Skip to main content

What is meant by “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”?


 The 1968 Fair Housing Act directed governments and their agencies to "affirmatively further" fair housing.  The Act outlawed discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. Yet after more than four decades, residential segregation and racial discrimination in housing remains virtually unchanged in many of our cities. Minorities, mainly African-Americans and Hispanics continue to experience discrimination in housing partly because of the lack of local and federal agencies not willing to enforce the mandate of "affirmatively furthering" fair housing.  As a result discrimination continues.

ProPublica’s story on the Rembis family is an all too familiar example of housing discrimination. Claire Rembis and her husband came across a four-bedroom house advertised on Craigslist. It sounded like just what they had been looking for. It provided ample room for their children to run and play and the monthly rent was much cheaper than that of other homes they had looked at. They had a look at the house and loved it.
Three days later, Claire Rembis got a call from the landlord saying she was dropping by to see how the family lived. During the landlord’s visit, she asked Claire who is biracial, whether she was concerned about living in the area (which is predominantly white). A few days later Claire received an email saying the family could not rent the house because there were issues with their credit and they had too many small children.
By then, Claire had already contacted a non- profit Fair Housing Center. The center arranged for black and white testers to ask to rent the house. The black family and the white family had the same income, the same credit history, and the black family had the least number of kids. The black family was not even allowed to see the house and their calls were not returned. The white tester was shown the property, was immediately called back and invited to see the house.
The Rembis family case is not an isolated one. HUD studies have found that African Americans and Hispanics are discriminated against in one of every five home-buying encounters and one in every four attempts to rent an apartment. Only a scant few of these incidents ever come to the attention of authorities. The negligible number of housing discrimination cases arises largely from choices by federal agencies. Instead of actively searching for landlords and agents who discriminate, federal officials open investigations only after complaints are filed. But most victims have no idea they've been discriminated against, which means they never demand an inquiry. Experts say undercover testing is the most effective way to catch landlords and real estate agents, who conceal their intentions behind smiling faces and seemingly open, friendly attitudes.
However, the federal government almost never uses this technique.  HUD, the chief enforcement agency of the FHA, runs no testing program of its own. Instead, it outsources the work to a host of poorly funded private housing groups. In support of this practice, a HUD spokesman released a statement saying the agency avoids conducting its own tests for racial bias so it can remain "neutral" when it receives complaints.
Congressman Al Green, has introduced a bill for the fourth time, to fund a national program to test for housing discrimination in a bid to affirmatively further housing. The Veterans, Women, Families with Children, Race, and Persons with Disabilities Housing Fairness Act of 2013 is also known as the Housing Fairness Act of 2013.  It authorizes $15 million annually over five years for HUD to administer the nationwide testing program to measure patterns of adverse treatment in the housing market. Green's previous bills on the issue have all died at the committee stage, without reaching a full vote in the House. This is a testament to a lack of priority in fighting housing discrimination. "I don't believe this is something we can ignore. I plan to keep introducing the bill as long as I am in Congress until we pass it," Green said.
Thus, four decades after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, it is clear that the federal government’s approach to tackling housing discrimination is ineffective. HUD’s option to fund non-profit groups around the country to perform tests helps bring the majority of lawsuits involving housing discrimination. However, large parts of the country are not subject to any discrimination testing.
It is clear that a national fair housing testing program would be the most effective and efficient way to bring about change and end behavior that perpetuates segregation and has the capability to reach the kinds of discrimination that are not identified by victims, or where the victims may be unaware of their rights or reluctant to file complaints. Instituting a national testing program will definitely be a way to "affirmatively further" fair housing.

Comments

  1. Your article hit the nail squarely on the head. Good analysis. I agree that the government and HUD should take a more active role in investigating discrimination in housing. Most people think discrimination is a thing of the past but it is sadly, very much alive. Why wont HUD institute its own testing and investigating program? It surely has the funds to do so but it choses not to. This is sad because so many people are denied housing because landlords have and are getting away with housing discrimination. Thanks for the education on the numerous housing issues that you have on your blog. Impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have complete details on all of these firms is that having a bank or other financial institution take time. This is an anti-Semite because his work reflects the anti-Semitism fostered by the time of the improved value of the truly relevant information in many communities. With the fluctuations in the position to approach these hard money they need to work with, and the rules for these types of private money lender.
    SBA 7a lending

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Pinklining"? Innovative way to deny women home loans

From redlining to  “pinklining,” a term most people have probably never heard, is hurting women and especially women of color.  The term comes from the 1970's term   redlining . T he term used by governments, agencies, banks and other lenders to deny people of color access to mortgages and credit. Those in charge of public policy and lending practices would draw a redline around certain neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities and deny them financing and other forms of credit if they lived within those lines. Now, more specifically lenders are using the term "pinklining" ala redlining to identify neighborhoods and deny woman of color the chance to buy homes. Is There a Gender Gap in Home Equity Loans? (investopedia.com)

News Roundup: March 15-26

NFHA President Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee (Reading the full testimony is strongly recommended for anyone interested Fair Housing issues.) On March 11, Shanna Smith of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NHFA) testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommitte on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, with a presentation titled "Protecting the American Dream: A Look at the Fair Housing Act." The testimony emphasizes that in spite of our efforts, the nation still falls "dramatically short of reaching the actual goals of the Fair Housing Act" which is designed to "eliminate housing discrimination and to promote residential integration." "While people are working together in greater numbers than ever before--many go home each night to racially segregated neighborhoods." Shanna "explores the nature and extent of housing discrimination as it is manifested today, how enforcement action is moving

SunTrust $21Million Settlement with DOJ

This past Thursday, Businessweek covered a massive settlement in a federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in SunTrust’s lending practices. The suit, filed by the US DOJ, was filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, VA, alleging more than 20,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers were charged more than similarly-situated and qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers, between 2005 and 2009. The suit alleged that minority borrowers in 75 geographic markets from Virginia Beach, VA to San Francisco, CA, paid more in loan fees, or were charged higher interest rates based solely on race or national origin. A consent order filed with the complaint says SunTrust denies any wrongdoing, but agreed to the settlement. "SunTrust strongly believes in the principles of fair lending," company spokesman Mike McCoy in Atlanta said. "We are pleased to have reached a settlement and put this matter behind us." Settlements like this come as a surprise, considering the