IS LOCAL HOUSING REALLY "FAIR"?
SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT, April 26, 2008
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill April 11, 1968, one week after the murder of Martin Luther King, and said "fair housing for all -- all human beings who live in this country -- is now a part of the American way of life."
The bill outlawed the common, open practice of denying housing and home loans based on race, and was later amended to ban discrimination based on religion, national origin, gender, age, disability and family status. So 40 years after the law was signed, do people in Sonoma County have equal housing opportunities? Overt discrimination is rare. Realtors and landlords are generally careful not to indicate discriminatory preferences. They face serious penalties if they violate the law.
But how does it happen that students in a few public schools in Santa Rosa are overwhelmingly Caucasian, while other schools are overwhelmingly non-white? Clearly a school's students reflect the characteristics of the neighborhoods the school serves, but how did those neighborhoods get to be mostly white or mostly non-white? The answer may be in the zoning code. One area -- Fountaingrove -- is dominated almost exclusively by large-lot expensive housing. Other areas of the city are zoned for high-density apartments. De facto segregation wasn't necessarily the goal of city officials who approved the zoning, but it's the result.
Another factor contributing to the racial disparity is the city's "inclusionary zoning ordinance," which actually operates to exclude affordable housing from new developments. Most cities in the county require developers to include some affordable housing in their projects, helping integrate neighborhoods. Developers in Santa Rosa are allowed pay an "in lieu fee" instead. The money is used to build affordable housing, but usually in neighborhoods which have lots of affordable housing.
Santa Rosa is not alone. Healdsburg is considering a proposal to build a 130-room luxury hotel and 70 elegant houses on 250 acres known as "Saggio Hills." The hotel will employ about 250 low-wage workers, and more will be employed as gardeners and maids in the fancy homes. The developer has offered to donate some land to the city which could be used for affordable housing at some future date, but the proposal does not include affordable housing for any of these workers. Nor is there housing affordable to them elsewhere in Healdsburg. So they'll have to commute from Santa Rosa or Ukiah.
The developer says the project will feature "green design." But color-wise, its residents will be mostly white. And any benefit from solar panels will be dwarfed by the huge environmental impact of hundreds of workers commuting on Highway 101.
A member of the Sonoma City Council recently objected to efforts to provide affordable housing which would serve farmworkers and other low-income, mostly non-white families. He derided it as "subsidized housing" and equated it to housing common in Eastern Europe. Nevermind that he and other wealthy homeowners get a huge housing subsidy -- in the form of mortgage interest tax deductions.
All of our city councils favor economic development. They want an abundance of workers, but they aren't ready to accept these workers -- who tend to be non-white -- as neighbors. Cities that welcome exclusive developments like Saggio Hills often have to be pushed to approve affordable housing developments which will be occupied mostly by non-white families.
But there are signs of hope. Petaluma has been more successful than most cities in encouraging diversity in its housing development. Affordable housing is integrated into single-family housing areas; schools have a good socio-economic balance. Can they do better? Of course. Can all of our cities do better, in order to make the promise of "equal housing opportunity" a reality for all persons regardless of race, national origin, disability, age, family status, religion and income source? Yes, and let's hope it doesn't take another 40 years.
David Grabill, Attorney with the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group
(www.hagster.org)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your argument in paragraph 7 is a red herring. In fact, ALL housing - both owner occupied and rental - receives the same mortgage interest deduction. Homeowners take the deduction on their own returns. Renters benefit from the fact that landlords deduct interest as a business expense. This lowers lowers the cost of holding the property for the landlord and, in a competitive rental market, tends to lower rent by a similar amount.
The Sonoma City Council member was referring to a Marxist-like EXTRA subsidy being extracted from buyers of expensive homes for the benefit of users of inexpensive homes.
I don't buy your 'economic differences = racial discrimination' premise. The number one factor associated with poverty is marital status. Health and educational status are also more highly correlated than race. Why then do you choose race as the best basis for arguing for making housing affordable? Wouldn't it be better to promote marriage, good health practices and education as a the best solution to housing affordability?
I'll wager $10 that you won't publish my comments.
If you do, I'll send $10 to HAG.
Post a Comment