Public policy can lead to profoundly positive or negative consequences that carry on for decades, and one primary example of a policy’s lasting impacts is the continuing environmental and public health harm experienced by formerly redlined communities. Redlining began in 1934, as the newly formed Federal Housing Administration (FHA) evaluated mortgage risks for lenders. FHA loan officers followed a grading system developed by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) in which neighborhoods were rated from A (lowest mortgage risk) to D (highest mortgage risk).
HOLC used race as one of the guiding factors in assigning grades to neighborhoods, as neighborhoods with minority residents were often given the lowest rating and neighborhoods with white residents were given the highest. Minority neighborhoods, particularly Black neighborhoods, were frequently marked in red, representing a D rating. The red markups led to this exclusionary policy’s name: redlining.
Black mortgage applicants were largely denied mortgage loans and lines of credit due to their perceived high risk for defaulting on loans. The blatant racism embodied by this policy led to increasing racial segregation in cities across the country. Since they could not receive loans to move other neighborhoods, especially if it was a highly ranked and/or predominantly white neighborhood, people of color were largely pushed into neighborhoods with low ratings. The policy remained in effect until it was outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. However, the damage had already been done.
Eighty years later, many formerly redlined neighborhoods continue to experience a disproportionate share of environmental. Among these communities, 74 percent are predominately low to moderate income communities, and 64 percent are predominantly communities of color. Research indicates that the surface temperatures in formerly redlined neighborhoods are warmer than other communities, and they are exposed to higher levels of air pollution than those in neighborhoods previously given high ratings. Economic disparities also negatively impact these communities, as they tend to have lower home values, older housing stock, and lower rents in absolute terms than other neighborhoods. These neighborhoods tend to be located closer to industrial facilities and refineries, exposing them to higher levels of dangerous air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter. New polluting projects, such as highways, were often placed close to, or even ran through, formerly redlined neighborhoods since land in the area was cheap.
The public health risks extend beyond respiratory conditions. Residents of formerly redlined neighborhoods tend to have shorter life spans, higher rates of diabetes, higher rates of hypertension, higher rates of kidney disease, higher rates of poverty than formerly high-rank neighborhoods. Residents are also twice as likely to visit an emergency room for asthma than those in other neighborhoods. One 2020 study found increased rates of premature births in New York City’s formerly redlined communities. Another team of researchers in Massachusetts found that living in formerly redlined neighborhoods posed a heightened risk of being diagnosed with late-stage lung and breast cancer than other neighborhoods and that formerly redlined neighborhood residents experienced a higher risk of late stage diagnoses overall regardless of age, sex, gender, race, or ethnicity.
It is evident that redlining policies implemented almost a century ago continue to impact millions of lives today through exposure to higher levels of pollutants and an increased risk of developing adverse health conditions. The harm caused by high levels of pollutants, and the risk of future harm, falls disproportionately on communities of color and low-income communities in cities around the nation. As the consequences of redlining continue to unfold, policymakers should carefully consider the short-term and long-term impacts on the environment and public health when reviewing existing policies or proposing new ones. Otherwise, policies implemented today risk further harming future generations.
