Fair Housing Desegregation Policy: Recent Developments and Proposed Site Selection Safe Harbors

By Scott A. Marks

The U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) recently sharpened an old tool, the Fair Housing Act, to address modern racial concentrations in housing.1 The new discriminatory effects fair housing rule extends, for example, to any practice that has the effect of reinforcing or increasing segregated housing patterns, regardless of whether motivated by intentional discrimination.2 Civil rights groups applaud the policy move as an important step in dismantling segregated housing patterns, but real estate industry groups criticize HUD for overstepping its congressional authority. Although a reinvigorated desegregation policy holds the promise of important societal benefits, the abandonment of any intent requirement in the context of a segregation claim will lead to confusion, costly litigation, and delays, especially in redeveloping substandard housing. Most of this could be prevented, however, if HUD and civil rights advocates focus holistically on segregation within a program rather than on a single project in a racially concentrated neighborhood.

In 1968, Congress charged HUD with administering its programs in a manner that affirmatively promotes fair housing, a mandate courts quickly interpreted as requiring consideration of neighborhood racial composition.3 As a result, the official desegregation policy of the federal government has been a loosely drafted and poorly enforced site and neighborhood standards regulation.4 The regulation prohibits any HUD-funded new construction site in an area of minority concentration or racially mixed area unless an exception applies.5 This traditional segregation regulation continues to be in effect and is not replaced by the new fair housing rule.

The new fair housing rule expands this race-conscious bar to any practice that creates, reinforces, perpetuates, or increases segregated housing patterns without exception.6 The rule is applicable to affordable housing programs not administered by HUD, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.7 What remains the same, however, is the focus on a single development’s neighborhood as a violation, potentially ignoring the full picture of segregation in all developments funded within a particular housing program in a city or state.

This article reviews these recent fair housing developments and proposes a desegregation safe harbor for federal, state, and local government housing programs. The safe harbor proposal tracks remedies in reported desegregation cases and assesses the racial and socioeconomic balance of all sites in a program rather than assessing a single isolated project. This safe harbor could replace the traditional neighborhood standards regulation and clarify that a segregated housing pattern applies to a program rather than to a single project’s neighborhood.

History of the HUD Neighborhood Standards

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, known as the Kerner Commission after the then-governor of Illinois, famously warned in 1968 that

[o]ur nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal. Reaction to last summer’s [1968] disorders has quickened the movement and deepened the division. Discrimination and segregation have long permeated much of American life; they now threaten the future of every American.8

In the wake of the Kerner Report and the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed the Fair Housing Act.9 The Act prohibits discrimination in housing, whether by public or private actor, and places a special duty on the federal agency charged with administering the Act.10 This special duty requires HUD to administer its programs in a manner affirmatively to further fair housing policies.11

In debating the Act, congressional leaders blamed government for causing segregation of housing programs.12 Senator Edward Brooke (R-MA), who was the first African American popularly elected to the U.S. Senate, pointed out that “an overwhelming proportion of public housing . . . in the United States—directly built, financed and supervised by the Federal government—is racially segregated.”13 Senator Walter Mondale (D-MN) explained that African Americans living in ghettos had been unable to move to suburban communities and other exclusively white areas and that an important factor in this inability “ha[d] been the policies and practices of agencies of government at all levels.”14 Quickly moving to an expansive interpretation of discriminatory housing practices, the Supreme Court held in 1972 that the Act protects not only the victim of a discriminatory housing practice, but also “the whole community.”15 A unanimous Court found in Senator Mondale’s statement of the Act’s purpose—to replace the ghettos with “truly integrated and balanced living patterns”—legislative intent to protect a nonminority tenant’s right to challenge his landlord’s discrimination against minority applicants. The tenant had been harmed by having been denied a racially integrated housing opportunity.16

Other courts ordered HUD to consider racial composition of neighborhoods to promote racial integration in the HUD programs.17 HUD adopted federal site and neighborhood standards in the early 1970s to comply with these court decisions.18 The neighborhood standards, which attracted some congressional backlash in 1980,19 evaluate neighborhoods based on racial data and are intended to screen out areas concentrated with minorities.20 Under the current standards, building in an area of minority concentration is permitted only where comparable affordable housing exists for minorities in predominately white neighborhoods or the project is necessary to meet overriding housing needs.21 Racially mixed areas also do not qualify if the proposed project would increase the proportion of minority to nonminority residents in the area.22 This approach toward racially mixed areas seeks to avoid racial tipping of neighborhoods, in which white families abandon a neighborhood after the minority percentage of the population exceeds a certain threshold.23

Problems with the Traditional Neighborhood Standards
Key Terms Are Vague

The traditional neighborhood standards are difficult to understand and implement. Many of the important terms and phrases are not defined, including “area of minority concentration” and “racially mixed area.”24 The standards refer to racially integrated neighborhoods without defining them.25 The term minority is not defined, raising the question of whether HUD considers the tipping point to be the same regardless of whether the minority involved is Asian American, Hispanic, or African American, although studies suggest that neighborhood tipping is complicated and depends on a multitude of factors.26 The undefined term minority leads to confusion in a jurisdiction with a majority minority population, such as Cameron County in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where more than 80 percent of the population is Hispanic.

Definitions were proposed for public comment in 1977, but never finalized.27 The proposed definitions delineated an area of minority concentration as an area with 40 percent or more minority population, or an area where minority residents constitute a significantly greater proportion than the proportion of minority residents of the locality as a whole.28 A racially mixed area was defined as one with less than 40 percent minority residents that displays a trend of racial transition.29 The proposed definitions were controversial and never issued as a final rule by HUD, leaving the key terms undefined.30

Recent HUD guidance has provided more exceptions to the general rule. In the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program, HUD defined “area of minority concentration” in response to frequently asked questions as

any neighborhood in which the percentage of households in a racial or ethnic minority group is (1) at least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of that minority group for the Metropolitan Statistical Area, (2) at least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of all minorities for the MSA, or (3) exceeds 50 percent of its population.31

The boundaries of a neighborhood in the HOPE VI program were also left up to the discretion of the applicant and could be as small as a census block (hundreds of people) or as large as multiple census tracts (thousands of people).32 It remains unclear whether this flexibility extends beyond the HOPE VI program to all HUD programs covered by the traditional neighborhood standards or to the new discriminatory effects segregation rule.

As a Practical Matter, the Neighborhood Standards
Do Not Prevent Segregation

A racially concentrated neighborhood is allowed if one of many exceptions applies. For example, HUD will approve funding if a neighborhood experiences significant private investment that is changing the economic character of the area. HUD also allows reconstruction on public housing sites, regardless of whether segregated, as long as no more than 50 percent of demolished units are reconstructed onsite or the number of public housing units to be reconstructed is the minimum number needed to house displaced tenants who intend to return.33 The result is that segregative site selection at the level of a single project is allowed by the project by-project review, and the standards provide no guidance on how to assess a balance of sites across an entire program in a city or state, even though the disparity between approvals in minority-concentrated neighborhoods versus predominately white areas is the focus of courts in judging segregation violations.34 The site and neighborhood standards, reflecting congressional ambivalence, fail to address the problem.35

2013 Discriminatory Effects Desegregation Rule

The new discriminatory effects segregation rule represents a significant expansion of the traditional neighborhood standards. The old standards apply to new construction projects funded with HUD housing programs, but the new rule covers any “practice” with the effect of reinforcing or increasing a segregated housing pattern. Practices may include state housing finance agency qualified allocation plans for the housing tax credit program, even though HUD does not administer the tax credit program.36 The terms practice and segregated housing pattern are potentially broad enough to include a single project in a minority-concentrated area. Such an interpretation would mean that the new rule would simply replace the old flexible neighborhood standards with a less-flexible rule that makes no exceptions for overriding housing need. If interpreted so broadly, constitutional limits on race-conscious affirmative action could constrain the rule.37

The new rule also expands the classes protected from segregation with potentially unforeseen consequences. Although the traditional neighborhood standards protect racial minorities, the new standards apply to segregated housing patterns on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. The term segregation has a different cultural and legal significance when applied to protected classes other than racial minorities. Would HUD find women’s dormitories and residential schools for the deaf to be violations of the Act because they segregate based on sex or disability?

Texas Housing Tax Credit Program Fair Housing Decision

A case cited by HUD in its notice of the new discriminatory effects rule is the Texas housing tax credit program fair housing federal court decision.38 In Texas, a federal district court recently ruled that the state housing finance agency’s allocations of housing tax credits to minority neighborhoods, while not motivated by racial intent, had an unlawful disparate impact.39 The disparate impact was that the state agency from 1999 to 2008 approved tax credits for 49.7 percent of proposed nonelderly units in up to 9.9 percent Caucasian areas, but only approved 37.4 percent in 90 percent to 100 percent Caucasian areas. The court found that more than 92 percent of all housing tax credit apartments in Dallas were located in census tracts with less than 50 percent Caucasian residents.40

The state offered as justifications for the disparate impact the 130 percent basis boost economic incentive in federal law to build in qualified census tracts, which are often minority-concentrated, and mandatory housing tax credit application scoring criteria required by state law.41 The court found the state’s justifications, although legitimate, did not justify the disparate impact because less-discriminatory alternatives were available in the qualified allocation plan’s application scoring scheme that would still comply with the federal tax credit statute and the mandatory scoring requirements in state law.42 The remedial measures include a ban on sites in undesirable areas such as neighborhoods with a locally known presence of gang activity, prostitution, drug trafficking, or other significant criminal activity that rises to the level of frequent police reports. The remedy encourages sites located in neighborhoods based on an Opportunity Index that rates census tracts based on low poverty, high income, and the presence of an elementary school that is rated exemplary or recognized by the Texas Education Agency.43 Neighborhood opposition to a tax credit application—a scoring item in Texas because of state legislation—can be challenged and disregarded if it is contrary to local government findings or determinations, including zoning determinations. The state housing finance agency will annually conduct a disparate impact analysis of its qualified allocation plan including the geographic distribution of approved sites, and the court will monitor the state’s progress for five years.44 The district court’s decision has been appealed.

Proposed Site Selection Safe Harbors

The traditional HUD neighborhood standards and the new fair housing segregation rule share a common theme by focusing on the individual project’s neighborhood rather than a housing program. In contrast, courts have had to assess perpetuation-of-segregation claims in the context of evaluating entire programs’ success or failure at integration.45 In the cases that find a single project to violate the Act, the context is generally exclusionary zoning, and the challenge is to a city’s refusal to allow construction of low-income housing in a predominately white neighborhood where evidence suggests it is because of race.46 The Fair Housing Act prohibits making unavailable or denying dwellings because of race; a city with an exclusionary zoning policy violates this law by making housing unavailable.47 In contrast, if HUD blocks a project or orders its demolition, HUD is the one potentially making the housing unavailable because of race.48 In other words, HUD’s authority to block a project, consistent with the text and legislative history of the Act, arguably exists only if the project would otherwise be part of a segregated program, in which case its obligation is to be aware of the segregation and to block the project.49

So-called safe harbors have been used by the federal government in other contexts involving complex factors, including by the IRS to permit nonprofit housing organizations to qualify as charitable 501(c)(3) organizations.50 HUD can reduce segregation and eliminate confusion over its new segregation rule by proposing safe harbors, essentially best practice model site selection policies that are easily understood and implemented. If a local jurisdiction chooses not to adopt a safe harbor policy, liability under the Act when a claim is filed will be determined by a facts-and-circumstances fair housing segregation analysis.

One possible approach toward a safe harbor is to require no more than a certain percentage of sites in a program to be located in areas of minority concentration. This race-conscious approach is consistent with the traditional HUD neighborhood standards, but with a focus on the program rather than on each project’s neighborhood composition. The goal could be applied to a specified period of time such as an annual funding round. Because this type of safe harbor proposal is race-conscious, however, it is potentially vulnerable to constitutional challenge as affirmative action that is not narrowly tailored to a legally sufficient governmental interest.51

A safer approach toward safe harbors is to follow the example in the Texas tax credit case remedial order and encourage sites based on socioeconomic factors. High-opportunity area could be defined, as in the remedial order,52 in race-neutral terms based on an opportunity index of low poverty, high income, and school quality. A race-neutral term such as “high-opportunity area” may be more likely to survive judicial challenge, while potentially generating the same geographic outcomes as vulnerable race-based standards. Because it may be difficult to find enough sites in high-opportunity areas that are economically feasible for affordable housing development, the targeted percentage could be stated as a goal, similar to minority-business enterprise goals in federally funded construction, with flexibility to approve fewer sites after good faith outreach efforts to neighborhoods.

The targeted percentage or ratio would be based on the percentage of high-opportunity areas in a jurisdiction. The appropriate geographic boundaries for a high-opportunity area could be flexible, ranging from a small elementary school attendance zone to a census tract. For example, if a city has ten census tracts and three are high-opportunity according to an opportunity index of poverty, income, and school quality, the safe harbor would be for at least 30 percent of affordable housing constructed in that city each year to be built in a high-opportunity area. A more difficult question may be the size of the jurisdiction.53

A separate safe harbor should be announced for the public housing program, consistent with current regulations, allowing no more than 50 percent of new units onsite or the minimum number to house residents who intend to return to the site. Lawsuits challenging HOPE VI redevelopment plans slowed down implementation of that program, delaying badly needed housing opportunities for years. For example, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) entered into a fair housing settlement agreement in the late 1990s with public housing residents to provide more replacement housing units onsite at Cabrini-Green than originally planned.54 CHA appealed when a federal court objected to the settlement agreement; a year later, the appellate court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.55 During this time-consuming litigation, families waited for desperately needed replacement public housing. The confusion over civil rights obligations in public housing will only be exacerbated by the new prohibition on any practice with the effect of reinforcing segregation unless clear safe harbors are announced.

One of the great advantages of focusing on programs rather than projects is that it will actually work to prevent segregation, unlike the traditional HUD review of each site’s neighborhood without regard to overall program concentration. In a time of limited federal funds, the safe harbors could eliminate the need for HUD to review every new construction project for neighborhood concentration. This review currently adds months to development timelines and delays construction of badly needed housing. Review at the program level could take less time, especially if the goal is objective, quantifiable, and administered primarily by local agencies. State and local government housing agencies that adopt one of these safe harbor goals should be deemed as affirmatively furthering fair housing, and will thereby reduce their exposure to a fair housing desegregation lawsuit or HUD fair housing complaint. Beyond fair housing compliance, policy reasons for de-concentration of affordable housing include the importance of a good education and job networks as part of an antipoverty strategy.

Focusing on programs can also present challenges. One challenge is determining the programs that are appropriate for fair housing and safe harbor guidance. The largest affordable housing development programs, including low-income housing tax credits and the HOME program, should be included, but smaller programs such as Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS should be exempt. The most serious challenge to program review is the potential for heavy HUD oversight of state housing finance agency housing tax credit allocations. Tax credit development should not be delayed for months while the federal government determines whether sites reinforce segregated housing patterns. One of the distinguishing features of the tax credit program that has earned critical political support is its speed in generating new housing, and the program cannot afford delays inherent in intrusive federal oversight. To address the federalism concern, state and local agencies should take the lead in setting safe harbor goals and enforcing them. HUD can encourage this type of partnership in safe harbor guidance.

The federal government has announced an intention to push aggressively to replace segregated neighborhoods with “truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”56 Government agencies and the private sector will more easily promote desegregation if fair housing safe harbors are adopted. By focusing on programs, not specific housing developments, these safe harbors could steer future funding decisions toward high opportunity neighborhoods and reduce concentration in affordable housing programs.

Scott A. Marks is a director in the Austin office of Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C.

1. Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 11460 (Feb. 15, 2013), available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf.
2. Id. at 11464.
3. Shannon v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1970).
4. 24 C.F.R. § 983.6(b) (“Site and neighborhood standards”).
5. Id. § 983.6(b)(3) (“The site must not be located in an area of minority concentration, except as permitted under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, and must not be located in a racially mixed area if the project will cause a significant increase in the proportion of minority to non-minority residents in the area.”).
6. Implementation of Discriminatory Effects Standard, 78 Fed. Reg., supra note 1, at 11463.
7. Id. at 11476.
8. REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CIVIL DISORDERS (KERNER REPORT) (1968), available at www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf (summary of report). See also U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., History of Fair Housing, HUD.GOV, available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/history (last visited Mar. 26, 2013).
9. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619.2.
10. Id. § 3604 (“Discrimination in the Sale or Rental of Housing and Other Prohibited Practices”).
11. Id. § 3608 (“Administration”).
12. 114 CONG. REC. 2281 (1968). See also THE FUTURE OF FAIR HOUSING: REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (Dec. 2008), available at http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/fairhousing/affirmatively.html.
13. 114 CONG. REC., supra note 12, at 2527–28.
14. Id. at 2277 (“Today’s Federal housing official commonly inveighs against the evils of ghetto life even as he pushes buttons that ratify their triumph—even as he okays public housing sites in the heart of Negro slums, releases planning and urban renewal funds to cities dead-set against integration, and approves the financing of suburban subdivisions from which Negroes will be barred . . . . In other words, our Government, unfortunately, has been sanctioning discrimination in housing throughout this Nation.”).
15. Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211 (1972) (“The person on the landlord’s blacklist is not the only victim of discriminatory housing practices; it is, as Senator Javits said in supporting the bill, ‘the whole community,’ and as Senator Mondale who drafted § 810(a) said, the reach of the proposed law was to replace the ghettos ‘by truly integrated and balanced living patterns.’ ”) (citations omitted).
16. Id. at 210 (citing 114 CONG. REC. 3422).
17. Shannon v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 436 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1970); Garrett v. City of Hamtramck, 503 F.2d 1236, 1247 (6th Cir. 1974); Graves v. Romney, 502 F.2d 1062 (8th Cir. 1974); Blackshear Residents Org. v. Hous. Auth. of Austin, 347 F. Supp. 1138, 1145–49 (W.D. Tex. 1972).
18. 24 C.F.R. § 983.6 (“Site and Neighborhood Standards”); see also Steven Lev, HUD Site and Neighborhood Selection Standards: An Easing of Placement Restrictions, 22 URB. L. ANN. 199, 201 (1981).
19. 42 U.S.C. § 1436b (“Financial Assistance in Impacted Areas”) (prohibiting HUD from rejecting sites in certain housing programs solely because they are in an impacted area).
20. 24 C.F.R. § 983.6.
21. Id. § 983.6(b)(3)(ii)(B).
22. Id. § 983.6(b)(3)(i).
23. Burney v. Hous. Auth. of County of Beaver, 551 F. Supp. 746, 757–58 (W.D. Pa. 1982) (citing John M. Goering, Neighborhood Tipping and Racial Transition: A Review of Social Science Evidence, 44 AM. INST. OF PLANNERS J. 68 (1978)); Bruce L. Ackerman, Integration for Subsidized Housing and the Question of Racial Occupancy Controls,
26 STAN. L. REV. 245, 251–60 (1974).
24. 24 C.F.R. § 983.6 (“Site and Neighborhood Standards”).
25. Id. § 983.6(b)(3)(iii)(C)(3).
26. Ackerman, supra note 23, at 302–03.
27. Neighborhood Standards for Subsidized Newly Constructed or Substantially Rehabilitated Housing, 42 Fed. Reg. 4296 ( Jan. 24, 1977).
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Michael Vernarelli, Where Should HUD Locate Assisted Housing? The Evolution of Fair Housing Policy, in HOUSING DESEGREGATION AND FEDERAL POLICY (John M. Goering ed., 1986).
31. FY 2005 HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Set #1, A-9.
32. Id.
33. 24 C.F.R. § 941.202 (“Site and Neighborhood Standards”).
34. Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1971); Clients Council v. Pierce, 711 F.2d 1406 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 624 F. Supp. 1276 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
35. Stacy Seicshnaydre, How Government Housing Perpetuates Racial Segregation: Lessons from Post-Katrina New Orleans, 60 CATH. L. REV. 661 (2011).
36. Implementation of Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard, 76 Fed. Reg. 70925 (Nov. 16, 2011) (citing Inclusive Cmty. Project, Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs, 749 F. Supp. 2d 486 (N.D. Tex. 2010)).
37. Walker v. City of Mesquite, 169 F.3d 973 (5th Cir. 1999); Ackerman, supra note 23, at 270–303.
38. Implementation of Discriminatory Effects Standard, 76 Fed. Reg., supra note 36, at 70925.
39. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110075, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2012).
40. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs, 749 F. Supp. 2d 486, 499 (N.D. Tex. 2010).
41. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs, 860 F. Supp. 2d 312, 323–326 (N.D. Tex. 2012).
42. Id. at 325.
43. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110075, at *2.
44. Id. at *15.
45. Arthur v. City of Toledo, 782 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1986); Young v. Pierce, 640 F. Supp. 1476, 1479–81 (E.D. Tex. 1986); Anderson v. City of Alpharetta, 737 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1984).
46. Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987); Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. St. Bernard Parish, 641 F. Supp. 2d 563
(E.D. La. 2008).
47. 42 U.S.C. § 3604.
48. Thompson v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 348 F. Supp. 2d 398 (D. Md. 2005); Jones v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 390 F. Supp. 579 (E.D. La. 1974).
49. Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Auth., 448. F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1971); Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 858 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir. 1988); Young v. Pierce, 628 F. Supp. 1037, 1055 n.9 (E.D. Tex. 1985) (“Oh foolish people, and without understanding: which have eyes and see not; which have ears, and hear not,” quoting 5 Jeremiah 21).
50. IRS Rev. Proc. 96-32.
51. Walker v. City of Mesquite, 169 F.3d 973 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding raceconscious site selection court order not to be narrowly tailored to eliminate effects of past discrimination); Philip Tegeler, The Future of Race-Conscious Goals in National Housing Policy, in PUBLIC HOUSING AND THE LEGACY OF SEGREGATION (Margery Austin Turner et al. eds., Urb Inst. Press 2009); see generally Ackerman, supra note 23.
52. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110075, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2012).
53. Philip R. Tegeler, Housing Segregation and Local Discretion, 3 J.L. & POL’Y 204, 209 (1994); Seicshnaydre, supra note 35, at 1015.
54. Cabrini-Green Advisory Council v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 625 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 1997).
55. Gautreaux v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 178 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 1999).
56. Implementation of Discriminatory Effects Standard, 78 Fed. Reg., supra note 1, at 11469.

Posted in Publications and Alerts
Locations

Houston

9 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1100
Houston, Texas 77046
Phone: 713.651.0111
Fax: 713.651.0220
Toll Free: 800.535.2701

Dallas

14755 Preston Road
Suite 600
Dallas, Texas 75254
Phone: 972.788.1600
Fax: 972.702.0662

Austin

901 South Mopac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste. 500
Austin, Texas 78746
Phone: 512.469.7987
Fax: 512.469.9408
Toll Free: 855.679.6763

 

San Antonio

1020 Northeast Loop 410, Ste. 800
San Antonio, Texas 78209
Phone: 210.224.7098
Fax: 210.212.5698
Toll Free: 800.862.5079

New Orleans

365 Canal Street, Ste. 800
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Phone: 504.299.3070
Fax: 504.299.3071
Toll Free: 888.435.8214

Cincinnati

PNC Center
201 E. 5th Street
Suite 1810
Cincinnati, OH 45202