In the 1930s, federal housing officials looked at Oakland and Berkeley neighborhoods and marked some green, some blue, some yellow, and some red. The colors were presented as judgments about mortgage risk. But the underlying area descriptions considered more than buildings, rents, and sales. They also considered race, ethnicity, and who lived nearby. The University of Richmond’s Mapping Inequality archive shows how these records turned entire neighborhoods into financial categories, not just individual applicants. (University of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab) [1]
That history still matters because Bay Area real estate wealth did not come from income alone. It grew through access to subsidized credit, neighborhood appraisal, public infrastructure, property appreciation, and the ability to hold homes across generations. The laws changed. The balance sheets did not magically reset. In 2020, only 35% of Black Bay Area households were owner-occupied, compared with 56% of households overall, and the region lost more than 5,000 Black owner-occupied households between 2010 and 2020. (Bay Area Equity Atlas) [2]
This article is for Bay Area residents, community organizations, nonprofit leaders, donors, policymakers, and households trying to understand how housing policy shapes wealth without needing a degree in economics. It solves one problem: separating the documented history of redlining from vague claims about “personal choices,” while showing how old policy decisions still affect who can buy, borrow, remain housed, or help a child purchase a home in 2026.
You will learn:
- What the Oakland and Berkeley redlining maps actually measured, and what they did not.
- How homeownership, appreciation, debt, and family assistance compound over time.
- Which practical, lawful strategies can build community-rooted wealth without treating homeownership as the only valid path.
Research and analysis by MFFCE Staff.
A map of mortgage risk was never just a map
The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, or HOLC, created residential security maps for hundreds of American cities between 1935 and 1940. Neighborhoods graded A were colored green and described as the safest or most desirable. B areas were blue, C areas yellow, and D areas red, with D representing the highest perceived risk. (University of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab) [1]
The labels sound technical. They were not neutral.
HOLC area descriptions considered housing conditions, economic activity, sales and rental history, and the racial or ethnic makeup of residents. The Mapping Inequality project documents how Black residents, immigrants, and Jewish residents were often treated as threats to neighborhood stability or property values. The maps assessed neighborhood-level lending risk as understood by officials and real estate professionals. They were not individual credit scores, and a red grade did not mean every resident had identical income, credit, or housing circumstances.
Oakland’s 1937 map and accompanying area descriptions remain available through the Big Ten Academic Alliance Geoportal. These are primary historical records that allow researchers to compare the old boundaries with present-day neighborhoods. They do not prove that every family or property received exactly the same treatment, but they do show how public and private institutions organized risk across space. (Big Ten Academic Alliance Geoportal) [3]
That distinction matters. Redlining was not a single stamp placed on every mortgage application. It was a system of neighborhood classification that shaped where credit was available, how property was valued, and which communities received investment.
HOLC maps and FHA underwriting were related, but not identical
A common explanation says the Federal Housing Administration simply copied HOLC maps. That is too neat.
The FHA, created in 1934, insured private mortgages and established underwriting practices that influenced which loans lenders considered safe. Research by Jonathan Rose and Jacob Vigdor shows that FHA underwriting and insurance operated through their own methods. FHA guidance opposed insuring loans in racially integrated areas or places at risk of integration. (Jonathan Rose and Jacob L. Vigdor, National Bureau of Economic Research) [4]
The HOLC maps and FHA practices belonged to the same wider housing-finance environment, but they were not interchangeable documents. HOLC maps recorded neighborhood evaluations. FHA underwriting shaped the availability and terms of federally insured credit.
Research by Jessica LaVoice adds another important layer. The maps reflected pre-existing segregation, poverty, and disinvestment as well as racial bias. They did not create every inequality from scratch, and they should not be treated as the sole cause of present-day wealth differences. At the same time, the evaluations were influenced by race, income, and housing conditions in ways that helped reproduce unequal investment. (Jessica LaVoice, National Bureau of Economic Research) [5]
In plain language: the map was part of a feedback loop. Discrimination helped shape neighborhood conditions. Officials then used those conditions to justify further exclusion. Credit flowed toward already favored areas, while communities denied credit had fewer opportunities to repair homes, buy property, open businesses, or benefit from appreciation.
The compounding advantage of owning property
Homeownership is not automatically a good investment. Repairs, property taxes, insurance, interest, market downturns, and displacement pressures can make ownership expensive and risky. Renting is not a personal failure. Cooperative ownership, community land trusts, permanently affordable housing, and strong tenant protections can also create stability.
But when a household can buy a home and remain there for decades, property appreciation can become a powerful balance-sheet advantage. The household may build equity, refinance or borrow against the property, weather income disruptions, and pass the asset to children. A home can also become collateral for education, a business, or another property.
Consider a household that purchased a home in 1946 and held it across several decades. The family did not need to earn every dollar of later wealth through wages. If the property rose in value, the owners accumulated an asset while also receiving a place to live. Their children might later receive help with a down payment, a gift, a bequest, or temporary housing during college or early employment. The family’s advantage could keep reproducing itself.
The Federal Reserve identifies homeownership as a major driver of household wealth and reports that national 2019 homeownership rates were 73.7% for white households, 44% for Black households, and 48.1% for Hispanic households. These are national figures, not Bay Area measurements, but they show why unequal access to ownership has large wealth consequences. (Federal Reserve Board) [6]
Federal Reserve research also documents the role of gifts, bequests, education support, and other transfers. Young white families in the 2019 data were much more likely than young Black families to own homes. (Federal Reserve Board) [7]
A 2025 Federal Reserve working paper estimates in a model that parental transfers account for about 13 percentage points, or 27%, of young households’ homeownership. The model estimates that parental transfers explain about 11 percentage points, or 20%, of the Black-White homeownership gap. These are model estimates, not direct counts of every family or Bay Area household. Still, they clarify something many households already know: family wealth can determine whether a down payment is a hurdle, a negotiation, or a check written with a phone call. (Eirik Eylands Brandsaas, Federal Reserve Board) [8]
What the Bay Area numbers show
The present-day pattern is not simply “some neighborhoods are expensive.” It is about who has access to ownership and who has been able to remain an owner.
Bay Area Equity Atlas reported that in 2020, 35% of Black Bay Area households were owner-occupied, compared with 56% overall. Black immigrant households had an ownership rate of about 30%, compared with 53% for immigrants overall. The region also lost more than 5,000 Black owner-occupied households from 2010 to 2020. (Bay Area Equity Atlas) [2]
A separate 2019 analysis found that 63% of white Bay Area households were homeowners compared with 34% of Black households. Black homeownership had declined from 41% in 2000 to 34% in 2019. (Bay Area Equity Atlas) [9]
The current regional indicator provides broader context. In 2024, overall homeownership across the nine-county Bay Area was 56%, while white households were at 63%. Black, Latinx, and Native American households were among the groups with the lowest ownership rates. The indicator does not provide a single precise 2024 Black homeownership figure in the source text, so we should not invent one. (Bay Area Equity Atlas) [10]
Here is the chain in one place:
| Historical policy or condition | Documented ownership or wealth effect | Current implication |
|---|---|---|
| HOLC graded neighborhoods from A, green, to D, red, using housing, economic, racial, and ethnic characteristics. (Mapping Inequality) [1] | Neighborhood-level judgments affected how lenders and officials understood mortgage risk. (KQED) [11] | Old neighborhood labels can still be compared with present ownership, affordability, health, and investment patterns, but they are not individual credit scores. |
| FHA underwriting and insurance practices discouraged lending in racially integrated areas and areas at risk of integration. (Rose and Vigdor) [4] | Federally supported credit was distributed unevenly. Between 1935 and 1947, Black borrowers received about 2.1% of FHA-insured loans while Black people represented about 9.9% of the U.S. population in 1940. (Historical FHA/VA lending disparities research) [12] | Removing discriminatory rules does not restore the missed decades of ownership, appreciation, and family transfers. |
| Homeownership can create equity and intergenerational assistance when families can hold property over time. (Federal Reserve) [7] | National wealth patterns show major racial differences in homeownership and family transfers. (Federal Reserve) [6] | A first-generation buyer may need to overcome both today’s prices and the absence of inherited assistance. |
| Bay Area housing costs have outpaced many households’ purchasing power. (California Legislative Analyst’s Office) [13] | In 2026, about 44% of California households would likely qualify for a bottom-tier mortgage, down from about 57% in 2019. [13] | Income matters, but income alone may not be enough without affordable prices, credit access, or family support. |
Oakland’s Fruitvale shows how the past becomes a present-day fight
KQED’s examination of Fruitvale documents how the neighborhood’s HOLC description used racialized and ethnic language alongside references to industrial conditions. That description was part of a wider lending system that restricted access to federally guaranteed mortgages and other credit in communities of color. (KQED) [14]
The practical consequences did not stop with mortgage approval. Limited credit made it harder for residents to purchase homes, maintain buildings, expand small businesses, or benefit from rising land values. Meanwhile, public and private investment patterns helped shape which neighborhoods gained infrastructure and which carried more environmental and economic burdens.
Fruitvale’s story is not a claim that every current hardship comes from one historical map. Families made decisions, markets changed, industries left, and later policies introduced new pressures. But redlining belongs in the explanation because it helped structure who could access credit and on what terms.
The danger today is a familiar one with a newer vocabulary. New transit, business investment, and neighborhood revitalization can create real benefits while also increasing rents, property taxes, and development pressure. Residents who endured decades of disinvestment may then face displacement just as investment finally arrives. That is not a small tradeoff. It is a test of whether revitalization is designed around existing communities or merely around land values.
Wealth is also about place, health, and staying put
Real estate wealth is often discussed as if it were only a number on a tax assessment. Place matters too.
The UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation describes how redlining blocked African American access to higher-quality East Oakland neighborhoods and how the Grove-Shafter Freeway disrupted African American communities and businesses. The center also identifies displacement concerns connected to renewed investment around MacArthur BART neighborhoods. (UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation) [15]
Research from Berkeley Public Health found that D-rated HOLC areas in Oakland, Berkeley, and surrounding California cities were associated with greater risk of severe maternal morbidity for Black and Hispanic women. C-rated areas also showed elevated risk for Hispanic women. This is an association across places, not proof that a historical grade alone determines an individual health outcome. (Berkeley Public Health) [16]
Another UC Berkeley study reported that residents of red or high-risk areas experienced 2.4 times more asthma-related emergency room visits than residents of green or low-risk areas, while diesel particulate matter levels were nearly twice as high in red-rated neighborhoods. Again, this is research about population-level associations, not a deterministic explanation of every person’s health. (UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Research) [17]
A family that owns a home can benefit from appreciation. A family that rents may still build stability, community ties, and security, but has less control over whether rising land values translate into a personal asset. Remaining in place is therefore part of the wealth question. So is avoiding displacement before a family can benefit from neighborhood improvement.
Why 2026 feels like a locked door
The California Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that about 44% of California households would likely qualify for a bottom-tier mortgage in 2026, compared with about 57% in 2019. By June 2026, the estimated monthly payment for a typical two-bedroom home was about $4,600, compared with about $2,700 in rent, a roughly 66% ownership premium statewide. (California Legislative Analyst’s Office) [13]
The Bay Area is especially difficult because incomes, prices, interest rates, taxes, insurance, and down-payment requirements collide. The state figures do not describe every Oakland, Berkeley, or East Bay household, but they show why entering the market without family assistance is so difficult.
The California Legislative Analyst’s Office has also reported that Bay Area zip codes vary dramatically in wealth. Average zip-code net worth exceeds $450,000 per resident, with some zip codes above $1.5 million and about 15% below $50,000. That estimate includes income-producing assets, primary residence wealth, and household debt, not real estate alone. (California Legislative Analyst’s Office) [18]
This is why “who has real estate wealth?” cannot be answered just by naming wealthy neighborhoods. The fuller answer requires examining ownership, equity, debt, inherited assistance, appraisal, credit access, land control, and the ability to remain in place.
A timeline of policy, ownership, and affordability
- 1934: The Federal Housing Administration was created and began shaping the market for federally insured mortgages through underwriting and insurance practices. (Rose and Vigdor) [4]
- 1935 to 1940: HOLC produced residential security maps for major American cities, grading neighborhoods from A, green, to D, red. (Mapping Inequality) [1]
- 1937: Oakland and Berkeley appeared in the HOLC mapping record, with map polygons and area descriptions that can still be examined today. (Big Ten Academic Alliance Geoportal) [3]
- 1940: Black people represented about 9.9% of the U.S. population, a benchmark used in current research on FHA lending disparities. (Historical FHA/VA lending disparities research) [12]
- 1935 to 1947: Black borrowers received about 2.1% of FHA-insured loans in the national historical dataset studied by current researchers. (Historical FHA/VA lending disparities research) [12]
- 1968: The Fair Housing Act prohibited housing discrimination, including redlining, but ending the legal practice did not erase accumulated differences in ownership and property wealth. (KQED) [11]
- 2000 to 2019: Black Bay Area homeownership declined from 41% to 34% in the Equity Atlas comparison. (Bay Area Equity Atlas) [9]
- 2010 to 2020: The Bay Area lost more than 5,000 Black owner-occupied households, while Black household ownership stood at 35% in 2020. (Bay Area Equity Atlas) [2]
- 2024: Overall nine-county Bay Area homeownership was 56%, with white households at 63% and Black, Latinx, and Native American households among the lowest rates. (Bay Area Equity Atlas) [10]
- 2026: About 44% of California households would likely qualify for a bottom-tier mortgage, while typical two-bedroom ownership payments reached about $4,600 compared with $2,700 rent. (California Legislative Analyst’s Office) [13]
What Smart Critics Argue
“Redlining is too old to explain today’s wealth gap.”
That criticism is partly right. Redlining is not the only cause. Income, education, employment, family structure, migration, housing supply, interest rates, foreclosure, zoning, and individual decisions all matter. The LaVoice research specifically warns against treating HOLC maps as the sole cause of inequality. But “not the only cause” does not mean “irrelevant.” The maps and lending rules affected who could buy and hold appreciating property over the decades that followed. [5]
“Income and education matter more than race or past policy.”
Income and education strongly affect mortgage qualification. Yet income does not explain why households with similar earnings may have different access to family down-payment support, inherited property, or neighborhoods with greater appreciation. The Federal Reserve’s research on transfers shows that family assistance can shape ownership among younger households. [7][8]
“Homeownership is not always the best wealth strategy.”
Correct. Ownership can bring debt, maintenance, taxes, insurance, and exposure to market losses. Renters, cooperatives, community land trusts, and permanently affordable housing can provide stability and collective control. A fair strategy should expand choices, not pressure every household into a mortgage.
“Targeted remedies are legally or administratively difficult.”
They can be. Eligibility rules must be lawful, transparent, and carefully designed. Programs also need trustworthy administration, counseling, fraud prevention, and measurable outcomes. Difficulty is a reason to improve implementation, not a reason to pretend that universal programs automatically reach households excluded by past policy.
“Build more housing first. Targeted ownership programs can wait.”
More housing is necessary, especially permanently affordable rental housing. Supply alone, however, does not guarantee ownership access for households without down-payment savings, credit access, or family assistance. The strongest approach combines production with tenant protections, preservation, fair lending, and targeted first-generation ownership support.
What repair can look like
Eliminating discriminatory rules was necessary. It was not sufficient.
A lawful, measurable response can include first-generation homebuyer assistance, down-payment and closing-cost support, community land trusts, shared-equity models, preservation of naturally affordable homes, foreclosure prevention, fair-appraisal enforcement, and anti-displacement protections. It should also support Black, Latinx, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Native, immigrant, disabled, and low-income households without treating any category as monolithic.
Community land trusts are especially useful because they separate ownership of the land from ownership of the home and preserve affordability for future buyers. Shared-equity models can help households build some equity while keeping homes affordable beyond one transaction. Tenant protections and cooperatives matter too. A household does not need to own an individual home to have housing security or a meaningful stake in a neighborhood.
For donors, community organizations, and policymakers, the measurement question is straightforward: who benefits, how much, and for how long? Track applications, approvals, loan terms, appraisal outcomes, retention, foreclosure prevention, displacement, and the racial and income distribution of results. Good intentions are not a scorecard.
This is where MFFCE’s focus on affordable housing, income and wealth building, neighborhood revitalization, youth development, and community research belongs. Institutions can build durable opportunity through grants, scholarships, technical assistance, and patient support. MFFCE’s Oakland affordable housing work reflects the larger principle: community-rooted investment should strengthen residents’ ability to remain, participate, and build assets over time.
Suggested 30-day schedule
This is a suggested schedule for individual learning and community action, not an official program calendar.
| Time | Practical next step |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Open the Mapping Inequality map, locate an Oakland or Berkeley neighborhood, and read the associated area description alongside current maps. |
| Week 2 | Review current ownership and affordability data from the Bay Area Equity Atlas and the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Note the year, geography, and definition behind every number. |
| Week 3 | Identify a community land trust, shared-equity program, first-generation down-payment resource, or housing counseling organization serving your county. Confirm eligibility directly with the provider. |
| Week 4 | Attend a public meeting, review a local housing proposal, or support a community-rooted housing organization that works on preservation, tenant stability, affordable ownership, or neighborhood planning. |
Key Takeaways
- HOLC maps graded neighborhoods, not individual people, but the grades influenced how lenders understood neighborhood risk. [1][3]
- Race and ethnicity appeared in the historical evaluation of housing areas, alongside physical and economic conditions. [1][5]
- FHA underwriting and HOLC mapping were related parts of a broader system, but the FHA did not simply copy every HOLC map. [4]
- Between 1935 and 1947, Black borrowers received about 2.1% of FHA-insured loans in the national dataset studied by current researchers. [12]
- Bay Area Black homeownership was 35% in 2020, compared with 56% overall. [2]
- Black Bay Area homeownership fell from 41% in 2000 to 34% in 2019 in the cited historical comparison. [9]
- Family transfers can influence whether younger households can buy homes, but the available transfer estimates are model-based and national. [7][8]
- Redlining’s legacy includes health and environmental conditions, not only property values. [16][17]
- Revitalization without anti-displacement protections can make long-awaited investment dangerous for existing residents. [14][15]
- A fair housing strategy should expand choices across ownership, renting, cooperative housing, land trusts, and tenant protections.
Six actions readers can take
- At home: Check the historical HOLC map for your neighborhood, then compare it with current ownership, rent, income, environmental, and displacement data. Do not treat the old grade as a verdict on today’s residents.
- At work: Ask lenders, employers, universities, and public agencies whether their housing assistance reaches first-generation buyers and whether outcomes are reported by race, income, disability, geography, and household type.
- In the community: Learn about a local community land trust or shared-equity model, and support its preservation work with time, money, expertise, or public comment.
- For your household: Research first-generation down-payment, closing-cost, and housing counseling programs before assuming ownership is impossible. Verify terms, eligibility, and long-term obligations.
- In civic life: Support policies that protect renters, small homeowners, and legacy businesses from displacement while expanding permanently affordable housing.
- Extra step: If you have more time or influence, fund or partner with organizations building community-rooted wealth through affordable housing, foreclosure prevention, small business support, youth development, and neighborhood research.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does redlining explain the entire Bay Area wealth gap?
No. Income, education, employment, migration, family wealth, zoning, housing supply, interest rates, foreclosure, and many other factors matter. Redlining is a documented part of the policy history, not a complete explanation. [5]
Were the HOLC maps individual credit reports?
No. They were neighborhood-level assessments of perceived mortgage risk. They included information about housing and economic conditions, but also racial and ethnic descriptions. They should not be confused with an individual applicant’s creditworthiness. [1][3]
Did the FHA simply follow the HOLC maps?
Not exactly. FHA underwriting and insurance operated through their own methods. Research shows FHA guidance discouraged lending in racially integrated areas and areas at risk of integration, while HOLC created neighborhood maps. [4]
Is homeownership always better than renting?
No. Ownership can build equity, but it also brings debt, maintenance, taxes, insurance, and market risk. Renting, cooperative ownership, community land trusts, and permanently affordable housing can provide legitimate stability and community control.
Why does family assistance matter so much?
A gift, bequest, education payment, temporary housing arrangement, or down-payment loan can reduce the amount a household must borrow and make a purchase possible sooner. Federal Reserve research finds that transfers are associated with younger households’ homeownership, while one model estimates a substantial role for parental transfers. [7][8]
What should local governments measure?
They should track who receives housing assistance, who receives mortgages, appraisal outcomes, affordability preservation, foreclosure prevention, retention, displacement, and long-term ownership by race, income, disability, geography, and household type.
How can donors support a fairer housing system?
Support organizations with community roots and measurable goals, especially those working on affordable housing preservation, tenant stability, first-generation ownership, community land trusts, foreclosure prevention, neighborhood research, and income and wealth building.
Support community-rooted housing and wealth research
If this analysis helps you understand the connection between housing policy, family wealth, and Oakland’s future, support MFFCE’s affordable housing, income and wealth-building, and community research work through the Foundation’s donation page.
Invest in People. Strengthen Communities. Change Lives.
Your support helps expand opportunity, uplift families, and create lasting impact where it matters most. The McFadden Finch Foundation for Community Enrichment is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization committed to enriching lives, supporting families, and strengthening communities through purposeful giving and community-centered action. Every contribution helps create measurable, lasting change.
McFadden Finch Foundation for Community Enrichment
Lake Merritt Plaza
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1872-73
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 941-1421
www.mcfaddenfinchfoundation.org
info@mcfaddenfinchfoundation.org
Donate:
https://www.zeffy.com/en-US/donation-form/donate-to-change-lives-2137
EIN: 33-2590675
The McFadden Finch Foundation for Community Enrichment is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Sources
[1] University of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab, “Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America,” University of Richmond, n.d., https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[2] Bay Area Equity Atlas, “Black Communities and the Bay Area’s Housing Crisis: Homeownership,” Bay Area Equity Atlas, n.d., https://www.bayareaequityatlas.org/research/projects/black-in-the-bay/homeownership, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[3] Big Ten Academic Alliance Geoportal, “Oakland, California HOLC Residential Security Map, 1937,” Big Ten Academic Alliance Geoportal, n.d., https://geo.btaa.org/catalog/75ed497e-cd01-4c98-b7fa-eccff6537b8a, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[4] Jonathan Rose and Jacob L. Vigdor, “New Evidence on Redlining by Federal Housing Programs in the 1930s,” National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29244/w29244.pdf, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[5] Jessica LaVoice, “The HOLC Maps: How Race and Poverty Influenced Real Estate Professionals’ Evaluation of Lending Risk in the 1930s,” National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28146/w28146.pdf, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[6] Federal Reserve Board, “Wealth Inequality and the Racial Wealth Gap,” Federal Reserve Board, October 22, 2021, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/wealth-inequality-and-the-racial-wealth-gap-20211022.html, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[7] Federal Reserve Board, “Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances,” Federal Reserve Board, September 28, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.html, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[8] Eirik Eylands Brandsaas, “Illiquid Homeownership and the Bank of Mom and Dad,” Federal Reserve Board, 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2025094pap.pdf, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[9] Bay Area Equity Atlas, “Homeownership Is Unattainable for Most Bay Area Black, Latinx, Cambodian, and Pacific Islander Households,” Bay Area Equity Atlas, n.d., https://www.bayareaequityatlas.org/research/analyses/homeownership-unattainable-most-bay-area-black-latinx-cambodian-and-pacific-islander-households, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[10] Bay Area Equity Atlas, “Homeownership,” Bay Area Equity Atlas, n.d., https://www.bayareaequityatlas.org/indicators/homeownership, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[11] KQED, “How Government Redlining Maps Pushed Segregation in California Cities,” KQED, n.d., https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/18486/redlining, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[12] OSF, “Research Materials on Historical FHA and VA Lending Disparities,” OSF, 2026, https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/3dpgf, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[13] California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “California Housing Affordability Tracker, 2nd Quarter 2026,” California Legislative Analyst’s Office, July 20, 2026, https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/793, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[14] KQED, “Has Oakland’s Fruitvale Neighborhood Ever Recovered From ‘Redlining’?” KQED, n.d., https://www.kqed.org/news/11648307/has-oaklands-fruitvale-neighborhood-recovered-from-redlining, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[15] UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, “Past Is Prologue in Oakland’s MacArthur BART Neighborhoods,” University of California, Berkeley, n.d., https://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/blog/past-prologue-oaklands-macarthur-bart-neighborhoods, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[16] Berkeley Public Health, “Historic Redlining Negatively Impacts Maternal Health Almost a Century On,” University of California, Berkeley, n.d., https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/articles/spotlight/research/historic-redlining-negatively-impacts-maternal-health-almost-a-century-on, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[17] UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Research, “Historically Redlined Communities Face Higher Asthma Rates,” University of California, Berkeley, n.d., https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/historically-redlined-communities-face-higher-asthma-rates, Accessed September 6, 2026.
[18] California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “California’s Geography of Wealth,” California Legislative Analyst’s Office, September 5, 2019, https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2019/4093/ca-geography-wealth-090519.pdf, Accessed September 6, 2026.
Disclaimer: This content is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, tax, nonprofit, philanthropic, or other professional advice. Reading this content does not create an advisory, fiduciary, funding, or professional relationship with McFadden Finch Foundation for Community Enrichment. Because every organization, program, and community has different needs, you should consult qualified professionals regarding your specific circumstances. McFadden Finch Foundation for Community Enrichment makes no warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and is not responsible for third-party content, links, products, services, or organizations referenced. Testimonials, examples, stories, and impact statements are illustrative only and do not guarantee similar results.