IVELY FURTHERING OF COLUMBIA‘The State Advisory Committees By law, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has established an advisory committe in exch of ‘the 50 states andthe District of Columbia. The committees are composed of state citizens who ‘are appointed by the Commission and serve without compensation fortwo years. The committees advise the Commission of civil rights issues in tei states that within the ‘Commission's jurisdiction. More specifically, they are authorized to advise the Commission on ‘matters of their state's concem in the preparation of Commission reports to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals, public officals, and representatives of public and private organizations to committe inquiries; forward advice and recommendations the Commission, as requested; and observe any open hearing or conference conducted by the Commission in ther states, State Advisory Committee Reports report is the work of the District of Columbia Advisory Committe to the U.S. Commission ivil Rights. Advisory Committee Reports may cite studies and data generated by third partes, which are not subject to separate review by Commission staff, The views expressed in this report ad the findings and recommendations contained herein are those of a majority ofthe State Advisory Committee members and do not necessarily represent the views ofthe ‘Commission o its individual members, nor do they represent the policies of the U.S. Government. “The port be bined in prin fxm oon in Ward amt by sbitinga writen eqs tothe Easter Regional Offi, US. Comasion on Cul Rigs, by eal: ero@usergo, or by phone fo 202-376 7333. is fla posted on te Comision webte a: Mipwon. oer ovAfftirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in the District of Columbia Briefing Report of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil RightsLetter of Transmittal District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the US, Commission on Civil Rights Members of the Commission Martin Castro (Chairman) Abigail Thernstrom (Vice-Chairman) Roberta Achtenberg, Todd F. Gaziano Gail Heriot Peter N. Kirsanow Dina Titus Michael Yaki Kimberly Tolhurst, Person Delegated she Authority ofthe Staff Director 1 of Columbia Advisory Committee submits this eport,“AfTinmatively i inthe District of Columbia,” as past of its responsibility to advise the Commission on civil rights issue inthe District. The Commitee approved this report by a vote of 11 to 0. One member recused herself; one member abstained. On September 16, 2010, the Committe invited a number of ety officials, local, and national civil ights agencies, and advocates and real estate professionals to participate in ‘briefing that examined the efforts of the District to carry out is statutory and regulatory obligation to affimnatively further fair housing, The briefing was particularly timely because the District, as required every five years by the US Department of lousing and Urban Developmen, is required to submit an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Based on te briefing, the DC Advisory Committe offers the enclosed report and findings and recommendations withthe sim of assisting the District in it efforts and providing suggestions for other communities as they prepare their Analyses of Impediments. + The Advisory Committee heard several examples of inadequate oversight, inchadng a failure to assure that new apartment buildings were accessible tothe lsabled, and insufficient monitoring of banks’ Home Morignge Disclosure Act ‘ata to asure that they are not discriminating in loan origination or in foreclosure practices. The District needs to strengthen its coordination and oversight of all city agencies whose activities have an impact on far housing. These would include at least the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Human Rights, the Office of Disability Rights, the DC Housing. ‘Authority, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs andthe Dopatment of Insurance, Securities and Banking,‘+ The District should establish a baseline reflecting the location of Section & Housing Choice Voucher holders so that progress can be measure. ‘©The best way to measure compliance with fair housing requirements is to conduct random testing, in addition to complaint investigations. The city, in conjunction ith an outside contractor such as the Equal Rights Center, should conduct paired testing investigations to assess fir housing compliance with respect to rentals, sales, mortgage lending and insurance. ‘+ There is evidence of widespread discrimination by potential Section 8 landlords in the District. The District should conduct an extensive testing program of landlords snd an education and training program for tenants concerning the program, including the legal obligation of landlonts not to discriminate based on source of ‘+ Many Section 8 eligible tenants are not familar with the fll range of| neighborhoods where they can secure section 8 units. The District should conduct ‘comprehensive mobility counseling program to acquaint them withthe fall ange of available neighborhoods. This should include providing visits to those neighborhoods so renters can have a fuller picture ofthe neighborhoods with ‘which they might not be familia. The Advisory Committee's findings and recommendations are found in more detail in the accompanying report The Committee hopes that ths report will assist the Distit of Columbia in fashioning the mos effective Analysis of Impediments to Far Housing Choice. Sincerely, Daniel Lips, Chairman,District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Daniel P. Lips, Chairman Virginia W. Ford Sonia P. Gutierrez Clyde J. Hart ‘Vernon Dexter Ingram I Winona M. Lake Seott Alan K. Palmer Laurence D. Pearl Denyse Sabagh James J. Sandman Gregory D. Squires J.Steven Wagner Kenneth R. Weinstein ‘Acknowledgments ‘The Dissiet of Columbia Advinory Commitee expresses ts appre [Ezsten Regional Office, The project was directed by Barbara de La Vier, the Deputy Director of the Eastern Regional Office. Staff expresses appreciation to Lary Peal and Greg Squires for their assistance inthe projet. Saf lso expresses appreciation to Peter Minatk, Director of the Southern Regional Office, and Male Cra, Director ofthe Rocky Mountain Regional Office fr their Editorial Review and Christopher Bymes, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office ofthe Staff Director, for his Logal Sufficiency Review. ‘The cover art was designed by Lia Garvin, graphic artist,Table of Contents TL. Introdvetion, Il Background: From the Fair Housing Act to Westchester County so... IIL. The Distict’s 2005 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice... LY. The District of Columbia’s Actions Since 2005 to Remove Impediments to Fair Housing.. 5 V. Strengthening the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program. 9 210 VI. Advisory Committee RecommendationsHousing determines a family’s location, and because ofthat, housing isthe falerum of oppertniy, inked to many ictors eritcl to suecess of adults aad children in American society! [Introduction ple of fair housing isa asic civil right. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits ton and mandates steps that are designed to lead to more integrated living patterns, Imposing restrictions and obligations that affect both private and public housing.? The FHA also directs thatthe Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) “shall ‘administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban development ina manner affirmatively to farther” far housing.’ The mandate to affismatively futher fai housing is accomplished by ensuring that direct and indirect practices, policies, regulations, laws and other actions by the private or public sector promote equal access to housing. The purpose isnot jst to address discrimination; it also requires actions to avercome segregation an other effects of past discrimination, prevent future discrimination, and inerease the supply of open housing Jiisdetions seeking funds fiom HUD's Community Planning and Development programs are required to complete an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. This analysis serves asthe basis for fair housing planning it provides essential information to urban planners, oning officals, policy makers, administrative staf, housing providers, lenders, industry, and fair housing advocates; ‘and it assists in building public support for far housing efforts. ‘The Distriet of Columbia (he District), a pat ofits obligation to affirmatively further fir housing, last prepared its required Analysis of Impediments in 2005. The District of Columbia Advisory Commitee {othe US. Commission on Civil Rights (Advisory Committe) decided to explore the topic of alfrmatively furthering far housing for tvo prineipal reasons: ‘©The Distt of Cohumbia is curently preparing its five-year (2005-2010) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice report in 2011. The Advisory Commitee convened a briefing mecting to inform and make recommendations to this forthcoming effort. There is renewed national interest in this issve because ofa recent lawsuit involving Westchester County, New York. Ast result of this litigation, HUD plans to issue an updated regulation on this subject. ‘The Advisory Committee convened a briefing meeting on September 16,2010, on “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing inthe District of Columbia.” The purpose ofthe briefing was forthe ‘Advisory Committe to gather information on how effectively the District is meeting its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and what addtional ations should! be taken, The Advisory Committee heard presentations fom: Michael Allen of Relman, Dane and Colfax, PLLC; David Berenbaum ofthe National Community Reinvestment Coalition; Leila Edmonds, iy Ord dy Met “The Vow CS aig Sh, net Pett ey isa ot Cos ui Ss, a ney Ne 93 USC 65301-51901) Thea ang epi dcr ing mang glo cr dey. ‘ting ypc er eigen, aes oan it) ener seo aut ge te as rn meeps oh nies an Fy incinghend et K, ETC ona nS emia, *DUSC $3069 010, py eC RieDirector of the Distit of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development; Donald Kahl ofthe Equal Rights Center; Sara Pratt, fair housing advocate and consultant inthe DC Metropolitan area; Marjorie Ritkin, ofthe Univesity Legal Services, The Protection & Advocacy Program; Shanna Smith ofthe National Fair Housing Alliance; Peter Tatan ofthe Urban Institute; and Gustavo Velasquez, Director of the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights * The Advisory Committee hopes the results ofits efforts and examin District's 2011 Analysis of Impediments, vil help enhance the 1. Background: From the Fair Housing Act to Westchester Co ‘The Fair Housing Act ‘When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, it addressed one of the last and most dificult problems of discrimination in America. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had addressed discrimination ‘nemployment and in federal government prograns and encouraged the desegregation of public schools. The Voting Rights Act of 1965" was aimed at dismantling bariers to full participation inthe political process. Housing discrimination took many forms. For many years, this country allowed outright racial zoning. When the U.S. Supreme Cour struck that down, restrictive covenants based on mace, religion, and etniity came othe forefront. The Federal Housing Administration encouraged restrictive eavenans? and would not nsute homes in integrated neighborhoods. The real ett, lending, and home insurance industries did ther part to limit housing choive based on rce."" One ‘consequence is that today, asa study of housing discrimination in Washington DC concluded, “the fact of severe and persistent racial segregation of housing pattems in metropolitan areas is not contested." {epgret tei en Cot tn rides fem An Dw. te ho wo af 42 USC. 653601361 (60) The Fe Hos to 19 a nn Tie VM ote Ci Ris Ato 168 Conse set tin _metn ieee ns pt ne a roy a Th e164, cs os bmg rig ning iinnaon my pgm eg Bl aaa ne bt Way “Pu. No 38:39, 18S 20 (oid menddin sae ston of 2 USC, 28 US. anl42 USC). 1 QUSC.§§ 198-1726 200). * cr: Warley, 24518, €0 (1917), Seal Cy of Rc Don 24 S708 (10 ‘sh Hosea cr Wi Revo 0 Fanny 98 (1938 snes “Unoesen MAL) 900) ect este conan hdl sere od pment ens eee sana he oi ‘Refi hee brah eo str yal esi Fon cep prc ie a oe en " meee ‘Seca US, Cannas Cv. aa, Hous 16 (16D. Smeg, US. Cousens CML RT REPT 6-45 (1959) * 1 esr Coil Zbinssy Chas, Won Yeu Be My Neigh? Race, Clas, ad Residence nL ngs New Ye Rs ‘i200 La,“ Ton, Yn, The Ne Pes, 20S mcs Gar and Nang Kl ("Seen The ‘hing Coss fo Ain Yr, Ree. 008, Ds sy and Nancy A. Dene Apr Seen the ting i et ae net Pe, Ree era rn Te Sabon te Ue SOs cas, Sis, Samm Fim, nd Cate. Su Earnie Reon SEOMIUATION,ACOIEMFURARY STUDY OF waste Dt A Re Vl 38, No.2 ever, 135-8 3. 2‘This tangled web was the target of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Act. ‘The legisiation not only prohibited a variety of discriminatory acts but did something more—it ‘mandated the affirmative furthering of fair housing. Section 808(¢)(S) of the FHA reads: “The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall administer the progeams and activites relating to housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively o further the policies of this subchaptr.””™ ‘When the Community Development Block Grant program was enacted in 1974," the lav contained then-standard provision that the recipients (grantees) were prohibited from discriminating onthe basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, However, in 1983 an amendment to the Act required that the grantee cerify that “the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. 3601 ot seq) andthe grantee will affirmatively further far housing” Subsequently, HUD adopted the following regulation: Inaccordance with the Fair Housing Act, the Secretary requires that grantees administer all programs and activities related to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further the policies of the Fair Housing At. Furthermore... foreach community ecviving a grant under subpart D of this pat, the certification thatthe grantee ‘ill affirmatively further fair housing shall specifically require the grantee to assume the responsibility of fair housing planning by conducting an analysis o identify impediments to {aie housing choice within is jurisdiction, taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, nd maintaining records electing the analysis and actions in this regard. ‘The regulation certainly resulted in increased paperwork for the more than 1,000 jurisdictions receiving Community Development funds, but HUD’s enforcement ofthe regulation was sporadic. HUD subsequently provided more guidance to its grantees ina Fair Housing Planning Guide issued in 1994, Nevertheless, a Decemiber 2008 Report ofthe National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity co-chaied by former HUD Secretaries Henry Cisneros and Jack Kemp conchuded: ‘The current federal system for ensuring fair bousing compliance by state and local recipients of housing assistance has failed... . HUD only requires that communities receiving federal funds “certify” to their funding ageney tha a jurisdiction i affimatively furthering fait housing. HUD requires no evidence that anything is actually being done as condition of finding and it does not take adverse action if jurisdietions are directly involved in Aiseriminatory actions or fail to affirmatively further fir housing,'® would remain for a private lawsuit to address this problem, ‘The Westchester County Litigation In April 2006, a New York fair housing group filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court forthe 2USC FAI) 00, "ta naman Dela ef 7, PL N98, ned iin 2 USC $ 80920, bac frat 2) e010. th Fin ie Ree Nin Coinoo Fa iga hOgraiy De 2008 Sieve ontnce opens ipsauosaessuwme wt a aa Ny 2001). 3Southern Distit under the Federal False Claims Act. The suit lloged that Westchester County's ‘numerous certifications to HUD that it was aflimatively furthering fait housing were false. This was so, stated the plaintiffs, because Westchester's Analysis of Impediments didnot address racial or any ‘other fort of discrimination, It focused exclusively on expanding affordable housing and reflected a hands-off attitude in requiting the County sub-reipients to alfirmatively further fair housing with the ‘esl that new affordable hosing was concenteated in areas of the County that were largely Afie ‘American. In February 2008, a federal dstict judge held that Westchester County had made false certifications irmatively furthering fair housing certifications of compliance and on more than a ied eortifications when it requested a drawdown of HUD funds!” The judge concluded thatthe certification was not a mere boilerplate formality, but rather a substantive requirement, which ‘as rooted in the history and purpose ofthe fair housing laws and regulations. The judge ruled that ‘the law required the County to conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice, take appropriate ations in response, and document its analysis and actions." The jue noted that HUD’ Fair Housing Planning Guide provided extensive guidance on how to conduct affirmatively furthering fair housing activities.” After the judge's ruling, the Obama administration decided to intervene for the purpose of assisting the partes in negotiating a settlement that was embodied ina consent decree entered into in August 2009, In addition tothe $52 million in fans that Westchester County must spend to develop new affordable housing in largely white parts ofthe County, the agreement requires the County to pay $7.5 million to tho fair honsing group that brought the false claims case, and $2.5 milion in ‘attorneys’ fees.” (According to the 2000 census, over half of the municipalities inthe Consortium had African-American populations of 3 percent or less") IML The District’ 2008 Analysis of Impedl ents to Fair Housing Choice ‘The District's most recent federally-required Analysis of Impediments is a comprehensive 149-page report conducted by the Urban Institute in 2005. Four major impediments to affirmatively furthering fair housing were idetitie: 1. Lack of compliance with far housing laws by the real estate and housing industy (rel estate, lending/mortgaging,insurancerappraisals, et); 2, Decreasing numbers of affordable housing units for low- and moderate-income households ‘and special-needs residents in target neighborhoods already experiencing a shrinking market, 3, Information onthe full range of available, affordable housing across many Distret ‘neighborhoods is not made accessible to individuals and families seeking homes, due to segregated residential pater; sd "Se U er rina Cf ie Yn is Mees Comy, Sap 2A8(S DN. 20, ss 50 > Asp senet gon ytd tha a near pe * st Co smd ind ei ao nan ub We Canty orion x 44, Low levels of home-buying literacy among particular protected classes and a high percentage of home seekers with no or blemished eredithistory.”™ IV, Actions by the District of Columbia Since 2005 to Remove Impediments to Fair Housing In February 2010, the Distt issued its most recent Consolidated Anal Peformance Bvalvation Report® to HUD, inwhich diseases «number of etions taken affimatively farther fir hosing Ino the ole othe Advisory Comite to conduct compliance review othe Distit’s affimmaively Farhering fir hosing performance. That is HUD's job, and HUD appears tobe steping up its torts nationally in that regard a it plans tise anew affirmatively furthering ei owning regulation she nea Tate. Nonthes the Advisory Commitee believes that an ‘aploratory sty ofthe District's progress might deni (1) positive ations taken by the Dist, anc (2) ater ston hat cou have ben ake, oF eel he taken in the tre that would be lp tothe Distt and othe jurisdstions ‘Ata briefing on fair housing by the Advisory Committe, two officials from the Distit government participated-Leila Edmonds, Director ofthe District of Columbia's Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) an Gustavo Velasquer, director ofthe Disttct of Columbia Office of Human Rights (OLR). Ms. Edmonds cited numerous affirmatively furthering fair housing activities undertaken by the District to AFH. These included: ‘+ DHCD undertook fir housing educational efforts through brochures, conferences and ‘community-based organization workshops and conducted an annual fair housing symposium ‘during Fair Housing Month (April). Brochures are available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese, with Ambar to fllow. ‘+All projects funded through DHCD are subject to accessibility and affirmative marketing certifications + The DC Housing Authority provides Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holders with information on possible sources of income discrimination to be avare of in thie search for housing. + DHCD holds quarterly interagency mectings on foreclosure prevention involving nine DC agencies. ‘+ DHCD and other agencies held a second annual homeowner and foreclosure prevention fir in 2010 with more than 1,000 attendees, which inchuded one-on-one counseling and credit rept. ‘+ Between Fiscal Year 2006 and September 2010, almost 10,000 affordable units have been created or preserved. ‘+ 112008 and 2008, the District's Ottice of Human Rights (OHR) partnered with the Equal Rights Center to conduct a mass media fair housing education campaign together with testing compliance with the Fair Housing Act and DC Human Rights Act. entrar a nc pein eS) Tei tee rn at ‘pitas den uh ue cn er ol ces a ed oe 0 ‘fecre pent pict ca fr sce ne, "pel poten peep 910123040 pa ee 201 5‘+ Beginning in 2007, DHCD adopted Mixed Income as a policy objective, putting the Focus on the de-concentraton of poverty ‘© 1n 2005 the District ereated the Office of the Tenant Advocate that provides education on tenants rights and legal assistance. ‘© DHCD partnered with the Urban Institute to develop data on foreclosures, then did targeted ‘outreach in most-afected neighborhoods o include foreclosures that affected renters as well as homeowners, ‘+ DIICD worked closely with the District's Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking ((SB) to protect agus financial fad and abuse. ISB developed a foreclosure mitigation kit to be distributed ‘+ DHCD absorbod the dual functions ofthe Housing Regulation Administration to protect tenants subject to rent contol from rising costs, oversee conversions from rental 0 cooperative or condominium, aad provide incentives for new construction and improvements, ‘+ DHCD established a one-stop Housing Resource Center to provide housing counseling and housing search assistance, as well as landlord services ‘© DHCD launched a new website: htp:/hvww.dehousingsearch.org, which lists rental housing available by affordable range, including properties managed by the District of Columbia Housing Authority under the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. ‘+ The District implemented the Inclusionary Zoning Program in August 2009, providing private development companies the right to add additonal density if they make 8 percent of theit its affordable ‘+ DHCD was awarded a Neighborhood Stabilization Grant of $9.5 million that focused on three ‘Wards: Five, Seven and Fight. Gustavo Velasquez, director of OHR, was the second District official to present. He noted that the District has 18 protected classes, making the District of Columbia's Human Rights Act one of the ‘most comprchensive laws inthe eountry. Mr. Velasquez also noted that, fiom 2002 to 2010, 397 ‘housing dserimination cases were filed with the OHR and, with the exception of 2010, housing discrimination cases inreased ench year.” The office implemented online filing of complaints in 2008, and nov half ofall complaints are filed online “The bases for housing complaints to OHI ate as follows (some complaints contain more than one basis) 1. Disability —48 percent 2, Race ~27 percent 3. National Origin~ 12 percent 4 Sex—11 percent 5. Source of Income ~ 11 percent Disability and race are also the number 1 and 2 bases nationwide.™* * a ana We of Calum iy Cine eS, Comin coi ih ii, Nig, DC rah pete cst ON ese ok ‘eppmtaa ptadoratiDie ep ater hun 6 he oa ing: Aa Rept oi FY 208 rps atMr; Velasquez told the Advisory Committee that the issues raised by housing complaints filed inthe District of Columbia occurred in the following orér: Diseriminatory terms, conditions, services or facilites; Failure to make a reasonable accommodation; Discriminatory refusal to ren; Hostile living environment; Terms and conditions of a rental; Failue 1 set; Retaliation because ofa previous charge; and Discriminatory appraisal of OHR: Me. Velasquez summarized other act + OH has found reasonable cause 1 believe tata vitation occurred in eases involving diseriminatory advertisements failure to accommodate a disability, discriminatory fers and conditions, and discriminatory statements. + OHR works closely with the new Office of Disability Rights. Their expertise including a staff architect, is helpful to OHR in its many eases involving eisability and reasonable sceommodation, ‘+ OHR has contracted in the past with the Equal Rights Center (ERC) to conde testing both for specific respondents and to tet for potential discriminatory behavior. Budget constrains have prevented contracting with ERC this yea. ‘+ OH conducts extensive training for property managers, disability groups and others, and sponsors the anaval housing symposium in eonjunction with DHCD, ERC, and other nonprofit groups. They also conduct a media campaign and develop brochures in a number of languages. © OHR has met repeatedly withthe Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs because the latter has, on occasion, provided construction or occupancy permits without assuring that the projects met accessibility requirements.” ‘The presentations by District officials indicate that the District has taken many actions that they view as affirmatively furthering faic housing, Substantially all ofthe actions describe processes and not results. One barometer of an effective program to affirmatively further fui housing is whether the ‘actions change pattems of segrevation and limited choice. Supreme Court Justice Breyer, when a jjudge on the Fitst Circuit Court of Appeals, pointed out that HUD must use its grant programs “to ‘assist in ending discrimination and segregation, tothe point where the supply of genuinely open housing increases.” As stated in HUD’ Fair Housing Planning Guide The jurisdiction should define a clear set of objectives with measurable result that it intends to achieve. The sole measure of success for FHP [fair housing planning] isthe achievement of va: Dab. Comin i Rede ery. Te SAAC Sy ing nn Dep HIDE, 1518 7results, These objectives shouldbe drcetlyrelated to the conclusions and recommendations ‘contained inthe [Analysis of Impediments}. ‘This appronch also seems to make logical sense, Impediments to fair housing choice are based on data analysis. The success of actions to overcome the impediments should be reflected ina postive change inthe data. IFsuch a change does not occur, then it may be necessary to consider allemative actions. ‘Thus, the District needs to establish a baseline by comparing the 2010 Census data with the 2000 data. Then, by tracking changes ftom the baseline, ican report to HUD and the public onthe ‘ffectivencas of it ations, In adition, some ofthe District's actions assume that increasing the supply of affordable housing ‘will further fair housing. Increasing the supply is certainly a positive objective, but does not necessarily coateibute to fair housing, The location ofthe housing and its marketing are likely to be key elements in determining whether it contuibutes to affirmatively furthering, And a reduction in sogregated pattems is one measure of the effectiveness of these steps. Finally, the establishment of the website: htp:/www.dehousingsearch org also seems to bea positive step. Ms, Edmonds said thatthe website “gave residents a centralized location in which to find affordable housing,” both rental and sales. The site contains properties “or all ofthe landlords that ‘we touch through the housing regulation administration" As of December 6, 2010, the ste ‘contained 544 rental listings. At that time, the most expensive property was listed at $3,500 a month (hich seems to be atthe high end of “affordable”, Examining the listing of properties renting for $52,000 or more a month gives the following spread by sector: + Southeast 29 + Northeast~ 19 + Northwest —9 + Southvvest —2 Given the range of rentals in the city, the listing is not suprising, However, what is tik is that there is nota singe listing onthe website located west of Rock Creek Park, which is affluent and predominantly white.” This suggests that landlords may be withholding listings in thet section of the District or that further outreach is needed to recruit landlords in that ares, sx rig Paming GUS. Depa fog a ten Deeper Fes ya Ope». 222, ‘piven gta Oa sey 2.2017) > Eddie. Dis ashi. 6. "Free yt wi te eg te Dut Net vi expt Cp 1 es sens tar inion Meret Sue a ey een ees pose no Se ‘Sehr Tom iene ney ay Teer ome od one snp, era” Src 20h pl, pene insted page 90 Sop eee 1) i eat a Sse nes A. Tul "Sepepon Pats ite ef Conia 14020" pte negherecompabC Sennen aap ne 20 8\V. Activities to Strengthen Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program ‘Testimony tothe Advisory Committe from non-government witnesses suggested a number of specific ations the Distriet could take to improve its Affimatively Furthering Fair Housing program. ‘These include: ‘© Provide mobility counseling that would enable holders of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers te consider a fll range of neighborhoods." ‘+ Undertake routine testing o identity discrimination in renal, sales, homeowners” insurance, steering of potential renters and purchasers to or away from, certain neighborhoods, and access fo Section ¥ Housing Choice Vouchers, (Such testing was done inthe past bythe Equal Rights Center, but budgetary constraints have prevented conducting such testing this yea.) ght of lenders by examining location of branches and services offered and ‘analyzing Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and other available data to examine lenders" portfolios for evidence of discrimination. ‘+ Convene regular meetings between Distict agencies with direct and indirect fair housing responsibilities and private fair housing groups to share information and coordinate education and outreach, monitoring, and enforeement." + Conduct accessibility surveys of new multifamily housing covered by the Fair Housing Act or Section 50M of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ‘+ Sceure an increased payment standard (also called exception rents) for higher-cost neighborhoods to increase housing options for Section & Housing Choice Voucher holders.™™ ‘© Consider adopting a local Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that would make CRA and {air lending performance a factor in deciding which institutions should serve as depository intiutions forthe District funds.” tis the opinion ofthe Advisory Committe that these actions—like those already taken by the District—will be effective ony if they change the existing pattems and truly result in more diverse communities.Vi. Advisory Committee Recommendations ‘To affirmatively further fair housing in the District of Columbia, the Department of Housing and Community Development may need ational coordinating authority or a higher-level official to exercise such authority. The Advisory Committee recommends that two impediments be added to ‘those cited inthe 2005 study 1. Special problems faced by persons wit disabilities in achieving access to affordable housing: these include failure to accommodate disabilities, discrimination by Section 8 Housing Choice ‘Voucher landlords, and limited or expensive transit options. Disability isthe largest category of counplant filod with the DC Office of Haman Rights 2. Lack of coordination of District resources, Two examples that arose between 2005 and 2010: ‘Some new multifamily dwellings are not accessible to the disabled because the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs i awarding permits without assuring that accessibility is provided as required by law.” ‘There is no indication that the District of Columbia Deparment of Insurance, Securities and [Banking is monitoring lenders to determine whether they provided subprime loans, foreclosed 3, oF maintained the grounds and buildings of foreclosed properties, riminatory In adition, the Advisory Committee recommends the following actions to further fair housing: ‘© The District, ora contractor, should routinely test far housing compliance with respeet 10 sales, rentals, mortgage lending, and insurance. his isa high priority and it should not be allowed to lapse, asi the ease tis yee. ‘+ The District should conduct regular examinations of residential pattems of occupancy in both conventional and assisted housing to determine progress towards achieving truly open communities. ‘© The District should assure that any entity found to have discriminated be required to adopt a results-oriented compliance agreement, ‘The Advisory Committe is hopeful that ths brief analysis ofthe District of Columbia's efforts to affirmatively further far housing will help to guide the contractor updating the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and improve the Distrit’s performance of this important responsibility = Te sr by Mc iin ney ep Seif Spent 6,200, Comite bing ecg ace at is are mn esc Sad eto oben mone = TheUS. Commend Rah nnd ame” vo poy, Te pte Di Cae Dep of Coed eto Alert nme el open "a Te itt Ca putt nc ting wat wth avy Commit tig ‘metaghrcdae traces aseptic pen 10AppendicesGOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS * ea ae + ¥e 4 Otte of the Direct May 31,2011 Ivy Davis Director, Easter Regional Office U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 624 Niath Stee, NW. ‘Washington, D.C. 20425 Dese Ms. Davis: ‘This in esponse to your eter dated May 9, 2011, requesting comments to the briefing you conducted on September 16,2010, entitled “Affrmatively Furthering Fair Housing in the District of Columbia." The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) is strongly ‘commited to fully complying with the requiements ofthe Fair Housing Act, Though the D.C. Construction Codes and rigorous building permit plans review and inspection proces, we believe the agency is complying with bot the ltr and spirit ofthe law. Below are comments othe two issues raised regarding DCRA. Comment #1: “OHR has met repeatedly with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Afairs because the later has, on occasion, proved construction or occupancy permits, ‘without assuring tht the projets met accessibility requirement.” [DCRA is charged with carrying out the Fair Housing Act provisions of Title 14 ofthe Distict of ‘Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCM. As part of thet proces, DCRA provides building ‘permit applicants with information on reasonable accommodations and modifications for persons ‘with disabilities, DCRA also conducts annual Fair Housing Act raining sessions for all cermployees, The ageney als has a Fair Housing Act eoordinator who maintains records of all buuleing permits issued pursuant to Fair Housing Act requests. Dring its review of building permits applications, DCRA evaluates whethe the application isin compliance withthe eguirements of the Distit of Columbia Construction Codes, which Snchies the 2006 Interatonal Building Code, the 2006 International Codes Council ICC/ANSI ALI7.L (Accessible and Usable Building and Facilites), andthe 2006 Tnternational Existing Building Code. ‘Washington D.C 20004 Prone 0 oT Pan BD) AIS“To ensure that each building permit application complies with aocessbility requirements, DCRA performs structural snd nonstructural plans examination fr all new construction, renovations, and alterations, a5 well as on-site inspections for code compliance. Although new buildings mst be completely accessible, renovations of existing buildings are exempt because of either ‘ncapability or technical infeasibility ia meeting specific accessibility requirements, ‘Additionally, DCRA will not issue acontfcaeof occupancy without verification thatthe ‘property meets accessibility quirements [DRA is not aware of any building permits that were issued without mestng accessibility sequirements. ‘Comment #2: “Some new mulifamily dwellings arenot accessible tothe disabled because the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairsis awarding permits without assuring tat accessibility is provided as required by lay.” Since this comment is substantively similar to Comment #1, we incorporate by reference the response to Comment # ‘Additonaly, now multifamily residential project are reviewed and inspocted to ensure that proposed units have the minimum 15% accesible Type A units, a required by the D.C. Construction Codes, specifically, 12 DCMR A § 1107.62.11. Tile I2A, section 107A ofthe 0 requires accessible routes, properly locate fice alam devices, and ‘Additionally, packing must comply with 2006 ICCIANSI AL. ‘is worth noting that in many malifamity constuction projets, developers utilize private ‘ulldng plans review and inspection companies rater than using DCRA inspectors. However, ‘we ae not avare of any such third party companies certified by DCRA that have been negligent in ensuring accessibility compliance. ‘Thank you for providing DCRA with the opportunity to submit comment. Ifyou have any farther questions or concer, please contact the DCRA Chief Building Offical, Mr. Rabbah Sabbakan, at (202) 442-4542, Respectully, = a ‘Nicholas A. Majett, Director ‘Waegen ie Sort Phone QM SHO Fax D}UO-9SGovernment of the District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking ek Eaezaal —— ‘wan ie ‘ete Commie May 31,2011 Ivy Davis Direstor, Baste Regional Ofice US. Commission on Civil Rights (624 Ninth Stect, NW ‘Washington, DC 20425 Dear Ms, Davis: (On May 9, 2011, the United States Commission on Civil Rights submited alter to the DC. Department of Insurance Securities and Banking (the “Department”) with an inquiry about out ‘regulation of subprime Tons and foreclosures. In that eter the Commission referred to a drat report entitled “A.imatively Furherng Fair Housing i the Distt of Columbia” which states: “There is no indication tha he Department of Insurance Securities and Banking i monitoring lenders determine whether they provided subprine loan, foreclosed on loans, or maintained ‘the grounds and buildings of forelosed properties ina discriminatory manner, ‘The D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking is the regultory authority for lending instttions licensed or bartered inthe District of Columbia. The Department regulates mortgage lenders, brokers, loan originators and banks through iensing, examination and ‘consumer complain processing, In eases where the Department finds violations of our consumer protection laws the Deparment will ssue orders and assess fines, ‘Historically, the tates andthe District have been preempted from exercising regulator authority ‘over federally chartered banks and their subsidiaries, However, the Department contins to ‘monitor the activites of lenders in the District of Columbia by making use ofthe following data + The Montane Bauer's Quarterly Detinguency Survey, which analyzes the volume and types of loan product that fll into delinquency and ultimately into foreclosure, and ‘compares District experience with that of neighboring states and the nation; ‘+ Monthly Forectosure Reports prepared by the Urban Institute, which identity monthly foeclosure numbers by ward ‘+ Data ffom Compliance Technologies, whose database enables the analysis of ome _mortgage activity by lender, Brtower characteristics, area demographics, geography, and loan characterises; ‘+ Trends from consumer complaints and investigations; (10Fln Seet N,A04 ign, 0602 «Ta 2) Danae+ Participation in mul-stat examinations through the Conference of State Bank Supervisor; and ‘© Participation inthe Nationwide Morigage Licensing System (NMLS), (Currently, the Department is preparing to implement a new Foreclosure Mediation Program, ‘which will require District lenders to attend mediation session with homeowners before stating foreclosure process. Its our hope that this wll reduce the number of foreclosures in the District ‘As for whether lenders are maintaining the grounds of foreclosed propetic ina disciminalory ‘manner, the Department does not havea program that monitors this type of etvity the Department canbe of any farther assistance in preparing your report please fea re to contact vs at 202-727-800. Sinccrely, Mbhcaf hie Willian P. White ‘Acting Commissioner ‘Fat re NE, 74 Wag OC 202 «Ta 727400