Reinstating the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation is an essential step the Biden Administration must take to restore critical housing protections for all.
By Jennifer Bellamy
Equal access to housing is a civil right, but systemic racism within our housing institutions has long kept communities of color from accessing fair housing opportunities. The Fair Housing Act with its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing provision (AFFH) is a critical piece of legislation that aims to address our country’s legacy of systemic racism, by dismantling housing discrimination and segregation. But during Trump’s presidency, they came under attack. Now, the Biden administration must work to restore important housing protections to ensure all people have equal access to fair housing.
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was a key part of Congress’ response to a report commissioned by President Johnson to investigate civil unrest in Black and Brown communities between 1965 and 1967. The Kerner Commission’s report warned Congress that “America is dividing into two societies, Black and White, separate and unequal.” It also named residential segregation, which relegated Black communities to crowded and under-resourced urban areas, as one of the primary manifestations of this inequality. After the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and in response to the report’s findings, Congress passed the Fair Housing Act in 1968 in an effort to curtail widespread 
segregation and discrimination in housing and protect marginalized communities from discrimination when purchasing or renting a home.
Congress also used the Fair Housing Act to charge the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to use its programs to “affirmatively further” fair housing. With this provision, Congress intended for HUD to take active steps to dismantle housing segregation and to expand access to fair housing opportunities for everyone. While this obligation has been in the Fair Housing Act since 1968, there was no road map for jurisdictions to implement this requirement until HUD adopted the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation (AFFH). This 2015 rule established a community centered process for analyzing patterns and causes of segregation and neighborhood disparities that could serve as the basis for local jurisdictions to establish actionable steps for achieving fair housing goals.
While the 2015 AFFH rule made the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements of the Fair Housing Act enforceable, in July 2020, HUD rescinded the 2015 AFFH regulation and replaced it with the “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule. This regressive rule eliminated the requirement for jurisdictions to take active steps to end segregation and allows municipalities to decide for themselves whether they are “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” This removes any accountability and permits complacency among jurisdictions that have failed to take proactive steps to ensure fair housing opportunities are open to all.
We’re urging the Biden Administration to withdraw the Trump-era replacement for the AFFH rule and reinstate the 2015 AFFH regulation, which would require local jurisdictions to take active steps to end housing segregation and address systemic racism in housing. This includes requiring jurisdictions to:
- promote integration and ensure all neighborhoods are well-resourced and residents have equal access to opportunities;
- consider data analysis or public input on local patterns of segregation and integration;
- address disparities in access to community resources and amenities; and
- address discrimination and systemic racism.
Reinstating the 2015 AFFH regulation would mean that students now living in segregated, low income communities could have an opportunity to live in a neighborhood with better funded schools, families living in communities where they are more likely to be exposed to environmental toxins would have opportunities to live in healthier neighborhoods, and people living in communities that are food deserts would now have an opportunity to live in a neighborhood with access to grocery stores that sell fresh foods.
Leaving the “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule intact is a tacit endorsement by the Biden administration, and a signal that fair housing isn’t a priority. The administration must take action now to reinstate the 2015 AFFH regulation. This will combat housing segregation and provide families of color with equal access to safe and stable housing, thus advancing systemic equality across our nation.
Jennifer Bellamy is Senior Legislative Counsel For the ACLU
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
What does that mean exactly?
So, a few select people would have a opportunity to move to a ‘nice’ neighborhood, leaving everyone else in a place with poorly funded schools, environmental toxins, poor health and food deserts? How does moving a few people ‘out’ help? And would this then open up housing in places with poorly funded schools, environmental toxins, poor health and food deserts – to allow wealthier people displaced by those with opportunities to move to these neighborhoods and enjoy life in a food desert?
While explicit discrimination may still be impacting housing choices, changing this regulation and focusing on it as having a real impact is misguided. The real problem is two fold. Alan M has described well the first–the need to put resources into existing communities. The second is one that I’ve brought up before, which is segregation is now enforced by making housing prices unaffordable to less advantaged groups through zoning and growth control decisions. Black and Hispanic households have 10% – 15% of the average wealth for white and Asian households. That means that they can’t buy into those neighborhoods. It’s going to take a combination of significant policy decisions to change this circumstance.
A bigger factor would be the impact of certain industries (such as the technology industry), concentrated in certain areas. Which is now starting to disperse, as a result of permanent telecommuting. In reality, it doesn’t matter what “color” you are – as you’ll be effectively locked-out of those communities if you’re not part of that industry (or another related industry, such as real estate sales).
One only has to look at the accumulated wealth of the two wealthiest individuals in this country, to see the more extreme manifestations of this.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/367666
As far as the Vanguard article itself is concerned, it appears to be part of the same effort to “densify” cities – reportedly to ensure more diversity. The problem being (as you pointed out) that no financial analysis whatsoever has been put forth in support of that claim. When you purchase a parcel in San Francisco, for example – you might pay a couple of million dollars for a small lot alone, and THEN have to destroy the existing building, before incurring expenses of building a more-dense structure.
Better have that “pencil” ready, regarding penciling-out.
And then, there’s the problem that you and Alan pointed out, in that (even if the claim put forth in this article had validity), what would that do to communities “left behind”? Unless you move “everyone” out of the lower-income community, into the higher-income community. Which is ludicrous on the face of it – in more ways than one.
Right. Yeah. Sure…
Now there’s a persuasive comment.
Who do you think is moving to Tahoe, Truckee, etc.? The valley – not so much, most likely. Not the high-income folks.
It’s also not people of color trapped in concentrated poverty.
That’s right.
But the vastly unequal income is what creates the discrepancy.
Again, if you’re not part of that, you’ll be priced-out (regardless of skin color). I suspect that would include about half of Davis (including/especially “whites”). Permanently priced-out of much of the Bay Area.
That’s how our system works.
By the way, have you seen articles regarding the new freeway they’re building, toward El Dorado Hills? Along with the massive development they’re building there?
https://www.connectorjpa.net/
So basically any move that telecommuting creates is going to exacerbate rather than alleviate the problem. Because it’s not blue collar workers that can telecommute which is why we saw Blacks and Latinos hammered by COVID.
I believe that many non-white people commute from places like Manteca (or elsewhere), to the Bay Area. Our, from places within the Bay Area which are somewhat cheaper.
But yeah – some jobs require “in-person” attendance. But some of those jobs are increasingly automated, as well. Probably a reason that you’re seeing universal basic income taken seriously.
As far as the impacts of telecommuting, it’s likely a double-edged sword (creating more sprawl, but less commuting to work).
Then, there’s the rise of places like Austin. 🙂
The point is that this is not impacted by telecommuting. The issue is irrelevant to the issue of housing discrimination and segregation and may actually exacerbate it.
If it *may* exacerbate it, then (by definition) it is relevant. Especially as it comes to density efforts.
By the way, it’s not just the price of the house – it’s the taxes, CFDs, parcel taxes, insurance etc. I’m not sure that non-homeowners realize how much that can cost. It is essentially “permanent and increasing rent” for the property you own. The government is the only permanent entity that draws significant money from a property.
Ironically, it seems like the same people who advocate “building our way to affordability” (without ever defining that, or putting forth any analysis whatsoever – in regard to skin color or anything else) are the same folks who want to raise taxes/CFDs associated with housing for schools, or whatever else.
I suspect that issues such as eliminating on-site parking requirements (for builders) also exacerbates the trend toward sprawl. If you provide people with a chance to escape dense/expensive cities, they’ll generally do so – especially young families. But, they’re not the only ones.
I also suspect that a significant percentage of Davis homeowners would be priced-out of Davis itself (or places like El Dorado Hills), let alone the Bay Area. (If they were starting out now.)
By the way, have you seen the prices in Truckee, lately? Truly incredible. It’s as if the wealthier folks “skip over” the valley entirely, and created another Bay Area in the mountains. Actually, that’s kind of been the case for some time, but vastly accelerated now.
And the reason for that is because the valley kind of sucks, for those people. (Including Davis, to be honest.)
I agree with everything Ron O and Alan M wrote here in the comment section.
Others talk a good game but don’t offer any actual solutions, just more PC racial gobbledegook.
I see – so you agree with the conservatives and you disagree with the liberals. Shocking.
Let’s see, Davis in my right hand and Truckee in my left hand.
Yup, I’ll take the left.
May 6th, 2021: Dear Diary, this was the day that David Greenwald labeled me as a “conservative”. I won!
Seriously, D.G., you are I believe, the first person in my jack deuce Penelope decades on this planet to call me a conservative. What on Earth makes you think I’m a conservative? Maybe by the standards of “Little Berkeley of the Valley” I appear conservative if you are using a linear scale. You forget I’m not even on the line. I do not exist on the liberal – conservative spectrum; nor the democrat – republican spectrum. I’m on crystalline abyss circa astral plane 26 of the 7th dimension. But conservative? No.
Doth protest too much, Alan. On this issue there is not a lot of daylight between you and Keith.
So just because I might agree with Ron and Alan on this issue that somehow makes them conservatives? I don’t see them as conservatives, I see them both as being more middle of the road and willing to have diverse opinions depending on the subject matter. Unlike so many others on here.
The ‘doth’ tool of those who have run out of arguments.
I don’t even remember or care what the issue was. This is about you labeling people and throwing them into a box. If you’d like me to label you with a few choice words, I’d be more than happy to return your favor.
The doth tool is a brilliant insight into human nature that whenever someone protests too much it has struck a nerve. The original point that it was unsurprising that Keith would be siding with you and Ron over others on this issue where you guys have been in large agreement if not lockstep.
Just a reminder: there is a limitation on comments per article—five comments per article per commenter.
This high minded article might make things better on some level but there is something more tangible that we in Davis could do. If we recognize that the provincial arguments about internal needs perpetuates the discrimination from previous generations by advantaging those who inherit accumulated wealth that is not available to the families who were not able to accumulate home equity because of discrimination. We might then be better able to direct our housing programs in a more fair manner.
In Davis, where a lot of real estate is passed down through or purchased with intergenerational wealth, those who have been left out are already playing with a weaker hand. Adding restrictions about who our home building should be targeted for that favor locals only serves to benefit those that previous generations of discrimination also benefitted. Whether people recognized it or not its a sad truth.
RG, do you suppose Measure JeRkeD could be brought down by having developers who could benefit from building outside the city limits sue the City on the basis that the Measure is illegal in that it perpetuates racial disparities? We sure aren’t going to bring the putrid measure down by waiting 10 years for it to pass at 90% instead of 80% and clearly the Council will never take it on.
At last high-school reunion we now at the age most of those present had parents who passed. The issue came up of the “house lottery”. Some who’s parents held on to their house and didn’t drain the house value for medical needs (or other) were now multi-millionaires. Others had medical drain, or parents moved, or parents were renters in high school – and they were not. The differences were stark, and all based on circumstances and luck.
Yes I know, and racial disparities 🙁 . . . just pointing out that even within the largely WASP-ish class, vast disparities in inherited wealth.
Maybe there is a frontier of Davis landowner, who like Granny in Bugs Bunny, has piles of money to throw on the fire, but those I know have other opportunities to pursue. These are generally not people who go out looking to fight and waste a lot of money on lawyers. I think they would rather do other things and wait to pass the property on to the next generation when the development pressure will only be more intense.