Since the sixteenth century, depictions of Lady Justice have her blindfolded to represent impartiality. Justice should be applied equally without regard to such characteristics as wealth, status, or race. Justice should be wealth-blind, status-blind, and color-blind. A group—Inwood Legal Action—in New York City rejects this concept, arguing that color-blindness kills and justice requires that race be considered in public policy decisions.
Like many cities, New York has been revising its zoning codes to allow for the construction of more housing. This isn’t sitting well with some housing advocates. They argue that rezoning has a greater impact on Latinos, blacks, and Asians:
A major reason for housing disparities is the city’s color-blind approach to land use, which determines what kind of housing can be built in an area. Nowhere in New York City’s land use review procedure, or its environmental review process, is there a requirement to consider race.
In a criminal case, justice demands that the race of the accused be ignored. However, according to Inwood Legal Action, race should be considered in zoning cases. A sympathetic council member has introduced a bill that will require “racial disparity reports” for certain zoning changes.
Inwood’s co-chair acknowledges that environmental impact statements for rezoning can be over a thousand pages. A racial disparity report is going to add to the already outrageous burden forced upon builders and developers in New York City. One does not have to have an MBA to understand what this will do to the cost of housing. Housing advocates complain about the lack of affordable housing while simultaneously demanding more policies that slow the construction of housing and add to its cost.
Rezoning would give builders and developers a tiny sliver of freedom. But housing advocates aren’t content to allow producers the freedom to actually produce. When individual are free, they sometimes make decisions with which we disagree. Housing advocates don’t care about freedom. They want to compel housing producers to act as they—the advocates—think proper.
The “housing justice” movement isn’t about justice. It is about seizing more control over producers.