Civil Rights and Housing Advocates Rally at Supreme Court in Support of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

sc

On January 21, 2015,  as oral arguments began, representatives from organizations which filed amicus briefs, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the National Fair Housing Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union, rallied in front of the Supreme Court about the case Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

With this case, the justices will probably decide this summer on a key component of the Fair Housing Act,   disparate impact,  a theory which safeguards the right to a fair shot for everyone. Where you live determines where you work and how you get there, your access to healthcare, and the school your child attends. Unfortunately, policies and practices still exist that – intentionally or unintentionally – keep some people out of housing they can afford simply because of who they are.

While the country has made great strides in advancing fairness in the housing sector, segregation persists and there is still more work to be done. Everyone benefits from a housing market free from discrimination where the full participation of all Americans is possible.Additionally, from a business standpoint the disparate impact theory helps us maintain open markets free from discrimination – a critical component to the prosperity of America’s future. Discrimination disrupts our economy, causing inefficiency and instability by constraining the full economic participation of all hard-working Americans.

Examples of Disparate Impact:

  • An apartment complex only allows people with full-time jobs. This bars disabled veterans and other people with disabilities who may not be able to work full-time, even though they can afford the apartment. The complex could instead consider all income to assess someone’s ability to afford rent.

  • A city decides to prohibit all housing that would be affordable to working-class people, and that has the effect of excluding most or all people of color in that region. If the city cannot show a valid reason for its policy, or if a more fair and effective alternative is available, then the policy would have to be set aside under the disparate impact approach.

  • A lender has a policy of allowing its loan officers to overcharge consumers at the loan officer’s discretion. The result is that women are charged higher prices than their male counterparts-even though both have the same credit profiles. In a case like this, the lender would have to abandon the discretionary pricing policy and take steps to insure that women are not over-charged for lending products and services.

U.S. BANK ACCUSED OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE MAINTENANCE OF FORECLOSED PROPERTIES IN PALM BEACH COUNTY

16

This pool at this USBank property in a non-white community in Palm Beach County poses a danger to kids

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the National Fair Housing Alliance,  Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches and two other member organizations announced new evidence of housing discrimination by Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank.  The civil rights groups allege that U.S. Bank fails to maintain and market bank-owned foreclosures (also known as real estate owned or REO properties) in African American and Latino neighborhoods to the same standard as in White neighborhoods, a practice that violates the federal Fair Housing Act.

The complaint was initially filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in October 2012.  Evidence gathered from 2010 through September 2014 documents an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination by U.S. Bank.  New evidence of discrimination continues to emerge, so NFHA and its partners are amending the original complaint for the third time.  Currently, NFHA and its partners have investigated 489 REOs owned by U.S. Bank in 41 cities across the United States.

 “U.S. Bank has made a practice of not maintaining its foreclosures in neighborhoods of color,” said Shanna L. Smith, President and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance.  “The foreclosure crisis hit these middle- and working-class communities hardest, and what we’re seeing now is an illegal pattern of neglect that lowers property values, creates safety and health risks for neighbors, and contributes to community blight.  City governments and people living next to U.S. Bank foreclosures simply ask that the bank conduct routine maintenance, such as keeping the grass cut, securing windows and doors, and clearing debris and trash from the lawn and porch.  U.S. Bank must be held accountable for its discrimination and adhere to basic standards of maintenance in every neighborhood.”

The fair housing organizations investigated the maintenance and marketing of bank-owned foreclosed homes for 39 different types of deficiencies, including broken windows and doors, broken and obstructed gutters and downspouts, accumulated trash, overgrown lawns and shrubs, no “for sale” signs, and other issues that affect curb appeal, the security of the home, and the value of the property.

 This third amended complaint adds data from investigations in Palm Beach County, Denver, Colo., Minneapolis, Minn., and Orlando, Fla.  

 The overall complaint encompasses neighborhoods in 19 metro regions.  The three organizations joining NFHA in submitting new evidence of discrimination are Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches (Palm Beaches), Denver Metro Fair Housing Center (Denver), and Fair Housing Continuum, Inc. (Orlando).

 “U.S. Bank is liable for the differences in treatment between white neighborhoods and Latino and African American neighborhoods.  U.S. Bank likes to say that it is simply the trustee for the homes and not the servicer, but U.S. Bank knows the Fair Housing Act makes owners, even trustees, accountable under the law,” said Shanna Smith. 

“People in Greater Palm Beaches work hard to keep their neighborhoods safe and vibrant,” said Vince Larkins, President and CEO of Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches.  “The damage that U.S. Bank has inflicted on these neighborhoods is shocking.  Would you want to live next to a house littered with trash and infested with rodents?  Floridians certainly don’t.”

The groups found that U.S. Bank properties in communities of color had excessive trash, unsecured doors and windows, overflowing mail, and overgrown lawns, while most U.S. Bank properties in predominantly white communities did not.  These problems require simple fixes and are the responsibility of the bank and its contractors.”U.S. Bank must take measures to address this clear disparity in upkeep,” said David Baade, President and CEO of Fair Housing Continuum.  “We found homes infested with fleas and carpenter ants creating health issues for neighbors and certainly deterring buyers from considering the house. Orlando deserves better.”

“We saw these differences again and again in African American and Latino neighborhoods in Denver,” said Arturo Alvarado, Executive Director of the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center. “If U.S. Bank can mow lawns, secure doors, and clear gutters in White neighborhoods, it can do it anywhere.  There is simply no excuse for this discriminatory behavior.”The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status, as well as on the race or national origin of residents of a neighborhood.  This law applies to housing and housing-related activities, which include the maintenance, appraisal, listing, marketing, and selling of homes.

Additional statistics and photos are available at www.nationalfairhousing.org.

CITY-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR U.S. BANK

Full data available at www.nationalfairhousing.org

Greater Palm Beaches, Fla.:

  • 50.0% of REO properties in communities of color had more than 10 maintenance or marketing deficiencies while none of the REO properties in White communities had more than 10 deficiencies.

  • 50.0% of REO properties in communities of color had broken or boarded windows while none of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem.  

Denver, Colo.:

  • REO properties in communities of color were 2.6 times more likely to have overgrown or dead shrubbery on the premises compared to REO properties in White communities (21.4% of REO properties in communities of color had overgrown or dead shrubbery while only 8.3% of REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same deficiency).

  • REO properties in communities of color were 3.4 times more likely to have broken or boarded windows compared to REO properties in White communities (28.6% of REO properties in communities of color had broken or boarded windows while only 8.3% of REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem).

Minneapolis, Minn.:

  • REO properties in communities of color were 4.4 times more likely to have an unsecured, broken, or boarded door compared to REO properties in White communities (44.4% of REO properties in communities of color had an unsecured, broken, or boarded door while only 10.0% of REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem).

  • REO properties in communities of color were 2.8 times more likely to have holes in the structure of the property compared to REO properties in White communities (27.8% of REO properties in communities of color had holes in the structure while only 10.0% of REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem).

Orlando, Fla.:

  • REO properties in communities of color were 1.7 times more likely than REO properties in White communities to have 15 or more maintenance or marketing deficiencies (50.0% of REO properties in communities of color had 15 or more maintenance or marketing deficiencies, while only 30.0% of REO properties in predominantly White communities had 15 or more maintenance or marketing deficiencies).

  • REO properties in communities of color were 1.6 times more likely to have broken or boarded windows compared to REO properties in White communities (65.0% of REO properties in communities of color had broken or boarded windows, while only 40.0% of REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem).

National Fair Housing Alliance:

Founded in 1988, the National Fair Housing Alliance is a consortium of more than 220 private, non-profit fair housing organizations, state and local civil rights agencies, and individuals from throughout the United States.  Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the National Fair Housing Alliance, through comprehensive education, advocacy, and enforcement programs, provides equal access to apartments, houses, mortgage loans, and insurance policies for all residents in the nation.

 

Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches:

The FHC is a full service, community-based fair housing agency which provides comprehensive Fair Housing Services throughout the State of Florida.  The FHC is the only agency in Palm Beach County whose sole purpose is the eradication of one of the last vestiges of “Jim Crow” in our society today, housing discrimination.

Denver Metro Fair Housing Center:

The Denver Metro Fair Housing Center is a private non-profit fair housing enforcement agency serving 6 Denver Metro Counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson.  DMFHC is dedicated to eliminating housing discrimination and promoting housing choice through education, advocacy, and enforcement of fair housing laws.  DMFHC accepts complaints from individuals and families who believe they have been discriminated against in their pursuit of housing.  DMFHC investigates the complaints and assists clients in finding the best remedies to their fair housing issues.

Fair Housing Continuum:

The Fair Housing Continuum, Inc. is a private non-profit fair housing agency dedicated entirely to the elimination of housing discrimination in Florida, serving Brevard, Indian River, Seminole, Osceola, Orange and Volusia Counties.

 

FHC Files First Amended Complaint in Federal Lawsuit for Housing Bias Against Families with Children

Law-Legal-Court-Generic-Web-Graphic_20100616142335_320_240

The Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches (FHC) has filed it’s first amended complaint to protect families with children from illegal housing practices in Palm Beach County.

Last May the FHC filed a lawsuit alleging that Sonoma Bay Community Homeowners Association, Emanuel Management Services, LLC, Marsh Harbour Maintenance Association, Inc., Prestige Quality Management, LLC, and related entities and individuals discriminate in their policies and practices by unnecessarily and unfairly imposing burdensome requirements and restrictions on families with children.

Since that time fourteen individuals, who allege to have been harmed, have come forward as a result of the FHC’s ongoing efforts to assist victims and repair the damage done to our greater community. All fourteen have been added to the amended complaint. In addition,  four more individuals and companies have been named as defendants as a result of the FHC’s ongoing campaign to counteract and deter these alleged illegal practices.

In March of 2013, the FHC discovered several advertisements listing  a unit in the Sonoma Bay condominium development with the statement: “HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION REQUIREMENTS” report cards for children under 18. FHC undercover testing confirmed the requirement. The FHC subsequently learned of similar policies and/or practices at the Marsh Harbour condominium development and conducted testing confirming the same or similar policies and/or practices as those at Sonoma Bay.

The lawsuit, which has drawn nationwide attention, challenges the use of rental applications that require prospective tenants to submit report cards for persons under the age of 18 years old.  A sundown curfew on persons under the age of 18 requires them to be inside or on their patios after sundown.

In the amended complaint the FHC and new individuals allege that these policies and practices have the effect of penalizing families with children that allow their children to play outside, cause psychological harm and have adverse physical effects on children who reside in these developments by restricting their ability to freely play outside.

It further states: “These policies and practices are unsound and unjustified and are applicable only to families with children. As such, the challenged policies and practices are discriminatory and unjustified and in violation of federal and state fair housing laws.”

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Cyrus Mehri, Karla Gilbride and Pia Winston of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, a Washington, D.C. law firm, and Ayesa Phillips of Ford & Phillips, P.L. in Hollywood, Florida.


HOUSING GROUP CHARGES RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AT MIAMI APARTMENT COMPLEX

HOPE_FHC_Logo

 

A lawsuit filed by a fair housing group claims race-based discrimination at Elite River View Apartments, a Miami apartment complex.

BY NADEGE GREEN AND CHABELI HERRERA                                                                                                                                                                                           MIAMI HERALD

When Zipporah Hayes arrived at Elite River View Apartments to ask about a two-bedroom apartment for rent, the rental manager told her there were no units available, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the apartment complex owner.

Two hours later, Alexandra Del Rosario visited the same complex and asked about an apartment. The rental manager showed Del Rosario Penthouse 703. If approved, he said, “she can move in anytime.”

Hayes is African-American. Del Rosario is Hispanic.

A Miami-based fair housing organization — Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence (HOPE) — has filed a lawsuit against the apartment complex at 1750 NW 27 Ave., after “testing” the apartment complex three times from February to March. HOPE was checking to see whether the apartment complex had a pattern of renting units based on race — a discriminatory practice forbidden by the federal Fair Housing Act

HOPE, partially funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, conducts random, periodic discrimination testing.

Last week, HOPE and three African-American testers filed a federal lawsuit naming Elite River View Apartment Inc. and the manager Roberto “Doe” as defendants. The complaint alleges on three separate dates African-American testers were given the same message: no units were available. An hour or two later, a Hispanic tester would arrive and Roberto would show them available apartments.

“I am saddened and sickened at the same time,” said HOPE president Keenya Robertson. “We are 46 years past the Fair Housing Act that prohibits housing discrimination and we are still seeing the same kind of discriminatory activity. Racism is alive and well.”

Rolando Barrero, owner of Elite River View Apartments, did not respond to requests for comment. The rental manager, who would only give his first name as Roberto, said Elite River View Apartments welcomes all renters.

Roberto said he gives tours of the complex when units are available and tells prospective tenants apartments are given on a first-come-first-serve basis.

“I don’t discriminate or have preference for anyone,” Roberto said in Spanish. He declined to comment when pressed on the specific allegations about him telling prospective African-American renters that there were no available units, yet showing vacant units to a Hispanic person.

Here are the details, according to the HOPE lawsuit:

On March 13, Michael Goldwire, an African-American tester, visited the Elite River View Apartment office. The office was closed, so Goldwire called a posted telephone number for the manager. He spoke to a man named Roberto and asked to see a two-bedroom apartment. Roberto responded there weren’t any apartments available.

The lawsuit alleges Roberto knew Goldwire was African-American because of the surveillance cameras at the secured entrance.

Two hours later, Eugenio Reyes, a Hispanic tester, arrived and went inside the complex where he met Roberto. Roberto identified himself as the manager and janitor. Reyes asked to see a two-bedroom apartment. Roberto showed him Apartment 702.

On March 20, Lakeisha Wright, another African-American tester, knocked on the apartment complex’s office door. When she received no answer, she called the manager’s number. Roberto answered, telling her no units were available.

Just over an hour later, Laura Morales, a Hispanic tester, arrived at the complex and called Roberto, who met her in the parking lot and greeted her in Spanish. At her request, Roberto showed Morales a two-bedroom apartment, unit 703.

The plaintiffs are represented by Randall Berg Jr. and Dante Trevisani, civil rights attorneys at the Florida Justice Institute in Miami.

Berg said if not for these types of testing, most people wouldn’t know they were being discriminated against based on their race.

“Doing this type of testing is very important,” he said. “It’s very depressing for someone of color to know you are being denied housing on the basis of your skin. Miami is considered a major up and coming area. If we are going to become the type of community we want Miami to be, we have to end this practice once and for all.”

For more on this story Click on the “H.O.P.E., Inc.” icon above.

 

Copyright © Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches 2013. All Rights Reserved. 1-877-910-FAIR (3247)
Translate »