In a July 3 comment letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), LeadingAge strongly opposed the agency’s proposal to rescind regulations that promote equitable housing access through an “affirmative fair housing marketing” framework.

LeadingAge and our membership of affordable senior housing providers remain deeply committed to fair and affordable access to housing, and we stand ready to work with HUD to continue affirmative fair housing outreach to households about housing opportunities.

The agency’s current Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing (AFHM) regulations set out the rules that housing providers follow to make sure that various and differently-served racial and ethnic groups have equitable access to information about housing opportunities. The regulations require housing providers to develop a plan based on localized population data and to pursue unit marketing to those least likely to apply; the marketing also has to occur in a way that is accessible to members of those racial and ethnic groups, for example by using ads in different language or by circulating information in different kinds of publications.

The goal of the AFHM requirements is to make sure that federally-supported housing opportunities are marketing equitably across racial and ethnic groups, rather than further entrenching decades of systemic housing discrimination.

In its June 3 proposed rule, HUD gave several reasons for proposing to rescind the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing regulations; HUD also issued the proposed rule under an expedited timeframe that allowed only half as much time to respond than is usually required for these types of proposals.

LeadingAge expects HUD to move forward with the proposal despite opposition from many housing stakeholders, and we will work with members to continue upholding fair housing access.

Below is a summary of HUD’s reasonings in the proposed rule, accompanied by LeadingAge’s response.

HUD’s “Race-Neutrality” Reasoning for Proposing Rescission

HUD’s proposed rule states that the long-standing AFHM regulations are inconsistent with both the Fair Housing Act and the 1962 Executive Order 11063, which HUD says require “race neutrality.” HUD states that the current regulations require a race-based housing marketing approach, and that housing providers are required to “preference” one racial or ethnic group over another in housing-related outreach.

LeadingAge rejects the idea that the Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to be “race neutral.” Race neutrality overlooks decades of intentional, systemic discrimination that in turn requires intentional, systemic action to overcome.

In addition, we disagree that housing providers are required to preference or emphasize specific groups based on any factor other than having information about housing availability. Where the proposed rule states that housing providers are made to “favor” some racial groups over others, it is the experience of LeadingAge’s membership that the regulations actually require diligent outreach to all groups within a vicinity, including targeted outreach to groups that may otherwise not have access to the information. In essence, rather than elevating certain groups, the regulations take measures to level the playing field.

HUD’s Rational that Affirmative Fair Housing Actions are too Onerous for Housing Providers

HUD’s proposed rule also says that the AFHM requirements are “extensive,” requiring thoughtful and data-informed marketing programs and plans. The proposed rule argues that AFHM regulations essentially displace responsibility onto housing providers for helping underserved communities overcome “informational disparities” about housing availability.

The proposal states that HUD has other tools to address information disparities, and that it is inappropriate for HUD to require housing providers, without payment, to do informational outreach instead of the agency.

LeadingAge agrees with HUD that the AFHM are burdensome in their current state. However, they are not necessarily burdensome in and of themselves, but rather because HUD has not been a reliable partner in the joint effort to ensure fair housing access.

Similarly, while HUD’s proposed rule states that HUD has tools to do outreach, and that it is not fair to require housing providers to engage in fair housing-related outreach without financial compensation, HUD proposes neither to increase housing provider budgets nor for the agency to take on any of the outreach responsibility.

In the very least, LeadingAge calls on HUD to improve capacity in its fair housing operations to better partner with communities in their fair housing activities; secondly, we call on HUD to propose a streamlined approach to affirmative fair housing procedures and to reimagine its role in fair housing outreach to shift some burden from housing providers onto the agency.

HUD’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Elevating Ease of Operations

HUD states that the benefits (for households) associated with the affirmative outreach in the AFHM regulations is outweighed by the negative economic impacts (on housing providers) of the outreach requirements. Specifically, HUD states that the agency’s commitment to reducing burden on private industry “outweighs the potential downsides of eliminating the AFHM requirements, including the possibility that some racial groups will receive more information about housing opportunities than others.”

LeadingAge strongly rejects the divisive mentality that pits housing providers against housing recipients. Housing communities work together with HUD to advance housing programs and solutions; more importantly, we see HUD’s primary role as promoting an effective system of fair and affordable housing for all. Therefore, we reject the false narrative that we, as a country dedicated to systems-level solutions for fair and affordable housing, have to choose between housing that is fairly accessible and housing that is effectively administered. Our members stand ready to do both.

Read our letter to HUD here.