Racial Covenants Lurk in Local Property Deeds

Ames Homestead Deed 1958

Discriminatory language persists in real estate deeds across the United States and Massachusetts is no exception. Though most property owners are unaware of this issue, so-called “racial covenants” disallow the transference of properties to specific groups of persons. Such language is embedded in many Massachusetts deeds–including some right here in Shutesbury.

Lake Wyola Deeds with Racial Covenants

After hearing that some deeds for properties on Lake Wyola have racial covenants, I did some research on Masslandrecords.com. I found that in Shutesbury, covenants were inserted into some deeds to prevent ownership by “anyone other than persons who are of the Caucasian race”.

Searching randomly revealed that many properties on and around Lake Wyola were originally part of two large sets of land plans filed by two specific landowners. One is the “Harriet E. Ames Homestead Lots”, encompassing several lots on Shore Drive and North and South Laurel. The other plan, called “Great Pines, Shutesbury Mass.”, represents land owned by Paul H. Henley and includes much, if not all, of Lake Drive and Great Pines (open the plans in a new window or tab to enhance readability).

Ames Homestead Plan 1952

Great Pines Plan 1938

Deeds stemming from these plans included the restrictions, “The premises shall not be sold to, or occupied by, anyone other than persons who are of the Caucasian race”, or “That no part of the land hereby conveyed, or the improvements thereon, shall ever be sold, leased, traded, rented or donated to any other than the Caucasian race.” 

How Racial Covenants Became Institutionalized

Restrictive deed covenants prevent many people, including those of Irish, Italian, or Polish heritage, from owning, leasing, or occupying certain properties. The majority of these covenants also bar Black individuals from doing so. This practice can be traced back to the Great Migration (1910-1970) when African Americans moved north to seek opportunities and escape segregation. The resulting racial tensions led to the widespread use of racial covenants that excluded "non-Caucasians." These covenants were heavily used by developers and realtors and were even encouraged by the U.S. Federal Housing Administration to promote "neighborhood stability".

Several court cases and laws over the years have supported such covenants, at least privately. While 1917’s Buchanan v. Warley noted that zoning based on race was unconstitutional, it did not include private deed restrictions. The 1926 Corrigan v. Buckley decision affirmed the legality of such covenants, and the 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer case asserted that while the 14th Amendment had been violated, racial covenants could still be privately enforced even if state and federal entities could not do so.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability, thus making racial covenants illegal and unenforceable. Still, these covenants continue to exist and, in some predominantly white areas, appear to add value to the properties to which they are attached.

Follow the Money

The persistence of this ingrained form of racism may seem surprising until one realizes that racial covenants were a profitable venture for many white individuals and businesses. Developers and real estate agents played a key role in establishing and perpetuating this practice, promoting properties with racial covenants to white individuals as a means of safeguarding their investment. William Leavitt, the developer credited with popularizing the concept of suburbia after World War II, implemented racial covenants in all of his numerous Levittown developments. By the 1960s, Leavitt had amassed wealth of over $100 million.

 

For some white homeowners, racial covenants have effectively increased home values. Studies have revealed that homes with covenants in Minneapolis have values that are 20% higher than similar homes without covenants. A research project by the University of Minnesota’s Mapping Prejudice Project revealed nearly 560 deeds with racial covenants in the suburbs surrounding Boston. Notably, many of these communities are affluent and have populations that are approximately 90% white.

Renouncing Discriminatory Deed Covenants

Some property owners have used their outrage over racial covenants to push state governments to allow homeowners to void or redact such language in their deeds. Currently, 34 states and Washington, D.C. have laws addressing the remediation of racial covenants. Most allow property owners to simply void the language, while others have a procedure to remove the covenant entirely. 

Massachusetts law allows for voiding such covenants but does not remove them, which provides for repudiation without denying their historical existence. A bill that would expunge such language has stayed in committee for nearly two years.

The complaint process is free, but, like all state laws concerning racial covenants, it depends on the deed owner conducting their own research. For many property owners, being able to reject racially discriminatory deed covenants legally is valuable enough to justify the effort.

Note: This blog uses the AP style whereby Black is capitalized and white continues to be non-capitalized when referring to race.