Fair Housing Act Fails to Address Exclusionary Zoning and Housing Discrimination

Abstract

NOT WELCOME: AN ALALYSIS OF DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING THROUGH EXCLUSIONARY ZONING A THESIS [Instructor Name] BACHELOR OF ARTS BY [University] HAMPTON, VIRGINIA MAY 2020 ABSTRACT DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY CANDIDATE, BACHELORS OF ARTS, 2020 Not Welcome: An Analysis of Discrimination in Housing Through Exclusionary Zoning April 27, 2020 Despite the many strides that the United States has made towards integration, there is still fair housing issues that prevent communities from being fully integrated. The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, but today, exclusionary zoning is practiced in order to continue to isolate low income residents, consequently, minorities. The language of the Act causes low and moderate income residents to be excluded because “income” is not included. The introduction of the paper will discuss what exclusionary zoning consists of and the racial history that led to segregation in real estate. Also, the introduction will present the research question, thesis statement, methodology, definition of concepts, delimitations, and significance of the study. Literature will be reviewed on exclusionary and inclusionary zoning practices and the impact that the Act has had on housing since its enactment. The Elitist and Systems theories will be used to conduct the research on how effective the Fair Housing Act is, despite its exclusion of “income” as a protected class. The fair housing cases that are used for research will be thoroughly analyzed and a conclusion will be made as to whether the thesis statement is supported or not. Chapter 1: Introduction Background to the Problem This paper is about the effectiveness of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in America and whether it has welcomed people into communities or excluded them. This chapter will give background to the entire paper by explaining concepts, introducing definitions, explaining the methodology chosen, the thesis statement, delimitations, making clear the research question, and what is to come in the following chapters. This will help the reader to better understand the thesis and the significance of the topic to the field of political science. For many Americans, 1968 was a tumultuous year, because the death of Martin Luther King Jr., the death of Robert Kennedy, and the announcement that Lyndon B. Johnson would not run for reelection. Despite the uproar that the nation was in during this time, many citizens initially felt that the great nation of the United States made great strides with the passing of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. During the 1960s, Civil Rights leaders felt responsible for pressuring President Johnson to pass this law, because African Americans continued to fight for desegregation, which sometimes resulted in race riots. Racism and segregation existed in all aspects of African Americans’ lives during this time, from housing to schooling to voting, and President Johnson is recognized for helping move America from that with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. So why was the Fair Housing Act necessary in the United States? Since slavery ended in 1865, racism plagued the United States and caused segregation which led to African Americans being held back. From the 19th to the 20th century, African Americans were not able to vote, attend certain schools, or live in certain neighborhoods. In 1916, African Americans migrated from the south to urban cities up north in order to obtain a better life and more opportunities. When the number of blacks increased, they could no longer reside only in these black communities, they overflowed into white communities, which angered the whites. This caused race riots and in 1920, state and local governments made laws that would prohibit blacks from living in white communities. The need for federal law to desegregate housing communities grew strong, and the civil unrest continued. Although many Republicans opposed the Fair Housing Act, the death of Martin Luther King Jr. changed votes and got the law passed. Initially, “the landmark legislation prohibited racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing, and authorized the U.S.” Today, the Act includes the protection of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. The Fair Housing Act has protected disabled persons (Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc.), transgenders (Smith v Avanti), African Americans (Jenkins v. Housing Authority of the Town of Mansfield) and many others, but the law does not protect those who are low- and moderate income. In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., it was shown that disparate impact has standing in court, but the problem is that only those classes in the Fair Housing Act (religion, sexuality, disability, race, national origin,) are protected, despite the facially neutral laws that statistically exclude low-income households from jurisdictions. However, income cannot be a basis of a fair housing lawsuit, therefore plaintiffs have to claim disparate impact even though renters have blatantly denied residents’ housing vouchers and developers have rented to minorities in certain developments they own (mostly predominantly black communities). In some cases, disparate impact can be harder to prove because discriminatory language based on the protected classes is not always clear, especially since most times it is cases of covert discrimination. Many citizens have thought that this legislation was progressive and was a step in the right direction for the United States. What is not commonly known is the exclusion of income-based discrimination, which would include persons based on income (low and moderate). Communities today are still segregated, by income and subsequently by race. Low- and moderate income households are excluded by large lot size requirements and the rejection of housing vouchers in some high-income communities. The regulations that require a minimum lot size for homes are exclusionary, and this practice is most commonly known as exclusionary zoning. Disparate impact has been addressed where laws that facially appear indiscriminatory actually are. Although disparate impact can be used as an argument in court, low-income households are not able to use it because they are not a protected class in the Fair Housing Act. Because the United States is a capitalistic country, can it protect low-income households while still preserving the right of private developers and renters to choose who they rent to? Research Question The main question that this study plans to answer is: “Is the Fair Housing Act of 1968 effective, although it does not include ‘income-based discrimination,’ which is practiced in exclusionary zoning?” If income can be a factor that renters use to include or exclude, why are those with low- and moderate incomes not protected under the law? Is it because the United States believes that socio-economic status that can easily changeable in a capitalistic society and the land of the free? Statement of Problem The Fair Housing Act of 1968 is not effective because it does not include “income based” discrimination, which is practiced through exclusionary zoning. Methodology In order to conduct this research, case studies through an examination of Supreme Court hearings will be used. The court cases studied to examine exclusionary zoning practices will be: Warth v. Seldin, Ybarra v. City of Town of Los Altos Hills, and Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township, specifically because the plaintiffs felt excluded based on income. The fair housing case where a class action lawsuit was filed against James Soderberg of Soderberg Apartment Specialists (SAS) and MSP Crossroads Apartments LLC (MSP) was used to show how income was the discriminating factor in a case. A qualitative method is the best for this study because it will show the cases of jurisdictions that have been affected by zoning practices, fair or unfair. “The information or data collected and analyzed is primarily (but not exclusively) nonquantitative in character, consisting of textual materials such as interview transcripts, fieldnotes, and documents, and/or visual materials such as artifacts, photographs, video recordings.” It will show the impact that the law created in 1968 has had on households to truly show whether is effective or not. Definition of Concepts Listed are concepts that need to be defined in this paper in order to eliminate any ambiguity. These definitions will make clear the context of these definitions used in order to understand the research conducted in this study of the effectiveness of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and exclusionary zoning. Exclusionary zoning practices- ‘The specific regulations that are most often criticized as exclusionary are those that specify minimum lot sizes for single-family homes.” “Exclusionary zoning regulations create barriers to inclusion by imposing minimum lot size requirements, requiring aesthetic uniformity, and forbidding builders from developing apartment buildings or townhouses in certain areas, thereby assuring access only to those of certain financial means.” Inclusionary zoning- “Inclusionary zoning is a local regulatory tool that requires or incentivizes the provision of new affordable housing by developers as a condition for a residential development permit. Most IZ programs preserve the affordability of homeownership units using either affordability covenants that place ceilings on resale prices or a shared equity approach that redistributes some portion of the gain in home equity.” Disparate impact- “’Disparate impact’ housing discrimination, meaning discrimination that happens regardless of whether a policy was designed with the intent to discriminate.” “…though neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, function as barriers … [that] operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.” Section 8 voucher program- “Section Eight Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, a federal program that makes rent payments directly to landlords on behalf of eligible low-income households.” Delimitations The most challenging limitation to the study is that it is not possible to travel to every state to assess the exclusionary and inclusionary cases that have occurred in each jurisdiction. Although research has been done on many of the cases in the cities in the United States, it would be helpful to interview jurisdictions who have heavily been affected by exclusionary zoning laws. Also, to assess the effectiveness of the inclusionary laws, it would be helpful to interview policymakers and residents to determine whether the stakeholders in the community feel that the laws are effective. Research has been done on some popular cases, but not every state’s laws. Because there are different factors in each state and the jurisdictions within the states that affect housing laws, it is hard to make a generalization about the law’s effectiveness in the entire country. To some, the law may be seen as effective because it protects those who bring cases of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability, but to others, the effectiveness is based upon the fair housing of all classes that United States citizens may fall under. Significance of the Study This study is important because the goal of the Act is to protect households who could possibly be discriminated against while buying/renting a house, getting a mortgage, or seeking housing assistance. Although there have been great strides in the United States, this law is still needed because of the history of discrimination that have excluded minorities, gays, disabled, and more from housing. However, the effect of the law cannot be successful if it doesn’t include “income” as a protected class because low- and moderate income households have been discriminated against just as much as the other classifications included in the Act. Research has been done on the positive effects of the Act, what exclusionary zoning is, inclusionary zoning as a solution; but this paper will focus on the inclusion of “income” into the Fair Housing Act. Rather than fix the problem for the short-term, the long-term solution is to change the law that excludes the low- and moderate income persons initially. Organization of the Remainder of the Study In chapter 2 of this paper, there is a literature review of research already done on the topic of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, exclusionary zoning, and inclusionary zoning. Chapter 3 of this paper will discuss the theoretical frameworks used to conduct this study and the associated theorists. In Chapter 4, the research design is discussed along with the variable and study sample. Chapter 5 is an analysis of the research conducted and the findings. Chapter 6 will be a summary of all the chapters and Chapter 7 is the conclusion of the study. This chapter has given background to the topic of the effectiveness of the Fair Housing Act despite its lack of “income-based” protection for citizens who are low- and moderate income. It provides definitions, the methodology, the delimitations of the study, the research question, and the thesis statement. The following chapter will examine literature that has analyzed the Act and the effects that it has had on households since 1968. Chapter 2: Literature Review This thesis requires comprehensive research to be done on the effects of The Fair Housing Act of 1968, exclusionary zoning in the United States and loopholes that allow for being excluded from high-income neighborhoods. One of the main causes is the prejudices engrained in American society since slavery ended. Although when the Fair Housing Act was first enacted, it was seen as a great stride for the Civil Rights Movement, research has been done that shows the many negative effects of the law. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the literary works on the Fair Housing Act and exclusionary zoning; explaining definitions, history, and the effect of the law in America. Douglass S. Massey’s “The Legacy of the 1968 Fair Housing Act” discusses events leading up to the enactment of the law, why the law was created, and its impacts. During the Great Migration in 1916, blacks migrated from the rural south into urban cities, which caused whites to fight back with violence to keep the blacks out of their neighborhoods. “At the time, levels of black residential segregation were extreme, higher than any group had ever experienced before or since”, which is not surprising, considering the fact that the abolishment of segregation in Brown v Board of Education (1954) did not occur yet. Massey explains that in order to separate blacks in all aspects of life (economically, politically, and socially) whites felt it necessary to be physically separated from the inferior race. Segregation in neighborhoods was first a social practice, but in 1920, many cities began to create legislation in order to separate black and white housing communities specifically. After World War I, migration was so popular that blacks started to “overflow” into white suburbs, and race riots were a result of this. Because real estate property was destroyed during the riots, the real estate industry also wrote policies to enforce the separation of races. Real estate brokers began implementing discriminatory language in their code of ethics and in 1927 restrictive covenants were introduced to continue to segregate communities. Lyndon B. Johnson made efforts to pass the Fair Housing Act as Republicans continuously rejected; but the death of Martin Luther King Jr. changed some votes, and the bill was passed on April 10, 1968. Many actions were banned by the law, such as the refusal of renting/selling to blacks, racist real estate advertisements, the lying of dwelling availability by real estate agents, and disclosing information about new residents to encourage whites to sell their property. Some loopholes to the law were that it initially only applied to 80% of the housing stock and when discrimination was reported, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) held only a conciliation between the offender and victim. This article relates to this paper because it is important to first know the history of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to analyze the effectiveness then and now. At the time of its enactment, racial tensions were very high in the United States and segregation of the races was a norm. Massey’s key points explain the ineffectiveness of the law in 1968, such as: the law only applied to 80% of the housing stock (eventually changed); the Democrats eliminated the stern consequences for offenders (cease and desists and public hearings) to convince Republicans to pass the bill; and mortgage lending was not included. These are examples of how the bill was not effective from its creation by not applying to everyone, not truly enforcing the law, and not addressing mortgage lending, which is an essential part of purchasing a home. According to Rachel Cohen in “Taking Back the Suburbs The Fair Housing Act at Fifty,” today there is more onus for HUD and The Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce the laws under the Fair Housing Act than in the 1960s. The article discusses the effects that The Fair Housing Act has on society as of 2018. Cohen explains that the law has broader goals than it did in 1968; now there are 7 categories that are prohibited under the law: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and families with children. Despite the “progress” of American society when it comes to racial discrimination, Cohen referenced a study done by the University of Chicago that said “the proportion of white respondents favoring laws banning housing discrimination rose from 37 percent in 1972 to 69 percent in 2008.” When President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, his administration tried to integrate neighborhoods, but when President Donald Trump was elected in 2016, those efforts were not continued. Before Trump was elected, he was a part of a famous housing discrimination lawsuit in New York during the 1970s. When he came into office, he appointed Ben Carson (a former surgeon) to be the secretary of HUD. This article discusses the three “attacks” that Trump’s administration made on fair housing. The first is the delay of implantation of the Small Area Fair-Market Rent rule, which affects Section 8 rental vouchers. The Small Area Fair-Market Rent rule mandates local public-housing authorities to calculate their rent subsidies at a neighborhood level, rather than a citywide one. This would increase the spending power of Section 8 vouchers across all of a city’s neighborhoods, allowing recipients to move more easily to affluent ones. The next “attack” was the suspension of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule (AFFH). This rule further enforced the Fair Housing Act by giving communities more tools and ensuring that HUD was the enforcer. Lastly, the Trump administration planned to readdress the “disparate impact” housing discrimination, which is a rule that was finalized in 2013, and places a ban on any “facially neutral practice that has a discriminatory effect.” This article is especially important to this thesis because it discusses racial discrimination in housing today and how the implementation, or lack thereof, of new rules/laws is occurring within the Trump administration. The Small Area Fair-Market Rent rule is the most important to this paper because it shows how money affects where one is able to live. Low-income residents would not be able to live in communities that they cannot afford if it were not for their Section 8 vouchers. This seems to be a progressive move in the direction of integrating neighborhoods, not only racially but with different socio-economic statuses as well. The other two “attacks” show that the current HUD secretary is regressing back to a state where discrimination in housing was acceptable by suspending and readdressing rules that enforce fair housing practices. The class-based discrimination is an important element of this thesis because it is a way to continue racially segregated communities which is illegal according to the Fair Housing Act. Keith R. Ihlanfeldt’s Introduction: Exclusionary Land-Use Regulations, analyzes the different factors that contribute to high- and low-income neighborhood segregation and what impact land-use regulations have on communities. The regulations that require a minimum lot size for homes are exclusionary, and this practice is most commonly known as exclusionary zoning. In the housing market, large lots typically cost more than smaller lots, which would make it nearly impossible for low-income families to be able to afford to live in these neighborhoods. The result of this is the lack of affordable housing for low-income residents in high-income communities with better social and economic opportunities; making segregated communities like in the 1960s. This article relates to this thesis because it introduces exclusionary zoning to this research paper. It explains the definition and the effect that the minimum lot requirements can have on who lives in a jurisdiction. These lot requirements prevent low-income residents from buying houses in certain jurisdictions because larger lot sizes are more expensive. Housing practices like this are legal in these jurisdictions because they are not prohibited in the Fair Housing Act. Socio-economic status is also category that people are associated with, that can either persuade or dissuade policymakers from wanting residents of certain statues in their jurisdictions. Keith Ihlanfeldt’s “Exclusionary Land-use regulations Within Suburban Communities: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Prescriptions,” uses four questions to distinguish the paper from others and fully analyze exclusionary land-use regulations. What effect do local land-use regulations have on the cost of housing?; Assuming that regulations increase the price of housing services, does this increase come from reductions in housing supply or increases in housing demand?; Do local land-use regulations contribute to income and racial segregation within the metropolitan areas?; To what extent are land-use regulations motivated by a desire to exclude lower-income households from the jurisdiction? Ihlanfeldt’s answer to the first question is that the quantity of services contained in the average unit and the price of housing services are factors that can lead to a price increase in housing, which are the effects of land-use regulation. Ihlanfeldt answered the second question by saying that the price of housing could be affected by an increase in demand if the land-use regulations in a jurisdiction decreases pollution and congestion. However, it could also be affected by a decrease in the housing supply which is caused by the jurisdiction using their monopoly power; the result is the exclusion of low-income residents which can sometimes be positive. The explanation for the third question was that it could be a possibility if the regulations that reduce affordability are adopted by high-income neighborhoods; where the high-income neighborhoods are White and the low-income residents are Black. Lastly, he asserts that the motivation for land-use regulations are: to preserve the character of a neighborhood, to decrease the cost of public services, to separate incompatible land uses, or to purposefully exclude low-income residents. This article is relevant to this paper because it discusses the motives of local policymakers whose jurisdictions have exclusionary land-use regulations. The motives are important because it is an issue if policymakers are purposefully excluding low-income households from certain jurisdictions, rather than it simply being a by-product of many factors. If these regulations are intended to exclude, then policymakers have created a loophole to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 because it does not include income, socio-economic status, or class as one of the classifications that are protected. As a result of this exclusion, the Fair Housing Act has also been ineffective because the people that are low-income are typically Black and Latino, and the law does include race as a protected classification. This leads to question of whether policymakers have found a way to disguise their exclusion of minorities from White communities through exclusionary zoning practices. William Fishchel’s “An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects,” discusses the evolution of motives behind exclusionary zoning. According to Fishchel, zoning was initially meant to prevent the value of homes from decreasing by industrial uses and apartments, made possible by transportation modes such as buses and subways. Buses and subways allowed people to live further from their inner city jobs into the suburbs. This led to the “growth control movement”, involving large lot sizes and open space zoning. In this power hierarchy within zoning, homeowners were at the top and apartment rentees were at the bottom, which is normally where these new residents lived. Because of the laws in the 1960s-1970s, such as the Fair Housing Act, any racial language in zoning ordinances were not tolerated. Fishchel says that the intention was not to solely exclude races from these communities, it was the goal of “suburbanites” to generally exclude low-income households. The example was given that Vermont and New Hampshire’s ordinances typically are similar to New York’s, despite the homogeneity in those states versus the heterogeneity in the latter. Also, an effect of this exclusion was the inequality of property tax resources and school spending. Because property taxes are the source of school funding, more affluent neighborhoods have better schools, and low income communities have less funds available for schools. These exclusionary effects are greater than the physical separation of socio-economic statues, they are detrimental to many aspects of low-income residents’ lives. This article relates this paper because it further explains the motives of exclusionary zoning practices. Fischel explains that the exclusionary laws are intentionally enacted to control the number of low-income households in these jurisdictions, as oppose to Ihlandeldt who was unsure. It also discusses more of the negative effects that these practices have on low-income households. Schools, for example, are affected by zoning practices because they are not given the same funding in high and low-income neighborhoods. These social, economic, and physical exclusions were the same for African Americans and other classifications who were segregated from these communities prior to their inclusion in the Fair Housing Act. In Paula A. Franzese and Stephanie J. Beach’s “Promises Still to Keep: The Fair Housing Act Fifty Years Later,”the outcomes, the reality of, and solutions for exclusionary zoning were discussed. The article analyzes the reality of exclusionary zoning, which is: “The stark racial and economic divide lends itself readily to then-President Barack Obama’s observation that racial segregation mirrors itself in class segregation. Economic segregation is racial segregation.” Although the Fair Housing Act of 1968 forbade housing discrimination based on race, in reality, minorities are still segregated from these communities because they are in poverty at a disproportionate rate compared to whites. Economic exclusion continues “racial segregation’s ugly work” that policymakers hoped would end. The first case that deemed exclusionary zoning legal was Village of [City, State] v. Ambler Realty Co. (1917), which decided that single-family homes were wholesome and desirable and apartments were the opposite, more specifically they were “parasites”. In this article, exclusionary practices include: minimum lot sizes, a uniformed look, and prevention of apartments and townhouses. Poor households cannot afford to live in these communities, which lead to more negative effects like: cancer, shorter life spans, substance abuse, and higher chances of being incarcerated. Another consequence is the schools in which poor students are forced to attend due to their neighborhoods. “…fewer than half of children born into poverty are ready for school at age five, compared to seventy-five percent of children from families with moderate and high incomes.” Students also suffer in poor neighborhoods because of teacher shortages increasing and the quality of educators decreasing, leading to lower test scores. The neighborhood in which one lives in matters in terms of the quality of life that is attainable. “Some have called for a ‘new Economic Fair Housing Act’ to curb the ability of local governments to deny housing opportunities to those of low and moderate income” because it is recognized that the current Act is ineffective. Franzese and Beach describe the solution that many jurisdictions have implemented to fight against exclusionary zoning: inclusionary zoning. The Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Program implemented in the 1990s strived to help low-income households relocate to high-income communities. The first case to end exclusionary zoning was South Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel (1975) in New Jersey, which decided that municipalities must set aside housing for low-income households. However, this ruling was not enforced, and eight years later courts worked to strongly monitor and enforce. The benefit for developers is the allowance of more construction as long as a percentage is allotted to low-income residents. In New Jersey, inclusionary zoning has been a success, affording 60,000 households affordable housing. This article supports the thesis statement of this paper. The effectiveness of the Fair Housing Act is questioned because there are loopholes allowing minorities and subsequently low-income households from certain communities. The environment in which these unattainable houses are located is also important, physically and economically. In a physical sense, these low-income neighborhoods are unhealthy due to crime and pollution. On the other hand, schools are not well funded which result in poor education for low-income students. The segregation of housing puts low-income at a disadvantage in many ways of life. The solution to exclusionary zoning is inclusionary zoning, which allows low-income households to be able to live in more affluent communities and a better quality of life. Not only are these laws to be enacted, but enforced by state and local governments in order to be effective, as seen in [City, State]. It is evident that these inclusionary zoning laws have been beneficial because thousands of people in New Jersey alone have been able to live in higher income neighborhoods. Despite the fear of low- income residents being a burden to these new communities, the outcome has shown that these people have become less dependent on welfare and crime has decreased. However, inclusionary zoning may not be necessary if low- and moderate- income is specified as a classification in the Fair Housing Act, because it is evident that these people are being excluded from certain housing. Another solution for the exclusionary zoning problem has been discussed in Pablo E. Zevallos’ “A Statement About Who Deserves to Live Here: The Fair Housing Act Implications of Housing New York.” New York is one of the United States’ populous states and like many others, gentrification has been an issue. Since the early 2000s, young, well-educated, high-income residents have been replacing minority and low-income neighborhoods. As a result, rent has risen significantly, low-income residents have been forced out, and there is a lack of affordable housing in New York. Mayor Bill de Blasio has implemented Housing New York, which aims to maintain 200,000 affordable units in a 10-year span (2014-2024). Along with this plan, Blasio hopes to enforce inclusionary zoning (providing incentives to developers for a floor of affordable housing) in the areas where gentrification has plagued low-income minorities out of their neighborhoods. Although this was viewed as positive attempt by the state government to solve gentrification and exclusionary practices, it does not adhere to the Fair Housing Act in two ways. First, critics of the plan say that it doesn’t comply with the Fair Housing Act because the affordable housing is not accessible for low-income minorities. Research has shown that Blacks and Latinos are “extremely and very poor” and only 25% of the preserved housing is for “extremely and very poor” households. Secondly, the number of bedrooms offered in the plan exclude big families from qualifying. Black and Latino households are more likely to have at least one child under 18 (unable to contribute to the household income) compared to whites. Despite these findings, the plan sets aside only 28% of affordable housing to these extremely and very low income households. These two reasons display how Housing New York is ineffective and is non-compliant with the Fair Housing Act because it continues to exclude low-income residents, which are majority minorities. Zavallos’ article shows that efforts to “fix” the exclusionary practices of housing and the lack of affordable housing still result in segregation. On the surface, this plan looks like it is aligned with the Fair Housing Act but this solution does not dig deep to evaluate the consequences of the plan (despite it being revised three times). This article relates to this paper because it shows that the Fair Housing Act is not being enforced and states are able to pass such laws that segregate different races. Because these “extremely and very low income” households are not able to afford rent, they are most likely going to migrate toward another jurisdiction and the poverty is concentrated in one area. Despite billions of dollars being spent in New York to “fix” the problem, the problem is still occurring and residents are not able to live in the state because of their income. It is clear that the Fair Housing Act only recognizes discrimination on the surface, not deeply rooted in practices in laws exercised in the United States. Income is clearly a classification in which jurisdictions determine who should live where, and laws are made to exclude or include households of a desirable income. Maia Hutt’s “This House is Not Your Home: Litigating Landlord Rejections of Housing Choice Vouchers Under the Fair Housing Act,” analyzes disparate impact and cases of landlords denying their tenants Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). Disparate impact is when a law or practice seems neutral on the face, but in reality, it disproportionately impacts one group in a negative way. Although outright discrimination against the protected classes of the Fair Housing Act have been prohibited, disparate impact has been the argument of many litigants who have tried to use the Act in their favor. Since 2015, a disparate impact provision has been added to the Act. Before 2015, plaintiffs who claimed disparate impact in the courts, only won 20% of the time. In 1974, the Section Eight Voucher Program was introduced, where federal dollars were given to states and local housing agencies to subsidize housing for low-income residents. The benefit to the vouchers is that low-income residents are able to live in safer and more sanitary communities. Prior to the disparate impact provision being added to the Act, voucher holders who were denied by landlords have sued and attempted to use disparate impact as an argument, but it has been rejected by the courts. The rejection stemmed from the fact that income is not a protected class in the Fair Housing Act. In some cases, landlords who own properties throughout a jurisdiction would accept vouchers in low-income areas but not in high income areas. The 2015 decision of Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. ruled that disparate impact is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. Disparate impact is important to the discussion of effectiveness of the Fair Housing Act. There are many laws and practices, as discussed from previous sources, that seem to be neutral and inclusive, but in reality, a minority group is still disproportionately, negatively affected. Before 2015, it was easier to continue to discriminate, but now residents and housing advocates have a better chance in the courts. However, income is not one of the protected classes that the disparate impact provision of the Fair Housing Act applies to, which continues for people to be excluded and discriminated against. By denying these voucher recipients housing, it keeps people in crime infested areas, where poverty is concentrated. If the Fair Housing Act will not protect all persons from housing discrimination, then what can? Many state and local policymakers have taken the initiative to create policy that includes low- and moderate- income households into communities. Creating and Preserving Affordable Homeownership Opportunities: Does Inclusionary Zoning Make Sense? by Casey Dawkins, Jae Sik Jeon, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap, discusses whether inclusionary zoning is an effective and suitable remedy for the problem of exclusionary zoning and affordable housing. These authors use [City, State]’s, Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) for data because it is the country’s longest running and largest inclusionary program. For developers, the MPDU program is mandatory if the construction is twenty units or more, but the benefit of the program is that developers are eligible to receive a density bonus. Before 2011, fifty percent of the units consisted of less than twenty units (the threshold for the MPDU program). In 2007, the peak of the housing boom, eighty percent of development was below the threshold. This could have been a tactic of developers that were unwilling to participate in the inclusionary zoning efforts by constructing smaller projects. For renters, there are requirements such as: housing education classes, $35,000 income minimum, and qualify for at least a $120,000 loan. The benefits for renters are that they are able to live in neighborhoods that would’ve otherwise been unaffordable and they have the opportunity to accumulate wealth if the property is resold. The questions used to determine whether the MPDU program is effective are: How many MPDU homeownership units have been produced since the program’s inception?; What are the characteristics of MPDU homeownership units compared to other units sold on the market, and how have these changed over time?; What is the rate of appreciation for MPDUs compared to other market-rate units, and how did the housing market crash and expiration of the price control period affect appreciation rates? The answers to the first two questions are most relevant to this paper. The MPDU program has produced 9,561 for-sale units and 4,471 rental units. In 2005, at the height of the housing boom, the average market rat house resold for $407,771, while MPDUs resold for about $175,113 in 2006. From the Montgomery County data shows that MPDUs are usually in areas where similarly priced market-rate houses are located. Majority of the MPDUs are in the northwest part of the county (with new, large market-rate develop) rather than in the southwest region (relatively urbanized). An interesting fact about the MPDU units is that they tended to be smaller than market-rate units but on bigger lots of land. All together the inclusionary program, MPDU, is effective in Montgomery County because it provides home owners with affordable housing and allows them to profit from the reselling units, which are the goals. This article is relevant to this paper because it gives one example of how local policymakers have taken strides to closing the housing inequalities based on income. Like other inclusionary zoning program mentioned previously, developers were given an incentive, and low-income residents were able to live for an affordable price. In Montgomery County the solution was to not only provide housing for the low-income residents, it was to also allow them to build housing wealth if they decided to resell the MPDU house. Interestingly, the MPDU houses were smaller and slightly less luxurious, but were on larger lots than market-priced units. This is the complete opposite of exclusionary zoning where larger lot sizes mean higher housing costs, which disqualifies low- income households. This program is different but has shown to be an appropriate solution for class-based discrimination that the Fair Housing Act fails to address. “Mixed-Income Housing and Neighborhood Integration: Evidence from Inclusionary Zoning” by Constantine E. Kontokosta discusses one major negative effect of exclusionary zoning. Because low-income households are excluded from neighborhoods, they tend to reside in neighborhoods with other low-income households where poverty is concentrated. These neighborhoods have more welfare dependency, single parenthood, and low performing schools. The solution for this is inclusionary zoning in order to create mixed-income communities. Studies have shown that inclusionary zoning and public housing has been beneficial to neighborhoods despite what existing residents believe. Typically, public housing is allocated by lotteries, but if existing residents are preferred, then inclusionary zoning is not successful. Kontokosta states that in order for inclusionary zoning programs effective these must occur: ordinances must be part of an array of complementary affordable housing programs to begin to address the need for affordable units; and the program must function more effectively in conjunction with state requirements for affordable housing, rather than relying on local efforts alone. This article relates to this paper because it explains that low-income residents who are excluded from neighborhoods through exclusionary zoning tend to live in communities with other low-income residents. This does not benefit these households because there are so many negative consequences in these low-income communities, such as welfare dependency and higher incarceration. The goal of mixed income communities is to expose the low-income households to better communities in order to eventually cause upward mobility. This article also explains that inclusionary zoning laws alone cannot solve the solution of households being excluded, there are other factors that need to occur in order for any program to be successful. This chapter discusses the literature that has already been written on the topic of exclusionary zoning practices and the fair housing act of 1968. The works have discussed the history of the Fair Housing Act, definitions of terms like exclusionary and inclusionary zoning, and the negative effects of the law. These works have shown the loopholes that make the Fair Housing Act ineffective and the possible solutions some local policymakers have initiated in order to solve the issue of exclusionary zoning. The next chapter of this paper will discuss the theoretical frameworks used to frame the study and the associated theorists. Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework In order to analyze the effectiveness of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and exclusionary zoning practices, a theoretical approach was taken, and multiple theoretical frameworks can be used. The two frameworks used for this study was Elitist Theory and Systems Theory. The Elitist Theory addresses the power structure of the stakeholders in housing and exclusionary zoning. The Systems Theory addresses the process in which the powerful (households and policymakers) are able to affect whole jurisdictions by making demands to political demands that produce outcomes that are beneficial for some and leave others at a disadvantage. This chapter will explain the theoretical frameworks and why these frameworks were chosen. “An elite can be defined as a group of rulers with the capacity to appropriate resources from non-elites who inhabit a distinct organizational apparatus.” The Elistist theory explains a society in which the average citizen is inadequate; therefore the population at large must rely on the wisdom and skill of their political leaders to govern. This theory derived from the Italian School of Elitism, and authors that are historically representative of “democratic elitism” are: Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels. Although these three are credited with the creation of the Elitist Theory, each contributes something different. In addition to these three authors, C. Wright Mills, an American sociologist is also associated with the Elitist theory. Vilfredo Pareto is known for coining the term “elites” in the United States and the originator of the study of elites. Pareto’s famous work is “The Mind and Society,” which discusses the circulation of Elitist theory. Pareto asserts that society consists of a...