UNIV. OF MD. MARSHALL LAW LIBRARY
UNDERSTANDING FAIR HOUSING
U.S.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Clearinghouse Publication 42 February 1973
3 1428 02042296 6
UNDERSTANDING FAIR HOUSING
U.S.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Clearinghouse Publication 42 February 1973
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402. Price: 55 cents, domestic postpaid; 40 cents, GPO Bookstore
Stock No. 0500-00092
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
THE LEGACY OF THE PAST
3
FAIR HOUSING AND THE LAW
6
EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
8
RACE AND THE PROPERTY VALUE ARGUMENT
11
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND ECONOMICS
15
PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
17
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a temporary,
independent, bipartisan Agency established by Congress in 1957
and directed to:
Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived
of their rights to vote by reason of their race, color, religion,
or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices;
Study and collect information concerning legal developments
constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under the
Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
Appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to equal
protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin;
Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect
to denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.
Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President
and the Congress.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., Chairman
Stephen Horn, Vice Chairman
Frankie M. Freeman
Maurice M. Mitchell
Robert S. Rankin
Manuel Ruiz, Jr.
John A. Buggs, Staff Director
INTRODUCTION
I
t is the policy of the United States to provide, within
constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout
the United States.
With this preamble, Congress, in 1968, incorporated
fair housing legislation into the Nation's body of civil
rights law. Housing was the last of the major civil rights
areas to receive legislative attention from Congress. Yet
equal housing is of overriding importance. It is a major
determinant of the quality of life afforded to minorities.
Its achievement is necessary for progress in other areas
of equal opportunity. Above all, it is vital to the Nation's
well-being.
Few rights are as basic as acquiring a home of one's
choice. The home and neighborhood are the environment
in which families live and rear their children. For
minorities, the home usually means housing vacated by
whites who, because of their race as well as ability to
pay, are able to acquire a more desirable dwelling else-
where. The neighborhood is often a deteriorating ghetto
or barrio isolated from the rest of the community.
Housing is a key to improvement in a family's economic
condition. Homeownership is one of the important ways
in which Americans have traditionally acquired financial
capital. Tax advantages, the accumulation of equity, and
the increased value of real estate property enable
homeowners to build economic assets. These assets can
be used to educate one's children, to take advantage of
business opportunities, to meet financial emergencies, and
to provide for retirement. Nearly two of every three
majority group families are homeowners, but less than
two of every five nonwhite families own their homes.
Consequently, the majority of nonwhite families are
deprived of this advantage.
Housing is essential to securing civil rights in other
areas.
Segregated residential patterns in metropolitan areas
undermine efforts to assure equal opportunity in employ-
ment and education. While centers of employment have
moved from the central cities to suburbs and outlying
parts of metropolitan areas, minority group families remain
confined to the central cities, and because they are
confined, they are separated from employment opportuni-
ties.
Despite a variety of laws against job discrimination,
lack of access to housing in close proximity to available
jobs is an effective barrier to equal employment.
In addition, lack of equal housing opportunity decreases
prospects for equal educational opportunity. The
controversy over school busing is closely tied to the
residential patterns of our cities and metropolitan areas.
If schools in large urban centers are to be desegregated,
transportation must be provided to convey children from
segregated neighborhoods to integrated schools.
Finally, if racial divisions are to be bridged, equal
housing is an essential element. Our cities and metropolitan
areas consist of separate societies increasingly hostile and
distrustful of one another. Because minority and majority
group families live apart, they are strangers to each other.
By living as neighbors they would have an opportunity to
learn to understand each other and to redeem the promise
of America: that of "one Nation indivisible."
In addition to the Federal Fair Housing Law, Title
VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, other laws exist
which ban discrimination in housing. President Kennedy's
Executive order on equal opportunity in housing, issued
in November 1962, prohibits discrimination in housing
with funds obtained through federally assisted programs.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimina-
tion in a variety of federally assisted programs, including
low-rent public housing and urban renewal. And the 1968
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in
Jones v. Mayer bars discrimination in all housing, public
and private. In addition, more than half the States and
thousands of municipalities in the country have enacted
fair housing laws.
But these acts have not reversed the pattern of
residential segregation. Between 1960 and 1970 residential
segregation actually increased. Some minority group
families are moving to the suburbs, but in far smaller
numbers than white families. Many suburban black
families merely exchange an inner-city ghetto for a
suburban black enclave. That the housing laws have not
had an impact on reversing the patterns of segregated
housing underscores the complexity of the denial of equal
housing opportunity to minority groups.
The Nation's problems of fair housing have not been
widely discussed and their complexity is not understood.
Slogans like "forced housing" and "open housing" are used
as substitutes for rational analysis. Judgments of the
causes of housing segregation are often based on
unsupported assumptions rather than on documented
evidence. There is not even common understanding of
the statutory term, "fair housing" which Congress left
undefined. In short, the American people have not been well
served by the public discussion of equal housing oppor-
tunity.
The problems of discrimination in housing and residen-
tial segregation involve a variety of issues. Many of these
are legal in nature, involving the scope of protection
against housing discrimination afforded by our laws and
Constitution. Others involve fundamental questions of
the relationship between Government and the people and
how to strike the proper balance between protection of
the rights of home seekers and those of property owners.
Still others involve practical questions such as the effect of
racial integration on property values and the relative
importance of economics and discrimination as factors
that determine where people live.
These issues also involve fundamental questions of the
kind of world we want our children to inherit. The way
we resolve problems of equal housing opportunity will go
far in answering these questions, in determining whether we
leave to future generations a racially divided or a racially
united country.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is convinced that
the problems of discrimination in housing and residential
segregation can be resolved wisely and compassionately.
It is essential that the American people be fully informed
of the true nature of the issues involved. The Commission
speaks out in the hope that it can shed light on these
issues and, by so doing, contribute to public understanding
of what has been so grossly misunderstood.
Like other social problems that have deep roots in
history, fair housing cannot be understood without
understanding what that history has been. Segregated
patterns of residency have not developed spontaneously.
They have been influenced by a variety of public and
private forces. We begin by examining what those forces
have been and how they have contributed to the current
pattern of residential segregation.
THE LEGACY OF THE PAST
S
egregation in housing has a long history. It is the
result of past discriminatory practices in which the
private housing industry and Federal, State, and
local governments have been active participants. In theory,
it is private parties—the builder, the real estate broker,
the mortgage lender, and the private owner—who make
the decisions that determine where housing will be built,
how it will be financed, and to whom it will be sold or
rented. In practice, Government is a key participant in
these decisions. It controls most of the theoretically
"private" decisions concerning housing. Government also
lends financial and other support to the supposedly
"private" housing industry.
The home builder can build only in accordance with
zoning laws, building codes, and other appropriate local
ordinances. The Federal Government offers the home
builder the benefits of underwriting insurance through
FHA and VA programs, while holding the builder to
professional construction standards. The real estate broker
is licensed by the State and is tied to an ethnical code in
his business relationships with home sellers and home
seekers. The mortgage lending institution is regulated by
one or more State or Federal agencies and benefits from
Federal backing of the lender's accounts or deposits.
Finally, the courts stand ready to enforce all contractual
agreements in the sale or leasing of housing.
Of the elements included in the housing industry, the one
least responsible for the development of the segregated
residential patterns we have today is the private
homeowner. Individual prejudice has been with us for
generations, but as the Commission on Race and Housing
pointed out some years ago: "It is the real estate brokers,
builders, and the mortgage finance institutions which
translate prejudice into discriminatory action." The
housing industry, aided and abetted by Government,
must bear the primary responsibility for the legacy of
segregated housing.
The Role of Industry
Most Americans are dependent upon private industry
to supply their housing needs. They rely on real estate
brokers to inform them of housing that is available. They
rely on home builders to construct new housing or to
rehabilitate existing units. They rely on mortgage lenders
to provide the financing necessary to purchase their
houses. Traditionally, the private housing industry has
operated on the assumption that residential segregation if-
a business necessity and a moral absolute. In the forefront
of those who established this tradition is the National
Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB). Those
who belong to NAREB are entitled to the exclusive use
of the term "Realtor" and enjoy high prestige in the real
estate profession. The membership of NAREB historically
has been nearly all-white.
In 1922, NAREB published a textbook entitled
"Principles of Real Estate Practice." It was used to train
real estate brokers. The textbook emphasized "the
purchase of property by certain racial types is very likely
to diminish the value of other property."
The next year NAREB published two additional texts.
One book stated that black families were a threat to prop-
erty values. The other text declared "foreigners" were the
most undesirable type of residents. As late as 1950,
NAREB's code of ethics stated in part:
The realtor should not be instrumental in introducing
into a neighborhod a character of property or
occupancy, members of any race or nationality or
any individual whose presence will clearly be
detrimental to property values in the neighborhood.
To NAREB and its members the housing market was
really two markets—white and black; the white market
was cultivated and the black market ignored. While the
policies of NAREB have changed significantly over more
recent years, to the point where the organization now
supports the Federal Fair Housing Law, the effects of its
past policies in fostering residential segregation remain
with us.
Private builders, while not as outspoken on the necessity
of residential segregation as members of NAREB, never-
theless, acted in accordance with the separate market
principle. Thus in the post-Second World War housing
boom of the 1940's and 1950's, giant subdivisions were
built from which minority families were excluded. The
only new housing available to minorities consisted of a
comparatively small number of units located in minority
enclaves and designated for minority occupancy.
Mortgage lending institutions played the role of "silent
partner" in establishing and maintaining a racially separate
housing market. At best, lending institutions acquiesced
passively in the discriminatory practices of the builders
and the brokers with whom they did business. At worst,
they refused to finance builders who wanted to provide
housing on a nondiscriminatory basis or to make loans
available to home buyers—black or white—who desired
to purchase housing in integrated neighborhoods. Their
defense for these policies was twofold: first, that integrated
housing was an unsound investment; and, second, that to
finance such housing would antagonize valuable customers.
The policies of home builders and mortgage lenders,
like those of NAREB, have changed in recent years. They
now support the principles of fair housing. But the effects
of their past discriminatory policies persist.
The Role Of State And Local Governments
State and local governments were active participants in
establishing residential segregation. In some cases, they
outstripped private industry in their insistence on racial
exclusiveness by adopting laws to assure it. Early in the
20th century, many American communities enacted zoning
ordinances requiring block-by-block racial segregation.
Between 1910 and 1917, these racial zoning ordinances
were upheld in more than 15 State courts. In 1917,
however, the Supreme Court of the United States, in
Buchanan v. Warley, declared these ordinances unconstitu-
tional. Despite this ruling, racial zoning ordinances were
maintained in many communities and legal attempts to
enforce them in the courts were still being made as late
as the 1950's. Moreover, the racial zoning ordinance was
only one means by which the State could insist on housing
segregation. Following the Buchanan decision, another
exclusionary device came into widespread use—the
racially restrictive covenant.
The convenant was a written agreement in which the
buyer of a house promised not to sell, rent, or transfer
his property to families of a specific race, ethnic group,
or religion. A typical covenant read in part:
. . . hereafter no part of said property or any portion
thereof shall be ... occupied by any person not of
the Caucasian race, it being intended hereby to
restrict the use of said property . . . against the
occupancy as owners or tenants of any portion of
said property for resident or other purpose by people
of the Negro or Mongolian race.
The restrictive covenant became so fashionable that in
1937 a leading magazine of nationwide circulation
awarded 10 communities a "shield of honor" for an
umbrella of restrictions against "the wrong kind of people."
By 1940, according to a magazine article, 80 percent of
both Chicago and Los Angeles carried restrictive
convenants barring black families.
Although the covenants were private agreements, they
achieved the status of law through enforcement by the
judicial machinery of the State. In many cities, neighbor-
hood improvement associations were formed to make
certain the residents of the community either honored
the convenants or were sued in the State court if they
did not. For 30 years, the covenants were enforced. In
19 States, they were challenged and were held to be valid
and enforceable. But in 1948, the Supreme Court of the
United States, in Shelley v. Kraemer, ruled that enforce-
ment of racially restrictive convenants by State courts
was a violation of the Constitution. Despite this ruling, the
popularity of racially restrictive covenants continued
and, although unenforceable, they are sometimes included
in real estate contracts and deeds today. Moreover, the
patterns of residence they helped create during their
heyday still persist.
Less obvious uses of State and local governmental
authority have contributed to housing segregation. The
authority of local governments to decide on building
permits, building inspection standards, and the location
of sewer and water facilities have been used to discourage
private builders willing to provide housing on a non-
discriminatory basis. The power of eminent domain,
which authorizes Government to acquire private property
for public use, has been used as a ploy to keep black
families from moving into all-white communities. Learning
that a new housing subdivision is intended for interracial
occupancy, some communities decide the land is needed
for public purposes and acquire it through eminent domain.
The Role Of The Federal Government
Until the 1930's the Federal Government was not
actively engaged in the housing field. When it did enter
the field, the discriminatory policies and practices of the
housing industry were firmly established. The Federal
Government, with its new programs of housing assistance,
had an opportunity to alter the policies and practices of the
housing industry. But it did not. Instead, Federal policy
in housing reflected the policy of the private housing
industry. The legislation establishing the new programs
and new Agencies was influenced by the lobbying of the
housing interests. Federal housing agencies were staffed
by industry representatives and, as a result, the
discriminatory practices of the industry became established
Federal policy.
For example, the policies of the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board (FHLBB), created in 1932 to give assistance
to savings and loan associations, were influenced by the
savings and loan industry, which strongly advocated
racial segregation. An example of that influence was
evident in 1940. In that year, the FHLBB's Division of
Research and Statistics published articles on how
neighborhoods were to be rated. The neighborhoods where
minority groups lived were to be given low ratings, while
white neighborhoods were to be given a high rating.
In 1933, the Government created the Home Owners
Loan Corporation (HOLC). Its function was to assist the
refinancing of small home mortgages in foreclosure during
the Great Depression. The enormous help which HOLC
provided American families saved many from financial
ruin. In its first 3 years of operation, the Agency financed
more than one million homes. The Agency was of little
help to nonwhite families because it adhered to a policy
of residential segregation. When HOLC acquired houses
in white neighborhoods and offered them for sale, black
families were not permitted to buy them. When it made
loans its policy was to do so only if the loans were used
to buttress racial segregation. According to the 1940
Housing Census, fewer than 25,000 of more than one
million homes refinanced by HOLC went to nonwhites.
In 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
was established. The FHA mortgage insurance program
was created to protect the mortgage lender from financial
loss caused by the inability of the borrower to pay off the
mortgage. This was an incentive to induce the lender to
make money available for housing construction. FHA
quickly became a leader in the housing and home finance
industry and contributed to many changes in the practices
of home financing. As a result of FHA's leadership, the
typical home financing vehicle—the long-term, low-interest,
high-loan-to-value, fully amortized loan—was established
in the housing field.
For nearly 15 years, FHA's Underwriting Manual
warned of the infiltration of "inharmonious racial groups."
The Manual stated: "If a neighborhood is to retain
stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue
to be occupied by the same racial classes." Indeed, FHA
was responsible for the widespread use of racial covenants
following its creation. One noted authority on housing
characterized FHA during the thirties and early forties
as "a sort of 'Typhoid Mary' for racial covenants."
Another authority described FHA policy as "separate
for whites and nothing for blacks." As late as 1959, it
was estimated that less than 2 percent of the FHA-insured
housing built in the post-war housing boom had been
available to minorities.
As with other Federal Agencies created during the
1930's, FHA filled many of its key staff positions in
Washington, D.C. and in the field offices with representa-
tives of the housing industry associated with racial
segregation. When restrictive covenants were held legally
unenforceable in 1948, civil rights groups, joined by the
United States Attorney General, brought pressure on FHA
to reverse its policy and to stop insuring properties with
restrictive covenants. Eighteen months after the Supreme
Court decision FHA agreed. The new FHA policy of
refusing to insure mortgages on properties carrying a
racial covenant applied only to covenants filed after
February 1950. This left the accumulation of the first 15
years of FHA-insured mortgages protected by the
covenants on thousands of homes untouched.
The patterns of racial residence we have today are a
legacy of the past, in which discrimination, not choice or
ability to pay, has been the principal factor that determines
where minority families live. It is a national history in
which Government and private industry came together to
create a system of residential segregation. Residential
segregation is so deeply ingrained in American life that
the job of assuring equal housing opportunity to minority
groups means not only eliminating present discriminatory
practices but correcting the mistakes of the past as well.
FAIR HOUSING AND THE LAW
T
he legacy of the past has made it difficult to achieve
equal housing opportunity through the processes
of law. But there is a substantial body of law,
through Presidential Executive orders, congressional action,
and constitutional case law, that establishes fair housing as
the law of the land. These laws, if enforced, can contribute
to the achievement of fair housing in fact as well as in legal
principle.
As in other areas of the national civil rights concern,
the judiciary has pointed the way for the Nation. The
Supreme Court of the United States, in the 1917 Buchanan
case,
prohibited, on constitutional grounds, local govern-
ments from requiring residential segregation. This ruling
is noteworthy because in 1896 the Supreme Court had
established the doctrine that legally compelled segregation
in such areas as public transportation and public education
was constitutionally permissible. The Buchanan decision
destroyed the doctrine as it applied to housing. Again in
1948,
in Shelley v. Kraemer, the Supreme Court struck
down as unconstitutional the legal enforcement of racially
restrictive covenants.
As the Court was handing down its decisions, the
executive branch, through FHA and other Federal
Agencies, was actively supporting residential segregation.
Congress was silent.
The executive branch of the Government took fair
housing action for the first time in 1962, when President
Kennedy issued an Executive order on equal opportunity
in housing. While it represented a significant legal step
forward, his Executive order was limited. First, its
guarantee of nondiscrimination was restricted largely to
housing provided through the insurance and guaranty
programs administered by FHA and its sister agency,
the Veterans Administration (VA). But most of the
Nation's housing is financed through "conventional"
(non-FHA or VA) loans made by private lending
institutions. Housing financed through conventional loans
was not covered by the President's order.
Second, the order applied only to FHA and VA housing
insured or guaranteed after the date of the order's issuance
(November 20, 1962). It left hundreds of thousands of
existing housing units receiving FHA and VA assistance
immune from the requirement of the nondiscrimination
mandate. Barely 1 percent of the Nation's housing was
covered by President Kennedy's Executive order.
In 1964, Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination in any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Among the
principal programs affected by this law were low-rent
public housing, a program directed to providing housing
for the poor, and urban renewal. Like President Kennedy's
Executive order, Title VI excluded conventionally financed
housing. Title VI also excluded most FHA and VA
housing, which the Eexcutive order covered. Less than
half of 1 percent of the Nation's housing inventory was
subject to the nondiscrimination requirement through
Title VI.
In 1968, Congress enacted Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, the Federal Fair Housing Law. This law
prohibits the discriminatory practices of all real estate
brokers, builders, and mortgage lenders. Discrimination
in advertising and "blockbusting" (a method by which
families are induced to sell their homes through
representations that their neighborhood is to be inundated
by minority families) are prohibited. Houses sold without
the aid of public advertising or a broker, and rooming houses
in which the owners live (the so-called "Mrs. Murphy"
exemption) are excepted under Title VIII. Today, more
than 80 percent of all housing is subject to the require-
ments of the Federal Fair Housing Law.
In June 1968, 2 months after enactment of Title VIII,
the Supreme Court of the United States, in the landmark
case of Jones v. Mayer ruled that an 1866 Civil Rights
law passed under the authority of the 13th amendment
(which outlawed slavery) bars all racial discrimination
in housing, private as well as public.
By 1968 an arsenal of Federal laws prohibited housing
discrimination. Taken separately, each of the laws has
weaknesses to counterbalance their strengths. President
Kennedy's Executive order and Title VI have strong
enforcement mechanisms—the threat that Federal funds
will be withdrawn from those who practice discrimination.
But this applies to barely 1 percent of the housing market.
Title VIII and the Supreme Court decision in Jones v.
Mayer, although they provide wide coverage of the
housing market, have weak enforcement powers, limited to
litigation and voluntary compliance.
Taken together, however, these laws provide the basis
for a comprehensive effort to establish fair housing as a
fact of American life. Of major importance is that Title
VIII directs all Departments and Agencies, including the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
to administer programs and activities relating to housing
and urban development "in a manner affirmatively to
further the purposes of [fair housing]." Agencies have
given little attention to this provision and have failed to
use the leverage of their financial assistance programs to
assure compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Law.
Even in programs subject to the Executive order or Title
VI,
where the sanction of fund termination is required, it
has rarely been used. Only a few of the FHA-aided
builders, covered under the Eexcutive order, have been
debarred by FHA, even in the most blatant cases of
discrimination. A survey of houses with minority group
occupancy conducted by FHA illustrates the limited
success achieved under the Executive order. In July 1967,
FHA Insuring Office Directors conducted a survey of
FHA subdivisions built after the date of President
Kennedy's order. Of the more than 400,000 houses
surveyed, only 3.3 percent had been sold to black families.
The penalty for violation of Title VI, withdrawal of
Federal funds, has never been used by HUD in cases of
discrimination. In public housing the history of HUD
acquiescence in discriminatory assignment of tenants and
selection of sites has contributed to the segregation and
isolation of low-income, minority group families. Federal
courts have found HUD guilty of continuing to condone
these practices in violation of Title VI, the Federal Fair
Housing Law, and the Constitution of the United States.
In urban renewal, which involves the displacement of
families from slum areas, three of every five families
displaced as of June 1970 were minority group members.
It is with some justification that minorities, who suffer
under this program in the name of urban progress, refer
to urban renewal as "Negro removal." Here, too, court
suits have been necessary because of HUD's failure to
apply equal opportunity requirements. In December 1971,
a Federal court in Detroit found HUD to be a party to the
removal of a large number of black families from the city
of Hamtramck, Michigan.
In other programs the courts have had to require HUD
to consider fair housing goals in administering its housing
programs. In Shannon v. HUD, a United States court of
appeals in December 1970 found that HUD had approved
the construction of a low-rent housing project in Philadel-
phia, under the rent supplement program, which served
to increase the concentration of minorities in the area.
In the face of protests by black and white residents,
businessmen, and representatives of civic organizations,
HUD,
nevertheless, had granted the funds and permitted
the project to be constructed. The court ruled that HUD
had unlawfully failed to consider the racial impact of
the project in approving it.
Title VIII was nearly 4 years old before HUD started to
coordinate its housing programs with the provisions of the
new law. In early 1972 it adopted regulations establishing
criteria for the selection of sites for subsidized housing
aimed at assuring locations outside areas of existing
poverty and minority concentrations. HUD also adopted
regulations requiring FHA-aided builders and developers
to develop plans for affirmatively marketing their houses to
minority families, long denied equal access to FHA
housing. In addition, HUD, together with the General
Services Administration, established criteria for the
selection of sites for Federal installations aimed at securing
an adequate supply of low- and moderate-income housing,
available on a nondiscriminatory basis, in communities
where Federal Agencies locate.
The principal mechanism HUD has relied upon in
enforcing Title VIII is the processing of housing
complaints, which is the least effective way to enforce the
law. Families that complain of housing discrimination
cannot be assured of immediate
relief.
HUD has a backlog
of housing complaints and the average time for the
processing of a complaint is 5 months. In some cases, HUD
refers the complaints to State and local civil rights agencies
for investigation. But it is unable to monitor its referrals
because of the backlog of housing grievances.
Federal policy on housing discrimination has changed
markedly from what it was 30 years ago but its practice
in carrying out the new policy has not changed to the
same extent. Commenting on the current posture of the
Federal Government, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
concluded last year:
. . . the zeal with which Federal officials carried out
policies of discrimination in the early days of the
Government's housing effort has not been matched
by a similar enthusiasm in carrying out their current
legal mandate of equal housing opportunity. Housing
discrimination and residential segregation, which the
Federal Government helped to foster, remain a fact of
life in the Nation's metropolitan areas.
house. If the owner chooses to dispose of the property
personally, without the use of a broker or public
advertising, that person is exempt from the law. Further-
more, the resident owner of a rooming house is exempt
from the statute. In short, the housing and home finance
industry, and not the individual property owner, is the
principal target of Title VIII.
Second, what rights traditionally associated with
homeownership are restricted by Title VIII? Those in the
business of housing and home finance (against whom the
Fair Housing Law is principally aimed) are not home-
owners in the traditional sense. Real estate brokers and
mortgage lenders typically do not own the houses or
apartments being sold or rented. They render a service
in the form of bringing buyers and sellers together or
providing funds for the purchase of property. To the extent
that members of these two industries do own property
(whether through real estate speculation or mortgage
loan foreclosure) their sole interest is placing the
property on the market for a quick turnover. Builders
of subdivisions do own property. But again, their interest
is in disposing of the houses they build as quickly and as
profitably as possible. Owners of apartment houses also
own property, often retaining ownership for many years.
Typically, apartment house owners are not individuals
but corporations; and their interest is in profit not
residence.
Together these members of the housing and home
finance industry control the housing market and can
dictate where people are to live. It is to this industry that
Title VIII is primarily directed. In this sense, Title VIII
is within the established tradition of Government
regulation of private industry in the interest of protecting
the rights of the public. Furthermore, the restrictions
imposed by Title VIII do not limit the use members of
the industry may make of property. But it does curb
their power to dictate, on the basis of race and color, where
people shall live.
How does Title VIII affect the individual homeowner?
Most of the rights generally associated with homeowner-
ship remain unimpaired by Title VIII. If a homeowner
chooses not to sell or rent his home the fair housing law
does not apply at all. If the homeowner chooses to sell or
rent without the services of a representative of the housing
industry, he or she is free to act on any basis, including
racial discrimination. But if the services of a real estate
broker or newspaper advertising are employed, the
provisions against discrimination contained in Title VIII
are applicable.
Homeowners, while not the principal target of the Fair
Housing Law, nonetheless are affected because most
homeowners use the services of a real estate broker or
public advertising in selling their houses.
Moreover, the Jones v. Mayer decision, holding that
an 1866 Civil Rights Law barred all racial discrimination
in housing, by private as well as public parties, affects the
private homeowner even more directly whether the services
of a broker or public advertising are employed or not.
But Title VIII and the Jones case apply only when home-
owners decide, of their own free will, that they wish to
dispose of their private property to those who will meet
their terms. They state, in effect, that they do not wish
to live in their home any more, that they want dollar
value in exchange for their property, Title VIII and
Jones require minority purchasers or renters be given
the same consideration as others who are willing to meet
these terms.
Title Vni and Jones restrict the rights of homeowners.
That is not new. No one has an absolute dominion over
the property he owns. Property restrictions are imposed in
the public interest. Zoning laws regulate the use of
property. Building codes set standards of construction with
which homeowners must comply. Other requirements
dictate the size of houses. The restriction placed upon the
homeowner by these two laws are mild in relation to other
housing regulations.
Property rights have never been absolute. Traditionally,
they have been subject to modification to accommodate
other rights in the public interest. Title VIII and Jones
are within that tradition. They represent, not an under-
mining of traditional property rights, but a means to
redress an historical disadvantage that has restricted
minority groups from competing on equal terms with
whites in the housing market. In the Commission's view,
the balance that these laws strike between the interests of
homeowners and home seekers is historically just, legally
sound, and morally right.
10
RACE AND PROPERTY VALUE ARGUMENT
T
he cornerstone of the separate housing market is the
conviction that the entry of black families into a
neighborhood is followed by a drop in property
values. The fear of financial loss generated by this convic-
tion is the most frequent reason advanced for the exclusion
of racial minorities from a neighborhood. For the average
homeowners his home is a major investment; and for the
real estate investor, the value of his property is a legitimate
concern.
Origins
Although the origin of the property value argument is
not known, as early as 1910, several States and cities used
it as justification for legislating racial zoning ordinances.
The professional literature of the real estate industry
continued to perpetuate the myth of the property value
argument. As one textbook stated the argument:
The colored people certainly have a right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness but they must
recognize the economic disturbance which their
presence in a white neighborhood causes and forego
their desire to split off from the established district
where the rest of their race lives.
Journals of real estate appraisal in the 1930's advocated
an "intensive study" of the "presence or intrusion of
discordant racial groups" in the neighborhood as an
important consideration to be used when appraising a
house. NAREB's Code of Ethics specifically warned of
the "racial group" threat to property value, as did the
Federal Government in its FHA Underwriting Manual.
Lending institutions followed suit. All were convinced a
"mixed" neighborhood would endanger long term financing
of an area because of decreased property values. As one
savings and loan official stated in the 1950's: "We make
loans to colored in established areas only. If they were
introduced in a new area, property values would fall 50
percent." In 1950, one researcher noted, after studying
hundreds of items and examining the content of
professional courses offered on the subject of appraising
and real estate generally, that he had uncovered little
material that deviated from or disputed the views of the
real estate industry.
By the 1950's the opinion of the real estate industry
began to change. NAREB changed its Code in 1952,
and professional articles urged the industry to reconsider
the generalizations regarding the effects of "infiltration"
by blacks on property values in an area. Some real estate
professionals admitted that race might
be"
only one factor,
or that racial integration could have a positive effect on
real estate values. An appraiser urged his profession to
"approach the problem without prejudice." He recognized
that it would be difficult. "We have been brought up,"
he said, "with deeply ingrained emotional feelings," on the
issue of race. As late as 1961 the Federal Agencies that
supervise the Nation's mortgage lending institutions still
held the view that minority groups moving into a neighbor-
hood could be the cause of a decline in property values.
Myth And Reality
The fact is: there is no substance to the view that
minority group residency inevitably leads to a decline in
property values. The objective factors affecting property
values have no relation to race at all. They depend upon
the condition of the housing market and include a cluster
of elements, such as the age and condition of the housing,
the under-or-over supply of certain house styles, the
price range of the housing, zoning changes, the under-or-
over development of a neighborhood, and changes in
neighborhood amenities.
Studies made in the last 20 years rarely have concluded
that property values decrease when blacks move into a
previously all-white area. They support the finding that
race has little effect on values and that racial integration
is generally associated with stable and even increased
property value. A study completed in Louisville, Kentucky
in 1966 showed that of the sales of 183 houses in
"changing" neighborhoods. 91 houses showed an increase
in value, 73 houses showed no change in the value of the
property, and 17 houses decreased in value. Another study
in Plainfield, New Jersey 2 years later found that property
values in a neighborhood that underwent a racial change
showed the same upward trend in prices as the comparable
all-white area. Other studies have drawn similar conclu-
sions.
These studies have been conducted in San Francisco,
Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, Houston, and
Baltimore.
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Experience suggests that when the forces of the housing
market operate freely, minority group place of residence
does not result in property value instability, and the
traditional belief about the relationship between race and
property values is a myth. When this myth becomes the
basis for action, however, the economic forces of the
housing market can become so distorted as to make the
myth a reality.
Appraisers play an important role in this process. They
set the "value" on residential property for sale or for
purposes of investment. As a profession, appraising is
chained to the real estate industry and appraisers
frequently share the same beliefs and traditional attitudes
regarding race and property values as Realtors. An
appraiser's professional opinion of a piece of property
includes the social and economic trends of a neighborhood.
He considers race as a factor, if he believes the entry of
blacks into the area will affect the stability of the neighbor-
11
12
13
hood. Consequently, his judgment of "value" is similarly
influenced.
White residents of a neighborhood into which a black
family has moved may create the problem they fear most,
a decrease in property value. If a number of white
homeowners list their homes for sale because of a black
family's presence, others may follow, and a panic to sell
is underway. The fears of the residents may materialize
because they have overtaxed the market and prices must
be lowered to attract buyers to balance the unusually large
number of sellers. Their own actions have caused their
fears to be realized—-a "self-fulfilling" prophecy.
Blockbusters
Indeed, white residents do have something to fear—
not black families moving into a neighborhood, but the
unscrupulous "blockbusters" and speculators who feed
upon those fears. The worst of these speculators solicit
listings of houses for sale, deliberately inciting panic and
white flight, to buy property at very low prices and re-sell
to blacks at very high prices. This is now illegal, but the
practice continues and homeowners are panicked into
selling their houses instead of standing firm and refusing
to cooperate with the speculators.
Mortgage Lenders
The financing of home purchase and improvement is
crucial to the stability of property values in an area.
The availability of loans is influenced by the lenders'
attitude toward race and property value. The practice of
"redlining" by lenders [the refusal to make any loans in
a particular area] can be the cause of decreasing property
value. A study by the National Urban League in 1971
found that in five major cities, the neighborhoods that
underwent a racial change in the 1950's faced a withdrawal
of home financing and insurance. The result was a
deterioration of the neighborhood and, finally, an
abandonment of the area.
In Chicago and Cleveland where "blockbusting" was
used, black buyers were sold houses at inflated prices.
These were the same houses that former white owners were
panicked into selling at low prices. The black buyers,
unable to obtain regular loans were left with impossible
commitments—two mortgages, high interest rates, land
contracts (under which they accumulate no equity and
stand to lose the house if they fail to continue payments),
and no capital with which to repair or improve their
homes.
In St. Louis, mortgage lenders freely admitted to shutting
off housing funds to large areas of the city except in the
white neighborhoods. But in Atlanta and Detroit, also
studied by the Urban League, lenders continued to make
mortgage loans and home improvement monies available.
Blacks were able to maintain homeownership and the
value of property that had undergone a racial transforma-
tion in the two cities remained stable.
Minority Housing Need
Finally, there is another phenomenon affecting the
value of property. Since minorities face a restricted
housing market because of racial discrimination, their
demand for housing tends to be high in areas that become
"open" to them. After one or more minority families have
been able to buy or rent in a previously white neighbor-
hood, the demand by other minority families for housing
in the same neighborhood may grow, thereby increasing
the price of housing. Sometimes the rise in price is
temporary and values fall back to a level commensurate
with the original value of the property. At other times
prices remain high, especially if the minority families
moving into the area have higher incomes than the
previous occupants.
There is no inevitable relationship between race and
property values. But when the normal forces of the
housing market are artifically manipulated the race-
property relationship may be created. When areas
previously closed to minorities are opened, the level of
prices rise; and when white homeowners are induced to
sell in panic, prices decline. In either case, only those
who artifically manipulate the market gain from the rise
and fall of property value. Minority buyers, excluded from
decent housing, pay a premium for housing in neighbor-
hoods that are "open". White residents who panic and sell
assure by their action that property values will fall. Their
fears are realized.
14
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND ECONOMICS
T
he myth of the relationship between race and housing
property value persists. Today, it is expressed in a
different form. Because of the civil rights laws
enacted over the last decade and a
half,
racial discrimina-
tion has gone largely underground. Open statements of
racial prejudice are rarely made by persons in positions of
responsibility in public and private life. Members of the
housing industry and public officials seldom argue publicly
that the entry of black families into a neighborhood
necessarily causes it to deteriorate. The property value
argument is veiled and couched in terms of the effect low-
income families will have upon property values in a
neighborhood. In many communities, particularly white
suburbia, measures are taken to exclude these families.
Ordinances are enacted to require the zoning of large
lots.
Minimum square footage requirements are stepped
up.
Building codes that unnecessarily increase the cost of
construction are tightened. And residential property is
converted into public use. These measures are enacted to
prevent the construction of low- and moderate-income
housing, some of which minority families could occupy.
The communities argue that their opposition to low- and
moderate-income housing has nothing to do with race, only
with economics.
Similarly, public and private housing officials explain
the absence of minority group families from new
suburban areas as a consequence of economic, not racial,
barriers. The homes are too expensive for blacks, they
explain, and the rents are more than blacks can afford.
Economics helps to explain why minority families are
more poorly housed than members of the white majority.
For example, median black family income is lower than
that of whites, and good housing tends to be expensive.
But economic factors do not entirely explain the existent
widespread residential segregation. It can be explained
only if racial discrimination is also weighed in the balance.
The notion that blacks and other minorities need only
larger incomes to gain an equal choice of housing is not
supported by fact. If that were true, it would be expected
that all poor families, whether white or black, would be
equally restricted in their choice of housing. The evidence
indicates that segregation by race is more widespread than
segregation by income.
Census figures show that poor white families are not
confined to housing in the central city as are poor black
families. White families are widely dispersed throughout
the metropolitan areas. The percentage of poor white
families who live in suburban areas comes close to equaling
the percentage of white suburban residents who are not
poor. Nearly half of all poor white families live in the
suburbs, while four out of five poor black families are
confined to the inner-city.
The Commission's own study of the Section 235
program of homeownership of lower-income families also
documented the fallacy of the belief that economic, rather
than racial, factors are the main obstacles to free housing
choice for minorities. Under the Section 235 program,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development
provides financial subsidies to enable lower-income families
to become homeowners. All families eligible to participate
in the program—white and black—must be within the
same income range. All houses eligible for purchase under
the program—whether purchased by whites or blacks—
are subject to the same restrictions as to cost. The
Commission found that the program was operating freely
throughout metropolitan areas. Most of the new housing
was being built in the suburbs, while existing housing
utilized under the program was located in the central
city.
If the economic rationale used to explain racial
residential patterns were valid, it would be expected that
black and white families alike, would have access to
suburban, as well as central city, housing. But this was
not the case. The new suburban housing was occupied
almost entirely by white families, while existing central
city housing— generally much inferior to the suburban
housing—was occupied by black families. In short, the
same pattern that exists in the housing market generally
was almost precisely duplicated under the 235 program.
But the economic justification was absent. The Com-
mission's investigation showed that a variety of
discriminatory practices, not economics, accounted for the
segregation that occurred.
A companion program to Section 235, a program of
rental housing for lower-income families called Section
236,
has generated the same segregated patterns of
residence, again without the traditional economic rationale.
Under this program, where costs and income limits are
the same regarding all participating families, the projects
have been occupied largely on a racially segregated basis.
Statistics on homeownership indicate that at every
income level blacks have less of an opportunity than
whites to become homeowners. Half of all white families
earning between $3,000 and $6,000 a year are home-
owners, but only a third of all black families in the same
income range own homes. In the middle- and upper-income
group, four of every five white families own their homes.
For black families in the same income group only two
out of three are homeowners.
There is evidence that opposition to low- and moderate-
income housing by suburban communities is as strongly
motivated by racial factors as it is by economic factors.
In many cases, the economic argument against lower-
income housing is used to conceal racial discrimination.
15
For example, some white suburban communities have
prevented the construction of lower-income housing that
would permit black families to move into the community,
but have accepted similar housing construction planned
for poor elderly persons already living within the borders
of the suburban community.
Several court cases have pierced the veil of deception
represented by the economic argument. In 1970, the city
of Lackawanna, New York, was the subject of litigation
in Federal court for refusing to grant a building permit
to a sponsor (who was black) of a low-income housing
project. The city defended its position on the ground that
the new units would be a burden on the city's sewer and
water system. In addition, the city contended the proposed
site was needed for a city park. The court found a different
reason for the position of the city. Substantial evidence
proved to the court that opposition to the low-income
housing project was based on the "discriminatory
sentiments of the community."
In a similar case in Lawton, Oklahoma, the city argued
that its refusal to change a zoning law to permit construc-
tion of subsidized housing was based on the increased cost
of public services which the new housing would require.
But this court, too, ruled the hidden cause of the city's
action was the racial prejudice of white residents.
At least one Federal court has ruled that a discrimina-
tory effect is unlawful. When residents of a California
town voted to block construction of a housing project to
be occupied primarily by Mexican Americans, a Federal
court ruled, even if the voters had not been racially
motivated, the action was still unconstitutional, if it had
the effect of keeping minority groups segregated. City
officials, the courts said, have an absolute duty to consider
the housing needs of minority families.
These cases indicate the courts understand the part
racial attitudes play in opposition to low-income housing,
and they have been unwilling to allow communities to
maintain segregation by hiding behind a cloud of other
issues.
President Nixon, in his 1971 "Statement on Federal
Policies Relative to Equal Housing Opportunity"
recognized the use of economic arguments as false
justification for excluding minority homeseekers from a
community. The President said: ". . . we will not
countenance any use of economic measures as a subterfuge
for racial discrimination." Three days after the President's
statement, the Department of Justice initiated court action
against the city of Black Jack, Missouri. Black Jack had
been an unincorporated area until the announcement that
a low-income housing project sponsored by a church group
was to be constructed in the city. Residents of Black Jack
opposed the project and offered a variety of economic
burdens as their reason. The residents denied that race
played a part in their decision. The Government's suit
charges that Black Jack's rapid incorporation as a city and
its immediate enactment of a law prohibiting new multiple-
family dwellings had the continuation of racial segregation
as its objective.
16
PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
O
ne lesson learned from the civil rights experience in
the 1960's is there is no single path to resolving
problems of racial injustice. The lesson was
learned on a trial-and-error basis, as the Nation focused its
attention piecemeal on civil rights issues—voting rights,
jobs,
public accommodations, and education—as though
each provided the only solution. Housing came last.
Housing is one of the most complex and intractable
areas in the civil rights field. A denial of the right to vote
can be corrected instantly because thousands of
disfranchised citizens can be registered to vote. While
discrimination of the past is more difficult to overcome
in employment and education, the Nation has achieved
measurable results in these areas in a relatively short time.
In housing, the legacy of the past has a much stronger
bearing on the present and future. Patterns of residence
have developed over a period of decades in which
government at all levels and private industry combined to
establish a racially dual housing market—separate and
unequal. The problem facing us now is not merely to end
current discriminatory practices, but also to eliminate the
effects of past discrimination and reverse the residential
segregation that now exists. This is extraordinarily difficult
and the answer does not lie in any single approach whether
it be adoption of a fair housing law or breaking down
existing suburban barriers—racial and economic—to
minority residence. Rather, it lies in an across-the-board
effort in which all elements of the housing industry, public
and private, become active participants.
Despite the complex and difficult problems that face us
in reversing patterns of residential segregation, prospects
for the future are not entirely gloomy. There is evidence of
change in housing policy and practice—change that is still
small and insubstantial, but which can provide the basis
for the kind of large-scale effort necessary.
The Federal Government, which years ago was an
active exponent of housing discrimination and residential
segregation, now maintains strong laws and policies favor-
ing equal housing opportunity. State and local governments
have changed their official position. A few decades ago
these governments were either indifferent to the problem
of housing discrimination or were insistent upon residential
segregation. Today 33 States, including the border and
Southern States of Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia, and
literally thousands of municipalities, have fair housing laws.
Likewise, the policies of the housing industry have changed.
Trade associations of mortgage lenders and builders,
which in earlier years took positions in support of racial
discrimination, now pledge support of the principles of
fair housing. NAREB, which played a major role in
establishing the separate housing market and led the
unsuccessful fight against enactment of the Federal Fair
Housing Law, now urges full compliance.
Nevertheless, a change in official policies, while a
beginning, is not enough. The policies must be
implemented if results are to be achieved. There are
encouraging signs. In recent months HUD, which carries
the major responsibility for enforcing the Federal Fair
Housing Law, has issued a series of regulations in such
areas as affirmative marketing requirements, site selection
criteria, and fair housing advertising guidelines. These
regulations are an effort to assure that HUD's programs
of financial assistance advance the goals of fair housing.
The General Services Administration, responsible for
providing facilities for most Federal Agencies, has issued
regulations concerning the selection of sites for Government
installations to assure that lower-income and minority
employees have access to housing. The Agencies that
supervise mortgage lending institutions have started to
accept their responsibilities under Title VIII by issuing
regulations to assure that minority home buyers have equal
access to mortgage credit.
At the State and local levels, there are small but
encouraging signs of action to overcome obstacles to the
exercise of free housing choice, particularly the suburban
exclusion of lower-income minorities. Several States have
passed laws aimed at overcoming the barrier of exclusion-
ary zoning laws that keep out low- and moderate-income
housing. Thus, Massachusetts has enacted an "Anti-Snob
Zoning Law," which establishes a quota for low- and
moderate-income housing for each town in the State.
New York has established a State Urban Development
Corporation with power to override local zoning laws
and other exclusionary land use controls to provide low-
and moderate-income housing. Furthermore, in some met-
ropolitan areas, communities that previously viewed each
other with hostility are cooperating to develop plans by
which they will accept the responsibility for meeting a
fair share of the lower-income housing needs of the entire
area. The Dayton, Ohio Metropolitan Area is the first to
adopt such a plan and the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan
Area has followed Dayton's lead. Other areas to take
similar action include San Bernadino County, California,
and the Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St. Paul), Minnesota.
HUD is providing encouragement for widespread use of
these "fair share" plans in other metropolitan areas. A
few suburban communities have enacted ordinances
requiring builders to set aside a percentage of their
housing for lower-income families.
Private groups are increasingly active in the housing
field. A few years ago, private activity was limited to the
efforts of scattered fair housing councils and neighborhood
stabilization organizations. Today the private fair housing
movement has burgeoned, and the knowledge and the
17
sophistication of those involved in the movement have
expanded. These groups are engaged in monitoring the
effect of Federal housing programs. They are pushing for
innovative State and local legislation that will expand
housing opportunities throughout the metropolitan areas.
And they are urging basic changes in the operation of the
private housing market.
None of these developments, singly or in combination,
has yet had a significant impact in altering the patterns
of segregated racial residence. They must be greatly
strengthened if real change is to occur. Fair housing laws—
Federal, State, and local—must be enforced much more
vigorously than they are now. Federal housing programs
must be designed more precisely to achieve equal housing
opportunity goals. States and localities must recognize that
metropolitan areas represent single social and economic
units and take stringent measures to assure that housing
is available to all. Private industry—builders, brokers, and
lenders—must reevaluate their traditional practices so they
can contribute to achieving the goals of fair housing, to
which they now pay little more than lip service. The
number of organizations and individuals working in the
field of fair housing must expand and impress their
convictions and strength upon public and private housing
officials who may think that the fair housing movement
is a passing fad.
In the last analysis, we must ask who benefits from fair
housing? The obvious and immediate beneficiaries are, of
course, minority group families, who, in an open housing
market, gain the benefits of a free housing choice long
denied them. But fair housing is of vital importance to us
all.
The dual housing market has bred a variety of ills from
which our whole society is suffering: the physical decay
and financial insolvency of our cities; the irrational
proliferation of jurisdictions in metropolitan areas
separated from each other by race and income; and the
racial alienation and distrust that make us strangers to
each other. This is the legacy that the present generation
has inherited from the past. It is we who will determine
which legacy we leave our children.
18
SELECTED BACKGROUND SOURCES
PUBLIC STUDIES, PUBLICATIONS, AND REPORTS
A Decent Home, "The Report of the President's
Committee on Urban Housing," 1968.
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, "Neighborhood Rating,"
August 1940.
Federal Housing Administration,
Underwriting
Manual,
1938.
Kentucky Commission on Human Rights,
Fair
Housing'
Myth or
Fact,
Frankfort, Ky., 1969. Marcus, Matityahu,
"Racial Composition and Home Price Change: A Case
Study";
Journal
of
the
American Institute of
Planners,
September 1968.
Mayor's Committee on Race Relations, Race
Relations
in
Chicago,
1940.
Report of The National Advisory Committee on Civil
Disorders, 1968.
U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1960
Census
of
Housing.
U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1970
Census
of
Population
and
Housing.
U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, The
Social and
Economic
Status
of
Negroes
in the
United
States,
1969; BLS Report
No.
375, 1970.
U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Report
No.
4,
Housing.
U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights,
Federal Civil
Rights
Enforcement
Effort,
1970.
U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights,
Federal Civil
Rights
Enforcement
Effort:
One Year
Later,
1971.
U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, Home
Ownership
for
Lower-Income
Facilities:
A Report on the Racial and
Ethnic Impact of
the
235
Program,
1971.
PRIVATE STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS
Abrams, Charles,
Forbidden
Neighbors,
New York,
Harper, 1955.
American Friends Service Committee, A Report to the
President,
1967.
Babcock, Richard F., The Zoning Game, University of
Wisconsin Press, 1970.
Commission on Race and Housing, "Privately Developed
Interracial Housing; An Analysis of Experience," Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1960.
Equal
Opportunity
in
Housing;
Laws, Regulations,
Decisions, Prentice-Hall Loose Leaf Report.
Helper, Rose,
Racial Policies
and
Practices
of Real Estate
Brokers, University of Minnesota Press, 1969.
Laurenti, Luigi,
Property Values and
Race, Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1960.
McMichael, Stanley L. and R. F. Bingham, City Growth
and
Values,
Prentice-Hall, 1923.
Myrdal, Gunnar, An American Dilemma, New York,
International Publishers, 1944.
National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing
(NCDH), "How the Government Builds Ghettos,"
Housing,
October 1968.
National Urban League, The
National Survey
of
Housing
Abandonment, New York, 1971.
"The Suburbs: Frontier of the 'JO's," City, January/
February 1971.
Weaver, Robert C, The Negro Ghetto, New York,
University Press, 1948.
COURT CASES
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
Dailey
v.
City of Law
ton,
Okla., 425 F. 2d 1037 (10th
Cir. 1970).
Garrett
v. City of
Hamtramck,
Mich., 335 F. Supp. 16
(E.D.Mich. 1971).
Gautreaux
v. Romney, 448 F. 2d 731 (7th Cir. 1971).
James
v.
Valtierra, 402
U.S.
137 (1971),
rev'g.
Valtierra
v.
Housing
Authority, 313 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1970).
Jones
v. Alfred H. Mayer
Co.,
392
U.S.
409 (1968).
Kennedy
Park
Homes Ass'n., Inc. v. City of Lackawanna,
N.Y., 318 F. Supp. 669 (W.D.N.Y.) aff'd., 436 F 2d 108
(2nd Cir. 1970),
cert,
denied,
401 U.S. 1010 (1971).
Southern Alameda Spanish-Speaking Organization
(SASSO) v. City of
Union
City,
Calif.,
424 F. 2d 291
(9th Cir. 1970).
Shannon
v.
HUD, 436 F. 2d 809 (1970).
Shelley
v.
Kraemer,
334
U.S.
1 (1948).
19
20
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973 O - 496-245
DATE DUE
-
Marshall Law Library UMAB
U. S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20425
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U. S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300