August 26, 2025 • 38 mins
The racial wealth gap in Washington DC isn't what you think it is. While conventional wisdom suggests Black families couldn't access homeownership due to racist housing practices, author Tanya Maria Golash-Boza reveals a more complex and troubling reality. Drawing from her personal experience growing up in DC's Petworth neighborhood as one of the few white children in a predominantly Black community, Golash-Boza uncovers how systemic disinvestment prevented wealth accumulation despite significant increases in Black homeownership between 1940 and 1970.
However, as white families departed, they took businesses and tax dollars with them. Banks stopped lending in Black neighborhoods, leading to the gradual closure of theaters, grocery stores, and community amenities. The result? Property values remained flat for decades, preventing Black homeowners from building wealth through their largest asset. The urban crisis of the 1970s-80s compounded these challenges. As deindustrialization created a joblessness crisis affecting young Black men, the response was increased policing rather than addressing root causes.
Looking ahead, Golash-Boza suggests solutions require rethinking housing as a human right through decommodification and limited equity cooperatives. If you're concerned about housing affordability, racial justice, or urban policy, this conversation offers essential insights into how historical policies continue to shape our cities today.
Show Notes:
- Author Recommended Reading:
- Chocolate City by Derek Musgrove and Chris Myers Ash
- Cappuccino City by Derek Highra
- Black in Place by Brandy Summers
- African Americans and Gentrification in Washington DC by Sabiyha Prince
- Intersectional Listening by Ali Martin
- To view the show transcripts, click on the episode at https://bookedonplanning.buzzsprout.com/
Follow us on social media for more content related to each episode:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/booked-on-planning/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BookedPlanning
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bookedonplanning
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bookedonplanning/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Stephanie Rouse (00:12):
you're listening to the booked on
planning podcast, a project ofthe nebraska chapter of the
american planning association.
In each episode we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
(00:40):
Welcome back Bookworms, toanother episode of Booked on
Planning.
In this episode we talk withauthor Tanya Maria Golash-Boza
on her book BeforeGentrification the Creation of
DC's Racial Wealth Gap.
This book rounds out our monthfocusing on gentrification.
First we discussed how it hasimpacted Detroit and in this
episode we dive into the impactson Washington DC.
Jennifer Hiatt (00:58):
This was actually perfect timing for me,
as I had a trip to DC plannedright after reading this book,
so it was interesting to readabout DC and then see the
impacts that she was talkingabout.
I think it's always interestingto take a close look at the
different facets of one city, sowe were talking about, in this
case, washington DC, and itsunique relationship with the
federal government reallyexasperated the racial
(01:19):
disparities and gentrificationthat was already starting to
happen across the country in the1970s and 80s.
Stephanie Rouse (01:24):
Yeah, it was really fascinating learning
about DC's lack of control,despite their home rule status,
with Congress's ability to settheir budget priorities and step
in during a crisis.
As Tanya mentioned in theconversation, this is playing
out right now, with thepresident's takeover of DC's
police returning to a failedapproach to more policing to
fight crime that she advocatesfor avoiding.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:46):
It is kind of frustrating to watch something
that we know probably isn'tgoing to work happen all over
again and again, especially whenthe impacts of the first
attempt of over-policing arestill impacting the city today.
Let's get into our conversationwith author Tanya Maria
Golosh-Boza on her book BeforeGentrification the Creation of
DC's Racial Wealth Gap.
Stephanie Rouse (02:07):
Tanya, thank you for joining us on Booked on
Planning to talk about your bookBefore Gentrification the
Creation of DC's Racial WealthGap.
There's a misconception, atleast for DC, that the wealth
gap between Black families andwhite families resulted from a
lack of homeownership for Blacksdue to racist housing practices
.
But you have a differentconclusion.
What is the true cause?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (02:28):
Yeah, hi, stephanie and Jennifer, it's
really great to be here.
Thank you for the invitation.
Okay, so in general, there is aperception or misperception
that African Americans werelocked out of homeownership in
the United States in generalbefore the Fair Housing Act of
1968.
There's definitely some truthto that.
There definitely were racisthousing tactics going on.
(02:48):
There was blockbusting, therewas redlining, all that stuff
definitely was going on.
But what's remarkable is thatthere was a significant increase
in Black homeownership between1940 and 1970 nationwide, and in
Washington DC in particular.
Between 1940 and 1970, therewas a five-fold increase in
African-American homeownership.
There was a significantincrease in African-American
(03:10):
homeownership.
However, there's also today asignificant racial wealth gap.
So what we learned from that isthat large numbers of
African-Americans purchasinghomes did not reduce the racial
wealth gap.
So what I argue in my bookBefore Gentrification is that
African-Americans were able toaccess home ownership in
Washington DC actually primarilydue to white flight, partly due
(03:33):
to their relative economicsuccess in Washington DC and
then to the availability ofhousing, because white families
were leaving the city and whitefamilies were leaving these row
homes, brick row homes that hadbeen built not too much earlier.
They really had been built inthe 20s and in the 30s a lot of
them in the neighborhood where Igrew up in particular, and
white families were leavingthose homes and mostly white
(03:54):
families were leaving thosehomes.
My evidence shows that it'sprimarily due to school
integration.
So in 1954, when schools weredesegregated, a lot of schools
in Washington DC went from 100percent white in 1953 to almost
100 percent black in 1954, andparticularly at the elementary
school level.
The high schools were a littleslower.
(04:14):
You kind of imagine it's alittle harder to transition at
that stage.
No-transcript basically lockedout of black neighborhoods
through lots of other measures.
But what happened is once whitefamilies left those
(04:37):
neighborhoods and took theirbusinesses and their tax dollars
with them, the city and thefederal government stopped
investing in those neighborhoods.
So it wasn't like an immediatetransition.
But the neighborhood that Igrew up, in particular in the
1950s it was a thriving workingto middle-class neighborhood
with a theater, grocery stores,delis, ice cream shops, clothing
(05:01):
stores you know all kinds ofsmall businesses on that main
street of Kennedy Street andthen also Georgia Avenue which
is close by, and slowly over thecourse of about 20 years a lot
of those businesses closed, likethey didn't close immediately
but just as the owners retired,you know their kids didn't
necessarily pick up thebusinesses and the businesses
started closing.
So the businesses were closingand there were many
(05:22):
African-Americans who wanted topurchase businesses on those
blocks but banks were now notlending money because the
neighborhood had becomeprimarily black.
So slowly you see a decline inthe quality of the neighborhood
just because the amenities arenot the same.
You know there's no longergrocery stores, there's no
longer delis, there's lots ofkind of closed down businesses,
lots of liquor stores, cornerstores, you know just not the
(05:42):
same quality of business that ithad before.
And what's interesting is likethe economic status of the
neighborhood didn't change,right, people are still making
around the same amount of money,you know, kind of adjusted for
inflation, and you have the samepercentage homeownership, about
50% homeownership.
But the character of theneighborhood changed with the
closing of the businesses andthe public schools changed
significantly.
So in 1954 1954 with schooldesegregation Washington DC had
(06:06):
100,000 students in the schoolsystem.
By 1970, we had 150,000students and there was not a
concomitant increase inbudgeting right in monetary
allocation to the school.
So the schools were slowly notproviding the same high level of
education that they hadpreviously provided.
So what all that does.
Lack of private investment inthe neighborhood, lack of public
(06:27):
investment in the neighborhoodleads to flat or reduced home
values.
So home values in thatneighborhood didn't really
increase at all, other than therate of inflation between 1950
and 2000.
So you have almost 50 years ofhomeownership, of many, many
families owning homes, but thehouses are not increasing in
(06:47):
value.
The main thing that that doesis that means that they're not
building wealth right, becausein the United States, to the
extent that we have any wealthat all, vast majority of
people's wealth is in the valueof your home.
So if your home doesn'tincrease in value, then you're
not going to see that increasein wealth.
So that's why I argue thathomeownership could have led to
wealth accumulation but itdidn't due to long-term
(07:09):
disinvestment in segregatedBlack neighborhoods.
Jennifer Hiatt (07:12):
You actually have a unique perspective on
this topic.
So what's your relationship toWashington DC and some of the
people whose stories youhighlight in the book?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (07:22):
Yes, I do have a unique perspective.
My parents moved to WashingtonDC in 1970.
That's a little bit before Iwas born, and they lived in an
apartment in one of the very fewintegrated neighborhoods in
Washington DC.
I'm white, my parents are white, my siblings are white and they
moved into Mount Pleasant,which was one of the very few
integrated neighborhoods in thecity, and at the time my father
was a laundry truck driver andmy mother was in graduate school
(07:44):
.
So they didn't have a lot ofmoney and the rent was slowly
increasing in that neighborhood.
At that time it was reasonable.
Can you just imagine a timewhen a laundry truck driver and
a graduate student can purchasea home?
But it was possible in 1970.
So in 1976, my parentspurchased a home in a
neighborhood that at that pointwas about 90% Black.
(08:06):
It had previously been allwhite.
In the 1940s and 1950s Most ofthe white families had left the
neighborhood and my parentsbought a home in the
neighborhood and we were one ofthe very few white families
growing up in that neighborhood.
When I was growing up, actually, I had two best friends, and
one was Monique.
She's African-American and hergrandparents had purchased the
home where she lived, and myother best friend was Juliana
(08:27):
and she was Korean and herfamily owned the corner store.
So the typical of theneighborhood but atypical to see
a white girl, korean girl andblack girl walking down the
street because almost everyonein our neighborhood was black at
that time.
So the neighbor that I grew upin was, you know, working to
middle-class neighborhood.
A lot of people own their homes, but a lot of people were like
Monique in that this was nowlike the mid 1970s it was their
(08:50):
grandparents who had purchasedthe home in the 1950s and had
held on to it.
So a lot of my friend's parentsdidn't necessarily have the
means to purchase homes, buttheir grandparents had and they
lived in those homes.
Stephanie Rouse (09:00):
I think it's important to understand how all
of the topics that you discussin your book play out, because
of DC's unique operations andthe role of the federal
government and how the cityfunctions, like the budget and
the prison system.
Can you describe the structureand how it's impacted?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (09:15):
the community today and for the next
30 days, so probably withinthat time frame.
I think so a couple of days agoright now it's August 14th, so
around August 12th PresidentTrump took over DC's
metropolitan police department.
He's able to do that in DCbecause there's a provision in
(09:36):
the Home Rule Act of 1973 thatsays that the president can take
control of the policedepartment if there's ever a
crisis in the city.
You can imagine why that exists.
Come to your own conclusionsabout why they're doing it right
now.
But the important thing we wantto focus on here is the fact
that DC has had home rules since1973, which means that DC has
its own mayor that's elected bythe people, and we have a city
(09:59):
council that's elected by thepeople.
So we function like a city,like many other places, but the
federal government has reach inDC that they don't have in other
places.
So the US attorney is appointeddirectly by the president, and
this is important for democracybecause DC, like most cities, is
heavily Democrat probably 80 to90 percent Democrat and so
(10:20):
whenever there's a Republican inoffice, most people in the city
didn't vote for that personRight, and also they're the
president, not the mayor, soanyway.
So the president has the rightto appoint our US attorney, who
then is the person who decideson the sentences for people that
are in the incarceration system.
So that's unique to DC.
And what's also unique to DC isso we are a city, but there are
(10:41):
significant limits on the waysthat the city can produce
revenue.
So 43% of the land in DC is nottaxable, which is because
either it's owned by a nonprofitor it's owned by the federal
government.
So there's a lot of land in DCthat's not taxable.
And then we're also forbiddenby Congress from implementing a
commuter tax, so DC can't decideon its own whether or not it
(11:03):
wants to have a commuter tax,and there's other provisions
that Congress will put in placeto protect Congress that may
have negative revenueconsequences for DC.
And then the other importantthing is that, well, there's
many important things, but if DCpasses a law so, for example,
dc passed a law for marijuanalegalization, you know, like
many liberal cities do, andCongress can block it, and they
(11:26):
can block it and they did blockit they can overrule laws that
we pass.
Congress also has the authorityto vote on our budget.
So when the city passes thebudget, you know it goes through
the city council and then itgoes to the mayor and then it
gets approved at that level, butthen Congress can change it.
So at that point they can putin provisions for things that
they want to see.
And again, these are not peoplethat are elected by people in
DC.
Dc we do have onecongressperson, but they're not
voting.
(11:46):
So DC has limited control.
We don't have the samedemocratic rights as other
people in the mainland UnitedStates.
Ok, so now DC, because of ourrevenue constraints and because
of the fact that we're a city,but then we need to operate a
library system, like counties do, and then a jail, like counties
do, and then a prison system,like states do.
So in 1997, the federalgovernment agreed to take over
(12:07):
our prison system.
They basically paid for ourprison system, or really anyone
that is convicted under the UScode in DC is sent to federal
prison, and they sometimes aresent close by.
There's not anything superclose, but maybe 100, 150 miles
away, but they really can besent anywhere in the country.
So there are currently what wecall DC code offenders or US
(12:28):
code offenders people convictedof crimes in DC who are in
California, who are in Arizona,who are in Texas who are in
Kentucky, they can be anywhere.
Colorado, they can be anywherein the country.
So that obviously puts a burdenon families and also makes
reintegration challenging whenpeople return from prison.
Jennifer Hiatt (12:45):
It was perfect timing on my behalf.
I was in DC over the 4th ofJuly holiday.
Didn't seem like a massiveemergency of crime was occurring
.
Urban disinvestment has been amajor impact on the communities
that you are highlighting.
What has this disinvestmentlooked like and how is it
directly connected to the urbanviolence that was so prominent
(13:06):
in the 1980s and 1990s in DC,but really in many major cities
across the country at that time?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (13:13):
Yeah, if we go back to the 1970s,
you'll remember.
You may or may not remember,but if you were around you might
know, you may have heard, thatin the 1970s the US was starting
to go into a pretty significanteconomic crisis, which had to
do with, you know, the rise ofGermany and Japan in terms of
competition and then the big oilcrisis of 1973.
So that left the US in a crisismode, and one of the responses
(13:37):
to that crisis wasdeindustrialization, basically
to close down factories and movethem to Mexico and other places
.
So DC didn't have factories, sowe weren't directly impacted by
deindustrialization in theexact same way, but we were
impacted by another thing, whichis suburbanization, where a lot
of jobs were sent to thesuburbs.
So the federal government isbased in DC, but actually a lot
of the jobs are in Bethesda orin Arlington or in Pentagon,
(13:59):
like they're not in the city.
Some of them are, but there's alot of jobs in federal agencies
started opening up outside thecity and they were not as
accessible to people in the city, and so cities across the
United States in the 1980s beganto encounter what they called
the joblessness crisis right,and that particularly affected
(14:20):
young Black men In DC and inother cities many young Black
men had very few employmentopportunities.
So that's the general contextof the United States and in DC
we also had this employmentcrisis in the 1980s.
In DC there were a couple othercrises that also affected the
city.
One is the HIV-AIDS crisis.
Dc was very hard hit by that.
So then in 1984, crack cocainewas introduced to the city.
(14:44):
It was introduced to DC.
It started out in LA, then itspread to New York and to DC and
to many other cities.
So crack cocaine hit at a timewhen there was this joblessness
crisis, when there was the HIVcrisis.
The HIV crisis came a littlelater, but there was lots of
challenges in the city andschools were failing.
And when crack cocaine camealong it provided an opportunity
(15:04):
for young men to make a lot ofmoney very quickly.
So it just exploded right.
There was many people that werelooking for money, looking for
ways to make money.
Schools were not that engaging.
The schools had been defunded,so there was big cuts to the
afterschool programs, to therecreation programs, to the
sports teams.
So a lot of young boys andyoung men were idle.
So when crack cocaine camealong, a lot of them began to
(15:25):
sell the drug, and thenaddiction also became a big
problem in DC and in othercities.
The response of the city to thiscomplex of these crises was to
invest in policing, right.
So you have a problem wherethere's widespread drug use,
there's widespread drug selling,there's a rise in violence
across the city that's relatedto that, and then libraries are
closing, you know, the streetshave potholes, schools are not
(15:49):
providing the services they usedto provide, and the city
decides.
You know, what would be reallygood right now is more police.
And I want to add one morepiece of context to that, which
is that the federal governmentalso was insisting on more
police.
So it's very similar to what'shappening right now.
So there honestly was much moreof a crisis in the late 1980s
than there is today.
Today, it's definitely anexaggeration to say that there's
(16:11):
a crime crisis in DC right now.
In the late 1980s there was moreof a crisis.
Homicides were very high.
There was high rates of violentcrime in the city in DC and
really just across the city.
And just for context, I saw afigure that said that DC
homicide rate is about 40 andmuch.
I also saw another one thatsaid 20.
So it's somewhere between 20and 40.
But in 1991, it was 80 per100,000.
So it's at least twice what itis today and possibly more
(16:33):
depending on how things arecounted.
But basically there was a crisisand the solution was to
introduce more policing and moreprisons, and Congress also was
pushing this.
So when DC's budget went toCongress they were like we're
not going to vote on it unlessyou hire 1,500 additional police
officers.
So there was definitely a pushfrom Congress not from the
president, like we're seeingtoday, but similarly from the
federal government.
(16:53):
So that insistence on heavypolicing in the city.
What that did is create anothercrisis, which is the crisis of
mass incarceration.
So by 1997, 50% of young Blackmen in DC were caught in the
carceral net, meaning that theywere either in prison, in jail
on probation, out on a warrant,somehow caught up in the
(17:14):
policing system.
So what's important to noteabout that when it's 50 percent
is it wasn't limited to a smallnumber of people in super poor
areas.
Right, it was across the city.
So it was poor Black boys, poorBlack men, working class Black
boys and men, and also morewell-to-do Black boys and men
Across the city.
There it was poor Black boys,poor Black men, working class
Black boys and men, and alsomore well-to-do Black boys and
men Across the city.
There were very high rates ofincarceration, so that created
(17:35):
another crisis in the city.
Stephanie Rouse (17:37):
So you've talked about this a little bit,
about carceral investment.
It's one of the three phasesthat you describe in the book,
between disinvestment andracialized investment.
You've talked a little bitabout the impacts that this
approach had on the city.
How does this tie back into theracial wealth gap and
homeownership?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (17:56):
Okay.
So when I started the bookproject, one of the reasons I
was looking at this intersectionbetween homeownership and
carceral investment is that oneof the families I introduced in
the beginning of the book, theirhome was raided for
drug-related reasons, forsuspected drug activity, and the
home was actually taken.
So basically, because of verystrict drug laws in the United
States, if you are suspected tohave sold drugs out of a home or
(18:20):
somehow engaged in drug-sellingactivity in a house, the
federal government can forfeitthat house.
The family home was actuallyforfeited.
So I was curious to find outhow common that was, and it
turned out it wasn't very common, or at least the DC Recorded
Deeds database doesn't show thatmany examples of homes being
forfeited.
So then I was thinking OK, well, you know how?
Is policing and prisons andmass incarceration related to
(18:44):
the racial wealth gap morebroadly if it's not directly
taking the home?
And it turns out the story is alittle bit more complex.
So in the 1950s, like I saidbefore, many African-American
families were purchasing homesand then they move into these
neighborhoods which have greatschools, which have parks, which
have libraries, which havedelis, et cetera.
But over the course of the next20 years the neighborhoods
(19:04):
decline in terms of thoseamenities and the schools
decline.
So by the 1970s they're sendingtheir kids to schools that are
just not the same quality thatthey were before and their
children are not able to attainthe level of economic success
that they attained.
So the children end up stayingin the home with the parents.
So now, instead of okay,grandma and grandpa bought a
home, and then if mom and dadcan buy a home too, then you
(19:26):
maintain wealth.
But now, even when the home getspassed down, that second
generation didn't purchase homes.
So now the wealth is dispersed.
So you can have one person buya home in 1954, but if it gets
sold in 1994 for not very muchmoney, and now there's 12 heirs,
right, so everyone gets $5,000.
So it's really not that reallyimpedes it becoming a wealth
generator.
So basically, what I saw isthat there was downward mobility
(19:54):
across generations and that wasexacerbated by incarceration.
There are certainly manychildren of DC, african-american
children of DC, who grew up inthe 1970s and went on to become
very successful, but there aremany who did not as well and a
lot of them ended up beingincarcerated.
So that's how it plays intothis failure to transmit wealth
across generations.
Jennifer Hiatt (20:08):
And it's not just that one or two generations
.
This conversation you justended in the 90s, this is still
impacting people today, correct?
Tanya Maria Golash-B (20:18):
Absolutely still impacting people today,
and I mean, basically, you had ageneration of people who grew
up without their fathers becausetheir fathers were incarcerated
.
You had all these resourcesgoing to prisons that didn't go
to schools.
So, yeah, so definitely hasintergenerational impacts today,
and some of the people that Iinterviewed for this book had
actually lost their kids to gunviolence and a lot of times it
(20:39):
was, you know, while they wereaway, while they were
incarcerated.
They weren't able to providefor their children, to provide
the kind of social safety netthat they would want to, and a
lot of times their childrenended up also getting
incarcerated or getting murderedand for them it was directly
related to them being away, tothem being incarcerated.
Jennifer Hiatt (20:56):
I just think often people are like okay, but
it's 2025, so what, right?
And it's like, no, this isstill impacting people today and
it will impact the nextgeneration as well.
So understanding what hashappened in the past and being
able to fix it, moving forward,is so important, absolutely.
Stephanie Rouse (21:12):
And in the book you describe two different
types of gentrification.
One is wholesale demolition,clearing, building new.
Other is more slower and it'slike housing rehabilitation on a
much smaller scale, which areboth active in a lot of
communities, dc included.
Can you talk about these twoforms and how they're forms of
racialized reinvestment?
(21:32):
Yes, absolutely.
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (21:34):
I have another project related to
gentrification in DC which ismore quantitative.
So we're looking at, you know,how is gentrification related to
other outcomes?
How is it related to arrests,to policing, to crime?
So for a quantitative projectyou need to measure
gentrification.
And when I started runningmodels that would look at you
(21:54):
know how do we figure out whichneighborhoods in DC have
gentrified, it didn't alwaysalign with what you might think,
right.
So, like as a qualitativeresearcher, you go to a
neighborhood and you think, oh,this neighborhood is definitely
gentrified.
Look, it has coffee shops.
You know, you have peoplewalking their dogs at midnight,
right?
So this is definitelygentrified.
But then when you do a littlemore research, it's like, well,
this might not qualify for thetechnical definition of
gentrification for a lot ofreasons.
The neighborhood went from 95%Black to 10% Black.
(22:15):
The educational level has justcompletely changed, went from
(22:35):
majority without a high schooldegree to majority with a
graduate degree.
So now it's like, how do wecapture all?
Like what do we if we just saythis neighborhood is gentrified,
maybe it's not capturing all ofthis difference?
So then I started thinkingabout what really happened in
each neighborhood and how Icould develop a categorization
that made sense, at leastqualitatively.
And one thing that I came upwith was that there are
(22:57):
neighborhoods in DC where therewas public housing and when you
have public housing in aneighborhood and then the
neighborhood gets the HOPE VIprogram, which means the public
housing is completely demolished, that's a very quick and
significant transformation ofthe neighborhood.
So kind of started with publichousing.
So, looking at you know, navyYard is often quoted as one of
the most gentrifiedneighborhoods in the city and in
(23:18):
the country.
But Navy Yard has just beencompletely erased, right?
So the Navy Yard of the 1980sis just like it's just gone,
right, if you're from Navy Yard,if you grew up there, if you
grew up in those housingprojects, there's no visible
landmarks, there's norecognizable landmark.
I always say no.
I think there's two, there's achurch and then there's a few of
these like power plantbuildings that are still there,
(23:43):
kind of used for theseindustrial chic restaurants.
The structure is still therebut almost nothing is still
there.
You still recognize theneighborhood.
There's still like a fourth inKennedy Street.
In Navy Yard there's no fifthand I it's completely gone.
So that's how I kind of gotthere to sort of think about
these different neighborhoods.
So Navy Yard involved new buildgentrification right, so the
public housing project wascompletely demolished.
(24:04):
There was a stadium built inthe neighborhood and then the
Navy Yard itself was parts of itwere sold off.
Some of them were converted tofederal buildings and other
things.
So it's just a completelydifferent landscape.
And then on the other side oftown, where you have these, the
neighborhood I was talking aboutearlier that has, like the
brick homes that experiencedwhite flight.
The process has been more slow.
There aren't big developmentsin the neighborhood.
Instead, what you have is justhouses being flipped, kind of
(24:27):
one by one.
But there's still a small setof actors behind the scenes,
like if you walked around theneighborhood about 10 years ago,
you would see the same realestate company selling the
houses.
You would see the houses thatwere being flipped would have
the same exact landscaping.
So there's a sort oflandscaping company that they
were using.
They all kind of look the same.
You could kind of tell.
And then there was an articlein Redfin about the neighborhood
(24:49):
that said that neighborhood,which is called Petworth in
Washington DC, was the mostprofitable for home flipping in
2016.
And the article actuallyinterviewed a real estate agent
who said, oh, you know, what youreally want to get is grandma's
house.
He actually said that I waslike, wow, okay.
Stephanie Rouse (25:05):
What's interesting about the
description of the slower, houseby house by grandma's house
type of gentrification is thatwe read a book earlier this year
, I think it was, and I amtotally blanking on its title.
Gentrification was in its name,but it was talking about early
on late 1800s, early 1900s, dcand how that was the type of
(25:28):
gentrification it was building.
By building it was ownerscoming in, buying properties,
flipping them and slowlygentrifying the neighborhood in
a way that you wouldn't see,like in navy yards, where it's
very obvious that that tookplace, but it took longer to see
that flip and the changingdemographics in the neighborhood
.
So it's almost like it'shappening again 100 years later
yeah, and DC people talk aboutwaves of gentrification.
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (25:50):
So you have what happened in the early
20th century, then the seventiesand the nineties and now we're
in this current very big tidalwave.
That does feel qualitativelydifferent from previous waves, I
think.
I mean, for a lot of people inDC, the shift from it no longer
being majority black issignificant.
I think that happened around2015 or 2016.
Jennifer Hiatt (26:09):
Stephanie.
The book is the MisunderstoodHistory of Gentrification by
Dennis Gale.
Stephanie Rouse (26:15):
Yes.
Jennifer Hiatt (26:15):
And he actually was pointing out that Washington
DC was the first city mostlikely to experience
gentrification, even ahead ofNew York City.
It's part of his argument.
So you actually present a newconcept, or it was a new concept
to me that you're calling whitereclamation in the book.
So can you explain to listenerswhat is white reclamation and
(26:38):
why you specifically chose touse the term reclamation as
opposed to anything else?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (26:44):
Yeah, and I know it's definitely a
very charged term, but assomeone who grew up in a
neighborhood that isexperiencing white reclamation
and also talking to a lot ofother people who are
experiencing this process, itdoes very much feel like this
neighborhood was.
So Petworth in Washington DCwas built for white people.
There are racially restrictivecovenants in the deeds.
(27:05):
The developers are veryspecific.
These homes are for whitepeople.
And then, with schooldesegregation, the white
families of Petworth decidedalmost all of them that they
didn't want to live thereanymore and they left very
quickly.
I took a close look at theblock where my friend Monique
lived, because it's all houses.
It's an interesting block youcan look at.
Between like 1954 and, I think,1958, 75% of people sold their
(27:31):
homes right Like it.
Just people left very quickly.
So it was very much.
They were like, yeah, we'redone with this neighborhood, we
don't want to be here anymore.
When they left, you know, overtime the neighborhood
experienced this disinvestmentthat I was talking about earlier
and then in the early 2000s thenew generation decided you know
what?
Actually that neighborhood issuper cool.
It has these cool brick homes.
It has these wide tree lawnseverywhere.
(27:52):
It has parks.
It's right next to Rock CreekPark.
We don't want to live in thesuburbs anymore.
That's like so 20th century.
We want to live in Petworthagain.
And because their parents hadmoved to the suburbs and they
got a great education, they'renow making a lot of money and
they can afford to move backhome.
They can sell their parents'home in the suburbs and buy a
home in Petworth, and a lot ofBlack families that grew up in
(28:13):
Petworth can't do that.
So it does feel very much likewhite people didn't want to live
here from like 1960 to 2000.
And then they did, and guesswhat they were able to, or lots
of them were able to.
So that's why I use the termwhite reclamation, because white
people are like yeah, we'recoming back, we're reclaiming
this space.
Obviously there's a lot ofvariety in terms of the white
people in the neighborhood, butthere are many of them who come
(28:35):
back, who come to theneighborhood, I should say, and
very much kind of take ownershipof the space this came up a lot
in interviews where they maketheir own rules, they disparage
the long-term residents, theyopen restaurants that have no
sense of the community.
There was I think there stillis on Kennedy Street just this
restaurant that sells this likevery boutique cider, so they
(28:57):
don't sell anything that thepeople, the long-term residents
of the neighborhood, would evenwant.
So it's sort of a very muchlike let's forget about the new
people, let's make this better.
And actually one of my newerneighbors actually said you know
, like we shouldn't be ashamedto be gentrifiers, we made this
place so much better.
This place was not, there wasnothing here when we moved and I
was like actually the woman wholives in the house before you
(29:18):
had a very important position atthe Kennedy Center, like you're
not necessarily, you know, amore important person than she
was, but sort of this.
There's this myth about theneighborhood that there was
nothing here, there was nothingworthwhile, and then now that
they're here, it's a betterplace and I think that's it's an
ignoring of the history.
So that's why it feels likewhite reclamation.
So and I recognize it's acharged term, but it is a very
(29:39):
charged history- yeah, it's allabout perspective.
Stephanie Rouse (29:42):
It's better for them and that's what they want
to see in the neighborhood, butit's not necessarily what was
there and what was working wellfor the residents before them.
So most of your book is devotedto laying out the evidence of
gentrification in DC, but in thelast chapter you point out that
when you were sharing this workwith people, they would always
ask well, what's next?
What can we do about this?
(30:03):
And I'm guessing a lot of ourlisteners would have the same
question.
So how do we start to dismantlethe racist and capitalist
cycles that created Blackdisplacement and dispossession
in these communities?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (30:14):
Yeah, thank you, and I think whenever
we ask the question like what dowe do?
How do we change this?
There's so many things we cando to anyone that wants to
engage in change.
I think it depends on whereyou're sitting and what
interests you.
There's many avenues, right.
So top of mind right now is thatit's not going down this path
of policing, of intensivepolicing again.
(30:35):
Right, it is very hard forpeople to understand that more
police do not prevent crime.
I think the easiest way tounderstand it is that police
show up after a crime has beencommitted, so they really don't
prevent crime.
But it seems just so obvious topeople and to many people in my
neighborhood today particularly, many of the newer residents
are like we need more police.
Someone broke into my car lastnight and like how many police
(30:58):
would it take for someone not tobreak into your car?
Like no one's going to besitting there watching your car
all night, so like it's notgoing to work in the way you
think it is.
I think it's really hard forpeople to get their brains
around that, but I think peoplethat are interested in policing
should read up on it and thinkabout that and try and
understand the history of whathappened before and how it got
us to where we are today.
So that's one avenue.
Another avenue is DC reallydoes have very strong affordable
(31:22):
housing programs, and I thinkyou can look at them and see
that they have been successfulto some extent.
They're super limited, though,and they also can be taken away
at any point.
So I think what DC shows us isthat is a lot of examples of
cooperative housing, ofaffordable housing, of public
housing, but then also at thelimits of those reforms, because
they're never enough and theyalso can be reversed at any time
(31:44):
.
So the more that I think aboutthe challenges that DC faces.
The challenge that we face isbasically that in the United
States, we've created asituation that wealth is very
important.
In the United States.
If you don't have wealth, thenif you have a huge medical
problem, you could be completelybroke tomorrow, right?
Wealth is so important for ourability to just survive a
(32:05):
medical crisis.
If you don't have wealth rightnow and you want to send your
kids to college, you're going toput them in lifelong debt,
right, or you put yourself inlifelong debt.
So it's just like wealth isvery important.
So a lot of anxiety aboutbuilding wealth, and then the
main avenue that we have forbuilding wealth is through
homeownership.
So we have this system wherepeople are expecting to make a
lot of money through their homeso that they can weather these
(32:27):
significant crises that probablywill happen at some point, or
these significant lifechallenges.
And this system doesn't workvery well, right, because there
can be a crash in the housingmarket at any time.
It's also very racially unequalHomes in white neighborhoods
increase far more quickly thanhomes in black neighborhoods, so
it's a very racially unequalsystem.
I think the system of relying onhomes for wealth and belief,
(32:50):
for just security is a problemin itself.
So I think the solution to thatis to decommodify housing right
, and the way that that looks isa home would become somewhere
where you live but that you'renot depending on for your nest
egg, you're not depending on toborrow money out of to pay for
college, and what that would dois it would bring home prices
down significantly.
Right, if a lot of homes weredecommodified, but it would no
(33:12):
longer have this feature, and sothen we wouldn't be spending 50
to 60% of our income on housingright.
So it's a kind of longer term,but I think we can see it.
You know a lot of universitieshave, you know, student housing
is decommodified housing facultyA lot of universities have
faculty housing.
And then some cities are evenstarting with teacher housing or
with government worker housing.
Right In California, if you wantto have teachers in Silicon
(33:34):
Valley, how much are you goingto have to pay them to afford to
live there?
Like a lot of money, basically,and there's only so much the
market will pay teachers.
Some cities in California havestarted housing for teachers,
for example.
We're getting to a point wherehousing is a significant crisis
in the United States and thesesmall reforms are going to have
their significant limits.
So we have to think more deeplyabout decommodification of
(33:55):
housing, getting housing outsideof the financial market and
treating it more like a humanright.
Like you need a place to live,you got two kids.
You need a two bedroomapartment or two bedroom house,
as opposed to you have a lot ofmoney, so now you get to live in
a super big mansion that maybeyou don't need.
Jennifer Hiatt (34:13):
And as we as individuals work towards that
dismantling and policy change,cities are still probably in the
best position of power toadvance these changes now, right
, so what policies should cityofficials be thinking about to
ensure that, as redevelopmentdoes occur, we are not letting
that redevelopment tearcommunities apart?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (34:30):
DC has this Tenant Opportunity to
Purchase Act.
So when a building is about tobe sold off, the tenants have
the opportunity to purchase andDC uses the funds from its
housing development programs tofund that.
When the tenants do purchasethe building, they have the
opportunity to make it into alimited equity co-op.
That's an example ofdecommodified housing.
So cities have the power tocreate these tenant opportunity
(34:52):
to purchase buildings and thenturn the buildings into the
limited equity cooperative andthen also to think about the
long-term when you do that.
There's a building on thecorner from me that used to be a
limited equity cooperative, butnow it's not exactly.
But the challenge is a lot ofseniors live in that building
who want to fix income.
So there needs to be provisionswhereby the fees associated
with living there don't increasefaster than Social Security.
(35:14):
Putting housing first, thinkingabout you know, do we want a
downtown that's a playground forthe wealthy, or do we want a
downtown area that reflects thediversity of our city?
Do we want young people to haveto live six in a one-bedroom
apartment to be able to affordto live in the city, or do we
want them to have the dignity ofa private room?
And really thinking that throughand also thinking through the
issue holistically, Because onething I see in DC is we have a
lot of these programs say, okay,you can live here if you make
(35:37):
40% of the area median income.
But there isn't a big planwhere it's like okay, how many
people make 40% of the areamedian income and where can they
live, how many units areavailable for them?
Right?
So you can think kind ofbroadly about how do we house
our workers.
And this is super important forcity officials, because you
probably have a target where youlive and target only pays so
much, right.
(35:57):
And so if the target workercannot afford to live in your
city, then you know at somepoint they're just going to move
out farther out of town tosomewhere else, right.
But the city needs targetworkers, city needs electricians
, city needs bus drivers.
So if you need workers, thenyou need to give them housing.
So affordable housing is aboutit's not just about like, doing
the right thing, but it's aboutcontinuing to have people make
(36:19):
the city function.
Jennifer Hiatt (36:21):
Always.
Our last question on Booked, onPlanning.
Obviously, we would recommendeverybody run out and get your
book and read through it becauseit was a very fascinating read.
But what are some books thatyou would recommend readers
check out?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (36:33):
If you want to learn more about DC,
there's a nice thick tome youcan take some time to get
through called Chocolate City byDerek Musgrove and Chris
Myers-Ashk.
It's a nice big tome about DC.
You also have Cappuccino Cityby Derek Hira.
Cappuccino City by Derek Hira.
I also recommend BrandySummers' book Black in Place
about Washington DC and SabiaPrince's book Gentrification in
(36:54):
the Chocolate City.
Lots of great books coming outabout DC that I highly recommend
.
Oh, and there's one more book.
Ali Martin has a new bookcalled Intersectional Listening.
For those of you into thesoundscape side of things, it's
a very good book thinking aboutgo-go music in DC, which is a
genre of music specific to DC,and how gentrification has
shaped go-go music and how thecity has also been shaped by
(37:15):
this music.
Stephanie Rouse (37:16):
All great recommendations, but thank you,
Tanya, again for joining us totalk about your book Before
Gentrification the Creation ofDC's Racial Wealth Gap.
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (37:26):
Thank you, so much, Stephanie and
Jennifer.
It was great chatting with youand appreciate you engaging with
the book.
It's super fun.
Jennifer Hiatt (37:33):
We really hoped you enjoyed this conversation
with Tanya Marie Golosh-Boza onher book Before Gentrification
the Creation of DC's RacialWealth Gap.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher at the
University of California Pressor click the link in the show
notes to take you directly toour affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts, and please rate,review and share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(37:54):
Booked, on Planning, Thank you.
you're listening to the booked on
planning podcast, a project ofthe nebraska chapter of the
american planning association.
In each episode we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
(00:40):
Welcome back Bookworms, toanother episode of Booked on
Planning.
In this episode we talk withauthor Tanya Maria Golash-Boza
on her book BeforeGentrification the Creation of
DC's Racial Wealth Gap.
This book rounds out our monthfocusing on gentrification.
First we discussed how it hasimpacted Detroit and in this
episode we dive into the impactson Washington DC.
Jennifer Hiatt (00:58):
This was actually perfect timing for me,
as I had a trip to DC plannedright after reading this book,
so it was interesting to readabout DC and then see the
impacts that she was talkingabout.
I think it's always interestingto take a close look at the
different facets of one city, sowe were talking about, in this
case, washington DC, and itsunique relationship with the
federal government reallyexasperated the racial
(01:19):
disparities and gentrificationthat was already starting to
happen across the country in the1970s and 80s.
Stephanie Rouse (01:24):
Yeah, it was really fascinating learning
about DC's lack of control,despite their home rule status,
with Congress's ability to settheir budget priorities and step
in during a crisis.
As Tanya mentioned in theconversation, this is playing
out right now, with thepresident's takeover of DC's
police returning to a failedapproach to more policing to
fight crime that she advocatesfor avoiding.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:46):
It is kind of frustrating to watch something
that we know probably isn'tgoing to work happen all over
again and again, especially whenthe impacts of the first
attempt of over-policing arestill impacting the city today.
Let's get into our conversationwith author Tanya Maria
Golosh-Boza on her book BeforeGentrification the Creation of
DC's Racial Wealth Gap.
Stephanie Rouse (02:07):
Tanya, thank you for joining us on Booked on
Planning to talk about your bookBefore Gentrification the
Creation of DC's Racial WealthGap.
There's a misconception, atleast for DC, that the wealth
gap between Black families andwhite families resulted from a
lack of homeownership for Blacksdue to racist housing practices
.
But you have a differentconclusion.
What is the true cause?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (02:28):
Yeah, hi, stephanie and Jennifer, it's
really great to be here.
Thank you for the invitation.
Okay, so in general, there is aperception or misperception
that African Americans werelocked out of homeownership in
the United States in generalbefore the Fair Housing Act of
1968.
There's definitely some truthto that.
There definitely were racisthousing tactics going on.
(02:48):
There was blockbusting, therewas redlining, all that stuff
definitely was going on.
But what's remarkable is thatthere was a significant increase
in Black homeownership between1940 and 1970 nationwide, and in
Washington DC in particular.
Between 1940 and 1970, therewas a five-fold increase in
African-American homeownership.
There was a significantincrease in African-American
(03:10):
homeownership.
However, there's also today asignificant racial wealth gap.
So what we learned from that isthat large numbers of
African-Americans purchasinghomes did not reduce the racial
wealth gap.
So what I argue in my bookBefore Gentrification is that
African-Americans were able toaccess home ownership in
Washington DC actually primarilydue to white flight, partly due
(03:33):
to their relative economicsuccess in Washington DC and
then to the availability ofhousing, because white families
were leaving the city and whitefamilies were leaving these row
homes, brick row homes that hadbeen built not too much earlier.
They really had been built inthe 20s and in the 30s a lot of
them in the neighborhood where Igrew up in particular, and
white families were leavingthose homes and mostly white
(03:54):
families were leaving thosehomes.
My evidence shows that it'sprimarily due to school
integration.
So in 1954, when schools weredesegregated, a lot of schools
in Washington DC went from 100percent white in 1953 to almost
100 percent black in 1954, andparticularly at the elementary
school level.
The high schools were a littleslower.
(04:14):
You kind of imagine it's alittle harder to transition at
that stage.
No-transcript basically lockedout of black neighborhoods
through lots of other measures.
But what happened is once whitefamilies left those
(04:37):
neighborhoods and took theirbusinesses and their tax dollars
with them, the city and thefederal government stopped
investing in those neighborhoods.
So it wasn't like an immediatetransition.
But the neighborhood that Igrew up, in particular in the
1950s it was a thriving workingto middle-class neighborhood
with a theater, grocery stores,delis, ice cream shops, clothing
(05:01):
stores you know all kinds ofsmall businesses on that main
street of Kennedy Street andthen also Georgia Avenue which
is close by, and slowly over thecourse of about 20 years a lot
of those businesses closed, likethey didn't close immediately
but just as the owners retired,you know their kids didn't
necessarily pick up thebusinesses and the businesses
started closing.
So the businesses were closingand there were many
(05:22):
African-Americans who wanted topurchase businesses on those
blocks but banks were now notlending money because the
neighborhood had becomeprimarily black.
So slowly you see a decline inthe quality of the neighborhood
just because the amenities arenot the same.
You know there's no longergrocery stores, there's no
longer delis, there's lots ofkind of closed down businesses,
lots of liquor stores, cornerstores, you know just not the
(05:42):
same quality of business that ithad before.
And what's interesting is likethe economic status of the
neighborhood didn't change,right, people are still making
around the same amount of money,you know, kind of adjusted for
inflation, and you have the samepercentage homeownership, about
50% homeownership.
But the character of theneighborhood changed with the
closing of the businesses andthe public schools changed
significantly.
So in 1954 1954 with schooldesegregation Washington DC had
(06:06):
100,000 students in the schoolsystem.
By 1970, we had 150,000students and there was not a
concomitant increase inbudgeting right in monetary
allocation to the school.
So the schools were slowly notproviding the same high level of
education that they hadpreviously provided.
So what all that does.
Lack of private investment inthe neighborhood, lack of public
(06:27):
investment in the neighborhoodleads to flat or reduced home
values.
So home values in thatneighborhood didn't really
increase at all, other than therate of inflation between 1950
and 2000.
So you have almost 50 years ofhomeownership, of many, many
families owning homes, but thehouses are not increasing in
(06:47):
value.
The main thing that that doesis that means that they're not
building wealth right, becausein the United States, to the
extent that we have any wealthat all, vast majority of
people's wealth is in the valueof your home.
So if your home doesn'tincrease in value, then you're
not going to see that increasein wealth.
So that's why I argue thathomeownership could have led to
wealth accumulation but itdidn't due to long-term
(07:09):
disinvestment in segregatedBlack neighborhoods.
Jennifer Hiatt (07:12):
You actually have a unique perspective on
this topic.
So what's your relationship toWashington DC and some of the
people whose stories youhighlight in the book?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (07:22):
Yes, I do have a unique perspective.
My parents moved to WashingtonDC in 1970.
That's a little bit before Iwas born, and they lived in an
apartment in one of the very fewintegrated neighborhoods in
Washington DC.
I'm white, my parents are white, my siblings are white and they
moved into Mount Pleasant,which was one of the very few
integrated neighborhoods in thecity, and at the time my father
was a laundry truck driver andmy mother was in graduate school
(07:44):
.
So they didn't have a lot ofmoney and the rent was slowly
increasing in that neighborhood.
At that time it was reasonable.
Can you just imagine a timewhen a laundry truck driver and
a graduate student can purchasea home?
But it was possible in 1970.
So in 1976, my parentspurchased a home in a
neighborhood that at that pointwas about 90% Black.
(08:06):
It had previously been allwhite.
In the 1940s and 1950s Most ofthe white families had left the
neighborhood and my parentsbought a home in the
neighborhood and we were one ofthe very few white families
growing up in that neighborhood.
When I was growing up, actually, I had two best friends, and
one was Monique.
She's African-American and hergrandparents had purchased the
home where she lived, and myother best friend was Juliana
(08:27):
and she was Korean and herfamily owned the corner store.
So the typical of theneighborhood but atypical to see
a white girl, korean girl andblack girl walking down the
street because almost everyonein our neighborhood was black at
that time.
So the neighbor that I grew upin was, you know, working to
middle-class neighborhood.
A lot of people own their homes, but a lot of people were like
Monique in that this was nowlike the mid 1970s it was their
(08:50):
grandparents who had purchasedthe home in the 1950s and had
held on to it.
So a lot of my friend's parentsdidn't necessarily have the
means to purchase homes, buttheir grandparents had and they
lived in those homes.
Stephanie Rouse (09:00):
I think it's important to understand how all
of the topics that you discussin your book play out, because
of DC's unique operations andthe role of the federal
government and how the cityfunctions, like the budget and
the prison system.
Can you describe the structureand how it's impacted?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (09:15):
the community today and for the next
30 days, so probably withinthat time frame.
I think so a couple of days agoright now it's August 14th, so
around August 12th PresidentTrump took over DC's
metropolitan police department.
He's able to do that in DCbecause there's a provision in
(09:36):
the Home Rule Act of 1973 thatsays that the president can take
control of the policedepartment if there's ever a
crisis in the city.
You can imagine why that exists.
Come to your own conclusionsabout why they're doing it right
now.
But the important thing we wantto focus on here is the fact
that DC has had home rules since1973, which means that DC has
its own mayor that's elected bythe people, and we have a city
(09:59):
council that's elected by thepeople.
So we function like a city,like many other places, but the
federal government has reach inDC that they don't have in other
places.
So the US attorney is appointeddirectly by the president, and
this is important for democracybecause DC, like most cities, is
heavily Democrat probably 80 to90 percent Democrat and so
(10:20):
whenever there's a Republican inoffice, most people in the city
didn't vote for that personRight, and also they're the
president, not the mayor, soanyway.
So the president has the rightto appoint our US attorney, who
then is the person who decideson the sentences for people that
are in the incarceration system.
So that's unique to DC.
And what's also unique to DC isso we are a city, but there are
(10:41):
significant limits on the waysthat the city can produce
revenue.
So 43% of the land in DC is nottaxable, which is because
either it's owned by a nonprofitor it's owned by the federal
government.
So there's a lot of land in DCthat's not taxable.
And then we're also forbiddenby Congress from implementing a
commuter tax, so DC can't decideon its own whether or not it
(11:03):
wants to have a commuter tax,and there's other provisions
that Congress will put in placeto protect Congress that may
have negative revenueconsequences for DC.
And then the other importantthing is that, well, there's
many important things, but if DCpasses a law so, for example,
dc passed a law for marijuanalegalization, you know, like
many liberal cities do, andCongress can block it, and they
(11:26):
can block it and they did blockit they can overrule laws that
we pass.
Congress also has the authorityto vote on our budget.
So when the city passes thebudget, you know it goes through
the city council and then itgoes to the mayor and then it
gets approved at that level, butthen Congress can change it.
So at that point they can putin provisions for things that
they want to see.
And again, these are not peoplethat are elected by people in
DC.
Dc we do have onecongressperson, but they're not
voting.
(11:46):
So DC has limited control.
We don't have the samedemocratic rights as other
people in the mainland UnitedStates.
Ok, so now DC, because of ourrevenue constraints and because
of the fact that we're a city,but then we need to operate a
library system, like counties do, and then a jail, like counties
do, and then a prison system,like states do.
So in 1997, the federalgovernment agreed to take over
(12:07):
our prison system.
They basically paid for ourprison system, or really anyone
that is convicted under the UScode in DC is sent to federal
prison, and they sometimes aresent close by.
There's not anything superclose, but maybe 100, 150 miles
away, but they really can besent anywhere in the country.
So there are currently what wecall DC code offenders or US
(12:28):
code offenders people convictedof crimes in DC who are in
California, who are in Arizona,who are in Texas who are in
Kentucky, they can be anywhere.
Colorado, they can be anywherein the country.
So that obviously puts a burdenon families and also makes
reintegration challenging whenpeople return from prison.
Jennifer Hiatt (12:45):
It was perfect timing on my behalf.
I was in DC over the 4th ofJuly holiday.
Didn't seem like a massiveemergency of crime was occurring
.
Urban disinvestment has been amajor impact on the communities
that you are highlighting.
What has this disinvestmentlooked like and how is it
directly connected to the urbanviolence that was so prominent
(13:06):
in the 1980s and 1990s in DC,but really in many major cities
across the country at that time?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (13:13):
Yeah, if we go back to the 1970s,
you'll remember.
You may or may not remember,but if you were around you might
know, you may have heard, thatin the 1970s the US was starting
to go into a pretty significanteconomic crisis, which had to
do with, you know, the rise ofGermany and Japan in terms of
competition and then the big oilcrisis of 1973.
So that left the US in a crisismode, and one of the responses
(13:37):
to that crisis wasdeindustrialization, basically
to close down factories and movethem to Mexico and other places
.
So DC didn't have factories, sowe weren't directly impacted by
deindustrialization in theexact same way, but we were
impacted by another thing, whichis suburbanization, where a lot
of jobs were sent to thesuburbs.
So the federal government isbased in DC, but actually a lot
of the jobs are in Bethesda orin Arlington or in Pentagon,
(13:59):
like they're not in the city.
Some of them are, but there's alot of jobs in federal agencies
started opening up outside thecity and they were not as
accessible to people in the city, and so cities across the
United States in the 1980s beganto encounter what they called
the joblessness crisis right,and that particularly affected
(14:20):
young Black men In DC and inother cities many young Black
men had very few employmentopportunities.
So that's the general contextof the United States and in DC
we also had this employmentcrisis in the 1980s.
In DC there were a couple othercrises that also affected the
city.
One is the HIV-AIDS crisis.
Dc was very hard hit by that.
So then in 1984, crack cocainewas introduced to the city.
(14:44):
It was introduced to DC.
It started out in LA, then itspread to New York and to DC and
to many other cities.
So crack cocaine hit at a timewhen there was this joblessness
crisis, when there was the HIVcrisis.
The HIV crisis came a littlelater, but there was lots of
challenges in the city andschools were failing.
And when crack cocaine camealong it provided an opportunity
(15:04):
for young men to make a lot ofmoney very quickly.
So it just exploded right.
There was many people that werelooking for money, looking for
ways to make money.
Schools were not that engaging.
The schools had been defunded,so there was big cuts to the
afterschool programs, to therecreation programs, to the
sports teams.
So a lot of young boys andyoung men were idle.
So when crack cocaine camealong, a lot of them began to
(15:25):
sell the drug, and thenaddiction also became a big
problem in DC and in othercities.
The response of the city to thiscomplex of these crises was to
invest in policing, right.
So you have a problem wherethere's widespread drug use,
there's widespread drug selling,there's a rise in violence
across the city that's relatedto that, and then libraries are
closing, you know, the streetshave potholes, schools are not
(15:49):
providing the services they usedto provide, and the city
decides.
You know, what would be reallygood right now is more police.
And I want to add one morepiece of context to that, which
is that the federal governmentalso was insisting on more
police.
So it's very similar to what'shappening right now.
So there honestly was much moreof a crisis in the late 1980s
than there is today.
Today, it's definitely anexaggeration to say that there's
(16:11):
a crime crisis in DC right now.
In the late 1980s there was moreof a crisis.
Homicides were very high.
There was high rates of violentcrime in the city in DC and
really just across the city.
And just for context, I saw afigure that said that DC
homicide rate is about 40 andmuch.
I also saw another one thatsaid 20.
So it's somewhere between 20and 40.
But in 1991, it was 80 per100,000.
So it's at least twice what itis today and possibly more
(16:33):
depending on how things arecounted.
But basically there was a crisisand the solution was to
introduce more policing and moreprisons, and Congress also was
pushing this.
So when DC's budget went toCongress they were like we're
not going to vote on it unlessyou hire 1,500 additional police
officers.
So there was definitely a pushfrom Congress not from the
president, like we're seeingtoday, but similarly from the
federal government.
(16:53):
So that insistence on heavypolicing in the city.
What that did is create anothercrisis, which is the crisis of
mass incarceration.
So by 1997, 50% of young Blackmen in DC were caught in the
carceral net, meaning that theywere either in prison, in jail
on probation, out on a warrant,somehow caught up in the
(17:14):
policing system.
So what's important to noteabout that when it's 50 percent
is it wasn't limited to a smallnumber of people in super poor
areas.
Right, it was across the city.
So it was poor Black boys, poorBlack men, working class Black
boys and men, and also morewell-to-do Black boys and men
Across the city.
There it was poor Black boys,poor Black men, working class
Black boys and men, and alsomore well-to-do Black boys and
men Across the city.
There were very high rates ofincarceration, so that created
(17:35):
another crisis in the city.
Stephanie Rouse (17:37):
So you've talked about this a little bit,
about carceral investment.
It's one of the three phasesthat you describe in the book,
between disinvestment andracialized investment.
You've talked a little bitabout the impacts that this
approach had on the city.
How does this tie back into theracial wealth gap and
homeownership?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (17:56):
Okay.
So when I started the bookproject, one of the reasons I
was looking at this intersectionbetween homeownership and
carceral investment is that oneof the families I introduced in
the beginning of the book, theirhome was raided for
drug-related reasons, forsuspected drug activity, and the
home was actually taken.
So basically, because of verystrict drug laws in the United
States, if you are suspected tohave sold drugs out of a home or
(18:20):
somehow engaged in drug-sellingactivity in a house, the
federal government can forfeitthat house.
The family home was actuallyforfeited.
So I was curious to find outhow common that was, and it
turned out it wasn't very common, or at least the DC Recorded
Deeds database doesn't show thatmany examples of homes being
forfeited.
So then I was thinking OK, well, you know how?
Is policing and prisons andmass incarceration related to
(18:44):
the racial wealth gap morebroadly if it's not directly
taking the home?
And it turns out the story is alittle bit more complex.
So in the 1950s, like I saidbefore, many African-American
families were purchasing homesand then they move into these
neighborhoods which have greatschools, which have parks, which
have libraries, which havedelis, et cetera.
But over the course of the next20 years the neighborhoods
(19:04):
decline in terms of thoseamenities and the schools
decline.
So by the 1970s they're sendingtheir kids to schools that are
just not the same quality thatthey were before and their
children are not able to attainthe level of economic success
that they attained.
So the children end up stayingin the home with the parents.
So now, instead of okay,grandma and grandpa bought a
home, and then if mom and dadcan buy a home too, then you
(19:26):
maintain wealth.
But now, even when the home getspassed down, that second
generation didn't purchase homes.
So now the wealth is dispersed.
So you can have one person buya home in 1954, but if it gets
sold in 1994 for not very muchmoney, and now there's 12 heirs,
right, so everyone gets $5,000.
So it's really not that reallyimpedes it becoming a wealth
generator.
So basically, what I saw isthat there was downward mobility
(19:54):
across generations and that wasexacerbated by incarceration.
There are certainly manychildren of DC, african-american
children of DC, who grew up inthe 1970s and went on to become
very successful, but there aremany who did not as well and a
lot of them ended up beingincarcerated.
So that's how it plays intothis failure to transmit wealth
across generations.
Jennifer Hiatt (20:08):
And it's not just that one or two generations
.
This conversation you justended in the 90s, this is still
impacting people today, correct?
Tanya Maria Golash-B (20:18):
Absolutely still impacting people today,
and I mean, basically, you had ageneration of people who grew
up without their fathers becausetheir fathers were incarcerated
.
You had all these resourcesgoing to prisons that didn't go
to schools.
So, yeah, so definitely hasintergenerational impacts today,
and some of the people that Iinterviewed for this book had
actually lost their kids to gunviolence and a lot of times it
(20:39):
was, you know, while they wereaway, while they were
incarcerated.
They weren't able to providefor their children, to provide
the kind of social safety netthat they would want to, and a
lot of times their childrenended up also getting
incarcerated or getting murderedand for them it was directly
related to them being away, tothem being incarcerated.
Jennifer Hiatt (20:56):
I just think often people are like okay, but
it's 2025, so what, right?
And it's like, no, this isstill impacting people today and
it will impact the nextgeneration as well.
So understanding what hashappened in the past and being
able to fix it, moving forward,is so important, absolutely.
Stephanie Rouse (21:12):
And in the book you describe two different
types of gentrification.
One is wholesale demolition,clearing, building new.
Other is more slower and it'slike housing rehabilitation on a
much smaller scale, which areboth active in a lot of
communities, dc included.
Can you talk about these twoforms and how they're forms of
racialized reinvestment?
(21:32):
Yes, absolutely.
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (21:34):
I have another project related to
gentrification in DC which ismore quantitative.
So we're looking at, you know,how is gentrification related to
other outcomes?
How is it related to arrests,to policing, to crime?
So for a quantitative projectyou need to measure
gentrification.
And when I started runningmodels that would look at you
(21:54):
know how do we figure out whichneighborhoods in DC have
gentrified, it didn't alwaysalign with what you might think,
right.
So, like as a qualitativeresearcher, you go to a
neighborhood and you think, oh,this neighborhood is definitely
gentrified.
Look, it has coffee shops.
You know, you have peoplewalking their dogs at midnight,
right?
So this is definitelygentrified.
But then when you do a littlemore research, it's like, well,
this might not qualify for thetechnical definition of
gentrification for a lot ofreasons.
The neighborhood went from 95%Black to 10% Black.
(22:15):
The educational level has justcompletely changed, went from
(22:35):
majority without a high schooldegree to majority with a
graduate degree.
So now it's like, how do wecapture all?
Like what do we if we just saythis neighborhood is gentrified,
maybe it's not capturing all ofthis difference?
So then I started thinkingabout what really happened in
each neighborhood and how Icould develop a categorization
that made sense, at leastqualitatively.
And one thing that I came upwith was that there are
(22:57):
neighborhoods in DC where therewas public housing and when you
have public housing in aneighborhood and then the
neighborhood gets the HOPE VIprogram, which means the public
housing is completely demolished, that's a very quick and
significant transformation ofthe neighborhood.
So kind of started with publichousing.
So, looking at you know, navyYard is often quoted as one of
the most gentrifiedneighborhoods in the city and in
(23:18):
the country.
But Navy Yard has just beencompletely erased, right?
So the Navy Yard of the 1980sis just like it's just gone,
right, if you're from Navy Yard,if you grew up there, if you
grew up in those housingprojects, there's no visible
landmarks, there's norecognizable landmark.
I always say no.
I think there's two, there's achurch and then there's a few of
these like power plantbuildings that are still there,
(23:43):
kind of used for theseindustrial chic restaurants.
The structure is still therebut almost nothing is still
there.
You still recognize theneighborhood.
There's still like a fourth inKennedy Street.
In Navy Yard there's no fifthand I it's completely gone.
So that's how I kind of gotthere to sort of think about
these different neighborhoods.
So Navy Yard involved new buildgentrification right, so the
public housing project wascompletely demolished.
(24:04):
There was a stadium built inthe neighborhood and then the
Navy Yard itself was parts of itwere sold off.
Some of them were converted tofederal buildings and other
things.
So it's just a completelydifferent landscape.
And then on the other side oftown, where you have these, the
neighborhood I was talking aboutearlier that has, like the
brick homes that experiencedwhite flight.
The process has been more slow.
There aren't big developmentsin the neighborhood.
Instead, what you have is justhouses being flipped, kind of
(24:27):
one by one.
But there's still a small setof actors behind the scenes,
like if you walked around theneighborhood about 10 years ago,
you would see the same realestate company selling the
houses.
You would see the houses thatwere being flipped would have
the same exact landscaping.
So there's a sort oflandscaping company that they
were using.
They all kind of look the same.
You could kind of tell.
And then there was an articlein Redfin about the neighborhood
(24:49):
that said that neighborhood,which is called Petworth in
Washington DC, was the mostprofitable for home flipping in
2016.
And the article actuallyinterviewed a real estate agent
who said, oh, you know, what youreally want to get is grandma's
house.
He actually said that I waslike, wow, okay.
Stephanie Rouse (25:05):
What's interesting about the
description of the slower, houseby house by grandma's house
type of gentrification is thatwe read a book earlier this year
, I think it was, and I amtotally blanking on its title.
Gentrification was in its name,but it was talking about early
on late 1800s, early 1900s, dcand how that was the type of
(25:28):
gentrification it was building.
By building it was ownerscoming in, buying properties,
flipping them and slowlygentrifying the neighborhood in
a way that you wouldn't see,like in navy yards, where it's
very obvious that that tookplace, but it took longer to see
that flip and the changingdemographics in the neighborhood
.
So it's almost like it'shappening again 100 years later
yeah, and DC people talk aboutwaves of gentrification.
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (25:50):
So you have what happened in the early
20th century, then the seventiesand the nineties and now we're
in this current very big tidalwave.
That does feel qualitativelydifferent from previous waves, I
think.
I mean, for a lot of people inDC, the shift from it no longer
being majority black issignificant.
I think that happened around2015 or 2016.
Jennifer Hiatt (26:09):
Stephanie.
The book is the MisunderstoodHistory of Gentrification by
Dennis Gale.
Stephanie Rouse (26:15):
Yes.
Jennifer Hiatt (26:15):
And he actually was pointing out that Washington
DC was the first city mostlikely to experience
gentrification, even ahead ofNew York City.
It's part of his argument.
So you actually present a newconcept, or it was a new concept
to me that you're calling whitereclamation in the book.
So can you explain to listenerswhat is white reclamation and
(26:38):
why you specifically chose touse the term reclamation as
opposed to anything else?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (26:44):
Yeah, and I know it's definitely a
very charged term, but assomeone who grew up in a
neighborhood that isexperiencing white reclamation
and also talking to a lot ofother people who are
experiencing this process, itdoes very much feel like this
neighborhood was.
So Petworth in Washington DCwas built for white people.
There are racially restrictivecovenants in the deeds.
(27:05):
The developers are veryspecific.
These homes are for whitepeople.
And then, with schooldesegregation, the white
families of Petworth decidedalmost all of them that they
didn't want to live thereanymore and they left very
quickly.
I took a close look at theblock where my friend Monique
lived, because it's all houses.
It's an interesting block youcan look at.
Between like 1954 and, I think,1958, 75% of people sold their
(27:31):
homes right Like it.
Just people left very quickly.
So it was very much.
They were like, yeah, we'redone with this neighborhood, we
don't want to be here anymore.
When they left, you know, overtime the neighborhood
experienced this disinvestmentthat I was talking about earlier
and then in the early 2000s thenew generation decided you know
what?
Actually that neighborhood issuper cool.
It has these cool brick homes.
It has these wide tree lawnseverywhere.
(27:52):
It has parks.
It's right next to Rock CreekPark.
We don't want to live in thesuburbs anymore.
That's like so 20th century.
We want to live in Petworthagain.
And because their parents hadmoved to the suburbs and they
got a great education, they'renow making a lot of money and
they can afford to move backhome.
They can sell their parents'home in the suburbs and buy a
home in Petworth, and a lot ofBlack families that grew up in
(28:13):
Petworth can't do that.
So it does feel very much likewhite people didn't want to live
here from like 1960 to 2000.
And then they did, and guesswhat they were able to, or lots
of them were able to.
So that's why I use the termwhite reclamation, because white
people are like yeah, we'recoming back, we're reclaiming
this space.
Obviously there's a lot ofvariety in terms of the white
people in the neighborhood, butthere are many of them who come
(28:35):
back, who come to theneighborhood, I should say, and
very much kind of take ownershipof the space this came up a lot
in interviews where they maketheir own rules, they disparage
the long-term residents, theyopen restaurants that have no
sense of the community.
There was I think there stillis on Kennedy Street just this
restaurant that sells this likevery boutique cider, so they
(28:57):
don't sell anything that thepeople, the long-term residents
of the neighborhood, would evenwant.
So it's sort of a very muchlike let's forget about the new
people, let's make this better.
And actually one of my newerneighbors actually said you know
, like we shouldn't be ashamedto be gentrifiers, we made this
place so much better.
This place was not, there wasnothing here when we moved and I
was like actually the woman wholives in the house before you
(29:18):
had a very important position atthe Kennedy Center, like you're
not necessarily, you know, amore important person than she
was, but sort of this.
There's this myth about theneighborhood that there was
nothing here, there was nothingworthwhile, and then now that
they're here, it's a betterplace and I think that's it's an
ignoring of the history.
So that's why it feels likewhite reclamation.
So and I recognize it's acharged term, but it is a very
(29:39):
charged history- yeah, it's allabout perspective.
Stephanie Rouse (29:42):
It's better for them and that's what they want
to see in the neighborhood, butit's not necessarily what was
there and what was working wellfor the residents before them.
So most of your book is devotedto laying out the evidence of
gentrification in DC, but in thelast chapter you point out that
when you were sharing this workwith people, they would always
ask well, what's next?
What can we do about this?
(30:03):
And I'm guessing a lot of ourlisteners would have the same
question.
So how do we start to dismantlethe racist and capitalist
cycles that created Blackdisplacement and dispossession
in these communities?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (30:14):
Yeah, thank you, and I think whenever
we ask the question like what dowe do?
How do we change this?
There's so many things we cando to anyone that wants to
engage in change.
I think it depends on whereyou're sitting and what
interests you.
There's many avenues, right.
So top of mind right now is thatit's not going down this path
of policing, of intensivepolicing again.
(30:35):
Right, it is very hard forpeople to understand that more
police do not prevent crime.
I think the easiest way tounderstand it is that police
show up after a crime has beencommitted, so they really don't
prevent crime.
But it seems just so obvious topeople and to many people in my
neighborhood today particularly, many of the newer residents
are like we need more police.
Someone broke into my car lastnight and like how many police
(30:58):
would it take for someone not tobreak into your car?
Like no one's going to besitting there watching your car
all night, so like it's notgoing to work in the way you
think it is.
I think it's really hard forpeople to get their brains
around that, but I think peoplethat are interested in policing
should read up on it and thinkabout that and try and
understand the history of whathappened before and how it got
us to where we are today.
So that's one avenue.
Another avenue is DC reallydoes have very strong affordable
(31:22):
housing programs, and I thinkyou can look at them and see
that they have been successfulto some extent.
They're super limited, though,and they also can be taken away
at any point.
So I think what DC shows us isthat is a lot of examples of
cooperative housing, ofaffordable housing, of public
housing, but then also at thelimits of those reforms, because
they're never enough and theyalso can be reversed at any time
(31:44):
.
So the more that I think aboutthe challenges that DC faces.
The challenge that we face isbasically that in the United
States, we've created asituation that wealth is very
important.
In the United States.
If you don't have wealth, thenif you have a huge medical
problem, you could be completelybroke tomorrow, right?
Wealth is so important for ourability to just survive a
(32:05):
medical crisis.
If you don't have wealth rightnow and you want to send your
kids to college, you're going toput them in lifelong debt,
right, or you put yourself inlifelong debt.
So it's just like wealth isvery important.
So a lot of anxiety aboutbuilding wealth, and then the
main avenue that we have forbuilding wealth is through
homeownership.
So we have this system wherepeople are expecting to make a
lot of money through their homeso that they can weather these
(32:27):
significant crises that probablywill happen at some point, or
these significant lifechallenges.
And this system doesn't workvery well, right, because there
can be a crash in the housingmarket at any time.
It's also very racially unequalHomes in white neighborhoods
increase far more quickly thanhomes in black neighborhoods, so
it's a very racially unequalsystem.
I think the system of relying onhomes for wealth and belief,
(32:50):
for just security is a problemin itself.
So I think the solution to thatis to decommodify housing right
, and the way that that looks isa home would become somewhere
where you live but that you'renot depending on for your nest
egg, you're not depending on toborrow money out of to pay for
college, and what that would dois it would bring home prices
down significantly.
Right, if a lot of homes weredecommodified, but it would no
(33:12):
longer have this feature, and sothen we wouldn't be spending 50
to 60% of our income on housingright.
So it's a kind of longer term,but I think we can see it.
You know a lot of universitieshave, you know, student housing
is decommodified housing facultyA lot of universities have
faculty housing.
And then some cities are evenstarting with teacher housing or
with government worker housing.
Right In California, if you wantto have teachers in Silicon
(33:34):
Valley, how much are you goingto have to pay them to afford to
live there?
Like a lot of money, basically,and there's only so much the
market will pay teachers.
Some cities in California havestarted housing for teachers,
for example.
We're getting to a point wherehousing is a significant crisis
in the United States and thesesmall reforms are going to have
their significant limits.
So we have to think more deeplyabout decommodification of
(33:55):
housing, getting housing outsideof the financial market and
treating it more like a humanright.
Like you need a place to live,you got two kids.
You need a two bedroomapartment or two bedroom house,
as opposed to you have a lot ofmoney, so now you get to live in
a super big mansion that maybeyou don't need.
Jennifer Hiatt (34:13):
And as we as individuals work towards that
dismantling and policy change,cities are still probably in the
best position of power toadvance these changes now, right
, so what policies should cityofficials be thinking about to
ensure that, as redevelopmentdoes occur, we are not letting
that redevelopment tearcommunities apart?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (34:30):
DC has this Tenant Opportunity to
Purchase Act.
So when a building is about tobe sold off, the tenants have
the opportunity to purchase andDC uses the funds from its
housing development programs tofund that.
When the tenants do purchasethe building, they have the
opportunity to make it into alimited equity co-op.
That's an example ofdecommodified housing.
So cities have the power tocreate these tenant opportunity
(34:52):
to purchase buildings and thenturn the buildings into the
limited equity cooperative andthen also to think about the
long-term when you do that.
There's a building on thecorner from me that used to be a
limited equity cooperative, butnow it's not exactly.
But the challenge is a lot ofseniors live in that building
who want to fix income.
So there needs to be provisionswhereby the fees associated
with living there don't increasefaster than Social Security.
(35:14):
Putting housing first, thinkingabout you know, do we want a
downtown that's a playground forthe wealthy, or do we want a
downtown area that reflects thediversity of our city?
Do we want young people to haveto live six in a one-bedroom
apartment to be able to affordto live in the city, or do we
want them to have the dignity ofa private room?
And really thinking that throughand also thinking through the
issue holistically, Because onething I see in DC is we have a
lot of these programs say, okay,you can live here if you make
(35:37):
40% of the area median income.
But there isn't a big planwhere it's like okay, how many
people make 40% of the areamedian income and where can they
live, how many units areavailable for them?
Right?
So you can think kind ofbroadly about how do we house
our workers.
And this is super important forcity officials, because you
probably have a target where youlive and target only pays so
much, right.
(35:57):
And so if the target workercannot afford to live in your
city, then you know at somepoint they're just going to move
out farther out of town tosomewhere else, right.
But the city needs targetworkers, city needs electricians
, city needs bus drivers.
So if you need workers, thenyou need to give them housing.
So affordable housing is aboutit's not just about like, doing
the right thing, but it's aboutcontinuing to have people make
(36:19):
the city function.
Jennifer Hiatt (36:21):
Always.
Our last question on Booked, onPlanning.
Obviously, we would recommendeverybody run out and get your
book and read through it becauseit was a very fascinating read.
But what are some books thatyou would recommend readers
check out?
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (36:33):
If you want to learn more about DC,
there's a nice thick tome youcan take some time to get
through called Chocolate City byDerek Musgrove and Chris
Myers-Ashk.
It's a nice big tome about DC.
You also have Cappuccino Cityby Derek Hira.
Cappuccino City by Derek Hira.
I also recommend BrandySummers' book Black in Place
about Washington DC and SabiaPrince's book Gentrification in
(36:54):
the Chocolate City.
Lots of great books coming outabout DC that I highly recommend
.
Oh, and there's one more book.
Ali Martin has a new bookcalled Intersectional Listening.
For those of you into thesoundscape side of things, it's
a very good book thinking aboutgo-go music in DC, which is a
genre of music specific to DC,and how gentrification has
shaped go-go music and how thecity has also been shaped by
(37:15):
this music.
Stephanie Rouse (37:16):
All great recommendations, but thank you,
Tanya, again for joining us totalk about your book Before
Gentrification the Creation ofDC's Racial Wealth Gap.
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza (37:26):
Thank you, so much, Stephanie and
Jennifer.
It was great chatting with youand appreciate you engaging with
the book.
It's super fun.
Jennifer Hiatt (37:33):
We really hoped you enjoyed this conversation
with Tanya Marie Golosh-Boza onher book Before Gentrification
the Creation of DC's RacialWealth Gap.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher at the
University of California Pressor click the link in the show
notes to take you directly toour affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts, and please rate,review and share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(37:54):
Booked, on Planning, Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.