On April 11, 2012 GNOFHAC held a community forum to discuss the new LGBT rule.  Below are some questions that arose during the event and their answers.

1.  Where does the definition of sexual orientation (and gender identity) come from? Some individuals felt that they do not identify as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, and that this definition could be seen as limiting.

The definition of sexual orientation came from a publication by the Office of Personnel Management entitled, ‘‘Addressing Sexual Orientation in Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee Rights.’’  The definition of gender identity came from the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. During the comment period for the rule, a few commenters expressed concerns similar to those of the individuals at your presentation: that the definitions were too limiting and could exclude people. However, HUD felt it was best to use definitions already set in federal policy, and stated in the final rule that “HUD seeks to experience how (these) term(s) will work in practice before making changes to a definition currently established in federal policy.”
2.  It seems limiting that the rule is called the “LGBT rule” which de-emphasizes the marital status part of the rule.  It’s a missed opportunity to focus on the widespread impact of the marital status clause on LGBT and non-LGBT individuals. Could you explain why it is called the LGBT rule?

“LGBT Rule” is really just the shorthand nickname that HUD has taken to using, mainly because its full name is a mouthful. That being said, others have taken to calling it the “Equal Access” rule, to emphasize that the rule covers not just LGBT individuals, but unmarried heterosexual (or homosexual) couples. Regardless of its shorthand name, our education and outreach efforts around the rule strive to teach the public about the contents of the rule, which of course includes protections of sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status.
3.  Will the Church challenge this rule, especially the provision that religious organizations that receive HUD funding must comply?

Religious institutions (and the public generally) had the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule’s content during the notice and comment period, which occurred from January to March 2011. Now that the rule has been made final, there is no administrative way to challenge the rule. If a religious organization (or any other organization) does not want to comply with the rule, they can make the choice to not pursue HUD funds. If the entity receives funds, they must comply with the rule.
4.  Do those at HUD foresee this redefinition of family leading to the expansion of the definition of family in other program areas, like education and employment (ex. Arizona school systems have an expanded definition of family because of the cultural diversity within the community.)

We at HUD can’t really speculate if other agencies, federal or state, will clarify or modify the definition of “family” that is used in their programs. However, as HUD is the first agency to initiate rulemaking to ensure that its core programs are open to all individuals regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, we hope that our rule can serve as a model for other agencies when they consider how to ensure equal access to their programs.

Image courtesy of Jezebel.com

Several weeks ago the worlds of web-based technology and fair housing met head-to-head in a conflict that illuminates some disturbing trends.  Some of you may have followed the recent launch of Picketreport.com, a hot new mapping website backed by Quicken Loans.  It allows a homeseeker to view an interactive map of a neighborhood that includes businesses in the area like coffee shops and grocery stores, as well as schools and crime reports, all via cute little multi-colored icons.

What you can’t view on Picketreport.com anymore is the website’s flagship Lifestyle module, which used terms like “Young City Solos” and “Middle Class Melting Pot” to describe the kinds of people that live in the neighborhood you are viewing.  Unfortunately, the Lifestyle module also employed glaring racial stereotypes to label communities of color, like “Soul Survivors” and “Soulful Spenders” to describe working class and upper-middle class African American communities, “Ciudad Strivers” to describe middle-class Latino communities, and “Asian Achievers” to describe affluent Asian families.  In case you were wondering, middle and upper class white families were not described as “White Winners,” or “Cruising Caucasians” but rather the race-neutral “American Royalty” and “Silver Sophisticates.”  Business websites lauded Picketreport.com for “tell[ing] consumers what realtors can’t” because of the Fair Housing Act.  One article (that, shockingly, Picketreport.com proudly links to from its website) suggests that real estate agents can now just direct consumers to the website when questions are posed about the kind of people who live in a neighborhood (translation: racial/ethnic demographic.)  See my earlier post about this issue.

Obviously it goes without saying that the Lifestyle indicator was deeply problematic.  Thankfully some progressive sites like Jezebel, Curbed, and Huffington Post picked up on the racially offensive language and within 24 hours the Lifestyle module was pulled.  The developers of Picketreport.com apologized to anyone who was “offended” and, of course, blamed the issue on the mysterious third-party vendor that aggregates their content.

I’m glad the website pulled the language, but it doesn’t change the underlying problem that the information in the Lifestyle module is information that people want.  Sure, the impact of the Lifestyle indicators would be to maintain segregation by allowing people to pick and choose their neighbors based on race, national origin, and other demographic indicators.  But the real perpetuator of segregation is the widespread attitude that created the demand for this kind of website in the first place.

This is nothing new. White homeowners in America have always been concerned about where the “Soul Survivors” and “Ciudad Strivers” live.  That’s why in the 1950s and 60s real estate agents could successfully go door to door in white neighborhoods, convince white homeowners that black families were moving in next door, and get them to sell way below market value (only to resell to black families at an inflated price.)  Racism in America has always been fed by the recognition that in communities of color it’s more likely that your property values will be lower, less likely you’ll have the grocery store, school and hospital you need down the street, and more likely the government will run a freeway through your neighborhood or authorize a smog-spewing factory to locate in your backyard.  We saw this in New Orleans first hand in our Road Home lawsuit, where homeowners in African American neighborhoods got substantially lower Road Home awards based on property value than homeowners in white neighborhoods with virtually identical homes.  We saw it when the city ran the I-10 through the bustling African American commercial corridor on Claiborne Avenue during Urban Renewal rather than, say, the French Quarter or the Garden District.  And we see it in the National Fair Housing Alliance’s recent report showing how Wells Fargo maintains its bank-owned properties in white neighborhoods in better condition than those located in communities of color.  All of these examples point to the fact that if you’re concerned about things like property values, economic opportunity, and blight, living in a community of color in the United States is a risky decision.

Moreover, as long as homeownership has been the American Dream, many white Americans have believed that their ability to prosper is negatively correlated with their proximity to communities of color.  This attitude is based in deep racial prejudice, nourished by the observation that resources and amenities tend to cluster around prosperous, white communities, while the things that nobody wants in their backyard tend to cluster around communities of color, particularly poor communities of color.  These observations feed racial stereotypes in an individualistic culture that privileges personal responsibility over institutional accountability.  But of course the blame for this disparity doesn’t lie with the people who live in communities of color.  It lies with all of the institutions that continue to allocate funding and resources in a racially discriminatory manner.

In the 1950s and 60s when the real estate agent knocked on the white family’s door, that family moved because they assumed their property values would drop because of the African American family moving in next door.  But really, their property value dropped because of the void in the real estate market created by racially-motivated white flight, and the racially discriminatory decisions of businesses and government that moved their services along with the white families.   Changing neighborhoods were left with the burden of depressed property values and all that follows.

Today, some white families may want to use a tool like Picketreport.com to (consciously or unconsciously) avoid communities of color because of concerns about property values, public safety and access to resources.  But home value depreciation, crime, and resource-deprivation can be traced directly to the shunning of these communities by white home-seekers, and the way that institutions respond by picking up and moving elsewhere.  I’m certainly not forwarding the colonial idea that white families relocate to communities of color for the betterment of all who live there, because we all know that trend causes gentrification and displacement while ignoring the underlying issue.  I’m saying that we need to examine the institutions that privilege “American Royalty” over “Soulful Spenders,” and have throughout our nation’s history.  Rather than simply criticize Picketreport.com, or criticize the people who might use it to choose a neighborhood, we should examine the underlying systemic reasons why some neighborhoods have the resources people need and others do not.

The irony is that the segregation itself makes it harder for us to recognize and dismantle segregation’s systemic roots.  When you live in a racially and economically homogenous community (and I’m saying this as someone who grew up in a white, upper-middle class homogeneous suburb), it’s easy to look over the fence and blame the individuals who live in a community for its condition rather than the institutions who hold the purse-strings and the power.  That’s why the impact of Picketreport.com is so much deeper than just perpetuating segregation.  By perpetuating segregation, it contributes to our nation’s misunderstanding of, and unwillingness to talk about, the very real and present impact of institutional racism.

Last week, two 15-year olds in New Orleans lost their lives to tragic gun violence.  Brandon Adams was shot and killed in the Desire neighborhood after having played basketball with his brother.  On Monday, a homeless person discovered Christine Marcelin’s bullet-riddled body in New Orleans East.  Brandon and Christine were a couple and were in the 8^th grade at KIPP Believe College Prep.  By some accounts, Brandon may have been attacked because of a petty argument over turf in the park he was playing basketball in before his death.  The motive for Christine’s death is unclear according to media accounts so far.

This is a story we should all be paying attention to.  Doing so honors Brandon and Christine and hopefully their families.  It also might give us some insight into what causes our astronomical murder rate, and what we can do to address it.

The fair housing movement offers us one useful perspective.  A fair housing analysis suggests that where a person lives determines numerous other quality of life factors including their access to healthy food, educational opportunities, air quality, and yes- even exposure to violent crime.  Within this framework we must acknowledge that the state of the neighborhoods where these children were murdered in is an important part of their stories.  In one article, a reporter writes about the scene of Brandon’s murder:

The block the killers chose is an uninhabited strip next to the abandoned Press Park scattered-site development that’s choked with tall grass and has virtually no streetlights. But as the parents neared the corner, Shawan Adams saw a body on the ground. “There was my baby lying there,” she said.

The same article goes on to describe the reaction of Brandon’s mother to her son’s death:  “As she held him, she screamed, “Somebody help me. Please help me with my baby.” But nobody came. In that desolate block, there was no one to hear, she said.  She had to assume that no one was within earshot. “Because who could ignore a mother’s cry?” she said.”

Brandon was murdered on a block that was so abandoned and desolate that his mother assumed no one heard her cries for help when she discovered his body.  The only reason she knew to look for him there was because somehow Brandon’s brother managed to call her when they were attacked.  Similarly, Christine’s body was only discovered when a homeless person came across it by accident.

I am not arguing that, on their own, properly working streetlights and neighbors whose needs are fulfilled would have prevented the deaths of Brandon and Christine.  Further, I am not arguing for the increased policing of neighborhoods that some proponents of the broken windows theory might call for.  The story behind our persistently high murder rate- and the story of why some of our neighborhoods thrive while others struggle- is much more complicated than that.  But investing in our neighborhoods in equitable ways is one important factor to consider in addressing the murder problem that is decimating young people in New Orleans.  Maybe we should talk about whether those responsible for shooting Brandon would have been so brazen had there been properly working streetlights and neighbors around to witness what was happening.  Maybe we should even talk about increasing resources for recreational opportunities for our kids, in light of the mind boggling fact that at least one child was murdered this weekend over an unfathomably petty argument about who gets to play in what parks.

It is well documented that there are many different ways that all of us can work to address our murder rate.  At GNOFHAC, we work every day using a variety of different tactics to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to live in a safe neighborhood that meets their needs because we understand that our lives and the lives of our fellow community members depend on it.  To me, there is no better reminder of the importance of this work and the long road ahead than the details of the neighborhoods that shape Brandon’s and Christine’s stories.

The report also highlights a development that has excited the fair housing world for the past couple of years: the use of HUD’s “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) requirement as a tool to combat Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) attitudes that often serve as a roadblock to affordable housing development around the country.  In many communities, NIMBYism on the part of elected officials, vocal community members, and neighborhood/civic associations, results in hardship for low and moderate-income families who must to struggle with housing that is unaffordable, poorly maintained, and/or isolated from resources and amenities that tend to cluster around prosperous communities.  This impact is not race-neutral by any means; according to the NFHA report, “three times as many poor African Americans and over twice as many poor Latinos currently live in resource-poor neighborhoods as compared to poor whites.”

HUD-funded entities, included state and local governments, must do more than not discriminate; they are required to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).  This means they must work to actively expand housing choice and promote integration.  In 2011 HUD proved it would take action against municipalities that neglect their duty to AFFH.  NFHA cites HUD’s threat to strip St. Bernard Parish of $91 million in housing and community development funding after years of fair housing litigation with GNOFHAC.  In addition, in July 2011, HUD withheld funding from Westchester County, NY for their failure to address policies that promoted residential segregation.  Finally, the NFHA report cites HUD and the Department of Justice’s actions against the city of Joliet, IL, for its attempts to block the owners of an apartment complex from restructuring their mortgage to provide affordable housing at the complex for the life of the mortgage.  The city declared the complex blighted and attempted to appropriate it by eminent domain, an action that would have displaced hundreds of tenants.  Less than 20% of Joliet residents identified as black or African American in the 2010 census, but over 95% of the tenants at the apartment complex are African American.

NFHA’s report goes on to applaud the Department of Justice for its actions against the city of New Berlin, WI, for “preventing the construction of an affordable housing development in response to the racially motivated opposition of local residents.”

In 2011, HUD and the DOJ demonstrated that they will in many cases support private enforcement organizations’ efforts to hold cities and government entities accountable for their failure to affirmatively expand housing choice.  The AFFH requirement and the cooperation of HUD and the DOJ will prove valuable tools to combat NIMBYism in city planning, zoning, and land-use decision-making.

You can read NFHA’s excellent report Fair Housing in a Changing Nation here.

The full Senate should pass the flood reform bill, a bipartisan bill that will protect taxpayers, help the environment, and ensure that the flood program can continue to help families who live in harm’s way— including a five year extension that avoids short term fixes. Take action now!

The House has already passed a version with over 400 yea votes, and the Senate Banking Committee passed a similar bill unanimously, both which extend NFIP by five years. Now, the full Senate needs to pass the bill. Let the Senate know it should take up legislation to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, before it’s too late.

While that may seem like great news for housing advocates nationwide, the Senate bill faces a tough road ahead: because the House version, expected later this week, will reflect close to $30 billion less in discretionary spending, resolution of differences between House and Senate versions could prove extremely difficult.

A quick breakdown of the bill includes:

Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP):  funding of $42.5 million, level with FY 2012.   These funds are essential to funding enforcement of the Fair Housing Act for agencies such as GNOFHAC.

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP):  funding of $24.1 million, below FY 2012 as enacted.  FHAP funds are used by state and local agencies to enforce the Fair Housing Act.

Section 8:  funding of $482 million above FY 2012 enacted level, due to annual increases in the cost of maintaining Section 8 (in the same way that the cost of living for most individual households increases each year).  In other words, funded at this level the Section 8 program wouldn’t expand, but it would be maintained.

Public Housing: An increase of $110 million above the FY 2012 enacted level.  Because FY 2012 required public housing authorities to use their reserves to fund operations and those reserves have now spent down, the increase simply maintains current operations (again, without expanding the number of units available).

Project-based rental assistance: $9.8 billion for the project-based section 8 program, including funding for the renewal of all project-based contracts for 12 months.  This amount is crucial just to maintain assistance at current levels.

Homeless Assistance grants: $2.15 billion for homeless assistance grants. In response to the increase in family homelessness, the bill includes at least $286 million for the Emergency Solutions Grant program to prevent families from becoming homeless, or rapidly re-house those that are homeless.

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): $3.1 billion for CDBG funding, or $152 million above FY 2012 as enacted, to assist States and communities nationwide.  CDBG funds are used for many different purposes at the local level, including economic development and other projects essential to maintaining City and State infrastructure.

HOME Investment Partnership: Level funding of $1 billion from FY 2012 as enacted.  HOME funds have enabled cities like New Orleans to increase its affordable housing stock for low and moderate income residents.

Housing Counseling: A total of $135 million nationwide for housing counseling efforts.  HUD approved housing counselors, like those in GNOFHAC’s Homeownership Protection Program, help homeowners avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes.

NFHA did an investigation of foreclosed properties owned by Wells Fargo in eight metropolitan areas; Dayton, Ohio, Atlanta, Georgia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Oakland, California, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Dallas, Texas, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC. In each of these areas, NFHA investigators came with the same conclusion that more Wells Fargo properties in white neighborhoods were well kept and maintained, while Wells Fargo properties in non-white neighborhoods had many deficiencies. A very small percentage of the Wells Fargo properties in white neighborhoods had similar deficiencies. Some of the deficiencies include water damage, no “for sale” signs, overgrown lawns, broken windows and doors, and trash on the property.

Wells Fargo claims to place strong emphasis on their ethics, values, and goals to ensure trust from individuals and communities. Based on Wells Fargo’s website, they “strive for the highest ethical standards with team members, customers, communities, and shareholders by using honesty, trust, and integrity.” After this undercover investigation, how can NFHA and other member organizations not challenge the ethics of Wells Fargo for ensuring maintenance and upkeep in certain areas but not all?

This complaint filed with HUD by NFHA and its member organizations attests to the failure of Wells Fargo to realize its vision and goals by exposing how they allegedly violated the Fair Housing Act. Passed in 1968, makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, color, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. This law also protects from discrimination based on the race or national origin of residents of a neighborhood in the maintenance, appraisal, listing, marketing, and selling of homes.

Interestingly, when individuals see poorly maintained homes in a certain neighborhood, the finger is often pointed at people who live in the community, not the bank. The high percentages of poorly maintained bank-owned properties in non-white areas will have a negative impact on these communities. The neighborhood property value will decrease and there can also be negative psychological effects on the residents. These effects can also lead to negative widespread impacts, especially in the housing market. This case is very important because it examines how racism is still alive and how it is used to separate neighborhoods.

You can read NFHA’s report, “The Banks Are Back, Our Neighborhoods Are Not: Discrimination in the Maintenance and Marketing of REO Properties,” here.

Please join the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center for a presentation about the new rule, followed by story circles to discuss the impact of housing discrimination on LGBT individuals in our community.  We want to hear from you about your experiences!

Bayou Beer Garden is down the street from GNOFHAC – in our own backyard.

Help us plan our event better by filling out this short form so we know to expect you.