A Black Family’s Home was Too Close to a White School. So D.C. Took it in 1931.

 

A documentary Diminished Returns: The Black Wealth Gap in Washington, D.C. has been released examining the travails of the Black Julien family and similar stories to explain the huge wealth gap between Black and White Washington. The film was written and directed by Dr. Sabiyha Prince and executive produced by Temi F. Bennett. The documentary, which debuted in the District in 2024, is a product of iF, A Foundation for Radical Possibility. The documentary features District leaders such as D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (I-At Large), historian G. Derek Musgrove, and anti-mass incarceration activist Tony Lewis Jr., talking about how the racial wealth gap negatively impacts Blacks economically, politically, and socially.

The Black Julien family - direct descendants of George and Martha Washington’s enslaved maid - had 0.38 acres of land and a house on Broad Branch Road in Northwest Washington. In the spot where it once stood is now a basketball court. It was taken from the family by the federal government’s D.C. Commission in 1931. Because they were Black. “The Presence of this house, with its colored occupants, so close to a white school is a source of possible friction that is thought desirable to remove,” Assistant Engineer Commissioner H.L. Robb explained in the Evening Star.  They were not evicted because the new School needed the space: the new all-White Lafayette School was nearly constructed when the family was told to leave, and it was made clear why. This was the end of Chevy Chase as a thriving Black neighborhood.

The filmmakers examine the way these forced evictions and continuing housing discrimination have left the District’s White households with 81 times the median savings and assets as its Black households, a 2016 report showed. “It’s happening all over the country,” said Prince. “It’s repeated, and it has devastating impacts on the economies of Black households and what they can hand down to their progeny moving forward, right? Because that’s a key way in which people accumulate wealth, through inheritances,” Prince said. History and data show that lack of consideration for equity over centuries created the wealth gap. 

The film makes the argument for giving reparations to families such as the Juliens in D.C. to right this wrong. And the filmmakers believe the nation’s capital is the best place to do this because there is a precedent. On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the “Act for the Release of certain Persons held to Service or Labor within the District of Columbia.”  That paid former enslavers $300 for every person who was emancipated - 3,100 in total. That cost the U.S. government $930,000, almost $30 million today.

In total, the Julien family was forced out three times. In addition to the Broad Branch Road incident, Black homes part of “Freedman’s Village,” built for emancipated people to restart their lives in 1863, were seized in 1900 with the land incorporated into Arlington National Cemetery. Another was after Julien’s family moved to Irving Street in Northwest Washington but was displaced when a school was built there, Julien said in an oral history interview with the Historic Chevy Chase D.C. The historic society currently has an educational project "Black Land Loss: Chevy Chase DC in the Arc of American History: Tracing a Black Enclave from the 18th to the 21st Centuries."

When the Diminished Returns documentary was being made in 2023, the D.C. Council was getting ready to act on landmark legislation, the “Reparations Foundation Fund and Task Force Establishment Act,” that would create a group to study reparation proposals. Renamed the “Insurance Database Amendment Act,” it is not yet codified but projected to become effective on March 6, 2025.

Read the February 28, 2025 Washington Post article.

Read the December 4, 2024 Washington Informer article.

Housing Rights Initiative Files Massive Discrimination Case After Testing Finds Rampant Housing Discrimination Across Chicago Area

 

The Housing Rights Initiative (HRI) has filed a series of 176 complaints against 165 real estate agents, brokerages, and landlords in Chicago. The group claims that this is the largest housing discrimination case in Illinois history. The lawsuits are the result of an undercover investigation conducted by HRI. In total, the housing watchdog group filed 176 complaints against 165 defendants with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Defendants in the suit include major brokerage companies such as Coldwell Banker, Christie’s International Real Estate, Keller Williams, and Berkshire Hathaway Home Services Chicago.

HRI is represented in these complaints by two public interest law firms, Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC and Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, and by Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a national nonprofit disability rights legal center with offices in Chicago, Berkeley, and New York.

An HRI testing project found that real estate professionals often declined to rent Chicago-area properties to investigators posing as low-income families. The HRI claimed that real estate agents, brokerage firms and landlords discriminated against prospective renters who sought to use vouchers provided through the federal rental assistance program known as Section 8. A group of investigators went undercover last year as prospective tenants, contacting hundreds of brokers and landlords by text message to determine whether they were complying with the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with housing vouchers. The group found that voucher holders were explicitly discriminated against about 36% of the time, according to a statement issued by the HRI. A range of real estate heavyweights were among the firms that allegedly broke the law.

Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Illinois Human Rights Act in 2022 (HB 2775), making it illegal for landlords, brokers, and agents to discriminate against housing applicants looking to use Section 8 or disability vouchers to help pay their rent. This historic filing builds upon that foundation by holding discriminatory real estate companies accountable and sending a message that landlords cannot refuse to rent to qualified low-income families in Illinois.

Peter Romer-Friedman, founder of one of the law firms (PRF Law) that filed the complaints, said the measure was drafted to “fill the gap” of the Fair Housing Act, a federal law that does not protect against so-called source of income discrimination. He said some of the complaints could be brought to court.

Emily Roznowski, DRA Staff Attorney, commented: “People with disabilities make up a disproportionate share of housing choice voucher holders. HRI’s investigation and the complaints filed today will ensure that people with disabilities in Illinois have access to the decent, safe, and accessible affordable housing of their choice. No one should be turned away from renting an apartment based on their source of income, whether that income comes from a voucher or Social Security Disability Insurance.”

Read the January 20,2025 WBEZ Chicago article.

Read the January2025 PRF Law article.

20 Boston-area landlords & property companies sued for discrimination

Housing Rights Initiative (HRI), a nonprofit housing watchdog group, has sued 20 Boston-area property companies and real estate brokers for allegedly discriminating against low-income tenants. The lawsuit, brought by the Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) and Handley Farah & Anderson, alleges landlords and brokers refused to rent to tenants with government-subsidized housing vouchers - which is illegal in Massachusetts. This is the first of its kind in Massachusetts.

LCR said in a statement that HRI used "testers" to act as prospective tenants requesting information about apartments. The companies and brokers at first "responded positively" to the inquiries, but then allegedly refused to accept housing vouchers, often called "Section 8" vouchers. Discrimination against voucher-holders continues patterns of de facto racial segregation among Boston neighborhoods, as residents of color thus must use housing subsidies solely in low-income areas with fewer public resources than predominant white neighborhoods.

The suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, includes photos of alleged conversations in which landlords and property brokers appear to tell prospective tenants they do not accept the vouchers. "One takeaway from our year-long investigation is that housing discrimination is alive and well in Boston," said Aaron Carr, HRI founder and executive director. He said the defendants named in the suit represent only "the tip of a very discriminatory iceberg," claiming many other landlords and brokers engage in similar practices.

The trade association MassLandlords commented that the state should provide better training to landlords on navigating housing laws and help simplify the process of renting to those with housing vouchers. None of the defendants appear to be members of the association.

HRI has brought similar lawsuits against real estate companies in New York City. "This is a national issue," Carr said, "but in Boston it seems particularly pronounced, which makes sense because Boston has a very tight market and in tight markets a lot of times you see shenanigans like this one."

*****

Read the February 21, 2024 WBUR article.

Click here to download the complaint.

Despite Milwaukee Anti-Discrimination Law, Landlords Continue to Explicitly Reject Section 8 Applicants

 

Milwaukee County in 2018 banned landlords from categorically rejecting recipients of housing assistance. More than five years later the county’s Office of Corporation Counsel, which is supposed to enforce the protections, says it has yet to receive a verified complaint of such discrimination. That’s not for a lack of discrimination, a Wisconsin Watch investigation found. Some landlords continue to explicitly reject Section 8 applicants — even saying so in public listings. Four Section 8 renters told Wisconsin Watch no one informed them about the protections or how to file a complaint.

Moreover, Milwaukee County officials now question whether they can enforce the provision. Income-based discrimination is the law in Wisconsin and 21 other states to various degrees. However, income-based protections in Wisconsin’s Open Housing Act allow landlords to refuse vouchers, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995. Milwaukee County Chief Corporation Counsel Margaret Daun told Wisconsin Watch her office questions whether the county has legal authority to enforce the ordinance.

Milwaukee County and the city of Milwaukee operate separate housing agencies that distribute Section 8 vouchers, with the majority coming through the city. Only the county’s authority mentions the 2018 protections in information packets meant to help renters navigate the program. Neither packet says how to report income-based discrimination to the county.

Section 8, the federal government’s largest low-income housing subsidy program, serves 2.3 million households nationwide, including more than 16,500 people in Milwaukee County in 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

It aims to broaden housing access for participants, but renters and housing advocates say landlords outside of historically disinvested neighborhoods rarely rent to people with vouchers — one of many factors limiting opportunities in Milwaukee and nationwide, particularly people of color.

Throughout the Milwaukee metro area, 85% of families of color holding vouchers lived in minority-concentrated neighborhoods — areas where just 38% of rental units were considered voucher-affordable, the analysis found.

Read the January 31, 2024 Wisconsin Watch article.

HUD Charges Hawaii Condominium Association with Disability Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is charging individuals and entities associated with a Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, condominium complex, including the condominium association, employees of the condominium association, the property management company, an employee of the property management company, the condominium unit’s owners, and the owners’ real estate broker with discriminating against a resident because of disability. Read HUD’s Charge. HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the property’s condominium association and its employees, the property’s management company and its employees, and the condominium unit’s owners and their real estate agent, prevented the resident from using a temporary ramp to safely access his unit, from accessing a parking space that would allow him to load and unload his wheelchair, and from replacing a toilet at the resident’s own expense to allow him complete use of his unit. Because they failed to do so, the resident was often unable to access or use his unit and forced to sleep in his vehicle. Ultimately, their actions resulted in the resident’s decision to revoke his offer to purchase the unit and move out of the unit, which he was renting while the sale was in escrow. A U.S. Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s charge unless any party elects to have the case heard in Federal district court. If the Administrative Law Judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the resident for his losses as a result of the discrimination, order injunctive relief and other equitable relief to deter further discrimination, and payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the Federal court hears the case, the Judge may also award punitive damages to the resident. In related news, the Pacific ADA Center recently noted that the U. S. Department of Justice just settled with some Hawaii apartment builders over disability discrimination. The developer and others were accused of not designing and building five multifamily housing complexes with the required accessible features. The agreement requires the companies to pay a fine and make changes to their properties, such as adding ramps, accessible parking, and making apartments easier for people with disabilities to enter and use. Read more about the lawsuit that is making these rental properties accessible.  Read the October 30, 2023 Pacific ADA Center article. Read the December 18, 2023 HUD press release.

Public Comment Period Extended for Proposal to Remove Criminal Conviction Restrictions for Fair Housing Testers

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has extended the public comment date for its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would remove criminal conviction restrictions for fair housing testers by 9 days, to January 11, 2024. To do this, HUD has submitted a notice to the Federal Register, which can be found here.

This is part of the Biden administration’s government-wide initiative to give criminals a second chance.  Besides making HUD programs as inclusive as possible for criminals, HUD says the proposed rule will ensure that it can “fully investigate criminal background screening policies that are potentially discriminatory under federal civil rights laws by using testers with actual criminal backgrounds.”

HUD published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on October 31, 2023, and provided for a 60-day public comment period. The proposed rule aims to eliminate the agency’s restrictions on the use of fair housing testers with prior felony convictions or certain other convictions - such as prior felony, fraud, or perjury convictions - by nonprofit Fair Housing agencies. Fair housing testers provide invaluable support to HUD and HUD’s fair housing partners by taking part in housing transactions to screen for discrimination. The original announcement of the proposed rule can be found here.

HUD has received feedback from multiple interested persons requesting additional time to review the rule and provide comments. For example, Judicial Watch has summarized "Even those who agree with second chances may reasonably question if convicted felons should participate in federal investigations. " In response to these requests, HUD has extended the public comment period for 9 days, to January 11, 2024. HUD continues to invite all interested parties and members of the public to submit their views, comments, and recommendations for improvement in HUD’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Comments may be submitted electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/document/HUD-2023-0091-0001 or through the methods described in the proposed rule.

Read the December 7, 2023 HUD press release.

Read the November 6, 2023 Judicial Watch article.

Photo Credit: Photo by Tia Cunningham on Unsplash.

  

HUD Settlement Requires Oklahoma Landlord to Pay $300,000 to Discrimination Victims

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement-Conciliation Agreement (VCA-CA) that requires Cushing Housing Inc. to pay $300,000 to individuals, including former tenants, that were subjected to housing discrimination at Cushing’s property. Read the agreement.

The agreement stems from a complaint filed by tenants alleging Cushing Housing violated civil rights laws when it failed to address serious, racially motivated harassment that denied them the ability to peacefully enjoy their housing. The harassment was so severe that it left them fearful of leaving their apartment and took a substantial toll on their mental health. The VCA-CA resolves HUD’s October 26, 2022 Letter of Findings which found respondents discriminated against the tenants in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

HUD’s investigation found that residents began harassing the complainants, a White mother and daughter, when the daughter began dating a Black man and was seen with this man at the property. HUD’s investigation found that complainants repeatedly notified Cushing Housing of this harassment, but that Cushing Housing failed to take any steps to address it. The pervasive harassment included calling the complainants racial slurs and threatening racially motivated violence. Despite being on notice of this harassment, Cushing failed to take prompt and effect steps reasonably calculated to end it, instead ultimately issuing a notice to vacate to both the complainant mother as well as the harassers, which HUD found to be unlawful retaliation against the mother for the reporting racial harassment.

In addition to the $300,000 payment to complainants and an aggrieved individual, the agreement requires Cushing Housing: (1) to establish an anti-harassment policy as well as a fair housing and civil rights compliance policy which must be made available to all tenants and include formal grievance procedures, and (2) to obtain fair housing and civil rights training for all officers, agents, and employees.

Read the December 11, 2023 HUD press release.

 Push for Fair Housing Education on November 14th

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have teamed up for a social media campaign to raise awareness of housing discrimination and highlight the importance of fair housing across the country.    NCRC will lead a #FairHousingMatters #WelcomeME Social Storm on November 14, all day across all platforms, to spark wider public interest in fair housing.    Here is a toolkit with sample graphics and social posts to help you post during the social storm.   The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and other housing-related activities because of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, familial status, or disability. If you or someone you know has experienced housing discrimination, please contact @NCRC immediately for assistance. #fairhousingmatters #welcomeme https://www.ncrc.org/fh/