Cantrell: Housing discrimination against Black residents is systemic

San Jose’s housing crisis isn’t just a headline; it’s a daily reality — particularly for Black families and other marginalized communities.

As someone deeply committed to the well-being of the Black community in Silicon Valley, I have spent years working alongside Black residents, leaders and advocates to expose and confront the structural barriers that contribute to persistent inequality. Through my work as an economist, San Jose planning commissioner and creator of the “Dying to Stay Here” series, I have seen how policies and practices, both past and present, continue to limit opportunity and threaten the stability of Black families.

I’m writing this column to center Black voices, share their lived and professional experiences and offer solutions rooted in community perspectives. By highlighting these stories and challenges, my goal is to advocate for change and to reflect the resilience, determination and aspirations of African Americans in our region.

Our housing crisis is about more than just an inadequate supply of housing — it also exposes enduring structures of exclusion and generational barriers to opportunity. Continued practices like exclusionary zoning, predatory lending, discrimination from financial institutions and the real estate industry undermine wealth-building and homeownership. In the most recent episode of “Dying to Stay Here,” I sit down with Cupid Alexander, deputy director of housing for San Jose, to discuss the roots and solutions to this persistent issue.

The result of discrimination is poverty among African Americans in San Jose that is more than twice that of whites, with systemic disparities in employment, education and health. That fuels disproportionate homelessness. The negative results continue with Blacks representing only 2.2% of Santa Clara County’s population, but comprising 19% of its unsheltered population and dying at a rate three to four times that of any other group. The same disproportionality exists for Blacks in both life and death.

California’s chronic underdevelopment means demand for affordable homes will always outstrip supply if something isn’t done. This will continue to squeeze out families unable to afford market rates despite earning what should be a livable wage. When basic needs like housing require six-figure incomes, working families find themselves shut out, while those who qualify for assistance risk losing support over minor increases in income.

As Alexander says, “So it’s not about hard work. You’re seeing so many families and so many people in the Bay Area… who are in our unhoused population, and yet they go to work every single day.”

Solutions must look beyond expanding supply, they must reckon with the legacies of segregation and economic inequity. Increasing gentle density with backyard cottages and smaller scale multiunit dwellings, expanding community land trusts and prioritizing rapid rehousing and rental assistance programs can create entry points to stability and ownership. Prevention is crucial, keeping households stably housed costs a fraction of even the least expensive shelter options and avoids the rising health and social costs of long-term homelessness — especially for transition-age youth, families and seniors.

Housing stability underpins educational outcomes, health and generational resilience. Yet lending and land-use policies still hinder upward mobility for communities historically excluded from prosperity. Efforts to promote equity must include reforms to rental assistance, earned-income allowances, policies that recognize and value the labor and aspirations of all residents.

A striking example of how our housing assistance policies can inadvertently punish hard work lies in the case of a resident who worked two hours of overtime, only to discover the small increase in income made her ineligible for desperately needed housing assistance.

From Alexander’s perspective, these eligibility thresholds not only undermine the intent of housing programs, but also incentivize unproductive choices, as families weigh whether earning a few dollars more is worth jeopardizing their housing stability. He advocates for earned income exemptions and reforms that reward, rather than penalize, individual initiative. Reshaping these policies is key to making the housing system truly equitable and supportive for residents striving to improve their lives.

Silicon Valley’s future depends on the vitality of all its communities, and turning around the steady decline of the Black population is essential to the region’s success. African Americans have long faced systemic barriers to equity that have pushed many out of the communities they helped build. Addressing these disparities isn’t just a matter of social justice, it’s critical to sustaining a diverse, inclusive and thriving economy.

If we want to truly live up to our promise, equity must be at the center of housing and economic policies. That means ensuring Black families and other marginalized groups have real access to quality housing, stable jobs and opportunities to build lasting wealth. Only then can we stop the exodus and create a Silicon Valley where everyone, not just a fortunate few, has a place to call home and a future to believe in.

Chuck Cantrell is an economist, San Jose planning commissioner and creator of “Dying to Stay Here,” a video and podcast series that explores the entrenched economic and social barriers facing Black communities in Silicon Valley. His columns appear every third Thursday of the month. Contact Chuck at [email protected].