Walking south down Fillmore Street today, you immediately notice three things. First is Geary Boulevard, the large highway that cuts through the district. Its six lanes of high-speed traffic cruising through subterranean corridors is a dividing line between two neighborhoods, themselves heading in different directions. The second thing you will notice as you continue south of Geary is the emptiness of the area: the lack of pedestrians, the vacant land, and the hollow storefronts. Finally, as you walk through the Fillmore Center development, you notice the immense scale of the buildings; evidence of automobile-friendly planning.

A stroll north of Geary provides a striking contrast. This neighborhood is built to human scale, with low-rise and Victorian buildings, storefronts full of patrons, and people waiting for tables at one of the many restaurants.. This neighborhood is known as Lower Pacific Heights and stretches up into the wealthy enclaves of Pacific Heights and the Marina to the north. The feeling one gets here is that this neighborhood is thriving, as opposed to the depressed, almost ghost town feeling just a few blocks south. But this is not Lower Pacific Heights; this is part of the historic Fillmore. Today the area is predominately white. The only observable nods to its former distinction as the Harlem of the West are an African American bookstore and John Lee Hooker's Boom Boom Room.

All neighborhoods go through a metamorphosis over time, but this dramatic change requires a look at the history of African American migration into San Francisco, the timeline and scale of redevelopment, and the decision-making process that targeted the Western Addition. We feel that the factors that led to the redevelopment of the Fillmore show that the City and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) were not forthright with the citizens of San Francisco about the conditions that necessitated redevelopment. Under the guise of a socio-economic and structural evaluation of the Western Addition, the City and the SFRA manipulated the statistical data (in the case of race) or relied on subjective evaluations of other conditions, to provide legitimacy to their predetermined plan. Ultimately, the SFRA was interested in protecting the property values of nearby neighborhoods, not in improving the quality of life of its residents.

The Fillmore: A Vital Black Neighborhood

The lack of employment opportunities for African Americans prior to World War II kept San Francisco's black population surprisingly low throughout much of the early history of San Francisco. Census data shows that in 1900, only 1,654 African Americans were residing in San Francisco out of a population of 342,782. In contrast with other large cities, the population of African Americans rose only to 2,414 by 1920 after the Great Migration from the south had brought significant African American populations to other cities of industry. Perhaps because the African American population was not large enough to be a major presence, San Francisco was considered an open, black-tolerant city.

San Francisco had desegregated its schools and blacks had been given the right to vote and the right to ride public transit. Yet the real estate industry still encouraged blacks to live in certain neighborhoods, and it was still difficult for blacks to join unions and find higher paying, skilled work. During these years, the majority of black Bay Area migrants settled in Oakland where they could get better paying Union Pacific jobs (Broussard 1993, 11-132). The defining event that established a large black community in the Fillmore was World War II. With the war came jobs, so workers poured into the Bay Area from around the country to work in the well paying war industries. Almost overnight, San Francisco had an African American population. Census data shows an almost ten-fold increase of African American residents between 1940 and 1950, from 4,846 to 43,502. The overwhelming majority of these people settled in the Bayview-Hunter's Point district and the Fillmore.

The Fillmore already had a small African American community but the internment of the Japanese led to housing vacancies in the district that were quickly taken by the newcomers. By the end of the war, African Americans were firmly established in the Western Addition and they intended to stay. Within San Francisco's white political community, the establishment of a black community had caused rumblings in the 1920s. These rumblings began again. African Americans were no longer a small group of little concern to city officials; now they had achieved a critical mass that brought them to the attention of the city as a whole. By the end of the war, African Americans had replaced the Chinese in the crosshairs of San Francisco politics, and Fillmore was ground zero.

Prior to the redevelopment of the Fillmore in the 1940s and 1950s, the district was not only the main African American community in San Francisco but also a vibrant center of commercial ownership for African Americans. Of the nearly 1,000 San Francisco African American-owned businesses recorded by the Committee for Community Solidarity Inc. in 1959, 80% were located in the Fillmore District and nearly 100 were located on Fillmore Street proper (Jefferson 1994, 6). The area had restaurants, supper/nightclubs, pharmacies, art galleries, barber/beauty shops, doctors, dentists, lawyers, banks/finance companies, realty companies, printing and stationery stores, retail and apparel shops, butchers, bakers, markets, and everything else that a neighborhood could need (Jefferson 1994, 6).

The Redevelopment Laws

The political climate in San Francisco, combined with new Federal and State laws, allowed the SFRA to propose a plan for a new, revitalized Fillmore District. The SFRA was empowered by two laws: The California Redevelopment Act of 1945 (CRA) and the Federal Housing Act of 1949. The CRA authorized any city or county to establish a Regional Development Agency to combat urban blight. Agencies engaged in a variety of activities: purchasing property, razing and building structures, providing municipal infrastructure such as streets and lighting, developing affordable housing, and renovating downtown commercial areas. They also used their eminent domain power, which is the right for a public entity to purchase private property within a designated redevelopment area; not just for public use, but to transfer to other private owners. This tool is generally used in conjunction with the CRA (PPIC 1999). Following the enactment of the Federal Housing Act in 1949, the CRA enabled the SFRA to apply for federal grants and loans, which provided federal funds for public housing programs. The act was intended to provide "a decent home and a suitable environment" for every U.S. family.

Redevelopment plans for the Fillmore district also took advantage of the authorization for tax increment revenues, added to the CRA in 1952, as a means to finance redevelopment activities. Tax increment financing gives power to redevelopment agencies to receive and spend property tax revenues attributed to the increase in assessed values that has occurred since the redevelopment project was adopted (PPIC 1999). The increased tax revenue is an incentive to increase the size and prevalence of retail in a redevelopment area.

Determining Urban Blight

The first factor in determining blight was the economic condition of the area as indicated by the property values. As we have discussed, if you walk through the Fillmore district today, you will notice a tangible difference between Pacific Heights, north of Geary Boulevard, and the Lower Fillmore, south of Geary Boulevard. The 1960 census reported that the economics of Pacific Heights were vastly different from the economics of Lower Fillmore. The median Pacific Heights housing price was over $25,000, versus Lower Fillmore's median value of $18,500 (SPUR 1962, 31).

The physical condition of the neighborhood was the second factor to consider when determining whether an area was blighted. The Western Addition was in sore need of rehabilitation: many housing units were illegal conversions and not up to code-over 50% of the buildings were built before the turn of the century. The redevelopment documents seem to imply that the residents are responsible for the disrepair of their houses, and we feel that this is a case of blaming the victims (SFRA 1964, 12-13). The redevelopment documents fail to consider that there was high population density as a result of a large migration of minorities forced to settle in a specific, small neighborhood (Broussard 1993, 167-174). They also fail to observe that prior to World War II, African American residents actually paid the highest average rents in San Francisco: $25.89 per month compared to $23.89 per month for whites, and this trend continued throughout the war (Broussard 1993, 35 and 174). Additionally, although the SFRA notes that less than 10% of residents owned their own home, it fails to hold the absentee landlord responsible for repairing the buildings for which they were receiving rent. Finally, the City itself fails to recognize its own contribution to property decay. The City declared a neighborhood blighted and then waited up to 15 years to assess the properties and take action. Because the City failed to give an incentive to property owners to maintain their buildings, property values fell (Schallert 1966, 64).

The final factor in determining blight is perhaps the most controversial: the social conditions of the neighborhood. This included income level, number of families, public health issues, crime, and "non-white population" (SFRA 1964, 14). Although listed as a consideration for renewal, great care was given to prioritizing other measures of blight in the Western Addition as rationale for redevelopment instead of race.

Based on 1960 Census data, African Americans accounted for between 58.9 and 68.0% of the population in the heart of the Fillmore, Census tracts J-6, 7 and 8. But the impact of renewal on African Americans was diluted because the City used data that incorporated a larger statistical area than the heart of the Fillmore (Census tracts J-6, 7, 8). The city relied on figures of Census track J, which incorporated the Western Addition as a whole, and showed that the area undergoing redevelopment was only one third black (Schallert 1966, 13).

Redevelopment Plans Approved Despite Opposition

One of the first steps of the City's plan to combat blight in the Fillmore was to commission Mel Scott to provide recommendations for the district. Scott's planning report included recommendations for drawing back the white middle class that had fled to the suburbs, saving architecturally-significant buildings, providing professional and commercial space near the Central Business District, cleaning up the slums, and transforming San Francisco into a professional and tourist-based economy similar to Manhattan (Fure-Slocum 1990, 33-34).

On June 3, 1948 the Board of Supervisors declared the Western Addition to be a blighted area based on Scott's report, even after vocal citizens expressed concern at a heated public meeting attended by over 3,000 people (Silverman 1994, 102). Supporters of the designation included the Chamber of Commerce, the Building Trades Council, the Housing and Planning Association and State Senator Gerald O'Gara, who tried to reassure the crowd by highlighting safeguards in the plan. He said,

If the Board of Supervisors declares that the Western Addition is a redevelopment area, it does not mean that the entire area is blighted… The Western Addition, as you know, includes a number of good buildings and the purpose of redevelopment is to protect them from the blight that surrounds them…I again emphasize it will be no reflection on any of the good buildings in this district, of which there are many, and they are not to be touched if this area is declared a redevelopment area (Supervisor's Hearing June 3, 1948, pp. 5).

Dr. Carlton Goodlett expressed serious concern at the meeting, as did members of the San Francisco CIO Housing Committee, especially around discrimination in redevelopment practices and thelack of adequate housing. Regardless of these concerns, the City designated the area for redevelopment on August 3, 1948 (SFDPC 1952, A-3). In an attempt to quiet cries from the minority community, the city adopted Non Discrimination Resolution Number 8660 in 1949-and it did temporarily lessen concerns (Silverman 1994, 108).

In 1953, redevelopment plan WAA-1 was adopted by the city despite continued opposition that was fueled by the significant housing shortage in San Francisco. The four-part plan included the Geary Street widening project and its associated street improvements, the creation of a community center and recreational facility, the encouragement of a Fillmore Street Shopping District between Fulton and Sutter Streets, and the improvement of surrounding residential neighborhoods (SFDPC 1952, Section B). The plan's outlined objectives included,

A. To eliminate as many blocks of the worst blight in the Western Addition as possible under available financing.

B. To facilitate the development of planned public improvements in the Western Addition, including the Geary Street widening and the Community Center.

C. In a previously blighted area, to provide a well planned environment attractive for private investment in new construction. To free it from adverse effects from adjoining blight by extending and strengthening adjoining areas which are attractive for investment (SFDPC 1952, C-1).

In 1956, demolition work began in Area WAA-1. The project encompassed about 99 acres bordered by Post Street to the north, Eddy Street to the south, the Franklin-Van Ness Corridor to the east, and Hamilton Square Park to the west. Major projects in the area, apart from road improvement, included the beginnings of the Japantown Center, St. Mary's Cathedral, and the recreational center at Hamilton Square. In these locations, the SFRA used its eminent domain rights to purchase property within the development area to clear the way for new construction. With construction, businesses lost their local clientele and began losing money. This allowed the SFRA to buy their property at lower costs because the owners were motivated to sell (Mollenkopf 1983, 182-183). John Mollenkopf's discussion with impacted businesses showed that residences were quickly cleared from the area, which made it easier for the SFRA to buy out local businesses at a "fair" value. For the most part, project WAA-1 met with little organized opposition.

In 1964, redevelopment plan WAA-2 was adopted by the city and dramatically expanded the Fillmore revitalization area to include the land bordered by Bush Street to the north, Fulton Street to the south, Broderick Street to the west, and Van Ness Avenue to the east. This expansion was part of the sweeping vision of Justin Herman, the powerful head of the SFRA. Fresh off of the success of the Golden Gateway redevelopment, Herman saw a chance to reshape the Western Addition. Under plan WAA-2, nearly one half a square mile of the city was demolished and 15,000 people were displaced (SFRA 1964, 10-19). In its place was to be a new, safe, blight-free, residential community which [would be] socially and economically integrated and which contains ample public facilities and healthy commercial areas convenient to the residents (SFRA 1964, 19).

The plan was later amended by the Board of Supervisors to shift the WAA-2 Project from public facilities and housing to economic development and the creation of business and economic opportunities.