1. PLANNING FOR FAIR HOUSING &
SOCIAL/RACIAL INCLUSION
Jason Reece, AICP
Senior Researcher
The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity
Reece.35@osu.edu and www.kirwaninstitute.org
Guest Lecture June 1st 2009
City and Regional Planning, The Ohio State University

2. TODAY’S LECTURE
 What is fair housing? Why do we advocate for fair
housing?
 Understanding our history
 Discrimination in housing (historical view)
 Events leading to the Fair Housing Act
 Understanding the Fair Housing Act
 Content
 The Fair Housing Act after four decades
 Have we produced fair housing?
 Outstanding challenges
 Case study: Thompson v. HUD
2

3. WHAT IS FAIR HOUSING?
 Freedom to live anywhere you can afford to live
without fear of intimidation or discrimination
 How can the housing market be unfair? (examples)
 Discriminating by race, nationality, color, gender, age
 Excluding the disabled or families with children
 Policies that exclude by income/class?
3

4. Health
Childcare Employment
Housing
Effective
Education
Participation
Transportation
WHY DO WE STILL ADVOCATE FOR
FAIR HOUSING?
4 Fair Housing and Access to Opportunity

5. Section 2
OPPORTUNITY MATTERS:
SPACE, PLACE, AND LIFE OUTCOMES
 “Opportunity” is a situation or condition that places individuals in a
position to be more likely to succeed or excel.
 Opportunity structures are critical to opening pathways to success:
 High-quality education
 Healthy and safe environment
 Stable housing
 Sustainable employment
 Political empowerment
 Outlets for wealth-building
 Positive social networks
5

6. OPPORTUNITY MATTERS:
NEIGHBORHOODS & ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
 Five decades of research
indicate that your environment
has a profound impact on your
access to opportunity and
likelihood of success
 High poverty areas with poor
employment, underperforming
schools, distressed housing and
public health/safety risks
depress life outcomes
 A system of disadvantage
 Many manifestations
 Urban, rural, suburban
 People of color are far more
likely to live in opportunity
deprived neighborhoods and 6
communities
6

7. PLACE HAS A PROFOUND IMPACT ON CHILD
DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND WELL BEING
7

8. UNDERSTANDING OUR HISTORY:
EVENTS LEADING TO THE FAIR
HOUSING ACT
8 PLANNING FOR FAIR HOUSING & SOCIAL/RACIAL INCLUSION

9. THE 1960’S: URBAN UNREST AND URBAN DISTRESS
9

10. WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?
HISTORICAL POLICIES CONTRIBUTING TO RESIDENTIAL
10 SEGREGATION AND ISOLATION
 Segregation as policy
 Jim Crow in the south
 The Great Migration North
 FHA policies upholding segregation
 Redlining, discouraging mixed race neighborhoods
 Blockbusting, racially restrictive covenants and other forms of
discrimination in the housing industry
 Urban renewal, highway construction and public housing
policy
 Suburban sprawl and white flight

11. POLICIES ENFORCING INEQUITY:
HISTORICAL GOVERNMENT ROLE
“If a neighborhood is to retain
stability, it is necessary that
properties shall continue to be
occupied by the same social
and racial classes. A change in
social or racial occupancy
generally contributes to
instability and a decline in
values.”
–Excerpt from the 1947 FHA
underwriting manual
11

12. REDLINING MAP OF PHILADELPHIA
12

13. http://www.albany.edu/jmmh/vol2no1/sugrue.html
THE “WAILING WALL” IN DETROIT
13

14. THE RISE OF SUBURBIA:
BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE
14
In the suburb-shaping years (1930-1960),
less than one-percent of all African Americans were able to
obtain a mortgage.

15. FHA HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN
CINCINNATI –
DEMOLISHING MUCH OF THE AFRICAN
AMERICAN WEST SIDE
15

16. URBAN RENEWAL IN BOSTON
16

17. URBAN RENEWAL & NEW ATTEMPTS AT PUBLIC HOUSING
 Superblock Public Housing
 Stateway Gardens in Chicago being completed in the late 1950’s
 33 Acres of Public Housing
 Eight High Rise Buildings
 More than 1,600 Public Housing Units
17

18. UNPRECEDENTED
CONCENTRATED
POVERTY:
THE RISE OF
18
CONCENTRATED PUBLIC
HOUSING

19. FROM MARVEL TO DISASTER: PRUITT-IGOE IN ST. LOUIS
19

20. THE FAIR HOUSING ACT
20 PLANNING FOR FAIR HOUSING & SOCIAL/RACIAL INCLUSION

21. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAIR
HOUSING ACT
 Signed into law by President
Johnson on April 11th 1968
 Direct result of the tremendous
efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King
in opening up segregated
communities
 Bill passage tied directly to Dr.
King’s assassination on April 4th
 The last plank of significant
legislation passed during the civil
rights era

22. THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (1)
 The 1968 Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights
Act)
 Bars discrimination in the private sector housing market (based
on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status or
disability)
 In the sale and rental of housing
 In mortgage lending
 Illegal to coerce, intimidate or interfere with someone’s fair housing rights
 Illegal to advertise limitations housing availability based on race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, family status or disability
 Some exemptions (owners with four units or less; private clubs,
single family homes sold without a broker)
 Also contains provision that the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development has a duty to affirmatively further fair
housing
 “administer the programs and activities relating to
housing and urban development in a manner
affirmatively to further the policies of this subchapter” 22

23. THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (2)
 1988 Amendments to the Fair Housing Act
 Provided more stringent penalties for violating the act
(financial)
 Changed enforcement provisions (more involvement by
HUD in enforcement)
 Although Department of Justice remains the primary agency to
apply punitive measures to Fair Housing cases
 Expanded coverage to include the disabled and families
with children
23

24. OTHER HOUSING LAWS/TOOLS
 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) – encourages
depository institutions to help meet credit needs for
undercapitalized communities
 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) – lending
institutions must report public loan data (includes
data on race)
24

25. OTHER LOCAL FAIR HOUSING TOOLS
 e.g. State or local government fair housing laws
 Ohio’s passed in 1965
 The law gives all persons in the protected classes the right to live
wherever they can afford to buy a home or rent an apartment.
 It is unlawful on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or
ancestry, disability, or familial status to:
 a. refuse to rent, sell, finance, or insure housing accommodations or residential
property
 b. represent to any person that housing accommodations are not available for
inspection, sale, rental or lease
 c. refuse to lend money for the purchase, construction, repair, rehabilitation, or
maintenance of housing accommodations or residential property
 d. discriminate against any person in the purchase, renewal, or terms and conditions
of fire, extended coverage, or home owner’s or renter’s insurance
 e. refuse to consider without prejudice the combined income of both spouses.
 f. print, publish, or circulate any statement or advertisement which would indicate a
preference or limitation.
 g. deny any person membership in any multiple listing services, or real estate
broker’s organization.
 Source: Ohio Civil Rights Commission 25

26. HAVE WE ACHIEVED FAIR HOUSING?
26 PLANNING FOR FAIR HOUSING & SOCIAL/RACIAL INCLUSION

27. HAVE WE ACHIEVED FAIR HOUSING?
 Progress but no victory yet
 Homeownership increases
 Slight decline in segregation but still very prevalent
 Decline in incidence of housing discrimination but still
prevalent
 Isolation from opportunity?
 New challenges in the future
 Sub-prime lending and foreclosure
27

28. ACTS OF EXPLICIT HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
REPORTED
 Only 27,000 reported in 2007
 ¼ race based
 ½ disability based
 ¾ related to rental discrimination
 These figures miss unreported acts/subtle acts of
discrimination, class based exclusionary housing
and fair housing challenges related to subsidized
housing
28

29. RACIAL STEERING AND DISCRIMINATION
 Recent studies by researchers and the
federal government (HUD) found that racial
steering, discrimination and exclusion are
still prevalent in the housing market
 Creating barriers to housing access outside of
cost impediment
 Orfield and Luce (2005); Iceland, Sharpe and Steinmetz
(2005) Dawkins (2004); Pendall (2000); HUD HDS
(2000) Galster (1998); Schill and Wachter (1995);
Massey, Gross and Shibuya (1994) HUD HDS (1989)
29

30. CONTINUED SEGREGATION IN HOUSING:
CONTEMPORARY DRIVING FACTORS
 De facto segregation
 Exclusionary zoning
 Subtle forms of housing discrimination
 Racial steering, editorializing
 Subsidized housing policy
 Reverse redlining
 Buy here pay here, rent to own, payday lending, subprime mortgage
loans
30

31. EXCLUSIONARY LAND USE POLICY
Minimum Lot Size for Single Family Home
12,000 11,000
11,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
10,000
Square Feet
9,000 8,000
8,400 8,400
8,000
7,000
6,000 5,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
b)
b)
)
b)
b)
b)
b)
)
ity
rb
ur
ur
ur
ur
ur
ur
bu
lC
ub
ub
ub
ub
ub
ub
Su
a
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
(S
tr
r(
en
g
ity
na
lle
lin
on
te
ur
(C
i
C
an
ub
gt
es
rv
sb
s
ve
in
ah
te
D
ch
bu
ld
er
es
ro
G
in
no
um
ck
G
W
W
ey
Pi
ol
al
R
31
C
an
C

32. RACIAL STEERING IN DETROIT
32

33. 33

34. NEW THREATS: THE CREDIT CRISIS AND
FORECLOSURE CHALLENGE
 The result of the sub-prime &
foreclosure crisis in the US may
significantly erode fair housing gains
and further isolate inner city
neighborhoods
 More than two million foreclosures expected
in the next two years
 Nationwide, nearly 55% of all high cost
loans went to African American borrowers
 Experts estimate that the loss in home Source: United for a
equity to African American and Latino Fair Economy
homeowners will exceed a quarter of trillion
dollars
 Why, direct asset loss (foreclosure) and loss in
home value due to the geographic
concentration of foreclosures in minority
neighborhoods
34

35. PREDATORY LENDING AND RACE: EXAMPLE
(CLEVELAND)
35
Maps: Produced and adapted from Charles Bromley, SAGES
Presidential Fellow, Case Western University

36. PREDATORY LENDING, FORECLOSURE AND RACE:
EXAMPLE (CLEVELAND)
36

37. MORE ON THOMPSON V. HUD
37 A Case Study: Current Issues in Fair Housing

38. WHAT IS THOMPSON V. HUD?
 Litigation brought on behalf of class of 14,000
African-American residents of public housing in
response to history of racial segregation of public
housing and concentration in poor, distressed
neighborhoods in Baltimore
 Plaintiffs include Maryland ACLU and NAACP Legal
Defense Fund
 Originally defendants included the local public housing
authority and the US Department of Housing & Urban
Development
 Began in 1995…judge issued liability ruling in 2005
 Remedial trial held in 2006
 Still waiting for final remedial decision
38

39. FAIR HOUSING IN BALTIMORE
 Some facts and figures….
 Baltimore is the 14th most segregated metropolitan region in the
USA (as of 2000)
 Approximately 67% of Baltimore’s African American or White
population would need to relocate to integrate the region (based
on the regional dissimilarity rate of .67
 More than 53% of African Americans are physically segregated
from jobs in the region
 African American neighborhoods on average had poverty rates
nearly 3 times the rate found in the average White neighborhood
and vacancy rates more than double rates found in White
neighborhoods
 Nearly 3 out 4 African American kids would need to change
schools to integrate the region’s schools
 The average African American student attended a school with a
42% poverty rate in 2000, double the average for White students
 In 2003, in the Baltimore City Schools:
 3 out of 4 students were poor, more than 1/3 of classes were taught by non
highly qualified teachers, less than a 1/3 of students passed proficiency 39
exams

40. SEGREGATION, SUBSID
IZED HOUSING IN THE
BALTIMORE REGION
 Subsidized housing
opportunities in
Baltimore are
generally clustered in
the region’s
predominately African
American
neighborhoods
40

41. 41

42. MORE ON THOMPSON V. HUD
 In January 2005, US District Court Judge Garbis found
HUD liable for violating the federal Fair Housing Act, for not
providing fair housing opportunities to Baltimore’s African
American public housing residents
 "Baltimore City should not be viewed ... as a container for all of the
poor of a contiguous region“
 HUD failed to affirmatively promote fair housing by failing to consider a
regional approach to desegregating public housing
 “[T]he failure adequately to take a regional approach to the desegregation
of public housing in the region that included Baltimore City violated the
Fair Housing Act and requires consideration of appropriate remedial
action by the Court.”
 [Hon. Marvin J. Garbis, Memorandum of Decision. Carmen Thompson et. al.
vs. US Department of Housing and Urban Development et. al. January
6, 2005: 104]
42

43. OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS
 Use of 14 indicators of
neighborhood opportunity to
designate high and low
opportunity neighborhoods in
the Baltimore region
 Indicators of Opportunity
(General)
 Neighborhood Quality/Health
 Poverty, Crime, Vacancy, Property
Values, Population Trends
 Economic Opportunity
 Proximity to Jobs and Job
Changes, Public Transit
 Educational Opportunity
 School Poverty, School Test
Scores, Teacher Qualifications
43

44.  AfricanAmerican’s
are generally
clustered in the
Baltimore region’s
lowest opportunity
neighborhoods
44

45.  Subsidized housing
opportunities in
Baltimore are
generally clustered
in the region’s
lowest opportunity
neighborhoods
45

46. FINAL PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED
REMEDY
 Plaintiffs
propose providing desegregative housing
opportunities in the region’s high opportunity
neighborhoods to remedy HUD’s fair housing violations
 With the goal of providing nearly 7,000 affordable housing
opportunities in high opportunity communities to public
housing residents who volunteer to relocate in ten years
 Flexibility in implementation (new construction and vouchers)
 Aligned with proposals to provide support services for
residents who volunteer for the program
46

47. TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS CASE OR THE INSTITUTE,
PLEASE VISIT US ON-LINE AT: WWW.KIRWANINSTITUTE.ORG
47