vigorously enforced Federal fair housing law can be a potent instrument insuring that these vacancies are made available to members of minority groups as well as to other Americans. Some estimate of the economic consequences of the refusal of builders to market new housing on a non-segregated basis-a situation that may come to an end upon passage of the legislation under consideration today-can be seen from the analysis of data from the 1960 Census of Housing. If nonwhites in the income group $4,000 to $7,000 to say nothing of potential demand in income brackets above and below these brackets-living in Selected Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, purchased homes at the same rate as whites in these same income brackets, 3,322 new homes would have been required in Los Angeles; 10,445 in Detroit; 2,033 in San Francisco; 725 in Washington, D.C.; 5,658 in Cleveland; 8,860 in Philadelphia; 14,568 in New York; 18,267 in Chicago; 5,368 in Baltimore; 2,827 in Pittsburgh; 2,081 in Atlanta; and 1,298 in New Orleans, with comparable figures for the other cities. Demand for sales housing in these income ranges is even greater today, in 1966, due to the increase in nonwhite income in these and in the higher brackets in the last six years. While these figures consider potential demand among families in the income range $4,000 to $7,000, there is some evidence that additional demand exists among families with less than $4,000 income, and with less than poverty level income as well. The 1965 Report of the New Haven Human Rights Committee showed 24.3 per cent of whites with incomes between $2,000 and $3,000 in the New Haven area owned their own homes as compared with 12.4 per cent among nonwhites. For families with incomes between $3,000 and $4,000, the discrepancy was even more striking: 40.3 per cent of the whites and only 11.6 per cent of nonwhites in this income bracket owned their own homes, a discrepancy re sulting almost entirely from racial discrimination. The potential demand for better rental housing among nonwhites in the $4,000 to $7,000 income range can be seen from a comparison of the median gross rents and the percentage of substandard housing of nonwhites and of all renters. Fifty per cent of Atlanta's nonwhite renters in the $4,000 to $5,000 income range live in substandard housing as compared to 31 per cent for all renters. Nonwhites pay $3.00 less in median gross rent as compared with all families ($68.00$71.00). Fifty-two per cent of the nonwhites in New Orleans in the income range of $5,000-$6,000 live in substandard housing as compared to 26 per cent of all families. Nonwhites, however, pay a median gross rent of $62.00 as compared with $68.00 for all families. In San Francisco, in the income range $4,000– $5,000, 30 per cent of nonwhite rental units were substandard as compared to 18 per cent for white units. Nonwhites pay $56.00 median gross rent as compared to $77.00 for whites. These figures show that throughout the United States, nonwhites in low- and moderate-income brackets pay only slightly less than whites for significantly poorer housing. Some of these families are willing and able to spend more for better housing if that housing were offered them on a racially inclusive basis. Hopefully, this will result from the proposed Federal fair housing law. While the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing supports the concept of equal opportunity in housing under law, we fully recognize that even the strongest fair housing laws cannot undo the damage of thirty years of systematic promotion of racial segregation or put out the fires that rage in our urban ghettos. The Federal Government has sinned so deeply in creating, extending and perpetuating the ghetto system that law alone will not discharge the Government from its Constitutional obligation to redress past and present wrongs by insuring equal protection for all its citizens. The proposed bill, while necessary to establish a public ethic and to insure nondiscrimination, cannot alone have an appreciable effect on the accelerating racial tensions generated by a ghetto way of life. Given the magnitude and dimensions of housing segregation as a national institution, the Fourteenth Amendment's command of equality in housing can be met only through determined affirmative action involving the entire Federal establishment. While there is need for an effective Federal fair housing law, to open up the restricted white citadels and make possible dispersion from the racial ghettos, an equally potent key to the solution of today's racial problems in housing lies in the hands of the President and his executive departments, including the recently established and powerful Department of Housing and Urban Development. The President has not been reluctant to use his Executive powers in other areas to bring about needed reforms. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, he has alternately tightened and then loosened the purse strings under Executive control in order to effect desegregation of schools, health and other facilities, in North and South alike, wherever Federal funds or powers are directly or indirectly involved. It now remains for him to make comparable use of Executive control of the vast Federal funds, credits and powers available for the planning, development and marketing of housing accommodations, utilities and facilities in projects, neighborhoods and large parts of entire communities. Every day these funds are being used more to exclude Negroes than to include them. The President has the power now to require the use of these funds and powers to bring about dispersion and inclusion, rather than segregation and exclusion. We call upon the President, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and related Federal agencies to take affirmative executive action to insure that the nation's housing and related programs are administered to provide true equality of opportunity and with the specific goal of wiping out the ghetto way of life which afflicts our entire society. And we call upon the Congress to take meaningful action to insure the protection of the same right for all Americans to secure shelter. We conclude by reaffirming the words of Loren Miller, a Vice President of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, who wrote two years ago that: "The American people accept what the Constitution requires. We are a lawabiding people. To the extent that government leads the way, the people will accommodate their hearts and minds to new attitudes and practices toward open occupancy of both urban and suburban housing. The necessities of government leadership tower above popular prejudices and official timidity. Our central cities are becoming Negro cities, with segregation of schools and other public facilities: they are breeding grounds for racial frustration and despair, and pregnant with the promise of ever greater future conflict. They are the fire this time in urban race relations. Government, which fanned this fire to flame from individual sparks, must find ways to put it out." MEMORANDUM, JUNE 22, 1966 NCDH Officers, Board and Staff. Margaret Fisher, Director. Information and Publications. Summary of attached report, "The Fair Housing Statutes and Ordinances.” The attached report, revised as of June 1, 1966, is based on information drawn from NCDH files, Federal, state and local government sources, and ADL's Law Department. For your convenience, this memo summarizes the report. By June 1, 1966, at least 110 governmental jurisdictions had taken some official action related to discrimination and segregation in housing: Seventeen states have fair housing laws. (For purposes of this summary, the term "fair housing law" refers to legislation which covers both publiclyassisted and privately-financed housing.) Three states have laws applying only to some type of publicly-aided housing. Two outlying regions (Puerto Rico: Virgin Islands) have fair housing laws. Thirty-one cities and other local governments have fair housing laws. This figure includes the District of Columbia and King County, Wash. Five cities adopted fair housing ordinances which subsequently were struck down-four by referenda; one by the courts on technical grounds. One state (Washington) adopted a law covering publicly-aided housing which was struck down by the courts as unconstitutional on the ground that, among other things, it made an unreasonable classification between housing which received government aid and that which did not. Forty additional cities (at least) have adopted official policy resolutions against housing discrimination. This is a minimum figure based on Government surveys which may not be precisely current. Four states which have fair housing laws prohibit "blockbusting," either under licensing regulations or by statute. One additional state which has no anti-discrimination housing law has adopted legislation aimed at preventing "blockbusting." Six cities incorporated anti-blockbusting provisions in their fair housing laws. Eight additional cities in states which have fair housing laws have adopted anti-blockbusting ordinances. Three additional cities with no fair housing legislation, state or city, have ordinances prohibiting “blockbusting." THE FAIR HOUSING STATUTES AND ORDINANCES. AS OF JUNE 1, 1966 (A report on state and local legislative and administrative action related to achieving equality of opportunity in housing. Prepared by the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing (NCDH) :) NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING, THE RECORD TO DATE New York, N.Y. The first law in the United States to prohibit discrimination in the general housing market went into effect on April 1, 1958, in New York City. On May 1, 1959, Colorado became the first state in the nation to put such legislation into operation. By June 1, 1966, 17 states,' 34 cities, the District of Columbia, King County in the State of Washington, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have adopted antidiscrimination laws affecting some part of the private housing market. Three additional states have measures which prohibit discrimination in certain types of publicly-assisted housing, and at least 40 additional cities have adopted policy resolutions or regulations against the denial of shelter because of the homeseeker's race, religion or national origin. Also, one state and 11 cities which have no anti-discrimination laws affecting private housing have enacted legislation prohibiting efforts to incite panic selling ("blockbusting") based on the entry or prospective entry of minority families into neighborhoods. Four states and six cities which have fair housing legislation have added anti-blockbusting provisions by law or regulation. Thus, by June 1, 1966, no less than 110 governmental jurisdictions had taken official action related to efforts to achieve an open housing market. All of these measures are in effect except five of the 34 city fair housing laws. STATE ACTIVITY IN 1965 AND 1966 In 1965, when most state legislatures were in session (relatively few convene in even-numbered years), campaigns for fair housing legislation-either for first laws to apply to the general market or for measures to strengthen existing statutes-were waged in 22 states (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming). Only 12 states had such campaigns in 1963, the previous record year. During 1965 fair housing measures were enacted in ten of the 22 states: Indiana, Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio and Wisconsin adopted their first laws barring discrimination in private housing; Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire and New York passed amendments to strengthen existing laws. Also, in 1966 New Jersey broadened the coverage of an anti-discrimination statute covering private housing. Also significant is the fact that during 1965 anti-fair housing forces failed in thei refforts to secure legislation in eight states to provide for referenda to repeal or prevent the enactment of anti-discrimination housing laws. In Arkansas, Indiana. Maryland, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah and Washington, referenda proposals were either defeated or died in legislative committees. 1 Not included in the list of 17 states which have adopted laws applying to private housing is Washington, where the State Board Against Discrimination, which administers the state's antidiscrimination laws, has taken the position that real estate firms are covered by the Washington public accommodations statute. A lower court has upheld the Board's position, but the State Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. Four of the 34 city ordinances have been struck down by referenda, and one was held invalid by the courts on technical grounds. (See page 10.) SCOPE OF THE LAWS The fair housing laws vary widely in their primary coverage of the housing supply and in provisions for enforcement. Alaska's statute covers all sales and rentals with no exemptions, and is enforced by a state human rights commission. Maine, on the other hand, is the only one of the 17 states which provides no administrative machinery for enforcing a law which is limited to part of the rental housing supply. There is also considerable variance in enforcement practices, both under statutory provisions and operating procedures adopted by the commissions. Some commissions initiate complaints of discrimination on their own motion; some seek restraining orders from the courts to hold the housing at issue on the market until the charge of discrimination is investigated and resolved (injunctive relief); some lean toward a liberal interpretation of anti-discrimination legislation, taking into account "the intent of the law"; some follow a conservative approach, adhering rigidly to "the letter of the law." THE TREND The trend is in the direction of comprehensive laws which substantially cover the housing supply and which apply alike to owners, builders, brokers and mortgage lenders. Nine of the 17 states (Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island) now prohibit discrimination in 100 per cent of all residential property advertised for sale and in most rental housing. Also, there is clearly a movement toward achieving more effective implementation of the laws: 11 of the 16 state commissions administering fair housing legislation now have specific power to take affirmative action by initiating complaints and investigations of discrimination on their own motion; and seven are authorized to ask for court injunctions or have other means of holding the housing in question in status quo until cases are settled. In addition, several commissions are moving to streamline their operating policies and practices. Some states have established the right of an applicant to see a unit in which he may be interested, and refusal to show the unit is a violation of the law. Manifestly, the trend toward broader coverage of the market and for provisions to insure more effective implementation are in response to demonstrated needs and weaknesses, and to widespread recognition that affirmative vigorous action is essential if the fair housing laws are to achieve their purpose: the end of discrimination and segregation in housing and the development of a free society in which every man in fact receives equal treatment and equal service in his search for a home. State laws prohibiting discrimination in the general housing market State Major provisions Effective Apr. 4, 1962. Covers sale or rental of all housing; also applies to business transactions of real estate brokers and builders. Enforcement commission empowered to initiate complaints of discrimination on its own motion. Penalties: fines up to $500, 30 days imprisonment, or both. Enforced by Alaska Commission for Human Rights, 24 Reed Bldg., Anchorage 99501. Effective Sept. 20, 1963. Covers sales or rentals involving buildings with 5 or more units, and all existing publicly aided housing; also applies to all transactions of brokers, builders, and mortgage lenders. Provides for injunctive relief, or damages up to $500. Enforcement by California Fair Employment Practice Commission, 455 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, 94101. 1 California's fair housing legislation was restored to full force and effect on May 10. 1966, when the State supreme court struck down section 26 of Article I of the State constitution (proposition 14) which was designed to nullify the antidscrimination housing laws and prevent enactment of such measures in the future. The high court ruled that this initiative constitutional amendment, adopted by referendum in 1964, was in violation of the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution. State laws prohibiting discrimination in the general housing market-Continued State 3. Colorado___ 4. Connecticut_ 5. Indiana_. 6. Maine 7. Massachusetts. Major provisions Effective May 1, 1959. Amended 1965. Covers all pub- Effective Oct. 1, 1959. Amended 1961, 1963, 1965. |