In the United States, capitalism and white supremacy have worked hand in hand to establish systems of hierarchy for generating profit. In the years leading to the practice now characterized as gentrification, both the private and public sector cooperated with each other to maintain a system of profiteering by exploiting the most vulnerable segments of our society across the nation. Gentrification is defined as “a process in which a low-income area within a city experiences an influx of middle-class or wealthy people who renovate and rebuild homes and businesses. This influx of resources often results in an increase in property values and the displacement of the original, usually poorer residents.” An analysis of how race and capital have been structured one upon the other provides a clearer picture of not only the process of gentrification in urban communities but also its negative impact.

Racial covenants and deeds which explicitly excluded Black Americans from purchasing houses in certain areas were prohibited in 1968, but that did not stop the private and public sectors from finding new ways to exploit the Black community. With supposedly “inclusive” policies, such as contract lending and the continued practice of redlining, that appeared to support integration, the market continued to exploit Black Americans. With contract lending, private industries were able to sell houses to Black families while denying them any way to accumulate equity on their homes. Through redlining - a systematic denial of financial services to residents of certain areas based on their race - private markets were able to deny Black families mortgages. Later, when more Black Americans moved further North, the developers stoked the fear of integration in White communities’ minds. The hysteria scared the White population into selling their homes at a much lower price than they were worth, and then reselling those properties to the incoming Black migrants at a much higher price. These policies of blockbusting paired with the other aforementioned racial policies worked together to create massive wealth gaps between Black and White Americans, and effectively kept many Black communities trapped in poorly developed areas of cities creating the so-called hyper-ghettos.

In the 1990s, the government attempted to solve the issue of densely populated areas with high levels of poverty which plagued cities across the North. The problem had been further exacerbated by another wave of mass immigration post-World War II.  Termed as “Urban Renewal,” governments partnered with developers to demolish old properties, and invest in redevelopment by building new infrastructure. Federally-subsidized clearance of slums was used to help the developers in hope that the city would transform post-redevelopment and become increasingly fiscally productive. With this practice, a large number of families and local businesses were evicted as the land was cleared for new larger business interests and developers’ capital ideas. Tragically, a large number of bustling and thriving communities, with diverse populations and unique local traditions, were erased. The Urban Renewal, as implemented, was just another form of gentrification with its associated negative impact on people of color and people with low incomes.

In another practice similar to the Urban Renewal policies, the investors and developers attempted to increase the value of property in low-income, predominantly non-white communities. A stigmatization around “Blackness” was created and propagated by the private industry to add value to White neighborhoods by subordinating Black communities. The developers hedged their bets on an increase in the land and property value as a function of proximity to Whiteness. Declaring (and presenting) Black spaces and communities as inherently problematic, developers found a solution by creating new White communities instead of promoting equal opportunity. Big businesses, upscale housing markets, and industries were constructed to attract affluent populations with the expectation of an overall increase in the property value in the area. A serious consequence of this class remake of properties was an increase in rents and the general cost of living, which in turn led to the displacement of the original inhabitants.

An example of these practices can be found in our very own Charlottesville, Virginia. In the 1960s the community of Vinegar Hill, located near present-day Downtown, was known for its thriving Black local businesses and residential life. The entire community was destroyed by the urban development projects cooked up by property developers and the city council. Even today, gentrification is rampant in Charlottesville. Fueled by the University of Virginia’s expansion and the growing student population, the predominantly Black communities such as Fifeville and Starr Hill are being erased by the construction of housing units that will cater to the high-income, white students. These projects are continuing to drive out local black communities that can no longer afford the exponentially rising rent prices. Although these communities have been - and will continue to be - the long standing backbone of Charlottesville, private markets continue to cater to the transient student population who are just visitors to the area for the sake of making a greater profit. Charlottesville is not the first city affected by this phenomena and it certainly will not be the last, however it remains a prime example of how public and private domains work to ensure they generate maximum profits without any regard for the local populations affected by their policies.

Short of dismantling the profit-fueled capitalistic system which has created a market built on racial hierarchies, measures can be taken to at the least minimize the harm that gentrification and urban renewal has caused within Black communities. In Charlottesville in particular, the University of Virginia and the City Council must come forward and acknowledge their complicity in perpetuating harmful policies that have been detrimental to low-income and minority communities. As students at The University of Virginia, our advocacy for both the University and the City Council to properly recognize their egregious historical relationships with the local people in Charlottesville can shine light on the importance in rectifying these tragedies. One policy that should be immediately implemented into neighborhoods in Charlottesville, especially areas such as Starr Hill and Fifeville, is rent control. A rent control would ensure that landlords cannot keep hiking prices at will, which eventually leads to the displacement of the local population. Given that the rising rent and housing prices are the main cause of the displacement of communities in gentrified areas, price control will help regulate and create affordable housing.

Rent control, community land trusts, and other policy fixes can be implemented immediately to protect the local communities of Charlottesville and other cities across the United States. However, the best long-term solution will only come from the de-commoditization of housing. In her book Race For Profit, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor argued that the impossibility to separate real-estate from America’s racial and economic stratas, makes any market-based solution ineffective in fighting racial inequalities. The market has shown itself to be a system that is inherently flawed and cannot be used as a reliable solution to aid the dispossessed. Although policies like rent control will be useful in protecting marginalized communities, they can only be regarded as temporary solutions.

To properly confront the issue of gentrification and housing inequality, we must learn to view housing in a new and better way. By recognizing housing as a fundamental right and not as a commodity to be purchased and valued within the market systems, the profit motives associated with the real estate market will no longer interfere with the ability to own a home. The socialization of housing can occur if the public sector takes on the role of housing developers. This would allow for the creation of homes for people from all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. Although many opponents to public housing point fingers at the United State’s failed public housing projects as an inherent problem within government housing, the real reason for the collapse of socialized housing in America was due to inadequate funding, poor maintenance, and media sensationalization. Due to poor mismanagement from the Federal Government and constant media propaganda such as the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) movement spread by the private industry, public housing in the United States was destined to fail. Moving forward, America should look towards countries in Europe who have successfully managed public housing projects. For example, in Vienna, Austria, over 62% of the population is now living in socialized housing.

The market has continuously proven itself to be a cycle of exploitation. We must reject solutions and systems that function within it and look towards the socialization of resources to uplift the marginalized.