|
As HOME entered its fourth decade, the agency continued to
fight for equal housing for all and an end to discrimination. Throughout
the decade, there were several key instances which demonstrated this
mission as the agency’s responsibilities expanded.
CODE 2
One of the most important cases in HOME’s history came
about because of the courage of someone willing to stand for what she
believed in. Denise Hoag, an employee of Able Communications came to HOME
in January of 1992. She reported that James and Virginia Wild, landlords
who owned property in
Buffalo and
Williamsville and who hired Able Communications to be their answering
service, directed her and other personnel to make illegal inquiries
regarding the race, national origin, marital status and familial status of
those who expressed an interest in renting. They also instructed employees
to mark message slips with the term “Code 2” if they suspected that the
prospective tenant was a minority. That way they could steer them away
from suburban neighborhoods, or not return their call at all.
After a year-long undercover investigation, HOME filed a
million dollar lawsuit against the landlords in federal court, charging
that they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fair Housing Act of
1968, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, New York State Human Rights Law and New York State Real
Property Law.
As the result of a negotiated settlement in a 1994 consent
decree, Judge Richard Arcara ordered the Wilds to make a contribution to
the Buffalo Chapter of the NAACP, adopt new application and advertisement
policies, and pay HOME a record $22,000 in damages.
Fair Housing Sabbath
April 1993 marked a milestone for civil rights in
Western New York. Not
only was it Fair Housing Month, but it was the 30th anniversary
of HOME and the 25th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act.
To both celebrate these occasions and remind everyone that
work still needed to be done, HOME, along with the Buffalo Area
Metropolitan Ministries, sponsored a Fair Housing Sabbath. The objective
was to recruit congregations from a variety of faiths willing to
incorporate a fair housing message into their services during the weekend
of April 23-25,
1993.
For HOME, the Sabbath was a return to its roots. It was
religious leaders who first discussed the problem of racial discrimination
in housing in 1962, and the group that they formed was the genesis of
HOME.
At least 17 congregations across WNY participated by
passing out literature, placing notes in church bulletins, and including
fair housing in the message during their worship services. The Sabbath
was repeated in 1995, with 25 congregations participating.
Comer v.Kemp
In 1989, several low income minorities filed a class-action
lawsuit in U.S.
district court in Buffalo, alleging discrimination in government assisted
housing. The lawsuit came in two parts. The first part involved the HUD
Section 8 tenant based housing program, which in the City of Buffalo was
administered by one agency while another agency provided assistance for
suburban residents. The complaint alleged that this division discouraged
or prevented minorities from obtaining Section 8 vouchers that could be
used outside of the city of Buffalo.
The second part of the litigation involved the Buffalo
Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA). Jesse Comer, a tenant of BMHA housing,
wanted to move to a housing project outside of
Buffalo. The Housing
Authority told him that he could not move outside of the city of Buffalo.
Mr.Comer thought that this was wrong, and he found lawyers at Neighborhood
Legal Services who were willing to take his case. HOME was involved in the
planning of this section of the suit but after careful deliberation
decided to pursue an alternative course because of concerns that the
breadth of the suit would cause a delay in justice for public housing
tenants. (HOME’s course of action was detailed in the previous edition of
Insight.) The case lasted for nearly seven years, and was settled
in 1996.
The consent decree for the Comer case (as it would come to
be known) ended the city-suburb division in the administration of the
Section 8 program and brought 1,600 new vouchers into the area. The BMHA
agreed to demolish 502 units in three separate projects, and replace those
with 450 Section 8 vouchers and 50 new units in low poverty areas.
The consent decree defined the primary beneficiaries of the
remedy as non-white and Hispanic city residents who had applied for
Section 8 before a specified date. They received Section 8 vouchers, as
did non-white and Hispanic residents of BMHA units at the Lakeview,
Commodore Perry and A.D. Price developments.
Most who received these vouchers were required to search
for housing in areas which were considered low poverty (areas which the
poverty rate was below 20%, as determined by the 1990 census). This was
done because historically, many minorities who received Section 8 vouchers
moved into areas that they were familiar with, which were normally high
poverty areas.
In order to help people with their search, the court also
stipulated that a Community Housing Center (CHC) be created to help break
down the barriers people often encountered in their housing search. The
CHC would provide access to listings, transportation to view housing, if
needed, and a database of information about communities throughout
Erie County.
After a national search, HOME and the Rental Assistance
Corporation of
Buffalo
were awarded the contract to develop and operate the CHC. But unsuccessful
applicants raised many objections, and HUD issued a new Request for
Funding Proposal. So HOME rewrote its proposal and this time partnered
with the Buffalo Federation of Neighborhood Centers. One of the area’s
oldest non-profit agencies, BFNC became a valuable partner because of the
agency’s expertise in providing comprehensive case management. The
contract was awarded to HOME and BFNC in 1998, and the doors of the CHC
opened in 1999.
Once again, the services provided by HOME through the CHC
were reminiscent of a part of HOME’s past, as the CHC mirrored the efforts
of Housing
Assistance Center, which grew out of HOME in 1973. The need for services
caused the staff size to increase to 14, the largest in HOME’s history.
After three years of existence, the CHC expanded its
services. The program, which was originally offered to only Comer
recipients, was expanded to include all first time voucher holders who
were living in high poverty areas. In the fall of 2002, the CHC, in
conjunction with RACB, started a new “Mobility Movers” program. This
program was designed for those who had been on Section 8 for a while but,
staying true the CHC mission, were looking to move to greener pastures.
Marine Drive (1996)
As documented in the lead story in this edition of Insight,
the case against Marine Drive Apartments marks an important milestone in
HOME’s history. It was not, however the only litigation brought forth by
HOME during the decade.
HOME v. Pataki
The Human Rights Law of the State of
New York states that
the Division of Human Rights shall complete any investigation of
discrimination within 100 days of receiving a complaint and, where there
is probable cause, provide legal representation for the complainants and
bring the matter to public hearing within 270 days of filing. Despite this
law, there were cases filed with DHR that had been awaiting public hearing
over 3,000 days.
Because of this horrible lack of enforcement of the law on
July 10, 1997 HOME and six of its clients filed a class action suit
against Gov. Pataki and the NYS Division of Human Rights, taking aim
against the State of New York for its failure to protect the rights of
discrimination victims as provided by the State’s Human Rights Law.
In June 1999, State Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline M.
Koshian ruled that the State had violated its own law designed to protect
victims of housing discrimination. The decision ordered the state to end
these practices immediately, adhere to the timeline already in place, and
put in motion a plan to adjudicate those cases for which justice was
unfairly delayed.
Although HOME’s victory was later overturned, it
nevertheless contributed to improvement in the way the state handles
housing discrimination complaints.
Throughout HOME’s four decades, the agency has shown a
remarkable ability to expand the services of the agency while remaining
true to the mission of the agency: to ensure that every person has the
opportunity to live in any neighborhood they choose--and to end
discrimination. |
