FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4205373737> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4205373737 endingPage "543" @default.
• W4205373737 startingPage "543" @default.
• W4205373737 abstract "542 543 OHQ vol. 119, no. 4 Ryan, Research Report To the Editor: Greta Smith, in her fine article, “‘Congenial Neighbors’: Restrictive Covenants and Residential Segregation in Portland, Oregon” (OHQ, Fall 2018), addresses some legal aspects of racial restrictive covenants. Some clarification may be useful. Smith writes that “the U.S. Supreme Court declared restrictive covenants unenforceable by federal law in 1948” (p. 363). The language “by federal law” is problematic. In its 1948 decision in Shelley v. Kraemer, the U.S. Supreme Court was not applying federal statutory law, because at that time there was no federal anti-discrimination housing law to apply. To be sure, the U.S. Constitution is, or can be said to be, part of “federal law,” but the Court was instead enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The justices said that, although the covenants had been developed and agreed to by private individuals, state judges’ enforcement of those covenants involved the government in discrimination, and this made the covenants, through judicial enforcement, discriminatory “state action” barred by the amendment. Smith writes (p. 360): “Cases lodged byneighborhoodresidentsagainstincoming owners did not always hold up in court, because the original deed holder often no longer had a vested interest in maintaining the restriction once the property was sold.” It is true that when African Americans purchased property covered by covenants, neighborhood efforts to oust them “did not always hold up in court.” The reason, however, was not so much that “the original deed holder often no longer had a vested interest,” because that person had sold the property. It was that when African Americans moved into the area covered by covenants, the covenants were, according to some local judges, no longer operative — their intent hadbeenundercut—andthuswereunenforceable . Moreover, even if the original owner’s “vested interest” expired when that owner sold the property, covenants were typically attached to a group of residences in a neighborhood. Anyone who was party to the covenant, and, more importantly, those who owned a property to which the covenant had been attached, could sue to enforce it; indeed, this was the most common way challenges were brought. Once a covenant was attached to a property deed, it traveled with the property, was binding on subsequent purchasers, and was enforceable against them by others whose property was also covered by the covenant. Smith says nothing to suggest that Oregon laws (on which I am not expert) were different from that elsewhere in this regard. In addition to being a very interesting read long after its publication, Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases (1959) by Clement Vose, is an extremely useful source for information about racial restrictive covenants and their judicial enforcement (or not) as well as about the national NAACP’s campaign against covenants. Stephen L. Wasby Professor emeritus of political science University at Albany-SUNY Ph.D., University of Oregon 1. Greta Smith, “‘Congenial Neighbors’: Restrictive Covenants and Residential Segregation in Portland, Oregon,” Oregon Historical Quarterly 119:3 (Fall 2018): 358–64. 2. James Greer, “The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation and the Development of the Residential Security Maps,” Journal of Urban History 39:2 (2012): 279–81. 3. Smith, “Congenial Neighbors,’” 363. 4. Kenneth Jackson, “Race, Ethnicity, and Real Estate Appraisal: The Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration,” Journal of Urban History 6:4 (August 1980): 423–28. Jackson later expanded on this in his book Crabgrass Frontier. 5. Ibid., 424–37. 6. For examples, see Ira J. Goldstein, “MethodsforIdentifyingLendersforInvestigation Under the Fair Housing Act,” in Mortgage Lending, Racial Discrimination, and Federal Policy, eds. John Goering and Ron Wienk (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1996), 507; Gregory Squires, ed., From Redlining to Reinvestment (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992), 4; and Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality inPostwarDetroit(Princeton,N.Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1996), 43–44. 7. Amy Hillier, “Redlining and the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation,” Journal of Urban History 29:4 (May 2003): 394–420. 8. Amy Hillier, “Residential Security Maps and Neighborhood Appraisals: The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation and the Case of Philadelphia,” Social Science History 29:2 (Summer 2005): 207..." @default.
• W4205373737 created "2022-01-25" @default.
• W4205373737 creator A5005574806 @default.
• W4205373737 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W4205373737 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4205373737 title "Letter to the Editor" @default.
• W4205373737 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ohq.2018.0029" @default.
• W4205373737 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W4205373737 type Work @default.
• W4205373737 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4205373737 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4205373737 hasAuthorship W4205373737A5005574806 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C136800757 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C2777006572 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C2779777834 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C2779845782 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C2908542518 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C11413529 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C136800757 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C158129432 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C17744445 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C199539241 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C2776154427 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C2777006572 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C2777351106 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C2778272461 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C2779777834 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C2779845782 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C2908542518 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C41008148 @default.
• W4205373737 hasConceptScore W4205373737C48103436 @default.
• W4205373737 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4205373737 hasLocation W42053737371 @default.
• W4205373737 hasOpenAccess W4205373737 @default.
• W4205373737 hasPrimaryLocation W42053737371 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W1499577513 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W2040332807 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W2158484444 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W2224098606 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W2346866353 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W2997037511 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W3122793007 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W3124000723 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W4205373737 @default.
• W4205373737 hasRelatedWork W4247382770 @default.
• W4205373737 hasVolume "119" @default.
• W4205373737 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4205373737 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4205373737 workType "letter" @default.