•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Suburbs are popular. People like living in them, and scholars like studying them. For the first time, more Americans live in the suburbs than in central cities. Perhaps more noteworthy is that more Black Americans live in the suburbs than ever before. Given these realities, it is not surprising that the suburbs have become a laboratory for analyzing a host of political, legal, and economic questions.

In previous scholarship, I examined the complex phenomenon of Black suburbanization through the lens of two communities: South DeKalb, Georgia and Prince George’s County, Maryland. These communities were part of what I called the “third wave” of Black suburbanization. This wave originated in the mid-eighties when new, upscale, majority-Black communities grew on the periphery of major cities. These communities displayed the hallmarks of suburbia in terms of household income, location, density, and physical form. At the same time, qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed a substantial body of evidence suggesting that modern Black suburbs contained suboptimal levels of commercial investment. Ultimately, my analysis posited that the persistence of observed disinvestment could cause modern Black suburbs to function in ways that reinforce rather than mitigate racial inequality.

Today, South DeKalb and Prince George’s County remain solidly middle- class, majority-Black suburban communities that bear many of the traditional trademarks of suburbia. With the benefit of time and additional study, we are in a better position to assess the legal, social, and economic dynamics of these communities. This Article provides this assessment from a land use law and governance perspective.

The Article first provides a general picture of modern suburbia, explaining its origins; current demographics; and its political, economic, and social salience. It explains how suburbs developed; what they look like today; and why they have come to play a central role in debates among citizens, politicians, policymakers, and scholars. It also lays the groundwork for an understanding of the larger social context in which majority-Black suburbs originated and developed over time. The Article next presents respective land use, local government, and demographic portraits of South DeKalb and Prince George’s County. Each community has a unique historical evolution, along with different land use and governance challenges. At the same time, both communities are predominantly Black, predominantly middle-income, and both are experiencing population growth.

The Article then argues that South DeKalb and Prince George’s County face land use regulation and governance issues that are both similar to and different from those faced by majority-White suburbs. With respect to similarities, South DeKalb and Prince George’s County embrace innovative planning strategies and confront typical governance controversies. Turning to differences, South DeKalb and Prince George’s County contend with persistently sluggish economic development, suboptimal concentration of investor-owned single-family homes, and uneven control of blight and other environmental nuisances.

The Article concludes by reflecting on some of the broader implications of the preceding analysis. One implication is that South DeKalb and Prince George’s County are highly likely to retain much of their current demographic and economic standing over the long term. These communities offer an attractive, stable, and livable option for individuals and families seeking many of the attributes of the suburban lifestyle while still being able to enjoy the benefits of a majority-Black community. Moreover, these suburban residents are behaving similarly to property owners in majority-White suburbs when it comes to embracing norms associated with suburbia. For example, they are seeking to implement land use planning strategies that they believe will enhance their community’s distinctiveness and economic vitality. They are also using conventional zoning strategies to block threats to density and stability. Not every landowner agrees on whether these strategies are the best route to maximize property values or achieve other goals, but that too is quite normal. At the same time, the macroeconomic growth and vitality of both communities remain uncertain when compared to similarly situated majority-White suburbs. Unfortunately, a comparatively anemic trajectory for robust and sustained economic development and the chronic presence of environmental nuisances appear to contribute to devaluation of the property interests of Black suburbanites in these communities. This appears to suppress long-term wealth formation and has a “push” effect, incentivizing many middle- and upper- middle-class Blacks to leave in an effort to experience more of the benefits of living in a community seemingly closer to the suburban ideal.

These are important policy questions for several reasons. First, Black migration to the suburbs has long been thought to have the potential to promote transformational racial equality. However, if the challenges faced by majority- Black suburbs are qualitatively different from those faced by similarly situated majority-White suburbs, this transformative potential seems smaller than expected. Second, since suburbs are laboratories for the consideration and resolution of many critical issues, it behooves scholars to understand the complexities of modern suburbia rather than assume a monolithic suburban experience. Finally, the issues explored in this Article contribute to our understanding of how land use law and policy operate in a vastly underexplored context. Among other things, this inquiry provides a way to measure to the extent to which ostensibly neutral laws and norms function the same way for majority-Black and majority-White suburbs.

Dekalb exists as two counties in one. North DeKalb flourishes with the ongoing development of high-end restaurants, shopping centers, coffee shops, and theaters. South DeKalb, on the other hand, has experienced stagnant growth for decades. The area’s majority Black population have few options for necessities, quality shopping, and entertainment.

And we were where we could buy homes. And we did that. And then we start saying, “Well, where’s the public facility? . . . Where’s the hospital? Where’s the new school? Where’s the whatever?” And there was some frustration associated with that.

Download

Share

COinS