list I don’t want the top of.”  

Just because the topic is fashionable doesn’t mean it’s of no consequence. Haigh listed some familiar statistics to back up the claim that our regional economic machine hasn’t been producing fabulous results for minority groups. The Twin Cities region ranks first among the 25 largest metros for disparities in poverty (blacks are nearly six times likelier to be poor), unemployment (the rate for blacks is almost three times higher than for whites) and homeownership (only half as many black households are likely to own their homes). In income, we are fourth worst. Per capita annual income for whites is about $37,500; for blacks it’s only $18,100.   

The non-white portion of the population is increasing; and there has been a  growth in — here’s a rather ugly bureaucratic term somebody invented — RCAPs or “racially concentrated areas of poverty.” (By definition, an RCAP is a place where 50 percent or more of the residents are people of color and 40 percent or more have incomes that are less than 185 percent of the poverty level.) In 1990, 31 census tracts that were home to 3 percent of the metro population lived in RCAPs. By 2010, the number of census tracts had increased to 80, and they housed 9 percent of metro-area residents. Where are the RCAPs? You no doubt already know: in the center and north side of Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and various pieces of St. Paul.

Barrier to growth

Inequality, Haigh added, “is a barrier to growth in our region.” She’s correct, of course. If the racial disparities continue or widen, the Twin Cities could approach something resembling Guatemala, where I spent two years as a Peace Corps volunteer. In that case, a tiny white elite lorded it over vast numbers of poor Mayans. Only a few people could afford goods and services; so businesses either didn’t bother to produce them or charged immense amounts just to stay afloat. (A jar of pickles, for example, cost $12.) With such limited markets, the economy never took off.  

For a mass-market economy to work, the masses have to make money — and spend it. Having more people actively participating would boost prosperity.

Haigh contends that if the Twin Cities’ racial disparities were eliminated by 2040, which happens to be the horizon for Thrive MSP, the Met Council’s next iteration of its comprehensive plan, “we could inject $35 billion into the economy.” According to the Met Council’s analysts, nearly 216,000 more people would be homeowners, 137,000 more would be employed and 182,000 more people over age 25 would have high school diplomas.       

Those certainly are goals worth striving for. But how to get from A to B? Here’s where things get a bit dicey.

According to Haigh and other thinkers at the Met Council for whom she speaks, the aim should be equity, not equality. Equality, she explained, doesn’t always help. If you drop people in the middle of a lake and give each one the same bathing suit and tell them to swim to shore, you would be treating them equally. But some people need extra help to complete the swim, possibly nose plugs, water wings or flippers. “Maybe somebody would need a Jet-ski,” she said. Providing a tailored approach would produce equity.

So, the Met Council’s aim, according to a draft of Thrive MSP, would be to “use equity as a lens to evaluate its operational, planning and investment decisions and intentionally use its resources, roles and authorities to mitigate the place-based dimension of racial, ethnic and income-based disparities.” And that seems to mean pushing extra aid to RCAPs — subsidizing market-rate housing, adding affordable housing and so on. There’s more, and you can have a gander at it by looking at pages 19 to 23 of Thrive.

Racially isolated

My problem with this: the Met Council would be building up and improving the RCAPs, but they would still be racially isolated neighborhoods with lousy schools. “And even if you rebuild the schools, they would still be segregated schools,” says Myron Orfield, a University of Minnesota law professor and director of the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which studies economic and social inequity in suburbs and cities. And, as we all learned in Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal is inherently unequal. People might be making it to shore, but they’d be swimming in race-based lakes.

Call me crazy, but my vision of equity — or lack of inequality — would be a region where all communities, from Minnetonka to Frogtown, have at least some racial and economic mix. To achieve that, the Metropolitan Council would have to return to its 1970s policy of requiring all communities in the metro to provide — or prove that they have — a sufficient share of affordable housing. “If we had continued with that, we’d have completely integrated schools by now,” says Orfield.

Instead, the Met Council, despite its good intentions, may be hardening our separation into two metros — RCAPs and everyone else.

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by john herbert on 01/28/2014 - 03:32 pm.

    Did she really say “Jet-ski”

    So it appears that equity is the new code word for equality – read the comments carefully – Ms. Haigh is calling for an equal outcome. Nowhere in the piece do I see a commitment to the underlying problem of why a person is so poor that he/she cannot provide for their family or finds themself in the middle of the lake. That is the issue.

    I am willing to throw a line, fit a life jacket and teach a person to swim, but certainly cannot afford a jet-ski. All I see above is a life on the dole.

    As to Mr. Orfield’s comments, I believe Mr. Brown wanted his daughter to walk to the local school, not be bused out of the neighborhood. Note how many of the RCAP’s listed above were home to working class whites who fled the cities in the mid-70’s when unelected federal judges began setting school boundaries.

    BTW – My working class parents during the Depression would have been told to swim harder. I am from North Minneapolis and believe we can solve some of the root problems mentioned above, but busing kids out of the neighborhood is NOT a solution, use the money spent on gasoline and make North High the best in the state.

    • Submitted by David Greene on 01/28/2014 - 05:06 pm.

      Equity

      > Nowhere in the piece do I see a commitment to the underlying problem of why a person is so poor that
      > he/she cannot provide for their family or finds themself in the middle of the lake.

      That is exactly what equity-based solutions get at.

      Or are you of the belief that people are in the middle of the lake solely due to their own fault?

      • Submitted by john herbert on 01/29/2014 - 04:09 pm.

        More Jet-ski’s?

        Sometimes it is their own fault, sometimes not. I believe you are confusing equity with equality as does Ms. Haigh. Equity means opportunity, not mandated outcomes.

        My point is that mounting a massive rescue effort to save the person is expensive and does nothing to prevent the same event the next time they head to the water. How can our society afford to purchase jet-ski rides over and over again for the same people?

        Can we please see data detailing who these poor folks are and why such is the case? There are reasons why people are so poor, let’s identify the reasons and determine what, if anything government can effectively do about giving that person the tools to succeed.

        Please recall that our government is structurally inefficient by design so it should be the resource of last resort.

        • Submitted by David Greene on 01/29/2014 - 10:32 pm.

          Solutions

          We have the data and we know some of the solutions. We just need the will to implement them.

          And I know well the difference between equality and equity, thank you very much. That’s why I used the word “equity.”

          Outcomes matter. While outcomes don’t need to be the same, they do need to reflect equal opportunity. Our well-documented outcomes clearly demonstrate we have a system based on inequity.

          Some solutions that we have so far been unable to implement:

          – Transit geared toward connecting people to opportunity

          – A transportation system that doesn’t requite owning a personal vehicle

          – Fixing the school funding formula to target equity

          – Widely available affordable housing

          – Targeted investment in neighborhoods with disproportionate populations of low-income families

          The Met Council can influence some of these things to varying degrees. All of them need the participation of government. The famous “free market” has failed.

  2. Submitted by john herbert on 02/03/2014 - 09:02 am.

    Let’s do it then

    No offense intended, but I see the term “equity” being used interchangeably with equality by Ms. Haigh and many in our local school district and of course they are not the same.

    Your points make sense, our transportation system stinks, shall we take the 1.5 billion dollars to move a relative few commuters from Chanhassen to Minneapolis and actually build a bus system that meets the needs of the folks you mention above.

    Let’s train under-employed residents of RCAP’s to build single family homes in their neighborhoods and then subsidize ownership through a modern “Homestead Act.” The CCC worked for my Uncle in the 30’s.

    However, just spending more money on school or apartment subsidies in the long run does little to move a person or their family out of poverty. We could double the school funding formula but it matters little if those kids fail to show up.

    I think we mostly agree on what we should do, just wish we could convene “regular” folks to pound-out these issues rather than unelected bureaucrats or academics.

    BTW – the free market can be one of the solutions, however “it” is not designed to lift folks out of poverty.

Leave a Reply