A new report by the Bay Area Equity Atlas says 10% of the region’s census tracts are segregated “areas of white wealth.”
The report, posted online July 27, analyzes all of the region’s 1,572 U.S. Census tracts by race and income in order to quantify areas of high segregation.
It identifies 164 census tracts, primarily in the urban core, that are characterized by concentrations of white wealth.
“A look at the demographics of these neighborhoods of concentrated white wealth reveals the extent to which low-income Black, Latinx, and AAPI households are excluded from wealthy white enclaves compared with their white counterparts,” according to the report.
The analysis is based on the “Index of Concentration at the Extremes” developed by sociologist Douglas Massey that incorporates both economic segregation and racial and ethnic segregation.
The index is calculated by subtracting the number of low-income Black, Latino or Asian American/Pacific Islander households from the number of high-income white households and dividing by the total number of households in a census tract.
Recommended for you
Using this method, the report identifies Belvedere in Marin County and Woodside in San Mateo County as having two of the most segregated neighborhoods in the Bay Area in terms of white wealth.
“In these two areas, there are no Black or Latinx households with incomes under $45,000 and just a handful of low-income AAPI households, yet there are more than 100 low-income white households in each census tract, casting doubt on explanations of purely income-based segregation,” according to the report.
Every county in the Bay Area, excluding Sonoma and Solano, is home to at least one highly segregated neighborhood of white wealth.
Some of the census tracts identified in the report as being among the top 20 most segregated are in Piedmont in Alameda County, Alamo in Contra Costa County, Monte Sereno in Santa Clara County and the entire city of Orinda in Contra Costa.
The Bay Area Equity Atlas is a partnership between the San Francisco Foundation, PolicyLink and the Equity Research Institute at the University of Southern California.
Can anyone explain what we are to do with this information? Seems like a bunch of bean counters have nothing else to do but crunch data. Is this another effort to make white people feel guilty? It is clear that the report is biased in favor of non-whites as it also separates out a non-existent demographic called LATINX, a term disavowed by most folks with a Spanish-speaking or -surnamed heritage.
Wow, the nerve of a humongous, gigantic 10%? Even though the white population in the Bay Area is around 50%? Sure, let’s blame white folks who happened to buy in that neighborhood for their wealth. And let’s blame white folks for others not being able to become wealthy enough to afford housing in those tracts. Seems the only purpose of this report is to increase divisiveness. Or maybe, the purpose of this report is to spur white folks to up their game so they can increase their “areas of white wealth” to around 786 Census tracts, an equitable position commensurate with their 50% percentage in the area?
I wish the DJ would ask questions before running stories that have just one source. Story says "there are no blacks or Latinx households with incomes under $45,000." Are there any with incomes over that figure? And what about Asians? Also, hard to believe anyone - even people of no color - can live in these areas with an income that low. DJ; please follow this up. Woodside iis in your circulation area.
Ah - an article by white people trying to make other white people feel guilty for whatever reason. Btw NONE of my Spanish speaking friends and family ever use LatinX and think its stupid. More white people trying to tell dark skinned people how to feel about their identity in America. Articles like this do nothing but sow division. Stop it.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
Can anyone explain what we are to do with this information? Seems like a bunch of bean counters have nothing else to do but crunch data. Is this another effort to make white people feel guilty? It is clear that the report is biased in favor of non-whites as it also separates out a non-existent demographic called LATINX, a term disavowed by most folks with a Spanish-speaking or -surnamed heritage.
Reports as these can give the counties/state a data driven view of where affordable housing funds should be spent, as one example.
Wow, the nerve of a humongous, gigantic 10%? Even though the white population in the Bay Area is around 50%? Sure, let’s blame white folks who happened to buy in that neighborhood for their wealth. And let’s blame white folks for others not being able to become wealthy enough to afford housing in those tracts. Seems the only purpose of this report is to increase divisiveness. Or maybe, the purpose of this report is to spur white folks to up their game so they can increase their “areas of white wealth” to around 786 Census tracts, an equitable position commensurate with their 50% percentage in the area?
The problem is not "white wealth." It's 'green wealth." Green as in the color of money. God forbid we all come together.
I wish the DJ would ask questions before running stories that have just one source. Story says "there are no blacks or Latinx households with incomes under $45,000." Are there any with incomes over that figure? And what about Asians? Also, hard to believe anyone - even people of no color - can live in these areas with an income that low. DJ; please follow this up. Woodside iis in your circulation area.
Ah - an article by white people trying to make other white people feel guilty for whatever reason. Btw NONE of my Spanish speaking friends and family ever use LatinX and think its stupid. More white people trying to tell dark skinned people how to feel about their identity in America. Articles like this do nothing but sow division. Stop it.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.