A Historic Fair Lending Settlement for Connecticut Residents

The Center is delighted to announce the settlement of the fair lending complaint against Liberty Bank. This historic settlement will bring more than $16 million dollars in access to credit, homeownership subsidies, and economic development loans into low and moderate income communities of color. Many of these communities have not had access to credit for home buying or for home repairs. Furthermore, small businesses have not had access to credit or capital to spur economic development in these communities. Included in the settlement, Liberty Bank will open a loan production office in a neighborhood that continues to be underserved by banking institutions.

We look forward to working with our partners in the communities that will be affected by this settlement to ensure its success. We applaud Liberty’s commitment of time, energy and resources to a wide range of programs that will help promote financial education, expand opportunities for access to credit, and financially support programs developed to revitalize the housing market in communities in Connecticut that have traditionally had difficulty accessing credit.

Our congratulations to Center staff, Attorney David Lavery and Fair Housing Specialist Maria Cuerda who worked the case. We are grateful for their commitment to pursuing fair lending practices across Connecticut in all communities regardless of race or national origin.

See coverage in today’s Hartford Courant 

Read the full press release here. Press Release Final – CFHC v Liberty Bank

Center, DOH hosting forums to present study on Mixed Populations in Housing

Myth vs. Reality: Mixed Populations in State-Funded Elderly/Disabled Housing, presenting a study by CT Fair Housing and the CT Department of Housing. Join us at upcoming forums in East Haven, Hartford, and Darien. Click on slider to learn more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2017, the CT State Legislature requested a study of state-funded housing complexes that provide housing to both elderly tenants and younger tenants with disabilities.  The Center is partnering with the Connecticut Department of Housing to host three community forums around the state to present the findings of this study, separate myth from reality, identify best practices for handling areas of conflict, and discuss recommendations to ensure that state-funded elderly/disabled housing is available to all those who need it.

Join us at a forum near you:

East Haven
Tuesday, December 4th, 1-3pm at Hagaman Memorial Library (DeMayo Room) 227 Main Street, East Haven.  Limited parking is available in the library lot; additional parking is available on the street or in the adjacent Stop n’ Shop lot (please follow all signage).

Hartford
Thursday, December 6th, 10am-12pm at the Legislative Office Building – Hearing Room 1B

Darien
Friday, December 7th, 1-3pm – Darien Library (Louise Parker Berry Community Room), 1441 Post Road, Darien

Copies of the report will be distributed at each forum.  There will be time set aside for public comment at each event.  All locations are accessible.  Light refreshments will be provided in East Haven and Darien.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER 

Read Full Report: A Study of Tenants in State-Funded Elderly/Disabled Housing  
View Report Appendices

Warning – Fake “Office Assistant” Job Posting

The Center recently discovered a fake job posting online for an “Office Assistant” position purportedly at the Center.  This appears to be a scam aimed at getting personal information from applicants.  The Center is not currently hiring for this position. We are investigating the matter and have requested that this posting be removed. In the meantime, if anyone contacts you regarding an Office Assistant or any other job at the Center, please call us at 860-247-4400 or email us at info@ctfairhousing.org.  Thank you!

Center & NCLC File Federal Lawsuit Accusing Liberty Bank of Redlining

The Connecticut Fair Housing Center and the National Consumer Law Center today filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Liberty Bank, alleging that the bank has violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in unlawful “redlining” of predominantly African-American and Latinx neighborhoods in the greater Hartford and New Haven metropolitan areas. “Redlining” is the discriminatory practice by banks or other financial institutions of denying or avoiding providing credit services to consumers because of the racial or ethnic demographics of their neighborhoods.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits financial institutions from discriminating on the basis of race and color in their mortgage lending practices. The complaint alleges that Liberty Bank has structured its residential mortgage lending business in such a way as to avoid serving the credit needs of Connecticut neighborhoods where a majority of residents are African-American and/or Latinx.

The bank’s alleged redlining practices include: excluding African-American and Latinx neighborhoods from the area it serves; intentionally locating branch offices and mortgage loan officers in only majority-white neighborhoods; and engaging in differential treatment of prospective loan applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity. An investigation by the Connecticut Fair Housing Center revealed that, going back to at least 2010, Liberty Bank has originated a significantly lower percentage of residential mortgage loans for properties in neighborhoods of color when compared with similar lenders.

“Redlining systematically denies people who live in neighborhoods of color access to homeownership, therefore denying them the opportunity to build wealth,” said Connecticut Fair Housing Center Executive Director Erin Kemple. “Unfortunately, fifty years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, the practice continues. Liberty Bank is choosing to offer less assistance to communities of color in violation of the state and federal fair housing laws.”

“Liberty Bank’s practices and timing are particularly disturbing in light of the continuing impact of the Great Recession on households of color in Connecticut and around the nation,” said National Consumer Law Center Director of Litigation Stuart Rossman. “Latinx families lost 66 percent of their wealth and African American families lost 53 percent of their wealth compared to 16 percent loss of wealth for White families. Depriving equal access to mortgage credit exacerbates the continually growing racial economic gaps in our society and perpetuates the very segregation in our neighborhoods that the Fair Housing Act was meant to reduce, if
not eliminate.”

Click here for a copy of the complaint

 

Media coverage of this case:

Southington branch included in lawsuit alleging housing bias by Liberty Bank (Meriden Record-Journal, October 11, 2018)
Nonprofits File Federal Housing Lawsuit Against Liberty Bank (CTNewsJunkie, October 8, 2018)
CT Bank Sued for Alleged Discriminatory Mortgage Lending (National Law Review, October 9, 2018)
2 Consumer Groups Hit Conn. Bank With Redlining Suit (Law360, October 5, 2018)
Discrimination Against Customers Alleged in Liberty Bank Federal Suit (Connecticut Law Tribune, October 5, 2018)
Liberty Bank Accused of Racial Discrimination in Lending Practices (Hartford Courant, October 4, 2018)
Liberty Bank Accused of Racial Discrimination in Lending Practices (NY Daily News, October 4, 2018)
Lawsuit alleges discriminatory lending practices by Liberty Bank (Hartford Business Journal, October 4, 2018)

Center Files Federal Lawsuit Against National Tenant Screening Company

Arroyo v. CoreLogic seeks to establish precedent that screening companies must comply with Fair Housing Act

The Connecticut Fair Housing Center and the National Housing Law Project have filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut contending that CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions (“CoreLogic”) violates the Fair Housing Act by disproportionately disqualifying African-American and Latino applicants from securing housing based on discriminatory use of criminal records as rental criteria.Laptop with hands typing.

The lawsuit asserts that CoreLogic’s tenant screening tool denied a Connecticut mother’s request to move her disabled son into her apartment based on a record of a dismissed shoplifting arrest from 2014.  Although rental decisions have traditionally been made by housing providers, today many landlords contract with third-party tenant-screeners to make admission decisions for them.  This litigation seeks to ensure that CoreLogic and all tenant-screening companies who functionally make rental decisions on behalf of landlords make those decisions in accordance with fair housing requirements.

The chief plaintiff in the lawsuit is Carmen Arroyo, whose son Mikhail was injured in a July 2015 accident that left him unable to speak, walk, or care for himself.  After becoming his conservator, Carmen asked her landlord for permission to move Mikhail into her home.  But the “CrimSAFE” background report from CoreLogic stated that Mikhail had a “disqualifying [criminal] record,” denying him the opportunity to move in with his mother.

Given that Mikhail’s only “criminal record” was the dismissed charge from 2014 and that his recent disabilities rendered him incapable of posing a threat to anyone, Carmen might have been able to challenge the denial.  However, CoreLogic refused to provide the Arroyos a copy of the information it relied on to make the screening decision, information which they were entitled to receive under federal law.[1]  Nor did CoreLogic’s criminal background report provide any details about Mikhail’s underlying criminal history to the landlord—only a computer-generated notation that the application did not meet the landlord’s criteria.  Without this information, the Arroyos could not challenge Mikhail’s denial, so he remained in a nursing home for approximately a year longer than necessary.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits denying tenants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability including practices and policies that unnecessarily disproportionately exclude members of a protected class.

Between 70 million and 100 million Americans have criminal records. Multiple studies have shown that across the country, African-Americans and Latinos are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at disproportionate rates, even though whites report engaging in criminal behaviors (such as drug offenses, which account for over half of federal incarcerations) at similar rates to non-whites. [2],[3],[4],[5] This means policies which restrict admission for applicants with criminal records disproportionately deny housing opportunities to people of color.[6]  The federal government recognized this when HUD issued a 2016 guidance for landlords on how to evaluate criminal histories in accordance with the law.

This means that only criminal records which suggest an applicant poses a genuine and ongoing threat to persons or property should result in denial.[7]  HUD’s guidance specifically advises not to deny admission based on dismissed arrests – like Mr. Arroyo’s – or through “blanket prohibitions” that exclude applicants with any kind of criminal record without regard to the nature of the offense, how long ago it occurred, intervening changed circumstances, and other relevant factors.[8]

Instead, admissions processes should generally consider criminal records on a case-by-case basis.[9]   Automated criminal background checks with computer-generated scores and decisions—like CoreLogic’s “CrimSAFE”—are ill-suited to perform individualized assessments of applicant criminal history.  Tenant-screening software is programmed to apply standard rental admission criteria to criminal records data appearing in an applicant’s background check; the software does not evaluate whether an offense bears a meaningful relationship to housing, whether changed circumstances may significantly reduce the likelihood of an offense being repeated, or the myriad other possible factors that may relate to a criminal history admission decision.

Even so, automated tenant-screening methods—including for criminal history—are rapidly becoming the norm in rental admission screening.  Landlords commonly rely on the screening company’s determination of suitability, often—as with Carmen Arroyo’s landlord—not even receiving the underlying background information they would need to evaluate applicants individually.  Allowing computers to effectively make rental decisions will inevitably produce unjust denials for applicants like the Arroyos, whose circumstances do not fit neatly into pre-programmed screening algorithms.

A housing provider who blindly follows a screening company’s denial recommendations and has no viable process for individualized review or reconsideration thus follows a discriminatory policy under the Fair Housing Act.[10]  But the Fair Housing Act does not only apply to housing providers – it also covers individuals and companies who provide services in connection with housing, such as tenant-screening reports.[11]  When a tenant-screening company markets a criminal background report that contains only a bare “accept” or “decline” determination, and does not make underlying criminal history information available to allow a landlord to make an individualized assessment of a rejected applicant, the screening company’s “recommendation” is tantamount to the actual admission decision.

And if a tenant-screening company is going to make the actual decisions about who is admitted to housing and who is denied, then it’s important for that company to make those decisions within fair housing constraints, just as we expect landlords to do.

Ms. Arroyo and the Center, together with the National Housing Law Project, have brought an action seeking to hold CoreLogic accountable for its role in unlawfully denying housing to Mikhail Arroyo based on a discriminatory criminal records policy, and for failing to provide the Arroyos a copy of the criminal background report as required by federal law. This litigation seeks to ensure that CoreLogic and all tenant-screening companies follow fair housing requirements when they functionally make rental decisions on behalf of landlords make those decisions in accordance with fair housing requirements.

To read the Complaint, click here.

For questions about this case, please contact Greg Kirschner, Legal Director, at greg@ctfairhousing.org or (860) 263-0724.

 

[1] See 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a) (“Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request … clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer:  (1) All information in the consumer’s file at the time of the request…”).

[2] See, e.g., Alexander, Michelle, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2010).

[3] See HUD, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions, p. 2 (Apr. 4, 2016).

[4] Taxy, Sam, et al., “Drug Offenders in Federal Prison: Estimates of Characteristics Based on Linked Data,” p. 2 (Table 1), Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015).

[5] See HUD, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions, p. 2 (Apr. 4, 2016).

[6] See HUD, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions, p. 2 (Apr. 4, 2016).

[7] See HUD, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions, p. 2 (Apr. 4, 2016).

[8] HUD, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions, p. 6 (Apr. 4, 2016).

[9] Id. at 7 (“Relevant individualized evidence might include: the facts or circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct; the age of the individual at the time of the conduct; evidence that the individual has maintained a good tenant history before and/or after the conviction or conduct; and evidence of rehabilitation efforts.”).

[10] See 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(b) (defining “legally sufficient justification”); see also HUD, Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate Related Transactions, pp. 6-7 (Apr. 4, 2016).

[11] See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)(b) (unlawful “to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin”) (italics added).

The Fight for Fair Housing Goes On

Earlier this year, the Center joined fair housing advocates across the country in marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Fair Housing Act.  Unfortunately, what should have been a year of celebrating progress has turned into a year of fighting to protect central provisions of this landmark civil rights law.  It is no exaggeration to say that fair housing is under attack in 2018.

The Fair Housing Act was enacted to do two things: first, to outlaw housing discrimination against individuals, and second, to reverse the effects of decades of discriminatory policies, practices, and institutions that caused extreme racial and economic housing segregation across the country.   The second part of the law has been its least-enforced component over the past fifty years.

However, during the Obama era there were several key administrative and legal decisions that had folks in the fair housing world feeling optimistic.  In 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) issued a final rule on “disparate impact,” formalizing its interpretation of the Fair Housing Act as “prohibiting practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect, regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate.”  In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in its Inclusive Communities decision.  The same year, HUD released its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule to clarify communities’ obligations to promote integration, as required by that long under-enforced second piece of the FHA. Together, these changes represented the largest step forward on fair housing since the original law’s passage. Graphic of quote: "This work is hard, but we keep going." - Betsy Julian, Inclusive Communities Project, in her 2018 Loving Civil Rights Award Keynote Speech

Unfortunately, under the new administration, HUD has apparently decided to mark the Fair Housing Act’s anniversary by working to undo nearly all of this progress. In January, the agency announced that it was suspending communities’ obligation to comply with the AFFH rule for at least two years.  In May, there was a double-whammy when HUD announced first that it was reconsidering the 2013 Disparate Impact rule and second withdrawing the online tool created to help communities analyze segregation and comply with AFFH.  Then, just last week, the agency announced plans to further overhaul and weaken the AFFH rule.  A lawsuit filed against HUD by a coalition of fair housing advocates, which aimed to stop rollback of the AFFH rule, was dismissed by a federal judge late last week when the judge decided the fair housing groups lacked standing to challenge the rule. (For more, read this excellent summary of recent events by CityLab’s Kriston Capps).

Here in Connecticut, one of the most segregated states in the country, we’ve also had some recent setbacks.  In 2017, the legislature voted to weaken the state’s affordable housing statute, C.G.S. 8-30g, which requires municipalities to approve affordable housing proposals if less than 10% of their units are affordable and there are no health or safety issues. About 81% of Connecticut municipalities do not meet this modest threshold. The 2017 change makes it easier for these towns to avoid or put off new development.  “NIMBY”ism continues to thrive in our state – or at least it feels that way if you attend many local zoning board hearings on affordable housing.

 

It’s hard to find a bright spot in all of this, but fair housing advocates across the country are fighting back.  Our movement includes the nation’s top legal minds on fair housing and civil rights law.  From Washington, DC, to Texas, to New York, to communities across the country and here in Connecticut, we are committed to defending the Fair Housing Act in its entirety, and we won’t back down.  We will continue fighting in the courts, in state houses across the country and in the halls of the U.S. Capitol.  While there have been some recent disappointments in the courts, we’ve also seen some victories, like Open Communities Alliance et al vs Carson, where a judge ruled that HUD must implement a rule that will increase housing choice for voucher holders.  Senator Cory Booker and Rep. Maxine Waters have both introduced bills this year to advance fair housing and counter HUD’s regressive actions. More journalists are covering fair housing issues, raising public awareness like never before.

I also remain optimistic that we can move forward at the state and local levels. In 2017, under the leadership of CT Department of Housing Commissioner Evonne Klein, the state formed its first-ever Fair Housing Working Group, a bipartisan group of legislators, housing and land use policy experts, fair housing advocates (including me), and developers.  In just a few short months, we developed a bill, HB 5045, aimed at requiring towns to develop inclusionary zoning to allow for affordable housing development in order to get state funding.  The bill didn’t pass this year, but transformative legislation like this almost never passes on the first or second try.  The Fair Housing Working Group will continue to push for policies that promote equal access to housing and opportunity.

We’re lucky that Connecticut is home to so many incredible fair housing champions: not only the Center (yes, we’re tooting our own horn!), but also legislators like Roland Lemar, public officials like Commissioner Klein, other nonprofit advocates like the Open Communities Alliance, the Connecticut Housing Coalition, the Partnership for Strong Communities, the Fair Housing Association of CT, and local organizations fighting for fair housing in their own communities.  Across the board, Connecticut’s federal elected officials are all fair housing supporters and have championed fair housing in Congress.

 

During times like these, it’s easy to feel powerless.  But working together, we can make Connecticut a place where all people have equal access to housing opportunities, free from discrimination.

Here are some ways you can fight for fair housing:

  • Become a YIMBY! (Yes In My Back Yard!): Pay attention to the housing talk in your town.  Attend zoning hearings on proposed affordable housing and let your town officials – and your neighbors – know that you support a variety of housing types in a variety of neighborhoods, and that you welcome all kinds of people.
  • Know your rights and report housing discrimination if it happens to you.  Often, a single case can reveal systemic issues that are impacting hundreds or even thousands of other people.
  • Do you work for a social service agency or other organization helping clients find housing? Host a fair housing training for staff at your organization.
  • When considering who to vote for in the next election, find out candidates’ positions on fair housing-related issues. Watch this blog and the Partnership for Strong Communities’ website for information on the affordable housing positions of the candidates for governor. The Connecticut Association of Realtors also plans to host a gubernatorial debate where housing will be discussed.
  • When the 2019 state legislative session opens, let your state senator and representatives know that you support affordable housing development in your district. (Find your legislators here.)
  • While our current federal delegation is supportive of fair housing issues, they’re juggling hundreds of different issues at a time. It can’t hurt to write to them to let them know that you support protecting fair housing rights and federal funding for fair housing enforcement and to thank them for their past support.
  • If you live in a city, watch for signs of gentrification which creates high-cost housing at the expense of housing for long-term residents and talk with your local elected officials about your concerns. Fight food deserts by advocating for grocery stores with healthy, affordable food.
  • Recent research reveals that addressing blighted properties and creating small “pocket parks” in densely populated areas with high crime rates creates a sense of community, reduces crime, and encourages community investment. Perhaps you can work with your neighbors to create a pocket park in your neighborhood.
  • Donate to nonprofit advocacy organizations fighting for fair housing.  Of course, we’d love it if you would donate to the Center, or any of the other organizations mentioned.

 

As the great Betsy Julian of Inclusive Communities Project said in her keynote speech at this year’s Loving Award Dinner, “This work is hard, but we keep going.”  Where we live is the foundation of everything else in our lives.  It determines where our children will go to school, the kinds of jobs we can get, even the water we drink and the air we breathe.  With so much at stake, there’s really no choice: we must keep going. Join us.

Center Joins NFHA & Co-Plaintiffs in Lawsuit Alleging Housing Discrimination by Bank of America

Earlier this week, the Center joined the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), 18 other fair housing organizations, and two Maryland homeowners in filing a lawsuit against Bank of America and Safeguard Properties Management alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit accuses Bank of America and Safeguard Properties of failing to maintain bank-owned properties in communities of color to the same level as their properties in white areas, amounting to discriminatory treatment that is illegal under federal fair housing law.

A rotted wooden porch railing, with view of yard in background showing trash on the ground.

One of the Bank of America-owned homes in New Haven.

For example, 45% of BOA-owned properties in communities of color had major maintenance problems – such as unkempt lawns, pests and rodents, boarded-up windows, and trash in the yard – compared with just 11% of the bank’s properties in white neighborhoods.  Their neglect affects property values, health & safety in these communities.

The lawsuit is the result of a multi-year investigation by NFHA and fair housing agencies across the country, including the Center. Together, we investigated more than 1,600 Bank of America-owned homes in working- and middle-class white, African-American, and Latino neighborhoods in 37 metropolitan areas nationwide, including in Connecticut.

Lisa Rice, the CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance, said, “Bank of America and Safeguard’s intentional failure to correct their discriminatory treatment in African American and Latino neighborhoods—the same communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis—is systemic racism. The purposeful neglect of bank-owned homes in communities of color devalues the properties and the lives of the families in the neighborhoods around them. The health and safety hazards created by these blighted bank-owned homes negatively affect the residents, especially the children, living nearby. We have asked Bank of America and Safeguard to provide the same standard of routine exterior maintenance and marketing for all of its bank-owned homes, regardless of the age, value, or racial composition of the neighborhood in which they are located.”

Other key findings from the investigation:

  • 64% of Bank of America properties in communities of color had trash or debris visible on the property, while only 31% of the bank’s properties in predominantly white neighborhoods had trash visible on the property.
  • 37% of Bank of America properties in communities of color had unsecured or broken doors, while only 16% of their properties in predominantly white neighborhoods had unsecured or broken doors.

Read the full details and view more photos from the investigation in NFHA’s press release. 

Read the Washington Post’s recent coverage of this case.

 

This post summarized and paraphrased a press release from the National Fair Housing Alliance.

2017 Annual Report Now Available

Cover of the 2017 Annual Report; woman standing in front of car, smiling with arms crossed.We are proud to share the Center’s 2017 Annual Report.  Thanks to your support, last year we continued our work to provide legal help to thousands of individuals facing housing discrimination and home foreclosure statewide while expanding our work to expose systemic discrimination and unfair practices in Connecticut’s housing markets.

In 2017, we processed nearly 1,200 calls from Connecticut residents reporting housing discrimination, facing home foreclosure, or dealing with related issues.  In this report, you’ll meet just a few of the clients we helped – clients like Rosa, who was denied housing when she was nine months pregnant because a landlord refused to accept her voucher, or Sheila, Don, and Sheri, whose housing providers refused to make reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, or Carolyn and Tim, whose mortgage servicer botched their loan modification and wrongly placed their home into foreclosure.

In addition to assisting individual clients, we continued our work to investigate and expose systemic fair housing and lending issues in Connecticut.  In September, we published the findings of an 18-month investigation into how zoning policies and the marketing and tenant selection policies of affordable housing providers contribute to segregation in the greater Hartford region.  We also concluded a research project on lending discrimination in the state, which found that many people of color continue to experience differential treatment when compared to whites when applying for mortgage loans.

We also continued our statewide education and outreach work to ensure that residents, community organizations, housing professionals, policymakers and others understand their rights and obligations under the fair housing laws.  In 2017, we directly trained nearly 1,000 people on the fair housing laws and distributed over 12,000 copies of our educational brochures, guides, reports, and other materials across the state.

We hope you will take a few minutes to read through our 2017 Annual Report and learn more about our accomplishments last year.   This work would not have been possible without your support.  Thank you.

To stay up-to-date on our work throughout the year, be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter (@ctfairhousing) and sign up for our email list (scroll down to the bottom of this page for the sign-up form!).  Want to support the Center’s work in 2018 and beyond?  Please donate here.

Download the 2017 Annual Report here.

 

 

Courant Editorial Highlights Need for Continued Foreclosure Help in CT

House with a front porchDespite the fact that foreclosures have declined since the height of the housing crisis a decade ago, Connecticut still has the 5th highest number of foreclosures in the nation.

 

 

An editorial in today’s Hartford Courant states:

Foreclosures haven’t ended, sadly. More people will lose their homes without this remarkable service.

The program was set up to “prevent preventable foreclosures,” in the words of Jeff Gentes, a lawyer with the Connecticut Fair Housing Center. It helps those who have fallen behind in mortgage payments work out a solution with lenders without having to learn arcane property law, he says. […]

The state provides mediators who guide borrowers through the document-gathering phase and meetings with lenders. […]

One indication of the program’s success is that 73 percent of the borrowers who go through it do end up keeping their homes. Often the mediator helps them negotiate a loan modification so they get a lower interest rate and more time to pay the debt.

During the last year, the Center has been contacted by seniors, people with disabilities, and others who have lived in their homes for years asking for help to stop a foreclosure.  When the Center assures the family that the Foreclosure Mediation Program can help them determine if there is a way to prevent foreclosure or alternatively, to provide a graceful exit there is an almost audible sigh of relief.  Unfortunately, the program is scheduled to end (“sunset”) in mid-2019 unless the legislature extends it or makes it permanent.

Removing the sunset provision and keeping the foreclosure mediation program alive for the thousands of Connecticut homeowners who still need it will help prevent homelessness and save the state money in the long run.

Read the full Courant editorial. 

Learn more about the Center’s work to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

 

Coded Language in Response to Affordable Housing Bill

I was driving home and listening to our state legislators debate an additional amendment to H.B. 5045, An Act Establishing Accountability for Fair and Affordable Housing through Zoning Regulations, and what I heard made my heart sink.

The bill was proposed by the Fair Housing Working Group, a bipartisan group of legislators, housing and land use policy experts, fair housing advocates (including our Executive Director), and developers formed last fall under the leadership of CT Dept. of Housing Commissioner Evonne Klein.

The bill’s original intention was to enforce current state law which requires every municipality to permit the development of multifamily housing to help integrate our neighborhoods. Currently, twenty municipalities in Connecticut do not permit any multifamily housing anywhere in their towns.  Arguably, many more have a written provision for inclusion, but often any proposed multifamily development never materializes past the planning stage, unable to get planning and zoning approval.  All of the towns without multifamily zones are disproportionately White.

The bill does not require towns to develop multifamily housing, and it does not even require any multifamily housing developed to be deed restricted as affordable. The bill only requires municipalities to include provisions for multifamily housing (either by right or special permitting process) – something that has already been a requirement for twenty-five years!

However, the law currently on the books has no real consequences for municipalities that choose not to comply.  The main difference in this new bill would have been the inclusion of an enforcement measure: towns who do not allow multifamily housing development could lose state discretionary funding.

Unfortunately, long before the vote, the debate was already focused on the removal of any such enforcement measure.

One representative described the bill as “draconian,” while another explained that the bill “would make it impossible to maintain the character of his town.” Given that multifamily housing is the least expensive way of promoting integration, it is clear that there is limited political will to move in this direction. The debate on H.B. 5054 suggests that some Connecticut leaders believe that making all 169 municipalities in our state available to everyone is a cruel directive to impose on the communities that have ignored the current law for twenty-five years. It suggests that rural areas should only be made available to individuals and families who have the economic means to purchase homes, and that the preferred “character” of these communities means excluding diversity.

I often say that we need to remember that people write policy, and that policy does not write itself.  People make decisions that determine how we develop Connecticut, and the debate among our state representatives was extremely disheartening, and clearly indicated why we remain an extremely segregated state.

Translate »