analysis of impediments to fair housing...

FINAL REPORT

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

City of Austin

Final Report

May 20, 2015

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Prepared for City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department 1000 East 11st Street, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78702 512‐974‐3100 www.austintexas.gov/housing Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 1999 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202‐9750 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com [email protected]

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i

I. Executive Summary

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... I–1

Methodological Note .................................................................................................................. I–2

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................. I–2

Fair Housing Issues and Prioritization ........................................................................................ I–2

Proposed Fair Housing Activities ................................................................................................ I–4

II. Demographic and Housing Profile

Summary ................................................................................................................................... II–1

Demographic Analysis ............................................................................................................... II–2

An Integrated Austin ............................................................................................................... II–13

Housing Market Analysis ......................................................................................................... II–32

III. Access to Opportunity

Equitable Treatment in Austin ................................................................................................. III–1

Exposure to Neighborhood Poverty and Crime ........................................................................ III–4

Labor Market Engagement and Jobs Access .......................................................................... III–10

Access to Proficient Schools ................................................................................................... III–11

Access to Transit ..................................................................................................................... III–12

Equity and Housing Choice ..................................................................................................... III–15

Equitable Access to Community Amenities ............................................................................ III–20

IV. Fair Housing Environment

Housing Discrimination ........................................................................................................... IV–1

Public and Private Sector Barriers ........................................................................................... IV–7

Fair Housing Activities and Enforcement .............................................................................. IV–22

V. Barriers and Fair Housing Activities

Fair Housing Issues and Prioritization ...................................................................................... V–1

Proposed Fair Housing Activities .............................................................................................. V–5

Appendix A. AI Supporting Maps Appendix B. Public Comments

Credits

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING ii

Thousands of local residents provided information and comments to inform the City of Austin

Comprehensive Housing Market Study and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing by completing

surveys, attending public and focus group meetings, and providing written comments. The following

organizations were instrumental in providing input on, or distributing information about, the

Comprehensive Housing Market Study and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. We thank you

all!

A Resource Center for Independent Living (ARCIL)

Accessible Housing Austin (AHA!)

ADAPT

African American Resource Advisory Commission

AIDS Services of Austin

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Advisory Group

Asian American Quality of Life Advisory Commission

Asian Contractor Association

Association for Talent Development, Austin Chapter

Austin Apartment Association

Austin Black Contractors Association

Austin Board of REALTORS (ABoR)

Austin Community College (ACC)

Austin Gay & Lesbian Senior Services

Austin Groups for the Elderly (AGE)

Austin Housing Coalition (AHC)

Austin Independent School District (AISD)

Austin Mobility

Austin Neighborhoods Council

Austin Nextdoor

Austin Resource Center for the Homeless (ARCH)

Austin Tenants Council

Austin Travis County Integral Care (ATCIC)

Austin Veterans Administration

Avance

Capital Metro

Caritas Refugees

Casa Marianella

Central Health

City of Cedar Park

City of Pflugerville

City of Round Rock

CodeNEXT Community Advisory Committee

Community Advancement Network (CAN)

Community Care Clinics

Community Development Commission

Concordia University

Easter Seals

El Buen Samaritano

Ending Community Homelessness Coalition (ECHO)

Foundation Communities

Foundation for the Homeless

Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Chamber of Commerce

Goodwill

Greater Austin Asian Chamber of Commerce

Greater Austin Black Chamber of Commerce

Greater Austin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Green Doors

Helping the Aging, Needy and Disabled (HAND)

Helping a Hero

Hermanos de East Austin

Hispanic/Latino Quality of Life Resource Advisory Commission

HIV Planning Council

Home Builders Association

Home Repair Coalition

Homes for Our Troops

HousingWorks Austin

Housing Authority of the City of Austin

Housing Authority of Travis County

Huston‐Tillotson University

Lifeworks

Meals on Wheels and More

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

OneVoice

OutYouth

People’s Community Clinic

Project Transitions

Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA)

Refugee Services of Austin

SafePlace

St. Edwards University

Texas Appleseed

Texas Civil Rights Project

Texas Low Income Housing Information Service

Texas Veterans Land Board

Trinity Center

U.S. Hispanic Contractors Association de Austin

University of Texas at Austin

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1

SECTION I. Executive Summary

ThisdocumentcontainsanupdatedAnalysisofImpedimentstoFairHousingChoice(AI)fortheCityofAustin.AnAIisrequiredbytheU.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)foranycommunitythatreceivesfederalhousingandcommunitydevelopmentfunds.Atthetimethisreportwascreated,HUDwasintheprocessofrevisingitsreportingrequirementsforAIdocuments.ThisAIincorporatesdataandinformationinHUD’sproposedAssessmentofFairHousing,orAFH,whereavailable.

OneofthegoalsofthenewAFHistoimproveaccesstoopportunityofprotectedclassesandlowincomehouseholds.Accesstoopportunityshouldbothexpandhousingchoicesinareasthathavebeenexclusionaryandimprovethequalityandconditionsofneighborhoodsaffordabletoprotectedclassesandlowincomeresidents.

Agrowingbodyofresearchhasdemonstratedthatlimitedhousingchoicehasnegativeoutcomesforchildwell‐being,socialmobility,and,ultimately,humancapitaldevelopment—allfactorsinpublicsectordependency.Limitedhousingchoiceforlowincomehouseholds,therefore,caninhibitacity’seconomicgrowth.

ThisExecutiveSummarypresentsthemajorfindingsfroma2014analysisofhousingbarriersinAustin.Italsopresentsrecommendedactionitemstoaddressthebarriers.TheseeffortsareimperativeforfutureeconomicgrowthinAustin,whichhasexperiencedagrowthinhighpovertyareasandracialandethnicconcentrations,aswellasalossofthemiddleclass,inthepastdecade.

Acknowledgements

ThisAIbenefittedgreatlyfromthecontributionofstakeholdersinthecommunity,particularlythoseindividualsandorganizationswhohelpedguidethedevelopmentofthedocument.ThestakeholderprocessincludedinputfromanAnalysisofImpedimentstoFairHousingAdvisoryGroupcomprisedofindustryexpertswhoofferedcrucialfeedbackatkeymilestonesofthestudy.Theadvisorygroupprovidedexpertiseaboutabroadspectrumofknowledgethathasinformedthereport.Housingbarrierscanbedifficulttodetectthroughquantitativeanalysesalone;theguidanceofexpertshelpedtoidentifypotentialbarriersthatmaybedifficulttoquantify,butshouldbeconsideredinthecity’splannonetheless.Similarly,therichinformationonhousingchoicebarrierssharedbythemanyresidentswhoparticipatedinsurveysandfocusgroupsfortheHousingMarketStudyandAIwasimperativeinthedevelopmentofthisAI.Theirhonestyandfranknessindescribingwhatcanbesensitiveinformationwasinvaluable.


Methodological Note

Theonlinesurvey—availableinEnglishandSpanish—wasopentoallAustinresidents,includingstudents,andthosewhoworkinAustinandliveelsewhere.Atotalof5,315residents,922in‐commuters,and398studentsparticipatedintheonlinesurvey.

Thatthesurveywasopentoanyoneinterestedinparticipatingmeansthattheresultsarebasedonnon‐probabilitysamplingmethods.Unlikeastatisticallyvalid,randomprobabilitysample,theresultsfromthissurveyarenotnecessarilyrepresentativeofallAustinresidents.However,theverylargenumberofresponsesyieldsarobustnesstotheresultsthatminimizeserroraroundtheestimates,andthereforeresultedinastatisticallysignificantsample.ComparedtoAustin’sdemographiccharacteristics,thesurveydataover‐representhomeowners,whitesandskewslightlyhigherinincome.Thatsaid,therearesufficientnumbersofresponsesfromrenters(1,522),lowincomeresidents—householdincomeof$25,000orless(325),Hispanics(423),AfricanAmerican(124)andAsian(78)residentstoproduceestimatesforthesepopulations.

Becausethedataarebasedonanon‐probabilitysample,theyarenotweightedtomatchAustin’sdemographicprofile.Findingsarepresentedbasedontheresponsesreceived.WhiletheresultsshouldnotnecessarilybeprojectedtoAustin’spopulation,theyprovideinsightsintohowmorethan5,000Austinitesandmorethan900in‐commutersmakecomplexhousingdecisions,theirpreferencesandattitudes,andcaninformpolicydevelopment.Noothersourceofdataprovidestheopinions,perspectivesandstoriesfoundinthesurveyresultsandechoedbythestoriessharedinfocusgroupsandinterviews.Whilethesurvey’sdesignlendsitselftoestimatesofimplicitandexplicitdiscriminatoryattitudesandactions,thesemeasuresofracialorotherbiasarelowerboundestimates,astheydonotcaptureundisclosedbias.

Summary of Findings

Theprimarybarrierstohousingchoiceidentifiedthroughthisanalysisappearbelow.Itisimportanttonotethatdatawaslackingtofullyexaminetheextentofsomebarriers.Thisincludes:

Lackofdataonthebeneficiariesofcityincentiveprogramstosupporttheproductionofaffordablehousingandtheextenttowhichsomecityprogramsserveprotectedclasses,and

Limitedinformationonthequalityofparksandrecreationcentersbyneighborhood,includingthelikelihoodoflead‐basedpaintinolderplaygroundequipment.

Otherdatathatwasn’tavailableforinclusionintheAIcouldbecollectedaspartoftheFairHousingActionPlanimplementationprocess.

Fair Housing Issues and Prioritization

ThefairhousingbarriersidentifiedintheAIresearchincludethefollowing.AsspecifiedinHUD’sAFHtool,theactionitemstoaddressthebarriersareassignedapriorityranking.Theprioritizationwasbasedon:

Thesignificanceofthebarrierincontributingtosegregation,


Thesignificanceofthebarrierinlimitinghousingchoice,and

Easeofimplementation—i.e.,theabilityofthecityanditspartnerstoaddressthebarrier,especiallyinthenext6‐12months.

BarriersidentifiedinthisAIinclude:

1.Lackofaffordablehousingdisproportionatelyimpactsprotectedclasseswithlowerincomesandhigherpovertyrates.

2.Lackofaffordablehousingcitywideexacerbatessegregationcreatedthroughhistoricalpoliciesandpractices.

3.Thecityislimitedinitsabilitybystatelawtouseinclusionaryzoningasatooltobroadenhousingchoice.

4.InformationonhousingchoiceisnotwidelyavailableinlanguagesotherthanEnglishand/orinaccessibleformats.Informationforpeoplewhoaremembersofprotectedclassesaboutpossibilitiestoliveinhousingthatwascreatedinhigheropportunityareasthroughcityincentiveanddeveloperagreementprogramsislimited.

5.Complaintdatasignalsnon‐complianceofpropertyownersandbuilderswithaccessibilityrequirements.

6.Overlycomplexlanduseregulationslimithousingchoiceandcreateimpedimentstohousingaffordability.Theseinclude:minimumsitearearequirementsformultifamilyhousing,limitsonADUs,compatibilitystandards,overlyrestrictiveneighborhoodplansandexcessiveparkingrequirements.

7.Privatemarketbarriersinclude“steering,”(thepracticeofrealestateagentsshowingcertainhomebuyersonlycertainneighborhoodsbecauseoftheirraceorethnicity),highloandenialsforAfricanAmericansandotherprotectedclasses,andoverlycomplexandrigorousstandardsforrentalqualifications.

8.Cityincentivestocreateaffordablehousingmaynotbeequitablydistributedthroughoutthecityandmaynotservetheprotectedclasseswiththegreatestneeds.

9.TheCity’shistoricallackofenforcementofcitycodesgoverningthemaintenanceofhousingstockindifferentneighborhoodsmayinfluencethehousingchoicesofprotectedclasses,potentiallyrestrictingaccesstoopportunities.

10.TheCity’shistoricallackoffundingforpublicinfrastructureandamenities,includingparks,indifferentneighborhoodsmaydisproportionallyimpactprotectedclasses,influencehousingpreferences,andrestrictaccesstoopportunities.

11.Lackofknowledgeaboutfairhousingrequirementscreatesbarrierstoaffirmativelyfurtheringfairhousing.


12."Crimeinneighborhood"isafrequentlycitedreasonfordissatisfactionwithcurrenthousing.

Proposed Fair Housing Activities

Theproposedfairhousingactivitiesonthefollowingpagessummarizethefairhousinggoals/activitiesdescribinghowthecityproposestoaddresstheidentifiedfairhousingbarriers.Manyoftheseactionitemsaredirectedtowardsachievinggreaterequitythroughcitypolicyandfinancialactions.

Theproposedfairhousingactivitiesareambitious.ImplementationwillrequireacollaborativeeffortbetweentheCityofAustinandavarietyofcommunitypartners.Tothatend,thefirststepinimplementationwillbeforthecitytofacilitatedialoguewithappropriatepartnerstodetermineleadorganizationsforspecificactionitems,agreeuponresponsibilitiesandrefinemeasurableimpacts.Potentialpartnersmightinclude,forexample,thefollowing:

RelevantCityofAustinDepartments

CapitalMetro

CommunityAdvancementNetwork

HousingAuthorityoftheCityofAustin

TexasLowIncomeHousingInformationService

UniversityofTexasCommunityLawClinic

AustinTenantsCouncil

ThefullFairHousingActionPlan(FHAP)detailingthespecificactions,expectedoutcomesandestimatedtimelinestoaddressthefairhousingbarriersisavailableonlineat:http://austintexas.gov/page/reports‐publications.

PROPOSED FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES ‐ CITY OF AUSTIN

FAIR HOUSING BARRIER PRIORITI‐

ZATION

FAIR HOUSING GOALS/ACTIVITIES

The City of Austin will continue to expand affordable housing

opportunities through the following:

Maintain and strengthen policies through the CodeNEXT process that

provide incentives for the development of affordable housing for

households below 50%, 60% and 80% MFI.

Strengthen and align density bonus programs in terms of formula for

calculating the number of units, accessibility requirements, the

affordability period, and on site requirements.

Revise VMU, PUD to require 60% MFI rental and 80% owner throughout

Austin when on‐site affordable units are required.

Develop programs to incentivize family‐oriented units in high opportunity

areas.

Collect data on protected classes, as well as families with children,

residing in units created through the City’s density bonus and other

incentive programs.

Secure longer affordability periods for VMU and other programs that are

successful in providing affordable housing.

Enact policies, including a land bank, to acquire and preserve apartments

on and near transit corridors, where affordable programs can be applied

to increase housing for people who are members of protected classes.

Work with governmental entities, including Capital Metro, to require

inclusion of affordable housing opportunities for families with children on

government owned land that is undergoing redevelopment.

Create a goal to increase access to affordable housing in all council

districts. The 2014 Housing Market Study recommends setting a goal of

10% of rental housing units to be affordable to households earning

$25,000 or less per year.

Recommend adoption of a requirement that at least 25% of units be

affordable on developments proposed on City‐owned land.

Require units with city incentives or subsidies to accept vouchers to be

consistent with the recently adopted addition of source of income

protection in the City's Fair Housing ordinance. Work with the Housing Authority to explore the potential for Small Area

Rents, as described in Section IV of the document.

Pursue implementation of reasonable look back periods for criminal

backgrounds in rental criteria for developments with City of Austin funds

to ensure that the look back periods don't screen out more people than

necessary.

Identify impediments and potential remedies to assist persons with

disabilities attempting to secure accessible, affordable housing.

1. Lack of affordable housing

disproportionately impacts

protected classes with lower

incomes and higher poverty

rates. 2. Lack of affordable

housing citywide exacerbates

segregation created through

historical policies and practices.

3. The city is limited in its ability

by state law to use inclusionary

zoning as a tool to broaden

housing choice.

High

Acronyms: NHCD=Neighborhood Housing Community Devt. Office; PZD = Planning/Zoning Dept; ORES = Office of Real Estate

Services; AISD = Austin Independent School District; AHFC = Austin Housing Finance Corp.; FHO = Fair Housing Office



ZATION


Recommend review and enhancement of publicly available information

and forms on fair housing to make them easily accessible to persons with

disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency.

Work with HUD to provide better information in the new AFH tool about

the needs of persons with disabilities.

Develop an online list and map of units created through city incentives

and developer agreement programs. Work with local agencies to

disseminate that information.

5. Complaint data signals non‐

compliance of property owners

and builders with accessibility

requirements.

High Examine weaknesses in the current process and implement

improvements to ensure accessibility compliance.

6. Overly complex land use

regulations limit housing choice

and create impediments to

housing affordability. These

include: minimum site area

requirements for multifamily

housing, limits on ADUs,

compatibility standards, overly

restrictive neighborhood plans

and excessive parking

requirements.

Medium Work through the CodeNEXT process to modify land use and regulatory

requirements to expand housing choice and reduce housing access

barriers.

7. Private market barriers

include steering, high loan

denials for African Americans

and other protected classes, and

overly complex and rigorous

standards for rental

qualifications.

Medium Provide for enhanced matched pair testing and enforcement for lending,

steering, leasing and sales for all protected classes, especially persons

with disabilities.

4. Information on housing

choice is not widely available in

languages other than English

and/or in accessible formats.

Information for people who are

members of protected classes

about possibilities to live in

housing that was created in

higher opportunity areas

through city incentive and

developer agreement programs

is limited.

High





ZATION


Calibrate S.M.A.R.T. Housing incentives to function in high opportunity

areas.

Implement Homestead Preservation Districts in gentrifying areas and

fully utilize inclusionary housing tools available under legislation.

Implement policies that correct health and safety deficiencies in

maintenance of housing stock within the City while maintaining

affordability ‐‐ informed by a report from the Entrepreneurship and

Community Development Clinic of the University of Texas School of Law

entitled, "Addressing Problem Properties: Legal and Policy Tools for a

Safer Rundberg and Safer Austin" (August 2013).

Implement new, or examine existing policies and procedures, to insure

that new multi‐family housing meets applicable accessibility standards

and to inspect existing city funded/assisted properties to make sure the

properties are still accessible.

Medium Expand access to public parks in areas of the City where high

concentrations of persons from protected classes do not live within ¼‐

mile walking distance of a park. Implement the City of Austin Urban Parks

Work Group recommendations.

Medium

Review available information pertaining to public infrastructure and

amenities.

Medium

Improve areas of minority/low‐income concentration and integrate

housing for different incomes in these areas while improving the existing

housing stock and infrastructure.

Provide fair housing training of city staff in planning, development

review, economic development, and other city departments with impact

on housing development and conditions that affect people who are

members of protected classes.

City leaders should engage neighborhood associations, CDCs and

academics in a goal to create economic, racial and ethnic diversity as a

core value for each neighborhood and the city as a whole. The obligation

to affirmatively further fair housing should be incorporated into city

policies.

9. The City’s historical lack of

enforcement of city codes

governing the maintenance of

housing stock in different

neighborhoods may influence

the housing choices of

protected classes, potentially

restricting access to

opportunities.

Medium


funding for public infrastructure

and amenities, including parks,

in different neighborhoods may

disproportionally impact

protected classes, influence

housing preferences, and

restrict access to opportunities.

11. Lack of knowledge about fair

housing requirements creates

barriers to affirmatively

furthering fair housing.

Medium

8. City incentives to create

affordable housing may not be

equitably distributed throughout

the city and may not serve the

protected classes with the

greatest needs.

Medium





ZATION


Add to the City's affordable housing impact statement, which is used in

code and zoning changes, a "Fair Housing Impact" statement, which

would analyze the impact of the change on fair housing opportunities for

all protected classes.

12. "Crime in neighborhood" is a

frequently cited reason for

dissatisfaction with current

housing.

Medium Review available data on police response time in high and low

opportunity areas.



BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1

SECTION II. Demographic and Housing Profile

ThissectionoftheAnalysistoImpedimentsofFairHousingChoice(AI):

ProvidesanoverviewofAustin’schangingdemographicstosetthecontextfortheAI;

DiscussessegregationinAustin;

Analyzeshousingchoiceforpersonswithdisabilities;

Discusseshousingchoicesoffamilieswithchildren;and

Concludeswithasectiononhousingaffordabilityandconcentrationsofsubsidizedhousing.

Summary

SincethelastcomprehensiveAIwasconducted(2001)andupdated(2007and2009),theCityofAustinhasgained186,000residents(morethan30%growth).AsofApril2014,thecityhad865,504residentsaccordingtotheCityDemographer—upfrom656,562in2000.

Themostsignificantchangesbroughtbythisrecent,stronggrowthincludethefollowing:

An older city.Cityresidentsareolderoverall,duetotheshiftingoftheBabyBoomersintoolderagecohortsandgrowthinBabyBoomersandseniors.

A shift away from families with children.Proportionatelyfewerhouseholdsaremarriedcoupleswithchildrenandmorehouseholdsarecomprisedofsinglepersons,roommatesandnon‐marriedpartners.Growthinthecity’sHispanichouseholds,whichgenerallyhavelargerfamilieswithchildren,hashelpedthecitymaintainashareoffamilieswithchildren,whichotherwisewouldbemuchsmaller.

A “majority minority” city.Austinisnowa“majorityminority”city—largelyduetothegrowthofHispanicresidents.

A decline in African American residents.Austinexperiencedanumericallossofapproximately525AfricanAmericanresidentsbetween2000and2012.MapsofchangesinAfricanAmericanresidentsdemonstrateamigrationawayfromEastAustin—whereresidentsweremorehighlyconcentratedin2000—primarilyintothenorthernsuburbs.Whenaskedaboutthismigration,formerAfricanAmericansresidentscited“housingaffordability”asthetopreasonformoving.

A declining middle class.Theproportionofmiddleincomehouseholdsdeclinedbetween2000and2012.Thiswasoffsetbybothgrowthinlowincomeresidentsandhighincomehouseholds.

A rise in poverty.Povertyroseoverallandforallagegroupsexceptforseniors.Childpovertyincreasedsubstantially,from17percentin2000to30percentin2012.The


povertyrateforbothAfricanAmericanandHispanicresidentsalsorosesignificantly,to31percent.

A declining proportion of residents with disabilities—yet increasing challenges in

accessing affordable housing.AccordingtotheU.S.Census,theproportionofAustinresidentswithdisabilitiesdecreased,from15percentin2000to10percentcurrently.Thischangeismostlyduetotwofactors:1)achangeindefinitionsfromtheU.S.Census1and,2)aninfluxofyoungerresidents,whoarelesslikelytohaveadisability.Althoughthetotalnumberofpersonswithdisabilitieschangedlittle,thehousingneedsofthisresidentgroupchangeddramaticallywithdeclinesinrentalaffordability,particularlyinthemoretransit‐richdowntownneighborhoods.

Thechangeshaveaffectedthecompositionofthecity—anditshousingopportunitiesandneeds—inavarietyofways,asdiscussedbelow.Eachdemographiccategoryisdiscussedinturn.

Demographic Analysis

ThissectiondiscussesthemajordemographicchangesthathaveoccurredinAustinsince2000.ItisorganizedaroundthecategoriesofanalysisinHUD’snewFairHousingAssessmentTool.

Age.Since2000,Austinhasgrownolder,duetobothanagingofexistingresidentsandin‐migrationofBabyBoomers.FigureII‐1showstheagedistributionofAustinresidents,alongwiththechangeinagedistributionfrom2000.

Figure II‐1. Residents by Age Cohort and Change, City of Austin, 2000 and 2012

Note:

Changes among age categories do not always indicate growth, but rather, show differences in the size of age cohorts. For example, the Baby Boomers were roughly between the ages of 35 and 54 in the Census 2000, and mostly captured in the 45 to 64 age cohort in the 2012 ACS.

Source:

2000 Census, 2007 and 2012 American Community Survey (ACS).

Austin’sincreaseinBabyBoomersasaproportionofthetotalpopulationwassimilartothatofsurroundingcounties(Hays,TravisandWilliamson).Seniorgrowthwasslightlyhigherinthesamesurroundingcounties.

1Beginningwiththe2008AmericanCommunitySurvey,theU.S.CensusBureauchangedfrommeasuringphysicaldisabilitytoambulatoryormobilitydisability(difficultywalkingorclimbing).Priorto2008thephysicaldisabilitymeasureincludeddifficultyreaching,liftingorcarryinginadditiontowalkingorclimbingdifficulty.

Population by Age

Total population 656,562 842,595 186,033

Number of Population

Children (Under 18) 147,548 182,530 34,982

College‐Aged Adults (18‐24) 109,256 111,596 2,340

Young Adults (25‐44) 243,517 310,684 67,167

Baby Boomers (45‐64) 112,336 176,686 64,350

Seniors (65 and older) 43,905 61,099 17,194

Percent of Population

Children (Under 18) 22% 22% ‐0.8%

College‐Aged Adults (18‐24) 17% 13% ‐3.4%

Young Adults (25‐44) 37% 37% ‐0.2%

Baby Boomers (45‐64) 17% 21% 3.9%

Seniors (65 and older) 7% 7% 0.6%

20122000

2000‐2012

Change


Impact of age on housing choice.ThegrowthoftheBabyBoomeragecohort—manyofwhomareintheirprimeearningyears—hascontributedtodemandforhigher‐priced,luxuryhousingproducts,particularlyastheeconomyandhousingmarketrecovered.BabyBoomerswillcontinuetohavealargeinfluenceonthehousingmarketduetotheirlargenumbers.Thismaymeanagrowingdemandforsmallerunitswithwalkabilityandtransitaccess.

Yetmanyolderadultschoosetoageinplace,whichcouldincreasedemandforhousingmodificationsandsupportiveservicessuchasin‐homecare,intheareaswhereBabyBoomerscurrentlyreside.

Ifthecity’syoungadultsfollowpasttrends,theywillseekdetachedsinglefamilyhomesafterformingfamilies,continuingtheoutmigrationoffamiliesinAustin(seebelow).RecentstudiesonhousingpreferencesofMillennials,however,suggesttheirgeographicpreferencesforhousingaredifferentthanothercohortsduetotheimportancetheyplaceonwalkability.Thismayleadtoashifttowardresidentialredevelopmentactivityinexistingneighborhoods,furthercontributingtogentrification.

Families with children.Families‐with‐childrenhouseholdshavedeclinedsince1970,whenthesharewasabout32percent.Growthinthecity’sHispanichouseholdshashelpedthecitymaintainashareoffamily‐with‐childrenhouseholds,whichotherwisewouldbemuchsmaller.

FigureII‐2showsthebreakdownofhouseholdsbyfamilytypeinAustin,aswellaschangessince2000.Declinesinfamily‐with‐childrenhouseholdshareshavebeenoffsetbyslightincreasesintheproportionsofresidentslivingaloneandinhouseholdswithalternativecompositiontypes.

Figure II‐2. Household Type and Change, City of Austin, 2000 and 2012

Source:

2000 Census, 2007 and 2012 ACS.

ComparedtoTravisCounty,Austinhasahigherproportionof“non‐family”(singleperson,roommate)households(43%forTravisCounty),alowerproportionofmarried‐with‐childrenfamilies(20%)andaboutthesameproportionofsingle parentfamilies(9%).HaysandWilliamsoncountieshaveevenhigherproportionsofmarried‐with‐childrenfamilies(24%and28%respectively)andsimilarproportionsofsingleparenthouseholds(9%and8%).Allexperiencedpercentagepointdeclinesinfamilieswithchildrenbetween2000and2012.

Household Type

Total Households 265,649 330,838 65,189

Number of Households

Married without Children 51,950 62,254 10,304

Married with Children 49,148 53,105 3,957

Single Parent Household 22,132 30,362 8,230

Living Alone 87,026 112,092 25,066

Other Household Types 55,393 73,025 17,632

Percent of Households

Married without Children 20% 19% ‐0.7%

Married with Children 19% 16% ‐2.4%

Single Parent Household 8% 9% 0.8%

Living Alone 33% 34% 1.1%

Other Household Types 21% 22% 1.2%

2000 2012

2000‐2012

Change


Thechangeinfamilieswithchildrendiffersbyraceandethnicity.Asshownbythefigurebelow,thenumberofAfricanAmericansfamilieswithchildrendeclinedbymorethan1,500between2000and2010—an18percentdecline.2Instarkcontrast,Hispanicfamilieswithchildrengrewby39percent.AsianfamilieswithchildrenalsogrewsubstantiallyandNon‐Hispanicwhitefamilieswithchildrengrewmodestly.

Figure II‐3. Changes in Families with Children, by African American, Hispanic, Asian and Non‐Hispanic White Households, 2000 to 2010

Source:

2000 and 2010 Census.

Why have families moved from Austin?FamilieswhorespondedtotheAustinHousingChoiceSurveywhopreviouslylivedinAustinsharedtheprimaryreasonwhytheychosetomovefromAustin.AsshowninFigureII‐4,affordabilityofhousingandbetterschools/schooldistrictswerethemotivationsforleavingthecityforthegreatestproportionofformerresidents.Thiswastrueforresidentsoverallandwithinracialandethnicsubgroups.

Affordabilitywasalargerfactorinmovingfornon‐whitefamiliescomparedtowhitefamilies—butlessofafactorforHispanicfamiliesthanAfricanAmerican,whiteornon‐whitefamiliesoverall.SchoolswerealargerfactorforAfricanAmericanfamiliesthanforotherraces/ethnicities.ReasonsforleavingAustinweresimilarforfamiliesthatincludeamemberwithadisabilitywiththeadditionofmovingforajoborareturntoschool(22%).

Figure II‐4. What is the primary reason why you moved out of Austin?

Note:

Numbers add to greater than 100% due to multiple response.

There were too few Asian families to report.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from the Austin Housing Choice Survey.

Thesesurveyfindingsaresupportedbyarecent,largesurveyofCentralAustinworkersemployedfulltimeformodestsalariesandcommutingatleast10milestoworkinCentral

2ItisimportanttonotethatothertypesofAfricanAmericanhouseholdtypes—exceptfemaleheadsofhousehold—increased.

2000

No. of Families with Children 8,551 24,794 3,131 33,884

% of All Households 35% 43% 26% 20%

2010

No. of Families with Children 6,978 34,485 6,039 35,878

% of All Households 27% 41% 33% 19%

2000 to 2010 Change

No. of Families with Children ‐1,573 9,691 2,908 1,994

Percent Change ‐18% 39% 93% 6%

% of All Households (pct pt change) ‐8% ‐2% 7% ‐1%

Non‐Hispanic

White

African

American Hispanic Asian

African American families

(n=20)60% 40% 15% 5%

Hispanic families

(n=57)51% 21% 7% 7%

All non‐White families

(n=79)66% 30% 11% 9%

White families

(n=116)59% 29% 9% 9%

Affordability Schools Traffic Taxes


Austin.ThesurveyfoundstronginterestfromworkerstomovebacktoAustiniftheycouldfindaffordablehousing,particularlyforlowerincomehouseholds.Theseworkersalsopreferredlivingindenser,moreurbanizedneighborhoods.3

Race and ethnicity.FigureII‐5showstheracialandethniccompositionofcityresidentsandhowthecompositionhaschangedsince2000.Austinbecamea“majorityminority”cityinthepastdecade,largelyduetoHispanicresidentgrowth.ThenumberofAfricanAmericanresidents—thecity’ssecondlargestminoritygroup—declined.

Figure II‐5. Numerical and Percentage Point Change in Residents by Race and Ethnicity, City of Austin, 2000 and 2012

Note:

The ACS question on Hispanic origin was revised in 2008 to make it consistent with the Census 2010 Hispanic origin question. As such, there are slight differences in how respondents identified their origin in the 2000, 2007 and 2012 surveys.

Excludes "Some Other Race" category, due to inconsistency of reporting between 2000 and 2012 Census surveys.

Source:

2000 Census, 2007 and 2012 ACS.

TheTravisCountyAIreportsthat,in2010,AfricanAmericansmadeup8.5percentofthecounty’spopulation;Asians,6percent;andresidentsofHispanicorigin,33.5percent.ThisracialandethnicbreakdownissimilartothatofAustin,whichistobeexpected,asthecitymakesupthree‐fourthsofthecounty’spopulation.Thisshareisdeclining,however,andby2045,AustinispredictedtocompriseabouthalfofTravisCounty’spopulation.

ThefollowingfourmapsshowchangesintheresidencesofAfricanAmericanandHispanicresidentsbetween2000and2010.Duringthepastdecade,AfricanAmericansmigratedawayfromEastAustinintothenorthernsuburbs.AfricanAmericanconcentrationsintheeasternpartofAustinbecamelesspronounced.

3“ComingHome,”Mueller,ElizabethandCliffordKaplan,http://www.soa.utexas.edu/files/csd/SPPComingHome.pdf

Race

American Indian and Alaska Native 3,889 5,272 1,383

Asian 30,960 54,084 23,124

Black or African American 65,956 65,431 (525)

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 469 776 307

Two or More Races 19,650 28,642 8,992

White 429,100 647,851 218,751

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race) 200,579 286,850 86,271

Non‐Hispanic 455,983 555,745 99,762

Race

American Indian and Alaska Native 1% 1% 0.0%

Asian 5% 6% 1.7%

Black or African American 10% 8% ‐2.3%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0.0%

Two or More Races 3% 3% 0.4%

White 65% 77% 11.5%

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino (of Any Race) 30% 34% 4.0%

Non‐Hispanic 70% 66% ‐4.0%

2000 2012

2000‐2012

Change

2000 2012

2000‐2012

Change


Hispanicresidentsalsomigratedintothesuburbs—bothnorthernandsouthernareas—yettheirconcentrationinthecentralandsoutheasternpartofAustinremained.

Consistentwiththosemigrationpatterns,growthintheHispanicpopulationoutpacedtotalpopulationgrowthinbothHaysandWilliamsoncounties.TheAfricanAmericanpopulationalsoexperiencedstronggrowthinthosecounties,morethandoublinginWilliamsonCounty.


Figure II‐6. Where African American Residents Lived, Austin and Region, 2000

Source: 2000 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.

Figure II‐7. Where African American Residents Lived, Austin and Region, 2010



Figure II‐8. Where Hispanic Residents Lived, Austin and Region, 2000


Figure II‐9. Where Hispanic Residents Lived, Austin and Region, 2010


BBC

Wh

onpthe

Inatheaffohomtim

NatSurinacitiz

TheTex

FiguNat

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

y has the Afr

page4,themavailabilityo

additiontohomoneyorbeordability,Afrmeownershipes.

tional originvey(ACS)estanotherU.S.stzens,asshow

erehasbeenaxas,anothers

ure II‐10. tional Origin, C

ce: 2013 ACS.

“Bigger &

“Pric

ONSULTING

rican America

mostcommonofaffordableh

ousingaffordatterqualityforicanAmericapprospects;lo

n and Limitetimatesthat5tate.Eighteenwnbelow.

almostnochatateintheU.S

City of Austin

& better acco(For

ce of homeo(For

an population

reasonAfricahousingtore

ability,surveyorthemoneyansreportleaowertaxesan

ed English P55percentofnpercentare

angeintheprS.orforeignb

Residents, 20

ommodationrmer Austin

wnership, qurmer Austin

n in Austin de

anAmericanfntorpurchas

yrespondentyinthecommavingthecityndlowerutili

Proficiency f Austiniteswforeign‐born

roportionsofbornbetween

013

ns for the moresident, Af

uality of schresident, Af

eclined in Au

familiesgaveseoutsideof

tssharedtheymunitiessurroyforbetterschties;andredu

(LEP).The2wereborninTn,withthema

fAustinresidn2000and2

oney. Utilitiefrican Americ

ools, and eafrican Americ

stin?AsshoweformovingfAustincitylim

ycouldgetmoundingAustihools/schoolucedtraffico

013AmericanTexas;28percajorityofthes

entsbornint013,accordin

es are less excan)

ase of shoppcan)

SECTION II, PA

wninFigureIfromAustinwmits.

morehouseforin.Afterhousldistricts;rcommute

nCommunitycentwereborsenon‐U.S.

theStateofngtotheCens

xpensive.”

ing.”

AGE 9

II‐4was

rsing

yrn

sus.


FigureII‐11showstheraceandethnicityofthecity’sforeign‐bornpopulation.Themajorityofforeignbornresidentsdescribetheirraceaswhite,followedbyAsian.AslightmajorityareofHispanicorigin.MostspeakalanguageotherthanEnglishwithabouthalfspeakingEnglishverywell.

Figure II‐11. Race/Ethnic and LEP Characteristics of Foreign‐Born Population, City of Austin, 2013

Source:

2013 ACS.

FigureII‐12showsconcentrationsofthecity’sforeignbornpopulation.

Figure II‐12. Census Tracts with Foreign Born Concentrations, Austin, 2012

Source:

2008‐2012 ACS and BBC Research & Consulting.

60%

3%

23%

14%

59%

41%

12%

88%

52%

Language other than English

Speaks English less than "very well"

English only

African American

Asian

Language Spoken % Foreign‐Born Population

White

Hispanic or Latino origin

Not Hispanic or Latino origin

Multi‐racial or "other"

Race and Ethnicity % Foreign‐Born Population


The2013ACSestimatesthat12percentofAustin’soverallpopulationoverfiveyearsold—about100,000people—donotspeakEnglish“verywell.”TheseresidentsareidentifiedasLEP,orlimitedEnglishproficiency.ThisrateofLEPissimilarto2000(14%).ThevastmajorityofLEPresidentsspeakSpanish(82%),followedbyAsianandPacificIslanderlanguages(12%and6%,respectively),asshowninFigureII‐13.

Figure II‐13. Language Spoken at Home and Limited English Proficiency (LEP), City of Austin Residents, 2013

Source: 2013 ACS.

Housing choice challenges.Becausemorethanhalfofforeign‐bornresidentsspeakEnglishlessthan“verywell”(seeFigureII‐11),theyaredisproportionatelylikelytoneedassistancewithlanguagetranslationinhousing,aswellasotherdocuments,makingthehousingsearchprocessmorechallengingandthepotentialforhousingdiscriminationgreater.TheseresidentsmayalsohavegreaterchallengesfindingemploymentinAustin,especiallyinprofessionsthatrequireverbalorwrittenproficiencyinEnglish,and,assuch,havelowerwages.ThesefactorsmakeLEPresidentsmorelikelytofacebarrierstohousingchoice.

Persons with disabilities.Morethan90,000Austinresidents—or10percentofallresidents—haveadisability.ThisisslightlyhigherthantherateforTravisCounty(8.6%),similartoHays(10.5%)andWilliamson(10%)counties,butlowerthanthestateoverall(12%).AsshownbyFigureII‐14,seniorsaremostaffectedbyphysical(ambulatoryandhearing)disabilitiesandchildrenaremostaffectedbycognitivedisabilities.

Theprobabilitythataresidentwillhaveadisabilityincreasesdramaticallybyage:37percentofseniorsinAustinreportadisabilitycomparedwith9percentofnon‐senioradults.

86% 88% 14% 12%

85% 96% 15% 4%

84% 82%

11% 12%

5% 6%

Residents 18 years and older

Spanish or Spanish Creole

Other languages

Asian and Pacific Island languages

Residents 5 years and older

Top Languages Spoken by LEP Residents

2000 2010 2000 2010

Speak English "very well"

Speak English less than

"very well" (LEP)


Figure II‐14. Persons with Disabilities and Types, 2013

Note:

Universe is Austin’s non‐institutionalized population.

Source:

2013 ACS.

Disabilitydatafromthe2000Censusarenotdirectlycomparabletotheabovedataduetochangesindisabilitycategoriesanddefinitions.Overallin2000,93,500Austinresidentshadadisability,representing15percentofthepopulation.Thecomparisonto2013ACSCensusdatasuggeststhatthenumberofpersonswithdisabilitiesinAustinhasslightlydeclinedsince2000andthattheproportionofthepopulationwhohasadisabilityhasdeclinedto10%ofthecity’spopulation.Muchofthedecreaseinthetotalsizeofthepopulationwithadisabilitycanbeattributedtoachangeindefinitionbetweenthe2000Censusandthe2013ACSandtheinfluxofyoungerresidents.

FormerAustinresidentswhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisabilitysharedsimilarreasonsforleavingAustinasfamilieswithchildrenandAfricanAmericans:affordability(49%)andschools(19%)and22percentleftAustinforjoboreducationalopportunitiesortobeclosertowork.4

4TheHousingChoiceSurveyfieldedaspartoftheHousingMarketStudy(HMS)thatprecededthisAIsurveyedresidentswithdisabilitiesabouttheirhousingneeds.Atotalof574householdsthatincludeamemberwithadisabilitycompletedthesurvey.

90,596 10%

990 2%

8,549 6%

676 0.5%

1,438 1%

6,922 5%

973 1%

867 1%

56,836 9%

10,993 2%

13,310 2%

24,106 4%

25,040 4%

10,757 2%

17,840 3%

24,221 37%

11,094 17%

4,419 7%

6,739 10%

15,230 23%

4,910 8%

9,197 14%

Disability incidence by race and ethnicity

10%

15%

5%

13%

11%

Cognitive

Ambulatory

Self‐care

No. of Residents % of Residents

Residents 5 to 17 years

Hearing

Vision

Total Residents with a Disability

Residents 5 years and younger

Vision

Cognitive

Ambulatory

Population 18 to 64 years

Hearing

Hispanic or Latino origin

Multi‐racial and "other"

African American

Asian

White

Independent living

Cognitive

Ambulatory

Self‐care

Population 65 years and over

Hearing

Vision

Self‐care

Independent living


Housing challenges of persons with disabilities.Basedonfocusgroupsandsurveyresponses,themostpressinghousingchallengesofpersonswithdisabilitiesinAustinincludeaffordability,accessibilityandaccesstopublictransportation.Formanypersonswithdisabilities,housingthatisaffordableandaccessibleandproximatetotransitisneeded,butinshortsupply.

Renters.Thesurveyfoundthatrenterswithadisabilityweredisproportionatelylikelytohaveincomesoflessthan$10,000thanbothresidentsoverallandhomeownerswithadisability.Oneinfivesurveyrespondentscannotaffordhousingthathasthefeaturestheyneedfortheirdisability.Themostcommonaccessibilityfeaturesneededare:grabbarsinbathrooms;widerdoorways;ramps;walk‐in/roll‐inshowers;andhighertoilets.

Renterhouseholdswerealsodisproportionatelylikelytoneedhousingassistance,livewithfamilyandfriendsbecausetheycan’taffordhousing,andrelyonfamilyandfriendstohelpthemmeethousingcosts.

Desiretomove.Half(55%)ofsurveyparticipantswithdisabilitieswanttomovefromtheircurrenthomeorapartmentinAustin.Thetopthreereasonsforwantingtomoveare:biggerhome/apartment(44%);crime/safetyreasons(42%)andtosavemoneyonhousingexpenses(40%).Most(69%)wouldprefertomovetoanotherhomewithinAustincitylimits.Despitethisdesiretomove,nearlyallfacebarrierstomovingelsewhere,including:

Affordability(96%);

Donothaveacar(53%);

Noaccessiblehousingelsewhere(29%);and

Nobusserviceelsewhere(15%).

Thesebarrierslimitwherepersonswithdisabilitiescanlive,particularlythosewithlowerincomes,thosedependentontransit,andthoserequiringaccessibilityfeatures.Addressingonebarriermayamplifyanother.Forexample,althoughthecostofhousingintheAustinareatendstoreducethefartheronelivesfromthecitycenter,thenumberofbusroutesandfrequencyandtimesofservicealsodecrease.Thisresultsinpersonswithdisabilitieshavingtochoosebetweenmoreaffordablehousingwithlessaccesstotransitormoreexpensivehousingwithbetteraccesstotransit.Needingaccesstohealthcareorsupportiveservicesfurthercomplicatesthehousingchoices(orlackthereof)facedbythissegmentofAustin’spopulation.

An Integrated Austin

ThissectionoftheAIfocusesontheintegrationofresidentsofdifferentracesandethnicities,incomes,anddisability,usingmanyofthemetricsrecommendedbyHUD.Itbeginswithadiscussionofthereasonsforexistingsegregation,asdocumentedinresearchandanalysesofAustin’shistoricalsettlementpatterns.

TheHMSmethodologyincludedapaperversionoftheHousingChoiceSurvey(theTargetedOutreachSurvey)thatwasdistributedtoorganizationsservingpersonswithdisabilities.


Historical background of segregation.Austinhasalonghistoryofracially‐restrictivecovenantsputinplacebyprivatedevelopers.Thesecovenants—manyofwhichprecededpublicsectorinvolvementinlanduseregulations—playedacriticalroleintheearlysegregationofAustin.5Asthemapsdemonstrateinearlierpartsofthissection,althoughsuchcovenantsarenolongerlegal,theywereastrongforceincreatingthesegregatedconditionsthatexistinAustintoday.

Race‐restrictivecovenants—andtheirlastingeffects—wouldnothavebeenassuccessfuliftheyhadnotbeenreinforcedbyalllevelsofgovernment.Atthelocallevel,Austin,similartomanycities,createdrace‐basedzoning,includinga“Negrodistrict,”initsfirstcomprehensiveplan.

In1979,theCityofAustinHumanRelationsDepartmentandHousingCommitteeoftheHumanRelationsCommissionproducedareportdocumentingthesettlementpatternsinAustintosupportthecity’sfirstfairhousingordinance(“HousingPatternsStudyofAustinTexas”).ThestudyreportsarelativelydispersedistributionofAfricanAmericans,non‐HispanicwhitesandresidentsofHispanicdescentfromthecity’sfoundinguntil1880.Thischangedintheearly1900s,whenAustinadoptedasa“goal”thesegregationofAfricanAmericanhouseholdsintoEastAustin—theareawhereconcentrationsstillexisttoday.SegregationwasaccomplishedprimarythroughrestrictionsonservicestoAfricanAmericanresidentsoutsideofEastAustin,aswellasthroughpoliciestosegregateschools.

TheTexaslegislatureencouragedsuchapractice,givingcitiesthe“powerandauthority”to“segregateandseparate…thewhiteandnegrorace”aspartofthestate’sbillgivingcitiesthepowertozone.Atthefederallevel,segregationwaspromotedthroughredlininginhomelendingandconfiningminoritiesresidinginpubliclysubsidizedhousingtocertaindevelopmentsand/orneighborhoods.6Anexampleisthe1972lawsuitBlackshearResidentsv.HousingAuthorityoftheCityofAustin,inwhichtheAustinhousingauthoritywasfoundtohaveatenantassignmentandsiteselectionprocessthatraciallyandethnicallysegregatedtenants.

Otherprotectedclassesbecamesegregatedthroughsimilar,intentionalsegregationpractices,aswellasthroughlimitedaffordabilityofhousingincertainareas.AsdescribedintheHousingPatternsstudy,thecity’sfirstMexicanimmigrantswereverypoorandlimitedtotheareasofthecitywiththemostaffordable(andalsosubstandard)housing.

Manypeoplewithdisabilitiesweresegregatedintotwostate“schools”(nowcalledStateSupportedLivingCenters)inAustin.7Theseinstitutionswerenotnecessarilyeducationalinnature;rather,thesewerelargefacilitieswherethestateplacedpeoplewithdisabilities.8Oneof

5AustinRestricted,Tretter,Eliot,UniversityofTexas—Austin,DepartmentofGeographyandtheEnvironment.

6Ibid.

7In1999,theU.S.SupremeCourt,inOlmsteadv.L.C.concludedthattheunjustifiedsegregationofpersonswithdisabilitiesintoinstitutionsviolatedtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.Asaresultofthisruling,statesaretransitioningintohome‐andcommunity‐basedserviceprovision.Olmsteadspecifiesthatpersonswithdisabilitieshavetherighttoliveinthemostintegratedsettingpossible.

8OthertypesoffacilitiesexistedforpersonswithdisabilitieswhichencouragedthesettlementofpersonswithdisabilitiesinAustin.TheseincludetheSchoolfortheDeafandtheCrissColeRehabilitationCenter.


thefacilities,theAustinStateSupportedLivingCenter,isstillinoperationinAustin.Thefacilityhasbeenrecentlyinvestigatedandfoundtoviolatestandardsinresidentsafetyandcare;thefacilityhasalsobeenpartofaDepartmentofJusticesettlementagreementrelatedtoviolations.

Lackofservicesforpersonswithdisabilities,alongwithbarriersinpublicinfrastructure(e.g.,lackofsidewalks,lackoftransit,lackofaccessiblehousing)eitherkeptresidentswithdisabilitiesininstitutionalsettingsorsteeredthemintocertainpartsofthecity.Discriminationalsoplayedaroleandisstillafactorinhousingaccesstoday,accordingtothecomplaintsreceivedbytheAustinTenantsCouncil(seeSectionIVoftheAI).

Perceptions on segregation.The1979HousingPatternsstudyispioneeringinmanyways,theleastofwhichisitssurveyofhousingpreferencesofresidentsrelatedtoracialandethnicbiases.ThestudycompletedaresidentsurveythatwassignificantforeightdifferentgeographicareaswithinAustinandwhichposedsevenquestionsaboutracialandethnicprejudicesandperceptionsofdiscriminationinhousing.

Perhapsthemoststrikingfindingfromthesurveywasthelackofracialbias.Seventy‐sixpercentofrespondentssaiditwasnotimportantthatneighborshaveraceincommon;64percentsaidtheydidnotprefertoliveonablockwithonlyresidentsoftheirsamerace.Thevastmajority(96‐98%)ofresidentssaidtheywouldnotobjecttolivingonthesameblockwithornextdoortootherracialorethnicgroups.

AspartoftheStateofTexasPhaseIIAI,BBCfieldedastatisticallyvalidandrepresentativetelephonesurveyofTexasresidents.Aseriesofquestionsrelatedtoneighborhoodandcommunitypreferences,similartothoseincludedintheHousingPatternsSurvey,includedmeasurestoexamineself‐reportedraciallybiasedattitudes.SimilartotheHousingPatternsStudy,thePhaseIIAISurveyfoundlittleevidenceofself‐reportedracialbias.Onaverage,residentsstatewideprefertoliveinneighborhoodswithmanydifferenttypesofpeopleanddonotexpressapreferenceforlivingnearpeopleoftheirsameraceorethnicity.RespondentsfromtheCapitalRegion,whichincludesAustin,werelesslikelythanthosestatewidetoexpresspreferencesforlivingnearpeopleoftheirownraceorethnicity.

Thepreferencesassociatedwithracialbiasinthe1979surveydidvarybygeographiclocation,however.Althoughtheresponsesarecomplex,ingeneral,residentsinNorthwestandWestAustindemonstratedhigherlevelsofbiastowarddifferentracialandethnicgroups,whileresidentsinNortheastAustindemonstratedtheleastbias.Still,despitelocation,themajorityofresidentsdemonstratedacceptanceandtoleranceofneighborswithracesandethnicitiesthatdifferedfromtheirs.Thissuggeststhatprivateandpublicpolicies—throughrestrictionsonhousingchoice—contributedtosegregationmuchmorethanhousingpreferences.

InafocusgroupwithlongtimeresidentsofEastAustin,severaloftheparticipantssharedtheirexperiencewithredliningandbeingsteeredtoEastAustininthe1970sandearlier.

“Back in the 1970s, we were qualified to buy anywhere, but some people wouldn’t sell to us. They’d say, ‘oh, we got a new offer,’ or ‘we decided not to

sell.’ That was during the white flight to the suburbs.” (African American resident of East Austin)


NowthatthishistoricallyAfricanAmericanneighborhoodisgentrifying,theoppositeishappening:residentsarebeingdisplacedfromtheneighborhoodbecauseofrisingpropertytaxes.Someresidentsbelievethisisintentionaldiscrimination;othersattributethechangetomarketforces.

Integration.HUDdefines“integrated”geographicareasasthosewhichdonotcontainhighconcentrationsofprotectedclasseswhencomparedtotherepresentationinajurisdictionorMetropolitanStatisticalArea(MSA)asawhole.

Inthecaseofpersonswithdisabilities,integrationalsomeansthatresidentswithdisabilitiesarehousedinthemostintegratedsettingappropriate.Thismeansasettinginwhichresidentswithdisabilitiescaninteractwithnondisabledpersonstothefullestextentpossible,consistentwiththerequirementsoftheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA).

“Segregation”occurswhenconcentrationsofprotectedclassesarearesultoffairhousingbarriersorimpediments.Forpersonswithdisabilities,segregationcouldoccurbecauseofthefailuretoprovidehousinginthemostintegratedsettingpossible.

Metrics.Forthisanalysis,twomeasuresareusedtoidentifyconcentrations.Concentrationsareidentifiedas:

Censustractsinwhichtheproportionofaprotectedclassis20percentagepointshigherthanthatinthecityoverall,and

Censustractsthataremorethan50percentminority.Theseincludenon‐Hispanicresidentsofallracesexceptforwhite,plusHispanicorLatinoresidentsofanyrace.

FiguresII‐15throughII‐17showconcentrationsofAfricanAmerican,HispanicandAsianresidentsinAustin.FigureII‐18showsareaswheretheminoritypopulationexceeds50percent.,FigureII‐19,showsareaswithnon‐Hispanicwhiteconcentrationsexceeding90percent.

ConcentrationsofpersonswithdisabilitiesareshowninFiguresII‐25andII‐26,followingtheHUD‐requireddiscussionofraciallyandethnicallyconcentratedareasofpoverty.

“They taxed people out so they could take the land.”

“They’re trying to economically change the demographics. They don’t care about what happens to us.”

“Now, taxes outside of Austin have caught up—they used to be much lower— and the commute has gotten so bad people want to move back.”


Figure II‐15. Concentrations of African American Residents by Census Tract, Austin, 2012

Source: 2008‐2012 ACS and BBC Research & Consulting.

Figure II‐16. Concentrations of Hispanic Residents by Census Tract, Austin, 2012



Figure II‐17. Concentrations of Asian Residents by Census Tract, Austin, 2012


Figure II‐18. Census Tracts with Greater than 50% Minority Concentration, Austin, 2012



Figure II‐19. Census Tracts with Greater than 90% Non‐Hispanic White Concentration, Austin, 2012

Source:


Asthemapsdemonstrate,otherthanacoupleofconcentratedCensustractsinnorthwestAustinnearMcNeilHighSchool,concentrationsofminoritypopulationsarealmostexclusivelyintheeasternportionofthecity.AhandfulofCensustractsinWestAustin,includingtheTarrytownandMt.Bonnellneighborhoods,havewhitepopulationsexceeding90percent.VeryfewCensustractsinWestAustinaremajorityminority.

RCAP/ECAP analysis.Anewcomponentoffairhousingstudiesisananalysisoftheopportunitiesresidentsareaffordedin“raciallyorethnicallyconcentratedareaofpoverty,”alsocalledRCAPsandECAPs.AnRCAPorECAPisaneighborhoodwithsignificantconcentrationsofextremepovertyandminoritypopulations.

HUD’sdefinitionofanRCAP/ECAPis:

ACensustractthathasanon‐whitepopulationof50percentormoreANDapovertyrateof40percentormore;OR

ACensustractthathasanon‐whitepopulationof50percentormoreANDthepovertyrateisthreetimestheaveragetractpovertyrateforthemetro/microarea,whicheverislower.


Why the 40 percent threshold?TheRCAP/ECAPdefinitionisnotmeanttosuggestthataslightly‐lower‐than‐40percentpovertyrateisidealoracceptable.Thethresholdwasborneoutofresearchthatconcludeda40percentpovertyratewasthepointatwhichaneighborhoodbecamesignificantlysociallyandeconomicallychallenged.Conversely,researchhasshownthatareaswithupto14percentofpovertyhavenonoticeableeffectoncommunityopportunity.9

ThemapinFigureII‐20showstheareasinAustinwith:1)Lessthan15percentpoverty(“nonoticeableeffect”neighborhoods),2)15‐39percentpoverty(moderatetohighpoverty)and40percentandhigher(povertychallengedneighborhoods).

Figure II‐20. Poverty Rates by Census Tract, Austin, 2012

Source:


FiguresII‐21andII‐22showhowhighpovertyareashavechangedovertime.In2012,thecityhadsignificantlymorehighpovertyareasthanin2000,which,asdescribedbelow,contributedtothegrowthinthenumberofraciallyandethnicallyconcentratedareasofpoverty.

9TheCostsofConcentratedPoverty:NeighborhoodPropertyMarketsandtheDynamicsofDecline.”InNicolasP.RetsinasandEricS.Belsky,eds.,RevisitingRentalHousing:Policies,Programs,andPriorities.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution,116–9.


OneareaofhighpovertyistheAustinStateSupportedLivingCenter(locatedwestofMoPacandnorthwestoftheUniversityofTexas).Thisareaisalsotheonlyconcentratedareaforpersonswithdisabilitiesandisa“disabilityconcentratedareaofpoverty”orDCAP.AdiscussionofthechallengesinthisneighborhoodappearsintheDisabilityandAccesssectionbelow.


Figure II‐21. Extremely High Poverty Census Tracts, 2000


Figure II‐22. Extremely High Poverty Census Tracts, 2012



The2008‐2012Five‐yearACSdataprovidesthemostextensiveinformationabouttheRCAPsandECAPsinAustin.FourteenRCAPsandECAPswereidentifiedusingthedatainthe2008‐2012ACS;thesemakeup4percentofthe332CensustractsthatarewhollyorpartiallycontainedwithinAustin.

In2000,accordingtothedecennialCensus,therewereonlythreeRCAPs/ECAPS,makingup1percentofthe242Censustractsinthecityatthattime.

ThemapsbelowshowthechangeinRCAPsandECAPsbetween2000and2010.


Figure II‐23. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RCAPs/ECAPs) by Census Tract Austin, 2000


Figure II‐24. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RCAPs/ECAPs) by Census Tract Austin, 2012



Thepovertyrateinthecity’scurrentRCAPs/ECAPsis47percent.Thiscomparestoapovertyrateofjust13percentinnon‐RCAPs/ECAPs.ResidentslivinginRCAPs/ECAPsmakeup9percentofthecity’spopulationoverallbut21percentofthecity’speopleinpoverty.

Overall,only5.6percentofAustin’sresidentsliveinRCAPs/ECAPs.Thosewhodoarelargelyracialandethnicminorities:10

81percentofresidentsinRCAPs/ECAPsareracialandethnic“minorities;”

61percentareHispanic(comparedto34%overallinthecity);

15percentareAfricanAmerican(v.8%);and

27percentareforeignborn(v.19%).

In2000,thepovertyrateofRCAPs/ECAPswasthesameat47percent.However,the2000RCAPs/ECAPswerelessraciallyandethnicallyconcentratedoverallandforHispanicsbutnotforAfricanAmericans.TheproportionofAfricanAmericansandpersonswithdisabilitieslivinginRCAPs/ECAPsdeclinedbetween2000and2012.Specifically:

66percentofRCAP/ECAPsresidentswereminoritiesin2000v.81percentin2012;

43percentwereHispanicin2000v.61percentin2012;

18percentwereAfricanAmericanin2000v.15percentin2012;

11percentwereforeignbornin2000v.27percentin2012;and

PersonswithdisabilitiesmadeupamuchhigherproportionofRCAP/ECAPresidents(20%)in2000thanin2012(9%).

Disability concentrations and housing access.ThissectionoftheAustinAIisdedicatedtoanexaminationofhousingopportunitiesandaccesstocommunityassetsbyAustinresidentswithdisabilities.Thegoalofthissectionistoidentifytheprimarybarriersfacedbyresidentswithdisabilitiesinachievingequitableenjoymentofhousing,neighborhoods,andcommunityassets.

Thissectionwasinformedbybothquantitativedata(ananalysisofCensusdata,geographicalanalysis)andinformationgathereddirectlyfromresidentswithdisabilities,throughfocusgroupsandsurveys.

Integration of persons with disabilities.Thissectionexamines(a)theextenttowhichcertaingeographicalareashaveaconcentrationofpersonswithdisabilities(oraparticulardisability);and(b)theextenttowhichpersonswithdisabilitiesarehousedinthemostintegratedsettingappropriate.

10Asianswereonlyslightlyoverrepresented(3%inRCAPs/ECAPsv.1.7%overall),aswerepersonswithdisabilities(9%inRCAPs/ECAPsv.8%overall).Whitesweresignificantlyunderrepresented(19%inRCAPs/ECAPsv.77%overall).


Asspecifiedinfederalregulations,themostintegratedsettingisonethatenablesindividualswithdisabilitiestointeractwithnondisabledpersonstothefullestextentpossible,consistentwiththerequirementsoftheADA,theFairHousingAmendmentsActandothercivilrightslegislation.Underthisprinciple,derivedfromtheSupremeCourt’sdecisioninOlmsteadvs.L.C.,institutionalizedsettingsaretobeavoidedtothemaximumpossibleextentinfavorofsettingsinwhichpersonswithdisabilitiesareintegratedwithnondisabledpersons.

Differenttypesofaccommodationsand/orservicesmaybeneededtoallowindividualswithdisabilitiestoliveinintegratedsettings.Forexample,personswithphysicaldisabilitiesmayneedunitswithuniversaldesignoraccessibilityfeaturesspecifictotheirneeds,bothwithinthepublicandassistedhousingstock.Personswithothertypesofdisabilitiesmayrequireaccesstoservicesandsupports—e.g.,transportationassistance,specifichealthservices—theyneedtoliveindependently.Peoplewithpsychiatricandcognitiveimpairmentsfaceattitudinaldiscriminationofbeingrefusedfromsomehousing,beingsteeredtootherhousing,andbarrierstoaccesscreatedbytheprocessofobtaininghousing(completingpaperwork,beingintimidatedbythesystem,etc).

Manypersonswithdisabilitiesneedhousingthatisaffordableaswellasaccessible.Thepovertyrateofpersonswithdisabilitiesisveryhigh(30%),asisunemployment.AccordingtoADAPT,anationalcommunitythatorganizesdisabilityrightsactivists,theincomesofpersonswithdisabilitiesreliantonSocialSecurityIncome(SSI)orSocialSecurityDisabledInsurance(SSDI)aregenerallywellunder30percentofthemedianincome—morelikebetween14and18percent.Assuch,mostpersonswithdisabilitiesrequireverydeeplysubsidizedhousing.Lackofdeeplysubsidizedhousingisthebiggestbarrierforpersonswithdisabilities.Housingthatisaccessible—butnotaffordable—doesnotadequatelyaddresstheneedsofthisprotectedclass.

Itisimportanttonotethatnursinghomesshouldnotbeconstruedasappropriatestandardresidentialsettingsforpersonswithdisabilities.Althoughnursinghomesmeettheneedsofcertainresidents,nursinghomesaretemporaryresidentialsettingsforpersonswhoareill.Suchhomesarenotconsideredaspartofthegeographically‐dispersedhousingtypesthatshouldbeavailabletopersonswithdisabilities.

About10percentofAustinresidentsreporthavingoneormoredisabilities.Aconcentrationanalysisofpersonswithdisabilities,foundonlyoneCensustractwithaconcentration(morethan30percentofresidentswithadisability),asshownbelow.Asnotedpreviously,thisCensustractincludestheAustinStateSupportedLivingCenter.


Figure II‐25. Census Tracts with Persons with a Disability Concentration, Austin, 2012

Source:


Residentsareverylikelytobecomedisabledastheyage:indeed,37percentofAustin’sseniorshaveoneormoredisabilities.Therearemanymoreconcentrationsofseniorswithdisabilitiesthanpersonswithdisabilitiesoverall,asshownbelow.


Figure II‐26. Census Tracts with Persons with a Disability over 65 Years Old Concentrations, Austin, 2012

Source:


Accessibility and housing needs.Unfortunately,specificdataontheavailabilityofaccessiblehousing,conditionofsuchhousingandadequacyofpublicandprivateinfrastructurearenoteasilyavailablefromsecondarydatasources.Instead,thesefactorswereexaminedinthefocusgroupsandsurveysconductedfortheAIandprecedinghousingmarketstudy.

Respondentstoresidentsurveyssharedthefactorsthatweremostimportanttothemwhenselectingaplacetolive.Amongpersonswithdisabilities,thefivefactorsselectedbythegreatestproportionofrespondentsare:

Cost/Icouldaffordit(69%);

Closetobus/transitstops(61%);

Closetogrocery/freshfood(56%);

Closetowork/jobopportunities(41%);and

Lowcrimerate/safe(41%).


Housingthatmeetsthesecharacteristicsfacilitatestheabilityofpersonswithdisabilitiestoparticipateintheircommunity.Asfocusgroupparticipantsshared,itisverydifficultforthemtofindhousingthatmeetsallofthese(andother)criteria.Fromthediscussion,aswellasresponsestothesurveys,thereisadearthofhousingthatisaccessibleandaffordableandclosetotransit.Assuch,manypersonswithdisabilitiesfindthemselvesmakingcompromisesthatlimittheirabilitytofullyparticipateinopportunitiestolive,workandplayinAustin.

Amongthepersonswithdisabilitieswhorespondedtotheresidentsurvey,48percentresponded,“Ineedhousingassistance(voucher/publichousing/rentassistance)butthewaitlististoolong/closed.”Overall,17percentofrespondentstothissurveyidentifiedtheneedforhousingassistanceasthehousing‐relatedissuethatmostconcernsthem.

Inafocusgroupwithpersonswithdisabilities,participantssharedthedifficultiestheyencounteredinfindinghousingthatmeetstheirneedsandisaffordable.Inthediscussion,participantssharedthatintheirexperiencemost“affordable”unitsarereservedforthoseearning80percentofMedianFamilyIncome(MFI),whichdoesnothelppeoplewithdisabilitieswhorelyonSSIorSSDIfortheirincome(approximately14to18%ofMFI).Respondentstotheresidentsurveyechoedtheneedforhousingthatisaffordableandaccessibletopersonswithdisabilities.

Improvementsneeded.Accordingtotheresidentsurvey,regardlessoftenure,aboutoneinfourhouseholdsthatincludeamemberwithadisabilityliveinhousingthatdoesnotmeettheiraccessibilityneeds.Themosttypicalmodificationsrespondentsneedincludegrabbarsinbathrooms,walk‐inshowers,widerdoorwaysandramps.

“Most of us have to choose between accessibility and affordability. Housing that is both affordable and accessible is a needle in a haystack.”

“Austin needs to spend more on accessible housing that is affordable.”

“They (housing‐related issues) are all important, but finding an accessible, affordable apartment for me, since I have a physical disability, is very hard.”

“(My greatest) need is for disabled (accessible housing). Units are very few and my disability requires easy access.”

BBC

FiguDoemeePerc

Note:

n=333

Sourc

BBC R

Surrespaccemeerespthei

Thodes

Spe

C RESEARCH & C

ure II‐27. es the house oet your or youcent Respond

:

3 homeowners and n

ce:

Research & Consultin

veyrespondeponsetotheqessibilityneeettheiraccespondedintheiraccessibilit

oserespondencribedthetyp

Accessiblemreliantonw

AffordableaSection8vo

Accessibleh

Single‐story

ecificexperien

“Icameupfwasequally

“Weneedebuyorrentdisability)

“Generally,whosehous

ONSULTING

or apartment ur family’s accding “No”

n=132 renters.

ng from the Austin Ho

entswhosehoquestion,“Doeds?”Amonghsibilityneedseaffirmative,tyneeds.

ntswhodidnpeofhousing

multifamilyrwheelchairsfo

andaccessiblouchers;

housingunits

ysinglefamil

ncesofreside

foraSectionyaccessiblea

dtobuildowt thatmeetso

disabilityaccseholdinclud

you current licessibility nee

ousing Choice Survey

ouseholdincloAustin’shouhomeownerss,but40percwhile15per

notthinkthegmissingfrom

entalunitsfoormobility;

lehousingto

sclosetotran

yhomes.

entsincluded

8voucher,bustheplaceIl

wnhomeinorurneeds.”(R

cessisanissudesamember

ive in eds?

y.

ludesamembusingchoices,halfsaidAucentdidnotkrcentstatedth

city’shousingmthemarket

orpersonswi

rentorbuy,i

nsit;and

:

uthadtoletitlive/lived.”(R

rdertohaveaResidentwhos

ue—stairsaborwithadisab

berwithadisprovidehomstin’shousingknow.Amonghatthecity’s

gchoicesmettplace:

thphysicald

includingane

tgobecauseResidentwith

allfeaturesnesehousehold

ound,asdonbility)

sabilityweremesthatmeetgchoicesprorenters,58phousingchoi

ttheiraccess

isabilities,pa

eedforunits

Icouldn'tfinhadisability)

eeded.Nothidincludesam

narrowdoorw

SECTION II, PAG

mixedintheiyour

ovidehomestpercenticesdonotm

ibilityneeds

articularlytho

thataccept

daplacethat

ngavailabletmemberwitha

ways.”(Reside

GE 30

ir

that

meet

ose

t

toa

ent

BBC

Acc

AusThetoprecosim

Abi

inclwouofthgropre

FiguDo ynexSenInclDisa

Note:

n=151

Sourc

BBC RChoic

Tho

C RESEARCH & C

cessibility.Instin’scommitereisapercepproactivelyenommendedd

milarposition

lity of senior

ludesamembuldliketoremhesehousehoupwithsenioferencetoag

ure II‐28. you plan to mxt five to 15 yeiors whose Houdes a Membability

:

1.

ce:

Research & Consultince Survey.

oseseniorsw

Financialis

Maintenanc

Healthissu

ONSULTING

afocusgroupmenttoADAptionthatinsnforceADAcodedicatingacotothecurren

s with disabi

berwithadismain,butworoldswouldlikorsinEastAueinplace.

move in the ears? ousehold ber with a

ng from the Housing

whoworrytha

sues(62%);

ce/housekeep

es(41%);

“Code com

“I’m go

pwithpersoncomplianceispectorsandcodeand/orreodeenforcemntstaffmemb

lities to age i

sabilityplansrrythattheyketomovetoustin,moststi

attheywillno

pingissues(4

mpliance sho(Reside

oing to stay i(African Am

nswithdisabiinnewconstrcodeenforcemelevantfairhomentofficertoerdedicated

n place.Neartostayinthewon’tbeableoadifferenthilllivedinthe

otbeabletoa

46%);

ould have an nt with a dis

in my house merican senio

ilities,particiruction—bothmentstaffdoousingrequiroADAinspecttoparkingac

rlytwoinfoueircurrenthoetostayinthhomewithdifeirfamilyhom

ageinplacea

Nolonger

Toofarfro

Childrenl

ADA expertsability)

until it falls or resident)

ipantsraisedhcommerciaonothavesufrements.Thetionsandcomccessibility.

urseniorswhomeastheyaheirhome.Abfferentfeaturmeandexpre

reconcerned

rabletodrive

omservices(

ivetoofaraw

t on staff.”

down.”

SECTION II, PAG

concernsabolandresidenfficientcapaciegroupmpliance,a

osehouseholge.Oneinfouout15percees.Inafocusessedtheir

dabout:

e(19%);

(8%);and

waytohelp(5

GE 31

outntial.ity

ldurnt

5%).

BBC

Focgenthei

Ho

AHpredev

The30phoulessandaffoserv

TheincritwandranComhourenexte

11ht_Doc

C RESEARCH & C

cusgroupparneralupkeepwirever‐increa

“Iboughtmseniorresid

“Thereason(Hispanics

“IliketheWtakeyouto

“IwenttoaAmericans

“Mostofthe(AfricanAm

“Iwanttom

ousing Mar

HousingMarkecededthisAIvelopmentan

eHMSestimapercentoftheuseholdsinAusthan$25,00dhavejust19ordablerentavethem.

erentalshortreasedfromtwascalculateddspannedacrgeofhousehomparedto20useholdsearntalunitstochentithasdur

ttp://austintexascument_reduced_f

ONSULTING

ticipantsshawasacommoasingpropert

myhousein19dent)

nwedecidedeniorresiden

Wildflowerapthegrocerys

applyforanaeniorresiden

enewapartmmericansenio

move,butthe

rket Analys

etStudy(HM.11TheHMSrdsalespatter

testhatmoreeirmonthlyinustinearn0peryear9,000lunitsto

agethelasttimedin2008rossahigheroldincomes.00,Austinningbetweenhoosefrom.Iringthepastf

.gov/sites/defaulfor_web.pdf

redthechalleonchallenge.tytaxesduet

952.Ihavea

tosellisthatnt)

partments.Thstore.”(Hispa

partmentatWnt)

mentsgoinguorresident)

re’snoplace

sis

S)conductedreportedhistornstowardsl

ethan40,000ncomestowa

$20,000andIfthecityhadfiveyears,the

lt/files/files/NHC

engesposedbForsome,theotherapidri

bigyardand

tthetaxwent

heyhavealotanicseniorre

Wildflowers.

p,they’realre

formetogo.”

dfortheCityooricallylowruxuryrentals

0rentersinAuardsrentand

$25,000perdnotinvestedeincreaseinn

CD/2014_Compre

byaginginpleirbiggestwoiseinpropert

Ican’tcutthe

tupandtheu

tofactivities,esident)

There’san18

eadyrenteda

”(AfricanAm

ofAustinandrentalvacancysandhigh‐en

ustinarecostutilities.That

yearhaveincdinaffordablneedwouldh

ehensive_Housing

lace.Yardmaorryistheiratyvaluesinea

egrass.”(Afr

upkeepandth

,likeBibleSt

8‐monthwait

andthey’ren

mericansenio

dcompletedinyratesandandhomes.

tburdened,ptis,asmany

creasinglyfewehousingcrehavebeenlar

g_Market_Analysi

SECTION II, PAG

aintenanceanabilitytopayastAustin.

icanAmerica

heinsurance.

udy.And,the

t.”(African

otforseniors

rresident)

nJuly2014shiftin

payingmoretas60,000ren

werprivateeationtotheger.

is_‐

GE 32

nd

an

.”

ey’ll

s.”

thannter


Impact of lack of affordability on protected classes.ThedecreaseinhousingaffordabilityinAustinhasaffectedmanylowandmoderateincomehouseholdsinAustin;thisisevidencedinhigherlevelsofcostburdenfacedbyexistingresidentsandthemigrationofformerresidentsintomoreaffordablesuburbs.Theimpact,however,isgreaterforcertainprotectedclassesduetotheirlowerincomesandthattheyaremorelikelytoberenters.

Specifically:

Thirty‐twopercentofrenterswithdisabilitieshaveincomesoflessthan$10,000peryear;28percenthaveincomesofbetween$10,000and$25,000(HMSsurvey).Bycomparison,13percentofrentersoverallinAustinhaveincomesoflessthan$10,000peryearand22percent,between$10,000and$25,000peryear.

AfricanAmericansandpersonsofHispanicdescentare2.5timesmorelikelytobelivingbelowthepovertylinethannon‐Hispanicwhites.Theyare1.5timesmorelikelytobelivingbelowthepovertyratethanAustinitesoverall.

Sixty‐fivepercentofAfricanAmericansarerenters.Sixty‐sevenpercentofhouseholdswithpersonsofHispanicdescentarerenters.Overall,55percentofAustinhouseholdrents(thisincludesstudentswhoclaimAustinastheirplaceofresidency).

Assuch,personswithdisabilitieswhorent,AfricanAmericans,andpersonsofHispanicdescentaremorelikelytoneedaffordablerentalsthanAustinhouseholdsoverall.Alackofsuchunitsdisproportionatelyimpactstheirabilitytoliveinthecity—aswellastheireconomicwell‐being.12

Subsidized rentals and concentrations.Approximately18,500publiclysubsidizedrentalunitsexistinAustin.Withouttheseunits,therentalshortagewouldbemuchlargerandmanymorelowincomeresidentswouldbecostburdenedorleavethecityformoreaffordablehousing.

AlthoughtheseunitsreducebarrierstohousingchoicebyprovidingalevelofhousingaffordabilityinAustinthatwouldnototherwiseexist,thehistoricalconcentrationofsuchunitsincertainpartsofAustinhasexacerbatedracial,ethnicandincomeconcentrationsbecausecertainprotectedclasseshavehigherneedsforaffordablerentalhousing.Thissectiondemonstrateswhereconcentrationsofsubsidizedhousingexist.

12Thedataarelessclearforfamilies,manyofwhomhavehighincomes.Dataontheincomesandtenureofcertainprotectedclasses—e.g.,religiousaffiliation—arenotavailable.


Figure II‐29. Affordable Rental Housing Stock by Protected Classes, City of Austin, 2015

Source: COA NHCD.

Thefollowingmapsshowthelocationofsubsidizedrentalunitsrelativetoconcentrations.Theseincludehousingauthorityunits,developmentsbuiltwithrentaltaxcredits,developmentsfundedbyGeneralObligation(GO)bonds,SMARTHousingdevelopmentsandothers.

MostZIPcodescontainabout3percentofthecity’ssubsidizedrentalunits.FourZIPcodeshavebetween9and10percentofthecity’ssubsidizedunits:theseare78702,78704,78744,and78753.

One—ZIPcode78741—contains18percentofthesubsidizedrentals.ZIPcode78741islocatedinSoutheastAustinandincludestheEastRiverside‐OltorfandMontopolisneighborhoods.AbouthalfoftheareawithinthisZIPcodeisHispanic‐concentratedandveryhighpoverty.Manypersonswithdisabilitiesandstudentsalsoresideinthisarea.


Figure II‐30. Subsidized Rentals Austin, 2012

Source:

City of Austin and BBC Research & Consulting.


Figure II‐31. Subsidized Rentals and Census Tracts with African American Concentration, Austin, 2012

Source: 2008‐2012 ACS, City of Austin and BBC Research & Consulting.

Figure II‐32. Subsidized Rentals and Census Tracts with Hispanic Concentration, Austin, 2012



Figure II‐33. Subsidized Rentals and Census Tracts with Poverty Rates over 40 Percent, Austin, 2012


Figure II‐34. Subsidized Rentals and Census Tracts with Persons with a Disability Concentration, Austin, 2012



Figure II‐35. Subsidized Rentals and Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Austin, 2012

Source:

2008‐2012 ACS, City of Austin and BBC Research & Consulting.

Vouchers and concentrations.Thefollowingmapsshowoverlaysofhousingchoicevoucherholdersandconcentrations.VoucherholdersareclusteredinAfricanAmerican‐andHispanic‐concentratedareas.Althoughvouchersclustersomewhatinareasofhighpoverty,thisislessprominentthaninminority‐concentratedareas.FewvoucherholderslivewestofTexasStateHighwayLoop1/MoPac.


Figure II‐36. Housing Choice Vouchers and Census Tracts with African American Concentration, Austin, 2012


Figure II‐37. Housing Choice Vouchers and Census Tracts with Hispanic Concentration, Austin, 2012



Figure II‐38. Housing Choice Vouchers and Extremely High Poverty Census Tracts, Austin, 2012


Figure II‐39. Housing Choice Vouchers and Census Tracts with Persons with a Disability Concentration, Austin, 2012



Figure II‐40. Housing Choice Vouchers and Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Austin, 2012

Source:


LIHTC and concentrations.ThefinalsetofhousingmapsshowthelocationofLowIncomeHousingTaxCredit(LIHTC)propertiesinrelationtoareasofconcentration.ThemapsshowclustersofLIHTCpropertiesinAfricanAmerican‐,Hispanic‐,andpoverty‐concentratedareas.


Figure II‐41. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Locations and Census Tracts with African American Concentration, Austin, 2012


Figure II‐42. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Locations and Census Tracts with Hispanic Concentration, Austin, 2012



Figure II‐43. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Locations and Extremely High Poverty Census Tracts, Austin, 2012

Source:


Ofthe56LIHTCpropertiesintheabovemaps,locatedwithintheCityofAustin:

Nine,or16percent,arelocatedinAfricanAmerican‐concentratedCensustracts,

Thirty‐three,or59percent,arelocatedinHispanic‐concentratedCensustracts,

Fifteen,or27percent,arelocatedinRCAPs/ECAPs.

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1

SECTION III. Access to Opportunity

Thepurposeofthissectionistoexaminetheextenttowhichprotectedclasseshaveequitableaccesstodifferenttypesofcommunityassets.Thissectionislargelyinformedbyresidents’responsestoastatisticallysignificantresidentsurveyonhousingchoice.Italsoincorporatesrelevantfindingsfromthe2013“TheGeographyofOpportunityintheAustinRegion”reportandsecondaryresearchonfurtheringaccesstoopportunity.1

Sixmeasuresofopportunityarediscussedinthissection:

Exposuretoneighborhoodpovertyandcrime;

Labormarketengagementandaccesstojobs;

Accesstoproficientschools;

Accesstotransit;

Housingchoice;and

Communityamenities.

Thesectionbeginswithadiscussionoftheperceptionofequityinthecityoverall,asmeasuredbyresponsestoquestionsonopportunityintheresidentsurveyandfocusgroupsconductedforthisstudy.

ItisimportanttonotethatthisstudywasAustin‐specificand,assuch,didnotexamineaccesstotransit,housingorservicesonaregionallevel.ThistypeofanalysiswaspartiallyconductedaspartoftheGeographyofOpportunityreport.Findingsfromthatreport—aswellasinformationfromstakeholderswhoworkwithprotectedclasses—showan“inverse”setofbarriersoutsideofAustin.Manycommunitiesoutsideofcityboundariesoffermoreaffordablehousing,yetpublictransportationandservicesareverylimited.Assuch,manylowerincomehouseholdsinAustinaretrappedbetweenlivinginAustinandbeingcostburdenedtobeclosetotransitandservicesormovingoutsideofAustinforaffordablehousingandlimitingtheiraccesstoservices.

Equitable Treatment in Austin

WhenaskedwhethertheyfeltallresidentsoftheirneighborhoodaretreatedthesameasresidentsofotherAustinneighborhoods,about60percentofrespondentsfeltpeopleintheirneighborhoodaretreatedthesameaspeopleinotherneighborhoods.

1http://www.kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/reports/2013/04_2013_Austin‐reported.pdf.


FigureIII‐1examinesthisquestionbykeydemographicandsocioeconomiccharacteristics.Oneofthemoststrikingdifferencesisthatonly41percentofAfricanAmericansbelievepeopleintheirneighborhoodaretreatedequallytootherneighborhoods,comparedto59percentofwhites.

Figure III‐1. Do you feel that all residents of your neighborhood are treated equally or the same as residents of other neighborhoods?

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the Austin Housing Choice Survey.

Thosesurveyrespondentswhodidnotthinkpeopleintheirneighborhoodaretreatedthesameaspeoplefromotherneighborhoodshadtheopportunitytodescribetheirreasoning.DifferencesintreatmentdescribedoftencomparedhistoricallysegregatedEastandSoutheastAustintotheneighborhoodswestofI‐35.

Someresponsesconcernedequalaccesstocommunityamenities.Residents’examplesofunequaltreatmentrelatedtothepublicamenitiesyieldedseveralmajorthemes:

SpeedofresponsefromCityofAustindepartmentstoaddresscodeviolations,emergencymaintenance,otherrequests;

Locatinglessdesirableusesinminorityand/orlowincomeneighborhoods(e.g.,homelesshousing,halfwayhouses,sexoffenderhousing);

Numberandqualityofbusfacilities(e.g.,noshelters,lowerqualityshelters,poormaintenancenearbusstops)andnocurrentorplannedaccesstolightrailtosomeneighborhoods;2and

Interactionswithlawenforcement,includingslowerresponsetimes.

Specificconcernsexpressedbyresidentsincluded:

2A2014bondreferendumtofundurbanrailandroadimprovementswasnotsupportedbyvoters.

Do you feel that all residents of your neighborhood are treated equally or the same as residents of other neighborhoods?

Household

Characteristic

Yes 58% 58% 58% 60% 57% 52%No 42% 42% 42% 40% 43% 48%

n= 4,585 3,182 1,326 1,255 3,330 481

Household

Income

Yes 53% 53% 54% 51% 59% 59% 61% 68%No 47% 47% 46% 49% 41% 41% 39% 32%

n= 76 258 1289 432 738 557 332 595

Race/

Ethnicity

Yes 41% 50% 74% 56% 59%No 59% 50% 26% 44% 41%

n= 128 418 108 130 3,345

$125,000 up

to $150,000

$150,000

or more

Disability

Less than

$10,000

$10,000 up to

$25,000

$25,000 up to

$65,000

$65,000 up to

$75,000

$75,000 up to

$100,000

$100,000 up

to $125,000

All

Respondents Homeowners Renters

Has Children in

the Home

No Children in

the Home

African

American Hispanic Asian Multi‐racial White


“Manyofmyneighborsliveinsubstandardconditionswithclearcodeviolationsbutareaswithhigherincomeresidentsgetmoreattentionfromthecityandmorepressuretomaintainproperties.”(AfricanAmericanresident)

“Cityisslowtofixpotholes,streetlights.”(Hispanicresident)

“Eastsideismorelikelytocontainsubsidizedhousing;morelaxenforcementoftransientlaws,litterlaws,andcodeenforcementregulations.”(Hispanicresident)

“NortheastAustintendstobeadumpinggroundforavarietyofundesirablethings:landfills,etc.”(AfricanAmericanresident)

“IfeelEastAustinisnottakencareofaswellasotherneighborhoods.Itisclosetodowntownbutstillforgotten.AnydevelopmentsthatwouldnotbeallowedinotherplacesaredumpedinEastAustin—forexample,thehomelessshelterthatisbeingbuiltjustacrossmyneighborhood.”(Hispanicresident)

“PoorpartsofAustinaretreatedworse,mostlybyAustinPoliceDepartment.Idon'twantmytaxestobeusedtopaypolicemenwhoshootunarmedpeopleofcolor.”(Hispanicresident)

“TravisHeightsgetsmuchbetterpoliceresponsethanmanyareas.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

“IbelievethathousingdiscriminationisasevereandongoingprobleminAustin.TheCitydoeslittletomakehousingavailabletoethnicandracialminoritieswithlowerincomesinWestAustinandotherhigherincomeneighborhoods.”(Residentwithchildren)

ParticipantssuggestedseveralreasonsfortheunequaltreatmenttheyperceiveamongAustin’sneighborhoods:

Raceorethnicity—treatmentofpredominantlywhiteneighborhoodsversusnon‐whiteneighborhoods;

Income—treatmentofaffluentneighborhoodscomparedtoneighborhoodswithhighpoverty;

Imbalanceinpoliticalpower—associatedwithdifferencesinrace/ethnicity,incomeandtheneighborhooditself,particularlyneighborhoodswestofI‐35versusthosetotheeast.ThisoftenmanifestsinNIMBYismorunequaldedicationofcityresourcestothemostorganizedneighborhood(i.e.,the“squeakywheel”).

Forexample,

“Austinremainssegregatedandtreatmentineachsegregatedareavariesdramatically.”(Hispanicresident)


“Nowearenottreatedequallybecauseweareworkingclass/lowertomoderateincome.Weareblack,Latino,orimmigrantnon‐white.TheCitydoesnotcatertominoritiesorworkingpeople.Thecitydoesnotmakeiteasyforourpopulationtobehere.Thecitydoesnotacknowledgetheseverediscrepanciesinqualityoflifethatpeopleendure.”(Hispanicresident)

“Becausetheresidentsincertainareasoftownare:1)notasorganizedasresidentsinotherareasoftown,and2)donothavethepolitical/businessconnections—clout—neededtomakechangesonatimetabletheyseeasacceptable.”(Hispanicresident)

Exposure to Neighborhood Poverty and Crime

Abodyofpovertyresearchhasfoundthata40percentpovertyrateisthepointatwhichaneighborhoodbecomessignificantlysociallyandeconomicallychallenged.Conversely,researchhasshownthatareaswithupto14percentofpovertyhavenonoticeableeffectoncommunityopportunity.3Thissectiondiscussesprotectedclasses’exposuretohighpovertyareasinAustin,aswellasexposuretoneighborhoodswithsocialandeconomicchallenges.Highcrimeisusedasaproxyforsocialandeconomicdysfunctioninthissection.

FigureIII‐2showsareaswithinAustinthathave1)Povertyratesof14percentandless(wherepovertyisthoughttohave“nonoticeableeffect”onaneighborhood),2)Povertyratesbetween14and40percent,and3)Povertyratesof40percentandhigher(“sociallyandeconomicallychallenged”).Asthefiguredemonstrates,verylowpovertyareasarealmostexclusivelyonthewestsideofAustin;highpovertyareas,ineastAustin;andmoderatepovertyareasinthecentralpartsofthecity(partiallyduetothepresenceofstudents).

3TheCostsofConcentratedPoverty:NeighborhoodPropertyMarketsandtheDynamicsofDecline.”InNicolasP.RetsinasandEricS.Belsky,eds.,RevisitingRentalHousing:Policies,Programs,andPriorities.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution,116–9.


Figure III‐2. Poverty Rates by Census Tract, Austin, 2012

Source:

2008‐2012 American Community Survey (ACS) and BBC Research & Consulting.

FigureIII‐3showsthehighpovertyCensustractsonly(40%povertyandgreater).Theseareasareloosely,butnothighly,correlatedwithminorityconcentrations.


Figure III‐3. Extremely High Poverty Census Tracts, 2012

Source:


Crime rates.Exposuretoneighborhoodcrime,asvictims,perpetratorsand/orbystanders,isanimportantchallengeforminorityareasandareasofpoverty,includingRacially/EthnicallyConcentratedAreasofPoverty(RCAPs/ECAPs).ConcernaboutcrimewasevidentinthehousingsurveyconductedforthisAnalysisofImpedimentstoFairHousingChoice(AI).Asshowninthefigurebelow,43percentofrespondentswhosaidtheyweredissatisfiedwiththeirhousingsaidthiswasbecauseofcrime.Otherfactorscontributingtodissatisfactionincludebadneighbors,risingrents,trafficandinadequateaccesstocommunityamenities(e.g.,transit,freshfood,qualityschools).

BBC

FiguWhwith

Note:

n=94.

Sourc

BBC RTarge

It’spergroone

FigucrimconHisp

4Theburg

C RESEARCH & C

ure III‐4. y are you dissh your curren

:

.

ce:

Research & Consultineted Outreach Survey

notsurprisincentofrespocery/freshfoeinthreeresp

uresIII‐5thromeindex.4Thncentratedanpanicconcen

ecrimeindexisfrglaryandmotorv

ONSULTING

satisfied t housing?

ng from the y.

ngthatwhenndentsanswoodoptions;apondentstot

oughIII‐8shoeoverlaysshdhaveveryhtration.

romcommercialvehicletheft.

askedwhatthered“lesscriandbettermahesurvey.

owtherelatiohowalimitedhighcrimerat

dataproviderES

heywouldchime.”Cleaneraintainedhou

onshipofverynumberofartes.Whereth

RIandincludesin

hangeabouttrstreetsandsusesweresug

yhighcrimereasthatarehesedooccur

nformationabout

theirneighbosidewalks;moggestedchang

areas,asmeaminorityorpr,theyaremo

tmurder,rape,ro

SECTION III, PA

rhood,46oregesbyatleast

asuredbyapovertyostlyareasof

obbery,assault,

AGE 7

t


Figure III‐5. Areas with Very High Crime Rates and Census Tracts with African American Concentration, Austin, 2012

Source: 2008‐2012 ACS, ESRI Crime Index and BBC Research & Consulting.

Figure III‐6. Areas with Very High Crime Rates and Census Tracts with Hispanic Concentration, Austin, 2012



Figure III‐7. Areas with Very High Crime Rates and Extremely High Poverty Census Tracts, Austin, 2012


Figure III‐8. Areas with Very High Crime Rates and Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Austin, 2012



Labor Market Engagement and Jobs Access

TheGeographyofOpportunitystudyexaminedeconomicopportunitythroughanindex(“economicandmobilityindex”)thatmeasuredunemployment,proximitytojobs,meancommutetime,transitaccessandhouseholdincome.ThemappedindexisshowninFigureIII‐9.

Figure III‐9. Austin Metro Economic & Mobility Index

Source: The Geography of Opportunity in Austin and How It Is Changing, Capital Area Council of Governments, Green Doors, and the Kirwan Institute, 2013.

BBC

Thecoreareaneigtheemp

Imp

concurrideneachmospopcurrhou

FiguWhimpyouaparespwor

Note:

UnlesHousi

Sourc

BBC RSurve

Reshoustat

Acc

AsdHouhouSchcertempII‐4city

5Thewith

C RESEARCH & C

eanalysisfoue—largelybeasalsohavesghborhoodswquickesttogployment.

portance of li

nductedforthrenthomeorntifiedasmoshpopulationstimportantpulationthatcrenthousing,usingchoice.

ure III‐10. at factors werportant to youur current homrtment in Ausponding “Closrk/job opport

:

ss otherwise noted ding Choice Survey.

ce:

Research & Consultiney and Targeted Outr

spondentstotusingandemptement,“Idon

cess to Pro

discussedintusingProfile,usingpattersoolDistrict(AtainschoolscphasisthatAu4)suggeststhy.

eHousingChoicedisabilitiesandv

ONSULTING

ndthatareasecauseofthesomeofthemwhereunempgentrifyasthe

ving close to

hisstudyidenrlocation.Prostimportantsegmentthatfactorsintheconsiderspro,butoveralll

re most u in choosing me or stin? Percent se to tunities”

ata are from the

ng Housing Choice reach Survey.

theTargetedployment‐reln’thaveacar

oficient Sc

theHistoricalraciallysegreinAustin.ASAISD)bythecreatesanineustinresidenatdisparities

eSurveywassuppverylowincomer

swiththehighnumberofjomostexpensivploymentisheregiongrow

work or job

ntifiedthefactoximitytowobyalargeshatconsideredeirhousingdeoximitytowoivingcloseto

OutreachSuratedconcernandcan’tacc

hools

lBackgroundegatedschoolSeptember20TexasCivilRequitablelearntsplaceonscsinschoolqu

plementedbyataresidents.

hesteconomibs,accesstotvehousinginighandhouswsandworke

opportunitie

torsmostimporkorjoboppareofresponlivingclosetoecision.Thereorkoneoftheoworkorjob

rvey5answers.Morethancessthejobst

portionofSelsplayedaro012reportonRightsProjectrningenvironchoolqualityalitybyprote

argetedoutreach

icopportunittransitandlotheregion,heholdincomersseekhousi

es.Respondenportanttotheportunitieswandents.Figureoworkorjobeissomevariemostimportopportunitie

redaseriesofoneinfour(2thatIcanfind

ectionIIoftholeinthedevenschoolfundiarguesthattnmentwithininmakinghoectedclassin

surveydistribute

S

tywerelocateowcommutehowever,barreislow.Thosingclosertop

ntstobothsuemwhenchoasoneoftheeIII‐10presebopportunitieiationintheptantfactorsinesisanimpor

fquestionsab28%)agreedd.”

hisAI,DemogrelopmentofsingoftheAustheprivatesupublicschooousingdecisiotensifysegre

edbyorganizatio

SECTION III, PAG

edintheurbatimes.Theseringafewseareasmayplacesof

urveysoosingtheirfactorsentstheshareesasoneofthproportionofnselectingrtantfactorin

bouttheirwiththe

raphicandsegregatedstinIndependubsidizationolsinAustin.Tons(seeFigurgationinthe

onsservingperson

GE 11

an

be

eofhefa

n

dentofThere

ns


TheCivilRightsProjectreportanalyzestheleveloffederal,stateandlocalfundingamongschoolsinAustin.6ThereportconcludesthatAISD’smethodofdistributingpublicfunds—primarilyfundsgeneratedbylocalpropertytaxes—areinequitablebecauseitfailstotakeintoaccountthehighercostsofeducatinghigh‐needsstudents,whomostlyresideinlowerincomeareas.ThereportrecommendsanumberofmodificationstotheAISDallocationofschoolfundsthatareweightedtowardsstudentneedsratherthanenrollmentnumbers.

Otherrecommendationsinclude:

Creatingadistrict‐widefoundationandendowmentfundforlow‐equityschools;

Creatingschoolpartnershipsandsupportingfundraisinginlow‐equityschools;and

Creatingpublic/privatepartnershipstosupportlow‐equityschools.

TheGeographyofOpportunitystudyofAustinalsoidentifiedgapsineducationalopportunitiesinthecityandregion,similartootherfactors.ThemajorityofhighorveryhigheducationalopportunityareasarelocatedinthewesternportionofboththeregionandtheCityofAustin.Inthecity,educationalopportunityoverlapswiththecomprehensiveopportunitylevelofthearea.

Infocusgroupsandsurveys,residentsoflowerincomeneighborhoodsoftendescribeddisparitiesinschoolqualityintheirneighborhoodcomparedtootherpartsofAustin.AsdiscussedinSectionII,schoolqualitywasoneoftheprimaryfactorscitedbyformerAfricanAmerican,HispanicandwhiteAustinresidentswithchildrenwhodepartedforthesuburbs.

Challengesinaccesstoqualityschoolscanhavelongtermeffects.TheEqualityofOpportunityprojectfoundthat,inAustin,thechanceofachildborninthelowestfifthoftheincomedistributionwasjust6.9percent—muchlowerthanothertech‐dominatedcities,suchasSanJoseorSeattle.7

Access to Transit

EquitableaccesstotransitwasasignificantpartoftheGeographyofOpportunitystudy,astransitwasamajorfactorintheindicesmeasuringaccess.Asmentionedabove,transitaccessisbestwithincitylimitsandstrongestintheurbancore—areaswherehousingisgenerallymoreexpensive.

Fromtheperspectiveofsomeresidents,accesstoCapMetrobusandraillinesisnotequal,andsomepartsofAustinreceivenoserviceatall.

“Myneighborhoodorareaoftownisnotbeingofferedorconsideredforbetterpublictransportationsystemandconnectivitytootherpartsofthecity.”(Hispanicresident)

6http://www.texascivilrightsproject.org/4650/tcrp‐2012‐human‐rights‐report‐aisd‐inequitable‐funding‐and‐vestiges‐of‐segregation/

7www.equality‐of‐opportunity.org


“SouthAustindoesnotgetequalmasstransitoptions.NorailserviceisplannedforSouthAustintillmanyyearsinthefuture.Why?”(Hispanicresident)

“Metrotraincutsmyneighborhoodinhalf,butdoesnotstophere.”

Asthecity’stransitandrailsystemsredevelop,itwillbeimportanttopreserveandmaintainaffordablehousingchoicesneartransit.HousingWorksinAustin,inpartnershipwiththeUniversityofTexasatAustinSchoolofLaw,recentlyissuedaresearchpaperonbestpracticesfor“equitable”TransitOrientedDevelopment(TOD).8Thethreecorebestpracticesusedbyothercitiestocreatesuccessful,equitableTODincluded:

ZoningandlandusepoliciesthatrequireapercentageofnewTODunitsbeaffordableinexchangefordensitybonuses;

Acentralizedmanagementorganization—oftenapublic/privatepartnership—tocoordinatepurchasesoflandand/orbuildings,theassemblyofcapitalandthemasterplanningofmixed‐incomeTODsites;and

AsteadysourceofcapitaltosupportandinfluenceprivatecapitalTODinvestments.

Access to transit and affordable, accessible housing for persons with disabilities.Fortransit‐dependentpersonswithdisabilities,livingnearfixedroutebusstopspresentstheopportunityfortheseresidentstoaccessemploymentopportunities,alargerrangeofhousingoptions,healthcare—andtheabilitytoparticipateinthegreaterAustincommunityinthesamewayanon‐disabledresidentwould.Inadditiontoavailability,thequality,accessibilityandsafetyoftransitstopsareveryimportanttoensurethatpersonswithdisabilitieshaveequitableaccesswithinthecity.Accordingtomanyadvocates,lackofsidewalksinmanyAustinneighborhoods,aswellasinaccessibletransitstops,remainaprobleminmanypartsofAustin.

FigureIII‐11showsthelocationsofAustin’sfixedroutebusandtransitstops.A¾mileradiusisdrawnaroundeachstoptoshowwhereresidentswhorelyonparatransitservicescanliveandstillaccesstheservice.

8http://www.utexas.edu/law/clinics/community/Best_Practices_Report.pdf


Figure III‐11. CapMetro Fixed Route Bus and Rail Stops Showing Neighborhoods where Transit‐Dependent Residents with Disabilities Can Access Transit Services

Source:

City of Austin and BBC Research & Consulting.

ResidentswhoparticipatedintheAIidentifiedchallengeswithtransitprovisionthatcannotbedetectedintheabovemap:

“Ihavetokeepmovingbecausetheychangethebusroutes.SinceI’mblind,Ihavetolivebytransit.”(Austinresidentwithadisability)

“Duetothelimitedpublictransit,thereareonlytwoneighborhoodsthatmeetmyneeds.”(Austinresidentwithadisability)

Thesequotesemphasizetheimportanceofatransitsystemthatiscoordinatedwithprovisionofhousingchoice.Indeed,whenaskedaboutthemostimportantfactorforselectingtheircurrenthousing,61percentofpersonswithadisabilitywhorespondedtotheresidentsurveyselectedclosetobus/transitstops.


Equity and Housing Choice

SectionIIofthisAIsummarizeshousingchoicechallengesdocumentedintherecentHousingMarketStudy.Thesectionalsoexaminesthelocationofpubliclysubsidizedhousinginrelationtoracial,ethnicandlowincomeconcentrations.Thelargestnumbersofpubliclysubsidizedunitsarelocatedinminorityandpovertyconcentratedareas,particularlyinEastandSoutheastAustin.FewaffordablehousingoptionsexistinNorthwestAustin.

ThissectionsupplementsthehousingsummarybydiscussingadditionallimitsonhousingchoiceinAustin:

LimitedreimbursementsthroughtheHousingChoiceVoucherprogram,

Disparitiesinhousingcondition,and

Gentrificationandhousingpreservation.

FigureIII‐12showshowthelimitsonHousingChoiceVouchersubsidieslimitchoicesforlowincomerenterswhoarealsodisproportionatelylikelytoberacialandethnicminoritiesandpersonswithdisabilities.Areasthataredarklyshadedhavethehighestrentlevels;thosewithanadditionalcrosshatchhaverentsexceedingthemetro‐wideFairMarketRent(FMR)thatisusedasthebasisofvouchersubsidies.Thesearealsomostlyareasof“highopportunity.”Toliveintheseareas,householdswouldneedtopayadditionalrent,beyondwhattheyreceivethroughtheirhousingvouchersubsidy.ThefailureofhousingchoicevoucherpaymentstotakeintoaccountvariationinrentalsubsidiesbygeographiessmallerthanametroarealimitsthehousingchoicesofvoucherholderstocertainZIPcodes.


Figure III‐12. Distribution of Rental Costs Relative to FMRs for the Austin, Round Rock and San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), 2012

Note:

The 2012 2‐bedroom FMR for the Austin‐Round Rock‐San Marcos area is $989. The crosshatch indicates a ZIP code where the ZIP code FMR is higher than the overall FMR.

Source:

www.huduser.org; Fair Market Rent database.

Disparities in housing condition.ArecentreportofhousingandeconomicconditionsinAustin’sRundbergneighborhood—oneofthepoorestinthecityandoneofthefewremainingveryaffordablepartsofthecity—describesanareawithresidentialpropertiesthathavehighlevelsofcriminalactivity,propertiesthatviolatebuildingcodestandardsandopen‐airdrugmarketsandprostitution.9Thereporthasanextensivereviewofbestpracticesforaddressingproblemproperties,inadditiontorecommendingthatAustinmovefroma“reactive”approachtocodeenforcementtoproactivelyaddressingconditionsinneighborhoodslikeRundberg.

ThereportindicatesthatresidentsinareaslikeRundbergareoftenreluctanttoreportviolationsforfearoflosingtheirhousingorlandlordretaliation.Thesefearsaremorecommoninmarketswhererentalcostsarehigh.

9http://www.greendoors.org/advocacy/docs/Rundberg‐Problem‐Properties‐Report‐Final‐August2013.pdf


ThemapsinFiguresIII‐13andIII‐14showtherelationshipbetweenrepeatcodeoffendersandresidentialpropertiesthathavebeenclassifiedasdangerousorsubstandardbytheCityofAustinandAfricanAmericanandHispanicconcentrations.FigureIII‐14supportsthefindingsintheSaferRundbergstudy,showingasignificantconcentrationofsubstandardpropertiesinthearea.In2011‐2012,accordingtothestudy,16percentofthecity’scodecasesforrentalpropertieswithrepeatviolationswerelocatedinRundberg;thiscomparestojust5percentofthecity’spopulation.


Figure III‐13. Repeat Code Offenders, Dangerous and/or Substandard Properties, and Census Tracts with African American Concentration, Austin, 2012


Figure III‐14. Repeat Code Offenders, Dangerous and/or Substandard Properties, and Census Tracts with Hispanic Concentration, Austin, 2012



RespondentstotheHousingChoiceSurveysharedtheirhomerepairormaintenanceneeds.About70percentofhouseholdsreportedatleastonehomerepairormaintenanceneed,andthisdidnotvarybyrace,ethnicityordisability.Fewhouseholds(1%)believethattheirunmetrepairneedshavemadetheirhomeunlivable.Thisdidnotvary,overall,byprotectedclass.Thereareverymodestdifferencesbetweenhomeownersandrenters.Somevariationisapparentwhenexaminingrenterhouseholdsbyraceandethnicity(althoughsamplessizesaresmall).Forexample,renterswhoseunmetrepairormaintenanceneedsresultinunlivablehousinginclude:

6percentofAfricanAmericanrenters(n=33);

1percentofHispanicrenters(n=76);

3percentofnon‐whiterentersoverall(n=151);and

1percentofwhiterenters.

Gentrification.GentrificationisamajorconcernofbothresidentsandadvocatesinAustin.DatashowsignificantshiftsintheresidencesofAfricanAmericans,andtoalesserextent,personsofHispanicdescent,between2000and2010.AsdemonstratedbythemapsinfiguresII‐6throughII‐9,duringthepastdecade,AfricanAmericansmigratedawayfromEastAustinintothenorthernsuburbsandAfricanAmericanconcentrationsintheeasternpartofAustinbecamelesspronounced.

AfricanAmericanfocusgroupparticipants—long‐timeresidentsofEastAustin—expressedmixedfeelingsabouthowEastAustinischanging.TheMuellerdevelopmentservedasasymbolforthosechanges.ParticipantsfeltthatthepurposeoftheMuellerdevelopmentandotherchangesintheneighborhood(e.g.,additionofbikelanes,newconstructionof“McMansion”homes)weretoattractwhiteandhigherincomeresidentsandthatthechangesdidnotbenefitexistingEastAustinresidents.

“Eastsidehasacultureofitsown,butit’schanged.Itusedtobeyoualwayskneweveryoneintheneighborhood.”

“TheadditionofMuellerchangedthingsfortheirpurposes—bikelanes,Manor.Thebikelanesarethecitytryingtoappeasethenewdemographicandthedemographictheywanttolivehere.Notus.”

“Theysay,‘EastAustin’schanging,comechangewithus.’”

“They’retryingtoeconomicallychangethedemographics.Theydon’tcareaboutwhathappenstous.”

MostAfricanAmerican(89%)andHispanic(77%)in‐commutersusedtoliveinAustin—asdidthemajorityofwhitein‐commuters(75%).TheprimaryreasonswhyAfricanAmericanandHispanicin‐commutersleftthecitywere:

Costofhousing,includingalowercostofhomeownershipoutsideofAustin;


ImprovedqualityofhousingavailabletorentorpurchaseoutsideofAustin;

BetterschoolsindistrictsoutsideoftheAustinIndependentSchoolDistrict;and

Lesstrafficorreducedcommutetime.

ThereasonswhyAfricanAmericanandHispanicin‐commutersleftthecityareverysimilartothoseofwhitein‐commutersandin‐commuterswhosehouseholdsincludeamemberwithadisability.In‐commuterswithchildrenemphasizedthecostofhousingandqualitypublicschoolsoutsideofAustin:

“Newerhome,kidfriendlyneighborhood,betterschools.”(Hispanicformerresident)

“CouldnotaffordthehomewewantedinAustin.AcomparablehomeinAustinwouldhavecostourfamilyover$100,000more.”(Hispanicformerresident)

“Asasingleparent,IwasunabletopurchaseahomeinAustinthatwaswithinmybudget,inasafeneighborhood,anddidn'tneedalotofupgradestobelivable.”(Formerresidentwithchildren)

A2014studyconductedbyHousingWorksinAustin10foundthatasignificantamountofaffordablehousing(rentsaffordabletorentersearning50%and60%ofAMI)existedinsmaller,older,multifamilyproperties.ThestudyalsofoundthatthesepropertieshadtwicetheSection8acceptancerateoflargerrentalcomplexes.Theseunitscouldbelosttoredevelopmentandgentrificationifnotpreserved.

Theaffordableunitsprovidedbythesepropertiesaremostlysmall(efficienciesand1‐bedroom)andnotalwaysaffordabletolargefamiliesneeding2‐plusbedroomunits.Still,thestudyhighlightstheroleofprivately‐provided,affordablerentalunitsinhelpingtomeettheneedofaffordablerentalsacrossthelowincomespectrum—andsuggestsabroaderroleforthecityinhelpingtopreservetheaffordabilityofexistingproperties.

Equitable Access to Community Amenities

Thissectiondiscussestheextenttowhichprotectedclasseshaveequitableaccesstoothercommunityassets.Thissectionfocusesondisparitiesinthethreeareasthatwereraisedthemostbyprotectedclassesinfocusgroupsandsurveyresponses:inequitiesinthequalityandaccesstopublicamenities,inequitiesinpublicinfrastructureandinequitiesincommercialandretailbusinessofferings.

Public facilities and amenities.Indiscussionsrelatedtoequitableaccesstocommunityassets,oneofthestrongestthemesraisedbyparticipantsinfocusgroupsandsurveyrespondentsisastarkdifferenceinthenumberandqualityofparksandrecreationfacilitiesineastandsouthAustin,comparedtoother,moreaffluentareasofthecity.

10TakingAction:PreservationforAffordableHousingintheCityofAustin,July30,2014,availableat:http://austintexas.gov/page/reports‐publications


Incaseswherepublicamenitiesexist,respondentssuggestthatthecitydepartmentstaskedwithamenitymaintenancefocussignificantlymoreeffortandattentiononwealthierneighborhoods,leavingtheamenitiesinlowincomeneighborhoodstodeteriorate.

“Iwantparks—thereisnowheretogo—otherneighborhoodshavebetterparks.Iwenttothenorthsideforwateraerobicsclassandwasamazedbythedifferencebetweentheirreccentersandours.Itshouldnotbelikethis.Mypeopleareworkingdamnhardandnotgettingthesamethings.”(HispanicresidentofSouthAustin)

“Therecreationcentersinourneighborhoodarenotmaintained,andtheyarenotgoodquality.”(AfricanAmericanresidentofEastAustin)

“There’sahikebiketrailbymyhouseandthecityisnotmaintainingthetrailatall.Thegrassislong;therearesnakeseverywhere;treebranchesfallandtheydon’tgetpickedup.ThetrailisbehindtheEastBranchYMCAon51st.”(AfricanAmericanresidentofEastAustin)

“Seemslikethericherneighborhoodsgetallthefuntoys....i.e.,sidewalks,neighborhoodswimmingpools,etc.”(Hispanicresident)

AreviewoftheamenitiesofferedatparksandrecreationcentersthroughoutAustinfoundthatmostofferafterschoolprogramsandkids’athletics,andatleastoneineachregionofthecityhasseniorspecificprograms.Thehoursofoperation,aswellasfacilitycomponents,appeartobesimilar.Onenoticeabledifferenceisinageconstructedandrenovations.RecreationcentersinNorthAustinappeartobenewerand/orhavereceivedmorerecentmajorrenovations.Thisareaofcommunityequitywouldneedfurtherstudy—e.g.,anin‐depthreviewofthequalityoffacilitiesandprogrammingbyrecreationcenterandlocation—todeterminespecificareasforequityimprovement.

ThemapsinFiguresIII‐15andIII‐16showtherelationshipbetweenswimmingpoolmaintenanceneedsandparkdeficientareasinrelationtomajorityminorityconcentrations.Thesemapsshowthattherearebothpoolmaintenanceneedsandparkdeficientareasacrossthecity.


Figure III‐15. Swimming Pool Maintenance in Relation to Majority Minority Concentrations, City of Austin

Source:

City of Austin.


Figure III‐16. Park Deficiency in Relation to Majority Minority Concentrations

Source:

City of Austin.

Infrastructure.Manyparticipantsinthesurveysandfocusgroupssharedtheperspectivethatlowerincomeneighborhoods,particularlythoseinEastandSouthAustinarelesslikelytoreceiveinfrastructureinvestments.Severalresidentswithvisualimpairmentsreportedthatfewcrosswalksareequippedwithaccessiblepedestriansignals.

“ThetrafficinfrastructureontheWestsidehasalwayshadpriority;that'swhythereisMOPAC.Inaddition,thestreetlightsalongIH‐35arenonexistentsouthoftheriver,butIH‐35islitallthewaythruGeorgetown.”(Hispanicresident)

“AnyonesouthofLadyBirdLakeknowsthecitycouncilthinksAustinendsatRiversideDrive.Publictransportationisweak,roaddevelopmentispoor.Wheneverthecityreleases


mapswithplansforAustin,there'susuallyfarmorefocusonPflugervilleandLeanderthananyoneinSouthAustin.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

“GotoMuellerandseetheirgreattrailsandsidewalks.Youcan'tgetfrommyhousetoH‐E‐Bonatrailorasidewalk.Wedon'tevenhavesidewalksonNorthLamarforthethousandsofpeoplewhouseCapMetro.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

“IknowtherearestreetsinEastAustinthatareunpaved;ourstreetsarerepavedtoofrequently.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

“Crosswalksforvisuallyimpairednotveryoftenpresent.”(Residentwithadisability)

“It’shardtocrossstreetsbecauselightsarenotcoordinated.”(Residentwithadisability)

“DoveSprings,theperenniallyneglected.Evenwhentherewasfloodingnearby,itwasnotbelievedbecausethegaugeswerebroke.Believegaugesoverpeople.Governmenthelparrivingayearlater?Spendwinterthisespeciallycoldinatent?”(Hispanicresident)

“LawenforcementpresenceandimbalanceinwhatservicesareavailabletoresidentsinsoutheastAustin.Idon'tfeellikethecitycouncilhasanyideaabouthelpingusespeciallyafterthefloodlastyear.”(Hispanicresident)

ThemapinFigureIII‐17showsabsentsidewalksinrelationtomajorityminorityconcentrations.Thismapshowsthattheremissingsidewalksacrossthecity.


Figure III‐17. Absent Sidewalks in Relation to Majority Minority Concentrations

Source:

City of Austin.

Neighborhood commercial business differences.Inadditiontoperceiveddifferencesinprovisionofpublicservicesandamenitiesinlowincomeneighborhoods,respondentstotheHousingChoiceSurveyandfocusgroupparticipantsshareddifferencestheynoticeinthenatureofcommercialbusinessesthatlocateintheirneighborhoods.Theseincludeadearthofhealthyfoodoptionsofferedinlocalgrocerystores(ifthereisalocalgrocerystore)andrestaurants,andnumerousliquorstoresandcheckcashinglocations.

“Inmyneighborhoodyouwillfindaliquorstore,smokeshopandevenahalfwayhouse.Sowhatdotheminoritychildrendoiftheyareraisedbyasingleparentwhoworks40hoursaweekandyoufindthatthereisnothinginyourareatoeducatethesechildrenand/oractivitiesforthem.”(Hispanicresident)


“Food—everythinghereisfastfood.JustcomparethequalityofthefoodattheH‐E‐BonSpringdaleversustheH‐E‐BatMueller.TheoneatMuellerhasnicerandhealthierfood.”(AfricanAmericanresident)

“IthasbeenAustin’shistorytotreatthosewestofHighway35betterenvironmentally,citystructureandbetterplacementofroadsetc.etc.TrueAustinitesallknowthat!Youcanevenseeitinthegrocerystores.Thesamechainstoreinoneneighborhoodhasbetterchoicesthanotherstoresinanotherareaoftown.Citycouncilmemberscanalsobeseendoingmoreforotherneighborhoodsthanothers.Veryobvious.”(Hispanicresident)

“Fewerimprovements,lesshealthcareclinics,lesspublictransportationaccessibility,fewergrocerystoresandnewbusinessesonEastside,butmoredestructivebusinessescominginlikecarloans,pawnshops,fastcash...businessesthatprofitfromthosethatcanleastaffordit.Couldn'ttherebemorerules/codingtoavoidtheoverwhelmingpresenceofthesebusinessesallinspecificsectionsoftheEastside.Itbreedsmoreproblems.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

“Wehavenogrocerystores,banks,medicalordentalfacilities,cleaners,busservice.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 1

SECTION IV. Fair Housing Environment

Thissectionassessesprivateandpubliccompliancewithexistingfairhousinglaws,regulations,andguidance,andanassessmentoffairhousingenforcement,educationandoutreachcapacityinAustin.Thisanalysisisinformedbyfairhousingcomplaintsandtesting;dataonmortgagelendingpractices;andareviewofrelevantpublicpolicies.Toenrichthisanalysis,relevantdatafromsurveysandfocusgroupswithAustinresidentsareincluded.

Housing Discrimination

Thissectiondiscusseshousingdiscriminationasevidencedbycomplaintfilings,investigationsofviolationsandresidents’self‐reportedexperiencewithdiscrimination.Itbeginswithananalysisofrecentfairhousingcomplaints.

TheStateofTexasFairHousingActprohibitsdiscriminationonthebasisofrace,religion,color,sex,nationalorigin,disability,andfamilialstatus.TheActmirrorstheFederalFairHousingAct(FFHA).

TheCityofAustinfairhousingordinanceprovidesprotectionsfromdiscriminationinhousingthatexceedthoseintheFFHA,includingadditionalprotectionsforage,creed,sexualorientation,genderidentity,studentstatus,andmaritalstatus.1DwellingslocatedintheAustincitylimitsaresubjecttotheordinance.SomeexemptionsareprovidedforintheFFHAandtheCity’sordinance,includingexemptionsforsingle‐familyhomessoldorrentedbytheownerwithouttheuseofarealestatebroker,owner‐occupiedbuildingswithamaximumoffourunits,andpropertiesownedbyreligiousornonprofitorganizationsorprivatemembershipclubs.2

TexasresidentswhofeelthattheymighthaveexperiencedaviolationoftheFFHAorstatefairhousinglawscancontactoneormoreofthefollowingorganizations:theU.S.HousingandUrbanDevelopment’s(HUD)OfficeofFairHousingandEqualOpportunity(FHEO)inFortWorthortheTexasWorkforceCommissionCivilRightsDivision(TWC).

Atthelocallevel,theCityofAustinenforcesitsfairhousingordinanceandtheFFHAthroughtheAustinEqualEmploymentandFairHousingOffice(EE/FHO),locatedintheHumanResourcesdepartment.ThecityalsoprovidesfundingtoAustinTenants’Council(ATC)toinvestigateviolationsoffairhousinglaw.TheATCisaHUD‐designatedandfundedFairHousingInitiativesProgram(FHIP).

TheATCprovidesarangeofadditionalhousingservicessuchastelephonecounselingregardingresidentialtenant‐landlorddisputes;meditationservices,includingcrisisinterventionandrental

1http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=52706.

2http://www.austintexas.gov/department/housing‐discrimination.

BBC

represpedu

Fai(FHorgcomsen

Durconwer

FiguReaComCou201

Sourc

Austin

Thefiledrace

HUD201waslarg

3htt

4htt

5htt

6htt

C RESEARCH & C

airassistanceponsibilities;ucationandou

r housing coHIP),ATCispranizations“pmplaintsofhoding‘testers’

ringthemostnducted325farerelatedtoa

ure IV‐1. ason for Fair Hmplaints, Austuncil, April 20114

ce:

n Tenants’ Council.

eAustinTenadbetween20e‐based(22c

Dalsoreceive14.HUDreporsalsothetopgerproportio

p://www.housin

p://www.housin

p://portal.hud.go

p://portal.hud.go

ONSULTING

e;in‐housecoandleaseforutreachbypr

omplaints.ArovidedfundipartnerwithHousingdiscrimtoproperties

recentreporfairhousingcadisability.

Housing tin Tenants’ 13 to March

ants’Councila013and2014complaints,or

esandinvestirted246fairreasonforHnoftheHUD

ng‐rights.org/inde

ng‐rights.org/fairh

ov/hudportal/HU

ov/hudportal/HU

ounselingforrmsforlandlorovidingsemi

AsaHUD‐desingtoprevenHUDtohelppminationandssuspectedo

rtingperiod(Aomplaintinta

alsofiledadm4.Ofthese,mor24%).

igatescomplahousingcaseUDcomplaincomplaintst

ex.html.

housing.html.

UD?src=/program

UD?src=/program

rentersorlanords.3TheATinarsandpre

signatedandntoreliminatepeopleidentifconductprelofpracticingh

April2013thakes.Asshow

ministrativecoostweredisa

aintsandproesduringthisntfilings.Yetrthanthosefile

m_offices/fair_hou

m_offices/fair_hou

ndlordsabouTCFHIPalsoeesentationson

fundedFairHediscriminatfygovernmeniminaryinvehousingdiscr

hroughMarchwnbelow,the

omplaintsonability‐based(

ovideddataonperiod.Asshrace‐basedcoedwiththeA

using_equal_opp/

using_equal_opp/

uttheirrightsengagesinconfairhousing

HousingInitiatoryhousingntagenciesthstigationofcrimination.”6

h2014),theovastmajority

nbehalfoften(38complain

nintakesbetwhowninFiguromplaintsmaAustinTenant

/partners.

/partners/FHIP/f

SECTION IV, PA

sandmmunitygissues.4

ativesPrograpractices.5FHhathandlelaims,includ

organizationyofcomplain

nants;92wernts,or41%)a

ween2012anreIV‐2,disabadeupamuchts’Council.

fhip.

AGE 2

amHIP

ing

nts

reand

ndbilityh

BBC

FiguReaComCom

Sourc

U.S. DDevel

Natcom

The“dishar

Oftandinve

FiguComHUD201

Sourc

U.S. DUrban

AccJulythesconBeccomfilin

C RESEARCH & C

ure IV‐2. ason for Fair Hmplaints, HUDmplaints, 2012

ce:

Department of Housilopment.

tionwide,accomplaintswere

emostcommoscriminatoryassmentand

theHUDcompd,in20percenestigation,41

ure IV‐3. mplaints Filed D by Outcome14

ce:

Department of Housin Development.

cordingtothey1,2012andse,42wereclnciliation/settcauseacomplmplaint,115rngacomplain

ONSULTING

Housing D 2‐2014

ng and Urban

ordingtoHUDerelatedtodi

ontypesofditerms,conditrefusaltoma

plaints,33pentofthecase1percentwer

with e, 2012‐

ng and

emostrecentlJune30,201losedfornoctlement(46%lainantmayhreasonswerentwerediscri

D’sAnnualReisabilityand2

iscriminatorytions,privilegakereasonab

ercentwerecs,thecasewareconciliated

lyavailablefa3,thecityEEcause(47%o%),andsevenhavemorethacitedforfilinminationbas

eportonFair28percentw

ytreatmentinges,orserviceleaccommod

onciliated,30asstillunderdand37perce

airhousingcoE/FHOclosedofcomplaints)wereclosedanonereasonngcomplaintssedondisabil

Housingforwererelatedto

ntheHUDcoesandfacilitidations.

0percentwerinvestigationentwerefoun

omplaintdataatotalof90),41wereclothroughadmnorbasisfors.Amongthelity(34%ofc

2012‐2013,5orace.

mplaintsweries,”followed

refoundtohan.Excludingtndtohaveno

afromtheEEfairhousingcosedthroughministrativecltheirdiscrimtopfivereasocomplaints),r

SECTION IV, PA

53percentof

redbycoercion

avenocausethoseunderocause.

E/FHO,betwecomplaints.O

osure(8%).minationonscitedforrace(23%),

AGE 3

f

and

eenOf


sex/gender(14%),nationalorigin(12%),andfamilialstatus(10%).7ThetopreasonsforcomplaintsfiledwiththecityweresimilartothosefiledwithHUDandATC.

Alesserknowntypeofdiscrimination—refusaltoloanorrenttofamiliesbasedonpregnancyormaternityleave—wasthefocusofalargesettlementduringthetimethisAnalysisofImpedimentstoFairHousingChoice(AI)wascompleted.Since2010,HUDhasreceived190discriminationcomplaintsrelatedtobeingdeniedloansorrentalunitswhileonmaternityleave.HUDhassuccessfullysettledandleviedmonetarypenaltiesonmanynationallendersfordenyingapplicantsloansbasedonmaternityleavestatus.Onlyonecomplaintofthoseanalyzedwasrelatedtodiscriminatoryfinancingbasedonfamilialstatus.However,suchcomplaintsmaymakeupanincreasingnumberofoverallfairhousingcomplaintsinthefutureasaresultofincreasingawarenessoftheissue.

Fair housing testing.TheAustinTenants’Councilalsoconductsfairhousingtestingandrelatedresearchasfundsareavailable.InApril2013,theCouncilreleasedtheresultsofresearchoflandlords’willingnesstorenttoHousingChoiceVoucherholders.ThesurveyincludedmorethanhalfoftheunitsintheAustinMSA:600complexesweresurveyedintheCityofAustinalone,representingnearly140,000rentalunits.

Thesurveyconcludedthatlessthan30percentofrentalunitsintheCityofAustinhaverentsinlinewithfairmarketrents.YetthevastmajorityoftheseunitsarenotavailabletovoucherholdersbecauselandlordsdonotacceptSection8vouchers.

Overall,just6percentoftheunitssurveyedwereavailabletovoucherholders—atotalofabout8,600units.Thiscomparestotheestimated48,000renterswhoneedrentalsubsidies,accordingtothe2014HousingMarketStudy(andaccountingforcurrentrentlevels).

Residents’ self‐reported experience with housing discrimination.AustinHousingChoiceSurveyrespondentswereaskediftheyeverexperienceddiscriminationwhenlookingforhousinginAustin.AsshowninFigureIV‐4,27percentofAfricanAmericansstatedthattheyexperiencedhousingdiscrimination,comparedto13percentofHispanicsand15percentofhouseholdsthatincludeamemberwithadisability.Itisimportanttonotethatthesenumbersdonotcapturepeoplewhodonotknowtheyarebeingdiscriminatedagainst;assuch,theincidencerateshowninFigureIV‐4maybelowerthanactual.

Thedisparityintheratesofrace‐baseddiscriminationintheself‐reportedv.complaintdatasuggeststhatAfricanAmericanresidentsarenotreportingperceivedfairhousingviolations.

7DataprovidedbythecityEE/FHO.

BBC

FiguResDisc

Sourc

BBC RChoic

Ovediscperfourdiscvari

FiguResHouAus

Note:

Africarenterenten=255homewhiten=928rentehome

Sourc

BBC RAustin

Thodes

C RESEARCH & C

ure IV‐4. idents’ Expercrimination in

ce:

Research & Consultince Survey.

erall,rentersacriminationincentofhomerrenterhouscrimination.Fiesbyowner

ure IV‐5. idents’ Experusing Discrimistin by Owner

:

an American homeowrs n=66; Asian homers n=26; Hispanic ho5 and renters n=266;eowners n=83 and ree homeowners n=2,48; Disability homeowrs n=131; Families weowners n=1,043 and

ce:

Research & Consultinn Housing Choice Sur

oseAustinrescribedtheirp

ONSULTING

ience with Hon Austin


aretwiceaslnAustin(12%eownersreposeholdsthatinFigureIV‐5prorrenter.

ience with nation in r or Renter

wners n=55, eowners n=83, meowners ; Multi‐racial enters n=48; 27 and renters

wners n=334 and with children d renters n=209.

ng from the rvey.

sidentswhobperspectiveo

ousing

ousing

likelyashome%comparedtrtedthattheyncludeamemresentshows

believetheyeonthenature

eownerstoreto5%).Threeyexperiencedmberwithadself‐reported

experiencedhand/ortheca

espondthattein10Africadhousingdisdisabilityexpedexperiencew

housingdiscrauseofthedi

theyexperiennAmericanrscriminationieriencedhouswithhousing

iminationintiscrimination

SECTION IV, PA

ncedhousingrentersand1inAustin.Onesingdiscriminatio

thepastn.

AGE 5

6ein

on


AfricanAmericans.Amongthe33AfricanAmericanswhoprovidedaresponse,56percentattributedtheirexperiencewithhousingdiscriminationtoraceand38percenttoeitherinsufficientincomeorsourceofincome.8

Severaloftherespondentsdescribedoccurrencesofsteeringbyrealestateagentsorsubtlediscriminationfromleasingagents.

“Agenttriedtosteermeintocertainneighborhood.”

“BecausewhenrealestateagenciesleaseahouseinEastAustintheyjackthepricesup;sopeopleofcolorcannotaffordthem.”

“SomeareaswhereIlooked,realestateopenhouseagentswouldnotapproachtoaskifIwasinterestedinthehome.”

“RealestateagentstriedtosteermeawayfromneighborhoodsthattheyperceivedweremostlyAfricanAmerican.TheywereracistonmybehalfwhichIfindrepulsive,aswellasillegal.”(Residentwithadisabilityseekingahometobuy)

Hispanics.Ofthe51Hispanicresidentswhoresponded,67percentattributedtheirdiscriminatoryexperiencetotheirethnicity,and24percentcitedincomeorsourceofincome.Sexualpreferenceandhavingchildreneachaccountedfor6percentoftheactsdescribed.

AswithAfricanAmericans,severalofthediscriminatoryactsdescribedinvolvedsteeringandsubtlediscrimination.

“IdofeellikeourRealtoronlyshowedmeoptionsintheeastsideofAustinbecauseIwasHispanic.IswitchedRealtors.”

“IamHispanicandagentstriedtopushmetowardhousinginHispanicpredominantcommunities.”

“Iwasdirectedtocertainneighborhoodstolookforhousesandwastoldtonotbothertolookincertainneighborhoods.Itwasmoreofa‘class’issueorprofileattitudes.”

“RealtorstendtodirectHispanicbuyerstosmaller,lessdesirableneighborhoods.”

Manyalsoinvolveddifferentialtreatmentinrentalhousing:

[Iwasdeniedhousing…]“becauseIwasaSection8participant,singlemomwithfivekidsandHispanic.”

“Idon'tthinkIwasofferedanyofthespecialswithrentrates.Ican'tsayforsure.”

“Rentwasquotedtomeatahigherratethantootherpeoplethatlookedatthesameproperty.”

8Numbersaddtogreaterthan100percentbecausemultiplereasonsfordiscriminationcouldbeoffered.


Personswithdisabilities.Themajorityofhouseholdswithamemberwithadisability(54%)statedthattheirincomeorsourcesofincomewasthereasonforthehousingdiscriminationexperienced.Oneinfivesaidtheywerediscriminatedagainstbecauseoftheirdisabilityand25percentduetorace/ethnicity.

“BecauseIhaveaSection8voucherandadisability.”

“I'mdisabled,triedtogetassistancethruTSAHCandbelievethatIwasdiscriminatedagainstbecauseI'mgay.Myrealtoralsofeltthiswastrue.”

“Beingchargedanextra$20amonthforlivinginagroundfloorapartment,butthatisnecessaryduetomymobilityimpairment.”

“MultiplecomplexeswouldnotevengivemeanapplicationbecauseIhaveaGreatDaneserviceanimal.Lowincomecomplexesonlyacceptperfectcredit.”

“MyhusbandisAfricanAmericanandblindandpeopledidnotwanttorenttohim.”

Householdswithchildren.Aboutoneinfivehouseholdswithchildrenwhoexperiencedhousingdiscriminationrelatedtheacttotheirhavingchildreninthehome.Thegreatestproportionoffamiliesattributedwhattheyperceivedasdiscriminationtotheirincome,highcostoflivingorsourceofincome(44%),followedbyrace/ethnicity(39%).

“Atonepointwhenmykidswereofschoolage,IwastoldthatthelandlordwaslookingforafamilyandsinceIwasasingleparentIdidn'tqualify.”(Hispanicresidentwithchildren)

“Nottotheextentthattheyabsolutelywouldn'tleasetome,butwhentheyaskhowmanyoccupantsareoverorunder18,it'squicklyclearyouareasingleparent,andaddingself‐employed,it'stoughtobidagainstdualincometechemployees.Again,notanillegalkindofdiscriminationbutjustbecauseclearlyonehasoneincomeandtheresponsibilityofthreepeople.Foundouttheyareallowedtorequireatwobedroomforthreepeople.”(Residentwithchildren)

“Iwasasinglemomwithasmallchildandlittlemoney,badcreditfrommarriage.”(Residentwithchildren)

“Sellerschosetoselltousbecausetheythoughtwefitintotheneighborhood.Withmultipleoffersonthehome,theycouldbechoosyonwhotheysoldto,soIimaginetheydiscriminatedagainstotherswhotheythoughtdidn'tfitin.”(Residentwithchildren)

Public and Private Sector Barriers

Thissectionreviewsprivateandpublicbarrierstohousingchoice,beginningwithlendingpracticesofregulatedfinancialinstitutions.Otherprivatepracticesthatwereraisedaspotentialbarriersbystakeholdersandresidentsarealsodiscussed.Thesectionthenreviewspubliclandusepolicies,Not‐in‐My‐BackyardSyndrome(NIMBYism)andcurrentfairhousingactivitiesofthecityanditspartners.


Analysis of mortgage lending.Theinabilityofresidentstoobtainloansforhomepurchases,homeimprovementsandmortgagerefinancingnotonlycreatesbarrierstochoiceforresidents,butalsohasadverseeffectsontheneighborhoodsinwhichprivatecapitalislimited.TheHomeMortgageDisclosureAct(HMDA)dataisthebestsourceofinformationonlendingpracticestoprotectedclassesandinminorityandlowincomeneighborhoods.HMDAdatasetscontainloanapplicationrecordswithinformationontherace,ethnicity,gender,andincomeoftheapplicant,aswellasloanterms.9Thedataarewidelyusedtodetectevidenceofdiscriminationinlendingpractices,althoughanalysisofthepubliclyavailabledataislimitedbylackofapplicantcreditinformation.Incomingyears,HMDAdatawillincludeinformationoncreditscores,allowingforamorerobustanalysisoflendingpractices.HMDAdataareinsufficienttoevaluatediscriminationonthebasisofdisabilityasthedatalackdisabilitystatusofapplicants.

AsshowninFigureIV‐6,16percentofresidentialloanapplicationsweredeniedin2013intheCityofAustinandinTravisCounty.Homeimprovementloansweredeniedatamuchhigherratethanothertypesofloansforbothareas(36%and37%,respectively).Refinancingloansweredeniedataslighterhigherrate(17%)thanmortgageloans(12%).

ForallloanpurposesshowninFigureIV‐6,denialrateswerehigherforAfricanAmericansthanforwhitesandhigherforHispanicsthanfornon‐Hispanics.HomeimprovementloanshadthehighestAfricanAmerican/whitedenialdisparity(27percentagepoints)andthehighestHispanic/non‐Hispanicdenialdisparity(21percentagepoints)fortheCityofAustinandforTravisCounty.Therewerealsosubstantialdisparitiesformortgageandrefinancingloans.TherewasnotasubstantialAsianAmerican/whitedenialdisparity.AsianAmericanshadanoveralldenialrateof13percent,andwhiteshadanoveralldenialrateof14percentinAustin.Therefore,AsianAmericandenialrateswerenotincludedinFigureIV‐6orFigureIV‐7.

9HMDAdataincludesinformationformortgageloans,homeimprovementloans,andrefinancingloans.


Figure IV‐6. Loan Denials by Race and Ethnicity, City of Austin and Travis County, 2013

Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non‐occupants; City of Austin data represents aggregated data for census tracts entirely or partially within the city limits. Numbers rounded to nearest percent and thus may not sum exactly to totals. HMDA data do not include information about the disability status of applicants.

Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2013 and BBC Research & Consulting.

BBCexaminedmortgageloandenialratesacrossdifferentincomecategoriestoevaluatewhetherincomedifferencescouldaccountforobserveddisparitiesinracialandethnicdenialrates.AsshowninFigureIV‐7,thatanalysisfoundthatmortgageloandenialrateswerehigherforAfricanAmericansthanforwhitesregardlessofincomeandhigherforHispanicsthannon‐Hispanicsinallbutthelowestincomecategory.

Figure IV‐7. Mortgage Loan Denials by Race/Ethnicity and Income, City of Austin



Loan purpose

All loan purposes

City of Austin 16% 27% 14% 24% 14% 12% 10%

Travis County 16% 25% 15% 24% 14% 10% 10%

Mortgage loans

City of Austin 12% 23% 11% 20% 10% 12% 10%

Travis County 12% 20% 11% 20% 10% 9% 10%

Home improvement loans

City of Austin 36% 59% 32% 52% 31% 27% 21%

Travis County 37% 59% 33% 52% 31% 26% 21%

Refinancing loans

City of Austin 17% 26% 16% 23% 15% 10% 8%

Travis County 17% 25% 16% 24% 15% 9% 8%

Percent of Loan Applications Denied Difference

All

Race and

Ethnicity

African

American White Hispanic

Non‐

Hispanic

African

American/

White

Hispanic/

Non‐

Hispanic

County

All income categories 12% 23% 11% 20% 10% 12% 10%

Less than $25,000 48% 64% 43% 45% 45% 21% 0%

$25,000 ‐ $50,000 19% 32% 17% 25% 15% 15% 9%

$50,000 ‐ $100,000 11% 15% 10% 16% 10% 5% 7%

$100,000 ‐ $150,000 8% 16% 7% 10% 8% 9% 2%

More than $150,000 8% 16% 8% 10% 8% 8% 2%

Non‐

Hispanic

African

American/

White

Hispanic/

Non‐

Hispanic

DifferencePercent of Loan Applications Denied

All Race

and

Ethnicity

African



Ananalysisofsubprimeloansfoundthatnon‐Hispanicwhiteborrowersarelesslikelytogetsubprimeloansthanminorityborrowers,largelyformortgageloans.In2013,therewasanAfricanAmerican/whitedisparityofeightpercentagepointsandaHispanic/non‐Hispanicdisparityof12percentagepointsforsubprimemortgageloans.Disparitieswerenegativeornotsignificantforhomeimprovementandrefinancingloans.AsianAmericanswereconsistentlylesslikelytogetsubprimeloansthannon‐Hispanicwhiteborrowers.Therefore,theirresultsarenotincludedinFigureIV‐8.

Figure IV‐8. Subprime Loans by Race and Ethnicity, City of Austin and Travis County, 2013



FigureIV‐9showscensustractswithAfricanAmericanconcentrationsoverlaidwithcensustractswithhighloandenialratesintheCityofAustin.FigureIV‐10showscensustractswithHispanicconcentrationsoverlaidwiththesamehighloandenialcensustractsasFigureIV‐9.AcensustractisdefinedashavingahighloandenialrateiftherateismorethantwicetheoveralldenialratefortheCityofAustin.

CensustractswithhighloandenialratesincludepartsoftheEastRiverside‐Oltorf,DelValle,OakHill,andNorthBurnetneighborhoods.Manyofthoseareasalsohavemoderatetohighpovertyrates.

Lendingtononprofithousingproviders.Theabovelendinganalysisonlyconsidersloanstohouseholds,notprivatesectorbusinessesornonprofits.Barriersmayexistinthisareathatdirectlyaffecthousingforresidents.Forexample,AccessibleHousingAustin(AHA!),alocalnonprofitCommunityHousingDevelopmentOrganization(CHDO),wasturneddownseveraltimeswhentryingtobuyfourplexesandsinglefamilyhomesbecausethesellerdidn’twanttoselltoabuyerwithgovernmentfunding.

County

All loan purposes

City of Austin 5% 9% 5% 10% 4% 5% 6%

Travis County 5% 10% 5% 11% 4% 5% 6%

Mortgage loans

City of Austin 7% 16% 8% 18% 6% 8% 12%

Travis County 8% 17% 8% 19% 7% 9% 12%

Home improvement loans

City of Austin 4% 9% 4% 3% 4% 5% ‐2%

Travis County 5% 12% 5% 4% 5% 7% ‐1%

Refinancing loans

City of Austin 2% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2%

Travis County 2% 3% 2% 4% 2% 1% 2%

Percent of Originated Loans That Were Subprime Difference

All

Race and

Ethnicity

African


Non‐

Hispanic

African

American/

White

Hispanic/

Non‐

Hispanic


Figure IV‐9. African American Concentrations Overlaid with Census Tracts with High Rates of Loan Denial, City of Austin, 2013

Note: African American concentrations in this map are Census tracts in which the African American population represents at least 20 percent of the total population for that Census tract.

Source: 2013 HMDA and 2010 Census.

Figure IV‐10. Hispanic Concentrations Overlaid with Census Tracts with High Rates of Loan Denial, City of Austin, 2013

Note: Hispanic concentrations in this map are Census tracts in which the Hispanic population represents at least 20 percent of the total population for that Census tract.

Source: 2013 HMDA and 2010 Census.


AsdiscussedinSectionII,“HistoricalBackgroundofSegregation,”Austinhasalonghistoryofracially‐restrictivecovenantsputinplacebyprivatedevelopers.Thesecovenants—aswellaslackofregulationsandperceptionsaboutthedesirabilityofmarketareaswithinAustin—perpetuatedredliningbyfinancialinstitutionsinAustin.Anexampleofredliningisshowninthefollowingmapfrom1937,whichfinancialinstitutionsusedtoevaluatethe“desirability”ofcertainareaswithinthecity.MuchofEastAustinwasconsidered“hazardous”withpartsofsoutheastAustincarryingamoderatelybetterbutstillnegative“definitelydeclining”designation.Thesearbitraryandracially‐motivateddistinctionsheavilyinfluencedsettlementandownershippatternsandhadtheeffectofconcentratingwealthand,conversely,poverty.

Figure IV‐11. Austin Redlining Map, 1937

Source:

NARA II RG 195, Entry 39, Folder “Austin, Texas,” Box 153.


Unbanked and underbanked residents.TheFederalDepositInsuranceCorporation(FDIC)routinelyconductsanationalsurveyof“unbankedandunderbanked”households;thelastsurveywasconductedin2011andreleasedinSeptember2012.Unbankedhouseholdsarethosethatlackanykindofdepositaccountataninsureddepositoryinstitution.Underbankedhouseholdsholdabankaccount,butalsorelyonalternativefinancialproviderssuchaspaydaylendersorpawnshops.

ThelatestsurveyfoundthatintheUnitedStates,28percentofhouseholdsareunbankedorunderbanked.IntheAustin‐RoundRockMSA,10percentofallhouseholds—orabout62,000households—areunbanked.Another20percentofhouseholds—orabout124,000households—areunderbanked.Altogetherintheregion,30percentofhouseholdsareunbankedorunderbanked,whichissimilartothepercentageintheUnitedStatesoverall.

Manyunderbankedhouseholdsrelyheavilyonpaydaylendersorpawnshopsinsteadofconventionalbanksfortheirfinancialneeds.Paydaylendersandpawnshopsgenerallyhaveextremelyhighinterestratesandunfavorablelendingterms.A2012Austin‐basedpaydaylendercompliancesurveyfoundthatthereislittlecompliancewithstatelawandindustry“bestpractices”amongsurveyedpaydaylendersinAustin.10Misleadinglendingpracticesonthepartofpaydaylendersandpawnshopsmaydisproportionatelyimpactthefinancialstabilityoflow‐incomehouseholds.

FigureIV‐12showsraciallyandethnicallyconcentratedareasofpoverty(RCAPs/ECAPs)overlaidwiththelocationsofpaydayloanbusinessesandpawnshopsintheCityofAustin.ThemajorityofpaydayloanbusinessandpawnshopsarelocatedbetweenMopacExpresswayandI‐35withasubstantialnumberdirectlyeastofI‐35aswell.ThemajorityofthosebusinessesarenotlocatedwithinRCAPs/ECAPs,butthereareanumberthatareveryclosetoRCAP/ECAPborders.

10http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=837&Itemid=


Figure IV‐12. RCAPs/ECAPs overlaid with locations of Payday Loan Businesses or Pawn Shops, City of Austin

Note:

Payday loan business or pawn shop locations in this map include all businesses that were classified as either “Check Cashing/Pay‐day Loans” or “Pawn Shops” and were located within Austin’s city limits on yelp.com.

Source:

Yelp.com; 2008‐2012 American Community Survey.

Reasons for lease or purchase denial.Intheresidentsurveyconductedforthisstudy,respondentswhohadlookedforhousingtorentorpurchaseinAustininthepastfiveyearswereaskediftheyweredenied.FigureIV‐13showstheproportionofrespondentswhosoughthousingtorentorbuyinthepastfiveyearsandweredenied.OneinfiveAfricanAmericanswholookedforhousinginthepastfiveyearsexperiencedatleastonedenial,comparedto12percentofHispanicsand7percentofwhites.About14percentofhouseholdsthatincludeamemberwithadisabilityweredeniedhousing.

BBC

FiguWhpurwer

Sourc

BBC R

FigusmaAfribecwerwithreas

Thetop

Itispeosegrconand

C RESEARCH & C

ure IV‐13. en you lookedchase in Austre you ever de

ce:

Research & Consultin

ureIV‐14preall,itisclearticanAmericaauseofthesorethereasonhadisability.sonsfordeni

e“other”citedpaycashorah

simportanttooplehaveexpregation,lackncentrationsbdhavelong‐la

ONSULTING

d for housing in in the past enied?


esentsthereathatincomeansandHispaourceoftheirsfordenialfo.Badcredit,ealofferedby

dbysurveyrehigherpriceo

onotethatsuerienceinbrokofequitablebyincomelevastingcommu

to rent or five years,

ousing Choice Survey

asonsfordeniandbadcredinics.Oneinfirincome.Evicorthegreatesevictionsandthegreatestp

espondentspornotgetting

urveydataareoaderways,oecommunityivelwereallcrunityeffects.

y.

ialbyprotectitarereasonsfiveHispanicsctions,badcrstproportionhavingaHouproportionof

pointedtoAusgarentalapp

elimitedincaovermanyyeinfrastructurreatedoutof

tedclass.AlthsfordenialfosandwhitesbreditandhavinofhouseholdusingChoiceVfrespondent

stin’shothouplicationinfas

apturingthedears.Asdiscuseforpersonsprejudiceaga

S

houghthesamorthelargestbelievetheywingaHousingdsthatincludVoucheraretswithchildre

usingmarketstenough.

discriminatiossedthroughswithdisabilainstcertaint

SECTION IV, PAG

mplesizesareproportionoweredeniedgChoiceVoucdeamemberthethreeen.

:buyersoffer

onthatgrouphoutthisstudyitiesandtypesofpeop

GE 15

eof

cher

ring

sofy,

ple

BB

FigWh

Not

Sou

BC RESEARCH & CONS

gure IV‐14. hy were you deni

e: Asians omitted becapets, it is not clear w

rce: BBC Research & Con

SULTING

ed housing to ren

use of too few respondentwhether or not the pets we

sulting from the Austin Ho

nt or purchase?

ts (4). Numbers add to greare service/support animals

ousing Choice Survey.

ater than 100 percent due s.

to multiple response. For household members with a disability who were den

SECTIO

ied because the landlord d

ON IV, PAGE 16

didn’t allow


Land use policies and practices.AtthetimethisAIwasbeingprepared,theCityofAustinwascompletingacomprehensiveupdatetoitsLandDevelopmentCode,aprocesscalledCodeNEXT.11Thisupdatecouldpotentiallychangehowlandisusedinthecity,whereresidentialhousingisbuiltandhowhousingisdistributedthroughoutAustin.

OneofthefirststepsintheformationofCodeNEXTwasa“codediagnosis,”whichidentifiedthetop“issues”withtheexistingLandDevelopmentCode.Theissuesthatconcernedhousingchoiceincludedthefollowing:12

Thecity’scomplicated“Opt‐in,Opt‐out”Systemappliesregulationsona“pick‐and‐choose”basis,resultinginunpredictabledevelopmentandacomplicatedorlackofunderstandingofwhatcanbebuilt.ThislackoftransparencycanalsofuelNIMBYismandresistancetoalternativehousingtypes.

Thecodedoesnotencouragethedevelopmentofavarietyofhousingproductstomeetthegrowingdemandsforhousingaffordability.

Thecurrentcodeis“auto‐centric.”Anauto‐centriccodeisparticularlyrestrictiveforpersonswithdisabilities,aswellasallresidentswhocannotdrive.

Thecityhasadevelopmentreviewprocessthatishamperedbyanoverlycomplexcode.Delaysinapprovingresidentialhousingproposalsaredirectlyconnectedtoaffordability,especiallyinenvironmentswherehousingpricesarerapidlyrising.

AnotherbarrierthatwascommonlymentionedduringthedevelopmentoftheHousingMarketStudywasimperviouscoverrequirementsandhowthesecontributetohousingcostsandfurtherrestricthousingchoice.ForadditionallanddevelopmentcodebarrierstocreatinganaffordableAustin,pleaseseeAppendixB.

Earlyin2014,thecityadoptedtwonotablecodeamendmentsthathavefairhousingimplications:

Alimitondwellingunitoccupancies;and

Avisitabilityordinance.

Accessibility compliance.SeveralDepartmentofJusticelegalcaseshavedocumentedalackofcompliancewithfederalaccessibilityrequirementsbymultifamilydevelopersbuildingunitsinAustin.Onedeveloper,JPIConstruction,wasrequiredinaconsentordertopay$10.25milliontoestablishanaccessibilityfundtoincreasethestockofaccessiblehousinginthecommunitiesinwhichtheirnon‐compliantpropertiesweredeveloped.Anotherconsentorderrequiredestablishmentofasimilar,albeitmuchsmaller($50,000),accessibilityfundandretrofittingofunitsinaLowIncomeHousingTaxCredit(LIHTC)developmentthatdidnotcomplywiththeFairHousingAct.

11http://www.austintexas.gov/codenext.

12http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/CodeNEXT/Austin_CodeDiagnosis_PublicDraft_web_050514.pdf.


A1995complaintagainsttheCityofAustinbyADAPTofTexasfound,afteraHUDinvestigation,thatthecitywasinnoncompliancewithfederalaccessibilityregulationsduetolackofaccessibilityincity‐funded(andfederalpassthrough)residentialdevelopments.ThecompliantresultedinaVoluntaryComplianceAgreementwhichrequiredthecityto,amongotherrequirements:

TrainstaffontherequirementsofSection504andTitleIIoftheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA);

Requirethatalldevelopmentsfundedwithcityorfederaldollarspostinaconspicuouslocationanoticethatthehousingproviderwillmakeaccessibleunitsavailableandcomplywithreasonableaccommodationslaws;

Increasefundingforthearchitecturalbarriersremovalprogram;

Denyfundingtodeveloperswhoproposetobuildoracquireunitsthatcannotbemadeaccessible;

Developincentivestoincreasetheproportionofaccessibleunitsincityfundeddevelopments;and

Identifyout‐of‐compliancedevelopmentsandannuallyreviewdevelopmentsforaccessibilitycompliance.

Manydisabilityadvocateshavecalledforbettereducationforbuildinginspectorsaboutfairhousingaccessibilityrequirements.Additionaltrainingintheserequirementsmayallowbuildinginspectorstofind(andresolve)violationsbeforethemulti‐familyconstructionprojectsarecomplete.Currently,thecityhasonecitywideADACoordinatorlocatedintheADAOfficewithintheHumanResourcesDepartment,aswellasADACoordinatorsineachcitydepartment.13ADAstaffvisitallcitydepartmentsannuallyregardingADArequirementsandcompliance.14Inaddition,theADAOfficeprovidesADAcompliancetraining;however,thetrainingseemstobeinternaltonewcityemployeesandfocusedonsensitivityandculturalawareness.15

Dwelling unit occupancy limit.OnMarch20,2014,theCityofAustinamendeditscitycoderegardingdwellingunitoccupancytoreducethemaximumoccupancylimitsinsinglefamilyhomesincertainzoningdistrictsandforduplexesfromsixunrelatedadultstofour.Theordinancehasaprovisionexcludinggrouphometypesettingsfromthelimit.

Thischangehasthepotentialtoraisethecostofhousingforunrelatedroommatessincehousingcostswillbesplitamongfeweroccupants.ItisunclearhowmanyofAustin’shouseholdsaremadeupofunitswithfiveandsixunrelatedoccupantsand,thus,howmany“excess”roommates

13http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/City_of_Austin_ADA_Coordinator_List.pdf.

14http://www.austintexas.gov/department/americans‐disabilities‐act‐office

15http://www.austintexas.gov/department/americans‐disabilities‐training‐program.


needtofindotherhousingunits.Atanyrate,thechangeinoccupancylimitswillcreateadditionaldemandforhousingforthosedisplacedfromtheircurrentunits.

Withoutfurtherstudyofthetypesofhouseholdslivinginfive‐tosix‐roommatesituations,itisalsounclearifthechangedisproportionatelyimpactsacertainprotectedclass.Thechangeismostlikelytoaffectthecity’sstudentpopulation,butcouldalsohaveimplicationsforpersonswithdisabilitieswhoresidetogetherinagroupsettingthatisnotalicensedgrouphome.Inthiscase,thecitywouldneedtomakeareasonableaccommodationtotheordinancetoavoidfairhousingviolations.

Visitability ordinance.OnFebruary10,2014,theAustinCityCouncilapprovedavisitabiltyordinancethatrequiresvisitabilityfeaturesinallnewresidentialconstruction.Theordinancedefinesthevisitabiltyrequirementsforbathrooms,interiorfeatures(e.g.,lightswitches)andentrances.Theordinancewasanexpansionofarequirementpassedinthe1990sthatrequiresvisitabilityfornewresidentialunitsreceivingfinancialassistancefromthecity.

City density bonus programs.TheCityofAustinhasavarietyofprogramstoincentivizeprivatesectordeveloperstobuildaffordablehousing.Mostofthesetaketheformofadensitybonus—buildingmoreunitsthanwouldbeallowedunderexistingregulations—inexchangeforacertainnumberofaffordableunits.Theseprogramshavedifferentrequirementsbygeographicarea.Insomecases,theaffordablehousingrequirementisnegotiablebythedeveloperandcitystaff.Someprogramsallowacash‐in‐lieuinexchangeforproductionofunits.Incertainprograms,neighborhoodsdecideiftheywanttooptinoroutoftheprogramandchoosethetargetincomelevelfortheaffordableunits.

Thisinconsistencyinprogramrequirementsandapplicationleadstodifferentoutcomesbygeographicarea,whichisinconsistentwithincreasingopportunitythroughoutthecity.Forexample,arecentanalysisofunitproductionconductedbyastudentattheUniversityofTexas(Hilde,Thomas)foundthatmostoftheaffordableunitsproducedwerebuiltin“lowopportunity”partsofthecity.Thestudyexaminedtheplacementofunitsbuiltunderthecity’sVerticalMixed‐Use(VMU)anddevelopmentagreementprogramsrelativetoanindexmeasuringeducationquality.TheanalysisfoundthatthemajorityoftheaffordableunitscreatedaspartofVMUwerebuiltinareaswithhigheducationalindices.However,mostoftheaffordableunitstobeproducedunderpendingdevelopmentagreementswereplannedinareaswithveryloweducationalindices.SeeFigureIV‐15,showingtheaffordablehousingunitscreatedthroughtheCity’sRentalHousingDeveloperAssistanceProgramanddevelopmentincentiveprograms.


Figure IV‐15. Affordable Rental Housing Stock by Kirwin Opportunity Index, City of Austin, 2015

Note: RHDA = Rental Housing Developer Assistance Program.

Source: COA NHCD, City of Austin.

Theextenttowhichtheseprogramsdisparatelyimpactminoritiesrequiresenhanceddatacollectionandfurtheranalysis.Ideally,thedensitybonusprogramshouldcontributetothediversityofhousingstockinthecityandexpandtheopportunityforprotectedclassestolivethroughoutthecity.Thiswillrequireenhancedrecord‐keepingtotrack:

Thebedroomsizesofunitsthatarebuilt(dotheseaccommodatefamilies?);

Whooccupiestheunits(dooccupantsrepresentagoodcrosssectionoflowerandmoderateincomeresidents?);

Iftheunitshavetheaccessibilityfeaturesthatarelackingforresidentswithdisabilitiesandareaccessibleunitsreservedforpersonswithdisabilities;

Ifthedevelopmentsaredisplacingexistingresidentsand/oraffordablehousing;

Theopportunitiesaffordedbytheneighborhoodinwhichunitsarebuilt;and


Iftheunitsofferawiderangeofaffordabilityforeveryneighborhood.Thisaspectmayrequireachangeinhowtheallowablerentsaredetermined(higherrentsareallowedformoreexpensiveareasofthecitywhichdoesnotalwaysaccommodatelowincomehouseholds).

Anotherconcernwiththeincentiveprogramsisthevarianceintheaffordabilityperiodsrequired.Theaffordabilityperiodsvarybyprogramwithsomerequiringperiodsofjustfiveyears,some15years,andothers40yearsormore.Thelongevityoftheaffordableunitscreatedbygeographicareashouldalsobetrackedandmodified,asneeded,toimproveequitabledistributionofaffordablehousing.

InSeptember2014,theCommunityDevelopmentCommissioninAustinissuedarecommendationthatthecityconsiderspecificaffordabilitysetasidesaspartoftheVerticalMixedUsedensitybonusprogram.

Other exclusionary conduct: public/private.Exclusionaryconductcantakeavarietyofformsandmaybedifficulttodetect.Someexclusionaryconductthatmaybelegal:forexample,untilrecently,itwaslegaltodiscriminateagainstHousingChoicevoucherholdersintheCityofAustin.16Asdiscussedabove,recenttestingbytheAustinTenants’CouncilfoundthatthevastmajorityoflandlordsinAustinwitheligiblepropertiesrefusedtorenttovoucherholders.Thecity’sDecember2014ordinanceincludingSourceofIncome(and,ineffect,voucherholders)asaprotectedclassshouldexpandhousingchoiceforlowincomehouseholds.Thiswilldepend,however,onthemarketreactiontotheordinance.“Micro‐rents,”orFairMarketRents(FMR)allowedatsmallergeographiclevels(seediscussionSectionIII)maybeneededinsupplementexpandedhousingchoicewithSourceofIncomeprotections.OnMarch6,2015,the5thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppealsgrantedaninjunctionstoppingtheCityofAustinfromenforcingthesourceofincomeordinance.Asofthiswriting,thematterisbeinglitigated.Inaddition,the84thTexasLegislatureisconsideringlegislationthatwouldprohibitcitiesandcountiesfrompassingordinancesthatbarlandlordsfromdisqualifyingprospectivetenantsbasedonsourceofincome.

Manytypesofexclusionaryconductarehardertodemonstrate.Inarecentstudy,HUDarguesthatidentifyinghousingdiscriminationhasbecomeincreasinglycomplexduetothemoresubtlemethodsusedtofavorcertainprotectedclassesinhousingtransactions.Thisbehaviorisdamagingtohousingchoiceandself‐reinforcing,whetherrealorperceived.Forexample,ifracialandethnicminoritiesbelievethatlandlordsinlargelynon‐Hispanicwhiteareasarelikelytoimposedifferentialtreatment(eveniftheydonot),minoritiesarelesslikelytoapplyforhousinginthatareaofacity—reinforcingthehistoricalpatternsofsegregation.

16Housingchoicevoucherholdersarenotaprotectedclassunderfederalorstatelaw.TheAustinApartmentAssociationfiledalawsuitinmid‐Decemberchallengingthecity’snewordinanceforthisreason.Assuch,thefutureofthecity’sSourceofIncomeordinancewasuncertainatthetimethisAIwasprepared.

“I’ve been treated different, due to having a Housing Choice Voucher.” (African American resident)


Inadditiontotheaboveanalyses,stakeholderswhoadvocateforandworkwithlowerincomehouseholdsandprotectedclasseswereconsultedaboutexclusionaryconductinAustin.Thetwoareasofconductthattheyidentifiedwhichwerenotdocumentedinquantitativeanalysesincluded:

Extensiverequirementsofrentalapplicationswhichcandiscourageandorintimidatepotentialapplicants;and

NIMBYism.

Information required on rental applications.ThestandardrentalapplicationscreeningprocessthatmanylandlordsuseinAustinisaconcernforstakeholdersforthereasonsdiscussedabove.Someminoritiesreportedlyavoidrentalcomplexesthatusethestandardprocessbecausetheybelievetherequirementswillbemorestrictlyimposedonthem.Areviewofthestandardrentalapplication—whichisavailableontheTexasApartmentAssociationwebsiteinbothEnglishandSpanish—foundtheinformationrequiredtobeextensive.17Itisuncleartotheapplicantifallinformationmustbecompletedfortheapplicationtobevalidorif,forexample,thecontactinformationforapastlandlord,couldbeleftblankifunknown.

NIMBYismisanotherformofexclusionaryconductandoftensignificantlyrestrictsthesupplyandlocationofaffordablehousingforcertainprotectedclasses.Pastactionsand/orconcernsaboutresistancebyneighborhoodgroupscandiscouragedevelopersfrombuildinginareaswithNIMBYreputations.

TheperceptionthatNIMBY’saffectedthehousingchoicesofprotectedclasseswasstrongestforpersonswithdisabilities:

“NIMBYsareouttogetdisabledgrouphouseholds.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

“Thereisn'tenough[community]supportforgrouphomefacilities.”(Residentwhosehouseholdincludesamemberwithadisability)

“There’salotofNIMBYwhichseparatestransitusersandaffordablehousingfromresources.”(Residentwithadisability)

Fair Housing Activities and Enforcement

ThissectionsummarizesfairhousingactivitiesandenforcementprocessesinAustin.

InAustin,theEqualEmploymentandFairHousingOffice(EE/FHO)intheCityofAustinHumanResourcesDepartmentandtheAustinTenants’Council(ATC),bothdiscussedbelow,arechargedwithtakingandinvestigatingfairhousingcomplaintswithinthecitylimits.

Fair housing enforcement.TheEE/FHOistheonlygovernmentalentityauthorizedtoinvestigateandenforcefairhousingcomplaintswithintheAustincitylimitsthatrelatetothe

17http://www.taa.org/images/images/2013_Rental_Application_‐_for_web.pdf.


city’sfairhousingordinance.AsaHUD‐designatedandfundedFairHousingAssistanceProgram(FHAP),theEE/FHOisalsoauthorizedtoinvestigateandenforcecomplaintsrelatedtotheFFHA.HUDhasdeterminedthattheCity'sfairhousingordinanceis“substantiallyequivalenttotheFairHousingAct.”18AccordingtotheAustinEE/FHO,afairhousingcomplaintcanbefiledwiththeEE/FHOinanumberofways:AustinresidentsmaycalltheEE/FHOat512‐974‐3251todiscussconcernsandscheduleanappointment.ResidentsmayfileacomplaintonlineusingtheonlinehousingdiscriminationcomplaintformavailableontheEE/FHOwebsite.19Residentsmayalsowalkintofileacomplaint(noappointmentneeded)attheEE/FHOphysicaladdressinAustinat1050East11thStreet,Suite300.

Regardlessofhowtheprocessisinitiated,thecomplainantwouldneedtocometotheEE/FHOofficeforanin‐personmeetingtodiscusstheircomplaint,aswellascreateormakeanychangestothecomplaintform.AllegationsthatrelatetotheprotectionsprovidedintheFFHAandarethereforecognizableunderfederallawareenteredbytheEE/FHOinvestigatorintoHUD’sTitleVIIIAutomatedPaperlessOfficeTrackingSystem(TEAPOTS),whichgeneratesthecomplaintform.ForcomplaintsthatrelatetotheadditionalprotectionsprovidedintheCityofAustinhousingordinanceandarethereforenotcognizableunderfederallaw,theEE/FHOhasaseparateCityofAustincomplaintformthattheinvestigatordraftsforthecomplainantandtheinformationwouldnotbeenteredintoTEAPOTS.Oncegenerated,acomplaintformisthenreviewed,finalized,andsignedbythecomplainant.

AccordingtotheAustinCityCodeChapter5‐1onHousingDiscrimination,oncetheEE/FHOreceivesacomplaint,staffmustbegintoworkonthecomplaintwithin30days,andmustmakeadeterminationofwhetherdiscriminationhasoccurredwithin100days.20Oncefinalized,theEE/FHOservesthecomplaintontherespondentandallowstheallegedviolatortosubmitaresponse.Duringthistime,theEE/FHOinvestigatesthecomplainttodetermineiftherehasbeenaviolationoftheAustinhousingordinance,Texasstatelawand,ifapplicable,theFFHA.Duringthecourseoftheinvestigation,theEE/FHOwillattempttoreachasettlementagreementorconciliationbetweenthepartiesinvolved.IfaconciliationagreementcannotbereachedandduringtheinvestigationtheEE/FHOdeterminesthatthereisprobableorreasonablecausethatdiscriminationhasoccurred,eitherpartytothecomplaintmaychoosetohavethecaseheardincourtorinanadministrativehearing.Ifoneorbothpartieselecttohavethecaseheardincourt,theLawDepartmentoftheCityofAustinfilessuitonbehalfofthecomplainant.Theoptionforanadministrativehearingisrarelyused.

TheEE/FHOwouldreferindividualsthatneedassistancewithtenant‐landlordissues(outsideoffairhousing)toalocal,nonprofitfairhousingandhousingadvocacyorganization,liketheAustinTenants’Council.

AustinresidentswithfairhousingcomplaintsorconcernscanalsocontactATCtoreceivecounselingandreceiveassistanceandrepresentationinfilingafairhousingcomplaintwiththeCityEE/FHO.AfairhousingcomplaintcanbefiledwiththeATCintwoways:bycallingATCat

18http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/partners/FHAP.

19http://www.austintexas.gov/online‐form/housing‐discrimination‐information‐form‐903.

20https://www.municode.com/library/tx/austin/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT5CIRI.


512‐474‐7007foraninitialphoneinterviewand/ortoscheduleanappointmentorbyusingtheonlinehousingdiscriminationcomplaintformavailableontheATCwebsite.21TheCityEE/FHOnotedthatthereisnodifferenceinthetypesofcomplaintsreceivedbytheirofficeandthosereceivedbyATC.TheATC,however,onlyassistswithcomplaintsrelatedtotheprotectionsprovidedintheFFHAandaretherefore“cognizableunderfederallaw.”OnceATCconductsinitialcounselingandassistswithfilingsuchacomplaintwithHUD,theprocessisthenturnedovertoHUDandtheEE/FHO.IftheATCreceivesacomplaintrelatedtotheadditionalprotectionsprovidedintheCityofAustinhousingordinanceandisthereforenotcognizableunderfederallaw,ATCwouldreferthecomplainantdirectlytotheCityEE/FHO.

Fair housing activities.TheCityEE/FHO,alongwiththeATC,engagesinarangeoffairhousingoutreachactivities.Thefairhousingoutreacheffortsofeachorganization,includingthecollaborativeeffortsandspecialactivitiesoftheCityEE/FHOtosupportandadvancefairhousing,aresummarizedbelowandincludethehousingadvocacyeffortsofotherlocalhousingorganizations.

TheEE/FHOwebsiteisacity‐wideresourceforfairhousinginformation.Thewebsitelistsinformationonfourcityordinancesandrelevantfederalstatutestheofficeenforces,includingthecity’shousingordinanceandthefederalFairHousingAct.22Thewebsiteprovideslinkstohousingdiscriminationinformation23andanonlinehousingdiscriminationcomplaintform.24LanguagetranslationisavailableforsitecontentviaGoogleTranslate.25SpanishlanguageservicesarealsoavailabledirectlyfromEE/FHOstaff.

TheATCwebsiteisanothercity‐widefairhousinginformationresource.TheATCFairHousingProgramwebpageprovidesfairhousinginformationandalinktoanonlinecomplaintformtoreporthousingdiscrimination.26ThewebsitehasavideolinktolearnmoreabouttheFairHousingProgram.27TheATCwebsiteresourcestabprovidesahostofhousingresourcedocuments,includingdocumentsinSpanish.28

WhiletheprimaryfunctionoftheEE/FHOisfairhousinginvestigationandenforcement,theagencydoesengageinarangeoffairhousingcommunityoutreachandeducationactivities.TheOfficestaffsaboothatvariouscommunityeventstoinformAustinresidentsabouttheiremploymentandhousingrights,aswellasissuesrelatedtoemploymentandhousingdiscrimination.PasteventshaveincludedtheCivilRightsFreedomFest,variousMartinLutherKing,Jr.Dayevents,andanAfricanAmericanHeritageandCulturalevent.

21http://www.housing‐rights.org/fairhousing.html.

22https://austintexas.gov/department/equal‐employment‐and‐fair‐housing‐office.

23http://www.austintexas.gov/department/housing‐discrimination.

24http://www.austintexas.gov/online‐form/housing‐discrimination‐information‐form‐903.

25https://translate.google.com/.



28http://www.housing‐rights.org/.


TheEE/FHOhostsanannualFairHousingComplianceTrainingConferencefocusedoneducatinghousingprofessionals,particularlyapartmentmanagers,aboutcompliancewithfairhousinglaws.Inaninnovativecollaboration,theEE/FHOhaspartneredwiththeAustinApartmentAssociation(AAA),anaffiliateoftheTexasApartmentAssociation,forthepasttwoyearstocertifythatthecontentoftheFairHousingComplianceTrainingConferencemeetsrelevantcontinuingeducationcreditsforhousingprofessionals.Attheconferenceinthespringof2015,EE/FHOplanstoofferacontinuinglegaleducationcertificationcourseforattorneysonrecoveringattorneyfeesfortherepresentationofindividualsinfairhousingcases.

Inaddition,theEE/FHOutilizestraditionalandnontraditionalmediasourcestoconductfairhousingoutreach,suchaspaidandunpaidprintmediaadsincommunitypapers,includingminoritypublications;targetedadvertisingonFacebook;autilitybillinsertintheNovember2014CityofAustinutilitybillscontaininganadvertisementforhousingdiscriminationservices;Spanish‐languagetelevisioninterviewsforTelemundo;andEnglish‐languageradiointerviewsfortheAustincommunityradiostation.

EE/FHOrecentlymadeanoffertoanAmeriCorpsVISTAVolunteertoconductayear‐longprojecttoengageinoutreachstrategiestolow‐incomepopulationsinAustinfocusedondiscriminationissuesinhousing,employment,andpublicaccommodations;VISTAacceptedtheofferandiscurrentlyworkingontheproject..Thegoaloftheprojectistoinvestigatetheprimarywaysthesepopulationsaccessinformationandtoutilizetheseexistinginformationchannelsforoutreachandeducationondiscriminationissues.

EE/FHOhasbeenengagedintwoseparateHUD‐fundedfairhousingcollaborativeenforcementprojectswithATC,thegoalofwhichistoadvancefairhousingenforcementthroughtestingtodetecthousingdiscriminationonthebasisofsexualidentityororientationandtodetectdiscriminationbasedondisability,particularlyamongindividualswhoaredeaforhardofhearing.Theprojectscontainanoutreachcomponentintheformofamediaawarenesscampaign.

BeyondtheseactivitieswithintheEE/FHO,itisunclearwhatlevelofcoordinationexistscity‐wideandacrossCityofAustindepartmentstoaddressfairhousingissues.

Efforts to address housing barriers for persons with disabilities.Claimsofhousingdiscriminationduetodisabilityrepresentedmorethanone‐thirdofalldiscriminationclaimstotheCityofAustinfromJuly2012toJune2013.TheCityofAustin’sArchitecturalBarrierRemovalprogramhelptenants,landlords,andhomeownersremovearchitecturalbarrierstoincreasetheaccessibilityofhousingforindividualswithdisabilities.Theprogramprovidesfreehomeimprovementaccessibilitymodificationsofupto$15,000torenterandhomeownerhouseholdsintheAustincitylimitswithhouseholdincomesat80percentorlessofMFIandwithahouseholdmemberthatis62orolderorseverelydisabled.29

Accordingtoalongtime,knowledgeabledisabilitiesissuesstakeholder,thecityArchitecturalBarrierRemovalprograminthepastfewyearshasundergonethreesignificantchanges:1)theprogramcapformodificationsincreasedfrom$4,000‐$5,000to$15,000,2)fundingwasmadeavailabletorenters,notjustowners,and3)theprogrammovedtotheCityofAustinafterbeing

29http://www.austintexas.gov/department/architectural‐barrier‐removal.


administeredbyanonprofit.Increasingtheprogramcaponaccessibilitymodificationsresultedinprogramparticipantsgettingmoreoftheirneededmodificationsratherthanmodificationsoccurringinapiecemealfashion,withsomeofthesameparticipantsontheprogramlistyearafteryear:“peoplewouldgetaramponeyear,bathroommodificationsanother.”Foraperiodoftime,theDepartmentdidnotbelievetheHUDCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrantfundingsourcecouldbeusedforrentalproperties,whichmayhaveresultedinsomerentersbeingturnedaway,asituationthathassincebeencorrected.

Mostdisabilityadvocateswantedtheprogramtocontinuetobehousedwithanonprofit,themostcommonmodelforthesetypesofprograms.Advocateshavebeenconcernedabouttheabilityofthecitytoconductsufficientcommunityoutreachabouttheprogram.Inaddition,theywereconcernedthatpotentialparticipantswouldnotfeelascomfortablecontactingthecityastheywouldanonprofitorganizationdue,inpart,tothebeliefthatthecitywouldcitethemforcodeviolations.Whilethetransitionwascharacterizedas“rocky,”recentfeedbackhasbeenmorepositive.Disabilityserviceprovidersandadvocacyorganizationsarereferringpotentialparticipantstothecity,andthecityhas“improvedtheprocessalot.”

Recommendationsforimprovementstothisprograminclude:

Placingparticularemphasisonprogramfundingformodificationsforrentersastheyareoftenahigherneedgroupthanownersanditisbelievedthatassistanceisstillprovidedmoreoftenforowner‐occupiedproperties;

Keepingthefocusoftheprogramonaccessibilitymodifications(itshouldnotbecomeahomerepairprogram);

Allowinganoptiontoincreasetheprogramcap,ifneeded,sothatalloftheaccessibilitymodificationneedsofaparticularparticipantcanbeaddressedatonce;

Ifprogramparticipationislow,asithasbeeninthepast,focusingongreatercommunityoutreachandcarryoverfundsfromoneyeartothenext,ratherthanloweringtheprogramallocation;

Partneringwithacommunity‐basedorganizationtoconductcommunityoutreachabouttheprogram.

Beyondaddressingarchitecturalbarriers,astakeholderrecommendsseveralotherwaysforthecitytomeetthehousingneedsofindividualswithdisabilities:

Greateroutreachtothedisabilitycommunityisneededtoprovidebasiceducationonthehomeownershipprocessandavailableresources,includingthecitydownpaymentassistanceprogram,becauselendersarenotdoingthis.Thecityshouldpartnerwithnonprofitsinthisareaandinformationandparticipationopportunitiesrelatedtocityhomeownershipprogramsneedtoreachpeoplewithdisabilities.

Thecityhasbeenagoodpartnerwithhousingdevelopments,butthecitynowneedstobeproactiveindevelopingintegratedhousingforpeoplewithdisabilities,includingscattered


sites.ThecitycouldfollowtheexamplesetbyHUDinaddressingintegrationissueswithitsSection811SupportiveHousingProgramforPersonswithDisabilities.

Thecityshouldfocusonhousingassistanceandcreatinghousingopportunitiesforverylowincomegroups,particularlypeopleondisabilityincomemaking17percentorlessoftheAustinmedianincome.

Additional Local Fair Housing Outreach and Advocacy Organizations

Texas Low Income Housing Information Service.Thisnonprofitorganizationfocuseson“research,advocacy,educationandpolicyaboutlow‐incomehousing.”30Thewebsiteprovidesarangeofhousingresources.Inadditiontopolicyinformationandresearchdocumentsonlow‐incomehousingissuesinTexas,thesitehoststheTexasHousingCounselor,aninteractivesearchtoolthatprovidesinformationonqualifyingandapplyingforsubsidizedhousinginTexasandestimatesrentsforsubsidizedhousingprograms.31Anothertool,theTexasTenantAdvisor,providesTexastenants’rightsinformation;informationonlegalremedies,suchassuingone’slandlord;andprovidescontactinformationforTexastenantandlegalaidorganizations.32

Texas Appleseed. ThisnonprofitorganizationutilizesvolunteerlawyerstopromotesocialandeconomicjusticeforTexans.33Oneoftheorganization’sprojects,intheareaofDisasterRecoveryandHousing,workstoensurethatgovernmentalresponsetonaturaldisastersisquickandfair,emphasizestherebuildingandrepairofaffordablehousing,andincorporatesthemostimpactedcommunitiesandlow‐incomefamiliesinlong‐termdisasterrecoveryplanning.34

30http://www.texashousing.org/about/about.html.

31http://www.texashousing.org/find/find.html.

32http://texastenant.org/.

33http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=204.

34http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=19&Itemid=261.

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 1

SECTION V. Barriers and Proposed Fair Housing Activities

ConsistentwithHUD’sexpectationsofanAnalysisofImpedimentstoFairHousingChoice(AI)studyandthenewAssessmentofFairHousing(AFH),thissection:

IdentifiesandprioritizesfairhousingissuesarisingfromtheAI;and

Discussesfairhousinggoalsandproposedfairhousingactivitiestomitigateandaddresstheidentifiedfairhousingissues.

Fair Housing Issues and Prioritization

ThefairhousingbarriersidentifiedintheAIresearcharediscussedbelow.AsspecifiedinHUD’sAFHtool,theactionitemstoaddressthebarriersareassignedapriorityranking.Theprioritizationwasbasedon:

Thesignificanceofthebarrierincontributingtosegregation,

Thesignificanceofthebarrierinlimitinghousingchoice,and

Easeofimplementation—i.e.,theabilityofthecityanditspartnerstoaddressthebarrier,especiallyinthenext6‐12months.

Highest Priority Barriers

1. Lack of affordable housing in Austin disproportionately impacts protected classes with

lower incomes and higher poverty rates. ThedatainthisAIdemonstratethatcertainprotectedclassesaremorelikelytobeaffectedbylackofaffordablehousingthanothersbecausetheyhavegreaterneedforassistedand,insomecases,accessiblehousing.Specifically,

ThepovertyrateforAfricanAmericansandHispanicsinAustinis31percentcomparedto12percentfornon‐Hispanicwhites.

Thepovertyrateforpersonswithdisabilitiesis29percent.

Fairhousingcomplaintssuggestthattheseprotectedclassesalsofacehigherlevelsofdiscriminationwhenseekinghousing.

2. Lack of affordable housing citywide exacerbates segregation created through historical

policies and practices.ThehistoricalKochandFowlermasterplanimplementedrace‐basedzoninginAustin,whichwasfollowedbyrestrictivecovenantsandrelatedpublicactions,allofwhichestablishedpatternsofracialandethnicsegregation,whichremaintoday.Theresidentsoftheserestrictedareasweregenerallyverylowincomeandhadlimitedeconomicmobility.


Lackofaffordablehousingcitywidehasperpetuatedsegregation.Forexample,racialandethnicminoritiesmakeup81percentoftheresidentsinhighpoverty,racially/ethnicallyconcentratedareas,comparedtojust23percentofresidentsinthecityoverall.

TheareasinAustinthatofferaffordablehousingfortheseprotectedclassesaremostlylocatedinEast,SoutheastandNortheastAustin.Manyoftheseneighborhoodshaveagingcommunityamenities,lowerperformingschools,highratesofunemploymentandhighcrimerates,whichcanrestrictresidents’accesstoopportunity.

3. The city is limited in its ability by state law to use inclusionary zoning as a tool to

broaden housing choice.Texasstatelawlimitsmunicipalities’toolstoexpandhousingchoicebypreventingmunicipalitiesfromenactinglawsthatsetamaximumpriceforprivatelyproducedresidentialhousing(sections214.905and214.902).However,thereareexceptions:maximumpricesestablishedaspartofdevelopmentincentiveprograms,housinginahomesteadpreservationdistrictandforsalehousingdevelopedaspartofalandbankareallowed.

ThestatisticallysignificantresidentsurveyconductedforthisstudyfoundthathousingcostwasthetopreasonwhyresidentsmovedfromAustinacrossraceandethnicity,withhigherproportionsofracialandethnicminoritiesreportingcostasafactorthannon‐Hispanicwhiteresidents.Similarly,renterswhohavehouseholdmemberswithadisabilityweredisproportionatelylikelytoneedhousingassistance,livewithfamilyandfriendsbecausetheycan’taffordhousing,andrelyonfamilyandfriendstohelpthemmeethousingcosts.

Totheextentthatinclusionaryzoningrequirements,ifallowed,wouldprovidehousingproductsthatwouldbroadentheaffordabilitychoicesofcertainprotectedclasseswhoareunderservedbythehousingmarket,lackofinclusionaryzoningwouldbeanimpedimenttofairhousing.

4. Information on housing choice is not widely available in languages other than English

and/or in accessible formats. Information for people who are members of protected

classes about possibilities to live in housing that was created in higher opportunity

areas through city incentive and developer agreement programs is limited. Becausemorethanhalfofforeign‐bornresidentsspeakEnglishlessthan“verywell,”theyaredisproportionatelylikelytoneedassistancewithlanguagetranslationinhousing,aswellasother,documents,makingthehousingsearchprocessmorechallengingandthepotentialforhousingdiscriminationgreater.

IntheresidentsurveyconductedfortheAI,whenaskedwhereresidentswouldlooktoobtaininformationabouttheirfairhousingrights,thetopanswerswere:

Fairhousingorganization(54%AfricanAmericans,41%Hispanicresidents,39%personswithdisabilities),

Lookforhelpontheinternet(53%Asians,33%non‐Hispanicwhites, 29%Hispanicresidents,29%personswithdisabilities),and


Contactcitygovernment/electedofficials(about30%forthemajorityofprotectedclasses).

Assuch,itisimportantthatfairandaffordablehousingprovidersandadvocates,aswellascity/countygovernments,havetransparent,easy‐to‐findinformationwithtranslationandaccessiblefeaturesonwebsitesandinhousingmaterials.

Housingchoiceinformationisalsolackingforprotectedclasseswhodesiretoliveinhousingcreatedinhighopportunityneighborhoods.Thereisnosinglesourceofinformationabouttheseopportunitiesthathavebeencreatedthroughcityincentiveanddevelopmentagreementprograms.

5. Complaint data signals non‐compliance of property owners and builders with

accessibility requirements.Non‐compliancemaycontributetothelimitedsupplyofaccessiblehousinginAustin.

Moderate Priority Barriers

6. Overly complex land use regulations limit housing choice and create impediments to

housing affordability. These include: minimum site area requirements for multifamily

housing, limits on ADUs, compatibility standards, overly restrictive neighborhood

plans and excessive parking requirements.AtthetimethisAIwasconducted,theCityofAustinwasintheprocessofupdatingitslandusecodeandregulations.Thisprocessincludedanexaminationandidentificationofbarrierstohousingchoice.Thebarriersrangefromoverlyprescriptivesiteareastandardsforsingleandmultifamilyhousing(specificallyinsections25‐2‐558and25‐2‐563)tolimitsonaccessorydwellingunitstoalengthydevelopmentreviewprocess,evenforaffordablehousingincentiveprograms.

7. Private market barriers exist in the city in the forms of “steering” (the practice of real

estate agents showing certain homebuyers only certain neighborhoods because of

their race or ethnicity), high loan denials for African Americans, and overly complex

and rigorous standards for rental agreements.

ResidentswhoweresurveyedandinterviewedfortheAIdescribedsteeringasacommonoccurrence.

AfricanAmericansandHispanicborrowersweretwiceaslikelyasnon‐Hispanicwhitestobedeniedhomeloansbytraditionalfinancialinstitutions.ForAfricanAmericanborrowers,thisdifferenceindenialrateswasverypronouncedforlowincomeborrowers(64%ofAfricanAmericansearninglessthan$25,000weredeniedmortgageloans,comparedto48%forallraces/ethnicities).HighincomeAfricanAmericansstillexperiencedtwicetherateofdenialasotherborrowers.

Organizationsthatassistlowincomerentersidentifiedlengthylookbackperiodsintenantqualificationsasabarriertohousingchoice.Accordingtotheseorganizations,intightrentalmarkets,landlordsmayimposestrictguidelinesandbemore"choosy"intenantselection.Totheextentthatexpandedcriteria


disproportionatelyaffectprotectedclasses,theymayhavedisparateimpactsonhousingchoice.

8. City incentives to create affordable housing may not be equitably distributed

throughout the cityand may not serve the protected classes with the greatest needs.TheCityofAustinhasavarietyofprogramstoincentivizeprivatesectordeveloperstobuildaffordablehousing.Mostofthesetaketheformofadensitybonus—buildingmoreunitsthanwouldbeallowedunderexistingregulations—inexchangeforacertainnumberofaffordableunits.Programrequirementsandbenefitsdifferbygeographicarea.Thisinconsistencycanleadtodifferentoutcomesbygeographicarea,whichisinconsistentwithincreasingopportunitythroughoutthecity.

Anotherconcernisthelackofdataonwhethertheseincentiveprogramshavecreatedhousingopportunitiesformembersofprotectedclasses,particularlypersonswithdisabilities,racialandethnicminorities,andlargefamilieswithchildren.Partofthechallengeisalackofdataonpersonswithdisabilitiesingeneral.Thislackofdatamakesitdifficulttoassessinwhichwaystheseprogramsareaffirmativelyfurtheringfairhousing.

9. The City’s historical lack of enforcement of city codes governing the maintenance of

housing stock in different neighborhoods disproportionately impacts protected

classes, influences housing preferences and restricts access to opportunities. Housingpreferencesaredrivenbyfactorsthatinfluenceneighborhoodquality.Differencesinneighborhoodamenities,includingmaintenanceofparksandrecreationequipment,canleadtoprivatesectordisinvestmentandcontributetoneighborhooddecline.

10. The City’s historical lack of funding for public infrastructure and amenities, including

parks, in different neighborhoods may disproportionally impact protected classes,

influence housing preferences, and restrict access to opportunities.InfocusgroupdiscussionsandsurveysconductedforthisAI,threeareaswereidentifiedbyprotectedclassesashavingthemostdisparitiesinequitableaccesstocommunityassets:inequitiesinthequalityandaccesstopublicamenities;inequitiesinpublicinfrastructure;andinequitiesincommercialandretailbusinessofferings.

Surveyrespondentsandfocusgroupparticipantssuggestedanunfairimbalanceintheamountofattentionandmaintenancethatthecitygivestopublicamenitiesinwealthierneighborhoods,seeminglyleavingtheparksandrecreationcentersinlowincomeneighborhoodstodeteriorate.Participantsalsosharedtheperspectivethatlowerincomeandhighminorityneighborhoods,particularlyEastandSouthAustin,arelowprioritytoreceiveinfrastructureimprovements,suchassidewalkandroadrepair,streetlights,oraccessiblepedestriancrosswalks.

“IthasbeenAustin’shistorytotreatthosewestofHighway35betterenvironmentally,citystructureandbetterplacementofroadsetc.etc.TrueAustinitesallknowthat!Youcanevenseeitinthegrocerystores.Thesamechainstoreinoneneighborhoodhasbetterchoicesthanotherstoresinanother


areaoftown.Citycouncilmemberscanalsobeseendoingmoreforotherneighborhoodsthanothers.Veryobvious.”(Hispanicresident)

11. Lack of knowledge about fair housing requirements creates barriers to affirmatively

furthering fair housing.AustinHousingChoiceSurveyrespondentswereaskediftheyeverexperienceddiscriminationwhenlookingforhousinginAustin.Twenty‐sevenpercentofAfricanAmericansansweredthattheyexperiencedhousingdiscrimination,whichwasgreaterthanthepercentofrace‐basedfairhousingcomplaintsreportedbytheAustinTenants’CouncilandHUD.Thisdisparityintheratesofrace‐baseddiscriminationbetweentheself‐reporteddataandthecomplaintdatasuggeststhatAfricanAmericanresidentsarenotreportingallperceivedfairhousingviolations.

Evidenceofdiscriminationalsoappearsinthemortgagelendingpracticesofregulatedfinancialinstitutions,citylandusepoliciesandpractices,therecordofaccessibilitycomplianceofmultifamilydevelopers,andother,moresubtle,exclusionaryconductsuchasextensiverentalapplicationrequirementsandNIMBYismbyneighborhoodgroups.

AlackofknowledgeoftherightsandprotectionsaffordedbyAustin’sfairhousingordinancemaycontributetothepersistenceoformaskinstancesofpublicandprivatediscriminatorypracticesandlimitresidents’housingchoiceandaccesstoopportunity.

12. “Crime in neighborhood” is a frequently cited reason for dissatisfaction with current

housing.Highcrimerateshaveseveralnegativeanddestabilizingeffectsoncommunities.Whilehighcrimeobviouslyincreasestheriskofphysicalharmandpropertyloss,italsodiminishespropertyvalues,discouragesinvestors,reducescommunity‐buildingandoutdooractivities,andcausesrelatedstressandothermentalhealthimpactsforadultsandchildren.ConcernaboutneighborhoodcrimewasevidentinthehousingstudyconductedforthisAI:

43percentofsurveyrespondentslistedcrimeasthereasontheyweredissatisfiedwiththeircurrenthousingsituation.

Whenaskedwhattheywouldchangeabouttheirneighborhood,46percentofrespondentsanswered“lesscrime.”

Proposed Fair Housing Activities

Thissectioncontainstheproposedfairhousingactivitiesforthecity.Manyoftheseactionitemsaredirectedtowardsachievinggreaterequitythroughcitypolicyandfinancialactions.NonprofitandprivatesectorpartnerswillalsoplayaroleinaddressingthefairhousingactivitiesandimprovingequitythroughoutAustin.

Theproposedfairhousingactivitiesarecontainedinthematrixonthefollowingpages,whichlinkstheactionitemstotheidentifiedimpediments.

ThefullFairHousingActionPlan(FHAP)detailingthespecificactions,expectedoutcomesandestimatedtimelinestoaddressthefairhousingbarriersisavailableonlineat:http://austintexas.gov/page/reports‐publications.



ZATION


The City of Austin will continue to expand affordable housing

opportunities through the following:

Maintain and strengthen policies through the CodeNEXT process that

provide incentives for the development of affordable housing for

households below 50%, 60% and 80% MFI.

Strengthen and align density bonus programs in terms of formula for

calculating the number of units, accessibility requirements, the

affordability period, and on site requirements.

Revise VMU, PUD to require 60% MFI rental and 80% owner throughout

Austin when on‐site affordable units are required.

Develop programs to incentivize family‐oriented units in high opportunity

areas.

Collect data on protected classes, as well as families with children,

residing in units created through the City’s density bonus and other

incentive programs.

Secure longer affordability periods for VMU and other programs that are

successful in providing affordable housing.

Enact policies, including a land bank, to acquire and preserve apartments

on and near transit corridors, where affordable programs can be applied

to increase housing for people who are members of protected classes.

Work with governmental entities, including Capital Metro, to require

inclusion of affordable housing opportunities for families with children on

government owned land that is undergoing redevelopment.

Create a goal to increase access to affordable housing in all council

districts. The 2014 Housing Market Study recommends setting a goal of

10% of rental housing units to be affordable to households earning

$25,000 or less per year.

Recommend adoption of a requirement that at least 25% of units be

affordable on developments proposed on City‐owned land.

Require units with city incentives or subsidies to accept vouchers to be

consistent with the recently adopted addition of source of income

protection in the City's Fair Housing ordinance. Work with the Housing Authority to explore the potential for Small Area

Rents, as described in Section IV of the document.

Pursue implementation of reasonable look back periods for criminal

backgrounds in rental criteria for developments with City of Austin funds

to ensure that the look back periods don't screen out more people than

necessary.

Identify impediments and potential remedies to assist persons with

disabilities attempting to secure accessible, affordable housing.

1. Lack of affordable housing

disproportionately impacts

protected classes with lower

incomes and higher poverty

rates. 2. Lack of affordable

housing citywide exacerbates

segregation created through

historical policies and practices.

3. The city is limited in its ability

by state law to use inclusionary

zoning as a tool to broaden

housing choice.

High





ZATION


Recommend review and enhancement of publicly available information

and forms on fair housing to make them easily accessible to persons with

disabilities and persons with limited English proficiency.

Work with HUD to provide better information in the new AFH tool about

the needs of persons with disabilities.

Develop an online list and map of units created through city incentives

and developer agreement programs. Work with local agencies to

disseminate that information.

5. Complaint data signals non‐

compliance of property owners

and builders with accessibility

requirements.

High Examine weaknesses in the current process and implement

improvements to ensure accessibility compliance.

6. Overly complex land use

regulations limit housing choice

and create impediments to

housing affordability. These

include: minimum site area

requirements for multifamily

housing, limits on ADUs,

compatibility standards, overly

restrictive neighborhood plans

and excessive parking

requirements.

Medium Work through the CodeNEXT process to modify land use and regulatory

requirements to expand housing choice and reduce housing access

barriers.

7. Private market barriers

include steering, high loan

denials for African Americans

and other protected classes, and

overly complex and rigorous

standards for rental

qualifications.

Medium Provide for enhanced matched pair testing and enforcement for lending,

steering, leasing and sales for all protected classes, especially persons

with disabilities.

4. Information on housing

choice is not widely available in

languages other than English

and/or in accessible formats.

Information for people who are

members of protected classes

about possibilities to live in

housing that was created in

higher opportunity areas

through city incentive and

developer agreement programs

is limited.

High





ZATION


Calibrate S.M.A.R.T. Housing incentives to function in high opportunity

areas.

Implement Homestead Preservation Districts in gentrifying areas and

fully utilize inclusionary housing tools available under legislation.

Implement policies that correct health and safety deficiencies in

maintenance of housing stock within the City while maintaining

affordability ‐‐ informed by a report from the Entrepreneurship and

Community Development Clinic of the University of Texas School of Law

entitled, "Addressing Problem Properties: Legal and Policy Tools for a

Safer Rundberg and Safer Austin" (August 2013).

Implement new, or examine existing policies and procedures, to insure

that new multi‐family housing meets applicable accessibility standards

and to inspect existing city funded/assisted properties to make sure the

properties are still accessible.

Medium Expand access to public parks in areas of the City where high

concentrations of persons from protected classes do not live within ¼‐

mile walking distance of a park. Implement the City of Austin Urban Parks

Work Group recommendations.

Medium

Review available information pertaining to public infrastructure and

amenities.

Medium

Improve areas of minority/low‐income concentration and integrate

housing for different incomes in these areas while improving the existing

housing stock and infrastructure.

Provide fair housing training of city staff in planning, development

review, economic development, and other city departments with impact

on housing development and conditions that affect people who are

members of protected classes.

City leaders should engage neighborhood associations, CDCs and

academics in a goal to create economic, racial and ethnic diversity as a

core value for each neighborhood and the city as a whole. The obligation

to affirmatively further fair housing should be incorporated into city

policies.


enforcement of city codes

governing the maintenance of

housing stock in different

neighborhoods may influence

the housing choices of

protected classes, potentially

restricting access to

opportunities.

Medium


funding for public infrastructure

and amenities, including parks,

in different neighborhoods may

disproportionally impact

protected classes, influence

housing preferences, and

restrict access to opportunities.

11. Lack of knowledge about fair

housing requirements creates

barriers to affirmatively

furthering fair housing.

Medium

8. City incentives to create

affordable housing may not be

equitably distributed throughout

the city and may not serve the

protected classes with the

greatest needs.

Medium





ZATION


Add to the City's affordable housing impact statement, which is used in

code and zoning changes, a "Fair Housing Impact" statement, which

would analyze the impact of the change on fair housing opportunities for

all protected classes.

12. "Crime in neighborhood" is a

frequently cited reason for

dissatisfaction with current

housing.

Medium Review available data on police response time in high and low

opportunity areas.



analysis of impediments to fair housing...

Documents