The Unhidden Truth

By Gray John Gray, Wilmington

All who were raised in San Pedro love the town and recognize it as a wonderful place to grow up. Most of us are proud to say, “I am from Peedro. Some say the town was ordained to prove to the world that equality and respect for each other are important to local order. 

But like all places, San Pedro is not perfect. It seems that the ugly, hurtful stain of de facto segregation remains in the city (that is separation of persons by fact rather than by legally imposed requirement). In the matter of San Pedro Afro-Americans continue to be denied access to apartment rentals south of Sixth Street. More particularly, in the southwest parts of the city.

I was recently informed of two Afro-American persons who applied for rental property in suspected de facto segregated areas of San Pedro. Both, who were outstanding candidates regarding yearly income, secure employment, no criminal histories and they had respect in the community, had submitted applications but reportedly received no responses from apartment representatives.

In the early 1960s, there were many protests regarding de facto segregation in San Pedro and after South Bay Communities, meetings were held, policy changes were suggested and ultimately in 1965, the Jess Unruh Civil Rights act was passed (California Civil Code 51A). The new law was equal for anyone who simply desired access to an apartment or other real property being made available regardless of race or other factors.

The passage of the Unruh Act caused lawsuits in San Pedro and a modicum of change to take place in opening rental property to all. But unfortunately, rental property providers have found legal methods to sidestep codified law. Thus rental discrimination laws were never effective and San Pedro resumed is a generalized standard practice of failing to provide rental property to Afro-Americans.

The big question now is how do we solve the problem? Realtors are between a rock and a very hard place. Some apartment owners’ perceptions of Afro-Americans are that of the 1970s television series, Starsky and Hutch (Thus persona non grata). That all Afro-Americans as drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes. All in all, will there only be a compromise of what is codified law? Does equality and respect matter anymore? Is one to accept Critical San Pedro Theory that de facto segregation is acceptable in a town that glorifies its good race relations.

We know that San Pedro’s politicians shake in fear at the words, “de facto segregation” kind of like E=MC^2 as too hot to handle. Will the new 15th district councilperson address the issue? We will be waiting.

Dear Mr. Gray,

You might find this history enlightening.

The California Fair Housing Act of 1963, better known as the Rumford Act (AB 1240) because of its sponsor, Assemblyman William Byron Rumford, was one of the most significant and sweeping laws protecting the rights of blacks and other people of color to purchase housing without being subjected to discrimination during the post-World War II period. 

The Rumford Act called for an end to racial discrimination in all public and private housing in the state and immediately met opposition in the California legislature.  Republican legislators exempted most forms of private and single family housing before the bill was finally passed on September 20, 1963.  The new law made illegal discrimination in public housing and in all residential properties with more than five units.

Despite the exclusion of the vast majority of the homes occupied by Californians, the California Real Estate Association (CREA) immediately launched a repeal campaign.  Exploiting the growing hostility toward all liberal social programs and promoting the call for “property owner rights,” the CREA-led effort resulted in the Proposition 14 referendum on Nov. 3, 1964, which saw a 2-to-1 vote in favor of repeal of the Rumford Act.

Despite the vote, the Rumford Act was restored in 1966 when the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 14 was illegal. A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court strengthened this ruling stating that Prop. 14 violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which “prohibits all racial discrimination in the sale or rental of property.”

This by no means explains how some landlords still get away with discriminating against people of color.

James Preston Allen, Publisher