Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice … Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice...

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice December 2008

1

Executive Summary The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for the City of

Syracuse and Onondaga County was prepared by the Fair Housing Council of Central New York, Inc., a private, non-profit organization which is a qualified fair housing enforcement agency based in Syracuse, New York.

“Fair Housing Choice” is the term used to refer to the rights conferred upon home-seekers under the Federal Fair Housing Act (Civil Rights Act of 1968), and Article 15 of the NYS Human Rights Law. Municipalities receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds as “entitlement communities” are required to perform an analysis of their community’s barriers, or impediments, to citizens’ exercise of those fair housing rights. Impediments to fair housing choice have been defined as those factors which may preclude an individual or family from living where they would freely choose to live, or which cause them to live under less favorable circumstances than equal treatment under the law would dictate. In other words, absent barriers which relate to federal and state fair housing laws, these individuals or families would reside elsewhere and/or be free of negative circumstances which accrued to them through unfair housing practices.

As part of entitlement communities’ Consolidated Planning processes, entitlement communities are required to certify to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing in the utilization of their CDBG funds. As such, the municipalities must complete and Analysis of Impediments periodically, take actions to overcome the impediments identified in the AI, and maintain records reflecting the actions taken.

Federal and state fair housing laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, marital status, disability, military status, sexual orientation or age. Because many different factors ultimately affect housing choice, barriers to fair housing choice are manifest in many different ways. Among the factors which may present impediments to fair housing are the availability and quality of public services, a shortage of handicap-accessible dwellings, illegal housing discrimination, racial and ethnic steering in the real estate industry, redlining in the mortgage-lending or insurance industries, access to affordable housing and the availability


2

of certain types and sizes of housing units. This study attempts to evaluate, given the information available at the

time of compilation, which among the aforementioned factors may present impediments to freedom of choice with regard to housing location. The purpose of this study is to provide a greater understanding of the forces which serve to prevent the realization of the housing goals and choices of the residents of Syracuse and Onondaga County, and to suggest remedies to those barriers as they are identified. The study was conducted during late 2007 and most of 2008, and includes data from a variety of sources which were compiled at earlier times. In each case where such data is cited, its date of compilation or publication is provided.

Results of this study indicate that while progress has been made toward reducing some barriers to fair housing, significant impediments remain. Some of the impediments are those which directly violate fair housing laws. Others are those which result from ambiguous factors such as market conditions, insensitivity to special needs populations, or economic circumstance, but which nonetheless prevent families from freely making housing choices. The most severe impediments continue to be cases of intentional housing discrimination. Other impediments identified include the unwillingness of certain public entities to affirmatively further fair housing; barriers posed by a lack of affordable, accessible housing for the disabled; disparities in mortgage lending rates which indicate that racial minorities are at a disadvantage, both as individual applicants and collectively, in the case of neighborhoods with high percentages of minority residents. These barriers, individually and as a whole, point to community problems that will not improve without direct action to address them. Indeed, some of the results reported in this study are nearly identical to those reported in 2001, the date of the previous analysis. For many in our community, fair housing remains a dream, while the impediments to it serve as reality.


3

I. Introduction Overview

The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice is, fundamentally, a snapshot. It is a study which provides information about the current state of affairs with regard to equal housing opportunity in Syracuse and Onondaga County, at a given point in time. Since the factors which affect fair housing are always in flux, so too, should any public assessment of factors be malleable and open to reconsideration upon receipt of new information or new ways of understanding old information. The demographic data relied upon in this study is derived from the 2000 Census, with more recent data used when available.

Impediments, or barriers, to fair housing choice, are those factors which prevent residents from having the housing opportunities that they want, and to which they are entitled by law. The intent of this study is to document what those barriers are, how they impact housing choice, and to recommend strategies which will enable the community to remove or overcome such barriers. Barriers to fair housing choice may be direct, such as acts of illegal housing discrimination, or subtle, such as housing decisions which are the result of dilemmas, such as when a family chooses a place to live, not because it is the location which most appealed to them, but because it was the only available location that was handicap-accessible.

Impediments to fair housing may be either general or specific. A specific impediment is an act of race discrimination on the part of a loan officer. A general impediment is the deteriorating state of a neighborhood which makes buying a home there a difficult task or a poor investment. This study attempts to identify both types of impediments, and to indicate the changes that must be made in order to remove the barriers to equal housing opportunity. Fair Housing Laws

A combination of federal, state and local fair housing laws apply in Syracuse and Onondaga County. These laws apply to transactions involving real estate sales, rentals, mortgage-lending, any type of lending which is secured by residential real estate, homeowner’s insurance, housing-related


4

harassment and hate crimes. The following is a summary of the laws and the types of discrimination they cover:

Civil Rights Act of 1866: By statute, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or color. Through case law, has been determined to prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin and religion as well.

Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended: Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability.

New York State Executive Law §296: Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, familial status, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation and military status.

Fair Practices Laws for the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County: Prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


5

How Fair Housing and Affordable Housing Differ Fair housing and affordable housing are not one and the same, although

there is a point at which the two may intersect. Affordable housing is the availability of housing which is suited to residents of modest or scant economic means; public and subsidized housing fall into this category, as do certain programs or products which make home ownership affordable for lower-income families. Fair housing is the availability of housing on an equal basis, without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, gender, disability, familial status, marital status, age, military status or sexual orientation.

Those who are protected by fair housing laws may utilize affordable housing, and in some instances, affordable housing may be designed specifically for such protected classes, such as housing complexes for the elderly and disabled. However, the achievement of affordable housing does not ensure fair housing practices have been followed; nor does the achievement of fair housing, i.e., non-discrimination, mean that affordable housing has been realized. Methodology

Races identified in the Census are White, Black, American Indian and Alaskan Natives, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, and is divided between those identifying as White and Hispanic and those identifying with some other race, together with Hispanic origin. For the purposes of this study, most data analysis is limited to those racial or ethnic categories that comprised at least one percent of the total for the issue at hand. For example, in looking at mortgage denials by the race of the applicant, only those races who applied for loans in sufficient number to equal one percent of the total number of loan applicants are counted. This was done to prevent any possibility of drawing conclusions about the treatment of certain racial or ethnic groups, when the data set is based on such a small sample that we could not reasonably draw any inferences from the results.

II. Population Demographics (source: 2000 Census, together with 2003 and 2006 American Community Survey of the U.S. Census estimates)


6

A. Analysis of Racial Demographics The most recent comprehensive Census statistics available at the time of

this writing are those from the 2000 Census. Where possible, estimates from later dates are provided, and sources referenced.

Using the 2006 Census Population Estimates, the percentage of African-American residents in each census tract in the county was calculated to the nearest whole number. The City of Syracuse as a whole has an overall minority population of 35.7%, an increase of nearly 9% since 1990. The percentage of the population identifying themselves as Black or African-American is 28%, up from 20% in 1990.

Onondaga County, which is a separate municipality encircling the city, has a total minority population of 15.3%, up from 3% in 1990, with an African-American population of 10.1%, up from 1.4% in 1990. This significant shift indicates an increasing minority population, as population overall has decreased during this time period. Furthermore, minorities are more integrated throughout the city than was previously the case, and the county is slowly becoming more integrated as well. In spite of this, the overall segregation index for Syracuse’s MSA, including Madison, Oswego and Cayuga Counties, remains high. Municipality

Percent of Population Identified as African-American

Percent of Population Identified as Minority (non-white or white/Hispanic)

1990

2003

1990

2003

City of Syracuse

20%

28%

27%

35.7%

Onondaga County

1.4%

10.1%

3%

15.3%


7


8


9

The City of Syracuse has a total of 57 Census tracts, down from 61 at the time of the 1990 Census. Of these, 11 have fewer than 10% minority residents, a decrease from 27 such tracts at the time of the 1990 Census, meaning that there are fewer overwhelmingly white Census tracts, and that minorities have made inroads into a number of tracts where there was very little presence of racial and ethnic diversity previously. Nine tracts have minority populations that are between 10 and 19% of the total (compared to 11 previously); eighteen have minority populations of 20 to 39%; five have minority populations ranging between 40 and 59%; eight have minority populations of 60 to 79%; (these three groupings were broken down differently in the previous AI; therefore for comparison purposes, it is useful to note that the total number of Census tracts with a minority population between 20 and 79% was 17 in the previous AI, and after the 2000 Census, we now know that number to be 31; in the remaining six tracts the minority population is more than 80%, compared to six previously.

What this tells us is that minorities are now more evenly distributed throughout the City of Syracuse, indicating less racial and ethnic segregation, not only at the city-wide level, but within smaller geographic delineations, such as census tracts.

Maps for each the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County have been prepared, with census tracts shaded to correspond with the percentage of minority residents. In Onondaga County, there are now five two tracts having a minority population that exceeds 10%, up from two at the time of the last AI. Of these, two have an African-American population that alone exceeds 10% of the total; with minority population exceeding 20% in each of these two. (See Map 2).


10

Minority population in individual census tracts

Number of Tracts: City of Syracuse

Number of Tracts: Onondaga County

< 10%

11

82

10 - 19%

9

3

20 - 39%

18

2

40 - 59%

5

0

60 - 79%

8

0

80 - 89%

4

0

>90%

2

0

This chart compares the number of Census tracts in the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County in terms of the percentage of the population defined as minorities. Onondaga County has five Census tracts in which the minority population exceeds 10%. Of these, four are adjacent to or very close to the city, comprising inner ring suburbs, and the other is in an area with a large share of the county’s multi-family housing.

This pattern of racial composition is a relic of the type of racial segregation common to modern northern industrial cities in the United States, where Blacks and other minorities became concentrated in the central city, while suburban expansion has fostered a “white exodus” to outlying areas of the city and surrounding towns and villages. (Massey and Denton) The disparity between the black population of the City of Syracuse and the remainder of Onondaga County (28% vs. 10.1%) highlights the fact that racial segregation persists, while it is nonetheless decreasing over time.


11

In a research report by the Population Studies Center of the University of Michigan, researchers examined patterns of racial segregation in 318 cities across the country, which were examined using 1990 Census data. The researchers calculated indexes of dissimilarity between the geographic placement of black and whites for the metropolitan areas studied. The index of dissimilarity is the standard measure of segregation used in such studies. It indicates the percentage of the minority population that would have to relocate in order to achieve a level of integration commensurate with the percentages of black and white residents in the metropolitan area overall. Syracuse’s racial dissimilarity index was 76 out of a possible 100, indicating that 76% of the black population in the metropolitan area would have to move to areas of lower minority concentration in order to achieve a more even population distribution (Frey and Farley). In an update to this study using 2000 Census data, Syracuse’s dissimilarity index decreased to 73.6% (Frey and Meyer, CensusScope.)

B. Analysis of Income Demographics

Census data from 2000 were used to examine the family income demographics of Syracuse and Onondaga County. The median household income for the City of Syracuse is $27,844; 25.6% of families are below the national poverty level. In Onondaga County, the median household income is $48,174, with 9.5% of families living below the poverty level.

Low/Moderate Income is defined as less than 80% of the median family income for the MSA. Middle Income is defined as a range from 80 to 120% of the median family income for the MSA, and upper Income is defined as greater than 120% of the median family income for the MSA. In the following section on Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, income will be reported in the manner that it is collected by the bank regulating agencies; low income, moderate income, middle income and upper income.

III. Analysis of Mortgage Lending Data The analysis of mortgage lending patterns was conducted by looking at

the data reported by covered financial institutions in two ways: by examining denial rates based on the race of the applicant and by examining denial rates


12

based on the racial composition of the census tract in which the home to be mortgaged was located. In this way, it is possible to find whether impediments exist for individuals, for entire neighborhoods, or both. The data examined pertain to the entire Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), not merely to the City of Syracuse and Onondaga County.

Two types of loan products were examined in this study: FHA, FSA/RHS and VA loans, guaranteed by the government; and Conventional loans, which include both conforming and non-conforming loans.

Conventional Loans

Conventional loans are defined as those loans which are sought for the purchase of owner-occupied homes of 1-4 units. These loans may be either conforming or non-confirming loans that may be issued under special lending programs established by individual banks, such as low-down-payment programs, community reinvestment loans, or loans held in portfolio by the bank rather than sold on the secondary mortgage market.

Analyzing denial rates based on the applicants’ race and income reveals that Blacks consistently have higher denial rates than white, regardless of income. In three income groups the denial rate was more than twice as high for Blacks as for Whites, even for those applicants earning more than 120% of the median household income. For Hispanics, the denial rate also tended to be higher than white, non-Hispanics, although with less dramatic differences than with the Black-White comparison.

An analysis of conventional loan denial rates based on the racial composition of census tracts for conventional loans reveals no distinct pattern, but it is worth noting that the two highest denial rates (43% and 35%, respectively) are in those tracts that have the highest minority population, coupled with the two lowest income groupings. Otherwise, denial rates are similar across income groups, with variations but no real patterns apparent. FHA, FSA/RHS & VA Loans

Loans in this category are guaranteed by the government, meaning that borrowers must meet criteria set forth by the respective government program: the Federal Housing Administration, Farm/Rural Housing Service or Veteran’s


13

Administration. An analysis of FHA denial rates based on the race of loan applicants

reveals denial rates that are nearly twice as high for Blacks as for White applicants, with an 11% overall denial rate for Blacks compared with a 6% denial rate for Whites.

When considering the racial and income demographics of the census tract in which the mortgage is sought, the denial rate is relatively steady in all low-income tracts, regardless of racial composition. In moderate income tracts, however, the denial rate is 25% in tracts which have a minority population greater than 80%; but only a 6 - 10% denial rate in tracts with minority populations that comprise less than 20% of the total. This is a possible indicator of redlining, but the nature of HMDA data is that it is impossible to prove or disprove that theory, because the data only gives generalities, and does not address the totality of each loan application, so that researchers may see the actual specific application and reason for denial.

In those census tracts whose income ranges from 80 - 120% of the median family income, again the denial rate is more than twice as high in neighborhoods with high minority populations, being 17% in those tracts with greater than 50% minority residents, compared to 5 - 6% denial rates in tracts with lower minority populations. There are no upper income census tracts with minority populations that exceed 50%.

IV. Evidence of Housing Discrimination Based on evidence gathered in 2001, the Fair Housing Council filed a

complaint against a major provider of homeowners’ insurance for redlining African-American neighborhoods in the City of Syracuse. This complaint was issued a probable cause finding by the New York State Division of Human Rights, and later a probable cause finding by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In response to documents subpoenaed by HUD, HUD filed its own complaint against the insurer for a pattern of discriminating in minority neighborhoods across New York State. As a result, the US Department of Justice intervened and in 2008 entered into a consent decree with the insurer to change the company’s practices and to provide relief to the neighborhoods which suffered discrimination. This is the strongest and most compelling

14

evidence of something that community activists had long maintained- that redlining was preventing homeowners and residents of certain neighborhoods from receiving the same benefits as residents of white neighborhoods. The analysis of HMDA data indicates that banks may be practicing redlining as well, although the evidence is more difficult to obtain.

Individual tests conducted by the Fair Housing Council since the last AI have revealed evidence of discrimination on the basis of race, familial status and disability. A familial status discrimination case in Onondaga County resulted in eleven plaintiffs receiving a significant settlement after their housing complex announced that it was planning to dispose of children’s outdoor swing sets and toys, and began a practice of not renewing the leases of families with children. The Syracuse Housing Authority (now under new management) wrongfully denied housing to a disabled tenant; when he challenged the decision and they were forced to admit him, they did so with the imposition of discriminatory terms and conditions of rental.

A housing provider in the Town of Salina used racial epithets to describe a white tenant’s biracial son, then moved to evict her. A couple who wished to sublet their apartment in Syracuse, as allowed by the lease, was forced by the apartment complex’s owner to discriminate, turning down six potential tenants because they had children.

In addition to these and many other cases handled by the Fair Housing Council, discriminatory advertising of housing has resulted in the preparation of 96 complaints to HUD during 2008 alone.

The Fair Housing Council broke up a lending scam in which unsuspecting homebuyers, all African-American, were led to overpay for homes based on fraudulent appraisals and misrepresentations by a licensed realtor and the financiers he conspired with. The first predatory lending case in the federal court’s Northern District of New York has been brought by the Fair Housing Council, and is set for litigation early in 2009.

Lending tests conducted on area banks have yielded discriminatory treatment of African-American women when seeking mortgage loans; and there has been some evidence obtained of steering in real estate sales in which prospective white buyers are discouraged from looking at properties in the city, while black prospective buyers are encouraged to do so.

15

V. Citizen Participation In preparing the Analysis of Impediments, the Fair Housing Council held

two public hearings to gain information from area residents about their concerns regarding impediments to fair housing, in addition to attending at least one meeting of each neighborhood planning sector in the City of Syracuse, known as Tomorrow’s Neighborhoods Today (TNT) Sectors. In addition to discussion and comment at each public hearing, a questionnaire was distributed to those in attendance at the hearing and at other events during the first ten months of 2008.

Public hearings were held at ARISE Inc., a disability advocacy organization, and at the Onondaga County Civic Center. Copies of the hearing notices are included in the Appendix. Public Hearings

The issues identified at the hearings are consonant with those identified in the survey results that are discussed in the following section. Concerns identified at ARISE centered on landlord-tenant issues, issues of the physical accessibility of housing, and poor quality housing stock. Residents reported concerns that there was a need to provide more assistance to low-income residents with regard to home heating, eviction defense, and simply a lack of safe, affordable housing, particularly for families with disabilities. Other issues of concern raised at the hearings included lead abatement, discrimination against families with children being widespread in the neighborhood around Syracuse University, and widespread discrimination against families holding Section 8 rental vouchers.

Public transportation figured significantly into the issues raised by residents at this public hearing. Specifically cited were the shortage of accessible bus lines, curb cuts which were inaccessible or lacking entirely, infrequent bus service in the suburbs, and suburban roads which lack sidewalks or safe pedestrian crossings. A new housing complex which is both subsidized and accessible, lies just outside the area served by Centro on Route 31 in Clay, thus rendering it useless to the majority of low-income disabled citizens who might benefit from it. They cited this as a barrier which prevented people with

16

disabilities from using public transport to access services, jobs and opportunities.

Finally, snow removal was an issue that many residents at this hearing raised. They stressed the need for strict enforcement of snow removal ordinances which hold property owners responsible for removing the snow from public sidewalks. Several residents spoke of having to use their wheelchairs in busy, snow-covered streets, such as James Street, because snow had not been removed from the sidewalks leading to their bus stops.

List of Problems Identified, in approximate order of prevalence of complaint · high cost of rent or home purchase · lack of affordable and/or subsidized housing · public transportation inadequate to access jobs and services · Acts of discrimination by landlords or realtors on the basis of

disability · Discrimination against families with children · Difficulty obtaining mortgage loans in certain neighborhoods · Lack of good jobs in the city

Survey Results

Seventy-two surveys were returned with responses to questions about cost of housing, housing discrimination, steering, public transportation, jobs, redlining in mortgage lending and insurance, neighborhood conditions, zoning and related issues. According to a recent report, the number of vacant or abandoned homes comprises 21% of the total single-family housing stock in the City of Syracuse (New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal) Some respondents to the survey reported vacant homes as a problem contributing to a poorer quality of life and neighborhood appearance. The problem of vacant and boarded homes is manifest in other problems identified by survey respondents as well. The clearest link is with the issue of homeowners insurance. Homeowners Insurance: Eight respondents indicated that they had experienced difficulty obtaining homeowners insurance. All resided in the census tracts that

17

were more than 50% African-American. The provision of homeowners insurance on an equal-opportunity basis is essential to the realization of fair housing in any community. Because the ability to close on a mortgage is predicated on the successful attainment of a homeowner’s insurance policy, the absence of such a policy can effectively preclude a sale and thus deny the opportunity of home-ownership. Even in instances where insurance policies are granted, it is both a fair housing and a public policy concern that they be granted with equal terms and conditions; that is, inferior policies offered in predominantly minority neighborhoods serve only to harm the neighborhood and cause further decay and disinvestment. Reports contained in these surveys, as well as comments gleaned from public hearings, indicate that both problems are present in Syracuse, and are harming its neighborhoods. The inability to obtain a homeowners insurance policy affects both the individual who is denied, and the neighborhood in which the subject property is located. Similarly, if an inferior policy, such as a market-value policy, is the only type of insurance coverage that can be obtained, a fire or other major loss often results in the abandonment of the property and the ensuing neighborhood decay, which in turn makes it more difficult for remaining homes in the area to obtain proper coverage. Discrimination in Real Estate Sales, Rentals and Lending

Eighteen survey respondents identified acts of illegal housing discrimination as barriers to fair housing choice. Many different bases of discrimination were identified by survey respondents, but the two primary causes were disability and familial status. Both white and African-American respondents believed they had been steered to particular neighborhoods due to their race. Difficulty obtaining mortgage loans in city neighborhoods was cited by 22 of the 72 survey respondents.

VI. Assessment of Section 8 Rental Assistance and Public Housing Programs

Several public housing authorities operate within Syracuse and Onondaga County, each administering separate programs and maintaining separate jurisdictions. Syracuse Housing Authority, North Syracuse Housing Authority

18

and Christopher Community each fulfill the function of providing affordable housing to low-income residents of the community through this HUD-sponsored program. The policies and practices of these programs are fundamental to the issue of fair housing. The Section 8 Existing Housing Program is one of the best means available to provide equal housing opportunities for low-income families and to foster housing integration. The Fair Housing Council examined and evaluated the policies of each Section 8 administrative agency for their potential impact on promoting or hindering the realization of fair housing goals. North Syracuse Housing Authority

North Syracuse Housing Authority maintains a Section 8 rental assistance program for its jurisdiction, the Village of North Syracuse. The Village of North Syracuse is located approximately 10 miles north of the City of Syracuse. Its population, according to 1990 U.S. Census figures, was 75% white, with less than 12.5% each African-American residents and Hispanics of any race. The policies of the North Syracuse Housing Authority appear to be in compliance with existing fair housing laws, with the possible exception of a residency preference contained in its plan for administering the Section 8 program. Given the small number of vouchers administered by the program, however, any effect of this preference is likely to be minuscule in the overall context of fair housing in Onondaga County. Christopher Community

Christopher Community is a division of Catholic Charities, and operates several non-profit housing complexes in addition to administering the Section 8 Existing Housing program for Onondaga County. The jurisdiction of Christopher Community’s Section 8 program comprises all rural and suburban areas of Onondaga County, exclusive of the City of Syracuse and the aforementioned Village of North Syracuse. The administrative plan for the Section 8 program was reviewed, and most of the policies described therein appeared to be in compliance with all applicable fair housing laws as well as the federal Violence Against Women Act, which requires that domestic violence victims be given particular consideration when applying for or relocating within the Section 8 housing programs and other federally-subsidized housing.

19

One ongoing problem, however, is the wording of Christopher Community’s policy regarding the determination of the apartment size that a family will rent. The wording of this policy states that if children are over the age of five, and of different genders, the family must provide each with a separate bedroom (Rental Assistance Program, Section8/Housing Voucher Program, Christopher Community, Inc. November 2006.) If such consideration is given upon the request of the family or in order to allow the family a larger unit than a simple two persons per bedroom standard would indicate, then it is in compliance with HUD policy and applicable fair housing laws. If, however, Christopher Community requires families to obtain larger units than the two persons per bedroom standard, based on the gender, age or relationship of occupants, then the policy violates both federal and state fair housing laws. This was identified in the previous AI and has not been corrected; therefore it merits attention and a policy change at this time.

Other programs administered by Christopher Community appear to be in compliance with all applicable fair housing laws; however the federal and state funding which provides for the construction of new low and moderate income housing seem designed to further increase concentrations of poverty and race by channeling funds to those neighborhoods which are in disrepair; that is fine on one level in that it stimulates some good housing stock, but on another level it merely seems to shuffle low-income residents from one part of a neighborhood to another, with no real change in the opportunities available to those families, such as better schools, access to jobs, etc. Syracuse Housing Authority

Syracuse Housing Authority maintains both a public housing program and a Section 8 Existing Housing Program. Its jurisdiction is the City of Syracuse. SHA is under new management since the time the last AI was published, and as a result some problems previously identified by the Fair Housing Council seem to have been addressed. A complaint by Latino residents that indicated non-compliance with HUD’s rules on serving those with limited English proficiency has been successfully resolved; and cooperation on the part of the Section 8 program has resulted in positive changes for those who have been victims of sexual harassment by landlords. The SHA includes information about

20

reportability rights in its orientation for new voucher recipients, as well. Both of these changes are in keeping with requirements that Section 8 programs engage in activities to affirmatively further fair housing.

One problem identified in the 1996 AI, and again in 2001, which still persists is the determination as to the apartment size that a family is required to rent. The current policy of SHA’s Section 8 program is as follows: “Otherwise, size assignment will require that two persons of opposite sex may not occupy the same bedroom unless one is a child less than six years of age.” It is a violation of HUD policy as well as fair housing laws to consider age and gender in determining the minimum size unit that a family must rent. HUD’s own policy manual which states that Section 8 housing programs may consider age and gender of occupants only in order to allow a family to rent a larger unit, not to require that they do so. It is current HUD policy that two persons per bedroom, regardless of age or gender, is a presumptively reasonable standard.

The rule poses an impediment to fair housing choice in that it unfairly restricts the rights of families to choose where and how they want to divide their living quarters. For example, this rule would require a family that is comprised of a single mother with a seven year old girl and an eight year old boy to rent a three-bedroom apartment. Under existing law and HUD policy, such a family could legally choose to occupy a two-bedroom apartment, deciding for themselves how to divide the living and sleeping quarters. In fact, if a private landlord were to impose the same requirement on this family that the Section 8 program does, either a federal court or a HUD administrative law judge would find that the landlord had violated the Fair Housing Act.

Violence Against Women Act: The administrative plan for the Section 8 voucher program does not meet the requirements of the Violence Against Women Act in specifying what rights and remedies are available to those who may be victims of domestic violence, although the overall rules of the program would seem to afford certain rights to such victims, it must be spelled out in some detail to ensure that program staff and participants are informed of the Act’s requirements.

Charts indicating the racial make-up of each of SHA’s public housing complexes are provided in this section. It is the case that most of the

21

complexes mirror the racial make-up of the neighborhoods in which they are located. SHA states that residents are able to express a preference for the complex of their choice, dependent upon availability, therefore there is no reason to believe that the housing authority is in violation of any fair housing laws. A review of zip codes in which Section 8 vouchers are utilized reveals that the housing authority has not obstructed tenants’ rights to portability; and that while most Section 8 vouchers are utilized in low-mod census tracts, there appears to be no barrier imposed by the housing authority to prevent tenants from using the vouchers wherever they will be accepted.

With regard to the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program, the size of the waiting list indicates that there is a substantial unmet need in this program. The waiting list population is significantly larger than the population served by the program at this time. Further information from the Syracuse Housing Authority indicates that the majority of those on the waiting list qualify for one or more “preferences,” meaning that many families have housing needs that are considered urgent, and which will enable them to move ahead of others on the waiting list. Given the size of the waiting list, it is likely that families who are merely income-eligible for the program, without any other exigent circumstances, will never rise to the top of the waiting list unless there are dramatic shifts in the program’s number of vouchers, or a significant decrease in the waiting list due to external conditions.

Within the public housing system maintained by Syracuse Housing Authority, there continues to be complexes which are predominantly African-American and those which continue to be predominantly white. Integration of the family buildings is at a higher level overall than it is within the elderly projects, but the disparity is still sufficiently high to take notice. Graphs depicting the racial composition of select sites are provided. (See Charts 7 and 8.)

VII. Public Transportation Numerous problems with the public transportation system are cited in the

Citizen Participation section of this report. Notwithstanding those issues, the primary provider of public transportation, Centro Bus, has added routes since the last Analysis of Impediments was performed. However, Syracuse and

22

Onondaga County are still largely inaccessible to those without private automobiles, and it will take a tremendous effort to change that fact. Bus service is inadequate in terms of its reach, its frequency and its inconvenient design, there being only one hub which serves as a transfer station. In considering the extent to which public transportation is an impediment to fair housing choice, it cannot be seen to be otherwise. It is inadequate as a vehicle for bringing those in minority neighborhoods to avenues of opportunity; it does not meet the needs of persons with disabilities; and it does not sufficiently serve the suburbs to provide the vital link to jobs and opportunity. Some hotels just outside the city limits use their own shuttle buses to pick up employees at the nearest bus stop inside the city; when buses do run to places of employment outside the city, it is often on a schedule that is incompatible with shift work.

As cited in the Citizen Participation section, Centro does not serve a newly-constructed multifamily housing project that is handicapped-accessible and subsidized, thus excluding the residents who most need this housing opportunity from accessing it.

VIII. Zoning Zoning ordinances for towns in Onondaga County were examined to

determine the impact, if any, they are likely to have on the achievement of fair housing. While some towns have greater minimum lot size requirements than others, and some have greater restrictions on the development of multi-story housing, these factors alone probably do not constitute barriers to fair housing. There is, however, one common aspect shared by most of the towns in Onondaga County which lends itself to abuses that may constitute barriers to fair housing choice.

Because most towns classify all undeveloped land as agricultural land, a zoning variance or re-classification is needed each time another use for the land is proposed. Whether a developer wants to build a convenience store, a development of single-family homes or an apartment complex for the elderly and disabled, special permission is required. This enables towns and villages to exercise a great deal of subjectivity when deciding such requests. Anecdotal evidence from planning officials, non-profit housing developers, advocates for the disabled and others indicates that some towns do not rule on such requests

23

in what would appear to be an even-handed manner. This unregulated subjectivity makes it difficult to discern the intentions of the respective towns, but it is important to note that the intent to discriminate is not necessary in order to determine that unfair housing practices have held sway. If a town has a history of receptivity to the development of upscale condominiums, for example, but has consistently refused to allow affordable multi-family housing, the impact of that choice may be to unfairly exclude minorities or people with disabilities. Similarly, if a town has a history of approving such facilities as day care centers, but refuses to allow the development of group homes for foster children or the disabled, it may be in violation of federal and state law. There is not sufficient evidence assembled at this time to determine whether any one locality has had such a pattern, but the anecdotal evidence gathered during the preparation of this report indicates that there is a strong possibility that such a pattern exists in several locales. Further study and documentation of this issue is warranted.

IX. Other IssuesFair Housing is inextricably woven with other factors in a community’s

educational, cultural and civic life which are not easily captured with data or statistics. This section is reserved for an examination of a few such issues. One such issue is the issue of public education. The City of Syracuse School District, like so many other city school districts across New York State and across the country, is struggling to serve its diverse and often high-needs population. The school census figures give an indication of how the city compares with those districts that surround it. The city’s school population is 54% African-American, 11% Latino, and 31% White. Seventy-five percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches; and eight percent have limited English proficiency (LEP). By contrast, in East-Syracuse - Minoa Central Schools, the population is 91% White, 4% African-American and 2% Latino, with only 25% of students eligible for lunch reduction, and 1% with LEP. Lyncourt Union Free School, an independent public school district within the City of Syracuse, is 93% White and 6% African-American. It is notable that this school district is located within City of Syracuse census tracts that have among the lowest African-American populations, and which is the frequent source of discrimination complaints to the

24

Fair Housing Council. It begs the question as to whether residents of this neighborhood are taking illegal steps to maintain a “white oasis” within the city as it becomes more diverse. Westhill, another school district bordering Syracuse, is 94% White, 2% African-American and 1% Latino, with only 7% of its students eligible for reduced or free lunches.

These contrasts do not, in and of themselves, tell us the entire story. However, the fact that overwhelmingly white schools exist right at the city’s gates tell us that integration is limited. What it does not tell us is exactly what it is limited by - acts of outright discrimination, steering in real estate sales, economic and housing cost factors? All certainly play some sort of a role. The trick of affirmatively furthering fair housing lies in its dual nature: we must take actions to prevent discrimination and to make sure that all residents have the opportunity to move where they wish to and can afford to live. At the same time, however, we must recognize that there are segregated neighborhoods, neighborhoods in which parents still want the best for their children and in which families are struggling to make the best of the opportunities they have. We must simultaneously devise strategies which will open doors to new opportunities, to the suburbs, to the wealthier school districts, while at the same time ensuring that we invest sufficiently in concentrated areas of poverty and racial segregation that opportunities will exist there as well.

In the City of Syracuse Central School District, 1848 students entered 9th grade in 1998. In September of 2001, the beginning of senior year for that group of students, 828 entered 12th grade. Of those, 524 graduated. The School District reports a 65% graduation rate. However, of those who entered 9th grade in 1998, only 28.4% received a diploma of any type by June 2002. (Lane, p. 135) This is a fair housing issue.

Development of properties for a mix of commercial and residential uses is proposed for the City’s Near West Side. Interviews with numerous civic leaders yielding conflicting expectations for what this development may mean. With a now faltering economy, it is now uncertain how far plans for this development will progress. Some see it as a means to gentrify a low-income neighborhood, creating space for artists and university students while driving up taxes and housing values in such a way as to displace current residents. Others see it as a vehicle to bring much-needed rehabilitation of a decaying neighborhood and the

25

prospect of mixed-income housing and access to jobs. It is not possible at this time to draw any conclusions about the impact of the proposed development, but it may have implications for the realization of fair housing as it unfolds.

X. Recommendations 1. Strengthen systemic investigation and testing of housing discrimination in Syracuse and Onondaga County 2. With the establishment of new subsidized housing complexes, conduct reviews to determine the feasibility of connecting the complex with public transportation 3. Reinstate public funding of legal services and legal aid programs to assist in eviction defense and other landlord-tenant issues 4. Require changes to occupancy standards as set forth in the policies of Christopher Community and Syracuse Housing Authority 5. Enhance existing initiatives to improve city schools and city neigbhorhoods 6. Implement new initiatives to improve city schools and city neighborhoods 7. Consider county-wide school choice initiative 8. Provide fair housing training to zoning board and code enforcement officers 9. Implement annual fair housing training for staff at public housing authorities

26

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lane, Sandra D. Why Are Our Babies Dying?: Pregnancy, Birth and Death in

America. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2008.

Massey, Douglas S. and Denton, Nancy A. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Yinger, John. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of

Housing Discrimination. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1995. The Census Report for the Syracuse Area, 1990. United States Census Bureau. The Census Report for the Syracuse Area, 2000. United States Census Bureau. www.censusscope.org HUD Handbook 4350.3, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Know Your Housing Rights: For Survivors of Domestic Violence,” American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project. “Latino, Asian, and Black Segregation in Multi-Ethnic Metro Areas: Findings

from the 1990 Census.” Frey, William H. and Farley, Reynolds. Population Studies Center: University of Michigan, 1993.

City of Syracuse Consolidated Plan, 2000 - 2005, Department of Community

Development, Division of Neighborhood Planning, City of Syracuse, 2000.

27

City of Syracuse Consolidated Plan, 2006 - 2010, Department of Community Development, Division of Neighborhood Planning, City of Syracuse, 2005.

City of Syracuse Consolidated Plan, 2008 - 2009, Department of Community

Development, Division of Neighborhood Planning, City of Syracuse, 2008.

What We Know About Mortgage Lending Discrimination in America, The Urban

Institute, 1999. PHA Plans: 5 Year Plan for Fiscal years 2000-2004; Annual Plan for Fiscal Year

2000, Syracuse Housing Authority, 2000. Section 8 Administrative Plan, 2000. Syracuse Housing Authority. Housing and Neighborhoods: Tools for Change, Onondaga Citizens League, 2000. Village of Manlius and Onondaga County Rental Assistance Program; Section

8/Housing Voucher Program Administrative Plan, 2000. Christopher Community.

Plan for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 1996. South Side Transportation Study, Final Report. Syracuse Metropolitan

Transportation Council, 1999. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Report for the Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical

Area, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, 2003. HUD Directive Number FR-4405-N-01, United States Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 1998.

Date post:	16-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangdieu
View:	220 times
Download:	2 times

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice … Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice...

Documents