There are many ways to explore and analyze public health. Oftentimes, scientists use a person’s DNA as a method to unlock underlying causes of diseases. However, the best health predictor may not be lying in genetic code, but in one’s ZIP code.

The connection between ZIP codes and human health has long been of interest to researchers desiring to find the best treatment and prevention strategies for some of our deadliest diseases. Land use laws and zoning regulations have transformed some communities and neighborhoods into dumping grounds for industrial plants or undesirable toxic waste. The long-lasting effects of housing segregation and envornmental racism have also had a disparate impact on minorities, reflected in subpar living conditions. Now, some scientists are attempting to explore the importance of ZIP codes as they relate to disease prevention. 

“ZNA”

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of Health, recently noted that our ZIP code at birth is our “ZNA,” “the blueprint for our behavioral and psychosocial make-up.” The air we breathe and the water we drink has just as much of an impact on human health as our genetic code, if not more so. While genetics can inform and shape our health, so too do three other factors: social determinants, community social environments, and physical environments.

Social determinants of health are aspects like income and inequality. Community social environments include crime rates or the particular affluence of a neighborhood. Physical environment means the walkability of a neighborhood or if industrial plants are located near one’s housing. All of these factors overlap each other, influencing one’s health in both direct and indirect manners–some of which may be invisible. Research has indicated that these determinants and influences may have a more powerful impact on health than individual biological differences do.

Housing Patterns and Health Consequences

There are a variety of ways that living in a particular community can affect one’s health. For example, the physical condition of a home can have a profound impact on residents’ health. Building codes in one neighborhood may be more dangerous than in a more affluent one. Disparities in health outcomes across communities are often demonstrated by lead poisoning and asthma. Older homes may have mold or cockroaches, which could also exacerbate underlying health issues.

Land use characteristics, such as residential density, employment opportunities, and walking trails or open spaces, can promote activity and foster a healthy living environment. Zoning also plays a critical role in determining public health. As noted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), zoning can be instrumental in promoting healthy eating habits and physical activity. Zoning can be utilized to reduce the density of fast food restaurants in a community, incentivize farming in urban areas, and even restrict fast food spots from developing within a specified distance of schools. Additionally, requiring sidewalks, promoting parks and recreation, and widening access to public transportation all play vital roles in increasing physical activity through zoning measures.

Health Mapping

The growth of geographic information science (GIS) and the availability of electronic health records (EHR) now allow for scientists to analyze socioeconomic and environmental factors better than ever before. Health geography has long been an area of medical research that uses geographic techniques to study the impacts of one’s surroundings on their health.

One of the earliest studies employing maps to study dieases was in London, by Dr. John Snow, regarded as one of the fathers of epidemiology. To study the location of cholera outbreaks and deaths in the 1850’s, Dr. Snow used hand-drawn maps showing the location of cholera deaths and then superimposed those with maps of the public water supplies. This allowed him to uncover a cluster of deaths near a particular water pump. His research eventually became an area of study known as disease diffusion mapping, which refers to the spread of disease from a central source, spreading according to environmental patterns and conditions.

GIS utilizes digital software and data sets, along with spatial data, to map multiple aspects of a community. By using and manipulating this geospatial data, researchers are able to thoroughly study the relationship between health, illness, and place. Additionally, EHR can allow scientists to link collected data about the environment with patient medical records. The combination of these powerful tools lends itself well to a broader picture of the interrelationship between ZIP codes, housing conditions and patterns, and human health.

“Not In My Backyard” and Environmental Racism

When development is proposed for a particular community, the most powerful voices can be heard helping to shape the course of the project. “Not In My Backyard” or NIMBY, is a characterization of residents who concede that while a particular project may need to be completed, it should be further away from their community. Projects that could be opposed are practically limitless: any type of housing development, homeless shelters, adult entertainment clubs, and any type of hazardous plants or waste repositories, to simply name a few.

The people who have the power to shape zoning and land use laws in an area tend to be the wealthiest citizens, and usually are white. Thus, more dangerous or undesirable projects are pushed into communities without the bargaining power required to stop them. This type of thinking inevitability promotes environmental racism, utilizing segregated, low-income, minority neighborhoods as the dumping ground for toxic byproducts. This discrimination in land use and zoning policy, particularly fueled by “NIMBY” mindsets, is resulting in increasing health disparities.

What Has Research Uncovered?

Studies have documented that while genetics are an important predictor of health, these other factors have a more powerful impact on health than biology. Income and educational attainment are at least as strongly associated with hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes as particular clinical risk factors. Moreover, those living in areas with less resources for physical activity or healthy food choices have a much higher chance of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

There are dramatic differences in life expectancy rates depending on where one was born in the U.S. In places in the Northeast, populations have a higher life expectancy, while places in the South have the lowest life expectancy rates. These inequalities in mortality rates are intimately tied to housing instability and crowded or subpar housing conditions. In a study of 12,000 New York City households, asthma was more prevalent in Puerto Rican households, immediately followed by other Latino and black households. Moreover, rates of asthma are twice as high in children under the age of 13 in the South Bronx, North/Central Brooklyn, and East/Central Harlem–the three neighborhoods with the highest rates of poverty, morbidity, and mortality in the city.

Additionally, another study utilizing four nationally representative studies noted that worsening economic standing was associated with poor healthcare access, a lack of health insurance, and far higher hospitalization rates. Research has also found that estimated cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics were highest in metropolitan tracts that were highly segregated, and that residential segregation is associated with elevated risks of adult and infant mortality.

The American Housing Survey (AHS) is sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is considered to be the most comprehensive national housing survey in the U.S. It takes a large representative longitudinal sample of houses on both the state and national level. The most recent survey was completed in 2013, and the results are telling. Data shows that 9.2 percent of non-Latino black homes and 7.2 percent of Latino homes have moderate or severe physical problems, compared with only 3.2 percent of non-Latino White homes.  These numbers are staggering, illustrating a serious issue across the country.

Conclusion

Health-related disparities due to housing can be eliminated if proper measures are taken. For example, childhood blood lead levels have improved by 90 percent since the 1970’s, after effective measures were implemented. Housing conditions continue to be among the greatest determinants of human health, as a large list of highly preventable diseases are intimately tied to poor housing. 

National research and multiple academic reports have continued to affirm that housing access and conditions are among the largest determinants of health, both physical and environmental. There are still numerous roadblocks preventing this issue from being rectified. Significant challenges remain when it comes to legislating and securing meaningful public policies that prevent exposure to physical and environmental hazards, whether it be minimizing indoor pollutants or building high-quality low-income housing. Pervasive housing segregation remains embedded in neighborhoods and cities across the country, adding another layer of difficulty. With the proper focus, combating some of America’s most problematic diseases could be more effective than any other previous attempts.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Zoning to Encourage Healthy Eating

CDC: GIS and Public Health at CDC

Additional

Newsweek: Why Zip Code May Influence Health More Than Genetic Code

Public Health Law Center: Land Use/Zoning

CityLimits.org: Building Justice: Genetic Code, ZIP Code and Housing Code All Affect Health and Equality

CityLimits.org: Builiding Justice: NYC’s Sacrifice Zones and the Environmental Legacy of Racial Injustice

EnvironmentalChemistry.com: Environmental Justice and the NIMBY Principle

GIS Lounge: Overview of Public Health and GIS

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ZNA: Could your ZIP Code at Birth Predict Your Health? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, the U.S Census Bureau released the most recent data on new home sales for November 2015, and it’s mostly good news. But what does it mean for millennials buying homes–or is that trend as dismal as experts have worried it could be?

Let’s start with the good news: this November has seen the highest sales in new homes since November 2007, before the recession. The new home sales report shows a seasonally annual adjusted rate of $490,000, which eclipses the October 2015 $470,000 adjusted rate by 4.3 percent. In comparison to the $449,000 annual rate of November 2014, new home sale rates for this year are 9.1 percent higher. The median sales price for new homes in November 2015 was $305,000 with an average sales price of $374,900.

These numbers forecast solid growth, but do not account for the complete forecast of the housing market. New home sales are usually compared with the rates of existing home sales. Total existing home sales fell to 10.5 percent this past November, and the rate of existing home sales was at its lowest rate since April 2014, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR.) The NAR attributes the drop in existing home sales to the new “Know Before You Owe” closing rule, which lengthens closing time on real estate sales. However, some commenters have reasoned that changes in closing time should not have accounted for the change this month.

Another interesting facet of the report is the correlation between the regional breakdown and trends in millennial home buying.  Since October, rates in new home sales have fallen the most in the Northeast, which is down 28.6 percent, and annually has seen a negative 13.8 percent change. However, rates in the West and South have seen the most growth this month and annually. Since October, Western region rates in new home sales have seen a positive 20.5 percent change and the South recorded a 19.4 percent change in sales since November 2014. These numbers correlate with data suggesting that half of the top ten city mortgage markets for millennial home buyers are in the South, as well as this new home sales list from 2014 for millennials, which is dominated by cities in the South and West.

In the end, the data supports forecast of moderate gains in housing activity. Improvement in new home sales numbers tend to be good news. Most importantly, millennials represent 32 percent of home buyers, which is the largest share in the market now–housing trends moving forward may be increasingly contingent on whether millennials continue to purchase.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Housing Market and Millennials: What’s New? appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the term gentrification before–the process in which college-educated, higher-income individuals move into low-income parts of a city in order to live closer to cultural centers. While most people argue that this process leads to new development and better government services, they also highlight how it can displace the existing residents of these communities.

While that narrative is pretty straightforward and easy to grasp, it is important to ask whether gentrification is responsible for many of America’s urban problems. Read on to see what the arguments for and against gentrification are and what studies actually say about the process. Is gentrification as bad as people make it out to be or are other developments just as problematic?

What is Gentrification?

Like any word, gentrification has a simple definition, but in practice the process tends to be much more complicated. The formal definition of gentrification is: “the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.”

History

Prior to gentrification, there was white flight–the phrase used to describe the mass migration of whites out of inner cities and into suburbs. White flight started in the mid-20th century and continued for decades to create the many suburbs that we have today. In the wake of this migration, cities like Washington, D.C. took on a majority-minority character as minorities moved downtown and white people left for the suburbs. Gentrification is typically used to describe the reverse of this process, with affluent people, often white, trickling back into inner cities.

While dilapidated or unused properties have always been refurbished and repurposed over time, the term gentrification itself traces its roots back to 1960s London. In 1964, a British sociologist named Ruth Glass coined the term to describe what was happening in a run-down neighborhood of London. Working-class immigrants were being replaced by professional types, who wanted to be closer to the cultural centers of life. This follows the narrative of development associated with gentrification today as young, educated people seek affordable rent in new parts of a city.

According to the typical story of gentrification, this group is then followed by a second wave that is usually composed of young professional types who move in once a neighborhood becomes more established. After the second wave, the neighborhoods themselves also begin to improve aesthetically as more money pours in. New residents create a stronger tax base and increase investment incentives for companies. Infrastructure is repaired and rebuilt while new construction is started. All this new activity begins to raise the property value of everything from the corner store to the apartment complex down the street. As a result, the original low-income, typically minority residents are essentially priced out of their own communities and forced to leave for somewhere more affordable. The video below looks at several aspects of gentrification and how it is normally understood:

Who does gentrification affect?

The major criticism of gentrification is that the process boils down to affluent whites pushing poor minorities out of their own neighborhoods, in an effort to return to the inner city that their parents and grandparents abandoned years earlier. However, when you look at the evidence and research on gentrification, that narrative doesn’t always hold up.

According to several recent studies by economists and sociologists, the process of gentrification, as it is generally understood, is actually not always accurate. On average, there is little evidence to suggest that more gentrification leads to greater displacement among the original residents. This is not to say that no one ends up being displaced, but generally speaking, displacement is not a significant consequence of gentrification.

In fact, for those who stay in their neighborhoods, regardless of race, gentrification can actually have positive effects. While rents do rise as property taxes increase, residents also have more opportunities like better jobs. In fact, the whole narrative associated with gentrification is called into question as the studies also showed whites are not very likely to move into historically minority neighborhoods at all.

Regardless of whether gentrification is as bad as some people believe, a backlash against the perceived trend has already begun. There are examples in Brooklyn and Philadelphia, but arguably the most notorious backlash occurred against a store in London selling cheap cereal at high prices in a low-income neighborhood, which led to boycotts and protests. In a somewhat surprising turn of events, however, this backlash against gentrification has spawned a counter-backlash, with those accused of gentrification standing fast in the face of criticism.

What Does It All Mean?

While gentrification can affect poor communities, generally that is not the most significant problem. The new investment and diversity actually tends to improve a community. The real problem is that the process of gentrification might only affect certain communities, leaving others with extremely high rates of poverty.

In a study of Chicago’s poor neighborhoods, Harvard researchers found that gentrification only occurred or continued to occur in neighborhoods where the racial composition was at least 35 percent white. They found that the process would actually stop in places where 40 percent or more residents were black. In other words, affluent whites may not be forcing poor black people out of their neighborhoods, rather they are bypassing them completely. This is not to say that the influx of wealthy whites simply improves poor neighborhoods, rather historically black neighborhoods tend to be neglected when it comes to new investment and development. Not only does this challenge the conventional perception of gentrification, it also reinforces an older and more sinister problem in the United States: segregation.

The continuation of segregation is not being perpetuated only by whites returning to the inner city, but also in black migration out of cities. Recent evidence suggests that minority populations are increasingly moving to the suburbs. While individual neighborhoods may be integrating, new suburban trends are actually increasing segregation. On the suburban and town level within metropolitan areas, racial divisions are actually increasing. The following video gives a look at segregation in the US and the problems it leads to:

While the continuation of segregation is bad enough, it has yet another negative aspect associated it. Since gentrification or any other process of development are slow, if not completely non-existent in historically poor neighborhoods, those neighborhoods remain poor and disadvantaged. For all its own potential evils, gentrification may simply expose the familiar problems of segregation and perpetual poverty that are still going unaddressed.

The Government’s Role in Gentrification

The idea of outsiders coming into an inner city neighborhood with cash and plans for improvement is not a new idea and had a name before gentrification: urban renewal. Urban renewal, unlike gentrification, was a product of government policy, which was intended to revitalize various sections of cities. Housing reform movements began as early as 1901 but really gained momentum in the 1930s when zoning ordinances were passed separating housing and industrial areas.

The movement was crystallized in Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949: the Urban Renewable Program, which promised to eliminate slums, replace them with adequate housing, and invigorate local economies. The act failed, however, in one of its other main goals: addressing segregation. Developers’ decisions to build high-income housing, large development projects, and highways that physically divided cities ensured the practice would continue. This disproportionately affected minority residents. Many were forced to move, often to other more crowded and/or expensive areas.

The government took another try at housing with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was meant to stop segregation in neighborhoods at all levels. Additional measures were put in place over the years such as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which replaced the emphasis on the demolition of decaying urban areas with rehabilitation.

As these problems persist, and with the racial strife continuing to plague the United States, President Obama sought to create legislation to address housing once again. In his plan, which was announced in July, data would be compiled then given to local authorities who could use it to more accurately distribute Housing and Urban Development funds. These efforts are intended to end the negative aspects that gentrification perpetuates, including poverty concentration and segregation. The accompanying video below details Obama’s plan to address segregation:

Conclusion

Gentrification is a well-known issue in the United States, but when you take a closer look at what is going on the trend becomes much more complicated. While displacement and housing costs are significant problems for local governments, gentrification might not always be at fault. The traditional gentrification narrative says that as wealthy people move to poor urban areas housing prices and live costs rise, displacing low-income residents. Emerging research challenges that narrative but notes that many low-income communities still face significant challenges. While people are starting to question the traditional understanding of gentrification, backlashes against inner city development and its perceived effects continue.

Studies show that gentrification does not cause displacement at the rates that most people may think, but it does highlight new trends in segregation. While inner-city communities are becoming more diverse, urban housing prices in general are going up. As a result, many low-income residents are moving to suburbs, which face further racial division. Historic segregation and displacement from urban renewal has created areas of concentrated poverty, which have grown consistently over the past decade. This poverty also tends to disproportionately affect minorities. According to CityLab, “One in four black Americans and one in six Hispanic Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared to just one in thirteen of their white counterparts.” While most people think of the inner city when they think of poor neighborhoods, poverty and segregation are actually growing in many U.S. suburbs. Overall, the face of many American cities and towns are significantly changing.

Resources

Regional Science and Urban Academics: How Low Income Neighborhoods Change

US2010 Project: Separate and Unequal in Suburbia

Slate: The Myth of Gentrification

The Atlantic: White Flight Never Ended

City Lab: The Backlash to Gentrification and Urban Development has Inspired its Own Backlash

Harvard Gazette: A New View of Gentrification

The Hill: New Obama housing rules target segregated neighborhoods

Curbed: As ‘Gentrification’ Turns 50, Tracing its Nebulous History

Encyclopedia.com: Urban Renewal

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gentrification: What is it Doing to Our Urban Centers? appeared first on Law Street.

On June 4, 2015 at a restaurant called Busboys and Poets, the DC Coalition for Housing Justice hosted its ninth annual Housing and Community Service Awards Ceremony and Fundraiser. The DC Coalition is a charitable nonprofit dedicated to encouraging and inspiring social justice by addressing housing as a “human rights issue.” The coalition, which serves residents of the District of Columbia, focuses on low to moderate-income communities and works with local politicians and advocacy groups to create jobs and lobby for changes in local and national housing policies.

Following a musical performance by John Davies, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Coalition, Lester M. Cuffie, welcomed the crowd and shared a few thoughts on the importance of the coalition’s work and on the organizations and individuals being honored. Cuffie expressed that while the trials to combat housing problems are many, the determined people in the room should be commended for working on necessary changes toward housing justice. Predatory lenders, gentrification, and a lack of jobs were matters touched upon that Cuffie says contribute to a need for housing reform. “If we are to tame the lion that is gentrification,” he said, “we must remain vigilant.”

Keynote Speaker Barry Lenoir, President of United Black Fund, shared his thoughts on several problems that he believes need to be tackled in order to better serve disadvantaged communities in the United States and in Washington, DC in particular. His speech cited topics such as racial profiling, drug trafficking, unaffordable housing, and corruption within groups trusted to serve impoverished populations. Lenoir named income inequality as a primary problem that needs to be addressed. He said that the top 20 percent of Washington residents have an average annual household income of $284,000, while the bottom 20 percent have an average annual household income of $10,000; this discrepancy in wealth leads to a strained  understanding of those bottom 20 percent who are in need of assistance. Lenoir said that the lack of personal relationships with individuals in need of housing support is a major propagator of inequality. Lenoir stated, “One of the failings we have with housing in this city is we have think tanks and the ivory towers that come up with ideas, but they don’t have any connection with what is actually happening.” He added that standards are often not high enough for organizations that attempt to combat the current housing problem by saying, “We have to begin to set standards for those people who want to help the poor. If we don’t begin to move that money to serve their needs, corruption will occur. This is something we have to look at throughout the nonprofit community.”

The Law Offices of Paul Strauss and Associates received the Tenant Law Firm of the Year Award.

Strauss Accepts Tenant Law Firm of the Year Award

Cuffie praised the firm for its exceptional work in housing justice, its unparalleled assistance to tenants, and its honorable contributions to the DC community. Paul Strauss and Associates received the award for readily making itself available to tenants, among other accomplishments. The firm has a policy of free consultations for clients who need a lawyer, and even stays open until 7 pm each day so that tenants are not forced to miss work to meet with an attorney. Tenant Association directors thanked Strauss and his attorneys, saying, “We take our directions and instructions from you.” Former clients expressed their gratitude for the firm’s work, relaying personal stories of cases won and justice granted for themselves and their families. Strauss accepted the award by saying, “I’m proud to stand with the Coalition for Housing Justice because they are leading this movement by getting out there in the community, working with these groups, and giving them the tools that they need.”

Strauss, a current Shadow Senator from the District of Columbia and former superdelegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, sat down with me for an interview to discuss his work and how young people can get involved in issues related to housing justice. Strauss said that in an era of record low interest rates, homeownership should be expanding rather than displacing tenants. “We are working hard to make sure that in buildings where we represent tenants and tenant associations, that they get to use something in DC called the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act to actually buy their apartment buildings, own them themselves, [and] run them themselves.”

In 1987, Strauss was a young student at American University living in a rental apartment. After being hit with a massive rent increase, he helped to organize a Tenant Association, bought his apartment complex, and became a tenant advocate and activist. “That’s where I started,” he said, “in my own neighborhood, in my own building, in my own community.” Strauss emphasized that young people can truly influence their communities and that traditional activism is the most powerful way to ignite change. “You can sign an online petition, you can tweet your support for any cause, but at the heart of organizing and at the heart of activism is that, at some point, you have to go out and knock on doors and engage people in a human way. There’s just no substitute for grassroots organizing.” Strauss also acknowledged stereotypes of those who choose careers in law and policy, but reassured me that they are not all true. “People shouldn’t think of law and policy careers as something for dull, suit-wearing people,” he said. “There’s a great tradition of our profession being activist; you can be a lawyer and be an activist at the same time. You can work for the government in public policy and be an activist at the same time. It’s not one or the other. Those skills only help you be better at all of it.” This attitude towards advocacy melded with law promises to be helpful to many people who need aid the most.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC Coalition for Housing Justice Honors Local Advocates appeared first on Law Street.