Introduction
In the last couple of years, there has been a renewed push for Black reparations following the police murder of George Floyd and others in 2020, which spurred an unprecedented movement for racial justice around the country. Among the many forms reparations could take, some activists focused on property redress. Many activists point to the systemic disadvantage that George Floyd’s family suffered due to property loss and discrimination. Due to the racist history of redlining, urban renewal, and other forms of housing discrimination, Black people of all backgrounds have been denied the housing security and generational wealth that many white Americans have enjoyed. To remedy this gap, many cities are creating reparative housing programs that seek to remedy historical injustices, and create more inclusive communities.
Cities view the creation of affordable housing programs for Black residents as actionable on a local level and complimentary to a broader national program for reparations. While there are precedents, such as the Africatown CLT in Seattle, the first city-led effort for local reparations was in Evanston, Illinois. The Evanston city council allocated $10 million for a local reparations fund, and allocated the first $400,000 for a restorative housing program. Santa Monica, California is providing below market rate housing for residents whose ancestors were unjustly displaced due to urban renewal and freeway construction projects. Berkeley, California is in the process of creating “Equitable Black Berkeley,” a program which will lead to 4,000 new affordable units prioritized for residents who were displaced from the city. Not all of these programs are labeled “reparations,” but each city highlighted in this report has attempted to provide redress through housing.
Due to the racist history of redlining, urban renewal, and other forms of housing discrimination, Black people of all backgrounds have been denied the housing security and generational wealth that many white Americans have enjoyed.
This case study report seeks to illuminate the activism, parameters, and intended outcomes of each program, with a special focus on how government officials can create the conditions for a successful program. It is intended to be a useful resource for anyone who is interested in advocating for local reparations in their own city. The report draws upon city websites, news articles, and stakeholder interviews in order to assess the successes and limitations of each case study. The conclusion outlines the lessons from each case study, and how other cities can build upon these examples and use affordable housing to further racial justice.
Evanston: Restorative Housing Program
Background
Evanston is a small city outside of Chicago, with around 75,000 residents. Due to the effects of structural racism and lack of affordability, the Black population has dropped from 22.5 percent in 2000 to around 16.5 percent today. To address this displacement, the city has passed several measures leading up to its local reparations program. In 2002, the city adopted a resolution to urge the US Congress to pass House Resolution 40, which would create a federal commission to study and develop reparations proposals for African Americans. Since 2019, the city council has held discussions on how to enact reparations on a local level. Former council member Robin Rue Simmons advocated for a process that would create direct material benefits for Black residents affected by discrimination.
In July 2019, Evanston’s Equity and Empowerment Commission held community meetings to determine priorities for a potential reparations fund. Housing was identified as a key priority for the Black community, who faced past discrimination due to racist government policies. In an interview for this report, Bobby Burns, 5th ward council member and member of the reparations committee, recalled how past housing discrimination informed reparations. “We talked a lot about the harm of redlined areas,” he said. “We talked a lot about the city changing zoning to steer people to live in undesirable areas, in areas that were only eligible for subprime lending products.” The City of Evanston commissioned a report outlining the policies and practices that contributed to the marginalization of Black residents from 1900 to 1960, which meticulously tracked the forms of housing discrimination that residents faced. Thus, Burns added, “it made sense for the redress to also be in that same area.” After the city council approved the $10 million reparations fund, $400,000 were allocated for the Local Reparations Restorative Housing Fund pilot program.
Parameters of the Program
The initial Restorative Housing Fund had 16 spots. Each recipient received $25,000 to put towards a down payment on a new home, costs of home improvement, or mortgage assistance. Applicants did not already have to own a home to qualify for the program, but the grants could not go towards rental assistance. The reparations fund was generated from the cannabis tax, which came from the recreational marijuana sales in Evanston.
There were three groups that could apply for the program, all of which had to live in Evanston at the time the funds were distributed. The group with first priority was “Ancestor Applicants,” defined as any Black resident that lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969, a time period where they were likely to experience housing discrimination. Second priority were “direct descendants,” who had relatives who lived in Evanston during those years. These applicants were denied the generational wealth that their ancestors could have accumulated had they had fair access to housing. If an ancestor applicant was chosen for the housing grant, they had the option to pass it to their direct descendant. Third priority was any Black resident who could prove that they experienced housing discrimination after 1969. These applicants had to find a specific ordinance or situation that contributed to their discrimination.
Evanston’s Housing Reparations Fund is a remarkable achievement. While reparations is usually conceived as a nationwide intervention, Evanston proved that cities can enact local measures to ensure material benefit for Black residents.
After the application process, the city received over 400 applications, with more than half being direct descendants. There were a total of 122 ancestor applicants, with 16 of them chosen at random for the housing grant. In the April 2022 meeting of the Reparations Committee, it was reported that six beneficiaries chose home improvement, five chose a combination of home mortgage assistance and home improvement, two chose mortgage assistance, and one chose home purchase. One individual did not own a home and was unable to afford the down payment, even with the grant.
In addition to the grant, the Restorative Housing Fund included support to help applicants navigate the process. Staff members are offered one-on-one meetings with beneficiaries to assist during the application and spending process. Additionally, the city partnered with Devon Bank, Liberty Bank, and Self-Help Credit Union to offer loan packages that complemented reparations. In the April 2022 meeting, a representative from Devon Bank presented a new program where “Evanston reparations recipients would be provided with a quarter percent reduction rate and up to $6,000 in down payment assistance.” Self-Help Credit Union offered similar loan programs that complemented the housing grant.
Analysis
Evanston’s Housing Reparations Fund is a remarkable achievement. While reparations is usually conceived as a nationwide intervention, Evanston proved that cities can enact local measures to ensure material benefit for Black residents. After her tenure as city council member, Robin Rue Simmons founded the nonprofit FirstRepair, where she advises municipalities enacting local reparations.
Evanston’s case for reparations was strong, and provides a model that other cities can follow. Simmons requested a “Memo on Reparations” authored by the city clerk, that determined the extent of harm perpetuated by housing discrimination. Corroborated by the report “Evanston Policies and Practices Directly Affecting the African American Community, 1900 - 1960 (and Present),” the city was able to build a strong case for housing as reparations. By defining ancestor applicants as anyone who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969, the city created a precise definition that would ensure the greatest benefit went to those who suffered the most because of housing discrimination.
The focus on homeownership and mortgage assistance is notable, and in contrast to other cities’ focus on affordable rental properties. It demonstrates that Evanston is committed to building generational wealth, something that was stolen from Black people in the twentieth century due to policies of redlining and redevelopment. While homeownership may be a relatively expensive investment in the short-term, it has the potential to create stability for families.
One limitation of Evanston’s program is that some people will not be able to afford the down payment on a home, even with the housing grant. In contrast to homeownership, affordable rental properties can be adjusted to a variety of incomes, and can remain affordable in perpetuity. There is little flexibility with the housing grants as recipients are not able to spend it on rental assistance or on other forms of housing tenure such as community land trusts.
Evanston is committed to building generational wealth, something that was stolen from Black people in the twentieth century due to policies of redlining and redevelopment.
The lack of revenue from the cannabis tax has also posed an issue. There is currently only one cannabis dispensary in Evanston, and obstacles on the statewide level are making it difficult for businesses to obtain recreational marijuana licenses. There is some interest in the city council to use money from the general fund for expansions of the Housing Reparations Fund, but that may increase legal liabilities. In discussions with the Corporation Counsel, the city council was informed that expanding the program to use general fund money may allow taxpayers to sue the city.
In terms of governance, the reparations fund is overseen by a reparations committee. This committee was codified in November 2020 by Ordinance 102-O-20, and replaced the exploratory subcommittee. It consists of three council members from wards which historically had Black populations, along with four community members appointed by the mayor. The committee’s responsibilities are to oversee the reparations fund, evaluate applications, explore potential housing and economic development programs, and monitor impact. One limitation is that the committee’s decisions are still subject to approval from the full city council, which may have different priorities than the committee. Additionally, the mayor has a lot of power in being able to appoint all the community members in the committee. While this setup may make sense in regards to Evanston’s politics, it may not be applicable to regions that have more volatile changes of power.
Santa Monica: Below Market Housing for Historically Displaced Households Pilot
Background
Santa Monica, California has begun the process of acknowledging past harm to the Black community through housing. Like many other cities in the United States, the Black community was affected by the racist patterns of urban renewal and redevelopment that occurred in the mid-twentieth century. According to the city’s website, the development of the “Auditorium in the Belmar Triangle neighborhood [and] the I-10 Highway in the Pico neighborhood” caused widespread displacement to the majority-Black communities that resided there. Today, only 5 percent of Santa Monica’s population is Black, a dramatic decrease compared to the 20-25 percent it had before urban renewal.
Santa Monica has been a longtime member of the the Government Alliance on Racial Equity (GARE), and has sent members of every department to GARE trainings. Stakeholders in the city government realized they had an opportunity to address structural racism when redeveloping the civic center area, a neighborhood that was once home to a thriving Black community known as Belmar Triangle. Natasha Guest Kingscote, a city administrator, recalled how the city council tried to acknowledge this past harm while developing the area. “We brought in local families and local artists, and really reached out to the African American community that was here now to collaboratively think of a way to recognize that history and recognize what the city of Santa Monica had done,” she explained. In 2019, Santa Monica created an exhibit and walking path in the Belmar Triangle that acknowledged the historical displacement, and featured photos of what life was like before the urban renewal developments. Later that year, the city council began the process of developing a “right to return'' policy, eventually subject to public feedback in early 2021. After the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the city council also highlighted the reports “Receive Updates and Take Action to Advance Racial Equity Efforts in Our Community'' and “GARE Operational Plan,” which provided further evidence for the need for a right to return policy. Various proposals were eventually solidified in the “Below Market Housing for Historically Displaced Households Pilot,” which opened for applications in January 2022. The program has similarities to other cities' programs, including Portland’s North/Northeast preference policy.
Parameters of the program
The program is a reform to Santa Monica’s Below Market Housing (BMH) program. People who meet the income requirements for BMH are placed in affordable private sector (for-profit and nonprofit) rental apartments. The first priority for BMH are those who are facing immediate eviction or displacement from the home, and the second priority are anyone who lives in Santa Monica or works 25 hours per week in Santa Monica.
By providing affordable rental properties, Santa Monica made it straightforward for applicants to access affordable housing. However, by prioritizing rentals over homeownership, Santa Monica does not address the loss of generational wealth that came with displacement.
The new Below Market Housing for Historically Displaced Households Pilot adjusts the second priority, to give preference to households affected by the Civic Auditorium or I-10 Highway construction. Applications are open to anyone who was directly affected and their descendants, even if they do not live in Santa Monica. There is no explicit racial preference, but Kingscote and other city officials are aware that “the displacement that happened with the freeway and in the Belmar neighborhood was racially motivated.” The city allows for a variety of documents to prove that an applicant’s family was displaced, and designated staff time to aid applicants with the application process. In the interview, Kingscote mentioned the resources provided to applicants who are trying to prove their family’s residence in Santa Monica. “We have great reference librarians, with our city, museum, and historical archives to see if people were in city directories,” she said. Besides staff time, the program was not designated any additional funding as it utilizes already-existing affordable housing.
Analysis
Santa Monica’s efforts are commendable in a region where the housing market is extremely competitive. City officials consulted with historians, and defined a specific region of displacement where people were most affected by patterns of urban renewal. By providing affordable rental properties, the city made it straightforward for applicants to access affordable housing. However, by prioritizing rentals over homeownership, Santa Monica does not address the loss of generational wealth that came with displacement.
One limitation of the program is that it has been difficult for applicants to prove their historical connection to the Belmar and Pico areas. Even with the support of city administrators and reference librarians, many applicants do not have documents from more than 60 years ago that prove their ancestors’ residency. Those who are related to former renters in the Belmar or Pico areas have especially limited options to prove their connection. While using specific neighborhoods as criteria is smart from a legal perspective, it may limit the number of ways applicants can prove their ties to Santa Monica compared to citywide reparative housing programs.
Another limitation of the program is that it is not an expansion of the affordable housing stock. The Historically Displaced Households Pilot moves accepted applicants to the top of the BMH waitlist and as of July 2022 only around 25 have been fully accepted into the program. But due to the limited affordable housing, even those who have been accepted into the program have to wait until a unit opens up that is adequate for their household’s needs. This may become problematic, because it also puts applicants in the same pool as those already on the waitlist. There are currently over 1,000 total households in Santa Monica which are on the Below Market Housing waitlist.
A possible next step for the city would be to develop affordable rental properties near the Pico and Belmar areas, especially because many key structures are now being unused. The city has already begun this process, building the Belmar Apartments on land across from the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. This complex is 50 percent affordable housing, adding 160 affordable units to the city. Similar projects can be undertaken on the sites in Belmar and Pico neighborhoods, and those new units could be prioritized for Black residents. For instance, on the Los Angeles County assessor’s portal, it states that the Santa Monica Auditorium was last purchased for $0 due to eminent domain and owned by the city government. As the auditorium is permanently closed, it could serve as the site for a 100 percent affordable housing development aimed at furthering racial justice.
Berkeley: Equitable Black Berkeley
Background
Equitable Black Berkeley (EBB) is an ongoing project that seeks to “support equity, opportunity and the well-being of Berkeley’s African American community.” This project is a partnership between the City of Berkeley and Healthy Black Families (HBF), an organization aimed at making “social systems and policies more equitable for Black people and communities.” In addition to their work in housing, HBF works on health equity, birth equity, and community programming for Black residents in the Bay Area.
Like many other cities in the Bay Area, Berkeley’s Black population has faced widespread displacement due to the history of discrimination and disinvestment. Additionally, activists behind EBB point to the central role of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and other forms of urban renewal in targeting vibrant Black neighborhoods in Berkeley. Wilhelmenia Wilson, Executive Director of Healthy Black Families, said in an interview that when influential development interests chose building sites in Berkeley, “they didn't go up on College Avenue and disrupt the homeowners there. They came through the heart of Black Berkeley.” This history of displacement was compounded by the tech boom and the 2008 mortgage crisis, which made housing even more unaffordable for the Black community. In the last 50 years Berkeley’s Black population has decreased from 23.5 percent to 7.9 percent. And according to a report by the Berkeley mayor’s office, Black homeowners have lost $3.22 billion in wealth, or about $767,000 per homeowner from 1960 through 2020.
Healthy Black Families is not only asking the Black community for their opinions, but are also providing leadership training for community members to advocate for their own needs and solutions through participatory action research.
Due to this local displacement and the larger legacy of racialized inequality in the US, civic leaders and activists in Berkeley have begun to push for racial justice through Equitable Black Berkeley. The mayor’s office, Healthy Black Families, and other community stakeholders are using this development on BART public lands as an opportunity to catalyze reparative investments. Supported by a grant from the San Francisco Foundation, these community leaders are beginning to envision how the BART development can repair damage and empower the Black community.
Parameters of the Program
While the project is still in the planning stages, there is a definite goal established by civic leaders and community advocates. EBB could produce around 4,000 affordable rental units, which represents the number of Black households displaced in the last 50 years. While some of these families have established roots elsewhere, the 4,000 unit number ensures that any family that wants to return has the option to do so. Jacquelyn McCormick, the Berkeley mayor's chief of staff, emphasized that “a number of Black families that have moved out would love to be back in Berkeley.” In an interview for this report, she noted that there are “many Black families whose kids still go to high school here, or go to the Berkeley School system that cannot afford to live in Berkeley.” Any household that can prove that they lived in Berkeley and meet Area Median Income (AMI) requirements for affordable housing (120 percent of AMI), qualifies for the program.
The city of Berkeley has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with BART which outlines the process of changing zoning codes and selecting developers for the project. By developing on BART sites, the immediate area around Ashby and North Berkeley stations can be rezoned and developed for up to 2,000 units. The remaining 2,000 units would be built using smaller scale programs, such as providing financing for already-existing homeowners to build ADUs or additional units, condo development and purchasing existing multi-tenant buildings. Homeowners would be able to benefit from income and property value increases, while also adding to the city’s affordable housing stock.
The program’s estimated budget is $500 million. Currently, the city has committed $53 million raised by Measure O to meet the BART mandated 35 percent affordability goal on each property. To reach 100 percent affordability on the BART properties, the city needs to commit a total of $300 million. The remaining $200 million will be used for financing other housing forms as previously mentioned that will be prioritized by a democratically chosen advisory board. This gives the community input as to the impacts that would be most aligned to repair. The city is exploring several options to raise the money, such as utilizing state and federal tax credits, creating a new financial instrument, or using traditional debt instruments. McCormick said that the development on BART sites is expected to be completed in 10 years, while the development on the Adeline corridor can extend beyond that timeframe
One source of revenue for ongoing programs may be an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) around the redeveloped BART sites. EIFDs are a tool for cities to redirect any increases in tax revenue within a defined geographic area to a specific program – in this case the EBB fund. Because redeveloping the area around BART stations will increase the value of the surrounding properties, the EIFD is expected to generate $20 million a year for additional resources. This fund would support programs to create job training programs, cultural centers, improve health outcomes, and more.
The community engagement process has also been a central part of EBB. Healthy Black Families is not only asking the Black community for their opinions, but are also providing leadership training for community members to advocate for their own needs and solutions through participatory action research. Wilson talked about the “series of leadership training [...] preparing them to be organizers and advocates.” After this leadership training, the cohort will embark on “action research groups” that will focus on civic process, economic development, and urban planning.
One of the central roles of these action research groups will be determining the non-housing resources in EBB. Wilson emphasized that EBB is not merely rehousing individuals, but also integrating them into a community by ensuring that their economic and social needs are met. She said the “disruption” of displacement has had serious consequences to mental and physical health that need to be remedied. “We used to live in communities where we had elders, working adults and children, and we were an ecosystem that supported each other. As we've been displaced,” she said, “we don't have that anymore.” In order to rebuild this social ecosystem, resources like the “African American Holistic Resource Center” and job training programs have been prioritized in the EBB planning process.
Analysis
The leaders of EBB have had an expansive vision in approaching redress for the Black community. Like other programs, they target the historical displacement that happened in the twentieth century due to redlining and urban renewal. Additionally, the program acknowledges the deep effects of gentrification since the 1990s. The wide scope of their program stands out, and it is commendable that leaders are creating 4,000 new affordable units to ensure that everyone has a chance to return. Beyond housing, the program also centers the value of rebuilding community, and restoring the economic and social ties that were a central part of Black Berkeley.
EBB’s expansive scope is due to the noteworthy activism and community documentation that led up to the creation of the program. Community engagement was a large part of the Adeline Corridor plan, which established the affordability goals for EBB. Wilson also credited the grassroots efforts of “Friends of Adeline” in documenting the historical displacement of Black residents, and putting forward actionable solutions in affordable housing. The city is benefiting from “a decade of documented advocacy ... already established,” according to Wilson. In addition to this grassroots activism, the City of Berkeley has been willing to support community organizations like Healthy Black Families and the Othering & Belonging Institute in aiding with the outreach, design, and implementation of the program.
This strong support from the community has translated into a unique focus on self-determination, that will ensure the future success of the program. Wilson noted the importance of the action research groups in determining the future of EBB. “The action research groups will do cycles of action and reflection, and document those. They will intersect with these people's assemblies, which is our accountability touchpoint in the community.” Thus EBB is creating a trained cadre of organizers within the action research group, while also maintaining mechanisms to ensure engagement from the broader community.
It is commendable that leaders are creating 4,000 new affordable units to ensure that everyone has a chance to return. Beyond housing, the program also centers the value of rebuilding community, and restoring the economic and social ties that were a central part of Black Berkeley.
Ayanna Davis, Deputy Executive Director of Healthy Black Families, clarified that self determination is an unfolding evolutionary process – not a predetermined goal. “We are holding our responsibility for community engagement very seriously,” she said in an interview for this project. “And making sure the voice of the community guides and creates the vision and guides the vision.” Because of the innovative action research group model, these community visions will naturally emerge from the process of creating EBB. McCormick agreed that the final form of community governance is still open, and that the final governance model is one that “can never be co-opted by politics or by city management.” Community and civic leaders agree that their role is creating a platform for everyday people rather than making decisions on their behalf.
The scale and community engagement of EBB is especially impressive considering that Berkeley is considered a mid-sized city with around 120,000 residents. If implemented successfully, Berkeley can serve as a model to other mid-sized and large metropolitan areas that are looking to center racial justice in their affordable housing development. Davis said that the Black community in Berkeley has always been a champion of progressive causes, and EBB will build a “replicable model” for other cities. Wilson stressed that by using participatory action research, “every cycle of our inquiry will be documented.” At the end of the community engagement process, Healthy Black Families will publish a report on the experiences of the action research groups that will “support and inform other communities as they seek equity and housing for communities.”
EBB is still in the early stages of the planning process, and there may be significant challenges as the project continues. Like other cities enacting local reparations, legal concerns around racial preference may become problematic. There has already been pushback concerning the up-zoned BART sites, and future protests against development could pose obstacles.
Conclusion
Reparations is an ongoing process in the US that has taken a variety of forms. House Resolution 40 would establish a national commission on reparations, to study the effects of structural racism and research federal solutions to address inequities. In 2020 California established a Reparations Task Force, which has identified how slavery and segregation have affected Black residents of California. Individual institutions such as Georgetown University and the Princeton Theological Seminary have created reparations funds and apologized for their roles in slavery.
The three cities in the case study can offer lessons for how municipal governments can approach reparations. In order to pursue racial justice, cities must make space, repair economic harm, and rebuild community.
Making space is a two-fold process. First, city governments must make space during the planning process, and create accessible venues for community engagement. Evanston held community meetings to hear from Black residents, and determined housing as the first priority for reparations. Berkeley partnered with Healthy Black Families, and included community engagement as a central part of their planning process. Healthy Black Families utilized “action research groups” to train organizers, and held People’s Assemblies to ensure accountability to the opinion of the wider community. Participatory action research and similar models can be utilized by cities to co-create a comprehensive vision for reparative justice. Cities should seek to partner with similar community anchor organizations, or develop new organizations to cultivate community leadership.
Making space also means creating the physical space for families to return. Berkeley is planning to construct enough units to ensure that everyone has the right to return by creatively utilizing government sites and zoning reform. Other cities can follow this example by developing housing on government sites, and explicitly prioritizing these new units for formerly displaced families. For these large projects involving construction of new affordable units, support from the state and federal governments would greatly aid local reparation efforts.
The three cities in the case study can offer lessons for how municipal governments can approach reparations. In order to pursue racial justice, cities must make space, repair economic harm, and rebuild community.
Next, repairing economic harm should be a central component of local reparations. Evanston approached this directly, by creating a homeownership program that allows participants to build intergenerational wealth. Santa Monica and Berkeley prioritized affordable rentals which present less upfront costs to the city government, but homeownership programs have the potential to redress racialized economic inequality. Ideally, cities should pursue a combination of rentals and homeownership, in order to provide deep affordability through rentals and allow wealth generation through homeownership. In Berkeley, the ongoing EIFD funds could be utilized to fund homeownership programs or condo development. Federal support would undoubtedly benefit the homeownership aspect of local reparations programs, and programs such as the under-utlized Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) homeownership program could be expanded to support homeownership for Black families.
Lastly, rebuilding community needs to be addressed in local reparations. Repair is not merely rehousing families, but also creating a sense of “home.” During the twentieth century, whole communities were disrupted due to racist patterns of urban renewal, and any local reparations program should give residents the tools and funding they need to rebuild what Wilson calls the “ecosystem” of the community. Health centers, community centers, job training programs, and more would be essential to strengthen social bonds and create a truly reparative program.
Local reparations have been gaining momentum since Evanston’s landmark efforts in 2019. Organizations like the African American Redress Network, Where is My Land, and Robin Rue Simmons’ FirstRepair are centering “place” in the conversation around reparations. Through affordable housing policies, municipal governments are beginning to address a long history of discrimination and displacement that affected Black residents. Cities must take steps to center the voices of harmed communities, and provide them with the tools they need to develop a localized vision for reparative justice.
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the support of the Othering & Belonging Institute's Summer Fellowship Committee. Thank you to Stephen Menendian for sharing your Structural Racism Remedies Project and California Reparations Task Force testimony, which were both foundational to the project.
These case studies were built off insightful interviews with civic and community leaders across the country. Thank you to Jacquelyn McCormick, Wilhelmenia Wilson, Ayanna Davis, Council Member Bobby Burns, and Natasha Guest Kingscote for your contributions to the report. The CP3 team continually supported me throughout the process, and helped me gain a better understanding of how social equity can be incorporated into affordability. Thank you to Nicole Montojo and the rest of the CP3 team for your thoughtful feedback during my presentation. Last but not least, thank you to Eli Moore for being an amazing supervisor. Your suggestions and knowledge of affordable housing policy were invaluable to the success of the project.
Banner and preview image: Protesters outside the Minnesota capitol building on June 19, 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, demanding reparations from the US government for the centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, redlining, and violence against Black people. Credit: Fibonacci Blue)
