PLG History: Integration!

The New York Times archives are a wonderful thing. They have scanned, posted and made searchable the entire news archive since 1851, and it is free for subscribers. One article we came across, from 1930, addresses an issue that most people step gingerly around—racism. Here's one person who didn't: Mrs. Ella Morris.

As surely one of the first people in Lefferts Manor—if not the first—to rent to African-Americans—excuse me, Negroes, you'd think that Mrs. Morris was a hero. You would be wrong. You see, according to the Times, her house at 54 Midwood "was advertised 'for sale or for rent to colored people only'... after neighbors objected to her taking in white roomers."

That's right: the single-family deed restriction in Lefferts Manor left Mrs. Morris unable to rent out rooms and led her to give over the house to African-Americans as an act of revenge because her neighbors were probably just as racist as she was. 

But perhaps I'm misjudging ol' Ella, and her heart really was in the right place.

"The family coming into the house," said Mrs. Morris, "is a large family. I have given them a long lease but it contains a cancellation clause which can be applied in the event the house is sold." On the front and the West of the neat little building are large canvas signs sill advertising the house "Sale to Colored People Only."  The "For Rent" part of the sign has been painted over. Mrs. Morris said the signs are to remain until the house is sold.

Um. No. PLG's first racial pioneer was a spiteful little cuss.

Comments

[Ceelledeee]

Fascinating little piece! Thanks! Especially with the double deaths of PlanetPLG, how nice it is see another functioning, interesting blog for the nabe again. Keep it coming!

[carrie]

One of the things I found interesting about this story is that it refers to Lefferts Manor as "exclusive" and occupied by "the well-to-do," including a Supreme Court Justice, a former DA of Kings County, and "wealthy merchants and business men." This contradicts the impression given by the Lefferts Manor Association history, which refers to LM as intended for the "middle class."

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the one-family covenant (though I highly support historic districting). It prices out the kind of young, creative couples and families that breathe life in a neighborhood and assures that the only people who can afford to buy in LM are investment bankers and millionaires. (I'm not saying that everyone currently in LM is rich; I'm referring to new home buyers.) At the same time, limiting a townhouse to one-family
depresses the sales price; these houses would go for even more money if buyers were allowed to have rental units.

[Charles]

The one-family restriction pulls prices in two directions. Rental income would allow more people to afford a house in LM, but the assurance of low population density (in perpetuity) attracts buyers with enough money to buy a house without rental income.

Ultimately, I think the willingness of wealthier buyers to purchase in LM has more of an impact on the value of houses than increasing the buyer pool would. I think the disparity between sale prices on Hawthorne and inside the Manor bears this out.

[carrie]

You raise a good point, and you may be right about pricing at this point in time. It's certainly true that, in the past, allowing homes to get carved up led to downscaling that has divided LM from the rest of PLG to this day.

But there are other factors that help account for price differences in and outside LM: the fact that it's an historic district, the streets are fully tree-lined, and the houses are more lavishly built.

I doubt new buyers think, "I'll pay an extra 300k for this house because there are only one-families on this block"--especially since the surrounding neighborhood is quite dense. (PLG is about twice as dense as Park Slope, for ex.). But of course people can and do pay a premium for prettier, cleaner, and quieter blocks. You don't need a one-family limit to achieve that, though.

If prices on brownstone continue to climb as I suspect they will, and if PLG continues to gentrify at the current rate, I think the one-family limit is going to hurt prices in LM more than it helps them. I'm not a realtor, though... and, as I suggested earlier, my main concern--as someone who plans on living here for a good long while--is that our neighbors to the north aren't complete bores.

[ceelledee]

I think both of you make good points. However, as a pro-PLG cheerleader, I need to interject this argument: PLG has several tree-lined streets with houses that are "more lavishly built" and which exist beyond the specific boundaries of The Manor.

What LM has over the rest of PLG is a concentration of beautiful single family homes on a contiguous stretch of tree-lined residential blocks which are not interrupted by high density apartment buildings that are owned by profit-driven, absentee owner-slumlords.

[Bob M]

Carrie,

I don't think there's any contradiction between the NYT's article describing "Lefferts Manor as 'exclusive' and occupied by 'the well-to-do,'...and the impression given by the Lefferts Manor Association history, which refers to LM as intended for the 'middle class.'"

The houses in LM were originally intended for fairly substantial upper middle class people, but the really RICH would have bought individually-built houses in Brooklyn Heights [old money],or [new money] the name park blocks [i.e Montgomery Pl.] of Park Slope or "the "Hill" [Present day Ft. Greene & Clinton Hill]. Houses were MUCH more expensive in these areas.In fact, after the consolidation of Greater New York in 1898, the wealthy would have been more likely to buy in Manhattan.

[carrie]

Bob, your comment reminds me of something I read in the NYT magazine "wealth" issue last month. I forget the exact statistic, but a Times poll asked people how much money they thought they'd need to make in order to feel rich. The richer respondants were, the more money they "needed" in order to be considered rich. Rich people can always point to richer people to prove they're not rich. But the suggestion that the senators, doctors, and lawyers in LM weren't wealthy compared to average New Yorkers is ridiculous.

[Bob Marvin]

Carrie,

The AVERAGE New Yorker in 1930, when the article was written, probably spent a lot of time on a bread line, so your point is well taken.

Personally, I miss the days of what Everett Ortner referred to as the "school teacher's coup" when people like my wife and I could buy a brownstone [relatively] cheaply, mainly because no one in their right mind wanted an old house, and live "like millionaires" for very little money. I don't feel any richer now that I am, literally, a millionaire, thanks to my house's appreciation I do realize how lucky I am, although, since I'm NEVER moving, the $$ increase is sort of like Monopoly money :-) .

After reading the 1930 article you found, I went to the NYT Pre-1980 archives and found this article about how things were for "brownstoners" a few years before I moved to PLG.