Presentation on theme: "CHA’s Plan for Transformation: Status Update NPR (June 24, 2013): In Chicago, Public Housing Experiment Enters New Phase"— Presentation transcript:
CHA’s Plan for Transformation: Status Update NPR (June 24, 2013): In Chicago, Public Housing Experiment Enters New Phase http://www.npr.org/2013/06/24/188895584/in-chicago-public-housing-experiment-enters-new-phase http://www.npr.org/2013/06/24/188895584/in-chicago-public-housing-experiment-enters-new-phase
The Fair Housing Act: A Powerful Legal Protection for Public Housing Residents Facing Mixed-Income Redevelopment 1.CHA’s Plan for Transformation is forcing displacement of public housing families from opportunity areas into segregated, impoverished communities. 2.Cabrini Row Houses and Lathrop Homes are located in racially diverse and higher income areas of the City. 3.Conversion of the Cabrini Row Houses and the Lathrop Homes into traditional mixed-income communities will result in the loss of 2/3’s of the public housing units at those sites. 4.Most of these units will be replaced by public housing units sited in poor, segregated areas of the City.
The FHA makes it unlawful “To refuse... or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604
Arlington Heights found that Section 3604 supported a discriminatory effects cause of action. (558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977)), i.e., the plaintiff does not need to prove discriminatory intent on the part of the defendant.
Recent HUD rule: “Implementation of FHA’s Discriminatory Effects Standard” (78 FR 11460), effective date: March 18, 2013 This rule formally establishes a three-part burden shifting test currently used by HUD and most federal courts, thereby providing greater clarity and predictability for all parties as to how the discriminatory effects standard applies.
Under HUD’s Discriminatory Effects Rule 1.Plaintiff must prove that a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect. 2.The defendant has the burden of proving that the challenged practice is necessary to achieve one or more nondiscriminatory interests of the defendant. 3.Plaintiff may still prevail upon proving that the nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged practice could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.
What Does This Mean For The Cabrini Row Houses and Lathrop Homes? There is an alternative solution to CHA’s plan with a less discriminatory effect. Public housing residents and housing advocates contend that CHA can maintain Lathrop and the Cabrini Row Houses as 100% public housing and still meet CHA’s mixed-income goals of creating safer communities, creating a diverse mix of residents, and deconcentrating poverty.
How? Create a Mixed-Income Community With Public Housing Families Alone. 1.Family of four can earn up to $59,000 under HUD Public Housing Eligibility Guidelines. 2.CHA has a work requirement for all new admissions. 3.50% of all new admissions must make more than $22,000 for a family of 4. 4.CHA has a work requirement for all current families.
The net result of these policies is that a newly rehabilitated Cabrini Row Houses and Lathrop Homes will no longer reflect the deep poverty of past public housing communities.
On May 16, 2013, LAF filed on behalf of the Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council a federal FHA lawsuit against CHA challenging its decision not to rehabilitate the Cabrini Rowhouses as 100% public housing.