ReportWire

Tag: housing discrimination

  • Asian, Hispanic Homeownership Rates Rise, But Gap Remains`

    Asian, Hispanic Homeownership Rates Rise, But Gap Remains`

    [ad_1]

    Some racial minorities are gaining ground in homeownership, but affordability and systemic factors continue to perpetuate disparities in the housing market, a report from the National Association of Realtors found.

    As a whole, homeownership rates increased for racial minorities in 2022 compared to a decade earlier. The report analyzed homeownership trends across the country while diving into differences between racial groups.

    Homeownership in the country increased by more than 10 million households from 2012 to 2022, reaching a rate of 65.2 percent two years ago. That rate is down slightly from the preceding year, a result of challenges in affordability and inventory.

    Asian and Hispanic Americans both had all-time highs in homeownership rates in 2022 at 63.3 and 51.1 percent, respectively. Each still trailed the homeownership rate of white Americans (72.3 percent).

    But the homeownership gap between white and Black Americans has only grown in the analyzed period. The gap between the two groups widened from 27 percent to 28 percent, and the Black homeownership rate only rose slightly to 44.1 percent from 2012 to 2022.

    “The pathway into homeownership remains arduous for minority buyers,” NAR deputy chief economist Jessica Lautz said in a statement.

    One challenge for minority buyers is the pathway from renting to owning. First-time homebuyers can’t rely on housing equity to make their first down payment and instead often turn to savings. As rental costs have risen, however, disposable incomes and the ability to accumulate savings has gone down. This affects minority groups in particular, who are already systemically disadvantaged. Minority groups also rack up more student debt than white counterparts, another deterrent to saving.

    Even if minority groups can find the fund for a down payment, they’re more likely to experience discrimination when applying for mortgages. Black and Hispanic mortgage applicants were denied loans 26 percent and 22 percent, respectively, far outpacing white applicants, according to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

    Overall, white Americans continue to dominate home purchases. White homebuyers made up 81 percent of all home purchases in the country, according to NAR’s 2023 data.

    Read more

    [ad_2]

    Holden Walter-Warner

    Source link

  • On this MLK Day, why the fight for environmental justice is the fight that matters

    On this MLK Day, why the fight for environmental justice is the fight that matters

    [ad_1]

    Ben Jealous, the first Black executive director of the Sierra Club, couldn’t make it to a recent news conference in South L.A., held in the shadow of the monument to Martin Luther King Jr. at Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area.

    But if he had, I suspect he would’ve told the same story he told me.

    “You know the great actor Louis Gossett Jr.?” he asked. “My last year at the NAACP, at the 2013 Image Awards, he said to me, ‘You know, Ben, I’ve been in this racial justice movement my whole life, but you know, sometimes, brother, I feel like we’re fighting over who’s in first class. What we should be doing is looking out the window, because the plane has fallen like 20,000 feet in the last two minutes.’”

    Jealous recalled being confused.

    “He said, ‘The planet is dying. It doesn’t matter who’s in first class on a dead planet.’ And that phrase, it’s stuck with me for the last decade, and I just keep coming back to it.”

    This, Jealous explained, is why he decided that his venerable environmental organization would be among the first to support an upstart AM talk radio station in Los Angeles in its campaign to elevate climate change and environmental justice as priorities for people of color.

    Other backers of the $2-million campaign include the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Metro, CalTrans, the California Endowment and the California Community Foundation.

    But really, it’s the vision of Tavis Smiley, the longtime radio host and founder of KBLA 1580, that could help bring the voices of Black and Latino Americans, who are harmed most often by the climate crisis, more fully into policy discussions about how to solve it.

    At that news conference Jealous couldn’t attend, Smiley went so far as to connect the fight MLK waged for racial equality to the current fight for the future health of the planet.

    “Climate is king,” Smiley declared with a grin. “You see what I did there?”

    While amusing, I can understand why some people might see this as a stretch. After all, Martin Luther King Jr. Day has always been a holiday dominated by discussions of fairness and freedom, and the barriers to both. Barriers of systemic racism that have left Black people on the worst rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and, as such, with little energy to deal with existential crises, because there are so many immediate ones, like housing discrimination and police brutality.

    But like Gossett Jr., I’m starting to get the sinking feeling that just fighting all of these immediate racial justice fights is ultimately a little like — to extend a bad analogy even further — rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Sure, it’s important to fight the good fight against efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs, for example, and against banning books on Black history in public schools. But it’s reasonable to wonder what good winning those fights will do if we fail to mitigate the upheaval of a rapidly changing climate that can deliver misery to all of humankind.

    We’ve all seen the troubling surge of extreme weather and the way it has crippled or, in some cases, decimated entire communities. Just this month, climate scientists with the European Union announced that 2023 was officially Earth’s hottest year on record, and, as my Times colleague Hayley Smith reported, this year is likely to be even hotter.

    “Our cities, our roads, our monuments, our farms — in practice, all human activities — never had to cope with a climate this warm,” Carlo Buontempo, director of the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, told reporters. “There were simply no cities, no books, agriculture or domesticated animals on this planet last time the temperature was so high.”

    On top of that, there are man-made environmental disasters, from the tainted drinking water in Flint, Mich., and right here in Compton to the poorly maintained levees that allowed massive flooding in the Monterey County town of Pajaro.

    As Mayor Karen Bass put it at the news conference: “We know that low-income neighborhoods of color are disproportionately harmed by air and toxic pollution. A few years ago, the leading cause of death of Black babies was asthma that was directly related to freeways and air pollution. So when we say disproportionately impacted, that’s not just rhetoric.”

    And yet, politicians rarely bring up climate change or environmental justice as a true priority when they are talking to people of color.

    Take, for example, the speech President Biden gave earlier this month at Mother Emanuel AME Church, billed as an attempt to repair his relationship with Black voters amid flagging poll numbers. He spent 35 lackluster minutes at the pulpit of the historic church in Charleston, S.C.

    Priority topics included Donald Trump, the Civil War, white supremacy, the Jan. 6 insurrection, high-speed internet access, prescription drug prices, housing and student loan debt. Finally, Biden got around to some vague and uninspiring statement about how his administration is “producing clean energy” so people can “finally breathe clean air without leaving home.”

    He talked about spending a childhood surrounded by air-polluting oil refineries in Claymont, Del.

    “I grew up with asthma, and most of us did, because of the prevailing winds,” Biden said. “We’d go — my mom would drive us to school in the morning … there would be an oil slick on the wiper. Because, guess what? It’s all the fence-line communities who get hurt.”

    Surely, the president can do better than this with his messaging.

    Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to cut $2.9 billion from California’s climate programs to help close a massive budget deficit. Notably on the chopping block are several zero-emission vehicle programs, including delayed funding for the Clean Cars 4 All program that helps low-income residents.

    Getting people of color to care about such things, and demand more from Biden or Newsom, is sure to be a challenge. Many people can’t afford to think about problems beyond next week, much less next year or in the next several decades.

    But it’s not impossible. Because with every passing year, every extreme weather event that devastates an already vulnerable community of color and every generation that becomes more aware of the pollution that is ruining their quality of life, it becomes clearer that environmental justice is racial justice.

    “Poll after poll shows upward of three-quarters of us consider ourselves to be environmentalists,” Jealous said of Black people. “What we’ve been doing wrong as a movement is failing to meet people where they are.”

    [ad_2]

    Erika D. Smith

    Source link

  • Civil Rights Undone

    Civil Rights Undone

    [ad_1]

    In late 2020, even as the instigators of insurrection were marshaling their followers to travel to Washington, D.C., another kind of coup—a quieter one—was in the works. On December 21, in one of his departing acts as attorney general, Bill Barr submitted a proposed rule change to the White House. The change would eliminate the venerable standard used by the Justice Department to handle discrimination cases, known as “disparate impact.” The memo was quickly overshadowed by the events of January 6, and, in the chaotic final days of Donald Trump’s presidency, it was never implemented. But Barr’s proposal represented perhaps the most aggressive step the administration took in its effort to dismantle existing civil-rights law. Should Trump return to power, he would surely attempt to see the effort through.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    Since the legislative victories of the civil-rights movement in the 1960s, legal and civil rights for people on the margins have tended to expand. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 were followed by voting provisions for Indigenous people and non-English speakers, a Supreme Court guarantee of the right to abortion, increased protections for people with disabilities, and formal recognition of same-sex marriage. The trend mostly continued under presidents of both parties—until Trump. Though his administration could be bumbling, the president’s actions matched his rhetoric when it came to eroding civil-rights enforcement.

    Under Trump, the Justice Department abandoned its active protection of voting rights. The Environmental Protection Agency ignored civil-rights complaints. The Department of Housing and Urban Development scaled back investigations into housing discrimination. Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court, for their part, have whittled away at landmark civil-rights legislation and presided over the end of affirmative action.

    In a second term, the most effective way for Trump to continue rolling back protections would be to dismantle disparate-impact theory. Under the theory, the federal government can prohibit discriminatory practices not just in instances of malicious and provable bigotry, but also in cases where a party’s actions unintentionally affect a class of marginalized people disproportionately.

    The theory is important because discrimination can be perpetuated without ill intent; even seemingly benign or neutral policies can perpetuate a legacy of bias, or create new inequities. But disparate impact is also essential because landlords, business owners, and municipal officials who do wish to discriminate have learned how to operate without expressing overt bigotry. Under disparate impact, the government’s burden is not to prove that these actors intended to discriminate, only that their actions resulted in discrimination.

    For decades, lawyers have invoked disparate impact as a means of fighting discrimination. The standard has been applied across the federal government. After the housing crisis of 2008, the DOJ brought a series of lawsuits against banks that had charged higher mortgage rates and fees to minority borrowers, winning hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements from the lenders. In 2015, the DOJ released a damning report on the practices of the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, after an 18-year-old Black man, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by a police officer. Disparate impact was mentioned at least 30 times in the report, including in its main takeaway: “African Americans experience disparate impact in nearly every aspect of Ferguson’s law enforcement system.”

    Many conservatives have long been suspicious of disparate impact. The most principled objections center on the claims that it invites government overreach and inefficiency, that it impedes state and local policy development, and that it always entails some degree of ghost-chasing—in a country as unequal as America, discerning what exactly contributes to a disparate outcome can be difficult.

    But these philosophical and practical objections to the theory have always served to disguise a more visceral disdain. Many conservatives simply believe that ensuring equality is not a legitimate federal priority. In the Trump era, as the Republican Party has embraced white nationalism, its leaders have been emboldened to abandon the guise. They edge closer to the line once held by the architects of Jim Crow: Equality is undesirable because people are not equals; some of us might not even be people.

    Trump himself has always had a preternatural gift for identifying and channeling grievance; white backlash against civil-rights legislation was one of the major forces behind his advancement to the presidency, and that backlash can be traced directly to disdain for civil-rights legislation and enforcement. Once Trump was in office, one of his early targets was HUD. In 2020, the department finalized a rule that demolished its discriminatory-effect standard, which had been the basis for enforcement at the department for at least 40 years. Trump’s HUD secretary, Ben Carson, said that the move would spur efficiency at the local level without undermining the department’s antidiscrimination work. But Carson has long been a skeptic of desegregation; during his 2016 presidential campaign, he described desegregation efforts in cities as “failed socialist experiments.” Ultimately, Carson’s attempt to undermine the discrimination standard was stymied by lawsuits. But the cause of fighting bias suffered nevertheless. In 2020, at the end of Carson’s tenure, the number of secretary-initiated complaints had gone from several dozen in 2015 to three.

    Trump did serious damage to disparate impact as president; there’s little question that he would finish the job if given another chance. A second Trump administration could go beyond simply abandoning the theory, perhaps even bringing lawsuits seeking to declare the entire concept unconstitutional. Trump could thus attack civil-rights law from both sides, sabotaging the government’s capability to adjudicate cases while also arguing that it should not have that capability in the first place. If this two-pronged strategy succeeds, it will be difficult for any future administration to undo the changes. With today’s conservative-dominated judiciary and high levels of political polarization, any substantive changes Trump makes to civil-rights enforcement could effectively become permanent.

    Without disparate impact, the DOJ would lose its primary tool for addressing brutality in police departments, and current efforts to finally enforce environmental laws in communities of color and hold cities accountable for creating slums in Black and Latino neighborhoods would be stalled. Given the damage that has already been done by the courts, there is a future—perhaps a likely future—in which the remaining foundations of the civil-rights era are undone. If Trump were to win in 2024, he would see the victory as a mandate to tear everything down now.


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “Civil Rights Undone.”

    [ad_2]

    Vann R. Newkirk II

    Source link

  • Long Island landlord settles income discrimination complaint | Long Island Business News

    Long Island landlord settles income discrimination complaint | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    The owner of two apartment communities on Long Island has agreed to a settlement to resolve a complaint of alleged income discrimination. 

    New Jersey-based Renaissance Management Group, which owns the 656-unit Renaissance Hills complex in Hauppauge and the 915-unit Renaissance Bay rental community in East Patchogue, has reaffirmed its commitment to preventing discriminatory housing practices, especially as they relate to applicants who are recipients of alternative lawful sources of income, including housing vouchers and other forms of housing assistance payment. 

    The agreement with Bohemia-based Long Island Housing Services came after the agency received complaints that the landlord was allegedly discriminating against prospective tenants who wanted to use Section 8 housing vouchers to pay rent, according to an LIHS statement. 

    An investigation conducted in 2021 by LIHS, found that management at the two apartment communities were requiring income of twice the monthly rent for people with Section 8 vouchers, which is a violation of the state’s source of income law. In addition, management at the rental properties also said they would not accept the housing vouchers as payment. 

    After discussions between the landlord and LIHS, Renaissance Management conducted a comprehensive training for all of their leasing agents concerning housing discrimination prevention; reviewed and reaffirmed that their policies and practices specifically prohibit lawful source of income discrimination; implemented changes to its website and application materials so that prospective tenants are aware of their commitment to limiting discriminatory housing practices; and agreed to display discrimination preventions posters at each facility. 

    “Despite source of income discrimination being outlawed in Suffolk County for over a decade, Long Island Housing Services has found that there still is a great deal of work to be done educating housing providers in their duty to accept all lawful forms of income as payment for rent,” Ian Wilder, LIHS executive director, said in the statement.  

    [ad_2]

    David Winzelberg

    Source link

  • No Legal Ramifications for Anti-Gay Housing Discrimination in 28 States

    No Legal Ramifications for Anti-Gay Housing Discrimination in 28 States

    [ad_1]

    While 28 States Provide No Non-Discrimination Housing Laws To Protect LGBT Members, GayRealEstate.com Is Dedicated to Matching Members of the LGBTQ Community With Gay, Lesbian and Gay-Friendly Realtors Offering Free Buyers Representation.

    Press Release



    updated: Aug 17, 2018

    While there are no federal laws which specifically address housing discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, GayRealEstate.com continues its commitment to the mission of aligning LGBTQ home buyers and sellers with gay, lesbian and gay-friendly agents who understand the states, cities and neighborhoods they service.

    In United States housing law, only 21 states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and one additional state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation only, leaving 28 states with no protection against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

    California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Wisconsin prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation only. The remaining states have no explicit laws which protect housing discrimination against LGBT individuals.

    GayRealEstate.com and its over 1400 affiliated agents are committed to ensuring that their clients’ best interests are represented, and the client is treated with every respect.

    GayRealEstate.com is dedicated to eliminating the stress and uncertainty of searching for professionals who respect and support any potential client’s orientation. Clients are not only assured that agents will not under-represent their needs based on sexual orientation or same-sex relationships, but are assured the agent stands in full support of who they are, and the life they live. Agents affiliated with GayRealEstate.com understand the unique needs of the LGBTQ community and how to best meet them in their local regions.

    With more than 25 years of experience as the industry leader, GayRealEstate.com is proud to support the LGBT community and strives to ensure that every real estate transaction is conducted with honesty, integrity and without discrimination or intolerance.

    ###

    GayRealEstate.com connects buyers and sellers with trustworthy gay, lesbian and gay-friendly real estate agents to remove potential discrimination from all real estate transactions. The GayRealEstate.com team maintains personal connections with reliable agents to ensure their clients are treated equitably and with respect. All agents are interviewed and investigated, and many have retained partnerships with GayRealEstate.com for decades. With more than 25 years of experience, GayRealEstate.com focuses on establishing reliable real estate connections with professionals who understand the unique needs and desires of the LGBT community.  

    For more information, visit: www.gayrealestate.com

    Source: GayRealEstate.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link