Endnotes for White Family in Deerfield

head In 1960, the husband was considered the "head" of the family. Lending institutions assumed that the husband was the head of the family.

Back


29 In 1960, the median age for white males was 29.4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1962, Eighty-third edition (Washington, D.C., 1962). Table No. 18: Population, By Age and Sex, 1930 to 1960, And By Color, 1950 and 1960, 26.

Back


eleventh In 1960, the median number of school years commpleted for all males was 10.3. The median number of school years completed for all whites was 10.9. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1962, Eighty-third edition (Washington, D.C., 1962). Table No. 148: Persons 25 Years Old and Over, By Years of School Completed, By Color and Sex: 1940 to 1960, 117.

Back


manufacturing In Illinois in 1960, the industry with the largest percentage of employees was manufacturing, at 34.4%. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1962, Eighty-third edition (Washington, D.C., 1962). Table No. 293: Employees in Nonagricultural Establishments—Percent Distribution, By Industry Division, By States: 1960 and 1961, 224.

Back


secretary In 1958, 29% of white married women living with their husbands were in the labor force. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 118. In the North Central Region in 1960, the largest occupation group for white females was clerical and kindred workers, at 32.1%. Daniel O. Price, Changing Characteristics of the Negro Population: A 1960 Census Monograph (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969).

Back


children In 1960, the average size of a white urban family was 3.51. Homer C. Hawkins, “Urban Housing and the Black Family,” Phylon, Vol. 37, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1976), 74.

Back


white family Image of a family scanned from a Kellogg's Concentrate advertisement in Time, November 16, 1959, 133. A third child was removed from the picture.

Back


$6,200 In 1960, the median income for white urban families was $6,163. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1962, Eighty-third edition (Washington, D.C., 1962). Table No. 450: Money Income of Families and Unrelated Individuals—Percent Distribution, By Income Level, By Color, Urban and Rural: 1960, 334.

The large discrepancy between the median incomes of whites and nonwhites can be explained not only by differential earnings within occupations, but perhaps even more so by the concentration of nonwhites into lower paying occupations. Daniel O. Price, Changing Characteristics of the Negro Population: A 1960 Census Monograph (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), 111.

Back


map of Deerfield Thomas A. Auger, “Deerfield, IL,” The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago (Chicago Historical Society, 2005) http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/369.html

Back


23 miles northwest Time, “High Cost of Democracy,” December 7, 1959, 23.

Back


11,786 Thomas A. Auger, “Deerfield, IL,” The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago (Chicago Historical Society, 2005) http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/369.html

Back


$23,000 Time, “High Cost of Democracy,” December 7, 1959, 23. $23,000 in 2004 dollars is $146,786. NASA, Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html

Back


$9,000 Time, “High Cost of Democracy,” December 7, 1959, 23. $9,000 in 2005 dollars is $59,381.76. U.S. Burea of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Back


Edens Expressway Thomas A. Auger, “Deerfield, IL,” The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago (Chicago Historical Society, 2005) http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/369.html

Back


standards Davis McEntire explains succinctly, "Mortgage credit is the key to acquisition of good housing via homeownership. But, of course, any person seeking a loan to buy a house must possess adequate financial status to qualify for credit according to prevailing standards, and he must be able to offer a suitable property as security for the loan." Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 218.

Back


them Leo Grebler, "Housing Issues in Economic Stabilization Policy," Occasional Paper 72 (Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 1960), 11.

Back


credit “Even with the contingent liability of the federal government, the market does not regard FHA and VA loans as riskless assets. In judging them as investments it applies traditional standards of quality, just as in judging conventional mortgages. Thus, from the point of view of the lender, government underwritten loans with all the advantages noted, if secured by poorly located or otherwise less desirable properties, will command lower prices or higher yields than loans on more favorable or less risky properties." Saul B. Klaman, The Postwar Residential Mortgage Market: A Study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 93-94.

Back


Homebuilder Milgram Image of Morris Milgram by Stan Wayman for LIFE scanned from Time, "High Cost of Democracy," December 7, 1959, 23.

Back


99.9% In 1960, 11,771 of Deerfield's 11,786 residents were white. Thomas A. Auger, “Deerfield, IL,” The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago (Chicago Historical Society, 2005) http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/369.html

Back


concentrated In 1960, 0.1% (12) of Deerfield's 11,786 residents were African American. They would most likely have been upper-class families with incomes well above the median income for African Americans. Thomas A. Auger, “Deerfield, IL,” The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago (Chicago Historical Society, 2005) http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/369.html

Studies of integrated housing (in particular, Davis McEntire's Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960) generally suggested that white families were not necessarily opposed to a few nonwhite families living in their community. Only when certain conditions occured did whites tend to voice their opposition. These conditions included a perceived (if not real) influx of nonwhites, fear of declining property values as a community transitioned from white to nonwhite, being surrounded on more than one side by a predominantly nonwhite community, or having a concentration of nonwhites within the community forming a sort of "suburban ghetto." It is possible that the 20% of homes for sale to African Americans in the Floral Park subdivision of Deerfield represented a potential "suburban ghetto" in the minds of the whites living in the village, despite the high cost ($30,000-$40,000) of the homes, and that this was a contributing factor to their strong opposition to the development, in addition to a fear of declining property values.

The fear of declining property values was often used as a justification to sustain segregated housing, although that fear often became a self-fulfilling prophecy as homeowners sold their houses en masse and glutted the market, as Davis McEntire shows in Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 84. Although Time magazine suggested that "Deerfield's trouble is not so much hard-shell racism as pocket-book fear," some of the quotations associated with the controvesy had racist messages. Time, "High Cost of Democracy," December 7, 1959, 23.

Back


Floral Park Milgram's company, Modern Community Developers, provided the financial backing for the Chicago-based Progress Development Corporation to build the 51-house development. Developers who sought to build for African Americans often had difficulty obtaining financing for their projects. Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

Back


$30,000 to $40,000 Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

A $30,000 to $40,000 house in 1960 would cost $191,460 to $255,280 in 2004. NASA, Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html

Back


me A white woman from Deerfield, quoted in Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

Back


white woman Image of a woman identified as the wife of Mr. Arthur C. Hadden, scanned from a Bantron Smoking Deterrent Tablets advertisement in Time, January 18, 1960, 88.

Back


not thought much about it A white woman quoted in Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

Back


8 miles New York Times, “A Suburb Fights Biracial Housing: Deerfield (Ill.) Developer’s Plan to Sell to Negroes Called ‘Subterfuge,’” November 29, 1959, 54.

Back


daily basis McEntire cites a test case in Philadelphia that showed that the anticipated rather than the actual influx of nonwhites determined the behavior of current residents, and that whites were more accepting of Negroes some distance away, as long as they were unlikely to see them on a daily basis. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 161-171

Dykeman and Stokely write in a New York Times article, "In Deerfield and parts of the North, there have been only limited opportunities for individual Negro-white relationships. The legal status of the minority has been codified, needs and undertakings have been institutionalized, and what has been left out is personal involvement." The lack of individual interaction with members of other races reinforced the belief that all African Americans were alike based only on their race and therefore were all fundamentally different than whites, despite the class differentiation that existed in the African American community. Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

Back


Harold Lewis Harold Lewis quoted in Time, "High Cost of Democracy," December 7, 1959, 23.

Back


property valuesGregory C. Randall notes that "the inherent and perceived values of property are not identical." Gregory C. Randall, America's Original GI Town: Park Forest, Illinois (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 200.

The fear of declining property values was often used as a justification to sustain segregated housing, although that fear often became a self-fulfilling prophecy as homeowners sold their houses en masse and glutted the market. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 84.

Back


married couple Image of a married couple scanned from a Bankers Life Company advertisement in Time, November 2, 1959, 52.

Back


resale value An "attractive young married couple" quoted in Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

Back


Morris Courington Image of a man scanned from a Trig deoderant advertisement in Time, November 2, 1959, 58.

Back


listing Merchandiser Morris Courington quoted in Time, "High Cost of Democracy," December 7, 1959, 23.

Back


homeowner from the North Shore Image of a man from a Trig deoderant advertisement scanned from Time, November 2, 1959, 58.

Back


businessman Image of a man from a Du Pont Dacron advertisement scanned from Time, October 19, 1959, 115.

Back


do-gooders A businessman quoted in Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

Back


democratic A North Shore householder quoted in Time, "High Cost of Democracy," December 7, 1959, 23.

By 1960, housing had become a major civil rights issue in the context of the 1954 Brown v. Board decision and the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, as well as voting rights. The Brown v. Board decision ruled that "separate but equal" school facilities for African Americans and whites were inherently unequal. Segregated schools were deemed unconstitutional. Likewise, the Montgomery Bus Boycott resulted in a Supreme Court decision that ruled segregation on public transportation unconstitutional. Remarks by Robert Weaver echoed the connection between the various arenas of civil rights activity: “in housing, as in most other areas, there is no such thing as separate but equal...The NAACP cannot fight for racial integration in public schools and acquiesce to segregated suburbs." Segregated housing was a particularly important issue in light of Brown v. Board because it often resulted in the de facto segregation of schools.

The Housing Act of 1949 declared that the national housing objective was “the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family.” By 1960, a growing African American middle class was increasingly able to afford better housing, but they were unable to obtain this housing because of restricted access to the general market. A few builders and lenders were beginning to see the potential for profit in catering to this growing middle class, but for the most part society remained adverse to the inclusion of African Americans in the free market for housing. Builders and lenders may have sensed that the reprisal from those opposed to African Americans having equal access to housing would outweigh the profit to be made from granting that access.

While civil rights leaders championed equal access to housing in addition to schools, transportation, and voting, the attitudes of the African American people are an area for further inquiry. McEntire notes that many African Americans indicated in interviews that they did not want to be "pioneers" into white areas. A study of the housing market from the perspective of average African Americans--rather than lenders, government commissions, or civil rights leaders--would help to illuminate the question of African American consumer agency. Furthermore, like all social issues the issue of discrimination in housing was more complex than simply a matter of passing a law or ruling it unconstitutional. Wyatt observes that "even if Negroes were free to compete in the open market for more adequate housing on the same basis as whites, they would still be at a decided disadvantage because of lower incomes.” A solution for equal access to housing would have to address the issue of differences in pay within occupations as well as the discrimination that restricted African Americans from obtaining higher-paying jobs in professional occupations.

See Hubert M. Jackson, “Public Housing and Minority Groups.” The Phylon Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1958), 21-30; Robert C. Weaver,“Excerpts of Remarks at the Open Occupancy Housing Session of the 50th Annual NAACP Convention,” July 14, 1959; Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 77; Donald W. Wyatt, “Better Homes for Negro Families in the South,” Social Forces, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Mar., 1950), 299.

Back


lover A young housewife quoted in Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960. The original quote is "One of my neighbors told me, when I spoke out against the bond issue, that she might not mind living next door to a nigger, but she wouldn't want to live next door to a nigger lover."

Back


young housewife Image of a woman and child scanned from a First National Bank of Chicago advertisement in Time, September 14, 1959, 94.

Back


daughter An anonymous townsperson quoted in Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8.

Back


church member Image of a man from a Trig deoderant advertisement scanned from Time, October 5, 1959, 82.

Back


ghettoes A member of a church congregation quoted in Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960. The original quotation is "No one present seemed to understand that Negroes who can pay $30,000 to $40,000 for a home aren't starting ghettoes."

Back


Homebuilder Milgram Image of Morris Milgram by Stan Wayman for LIFE scanned from Time, "High Cost of Democracy," December 7, 1959, 23.

Back


panic Studies of integrated housing (in particular, Davis McEntire's Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960) generally suggested that white families were not necessarily opposed to a few nonwhite families living in their community. Only when certain conditions occured did whites tend to voice their opposition. These conditions included a perceived (if not real) influx of nonwhites, fear of declining property values as a community transitioned from white to nonwhite, being surrounded on more than one side by a predominantly nonwhite community, or having a concentration of nonwhites within the community forming a sort of "suburban ghetto." It is possible that the 20% of homes for sale to Negroes in the Floral Park subdivision of Deerfield represented a potential "suburban ghetto" in the minds of the whites living in the village, despite the high cost ($30,000-$40,000) of the homes, and that this was a contributing factor to their strong opposition to the development, in addition to a fear of declining property values.

The fear of declining property values was often used as a justification to sustain segregated housing, although that fear often became a self-fulfilling prophecy as homeowners sold their houses en masse and glutted the market, as Davis McEntire shows in Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 84.

Back


built The Deerfield Park Board had on previous occasions been denied bond issues for public parks, and they saw the controversy over the development as an opportunity to obtain those parks. They told the developers to sell their land for the parks or condemnation proceedings would begin. The developers did not sell, and voters voted 2,635 to 1,207 in favor of a $550,000 bond issue to condemn the land for parks. The builders sought an injunction to prevent the condemnation proceedings, but a federal judge ruled that the park board could proceed with the condemnation. The developers appealed. Despite a long series of court battles, the seizure of the land for public parks was upheld. Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8. William Robbins, "Investing Trust Widens Assault on the Color Line," New York Times, February 11, 1968.

Back


built The Deerfield Park Board had on previous occasions been denied bond issues for public parks, and they saw the controversy over the development as an opportunity to obtain those parks. They told the developers to sell their land for the parks or condemnation proceedings would begin. The developers did not sell, and voters voted 2,635 to 1,207 in favor of a $550,000 bond issue to condemn the land for parks. The builders sought an injunction to prevent the condemnation proceedings, but a federal judge ruled that the park board could proceed with the condemnation. The developers appealed. Despite a long series of court battles, the seizure of the land for public parks was upheld. Wilma Dykeman and James Stokely, “’The South’ in the North,” New York Times, April 17, 1960, SM8. William Robbins, "Investing Trust Widens Assault on the Color Line," New York Times, February 11, 1968.

Back


mortgage The median family income of a white family receiving an FHA loan in 1956 was $6,173. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $6,716 for 1960. If the wife's income is included, the white family makes close to this amount, but the wife's income is not included (see working below).

The median family income of white families with VA mortgages in 1956 was $5,870. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $6,386.56 for 1960. The VA considered counting a wife's income if the veteran could not qualify on the basis of his income alone, but only under certain circumstances, including the wife's "age, the nature and length of her employment, and the composition of the family [meaning number of children]." This simulation argues that the VA would not count the white wife's income because she was young enough to have a third child, after which they might consider including her income. Emily Card, "Women, Housing Access, and Mortgage Credit," Signs, Vol. 5, No. 3, Supplement: Women and the American City (Spring, 1980), S217-S218.

Furhtermore, lenders were often hesitant to make a VA-guaranteed loan on expensive properties because the maximum guarantee of a VA loan was $7,500. To avoid such risks, some large financial institutions would not accept VA loans if the unguaranteed portion exceeded 50 per cent of the appraised value of the property. In the case of a typical home in Deerfield, the unguaranteed portion was about 67 per cent. Saul B. Klaman, The Postwar Residential Mortgage Market: A Study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 93-94.

Although the low interest rates associated with VA and FHA loans benefited borrowers, the higher interest rates on conventional mortgages benefited lenders, making them more attractive to them. Saul B. Klaman explains, “in the face of generally rising interest rates and yields, federally underwritten mortgages with less flexible rates became unattractive to investors with alternative uses of funds.” Federally underwritten mortgages suffered a competitive interest rate disadvantage compared to conventional mortgages. The FHA was legally able to increase the permitted maximum interest rate on FHA loans to make them more competitive with conventional loans (as it did for example in December of 1956 when it increased the interest rate from 4 ½ to 5 per cent. However, the VA had no authority to increase the interest rate on VA loans, which was at 4 ½ percent as 1956 ended. Federally-underwritten mortgages, although advantageous to borrowers, could be difficult to obtain depending on the status of the market at any given time. See Saul B. Klaman, The Postwar Residential Mortgage Market: A Study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 63 and 73.

The median family income of white families with conventional mortgages in 1956 was $5,750. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $6,256 for 1960. The white family in this simulation makes this amount if the wife's income is included, but it is not. Furthermore, a family would probably have to make more than the median to be approved for a $23,000 house.

The median family income of white families with no mortgage in 1956 was $3,568. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $3,881.98 for 1960.

The white family in this simulation has an effective income ($4,400 when the wife's income is discounted) between the median for a conventional mortgage and no mortgage. The family might not be able to afford a house as expensive as one in Deerfield, but it would have a better chance of being approved for a house with a lower income to value ratio.

Back


down payment The down payment required by the FHA on a house appraised at $22,000 in 1958 was $2,600. For a house appraised at $24,000, the down payment was $4,000. Therefore, a $23,000 house in Deerfield would require a down payment of about $2,600 to $4,000. In 1956 Congress reduced the minimum down payment requirements on existing homes bought with FHA loans to match those for new homes in order to stimulate building by facilitating the sale of old houses by owners seeking new ones, so presumably the down payment on an existing home would be the same as a new home for the 1958 data in this table. This down payment amounts to 40 to 65 percent of a year's income for the white family in this simulation. The down payment for a conventional mortgage would likely be even higher than that expected by the FHA. Leo Grebler, "Housing Issues in Economic Stabilization Policy," Occasional Paper 72 (Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 1960), 72. Table 16: Illustration of Minimum Down-Payment Requirements on New 1-and 2-Family Homes Bought with FHA-insured Loans, 1955-1958, 75.

Back


working Emily Card explains: "Sound business practice excluded or severely limited women in the mortgage market because their incomes were thought to be unstable...the spectre of pregnancy dominated the lending world's view...To lenders, all women under the age of fifty were candidates for marriage and motherhood. It was considered self-evident that as soon as a woman married, or shortly thereafter, she would drop out of the work force and thereby render herself incapable of sustaining a mortgage payment."

The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing on account of race, color, religion, and national origin, but discrimination on the basis of sex was not prohibited. Not until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1973 prohibited discrimination on account of sex or marital status, and a 1974 companion bill prohibited discrimination on account of sex under the Fair Housing Act, were women's incomes regularly considered in lending decisions (before the laws were passed, women's incomes were considered in limited cases where her husband could not qualify on the basis of his income alone and where the woman was in the later part of her childbearing years or had already had two or more children). Emily Card, "Women, Housing Access, and Mortgage Credit," Signs, Vol. 5, No. 3, Supplement: Women and the American City (Spring, 1980), S216-S218.

A woman had a better chance of her income being counted if she was employed in a professional occupation. The wife in this simulation is not. Policies varied among and even within institutions. Some lenders would count some, but not all, of a wife's income. Some lenders required a "baby letter" attesting to the husband or wife's sterility, use of approved birth control methods, or willingness to terminate a pregnancy in order to count the wife's income. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mortgage Money: Who Gets It? A Case Study in Mortgage Lending Discrimination in Hartford, Connecticut, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974), 18-29.

In 1960, the median income of female clerical and kindred workers working full-time and year round (35 hours or more for 50 weeks or more) was $3,645. The wife in this simulation works only part-time, but the (approximately) $1,800 dollars she contributes to the family income could make the difference between qualifying for a home or not. However, even if the wife's income were included in this case, it would still be difficult to buy a $23,000 house. The average salary of Deerfield residents ($9,000) suggests that lenders expected qualifying families to make about that much. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1962, Eighty-third edition (Washington, D.C., 1962). Table No. 454: Money Income of Persons--Recipients and Median Income, By Major Occupation Group and Sex: 1960, 336.

The figures for the median income of female private household workers includes both white and nonwhite females; however, in Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), Davis McEntire suggests that the gap between the incomes of white and nonwhite females is significantly smaller than the gap between the incomes of white and nonwhite males, perhaps because nonwhite women tend to complete more education and are able to obtain better-paying jobs as a result, because nonwhite women are perceived as less of a threat than nonwhite men, or because sex is the primary form of discrimination faced by all women regardless of race.

Back


mortgage The median family income of a white family receiving an FHA loan in 1956 was $6,173. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $6,716 for 1960. If the wife's income is included, the white family makes close to this amount, but the wife's income is not included (see working below).

The median family income of white families with VA mortgages in 1956 was $5,870. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $6,386.56 for 1960. The VA considered counting a wife's income if the veteran could not qualify on the basis of his income alone, but only under certain circumstances, including the wife's "age, the nature and length of her employment, and the composition of the family [meaning number of children]." This simulation argues that the VA would not count the white wife's income because she was young enough to have a third child, after which they might consider including her income. Emily Card, "Women, Housing Access, and Mortgage Credit," Signs, Vol. 5, No. 3, Supplement: Women and the American City (Spring, 1980), S217-S218.

Furhtermore, lenders were often hesitant to make a VA-guaranteed loan on expensive properties because the maximum guarantee of a VA loan was $7,500. To avoid such risks, some large financial institutions would not accept VA loans if the unguaranteed portion exceeded 50 per cent of the appraised value of the property. In the case of a typical home in Deerfield, the unguaranteed portion was about 67 per cent. Saul B. Klaman, The Postwar Residential Mortgage Market: A Study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 93-94.

Although the low interest rates associated with VA and FHA loans benefited borrowers, the higher interest rates on conventional mortgages benefited lenders, making them more attractive to them. Saul B. Klaman explains, “in the face of generally rising interest rates and yields, federally underwritten mortgages with less flexible rates became unattractive to investors with alternative uses of funds.” Federally underwritten mortgages suffered a competitive interest rate disadvantage compared to conventional mortgages. The FHA was legally able to increase the permitted maximum interest rate on FHA loans to make them more competitive with conventional loans (as it did for example in December of 1956 when it increased the interest rate from 4 ½ to 5 per cent. However, the VA had no authority to increase the interest rate on VA loans, which was at 4 ½ percent as 1956 ended. Federally-underwritten mortgages, although advantageous to borrowers, could be difficult to obtain depending on the status of the market at any given time. See Saul B. Klaman, The Postwar Residential Mortgage Market: A Study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 63 and 73.

The median family income of white families with conventional mortgages in 1956 was $5,750. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $6,256 for 1960. The white family in this simulation makes this amount if the wife's income is included, but it is not. Furthermore, a family would probably have to make more than the median to be approved for a $23,000 house.

The median family income of white families with no mortgage in 1956 was $3,568. Davis McEntire, Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), 220. Using the NASA Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator gives a result of $3,881.98 for 1960.

The white family in this simulation has an effective income ($4,400 when the wife's income is discounted) between the median for a conventional mortgage and no mortgage. The family might not be able to afford a house as expensive as one in Deerfield, but it would have a better chance of being approved for a house with a lower income to value ratio.

Back


down payment The down payment required by the FHA on a house appraised at $22,000 in 1958 was $2,600. For a house appraised at $24,000, the down payment was $4,000. Therefore, a $23,000 house in Deerfield would require a down payment of about $2,600 to $4,000. In 1956 Congress reduced the minimum down payment requirements on existing homes bought with FHA loans to match those for new homes in order to stimulate building by facilitating the sale of old houses by owners seeking new ones, so presumably the down payment on an existing home would be the same as a new home for the 1958 data in this table. This down payment amounts to 40 to 65 percent of a year's income for the white family in this simulation. The down payment for a conventional mortgage would likely be even higher than that expected by the FHA. Leo Grebler, "Housing Issues in Economic Stabilization Policy," Occasional Paper 72 (Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 1960), 72. Table 16: Illustration of Minimum Down-Payment Requirements on New 1-and 2-Family Homes Bought with FHA-insured Loans, 1955-1958, 75.

Back


workingEmily Card explains: "Sound business practice excluded or severely limited women in the mortgage market because their incomes were thought to be unstable...the spectre of pregnancy dominated the lending world's view...To lenders, all women under the age of fifty were candidates for marriage and motherhood. It was considered self-evident that as soon as a woman married, or shortly thereafter, she would drop out of the work force and thereby render herself incapable of sustaining a mortgage payment."

The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing on account of race, color, religion, and national origin, but discrimination on the basis of sex was not prohibited. Not until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1973 prohibited discrimination on account of sex or marital status, and a 1974 companion bill prohibited discrimination on account of sex under the Fair Housing Act, were women's incomes regularly considered in lending decisions (before the laws were passed, women's incomes were considered in limited cases where her husband could not qualify on the basis of his income alone and where the woman was in the later part of her childbearing years or had already had two or more children). Emily Card, "Women, Housing Access, and Mortgage Credit," Signs, Vol. 5, No. 3, Supplement: Women and the American City (Spring, 1980), S216-S218.

A woman had a better chance of her income being counted if she was employed in a professional occupation. The wife in this simulation is not. Policies varied among and even within institutions. Some lenders would count some, but not all, of a wife's income. Some lenders required a "baby letter" attesting to the husband or wife's sterility, use of approved birth control methods, or willingness to terminate a pregnancy in order to count the wife's income. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mortgage Money: Who Gets It? A Case Study in Mortgage Lending Discrimination in Hartford, Connecticut, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974), 18-29.

In 1960, the median income of female clerical and kindred workers working full-time and year round (35 hours or more for 50 weeks or more) was $3,645. The wife in this simulation works only part-time, but the (approximately) $1,800 dollars she contributes to the family income could make the difference between qualifying for a home or not. However, even if the wife's income were included in this case, it would still be difficult to buy a $23,000 house. The average salary of Deerfield residents ($9,000) suggests that lenders expected qualifying families to make about that much. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1962, Eighty-third edition (Washington, D.C., 1962). Table No. 454: Money Income of Persons--Recipients and Median Income, By Major Occupation Group and Sex: 1960, 336.

The figures for the median income of female private household workers includes both white and nonwhite females; however, in Residence and Race: Final and Comprehensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), Davis McEntire suggests that the gap between the incomes of white and nonwhite females is significantly smaller than the gap between the incomes of white and nonwhite males, perhaps because nonwhite women tend to complete more education and are able to obtain better-paying jobs as a result, because nonwhite women are perceived as less of a threat than nonwhite men, or because sex is the primary form of discrimination faced by all women regardless of race.

Back


$17,500 In 1960, the median value of owner occupied single family units in Park Forest was $17,500. County and City Data Books, Retrieved June 26, 2006, from the University of Virginia, Geospatial and Statistical Data Center, http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/collections/stats/ccdb/ (2003).

$17,500 in 2004 dollars is $111,685. NASA, Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html

Back