ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Department of Housing and Urban Development”

LGBT

Landmark Study Finds Widespread Anti-Gay Housing Discrimination

By Josh Israel on Jun 18, 2013 at 2:45 pm

In the first study of its kind, a report by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found that same-sex couples experience unfavorable treatment in the online rental housing market as compared to opposite-sex couples. Across all 50 metropolitan areas studied, inquiries sent to housing providers advertising their rental properties on the Internet were significantly less likely to receive a response when the applicants were listed as a same-sex couple.

According to the report:

Same-sex couples are significantly less likely than heterosexual couples to get favorable responses to e-mail inquiries about electronically advertised rental housing. Comparing our gross measures of discrimination, heterosexual couples were favored over gay male couples in 15.9 percent of tests and over lesbian couples in 15.6 percent of tests.

While there is no federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, public accommodations, or housing, 20 states and more than 240 localities offer at least some protections against housing discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The study found that the rates of discrimination was very slightly higher in states with legal protections, but at least same-sex couples in those states have some legal recourse in those situations. And since the study only looked at state-level legislative protection and ignored local protections applying to municipalities, that statistic could be misleading.

Even though discrimination based on race in housing has been illegal nationally since the 1968 Fair Housing Act, African-Americans and other racial minorites are still facing discrimination. A recent HUD-Urban Institute study found realtors consistently show white buyers more homes than African-American and Asian-American buyers with similar credit qualifications and housing interests.

While legal protections are an important tool in the fight against discrimination, these studies show that they are only one part of a broader solution.

(HT: The Huffington Post)

Economy

Is The Supreme Court Preparing To Gut Protections Against Discrimination In Housing?

By Alan Pyke on Jun 17, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Photo Credit: Philly.com

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a case on the government’s standard for determining whether housing discrimination has occurred. The case that the justices agreed to hear in the fall involves the Philadelphia suburb of Mt. Holly, NJ, which is seeking to redevelop a poor, minority neighborhood into one with home prices more than five times as high.

Mt. Holly bought up all but 70 of the homes in a predominantly black and latino neighborhood called Mount Holly Gardens and began razing parts of the neighborhood to clear it for redevelopment. The plan would have replaced homes the town bought for $30,000-$50,000 with homes valued at $200,000-$250,000.

In February, the Obama administration officially made the theory of “disparate impact” the determining factor for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) role as arbiter of housing discrimination. Disparate impact arguments allow the government to bypass the question of intent. Discriminatory intent is far more difficult to prove than discriminatory impact, which is simply a matter of statistics.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the disparate impact claim from displaced Mount Holly Gardens citizens last June, opening the door for the top court to take the case. As Pro Publica explained in February, scholars believe Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, are seeking to strike down disparate impact in housing law, and the decision will hinge on Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Housing discrimination has gone underground since laws banning outright discrimination took effect, as a recent HUD-funded study and numerous other examinations of the housing market have shown. In the words of HUD enforcement chief Sara Pratt, “Landlords, housing professionals, zoning and planning boards, have learned to stop talking about it. What they haven’t learned is to stop doing it.” That makes the ability to combat discrimination with quantitative impact findings, rather than telepathic intent findings, especially crucial.

The discrimination lawsuit Wells Fargo settled in early June was premised on such statistical proofs of discriminatory treatment of foreclosed properties depending on the racial makeup of the surrounding neighborhoods. Notorious subprime lender Countrywide paid a $335 million settlement after the government demonstrated in court filings that the firm systematically overcharged 200,000 minority borrowers. The standard is frequently applied in other areas of anti-discrimination law as well, such as in the recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints against Dollar General stores and BMW factories.

The high court attempted to address the use of disparate impact in housing law in its previous term, but then-Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez convinced the city of St. Paul, MN, to withdraw its appeal. Perez’s actions in keeping that case from reaching the bench were the rallying point for opposition to his nomination to head the Department of Labor. As Ian Millhiser previously explained in ThinkProgress, the GOP attempt to paint Perez’s role in preserving a key pillar of housing fairness law as a “quid pro quo” swindle can’t be reconciled with the facts. Now that anti-discrimination pillar is once again headed to the bench.

Economy

Housing Discrimination Hasn’t Gone Away, It’s Just Gone Underground

By Alan Pyke on Jun 13, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Discrimination in the housing market persists in subtle forms, according to a study by the Urban Institute on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Using pairs of white and minority participants across 28 metropolitan areas, the Urban/HUD study found that realtors consistently show white buyers more homes than black and Asian buyers with similar credit qualifications and housing interests. There was no such disparity in sales behavior between white and Hispanic consumers, the study found.

The study notes that other research has found a long-term downward trend in housing discrimination over the past 45 years following the 1968 Fair Housing Act. But there has been less progress since 2000 than in previous decades. Some discriminatory practices, such as the racial disparity in whether a realty agent refuses to work with a buyer until they show proof of an approved home loan, have actually gotten worse since the turn of the century.

The study’s findings may seem discouraging, but there are some surprisingly simple steps lawmakers could take to push back on these discriminatory practices. A joint report by the Center for American Progress and the National Council for La Raza identified one such legislative course. By creating a pool of funds for pilot programs designed to expand housing access to those traditionally underserved by the mortgage market, the government could help reduce housing inequality without resorting to heavy regulation.

Such large-scale efforts make sense not only in light of the discrimination identified by the Urban/HUD study, but other persistent disparities in housing. The housing crisis has been harder on minority borrowers –- who were twice as likely as white homeowners to be affected –- and widened the credit-score gap they face as compared to white Americans.

Economy

How U.S. Housing Policy Leaves Low-Income Americans Behind

By Jeff Spross on Jan 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm

Smart Growth America released a new report yesterday — first picked up by Grist — that highlights the way federal housing policy is grossly tilted to the benefit of the well-off.

Between loans, tax expenditures, and subsidies, the federal government spent approximately $2.23 trillion on housing from 2007 to 2011. Most of that was in the form of loan programs for single-family homes and tax expenditures aimed at home ownership, even though low-income Americans are far more likely to live in small, multi-family buildings and to rent, and are far less able to take advantage of tax expenditures and a complex tax code. Adding up both direct spending and tax subsidies, Smart Growth America concluded that households making over $200,000 a year receive far more housing support from the federal government than any other income group:

This lines up with a similar study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that over half of all federal housing spending and tax expenditures benefited households making over $100,000 in 2010.

The study did not cover the involvement of GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack in the housing market, as these are quasi-government agencies taken into conservatorship by the federal government. But the loan support they provide is also skewed towards single-family properties.

The CBPP has also found that the number of low-income families paying over half their income in rent while receiving no rental assistance hit 7 million in 2011 — an increase of 42 percent since 2001. Low-income families are also far more likely to rent than to own a home, and 35 percent of all U.S. households are renters.

The programs most directly aimed at low-income Americans are the various rental assistance grants and credit subsidies run mainly the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These totaled a mere $187 billion over the 2007 to 2011 period covered by Smart Growth America’s study. And due to funding limitations, these programs have not kept up with the growth in families struggling to pay rent.

LGBT

Bank Of America Settles HUD Complaint About LGBT Discrimination

By Zack Ford on Jan 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm

The Bank of America has agreed to settle a claim brought by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on behalf of a lesbian couple that was denied financing for a home mortgage. Last year, HUD implemented sweeping nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, and this settlement marks the first implementation of that new policy. Helen Kanovsky, HUD’s General Counsel, commended Bank of America for “stepping up and taking immediate correction action” after being notified of the violation.

Here is how HUD describes what took place:

HUD claimed BOA denied a loan to a Florida couple seeking to obtain an FHA-insured mortgage because of their sexual orientation and marital status.  Because one partner was not employed, the applicant enlisted her partner’s mother as a co-applicant on the loan.  The couple worked with BOA for several weeks to provide all of the necessary loan application documents and the couple was assured by BOA that they were likely to receive a mortgage.  One business day prior to closing, BOA denied the mortgage because it did not consider the loan applicant and the co-applicant directly related because the applicant and her partner were not married.  As a result of BOA’s actions, the couple was not able to close on the loan.

Under the terms of the agreement, BOA agrees to pay HUD $7,500 and to notify its residential mortgage loan originators, processors and underwriters of its Settlement Agreement with HUD. In addition, BOA will remind its employees that they are prohibited from discriminating against FHA-loan applicants on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.  BOA will also update its fair lending training program to include information on HUD’s rule.

The settlement is an important victory for the well-being of the LGBT community, but also a reminder that discrimination still persists in society.

Election

GOP Candidate Wants To Eliminate Department Of Energy Because He Saw Officials ‘Sitting There Reading Books’

By Scott Keyes on Sep 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm

NC-7 GOP nominee David Rouzer

In a statement that would make Ray Bradbury blush, a Republican congressional candidate in North Carolina said he wants to eliminate the Department of Energy, because he personally witnessed officials “sitting there reading books and reading magazines.”

State Sen. David Rouzer, the Republican nominee in North Carolina’s 7th congressional district slated to take on Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), recounted during a primary debate in April about how his experience in the executive branch gives him a unique understanding of how to get rid of cabinet departments wholesale. “When I went over to the Department of Energy one day, you walk down the hall and most of them who are drawing 6-figure salaries are sitting there reading books and reading magazines,” Rouzer told the audience. “Ladies and gentlemen, we can devolve, get rid of the Department of Energy.”

Rouzer also singled out three other cabinet agencies he would like to eliminate: the Department of Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Education.

ROUZER: When I served in the executive branch for about a year and a half, and I learned how the bureaucrats operate. It gives me a lot of insight into how to defund them and get rid of them. When I went over to the Department of Energy one day, you walk down the hall and most of them who are drawing 6-figure salaries are sitting there reading books and reading magazines. Ladies and gentlemen, we can devolve, get rid of the Department of Energy and move some of those responsibilities back to the states. Department of Commerce, same thing. HUD, Housing and Urban Development, same thing. Department of Education. If you look at the decline of education, it started when the federal government got involved in it. That’s another agency.

Watch it:

Rouzer has made a career of stymieing scientific knowledge. He grabbed national headlines earlier this year when he pushed a bill through the North Carolina Senate that banned the state from using scientific models of sea-level rise that would affect the state.

Economy

Mitt Romney Tells Rich Donors His Secret Plan To Cut Housing Assistance

By Pat Garofalo on Apr 16, 2012 at 11:10 am

During comments overheard by an NBC news reporter, Mitt Romney told a crowd at a private fundraiser last night that he might eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development, scale back the Department of Education, and eliminate some specific tax provisions. There are all details that he has refused to divulge on the campaign trail:

Romney went into a level of detail not usually seen by the public in the speech, which was overheard by reporters on a sidewalk below. One possibility floated by Romney included the elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Cabinet-level agency once led by Romney’s father, George.

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later.

Regarding taxes, Romney said, “I’m going to probably eliminate for high income people the second home mortgage deduction.” He also said that he would “likely eliminate deductions for state income and property taxes.” The campaign is already attempting to walk the comments back, with a Romney adviser telling CNN, “He was tossing ideas out, not unveiling policy.”

For starters, Romney’s tax ideas, while reasonable, would raise nowhere near enough money to offset the huge tax cuts that he has in mind. Those tax cuts would increase the deficit by $900 billion in 2015 alone. Meanwhile, eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes, one of the largest tax expenditures for the government, for everyone saves $72 billion per year, and saves far less if the elimination is limited to upper-income Americans.

Romney’s plan to eliminate HUD, assuming he didn’t shuffle its programs to other departments, would bring an end to critical programs like Section 8 housing vouchers and community development block grants. Eliminating housing assistance is even more problematic given the disproportionate percentage of veterans in the homeless population.

So while he’s happy to hand out tax breaks worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the very richest Americans, Romney would at least contemplate eliminating housing subsidies for the very lowest income Americans, giving them little hope of putting a roof over their heads.

LGBT

Housing Department Introduces Sweeping LGBT Protections

By Zack Ford on Jan 28, 2012 at 6:46 pm

Speaking today at the National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change in Baltimore, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan introduced a broad and sweeping set of new nondiscrimination protections the department will be implementing. Under the new guidelines, any program that receives funding or insurance through HUD will be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, including Section 8 housing, emergency shelters, and other social services, as well as lending for FHA-insured mortgage financing. In addition, all such programs will now be required to recognize same-sex and otherwise LGBT families — regardless of their marital status or the adoption status of their children — to ensure they can stay together as a family unit when accessing HUD resources.

In his remarks, Donovan explained the significance of these changes:

DONOVAN: And so, first and foremost, this rule includes a new equal access provision that prohibits owners and operators of HUD-funded housing, or housing whose financing we insure, from inquiring about an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identity or denying housing on that basis. If you are denying HUD housing to people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity—actual or perceived—you’re discriminating, you’re breaking the law – and you will be held accountable. That’s what equal access means – and that’s what this rule is going to do.

Secondly, this rule makes clear that LGBT families, like the DeShanes, are eligible for HUD’s public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs that collectively serve 5.5 million people. Third, the rule also makes clear that sexual orientation and gender identity should not and cannot be part of any lending decision when it comes to getting a mortgage insured by the FHA – part of HUD.

I’m proud to announce that this rule will be published as final in the Federal Register next week and go into effect 30 days later.

Watch it:

In addition to HUD’s new regulations, the White House announced Friday that it will hold a series of public forums across the country designed  to “ensure health, well-being, security, justice, and equality for LGBT Americans.” It is likely that these conferences will help serve as a vehicle for educating local service providers and community leaders about how to implement various new protections.

LGBT

Catholic Bishops Call For Housing Policy That Discriminates Against LGBT Americans

By Zack Ford on Mar 29, 2011 at 12:20 pm

In response to a proposed regulation from the Department of Housing and Urban Development prohibiting discrimination in its programs based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has cried out that the regulation will interfere with their religious beliefs and threatened to end their support and sponsorship of tenants for HUD programs (PDF):

Specifically, the regulations may force faith-based and other organizations, as a condition of participating in HUD programs and in contravention of their religious beliefs, to facilitate shared housing arrangements between persons who are not joined in the legal union of one man and one woman. By this, we do not mean that any person should be denied housing. Making decisions about shared housing, however, is another matter. Particularly here, faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple, be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. Given the very large role that faith-based organizations play in HUD programs, the regulation, by infringing upon that freedom, may have the ultimate effect of driving away organizations with a long and successful track record in meeting housing needs, leaving beneficiaries without the housing that they sought or that the government intended them to receive.

HUD’s decision reflects a growing awareness of the discrimination actually faced by people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. A recent study revealed that one in five transgender individuals has experienced homelessness. An estimated 40% of homeless youth are LGBT, and LGBT elders are at higher risk for homelessness due to the compounding financial inequities they experience over their lifetimes.

This is only the latest of several threats from the Catholic Church to suspend charity support in the face of LGBT progress. In 2009, when the District of Columbia was preparing to pass marriage equality, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington threatened to discontinue all social services for the city if the same-sex marriage law was passed. After the law passed, DC Catholic Charities dropped all spousal benefits for newlyweds and new hires. In Maine, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland pulled its funding of a homeless shelter because of its support of same-sex marriage.

But, while the Bishops feel that it is more important to discriminate against LGBT people than to actually provide them housing, a recent study revealed that 74% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage or civil unions. In conjunction with its new proposed policy (PDF), HUD is also conducting its own study of housing discrimination against LGBT people.

Yglesias

Which Agencies Are the Best

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 31, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Apparently on alternate years the Office of Personnel Management does a huge survey of the federal workforce in which they, among other things, rate each agency on four dimensions. Lee Siegelman determined that “the correlations between agencies’ scores on any pair of dimensions are all .88 or above” so you can useful combine the four scores into a single composite and then get a nice chart:

agencies2_thumb.png

The best-run federal agencies, according to this measure, are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Three cabinet departments — HUD, Homeland Security, and Transportation — are bottom-of-the-listers. The worst-run agency by far, though, appears to be the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees nonmilitary international broadcasting by the government. It used to be part of USIA, but it became independent in 1999, and, to judge by the assessments of those who work there, seems to be something of a disaster. What is it about the Broadcasting Board of Governors that’s soo bad? Basically everything, according to the OMB survey: It ranks dead-last on three of the four dimensions iand 36th of 37 on the other dimension.

Fortunately, the Broadcasting Board of Governors isn’t that big a deal in the scheme of things. By contrast, the low quality of HUD, DOT, and DHS is a very significant problem. There seem to be some very interesting ideas about sustainable communities coming from the leadership at HUD and DOT that I’m very interested in, and that have important implications for our long-run growth, quality of life, and ecological sustainability. But it seems to me that these initiatives are unlikely to be successful unless the agencies running them can be reasonably effective.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up