Racial Apartheid in a Small North Carolina Town
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise
Kenan-Flagler Business School
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Campus Box 33440
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3440
Allan Parnell
Ann Moss Joyner
Carolyn J. Christman
Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
Ben Marsh
Department of Geography
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 17837
October 15, 2003
Submitted to The Review of Black Political Economy
Racial Apartheid in a Small North Carolina Town
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Allan Parnell
Ann Moss Joyner
Ben Marsh
Carolyn J. Christman
*Abstract
GIS-based spatial analysis and mapping techniques are used to document several pernicious forms
of racial discrimination, which are sapping the lifeblood from African American communities in a small
town in central North Carolina. The discrimination builds upon a historical pattern of racial residential
segregation unique to small southern towns and involves the intentional manipulation of zoning and landuse regulations by local White elites. Resembling the apartheid-like conditions that have contributed to the
growth of an underclass in U.S. cities, African Americans in this small town are denied political
involvement in economic development decision-making and access to critical infrastructure resources like
sewer services, while their neighborhoods are targeted simultaneously for locally unwanted land-uses such
as highway construction. These discriminatory actions expose African Americans to major public health
risks and are a heretofore unrecognized contributor to black land loss. Additional research is needed to
document the prevalence and geographical extent of these types of discriminatory practices in small towns
throughout the U.S.
Introduction
Discriminatory zoning ordinances and land-use regulations continue to be used to deny African
Americans access to basic services and political voice in critical community and economic development
decisions (Lester 2003; Seitles 1996; Bullard 2000; Eaddy, et al. 2003; Mohai and Saha, 2003). In this
paper, we employ a case study approach and a mix of quantitative and qualitative research methods to
illustrate how controversial land-use decisions are systematically withdrawing the lifeblood from three,
century-old African American neighborhoods in the small Piedmont town of Mebane, North Carolina. Our
analysis and interpretation of the Mebane situation are based on a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)based analysis of demographic data from the 2000 Census and geo-coded public records from state and
local community development agencies. We also draw upon qualitative information obtained via
participant observation in and a content analysis of town council deliberations.
The findings provide strong empirical evidence of institutionalized discriminatory intent on the
part of local officials through the: (1) adroit use of exclusionary zoning tactics that bar the African
American neighborhoods from annexation in applications for Extra-territorial Jurisdiction, a strategy that
essentially gives the town total control over land-use while denying African Americans elected political
representation; (2) conscious denial of access to sewer services in all three African American communities,
jeopardizing residents’ health and reducing property values; and (3) a concerted attempt to circuitously reroute a limited-access highway through two of the African American communities. In terms of impact on
the social and economic wellbeing of Mebane’s African American population, we argue that these
institutionalized tactics and strategies constitute a modern day form of racial apartheid.
Critical Background
Research documents that a number of discriminatory practices have been used historically to
create and maintain racially segregated housing patterns and to deny African Americans access to valuable
social and economic resources, including jobs, in American cities (Squires, 1989; Goldsmith and Blakely,
1993; Bullard, Grigsby, and Lee, 1994). Dating back to the turn of the 20th century, these racially
discriminatory techniques and procedure, which are referred to in the research literature as “ghetto-makers”
(Ford and Griffin, 1979), include the following:
•
Jim Crow laws mandating racial residential segregation. Baltimore, Maryland and Portsmouth,
Virginia were among the first cities in the U.S. to establish de jure racial residential segregation
ordinances in the early 1900s (Massey and Denton, 1993).
•
Race-restrictive covenants —mutual agreements entered into by White residents not to sell, lease,
rent or to otherwise convey property to any person with at least one-eighth Negro blood. These
covenants were attached to the deeds of properties and were widely used to maintain racially
separate residential communities in U.S. cities until the mid-1940s, when they were ruled
unenforceable in the Sugar Hill decision (Long and Johnson, 1947; Ford and Griffin, 1979).
•
Racial steering on the part of real estate agents in private housing markets and on the part of
governmental officials in public housing. Black residential opportunities have been restricted to
certain, usually aging and deteriorating parts of cities, while Whites have been afforded access to
the much broader housing market of existing well-maintained and new stock (Galster and
Godfrey, 2003; ACORN, 2000; Friedman, 2001; Allen, 1999; Foster, Mitchell, and Fienberg,
2002).
•
Redlining of racially transitioning areas within cities by banks, savings and loans, insurance
companies, and other financial institutions. This involved the systematic denial of home
mortgages, home improvement loans, and other financial services based primarily on the racial
composition of the neighborhood, thereby accelerating the decline and deterioration of these areas
(Darden, 1977; Goering and Wienk, 1996; Oliver and Shapiro, 1995; Squires, 1997).
•
Discriminatory locational decisions by local, state, and federal government officials in the siting of
controversial facilities or locally unwanted land-uses (LULUs), including public housing
developments, highway and freeway construction projects, community mental health and drug
treatment facilities, and municipal landfills. Owing generally to their lack of political clout, poor
and minority inner city neighborhoods are typically targeted for such controversial land-uses,
which adversely affect property values and endanger public health and safety, thereby accelerating
neighborhood decline and deterioration (Bullard, 2000a,b; Been, 1994; Mohai and Saha, 2003;
Tarrant and Cordell, 1999; Anoh, 1996; Louis, Gilliam, and Young, 2002).
•
Exclusionary zoning ordinances—laws and regulations instituted to control the social and
economic composition of neighborhoods. Used most often in suburban jurisdictions, such
ordinances have been shown to limit the housing options of African Americans trying to leave
central cities (Thomas and Ritzdorf , 1997; Rabin, 1989).
In their seminal book, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass,
Massey and Denton (1993) documented how these techniques not only have been used historically and
contemporaneously to create and maintain segregated housing patterns. They also demonstrate how these
forces have contributed to the increasing concentration of poverty and the growth of an underclass in U.S.
cities.
Racial segregation in small southern towns is equally as stark as it is in the nation’s cities. But
there are notable geographical differences in the two racial residential settlement patterns.
First, owing to the historic land ownership patterns of freed slaves and the settlement patterns of
rural black migrants during the 1960s and 1970s, high concentrations of blacks do not exist in the middle or
core of most small towns as they do in cities (Aiken 1985). In fact, there are substantial concentrations
around the edge or on the periphery of southern small towns. With this pattern, as Aiken (1987) has
documented in the Mississippi Yazoo Delta, exclusion typically means keeping blacks outside rather than
inside of local jurisdictions—the opposite of how discriminatory tactics have been used in cities.
Second, owing to differences in scale, the potential exists for greater interracial exposure and
interaction in small southern towns than in U.S. central cities. In part for this reason, vestiges of Jim Crow
are a part of daily life and racial discrimination is embedded in the seemingly ordinary planning actions of
small southern towns (Bullard, 2000b). Further, while overt discrimination is less common than in the past,
local institutions, such as public schools and fire and police departments, remain largely segregated or have
re-segregated. And in spite of increased numbers of African Americans elected to local councils and
commissions, the real political power in most southern towns still resides with a local White elite, whose
political, governmental and commercial interests inevitably intersect, with commercial interests overriding
public interests. Both the relative isolation and the mundane nature of institutionalized regulatory
segregation have largely kept the discriminatory practices and results from the public eye.
Our case study of small town apartheid, presented below, begins with the distinctly southern
historical pattern of small town racial residential segregation, which continues to be used today to deny
Mebane’s African American population the right to vote in community development matters, to preserve
their own property, and to access a host of community resources, including sewer services. More
specifically, we show how the White governing elite uses racial gerrymandering, instituted through a range
of seemingly innocuous government policies and procedures, to weaken or destroy African American
communities, especially where such actions serve the White elites’ commercial interests.
The Case Study Context
Mebane is located in central North Carolina on the border of Alamance and Orange counties
between the Piedmont Triad and the Research Triangle metropolitan areas (Figure 1). Historically, the
town’s economic base has been primarily industrial, but Mebane is rapidly becoming a commuter
community for the Triangle and the Triad. Emblematic of its emergent status as a commuter community
and the local government's pro-growth actions, Mebane’s population grew by 53% during the 1990s. By
contrast, the state’s total population grew by only 21.4% during this period (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).
In terms of race/ethnicity, Mebane’s 2000 population of 7,284 was 77% White, 18% African
American, and 5% Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Geographically, as Figure 2 shows, the town’s
African American population is concentrated in four communities (West End, White Level, Buck
Horn/Perry Hill, and East End). Because each of these communities was founded by freed slaves soon after
the Civil War, homeownership rates in three of them—West End (78%), White Level (52%), and
Buckhorn/Perry Hill (93%)--are comparable to the White homeownership rate (72%) in Mebane. But, a
major economic gulf exists between African Americans and Whites in Mebane. In 2000, the median
family income for Whites was $55,759, compared with $22,672 for African Americans (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2003).
Because Mebane has lost much of its traditional industrial base to international competition, the
town is attempting to attract new industrial development to increase its tax base by zoning undeveloped
land for industrial parks and by changing zoning designations in some areas from residential and other uses
to manufacturing and industrial classifications. In the process of making these zoning changes, local
officials in Mebane, as we show below, are disenfranchising the town’s African American communities
though their use of Extra Territorial Jurisdiction, their water and sewer policies, and their highway rerouting plans.
Discriminatory Tactics
Racial Gerrymandering
Mebane’s town boundaries have been strategically drawn to exclude African Americans, creating
the same racial residential pattern documented by Aiken (1987) in Mississippi’s Yazoo Delta. As Figure 2
shows, three of Mebane’s four African American communities are located just outside the city limits. In
some instances, as in the case of the White Level neighborhood, a single street (Mrs. Whites’ Lane)
separates Blacks, who live outside of the legal city, from Whites, who live within the city limits. Note also
the small “doughnut hole” of African Americans who have been left outside of the city limits in the
northern part of town.
Local officials’ adroit use of Exterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) has created this apartheid-like pattern
of racial residential segregation in Mebane. In North Carolina, ETJ law allows municipalities to control the
zoning, land use regulations, and development of areas within varying distances of their corporate limits
(depending on city size), assuming these areas are likely to be annexed into the municipality at some point
in the foreseeable future (Owen, 1998). The boundaries of Mebane’s ETJ and the specific areas within the
ETJ that have been annexed are highlighted in Figure 2.
While all of Mebane’s African American neighborhoods fall within the ETJ, none of them have
been annexed into the city (Mebane City Council Minutes, July 1, 2002). Most of the parcels annexed over
the past decade are newly developed areas, which are predominantly White. In fact, local officials have
actively resisted annexing the African American neighborhoods bordering the town. It is more difficult to
rezone with impunity the land of citizens who can vote. Black residents of the Mebane ETJ have no
political representation and little negotiating power, and so are effectively disenfranchised. Three specific
examples are presented below which provide insights into how Mebane officials have empowered Whites
and disenfranchised African Americans by carefully crafting and manipulating ETJ boundaries.
Rezoning an African American Neighborhood in the ETJ
The land in the Buckhorn/Perry Hill neighborhood that lies south of US 70, north of Interstate
85/40, and west of Buckhorn Road is in Mebane's ETJ. The neighborhood immediately adjoining
Buckhorn Road is African American (see Figure 2). In August 1991, Mebane officials changed the zoning
of part of Buckhorn/Perry Hill from R-20 (residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet) to M1
(heavy manufacturing) (Mebane City Council Minutes, August 5, 1991). Typically, when residential land is
re-zoned as non-residential — whether manufacturing, business or economic development district — the
houses within that zone are grandfathered in as existing uses; if they burn down or need to be repaired, they
can be replaced or renovated. However, if the owners want to either add on to their houses or subdivide
their land for residential purposes (for a relative or for anyone else), they cannot do so without getting the
land re-zoned back to Residential. Characterized as "spot-zoning," this process is discouraged and thus is
difficult to achieve in Mebane (Parnell, et al. 2003).
Basically, as a consequence of local officials’ opposition to “spot” zoning, the only option
available to African American property-owners is to eventually sell their land to a manufacturing interest.
Since industrial land with a house on it is worth less than undeveloped industrial land, their houses
essentially become worthless. According to The Land Loss Fund (2003), African-Americans are losing
land at a rate of 9,000 acres per week. Most of the research and programmatic efforts concentrating on
African American land loss focus on the competitive pressures to which Black farmers are subjected and
the discrimination they face from lending institutions and the government (Wood and Gilbert, 2000). But,
as this case illustrates, Black land loss can be caused by other, heretofore unrecognized, sources, such as
city zoning changes and discriminatory application of local land-use regulations.
Satellite Annexation
On June 1,1998, Mebane officials annexed 132 acres of residential/agricultural land on Old
Hillsborough Road in Orange County for use by a pharmaceutical firm the city was trying to recruit to the
area. On June 15, 1998, the land was rezoned M-2 (Manufacturing). The land could have been re-zoned
without annexation, but the city would not then have been able to tax it. By law, the city must extend
services (such as sewer) to annexed areas, but five years after the annexation, this has not been done in this
instance--in all likelihood, because the firm slated to buy the land never committed to building on the site in
question.
In the public hearing to annex this property, Mebane’s mayor opened the meeting by limiting
speech to “anyone who is involved with the property itself or is a resident of the city of Mebane, " which
effectively barred all residents of the area in question within the ETJ, many of whom are African American,
from speaking (except the residents who would be selling their land as part of the deal) (Mebane City
Council Minutes, June 1, 1998). Further, at the subsequent public hearing to rezone the land to
manufacturing, the mayor gave speakers five minutes each and stated the hearing would only continue
“until speakers became repetitive, at which time the public hearing would be ended” (Mebane City Council
Minutes, June 15, 1998). Although a majority of the 40 speakers who testified at the hearing opposed the
project, the Mebane City Council nevertheless approved the rezoning.
Water Quality Critical Area
In addition to the use of non-residential zoning, there are other ways that zoning applications can
affect or disenfranchise neighborhoods. Governments protect their water quality by imposing restrictions
in the form of a zoning overlay. A “Water Quality Critical Area” (WQCA) is an overlay that can be
applied to any zoning district. In such a case, the land is subject to not only the requirements of the
underlying use district but also the additional requirements of the overlay district. In all such cases, the
most restrictive requirements shall prevail. The state defines a water quality critical area, the counties
apply the rules, and a town may also apply the overlay zoning. Dense development poses a risk to
watersheds, so overlays typically restrict density.
The way in which Mebane officials have applied these rules illustrates how the burden of ensuring
high water quality falls disproportionately on the areas’ African American population. In 1990, the land in
both the White Level neighborhood and what is now The Club at Mill Creek (an upscale, predominantly
White, golf club community) had been designated WQCA and WQCA/ Balance of Watershed. However,
the Mebane City Council removed the land that is now The Club at Mill Creek from the watershed critical
area in 1993, an action that essentially paved the way for this high-density residential development to be
constructed (Mebane City Council Minutes, September 13, 1993). But, city officials left the restrictions on
the remainder of the neighborhood—the black part. On the southern and eastern side of the new dividing
line is a White subdivision with water and sewer. On the other side is an African American neighborhood
with septic tanks, many of which are reported to be failing or to have already failed. (The presence of
failed septic systems in the watershed critical area places the entire water supply at risk, but, as we discuss
below, the city has ignored White Level residents’ petitions for sewer service.) Similarly, a block of land
just south of the newly developed Club at Mill Creek remains under the more restrictive water quality
regulations, even though it is surrounded by land with the newer, less restrictive regulations. The residents
of this more-restricted area, which is also outside the city limits though surrounded by the city, are African
American.
One White Level African American family’s desire to subdivide its property illustrates how
Mebane officials have selectively used water-protection regulations to prevent African Americans from
transferring property—a major source of inter-generational wealth transfer—to next of kin. Before the
family’s farm became part of a city-defined WQCA/ Balance of Watershed district, the owner gave parcels
approximately one acre in size to each of several of her children. When she tried to further subdivide her
property after the WQCA/Balance of Watershed designation, Mebane officials reportedly told her she had
to create lots of at least two acres and to construct a road paved to state standards with curb and gutter
(Robert Wilson, Personal Communication, September 26, 2002). Given that the latter requirement does not
appear in the city of Mebane's published zoning regulations (Hadley, 2003) and the prohibitive cost of such
improvements (estimated at $150 per linear foot), clearly the goal here was to force the African American
landowner to sell her property to a developer instead of passing it on to her offspring.
Denial of Sewer Service
The institutionalized exclusion of African Americans in Mebane extends to public services,
especially water and sewer, which degrade properties and place residents' health at risk.
In Figure 3,
Mebane’s sewer lines are superimposed on a map of the racial composition of neighborhoods and town
boundaries. The locations of the sewer lines were obtained from the Piedmont Triad Council of
Governments and the block-level race data were extracted from Census 2000 Summary File 3 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2003).
Note that the Mebane sewer treatment plant is contiguous to and immediately south of the West
End neighborhood, which is largely without sewer services. Until recently, trucks removing sludge from
the sewer plant drove through the West End community. Note also that sewer lines extend north to the
newly built, upscale Club at Mill Creek neighborhood, but the historic White Level community on the other
side of the road is not served (Figure 3). The sewer lines also run east to the Petro Truck Stop and a
residential area south of I-85/I-40 on Buckhorn Road, which was satellite-annexed and rezoned for business
development in the 1990s, but neither the African American homes bordering the truck stop nor those in
the areas just north of the interstate has access to sewer service.
Dwellings without sewerage use septic systems. If septic systems function properly, they provide
adequate sanitation. However, as noted previously, septic systems in all three of the African American
neighborhoods are reported to have failed or to be near failure (EPA Environmental Justice Study, 2002).
Septic system failure can be caused by locating drain fields on soil that does not percolate adequately, by
soil compaction, and/or by growth of roots into the drain lines (Septic Systems, 2003). All of these factors
appear to be affecting septic systems in these communities. In many cases, the failing systems cannot be
replaced because of regulation changes. Either soils in the drain fields do not meet current percolation
requirements, or regulation changes since the septic systems were initially installed now require larger
drain fields than are possible on small lots (Alamance County Health Department, 2003).
Failed septic systems present a public health risk of water contamination. E coli is one of the most
common organisms found in well and surface waters contaminated by poorly functioning septic systems.
This opportunistic pathogen can cause episodes of diarrhea in persons that consume the contaminated
water. It is extremely harmful, even potentially fatal, in children and the elderly. In addition, two
waterborne pathogens, Crytopsoridium parvum and Giardia lamblia, may also be found in cases of septic
contamination of well and surface water, and can pose serious public health risks to exposed populations
(U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2002).
An EPA-funded study examined the sanitation-related health risk in African American areas
around Mebane (EPA Environmental Justice Study, 2002). The study’s findings were as follows:
A round of 7 surface water samples collected during extreme drought conditions showed no
evidence of microbial contamination. Following rain events, second and third sampling rounds of
5 samples each resulted in levels of contamination exceeding the USEPA and NC Division of
Water Quality Maximum Contaminant Limits for fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci in
waters to be used for primary contact recreation. Third round surface water samples also were
positive for total coliphages, with concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 46 infectious units per
100mL (EPA Environmental Justice Study, 2002).
Requests from the African American residents of White Level for sewer service have been
repeatedly rejected. For example, citizens petitioned on April 7, 1997, but the city manager responded by
saying that the city cannot extend water and sewer beyond city limits (Mebane City Council Minutes, April
7, 1997). Again, on October 6, 1997, property owners of White Level petitioned for sewer service but this
time in conjunction with a request for annexation. The residents assumed that annexation would give them
the political clout required to have sewer service extended to their homes. According to council minutes,
the county engineer provided one resident an estimate of a “cost of $720,000 to provide sewer service
including the construction of a lift station and force main." Following discussion, the Council verbally
agreed that the area could be looked at for a Community Development Block Grant, but, as of this writing,
five years later, this has not been acted upon. Later in the same meeting, the Council approved city
financing for a lift station and over-sizing of sewer lines to serve newly-annexed properties on South Third
Street, which included the predominantly White Fieldstone subdivision, at a cost of $268,000 (Mebane City
Council Minutes, October 6, 1997). To date, the White Level community has not been annexed into the
city. Nor has it been approved for sewer service.
Beyond denying access to sewer service, white elites have used the health risks associated with
failing septic systems in an effort to force condemnation of properties in Mebane’s African American
neighborhoods. For example, when an African American family refused to sell property it owned at the
northern terminus of the proposed re-routing of the North Carolina Highway 119 bypass (discussed below),
a contractor living in Mill Creek, who was affiliated with a company owned by a member of Mebane’s City
Council, reported the African American property owner’s septic tank problem to the Alamance County
Health Department. In this instance, to avoid condemnation of the property, the health department allowed
the family to install an expensive but short-term fix to its septic system problem (West End Revitalization
Association Community Meeting, May 8, 2002). Because African American homeowners have been
reluctant to allow a systematic survey of their septic system function for fear of additional attempts to force
condemnation of their property, a full accounting of the extent of the water contamination threat and the
magnitude of the related public health risks have been difficult to ascertain.
Highway Re-Routing
The institutionalized processes of exclusion presented above marginalized African American
neighborhoods in Mebane, showing them to be essentially expendable in the eyes of the town leaders. The
proposed re-routing of Highway NC 119 through the West End and White Level neighborhoods provide the
strongest evidence that this is the case. The West End Revitalization Association (WERA), a local
community development corporation, has successfully thwarted efforts to re-route the highway thus far, but
the techniques and procedures employed by local officials clearly show that the town considers rerouting
the highway through the African American neighborhoods to be the best use of the land that comprises
these two, century-old communities.1
Figure 4 focuses on the proposed re-routing of NC 119 (the Bypass). Three of the proposed
routes—eastern, central, and western--are analyzed here.
The proposed eastern and central routes, as Figure 4 shows, would materially affect much of the
West End neighborhood by taking African-American-owned homes, vacant land, and community centers.
These two proposed routes will also physically divide the community, exacerbate drainage problems, and
increase exposure to noise pollution. The third proposed route, the western path, would have less of an
impact on Mebane’s African American communities, but would still destroy key local institutions.
As Figure 4 shows, the proposed western route is through inhabited areas of West End and nearby
farmland, which is targeted for an industrial center. Mebane officials fought this proposed path, requesting
the route be moved further east (which would split West End) in order to stay out of the Industrial Park.
NCDOT replied that this was not possible because of environmental justice concerns (NCDOT
Memorandum, January 6, 2000). The proposed route also runs through the southern part of White Level
rather than through open land opposite the newly constructed Club at Mill Creek neighborhood, which is
being marketed for residential development. (It is noteworthy that this area is advertised as already having
water and sewer service.) Eighty-seven percent of the property that would be lost in this re-routing
proposal would be in African American and low-income areas. All routes would wipe out century-old
churches and a Masonic Lodge in the West End and White Level neighborhoods. Irrespective of which one
of the three proposed routes is taken, the heart of the White Level community would be almost completely
destroyed.
1
In 1999, on behalf of the African American communities involved, WERA filed administrative
complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice. The complaint cited “adverse and disproportionate
impact” and “historical patterns of racial discrimination” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the 1994 Environmental Justice Executive Order Number 12898. The Department of Justice requested
investigations by several agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration, the EPA, and the
Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development. By Federal Executive
Orders #12898 and #12250, projects receiving federal financial assistance “shall collect, maintain, and
analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne by populations
identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent practical and appropriate, federal agencies
shall use this information to determine whether their programs, policies, and activities have
When queried about the official rationale for the proposed re-routing of Highway NC 119, one
local planning official said: “The 119 project is designed to relieve traffic congestion in the core area of
Mebane and to facilitate north/south travel in our urban area.” He went on to note: “There are also several
economic development opportunities in the immediate area” (emphasis added) (Harkradar, Personal
Communication, July 20, 2001). In response to the same question, Mebane city Council Member Robert
Hupman stated, : “The city needs the road to deal with its traffic problems, especially with a new 550-acre
industrial park being planned west of the city" (emphasis added) (Lancaster, 2001)
Opponents of the highway re-routing maintain, however, that currently there is not enough traffic
or congestion to justify a traffic light where the current NC 119 intersects with US 70, and thus there is no
need to re-route NC 119 to “facilitate north/south traffic” (NCDOT, 1998). And a North Carolina
Department of Transportation feasibility study confirmed that: “no traffic projections are available" to
support the need for the proposed re-routing of NC 119 (NCDOT, 1993).
In all likelihood, the real reason for the proposed re-routing is to provide better access to The Club
at Mill Creek and to facilitate development of the land along the preferred alternative route, which has
already been re-rezoned for industrial and high-density residential development. In addition, the proposed
re-routing of NC 119, if successful, would create enormous investment opportunities for some of the local
White elite—at the expense of the African American neighborhoods that would be destroyed in the process.
Conclusions
In this paper we have focused research attention on the geographical manifestations of several
pernicious forms of racial discrimination, which are zapping the lifeblood from African American
communities in a small town in central North Carolina. Because it involves the systematic manipulation of
boundaries and regulations involving land-use, ETJ, and the watershed, as well as the intentional denial of
services that are underground, the kinds of discrimination unveiled here are not visible to the naked eye or
immediately apparent on the physical landscape. By superimposing Census 2000 data on the racial and
ethnic composition of Mebane neighborhoods on geo-coded public records pertaining to zoning,
infrastructure and land-use development plans, as well as the geographical provision of sewer services, we
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and
low income populations…”
have been able to document and illustrate the depth and magnitude of these various forms of discrimination
using GIS-based spatial analysis and mapping techniques.
Our findings reveal that racial residential segregation in and around Mebane has been perpetuated
by government policies and decisions, thus institutionalizing separate and unequal political power and
disparate social, health and economic conditions, a system of local apartheid. Building on a historical
pattern of racial residential segregation, local government officials have been able to manipulate zoning and
land-use regulations to: (1) systematically deny African Americans political involvement in community and
economic development decision-making; (2) needlessly expose African Americans to public health risks
by denying them access to critical infrastructure resources like sewer service; and (3) intentionally target
African American communities for locally unwanted land-uses like highway re-routing. These actions can
destroy important community institutions and entire neighborhoods, and dramatically reduce the value of
black-owned land. And heightened levels of poverty, health problems resulting from exposure to
environmental risks, and black land loss are the likely negative externality effects of these racially
discriminatory actions.
As this case study reveals, the number of African Americans affected by these discriminatory
processes is relatively small when viewed at the level of an individual small southern town like Mebane,
North Carolina. But there are thousands of small towns throughout the U.S. where these policies and
practices are probably being used on a daily basis to disenfranchise African American communities. The
increasing availability of public-GIS files makes it possible to survey the U.S. and document the
geographical extent to which these types of discriminatory actions are common place in small town
America. Additional research of this type must be undertaken in order to end the apartheid-like conditions
that continue to plague African American communities. This is an essential step in creating economically
healthy and sustainable African American communities that are capable of thriving and prospering in the
highly integrated world economy of the 21st century.
REFERENCES
ACRON, 2000. “Internet Racial Steering Alleged in ACRON Federal Lawsuit Against Wells
Fargo/Norwest Bank,” available at http://www.acorn.org/pressrelease/wellsfargo.htm.
Aiken, Charles S., 1985. “New Settlement Patterns of Rural Blacks in the American South,” Geographical
Review, 75: 383-404.
Aiken, Charles S., 1987. “Race as a Factor in Municipal Underbounding,” Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 77: 564-579.
Alamance County Health Department, 2003. Environmental Health, available at http://www.alamancenc.com/healthed/envhealth.htm.
Allen, J. Lin, 1999. “Keeping the Faith: Ashburn’s Battle Cry White Flight Stops Here,” Chicago Tribune,
September 11, available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/fairhousing/ch010711keepingthefaith,0,1944496.story.
Anoh, Jean-Dominique Herve, 1996. “Assessing Environmental Equity in Massachusetts Using GIS,”
paper presented at 1996 GIS/LIS Conference, available at
http://boston.k12.ma.us/lyon/pg_herve_envjust.htm.
Been, Vicki, 1994. “Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or
Market Dynamics?” Yale Law Journal, April.
Bullard, Robert D., 2000a. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 3rd edition.
Bullard, Robert D., 2000b. Environmental Racism in the Alabama Black Belt, Environmental Justice
Resource Center, available at http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/envracismalablackbelt.htm.
Bullard, Robert. D., Grigsby, J. Eugene, and Lee, Charles, 1994. Residential Apartheid: The American
Legacy. Los Angeles, CA: Center for African American Studies, University of California at Los Angeles.
Darden, Joe T., 1977. “Redlining: A Concept for Study by Urban-Social Geographers,” in Applications of
Geographic Research: Viewpoints from Michigan State University, edited by Harold M. Winters and
Marjorie K. Winters, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, pp. 29-44.
Eaddy, W. Randy, et al., 2003. “Residential Segregation, Poverty and Racism: Obstacles to America’s
Great Society,” Washington, DC: Lawyer’s Committee of Civil Right’s Under the Law, June, Available at
http://www.google.com/search?.
EPA Environmental Justice Study, 2002. Failing Septic Systems and Contaminated Well Waters:
African American Communities in Mebane, North Carolina. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency—Region 4, December 30, available at http://www.weranc.org/News/epa/epaej_1202.htm.
Ford, Larry and Griffin, Ernest, 1979. “The Ghettoization of Paradise,” Geographical Review, 69: 140-158.
Foster, Angela Williams, Mitchell, Faith, and Fienberg, Stephen, E., 2002. Measuring Housing
Discrimination in a National Study: Report on a Workshop. Committee on National Statistics,
National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Friedman, Robert, 2001. “Are You Guilty of Housing Discrimination? Business Week Online, available at
http://businessweek.findlaw.com/sblg/SBLGCHP14_t.html.
Galster, George and Godfrey, Erin, 2003. “By Words and Deeds: Racial Steering by Real Estate Agents in
the U.S. in 2000.” Paper presented at the Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, April 8.
Goering , J and R Wienk, eds., 1996. Mortgage Lending, Racial Discrimination and Federal Policy.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1996.
Goldsmith, W.W. and Blakely, E.J., 1993. Separate Societies: Poverty and Inequality in U.S. Cities.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Hadley, Montrena Wilson, 2003. City of Mebane Planning and Zoning, available at
http://www.cityofmebane.com/plan/plan.htm.
Harkradar, Bob, 2001. Personal Communication, July 20.
Brent Lancaster, 2001. "Plan Mebane Bypass," Burlington Times News July 26
Lester, Charles T., Jr., 2003. “The History of The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 19632003,” available at http://www.lawyerscomm.org/aboutus/history.html.
Long, Herman and Johnson, Charles, 1947. People vs. Property: Race Restrictive Covenants in
Housing. Nashville, TN: Fisk University Press.
Louis, G.E., Gilliam R., and Young, A., 2002. “Health Risk and Environmental Justice: A Comprehensive
Review,” paper presented at 2002 Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, available at
http://www.riskworld.com/abstracts/2002/SRAam02/ab02aa166.htm.
Massey, D.S. and Denton, N.A., 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the
Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mohai, Paul and Saha, Robin K., 2003. “Reassessing Race and Class Disparities in Environmental Justice
Research Using Distance-Based Methods” paper presented at 2003 Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association, August 17th.
NCDOT, 1993. NC 119 Feasibility Study, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Transportation. .
NCDOT, 1998. Community Impact Assessment Report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Nov. 17.
Oliver, M. and Shapiro, T., 1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: The Intersections of Race, Class and
Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.
Owen, D.W., 1998. “Key Legal Issues in Extraterritorial Zoning Authority,” Institute of Government,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Parnell, Allan, et.al., 2003. “Addressing Local Disparities in Local Government Action.” Mebane, NC:
Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities.
Rabin, Y., 1989. “Explusive Zoning: The Inequitable Legacy of Euclid,” in C. Harr and J. Kayden, eds.,
Zoning and the American Dream: Promises Still to Keep. Washington: DC: American Planning
Association Press.
Septic Systems, 2003, available at http://h20sparch.wq.ncsu.edu/estuary/rec/septic.html.
Smith, Betty, 2002. Personal Communication, September 29.
Squires, G.D., (ed.) 1989. Unequal Partnerships: the Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment in
Postwar America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Squires, G. D. (ed), 1997. Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment and the Evolving Role of
Financial Institutions. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Tarrant, Michael A. and Cordell, H. Ken, 1999. “Environmental Justice and the Spatial Distribution of
Outdoor Recreation Sites: An Application of Geographic Information Systems,” Journal of Leisure
Research, 31:18-34.
The Land Loss Fund, 2003, available at http://members.aol.com/tillery/llf.html.
Thomas, J.M. and Ritzdorf, M., eds., 1997. Urban Planning and the African American Community: In
the Shadows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2003. 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3 (SF 3). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, September, available at http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/2002/sumfile3.html.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2002. Bacteriological Analytical Manual Online, available at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-ebam/bam-4.html.
Wilson, Robert, 2002. Mebane City Manager, Personal Communication, September 26, 2002
Wood, S.D. and Gilbert, J., 2000. “Returning African American Farmers to the Land: Recent Trends and a
Policy Rationale.” Review of Black Political Economy, 27: 43-64.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4