fair housing Archives - Real Estate News and Commentary

August 26, 2018December 13, 2022

Online fair housing

Facebook has been under scrutiny for a number of issues, including privacy rights and political ads. In an effort to enforce online fair housing, HUD has made a complaint alleging that the social media platform has violated the Fair Housing Act. Online fair housing is a serious issue. HUD’s enforcement of fair housing extends to online social media and sharing platforms.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development complaint (hud.gov) states that:

“Facebook unlawfully discriminates by enabling advertisers to restrict which Facebook users receive housing-related ads based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability. Facebook mines extensive user data and classifies its users based on protected characteristics. Facebook’s ad targeting tools then invite advertisers to express unlawful preferences by suggesting discriminatory options, and Facebook effectuates the delivery of housing-related ads to certain users and not others based on those users’ actual or imputed protected traits…The alleged policies and practices of Facebook violate the Fair Housing Act based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability.”

HUD’s August 17^th press release that announced the complaint alleges that Facebook

“invites advertisers to express unlawful preferences by offering discriminatory options, allowing them to effectively limit housing options for these protected classes under the guise of ‘targeted advertising.’”

HUD emphasizes that the Fair Housing Act “prohibits discrimination in housing transactions including print and online advertisement on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status.”

HUD’s Secretary-initiated complaint follows the Department’s investigation into Facebook’s advertising platform which includes targeting tools that enable advertisers to filter prospective tenants or home buyers based on these protected classes.

Anna Maria Farias, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity who filed the complaint, stated:

“The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination including those who might limit or deny housing options with a click of a mouse…When Facebook uses the vast amount of personal data it collects to help advertisers to discriminate, it’s the same as slamming the door in someone’s face.”

Past online fair housing allegations

Allegations of online fair housing violations are not new for Facebook. ProPublica alleged in 2016 that Facebook allowed advertisers to purchase discriminatory ads through a targeted advertising platform (Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race; propublica.org; October 28, 2016). The targeted advertising platform had a “Ethnic Affinity” section (at that time, it was alleged that Facebook assigned “Ethnic Affinity” to subscribers based on posts and “likes”). Facebook claimed that “Ethnic Affinity” is different than race, and was part of a “multicultural advertising” effort.

Following ProPublica’s investigative reporting, HUD briefly investigated the matter. Facebook was said to have changed the targeted advertisement platform by moving “Ethnic Affinity.” Additionally, an anti-discrimination advertising system was to be implemented. However, a follow up investigation found that the reporters were able to purchase housing advertising that should have been rejected for discriminatory preferences (Facebook (Still) Letting Housing Advertisers Exclude Users by Race; propublica.com; November 21, 2017).

Facebook is not the first website to be accused of online fair housing violations. In 2006, a civil rights non-profit sued Craigslist for discriminatory housing ads that were posted by users. At the center of the matter was if Craigslist was considered a publisher. The case was dismissed based on a Communications Decency Act provision that states, “…[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Even though the suit was dismissed, Craigslist worked with HUD and housing advocacy groups to implement technology to prevent discriminatory words and phrases in housing ads (craigslist.org).

Original published at https://dankrell.com/blog/2018/08/26/online-fair-housing/

By Dan Krell.
Copyright © 2018.

If you like this post, do not copy; instead please:
link to the article,
like it on Facebook
or Twitter.

Disclaimer. This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. Readers should not rely solely on the information contained herein, as it does not purport to be comprehensive or render specific advice. Readers should consult with an attorney regarding local real estate laws and customs as they vary by state and jurisdiction. Using this article without permission is a violation of copyright laws.

April 6, 2018November 23, 2021

Fair housing for all

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, better known as the Fair Housing Act turns 50 this year. Title VIII was the culmination of a number of laws that focused on personal rights. Personal property rights are protected in Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted to specify that all citizens, regardless of race or color, were equally protected under the law, which includes property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Fair Housing Act expanded the protected classes by prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and familial status (the presence of children).

Some states and localities further expand the protected classes specified in the Fair Housing Act. For example, Maryland protects fair housing regardless of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Montgomery County protects fair housing regardless of race, sex, marital status, physical or mental disability, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, presence of children, source of income, sexual orientation, age and family responsibilities.

Some say we have come a long way in protecting fair housing rights. But have we? Even though we have come a long way to protect the rights for a number of groups, some still find it acceptable to discriminate against those who are not listed as a protected class.

It was reported last week that a home seller in Sacramento CA put her home for sale with the caveat to not sell to a Donald Trump supporter. Some legal experts say the home seller may run into a legal challenge based on the First Amendment. There are only a few states that include political affiliation, activity, or opinion as a protected class against discrimination. California’s Bane Civil Rights Act includes political affiliation as a protected class against violence or the threat of violence.

Drew Bollea of CBS 13 of Sacramento (sacramento.cbslocal.com) reported that the home seller stated that she did not want to sell to a Trump supporter. And when it was pointed out that it could possibly narrow the buyer pool by 39 percent (39 percent of Sacramento voted for the President), she said that she did not care because her point was more important than money. She stated, “When you’re talking about principles, ethics and morals, it runs very, very deep.”

Principles, ethics and morals Indeed. Going back to the intentions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the spirit of the Fair Housing Act is inclusion. In today’s politically divisive atmosphere, there are many who would agree with the Sacramento home seller’s rationale of her discriminatory demand. However, her excuse proclaiming “principle, ethics and morality” harken back to the rationale of discriminatory practices of the past.

April is National Fair Housing Month. It’s ironic that while President Trump proclaimed this year’s Fair Housing Month recognizing the 50^th anniversary of the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, those who voted for him are singled out. It appears there is still much work ahead for fair housing advocates. In his proclamation, President Trump urged “all Americans to learn more about their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act and reaffirm their commitment to making homeownership within reach, no matter one’s background.”

By Dan Krell
Copyright © 2018

If you like this post, do not copy; instead please:
link to the article,
like it on facebook
or re-tweet.

Protected by Copyscape Web Plagiarism Detector

January 30, 2015July 5, 2019

Fair housing and disparate impact – Supremes hear arguments

April is designated as Fair Housing Month. The timing for the commemoration is not arbitrary, but is the memorialization of the passing of the Fair Housing Act, which was enacted April 1968. According to HUD (hud.gov), “HUD hosted a gala event in the Grand Ballroom of New York’s Plaza Hotel” to celebrate the first year. Fair Housing Month celebrations held during April have become a “tradition” as events to remember the achievement became more prevalent. Fair Housing Month has become more than just recognition of the realization of passing a law; it has also become a celebration of diversity.

It’s January, and there’s an early buzz about Fair Housing; not because of any celebration or proclamation, but because of a case being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Oral arguments were heard last week by the Court in the matter of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. Although still obscure, the case may be one of the most important and controversial cases the Court will hear this year.

Amy Howe, in her January 6^th article for SCOTUSblog (Will the third time be the charm for the Fair Housing Act and disparate-impact claims? In Plain English; scotusblog.com), succinctly described the case that emanates from Texas: “In 2008, the Project filed this lawsuit against the state agency. It argued that the agency had allocated the tax credits in a racially segregated manner: it disproportionately granted the housing credits in minority areas of the Dallas region, while at the same time disproportionately denying them in white areas of Dallas. A federal district court agreed with the Project, finding that the agency’s allocation of tax credits violated the FHA because it had a disparate impact on minorities. Under the ruling, it did not matter whether the agency intended to discriminate against minorities; the effect was enough to violate the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed that a disparate-impact claim could be brought under the statute. The state then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, which it agreed to do in October of last year.”

Howe stated, that “The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to ‘refuse to sell or rent . . . or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race…’” This is the third case “…in less than four years, the Supreme Court granted review to consider whether this language allows lawsuits based on disparate impact. A disparate-impact claim is an allegation that a law or practice has a discriminatory effect, even if it wasn’t based on a discriminatory purpose.” The first two cases were settled before oral arguments.

According to the National Fair Housing Alliance (nationalfairhousing.org), disparate impact “…is a legal doctrine under the Fair Housing Act which means that a policy or practice may be considered discriminatory if it has a disproportionate “adverse impact” against any group based on race, national origin, color, religion, sex, familial status, or disability…” and “…safeguards the right to a fair shot for everyone.”

The outcome could affect more just the policies of a Texas housing agency. Although the Court’s opinion may not be given until later this year; the outcome will surely be felt beyond the housing and lending industries.

By Dan Krell
© 2015

June 6, 2007October 5, 2019

Fair Housing Month 2007

by Dan Krell

April is finally here, which means spring is around the corner and we celebrate another Fair Housing Month. When you think of Fair Housing Month, thoughts of celebrating equality among the diverse come to mind. This year, however, people are talking about the recent sub-prime mortgage meltdown as an indicator of how we are doing in promoting equality and fairness in real estate.

At first you might find it difficult to fathom how lending practices and fair housing go hand in hand. After all, isn’t mortgage lending a highly regulated industry? Aren’t lenders using exacting rules to qualify home buyers for mortgages?

The mortgage industry is vigilant in maintaining strict quality control standards as well as cracking down on abuses such as fraud. However, the saying “where there is a will, there is a way” holds true. There are unscrupulous people who continually scheme to make their fortune through blatant mortgage fraud and other dishonest practices.

Although there are new schemes that pop up every year, most schemes involve the use of straw buyers (fraudulent using another person’s information to obtain a mortgage), giving false information, and/or providing manufactured financial documents to obtain mortgage funding. Fortunately these folks get caught and end up in jail.

Another problem that contributes to issues in the mortgage industry is the forcing of clients to use a specific lender for a kickback (violating federal law). When this happens, it is common for the consumer to pay excessive fees, points, as well as having a higher than average interest rate.

Mortgage schemes like these are just a sample of lending abuses that occur. In addition to other predatory lending practices, all lending abuse preys on an uninformed consumer. Perusing the Mortgage Fraud Blog (mortgagefraudblog.com) you overwhelmingly get an idea of the extent of the problem.

Why talk about mortgage lending practices, predatory lending, and mortgage fraud during Fair Housing Month? The reason is that many of the abuses that occur in the lending industry are due to the targeting of certain classes or sub-classes of home buyers.

The problem does not lie with the mortgage industry per se. The problem extends from the lending industry to other professionals involved in the real estate transaction. If the settlement agent or Realtor is not already aware of the abuse, they may turn a blind eye when they become aware at settlement when they review the closing documents. If the home buyer catches on to the high fees and interest rate, they are sometimes guaranteed a refinance in a couple months by their Realtor or settlement agent (which is a common predatory lending practice).

Like many things in life, it’s not the tool; however, it is the tool’s abuse by the ill intentioned or uncaring that produces disrepute. It needs to be said that Sub-prime and interest only mortgages are needed and can be useful tools in the purchase of real estate. However these tools need to be used responsibly. A guide to mortgages and other consumer information can be found on the National Association of Realtors website (www.realtor.org/housopp.nsf).

This Fair Housing Month, let’s just not commit to practice fair housing, rather let’s assist others to practice fair housing by not turning a blind eye to their lapses.

This column is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. This article was originally published in the Montgomery County Sentinel the week of April 16, 2007. Copyright © 2007 Dan Krell.