Advocates Must Ensure That Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is Top Priority in Marin County

Savannah Wheeler, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California

Recently, jurisdictions in Marin County and across the state updated their housing elements, the portion of a jurisdiction’s General Plan that addresses how the jurisdiction will meet the housing needs of everyone in the community over the next eight years.  In this process, much attention was paid to the new housing element requirements involving affirmatively furthering fair housing (“AFFH”).  Jurisdictions have a legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing, which means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”1  Assembly Bill 686 requires that a housing element is consistent with the AFFH duty by including an assessment of fair housing to identify fair housing issues in the jurisdiction, and by including priorities, goals, and actions to remediate these issues and promote fair housing, among other requirements. 

Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California’s (“FHANC”) work over the years has highlighted the great need for jurisdictions to create stronger plans to address and eliminate the housing discrimination that is prevalent in the County.  FHANC provides free comprehensive fair housing counseling services to individuals alleging housing discrimination in Marin County, Solano County, and Sonoma County (except the incorporated city of Petaluma).  FHANC also provides additional services, such as prepurchase and foreclosure prevention counseling and education, as well as trainings to housing providers, in Marin, Solano, and Sonoma counties and other neighboring counties.  In addition to counseling and education services, FHANC recruits, trains, and employs fair housing testers to investigate claims of housing discrimination and to assist in conducting systemic investigations. 

Our Work 

FHANC’s work has shown the continued prevalence of housing discrimination in Marin.  FHANC regularly conducts investigations and audits to determine the prevalence of discrimination in rental housing in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties.  In these investigations, trained fair housing testers pose as home seekers who are members of protected class categories to determine whether they receive differential/discriminatory treatment compared to a home seeker who is not a member of that protected class category. 

 

FHANC’s recent four-month investigation in Marin, Solano, and Sonoma counties found that Marin had the highest rate of discrimination overall.2  Staff examined rental practices at 20 properties in each county, using testers who posed by phone or email as either Latina or white non-Latinx potential renters with children.  The investigation tested for discrimination at the pre-application stage based on familial status (the presence of children) or national origin, or a combination of both.  In Marin, 67% of the tests revealed at least some evidence of discrimination based on familial status or national origin, and Marin also had the most discrimination based on familial status specifically, with 53% of tests revealing evidence of such discrimination. 

 

Another prevalent form of housing discrimination is discrimination based on source of income (“SOI”), which includes discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher (“Section 8”) holders.  FHANC’s recent audits revealed evidence of SOI discrimination in 57% of tests in the county, race discrimination in 33% of tests, and both race and SOI discrimination in 22% of the tests.  FHANC continues to see increases in complaints of SOI discrimination, and in the past fiscal year, FHANC received more SOI complaints than any other type except disability. FHANC’s May 2021 Audit Report also found evidence of disability discrimination in 59% of tests in the County.

An Example 

In the spring of 2021, FHANC released the results of the aforementioned testing investigation to ascertain the extent to which Black renters with Section 8 vouchers experienced discrimination when applying for rental housing.  Soon after, in May 2021, the Marin Independent Journal (“Marin IJ”) published a Letter to the Editor submitted by the manager of Novato Park Apartments, stating that they no longer accepted any tenants with Section 8 vouchers because of a difficulty they had previously had with a Section 8 tenant. FHANC emailed and sent a letter to the manager, explaining the law once again, letting him know that the reason he gave for not renting to Section 8 tenants did not negate the discriminatory effect of their policy. FHANC and the Marin Housing Authority also collaborated in submitting a response letter to the Marin IJ, explaining source of income discrimination so that the community was made aware that it was illegal to deny renters because of their housing vouchers. 

 

FHANC then conducted several fair housing testing investigations – in September 2021, March 2022, and February 2023, which all confirmed that the apartment complex was still not accepting Section 8 tenants (for example, the management responded, “We don’t take those, sorry… we’ve had trouble in the past”).  In March 2023, FHANC filed a discrimination complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), alleging source of income discrimination against the owner and manager of Novato Park Apartments because of their ban on renting to people with Section 8 housing choice vouchers, which violates’ California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. One year later, an agreement was reached between the parties settling for $35,000, policy changes, training, and posting vacancies to sites serving people with Section 8 vouchers. 

 

Our investigations show how housing discrimination in the County compounds the serious obstacles already faced by renters, such as unaffordable rents and insufficient tenant protections.  The forces of displacement have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities, who are often on fixed incomes, voucher holders, and other renters of protected class categories under California law. 

 

Homeownership Must Also Be Addressed 

Homeowners also cannot escape discrimination.  Some of the longstanding barriers faced by homeowners and prospective homebuyers of protected classes have worsened in recent years, and they remain prevalent in Marin.  Modern appraisal and lending practices contribute to maintaining the effects of discriminatory housing practices like redlining, including the undervaluation of Black neighborhoods and Black-Owned homes and the exclusion of Black and Latinx borrowers from the mortgage and refinance market.  For example, the racial wealth gap is greater now than it was when the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968 and it seems to be widening. This is greatly attributed to the gap in homeownership rates. In Marin County, 75% of white (non-Latinx) households own homes, while only 19.5% of Black households and 55.5% of Latinx households own homes. In 2022, 23.6% of Black and 14.9% of Latinx mortgage loan applications were denied, while only 11.7% of loans were denied for white applicants.  Additionally, homeownership rates for multiracial families in Marin County declined significantly between 2000 and 2019, while foreclosure rates continue to rise.  

 

Research has shown that minority-owned homes are also largely undervalued as compared to white-owned homes, leading to a reduction in access to credit, equity, and wealth accumulation.  The under-valuation of Black-owned homes is especially pronounced in this area, as evidenced by a landmark appraisal discrimination case that FHANC settled last year on behalf of Black homeowners in Marin City whose home was undervalued by an appraiser by nearly half a million dollars because of their race and the demographics of their neighborhood.  

 

In December 2016, Tenisha Tate-Austin and Paul Austin, a Black couple, purchased a house in Marin City, an unincorporated area in Marin County, California, and moved into their house with their children. (As of July 2019, Black residents accounted for 36% of Marin City’s population, compared to less than 3% of the county as a whole.) The couple made substantial renovations that increased the square footage of the house, upgraded many features, and began renovations on an accessory dwelling unit. They decided to refinance their mortgage in 2020. Home buyers and homeowners are generally required to have an appraisal to obtain a mortgage or refinance a mortgage.  

 

The appraiser inspected the Austins’ house and appraised it at $995,000. The Austins believed that their race and the racial demographics of Marin City played a role in the low estimate of value and requested a second appraisal. Three weeks after the first appraisal inspection, a different appraiser valued the home at $1,482,500, nearly half a million dollars higher. Between the two appraisals, the Austins erased any evidence of their racial identities inside their house, removing family photos and African-themed art. Their white friend, who replaced the Austins’ family photos with photos of her own family, was the only person present during the second inspection.  

 

The settlement agreement for the Austins’ case included an undisclosed monetary amount with additional terms, including that the appraiser agrees not to discriminate in the future, will watch the ABC documentary “Our America: Lowballed” (which features the Austins’ story); attend a training session regarding the history of segregation and real estate-related discrimination in Marin County provided by FHANC; and continue to abide by the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers’ continuing education requirements, including those outlined in California’s AB 948. 

 Conclusion 

It is essential that jurisdictions in Marin commit to addressing and undoing housing discrimination and the enduring inequities in housing, homeownership, and wealth.  The strength of the fair housing commitments made in Marin jurisdictions’ housing elements vary among the cities and towns in the county, with some jurisdictions including commitments to work toward increasingly needed tenant protections, to continue or expand fair housing education and services, and to create affordable housing.  Many advocates had pushed for stronger fair housing goals and actions to be included in these housing elements, and while the goals and actions that are included in the elements are likely not sufficient to adequately address fair housing issues in the county, they are certainly necessary steps to doing so.  Given the size and urgency of the problem, it is clear that advocates will need to closely monitor the implementation of the housing element plans, and if necessary, take action to enforce these commitments and ensure that jurisdictions are held accountable to their duty to affirmatively further fair housing in the County.