APPENDIXES Appendix 1.-Materials submitted to the subcommittee by the Department Appendix 2.-Correspondence sent to representatives of the Department of Appendix 3.-Additional statements and documents submitted for the Page 411 534 546 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN HOUSING TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommitee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., in room 2236, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Don Edwards [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Edwards, Drinan, Badillo, Butler, and Kindness. Also present: Alan A. Parker, counsel; Janet M. McNair, assistant counsel and Roscoe B. Starek III, associate counsel. Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to crder. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights begins its inquiry into the Department of Housing and Urban Development's fair housing enforcement program. It has been some time since we have been able to examine this area with some depth; and we hope, during these hearings, to learn a great deal about HUD's efforts to eliminate the racially and economically polarized housing patterns prevailing in this country. I strongly suspect that, in recent years, many of us may have been lulled into thinking that housing discrimination is virtually a thing of the past. The evidence and the reports, however, demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth. In a report issued in December 1975, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that "at this juncture in our Nation's history-the forces promoting discrimination in housing hold powerful, if less than universal, sway." The problem exists. It continues. And our job during these hearings is to find out what the lead Federal housing agency, namely HUD, is doing about it. In this regard, we open our hearings today with representatives from organizations which have devoted significant energies to monitoring HUD's enforcement. Our first witness is Dr. Robert C. Weaver, Distinguished Professor of Urban Affairs at Hunter College, the City University of New York. Dr. Weaver is president of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, an organization which engages in open housing monitoring and litigation; and he is today tesifying on behalf of that organization. Most of us are of course very familiar with the distinguished career of Dr. Robert Weaver. He has recently served as the president of the Bernard M. Baruch College of the City University of New (1) York; and, of course, from 1966 to 1968, he served as a most distinguished Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. His career in Government has been extensive, including positions in the Department of Interior, the War Manpower Commission and the National Defense Advisory Commission. He serves on the boards and councils of various educational and other institutions and is the author of four books, and holds many honorary degrees. Dr. Weaver, it is with great pleasure that we welcome you today. It is an honor for the subcommittee to have you appear before us. You may proceed. TESTIMONY OF PROF. ROBERT C. WEAVER, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS, HUNTER COLLEGE, NEW YORK, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING, INC. Mr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary. The subject matter before you is of great concern to me as an individual and in my capacity as President of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing. Enforcement of fair housing laws is a comprehensive matter, and no witness can, within the time limits necessarily imposed, hope to do justice to all aspects of the issue. Accordingly, my remarks will concentrate upon two aspects of the problem: The efficacy of voluntary affirmative marketing agreements and the extent to which the operation of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 has increased lower-income housing opportunities and accelerated spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower-income persons, many of whom are minority individuals. NCDH has long been concerned about the limitations of most agreements between HUD and the industry, public agencies, and citizen groups for affirmative fair and equal housing plans. On March 20, 1974, for example, Edward L. Holmgren, executive director of the committee, wrote Assistant Secretary Gloria Toote objecting to the absence of civil rights organizations' participation in the development of such agreements. In September of the same year, speaking in Atlanta, Ga., I stated: In most of these plans and agreements, there is confusion as to what HUD's role is relative to the enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and related legislation. This becomes particularly ominous when-what is agreed to is less than provided for in law. Others also have noted the defects in the voluntary agreements. HUD, itself, was, in one regional office, equally critical of the Department's administration of affirmative action in marketing in general and voluntary agreements in particular. In an evaluation. report: The Impact and Performance of Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing in Region I-, September 1974. it was concluded that: The regulations had no measurable effect or noticeable influence on housing racial segregation. Practices of developers had altered very little in response to affirmative fair marketing. HUD's monitoring, enforcement, and technical aid had been minimal and largely ineffective. The San Diego area wide agreement had not fulfilled either the promise of its initial favorable publicity or the goals established by its terms. On the basis of its analyses and findings, the evaluation report made certain recommendations, noting that Even these, of course, may not be sufficient to achieve the goals of the program, but unless actions of this nature are attempted, Affirmative Marketing does not appear to have even a fighting chance of changing present practices and patterns and thus further increasing minority participation in HUD-processed housing programs located in non-minority areas. In relation to voluntary area wide affirmative marketing plans, the evaluation report advocated that HUD should not enter into such agreements unless they: Were applied to a manageable area; provided for adequate staff and budget on the part of the builder group to carry out the provisions; had a work plan with target dates and goals, enabling both HUD and the builders to monitor progress; and, the HUD field office involved had a system for providing necessary technical assistance for monitoring progress. At the same time there is impressive evidence that voluntary plans for affirmative action might be effective instruments, while not diluting the legal requirements for such action. At least one such plan, that of the Miami Valley region, of Ohio, seems to be an acceptable prototype. At this point it is interesting to review the origin and development of this voluntary agreement. It was initiated locally and, as far as I can discover, without the knowledge and participation of HUD. We discovered that for a long period, the Department disavowed it on the basis of its failure to follow HUD format. This was at the time when the Department was pushing the Dallas and San Diego agreements as national models. In contract, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission conceived of a voluntary agreement which would supplement its Dayton Plan for planned allocation of subsidized housing units in the region. The agreement they developed was designed to reverse the trend toward occupancy of subsidized units in the suburbs by those already residing there, rather than providing opportunities for minority households living in Dayton. Thus, this agreement actually implemented the fair share plan in the region. The principal elements in the Miami Valley plan, which render it unique are the following: One, communitywide and housing industrywide participation in it; two, identification of the existence of segregated housing patterns within the jurisdiction of the agreements; three, inclusion of specific action proposals; four, requirement for an affirmative marketing plan for each housing project, regardless of a sponsor's or broker's being a party to the area wide voluntary agreement; and, five, effective organization, staffing, and funding to facilitate meaningful monitoring and administration of the agreement. In contrast, the affirmative marketing agreement for Voluntary use by boards of realtors, approved by the Board of Directors of the National Association of Realtors on November 11, 1975, falls short of these, and other, critical tests. Actually, this type of agreement provides little in the nature of affirmative action, requiring instead simply pledges that those boards which sign it will refrain from violating the law. I am not sure, however, that it actually accomplishes this for certain participants since the signatories would avoid filing an individual affirmative marketing plan. An industry group which has made so many contributions toward racial residential segregation in the past would under the plan, become self-monitoring and self-policing to effect change. Its contacts with community organizations having a substantial interest in housing and equal opportunity would be through the Community Housing Resources Board; but the agreement fails to set criteria for such a board or provide it with either money or authority. I regret to report that HUD approved the agreement by action taken on December 16, 1975. In my longer statement filed with the committee, I inserted a chart which lists 18 criteria included in the Maimi Valley agreement and the presence or absence of each such criteria in some 16 agreements either approved or considered by HUD as of January 21, 1976. This documents the inadequacy of such agreements and substantiates others' and my belief that voluntary affirmative marketing agreements relieve the industry participants and even HUD from complying with the requirements of recent civil rights legislation. The legislative history of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 indicates that Congress intended that applications for community development would assure the use of such funds in a manner responsive to the needs of low- and moderateincome persons within an area wide context. And of course, because class and color are so intertwined in urban housing policies and practices, what affects lower income persons has significant racial and civil rights implications. In order to understand what is involved, it is necessary to refer to pertinent provisions of the 1974 act. Among the primary objectives of the community development title of the act were: expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of community services, principally for persons of low and moderate income; more rational utilization of land; and reduction of the isolation of economic groups within communities and geographic areas through spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons. A unique feature of the act was the housing assistance plan, HAP, required from each locality desiring a community development block grant. HAP is supposed, among other things, to promote the dispersal of housing for low- and moderate-income households within |