Prior to 1913's Alien Land Law, the Asian community had some rights to land ownership. After 1913 (and subsequent 1920 and 1923 updates) they would be barred from leasing land as well. Their lack of citizenship put them even lower than African Americans in the racial hierarchy because of this “foreignness.” Unable to purchase land – there was fuzzy space created where testing the idea of “land” became problematic. “Because of the use of the term "real property" in the law…it would therefore appear to be a crime for an alien of Japanese ancestry to own a home in California..."[1] However, neither Japanese nor nativist Californian would test it. More often it was cited that the Alien Land Law was used as a source of harassment against first and second-generation Asian families. In the case of realtors themselves, Asian Americans and other minorities weren't seen as potential customers. While companies like Mason-McDuffie cloaked their racism in "wise-use restrictions" other companies like Oakland's Mutual Realty had no problem putting discriminatory policy in print:

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

July 1908 advertisement for Mutual Realty Company's "Stone Orchard" subdivision. [2]

​

​

The Civic Art Commission and Single-Family Zoning

​

In 1914, Duncan McDuffie established a committee through the Berkeley City Club to raise funds to bring German architect Werner Hegemann to the East Bay the following year to create a city plan for Berkeley and Oakland.[3] A report was created that would have seen Berkeley with a "Western factory districts to be screened off from the residential sections in the East by a chain of parks, parkways, and playgrounds..."[4] In his effort to have Berkeley create a Civic Art Commission for city planning, Berkeley's Mayor Samuel Irving appointed McDuffie president of the Commission. While they weren't able to enact much of Hegemann's planning, McDuffie and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses worked to present a need for a zoning ordinance that would go farther than restrictive covenants. McDuffie believed "the city 'must supervise private restrictions and adopt municipal restrictions'... as the new developments were susceptible to changes in neighborhoods bordering their own... "[5] As a consultant to the Commission, Charles Cheney (son of Realtor Warren Cheney) drafted Berkeley's first residential zoning ordinance, which proposed segregation of single-family zoning, adopted by the City Council in March 1916. [6] Ordinance  No. 452 N.S. became enforceable by the police and was first used on Elmwood Park. [7] With legally sanctioned zoning such as this on the books, many cities (including New York and Los Angeles) followed suit. 

​

Buchanan v. Warley

​

It's important to know that by 1917, racial zoning was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's decision in Buchanan v. Warley. This case established that racial zoning was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (prohibiting the state from denying any person equal protection under the law).[8] Richard Rothstein noted that by not allowing a white man (Buchanan) to sell to an African-American in an integrated neighborhood, the court cited "racial zoning ordinances interfered with the right of a property owner to sell to whomever he pleased."[9] While California (and Berkeley specifically) did not have a significant population of African-American residents at the time, single-family zoning (and covenants) had a similar effect on limiting who could afford to live in certain communities and when (in the case of well-to-do Issei like George Shima) people of color did move into affluent communities, were under considerable pressure to fit within certain molds of behavior.  However, when it came to stopping individuals or realtors from renting or selling homes to people of color, there was little the city could do for many complainants. As seen in some examples, suggestions of talking directly to the purchasers or working with the realtors themselves to back out of a legal sale were the only recourse. No recommendation or suggestion was seen to be made to anyone that they should learn to live with their new neighbors was given in the cases found for this project. However, building permits were at the discretion of the city council. Denial of a permit was a quick solution to the threat of encroachment. 

​

In 1926, the sort of single-family zoning that proliferated in Berkeley became sanctioned throughout the country when the town of Euclid, Ohio was sued by the Ambler Realty Company. When Euclid had created a new zoning plan, it resulted in Ambler's land straddling multiple municipal zones, which limited the land use -- some industrial, while others were zoned single-family.[10] Ambler believed their rights were violated, but in the end, the courts upheld the rights of the city to zone their municipality. 

​

Conclusion

​

Much of what created Berkeley's Single-Family Zoning issue can be laid at the feet of the realtors and the 'community builders' like Mason-McDuffie that helped spur it on. But responsibility lays on the shoulders of the community members that helped perpetuate the market for such communities, and in fact, complained when no such 'protection' against decreased value existed to prevent 'invasions' of 'undesirables' within the boundaries of their community. By the 1920s rezoning and reclassification of former residential districts were ongoing. In November 1920 petitions to re-classify Zone one and two residential areas (single and two-family homes, respectively) to Class VI,  North from the Southeast corner of San Pablo Avenue from Carrison to Ashby Avenues: “to be used for the erection, continuance, and operation of industrial and manufacturing plants” be approved and notice of redistricting would be posted[11]. By October 1924, the reclassification of Dwight Way between Grove and Grant Streets from Class V to Class 1 and (and in parts on Grove Street, to Zone or Class 2) was in progress.[12] An area West of Dwight Station, heavy with light industries such as Marshall Steel and the Manhattan Laundry (advertised in The Filipino Student with the tagline: “We Treat your Laundry White”) looked at rezoning.[13]

 

The Planning Commission gave notice to the City Council that several issues existed that included: complaints about the oil burner, the amount of smoke, the soot and exhaust steam created, the amount of traffic, the lowering of property values, and finally the proximity to Berkeley High School.[14] While this subject was still being debated (in part supported by the Chamber of Commerce who shared the Laundry’s belief they had been zoned Class V in perpetuity,) history would have residential housing usurp these areas, pushing more industry westward beyond San Pablo, and with it, more people of color.[15]  

​

As you can imagine, Berkeley’s single-family zoned real estate expanded considerably through the first several decades of the 1900s, with many neighborhoods created with restrictive covenants. Policies like this extended on throughout the twentieth century, and despite sporadic lawsuits, these racist conditions that instigated the earliest known zoning ordinances continued. As discovered through this small sample, zoning and land-use ordinances were not necessarily concerned primarily with discrimination, but part of a wider list of items that white Americans found distasteful and often associated (wrongly) with people of color. When zoning changed within Berkeley, businesses and people were forced to relocate, most often affecting people of color. Early 20th century America was one influenced by xenophobia and yellow peril, originally stoked by Progressive ideology. Broker-sub-dividers like Mason-McDuffie and city designers like Charles Cheney held considerable influence on how and where Berkeley grew, and indirectly, where people of color would settle. Zoning, confirmed through the Berkeley City Council, would decide where new housing and industry would be constructed, and covenants would decide who would be allowed to live in those districts... That is, technically until Shelley v. Kraemer. 

​

Shelley V. Kraemer 

​

This Supreme Court decision struck down what had previously allowed private restrictive covenants, as well as made them unenforceable in court. Private discrimination was allowed, but "deeds that barred sales to African-Americans could be effective only if state courts enforce them by ordering black families to vacate homes purchased in white neighborhoods." [16] -- So the enforcement of these deeds was contingent on the collaboration of the courts violating the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of the FHA, Richard Rothstein made the point that the government would choose to work around (or completely ignore) Shelley v. Kraemer when making policy.[17]

​

Below is a map of residential zoning -- click on the ThingLink audio for an audio description: 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

Bay Area Zoning Map for Berkeley by the Othering and Belonging Institute. [18]

 

 

Today, Berkeley, one of many cities with a modern housing crisis that goes beyond the immediate Bay Area, has a choice to make to change these discriminatory zoning policies. But it takes more than a vote to change zoning: it also takes the will of the citizenry to change how they imagine their city. Ignoring the past mistakes of short-sighted development prolongs the suffering of those that live unhoused, prevents new sources of tax income that property owners provide to fund city services, and creates traffic and commuting issues for the community. When public servants, teachers, and service industry workers must live outside the community, a greater strain is put on our roads and transit corridors. Some transit issues could be solved by increased bus lanes and the availability of affordable housing: more apartment buildings, multi-family condominiums, and a division of lots or addition of ADU (accessory dwelling units). None of these suggestions are meant to be an answer to where the actions of history have brought us, but suggestions -- a starting point for consideration. Berkeley had a role in the greater discriminatory policies that were taken up by our Federal Government -- how are we helping to perpetuate those policies? The way to start -- at least for this project, was at home, the community where we live.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

[1] Charlotte Brooks, Alien Neighbors, Foreign Friends: Asian Americans, Housing, and the Transformation of Urban California. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 58.

[2] "Stone Orchard," (Oakland Tribune, 10 July 1908,) 19.

[3] Weiss, 13.

[4] Werner Hegemann, Report on a City Plan for the Municipalities of Oakland and Berkeley. (Oakland: Hegemann), 1915), 55.

[5] Lorey, 7.

[6] Fukuo Akimoto, "Charles H. Cheney of California," (Planning Perspectives, 18; July 2003), 258.

[7]] Lorey, 8.

[8] Slater, 72.

[9] Rothstein, 45.

[10] Hirt, 34.

[11] Berkeley Planning Commission, “Petition to Redistricting San Pablo Between Ashby and Carrison,” (Berkeley, Ca.: Bancroft Library Archives: City of Berkeley: City Records Banc MSS C-A 200 Carton 2, File 10.), filed 22 October 1920.

[12] Berkeley Planning Commission, “Reclassification of that portion of Berkeley and Dwight Way between Grove and Grant Streets now in Class V, ordinance number. 666 N.S.,” (Berkeley, Ca.: Bancroft Library Archives: City of Berkeley: City Records Banc MSS C-A 200 Carton 2, File 29.), 10 October, 1924,1.

[13] Manhattan Laundry Advertisement, The Filipino Student, (Berkeley, December 1912, Vol 1. Issue 1), 23. Google eBooks; accessed 8 May 2020.

[14] Berkeley Planning Commission, “Reclassification of that portion of Berkeley and Dwight Way…” 2-3.

[15] Charles Keeler, “Berkeley Chamber of Commerce letter to the Berkeley City Council 9 October 1924,” (Berkeley, Ca.: Bancroft Library Archives: City of Berkeley: City Records Banc MSS C-A 200 Carton 2, File 10,) filed 10 October 1924.

[16] Rothstein, 85.

[17] Rothstein, 86. [where "FHA commissioner Franklin D. Richards stated that the Shelly decision would '...in no way affect the programs of this agency,' which would make 'no change in our basic concepts or procedures.'"] 

[18] Othering and Belonging Institute, "Bay Area Zoning Map (Berkeley)" as part of the Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area Part Five: Remedies, Solutions, and Targets. (Berkeley: UC Berkeley, 2022).

​

​

​