New fair housing regulations and zoning laws

[OfficialPlanner]

I'm not a fan of the news source, but I thought this would be interesting to discuss:


In a move some claim is tantamount to social engineering, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is imposing a new rule that would allow the feds to track diversity in America’s neighborhoods and then push policies to change those it deems discriminatory.

The policy is called, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing." It will require HUD to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.

"Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.

Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-diversity-in/

[Midori]

I dunno. While outcome and opportunities are undoubtedly correlated with zipcode, I am less sure that zipcode alone can be pinpointed as cause. Seems like you risk just moving all the problems. I'd like to see a pilot program prove me wrong before implementing such a heavy-handed, broad-reaching plan.

Now, I would be all for de-coupling property taxes with school funding. The disparity in per-student spending within a single town is absolutely appalling, and, I think, unjust. A solution like that would get closer to the real issue, IMO.

[OfficialPlanner]

Now, I would be all for de-coupling property taxes with school funding. The disparity in per-student spending within a single town is absolutely appalling, and, I think, unjust. A solution like that would get closer to the real issue, IMO.

Another interesting topic! About 15-years ago, the Province of Ontario modified the way school districts were funded. IIRC, taxation powers were taken away from the school boards and replaced by a provincial wide funding formula, with the theory it would result in more equitable funding for education.

This City Data thread caught my eye the other day. A question was asked about good schools districts in the Toronto area which prompted an interesting side discussion. It starts about half way down on the first page of the thread.

I remember a dirty two-week long teachers' strike, when the law was proposed. Legislation had to be passed to order the teachers back to work before it ended. Teacher unions can be a very powerful lobby and tend to support the status quo.

[mgk920]

What is the plan if neighborhoods are found to be discriminatory based on that, a federal agent ordering that you cannot move into a neighborhood area, or even ordering some people to move out of it, because it is too (insert ethnicity here)?

IMHO, this is just more of the failed 'equality of outcome/result' thing that has, often disastrously, been discredited over and over again - it only serves to bring everyone down. I am all for 'equality of opportunity', which is a totally different and very egalitarian concept. Our system was founded on the freedom of pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.



Mike

[Gedunker]

Affirmatively further fair housing is nothing really new, although the rule proposed might have some effect on actually eliminating some of the impediments to fair housing opportunity that CDBG grantees have been identifying for years. (Fair housing is one of the hats I get to wear.) I think American Enterprise Institute and other Neo-Con groups should remember that their party got drubbed in the recent elections by blacks, Hispanics, and women. Exactly the folks that benefit from Fair Housing laws.

Or maybe that's why Faux News are sounding the trumpets about this horrible new ogre of Liberalism.

[smccutchan1]

Many, if not most, communities use zoning to keep out "undesirables". I don't believe that they necessarily mean "undesirables" to be ethnic minorities and people of color, but when you look at statistics of which race and ethnic groups make up the poor and disadvantaged, they are overwhelming people of color. I believe that most people today would not consider themselves prejudice but would fight public or private attempts to change zoning to require housing diversity and, as a result, promote race and ethnic diversity in neighborhoods.

Typical zoning laws today and especially the way that they are implemented, promote keeping socio-economic classes separate in the name of keeping of housing values and stabilizing neighborhoods. This is de-facto segregation plain and simple. It looks like HUD has decided that its time to see if there is anything that can be done about it.

[mgk920]

Many, if not most, communities use zoning to keep out "undesirables". I don't believe that they necessarily mean "undesirables" to be ethnic minorities and people of color, but when you look at statistics of which race and ethnic groups make up the poor and disadvantaged, they are overwhelming people of color. I believe that most people today would not consider themselves prejudice but would fight public or private attempts to change zoning to require housing diversity and, as a result, promote race and ethnic diversity in neighborhoods.

Typical zoning laws today and especially the way that they are implemented, promote keeping socio-economic classes separate in the name of keeping of housing values and stabilizing neighborhoods. This is de-facto segregation plain and simple. It looks like HUD has decided that its time to see if there is anything that can be done about it.

Overturn Amber Realty v. City of Euclid?



Mike

[hilldweller]

I have a big problem with the federal government deciding what constitutes "fair" housing. If I community has a neighborhood zoned single-family is this unfair since multifamily is excluded?

[Suburb Repairman]

Oh man... this post just gave me the shakes... prepare for rant...

AFFH has been around for a long time, but has never really had anything resembling teeth to it. Most of the people working at HUD were clueless about what it actually means. It appears little has changed. The Texas CDBG program and particularly the disaster recovery program are essentially the testing ground for this rule, which they've been dabbling with for the last 4 years. You've got housing advocacy groups down here that were holding disaster funds hostage on the basis of AFFH (although in Galveston, it was for good reason since they were trying to ship all of the public housing off the island). They were trying to force these little towns of less than 10,000 people, decimated by a hurricane, to perform full-blown Analyses of Impediments.

I've long found the Analysis of Impediments process to be quite dubious--virtually ANY municipal regulation can be construed as detrimental to fair housing. Housing advocates & groups representing people of ethnicity often get suckered by homebuilders associations to say that any regulation that increases the cost of housing is a fair housing violation.

This is a real conversation I had with a housing advocate (head of the largest such group in Texas) and a "senior" HUD field officer:

Advocate: Conditions in rental housing are deplorable and this is adversely affecting low income individuals in protected classes. Conditions are substandard.

Me: Well, these addresses you gave me passed their HQS inspection.

HUD official with Ivy League education and no practical experience, who has clearly lived a life of white privelege and thinks his sophomore "urban sociology in sub-saharan African dictatorships" class from 10 years ago qualifies him to speak on socioecomomic issues like some kind of expert: Yep, that is correct. But under AFFH you can and should be doing more.

Me: That's why this city is recommending a rental registration & annual inspection program. They know much of the problem is absentee, out-of-town landlords with poor property management based on Study X that the city conducted under our supervision. This would allow us to really improve living conditions and improve entire neighborhoods.

Advocate: But that will cause rents to increase and drive these people into the streets!!! You're making the fair housing issues worse!!!

Me: You've got to be kidding. Come on HUD, back me up on this.

HUD Official: uhhhhhhh... I guess you are both correct. I really don't know.

Me: OK advocate, what would you have me do instead? What in your mind would comply with AFFH while also addressing the problem?

Advocate: That isn't our job. You come up with ideas, and we'll tell you what is OK and what isn't, and maybe take you to court.

Me: Jebus H. Christ! I'm on your side!!! Could you at least try to work collaboratively with our cities?! How 'bout you, HUD Official?

HUD Official: Yeah, here's a three decade old guidebook on AFFH...

Me: Thanks. I have access to HUDUSER just like you do and already have a copy of that useless booklet.



HUD and these supposed fair housing advocacy groups speak out of both sides of their mouth. Try to redevelop public housing sites and replace the units in a mixed income environment spread out over a larger area? Why you're just trying to get "those people" out of where they are so you can allow gentrification (and this was on a HOPE VI-style project). Try to rebuild public housing on the same site? You're concentrating poverty. The HUD officials I've worked with buy into both of those arguments, because they don't have the first clue what fair housing is or what is a legitimate impediment (they even buy into the "anything that increases housing costs is potentially an impediment" argument, even universal building codes like those published by the ICC). Yet they're the ones who will be enforcing this rule? AFFH and impediments analysis has been incredibly helpful in dealing with issues like redlining and financing, but have been wildly misguided when it comes to municipal regulations. Very few people at HUD, particularly in senior positions, know what the f*** they are doing.

I love the CDBG and HOME programs for what they are attempting to accomplish (and successful at when you are lucky enough to have a competent HUD official to work with), but from the inception of those and similar programs administered by HUD, HUD has NEVER been able to see the forest through the trees. It is a department that needs a thorough housecleaning and top-to-bottom reform. In my opinion, to work at HUD and provide oversight to CDBG, HOME and similar programs, one must first have at least 10 years of experience working for a city, county, state, CHDO or CDC administering these programs "on the ground and in the trenches."

I have a big problem with the federal government deciding what constitutes "fair" housing. If I community has a neighborhood zoned single-family is this unfair since multifamily is excluded?

Based on my experience, they would say it was unfair. If you then changed your ordinance to allow multifamily in single family, they would then turn around and say you were creating concentrations of poverty and trying to create ghettos.

[Guy905]

Has anyone discussed what the new initiative might do? Would HUD become more involved in planning? Here is part of the proposed rule from the Federal Register, and it is pretty vague.

"To facilitate this new approach, HUD will provide states, local governments, insular areas, and public housing agencies (PHAs), as well as the communities they serve, with data on patterns of integration and segregation; racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; access to education, employment, low-poverty, transportation, and environmental health, among other critical assets; disproportionate housing needs based on the classes protected under the Fair Housing Act; data on individuals with disabilities and families with children; and discrimination. From these data, program participants will evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues, identify the primary determinants that account for those issues, and set forth fair housing priorities and goals. The benefit of this approach is that these priorities and goals will then better inform program participant's strategies and actions by improving the integration of the assessment of fair housing through enhanced coordination with current planning exercises. This proposed rule further commits HUD to greater engagement and better guidance for program participants in fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. With this new clarity through guidance, a template for the assessment, and a HUD-review process, program participants should achieve more meaningful outcomes that affirmatively further fair housing."

https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...g-fair-housing