· What it is
· Who initiated and supported it
· Why it came into being
· Who opposed it
· Why it was defeated
· Its larger implications – why it is significant, its relation to the bigger picture
· The fate of nondiscrimination housing policies
· Its relation to the liberal ideology of the time – the political atmosphere at the time
· Black power/White power – who has it, who does not
I. The Carey Ordinance: The Basics
A. What It Is – (1948-1949)
1. Proposed law decreeing that all housing built on land conveyed to private interests by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) or the Chicago Land Clearance Commission (CLCC) shall be made available for ownership, use, or occupancy without discrimination or segregation on account of race, creed, color, national origin, or ancestry.
2. Basically, it is a policy calling for nondiscrimination housing policy.
B. Who Initiated and Supported It
1. Archibald Carey (1908-1981)
2. Black community
3.
C. Why It Came Into Being
1. Black community was concerned that the redevelopment project would bring about a massive Negro clearance. They were afraid that after the new buildings were completed, blacks would not be able to return to the area. They were first to respond to the problem of public housing and displaced people.
2. The Carey Ordinance guaranteed that the black community would not be discriminated against when housing assignments for occupation were allotted.
3. Alderman Archibald Carey was sensitive to the black community’s concern and brought this proposal to the attention of the City Council.
D. Who Opposed It
1. Mr. Mumford
2. City’s major newspapers
3. Metropolitan Housing and Planning Council
4. Citizens’ Association and other protectors of the redevelopment program all joined the opposition
5. Ninth Ward Alderman Reginald DuBois and his plea for tolerance due to persecution
E. Why It Was Defeated
1. Threatened Pettibone-Mumford’s Blighted Areas Redevelopment Act of 1947
2. Ideological considerations denounced and deemed irrelevant.
3. “Pragmatism” and expediency won the day
4. Tacking on nondiscrimination policy would discourage, deter, and frighten private investors from committing to project.
5. Ordinance unnecessary given the Redevelopment Act’s ban on restrictive covenants
6. Mumford and Kennelly’s hand in personally seeing to the ordinance’s defeat. Kennelly denounced the ordinance publicly before the council before the vote.
7. Ordinance defeated: 31 to 13 (March 1949)
II. The Carey Ordinance’s Larger Implications
A. Morality vs. Practicality
1. Opponents argued that the ordinance simply was not practical.
2. Carey argued on principle and offered analogy to Hitler and Nazism.
B. Muting of Race Issues
1. Deliberate refusal to discuss the impacts of race on housing policies on part of law and policy makers
2. Why? Private developers would be discouraged to invest.
3. If housing became more social, racial issue, it would have met more opposition.
C. Black Fissure of Power
1. William Dawson and Archibald Carey
2. Machine politics
D. Major Legislative Opposition to Redevelopment Squelched Thereafter
1. Defeat of Carey Ordinance paved the way for Redevelopment without any more major or serious legislative opposition to the project.
2. “After defeat of the Carey Ordinance and the closure of the Cottage Grove Avenue, no one mounted any major opposition to the completion of Lake Meadows Court cases challenging the 1947 legislation and redevelopment process were also disposed of by the end of 1952.”
F. Consequences
1.
2. The Challenge of Black Power
3. Muting racial issues
4. Postwar Housing Program – pitched strictly as economic program, revivify the central city and business interests
5. Accelerated pace of racial succession
III. The Fate of Nondiscrimination Housing Policies/Liberal Ideology
A.
Example: The Story of
B. Liberal Environmentalism
C.
The Power: the
D. Double Standards
E. Class and Race
F. Urban Renewal