|
Info about Fair Housing in Maryland - including housing discrimination, hate crimes, affordable housing, disabilities, segregation, mortgage lending, & others. http://www.gbchrb.org. 443.347.3701.
|
|
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s Conciliation Agreement under the Fair Housing Act between the Metropolitan Management Corporation and Lancaster Court Associates and a family of former tenants resolves allegations that the housing providers discriminated against the family when terminating their lease because a member of the family had a second child. Under the Fair Housing Acts, it is illegal to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, national origin, disability, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), and familial status.
The agreement stems from a complaint alleging that Metropolitan Management Corporation and Lancaster Court Associates violated the Fair Housing Act by having an overly rigid occupancy policy that discriminated based on familial status. The complaint alleges that when a baby was born to a family of four, the landlord terminated the family’s lease for a two-bedroom unit because of their discriminatory occupancy policy.
“No tenant should be subjected to housing discrimination based on their familial status or family status as some call it” said Demetria L. McCain, Principal Deputy Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “This agreement demonstrates HUD’s commitment to enforcing the Fair Housing Act and making sure all families have access to fair and inclusive housing.”
Under the terms of the agreement, Metropolitan Management Corporation and Lancaster Court Associates will pay $70,000 to the tenants, attend fair housing training, develop an occupancy policy conforming with the Fair Housing Act, and train their staff on the new occupancy policy.
People who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 877-8339 (Relay) or at hud.gov/fairhousing.
Read the April 29, 2024 HUD press release.
Schwemm is the Ashland-Spears Distinguished Research Professor of Law and William L. Matthews, Jr. Professor of Law at the College of Law, University of Kentucky. He also is author of the encyclopedic standard Housing Discrimination: Law and Litigation (West Group, 2001 and updated annually by Clark Boardman Callaghan).
Arlington Heights (Illinois) was an exclusionary zoning case, one of many such cases brought in the 1970s that challenged local land-use practices blocking subsidized housing projects for racial minorities who were underrepresented in the area. Passage of the FHA in 1968 stimulated more of this type of litigation. Since then, many exclusionary zoning cases have been filed, and, as the Supreme Court noted in 2015, they make up the basis of this type of FHA claim. Arlington Heights is the most important of these cases.
In the 50 years since the case, the Village of Arlington Heights has become a more diverse and welcoming community that recently elects Democratic candidates. But residents of these type of "high-opportunity" communities have generally continued to oppose any subsidized housing projects. Exclusionary zoning remains a battleground today, as occasional FHA-based actions generally have failed - and continue to fail - to overcome more powerful social and economic forces that encourage affluent suburbs to use zoning to exclude affordable housing.
There have been positive developments since the Arlington Heights case that could influence future desegregation. The link between where you live and your financial, social, and medical life chances has been solidly established by much research. Also, bans on “source-of-income” discrimination have been added to many state and local fair housing laws that the majority of Americans now live in jurisdictions with such a ban. Though mainly designed to guarantee voucher-holders access to more rental opportunities, these source-of-income laws have also been used to challenge exclusionary zoning.
*****
Source: April edition of Poverty & Race by the Poverty & Race Research Action Council
(PRRAC).
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||