HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-15-2008-3dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 15, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. 3 - C~
SUBJECT Presentation on Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Report
DEPARTMENT: Human Rights and Relations/ PUBIC HEARING: (YIN) No
Housing and Community
Development
ATTACHMENT: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shoshannah Smith, 960-3877.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Tara t_. Fikes, 245-2490
Report (Under Separate Cover)
PURPOSE: To allow Donald B. Eager & Associates, LLC to present a report on the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice study commissioned by the BOCC on May 16, 2006.
BACKGROUND: In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
announced that entitlement communities -those communities that receive direct federal funding
from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership and
Emergency Shelter Grant programs -are required to conduct a study of existing barriers to
housing choice. The required study is referred to as the "Analysis of Impediments" and is part of
entitlement communities' consolidated planning process.
In early 2006 as part of HUD's increased focus on fair housing enforcement, HUD required all
agencies representing entitlement communities and any corresponding Fair Housing Assistance
Programs (FHAP), such as the Office of Human Rights and Relations, to attend a day long fair
housing and analysis of impediments meeting. At .that meeting, HUD informed entitlement
agencies that the Fair Housing Enforcement Organization (FHEO) at HUD would be monitoring
their efforts at affirmatively furthering fair housing through updated analysis of impediments and
records of efforts taken to reduce or eliminate identified impediments.
Analysis of Impediments
The purpose of the "Analysis of Impediments" is to examine how state and local laws and
private public and non-profit sector regulations, administrative policies, procedures, and
practices impact the location, availability and accessibility of housing in a given area. The
Analysis of Impediments is not a Fair Housing Plan, rather it examines the current state
of fair housing choice and identifies specific barriers that need to be addressed if future
fair housing initiatives are to be successful.
2
Orange County
Orange County's Analysis of Impediments includes an analysis of pertinent census data, prior
and current activities to promote fair housing, private market issues that impact sale and rental
of housing such as business location, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data analysis
and a review of public policies which affect the provision of fair housing. The County's Analysis
of Impediments includes data pertaining to all municipalities and the unincorporated areas of the
County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. The BOCC has already authorized the contract for production of
the report. The HUD Partnership Initiative Grant received by the Office of Human Rights and
Relations completely covers the cost of the contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends that the Board receive the "Analysis of
Impediments" report and approve it. Staff notes that there are several instances in the report
where the use of the term "race" as opposed to "ethnicity" may not be appropriate. Staff will
work with the consultant to resolve the appropriate use of these designations.
ANALYSIS OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR
HOUSING CHOICE
i ~ t~~,y
'~'
o
~ ti rv
r . Y' r
,~~: Y ~
y
l' ~ _}- ~+
N /
~
~
~~ t ~~ Y t~
1`-
mi u "
- '~ '
-
€- s
'
~
_ y;. ~
~ ~ ~ , 'SQL i`Y „- _.,
~ :
.~~ :.
~--
r
%
,
i'r+l I
F,~. '~
~~
_. _ _ _ _
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ANALYSIS OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
CHOICE 2007
;`G
-:^-::
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RELATIONS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
P re~pa red by
Dona~c~ B. Ewer 8z Associates
202 Scenic Dr N E
Lancaster, Ohio 43~ ~f 30
800-850-0467
www.~beager.com
~eagerC~~beager.com
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................2
2.0 FAIR HOUSING AND THE COMMUNITY ......................................................................... ..2
2.1 Why Fair Housing is Important to the Community .............................................. .. 2
2.2 The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) ................................. .. 3
3.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY ................................................... .. 3
3.1 Location and Size of the Community ......:............................................................ ..4
3.2 Minorities ............................................................................................................. .. 4
3.3 Gender ................................................................................................................ .. 6
3.4 Disability Status ................................................................................................... ..6
3.5 Income Characteristics....:: .................................................................................. ..6
4.0 HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... .:7
4.1 Housing Affordability ........................................................................................... ..7
5.0 LOCAL FAIR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ...........................:.................... 11
6.0 PURPOSE AND PARAMETERS OF COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ............................ 12
6.1 Sub-Prime and Predatory Lending ..................................................................... 12
6.2 Payday Loans, Title Loans Locations as Predatory ........................................... 13
6.3 Orange County Lending ..................................................................................... 14
6.4 Analysis ............................................................................................................... 14
6.5 Mortgage Activity Orange County ....................................................................... 15
6.7 Government Backed Applications ....................................................................... 16
6.8 Refinancing and Home Improvement Activity ....................................................:. 16
6.9 Conventional Home Purchase ............................................................................. 18
6.10 Conventional Home Purchase -Race ................................................................. 19
6.11 Conventional Home Purchase -Applicant Income .............................................. 19
6.12 Lending Based on Race and Income ........................:......................................... 18
7.0 COMMUNITY ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 21
7.1 Community Survey .............................................................................................. 21
8.0 ADVERTISING .................................................................................................................. 25
8.1 Statutes and Regulatory Language ..................................................................... 25
8.2 Analysis of advertising ......................................................................................... 30
9.0 ZONING ............................................................................................................................. 32
9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 32
9.2 Local Review of Zoning Codes ..............................................................:............. 33
10.0 INSURANCE REDLINING ................................................................................................. 34
10.1 Rating Practices ....................................................................................................: 35
10.2 Credit-Scoring ........................................................................................................ 36
10.3 Recent Lawsuits ..................................................................................................... 37
10.4 Location of Agents ................................................................................................. 37
10.5 Lack of Reporting Requirements ............................................................................ 38
11.0 CONC LUSIONS, IMPEDMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 38
11.1 NIMBY Issues ........................................................................................................ 38
11.2 Predatory Lending .................................................................................................. 39
11.3 Lending Issues ....................................................................................................... 40
11.4 Real Estate Issues ................................................................................................. 41
11.5 Affordable Rental Housing ..................................................................................... 41
11.6 Zoning Issues ......................................................................................................... 42
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) in Orange County is part of a
comprehensive program developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to assure that communities are meeting requirements "to affirmatively further fair
housing" as set forth in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The goal is
to identify obstacles to fair housing and provide recommendations for lowering or removing
them.
"Fair housing" ensures that all citizens and non-citizens of the United States can live where they
want and where they can afford without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, religion
or because of disability or children in the family. Federal and state laws broadly cover the
appraising, renting, selling/buying, financing and insuring of housing, and any other related
transactions. The right to fair housing is protected locally by the Orange County Civil Rights
Ordinance, and is supported through hundreds of state agency cases, and court and
administrative actions on every level.
It is important that each community guarantee its current and future residents that they will be
able to live where they want and can afford. The cost of maintaining an effective fair housing
program can be funded through state and federal resources, including Community Development
Block Grant funds. Exhibit 1 provides important questions related to determining impediments to
fair housing.
2.0 FAIR HOUSING AND THE COMMUNITY
2.1 Why Fair Housing is Important to the Community
Housing discrimination tears at the fabric of the community. The consequences of housing
discrimination include:
• Denial of housing in the area of choice and perpetuation of other housing problems
• Emotional harm and financial loss
• Denial of quality of an integrated community and associations
• Lack of access to expanding job opportunities in the suburbs
• Fewer choices of schools
• Negative attitudes toward the community
• Loss of cultural diversity
• Financial loss to the community through lost business opportunities
A good way to recognize an impediment is to ask some simple questions:
1. How does the rental market treat families with children, especially single parents,
minorities and other protected classes?
2
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 tY,
2. What access do individuals with physical or mental disabilities have to housing?
3. Are regulations designed in a way that limits access to housing for protected classes?
4. What image does the community convey to the outside world? Are the models used to
market the community representative of all races?
5. Do some areas within the community have a reputation that would discourage low- to-
moderate-income persons or protected classes from attempting to live there?
6. With the pressure of a growing urban area, are minorities or low-to-moderate- income
persons unable to consider significant areas in their housing search because there is no
affordable housing?
7. Are any potential homeowners eliminating some affordable areas of the community
because they would not be able to refinance or obtain adequate homeowner's
insurance?
S. Are some affordable areas of the community eliminated because there is inadequate
access by public transportation?
The perception that fair housing laws are only meant for minorities is misguided. Fair housing
regulations protect every citizen and non-citizen of the United States, regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, religion, familial status (presence of children) or disability. These categories
are known as protected classes. The fact that a community has a small minority population does
not mean there aren't possible impediments to fair housing within their borders.
It is important for the County to consider fair housing law as a guaranteed protection for all
people. Only then can the community help its residents share in an important part of the
American Dream-living where they choose, without regard to factors that may negatively
impact upon them because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status or
disability.
2.2 The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
The County has already completed an important part of its review of the community through the
development of its Consolidated Plan, for Housing Activities. The AI will assist in developing a
Fair Housing Action Plan that will be a cooperative part of the Comprehensive Plan as required
by the Community Development Block Grant Program.
This analysis helps develop an ongoing process for identifying fair housing concerns and
problems in the County. It is also useful in developing a means to inform the citizens of the
community about their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
3.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE FOR OR~4NGE COUNTY
The AI includes:
• Demographic and economic profiles of the community
• Activities and issues concerning the local housing industry
• Local lenders, zoning and housing regulations
3
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
• Current fair housing programs
• Impediments to fair housing choice
Notes and Appendices:
Information and data for this report was taken from the Housing and Community Development
Consolidated Plan 2005-2010, prepared for Orange County Community Development, so the
data in both reports is consistent. Information used is footnoted.
The analysis was conducted for the Orange County Office of Human Rights and Relations and
the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department by Donald B. Eager and
Associates, LLC, (Consultants).
It should be noted that the boundaries for individual census tracts in Orange County between
the years 1990 and 2000 may differ. In addition, for the purposes of this report, Orange County
contains the following census tracts: 107.01, .02, .03, .04, 108.01, .102, 109, 110, 111.01, .02,
112.01, .02, .03, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121 and 122'. It also includes the communities of
Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Carrboro, and' Mebane. Where possible we have segmented the
report to address Orange County as a whole and the individual communities.
3.1 Location and Size of the Community
Orange County is well known for its rich history, outstanding educational and employment
opportunities, and diverse and friendly citizens. Nestled in the hills of the North Carolina
Piedmont, Orange County is located strategically between the Research Triangle Park and the
Triad cities of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point. With more than 100,000 citizens,
Orange County includes historic Hillsborough, the County seat, Chapel Hill, home of the
University of North Carolina, and Carrboro, a former railroad and mill town.2
Orange County lies on the western edge of the Research Triangle area, which is anchored by
UNC-Chapel Hill, North Carolina Central University, North Carolina State University, and Duke
University. Research Triangle Park is home to leading technology companies and institutions,
including IBM, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Nortel, Cisco Systems, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.3
The County encompasses rolling farms and dairy land, vital urban areas and graceful historic
sites. Orange County combines the best of small town living with an abundance of social and
cultural resources, and easy access to major metropolitan areas. It offers a quality of life that is
the pride of long-time residents and an attraction for newcomers of all ages.4
3.2 Race
Orange County's population increased more than 25% between 1990 and 2000, from 93,662 to
118,227. The County is expected to experience continued growth through 2010, with the
population increasing 19% to 140,750 (see Table 3-1). Most of the County's population is
centered in Chapel Hill (46,798 in 2000). The areas experiencing the most rapid growth are
4
® .
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
Carrboro and Hillsborough. Even so, 65% of Chapel Hill's population growth during this period
has been from annexation. It is estimated that 32% of Chapel Hill's population consists of
students enrolled at the University of North Carolina.
Table 3.1 shows the total population of Orange County for 2000 by jurisdiction.
Chart 3.1: Populat+on Orange County 2000
120,000
~ 1 a, 227
100,000
80, 000
60, 000
40,000 ~~ .(48,715 ~ .
40,000
20, 000
1678 5,446 7,2$4
__. ''
0 - _~
U Orange County '~ ~ Chapel Hill
Carraboro ~ Hillsborough
Mebane ~ Remainder
The racial composition of Orange County is changing dramatically. Since 1990, the percentage
of White and Black citizens is declining, while all other races have increased in number and as a
percentage of the total population:
The White population has increased 21.6% to 92,272 (78% of the total population).
The Black population has increased 9.4% to 16,298 (13.8% of the total population).
The Hispanic community is growing most dramatically, increasing 312.3% between 1990 and
2000, from 1,279 to 5,273 by 2000, representing 4.5% of the total population.
The Asian population grew 105.2% during the same period, making up 4.1 % of the total
population.5
In the Town of Chapel Hill, the racial composition is predominantly White and Black with those
groups comprising 78% and 11 % of the population respectively. Asian and Pacific Islanders and
persons of Hispanic origin comprise substantially smaller population segments; however, these
two groups have been increasing at the highest rates
5
® .
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
Chart 3.2 shows the racial population for Orange County by jurisdiction for 2000.
ar - ac~a opu anon
---
i
,,,
_-, --
~~ ~i
_..
White Black Asian Hispanic
i~ Orange County I;~ ,Chapel Hill
Hillsborough ~ ] Carrboro
3.3 Gender
Census data shows that women slightly outnumber men in the County. The percentage of
women dropped slightly from 52.6% (62,189) in 2000 to 51.8% (55,970) in 2005. The male
population grew during the same period from 47.4% (56,038) to 48.2% (52,134).
3.4 Disability Status
About 18 percent of the County's population is considered disabled (Table 3.2), excluding those
in correctional institutions, college dormitories or military quarters.
Table 3.2 shows the disability status within the Orange County as of 2000.
Table 3.2: Disability Status 2000
5-15 .
i
16-64
65.AND
TOTAL ',
!
__
OLDER
Males & Females w/ disabilities 355 5,426 2,086 7,867
non-institutionalized
of Total Population* 0.30 12.4 4.8 18.0
3.5 Income Characteristics
In 2004 the estimated median family income in Chapel Hill was more than $86,000.10. In 2004,
the median household income for Orange County was $69,800. This represents a 49% increase
in median income from 1994, and an 11 % increase since 1999. The area experienced an
annual increase in median income every year except 2003 (-2.1 %) and 2004 (no change).
6
®.
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
Orange County's median income is about 20% higher than the state's and 21 % higher than the
nation's.
In terms of per capita income, Orange County ranks fourth among all counties in North Carolina
and third among counties in the Triangle region, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
4.0 HOUSING
In 1990, the total number of housing units in Orange County was 38,683. During the next
decade, inventory increased by 27.4% to 49,289 units.
The number of owner-occupied units increased by 32.4%, representing more than half of all
housing units in Orange County.' In Chapel Hill, owner-occupied housing represented 43% of
all occupied units in 2000, a higher percentage than in 1990 (41 %) and 1980 (42%)..
Overall, the percentage of owner-occupied housing rose 32.4% (6,452 units) between 1990
and 2000. The largest increases were seen in the percentage of three- or four-unit housing
(124.4%), one-unit detached (39.4%), five or more units (27.9%) and one-unit attached (24.4%).
The majority (80.2%) of the County's owner-occupied housing is single-family detached.
Most of the inventory (68.7%) was built between 1960 and 1994; almost 13% (6,362 units) was
built between 1995 and 2000. The remaining inventory was built before 1950.
Rental housing is generally older than owner-occupied housing, with almost 63% built before
1980 compared to 45.7% of owner-occupied housing. The median year is 1975.
4.1 Housing Affordability
The commonly accepted standard~of affordability, developed by the. National Low-Income .
Housing Coalition (LISC), is a housing expense at or below 30 percent of total income. s
North Carolina
According to a study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) on housing
affordability, in North Carolina the fair market rent (FMR) for atwo-bedroom apartment is
$656.00. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of
income on housing, a household must earn $2,186 monthly or $26,237 annually. Assuming a
40-hour week, 52 weeks per year, that means a housing wage of $12.61 per hour.
In North Carolina, the mean (average) wage for a renter is $11.05 an hour. In order to afford the
FMR for atwo-bedroom apartment at this wage, a renter must work 46 hours per week, 52
weeks a year. Or, working 40 hours per week year round, a household must include 1.1 workers
earning the mean renter wage in order to make thetwo-bedroom FMR affordable.
7
A
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
Monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for an individual are $603 in North
Carolina. If SSI represents an individual's sole source of income, 181 % in monthly rent is
affordable, while the FMR for a one bedroom is $573.
Orange County Rentals
Rental units consist of a combination of single-family homes (attached or detached), various
types of small complexes (one to four units) and larger apartment developments (five or more
units). The Census Bureau classifies units as renter-occupied if they are not owner-occupied,
whether they are rented for cash or not.
Apartment developments with five or more units represent 52.9% of the County's renter-
occupied housing. Almost one-quarter (24.0%) of the remaining rental units are single-family
units (attached or detached), 16.2% are two-to-four-family units. The balance is made up of
mobile homes or other types of housing.
Gross rents (rent plus utility expenses) range between $500 and $899 for most of the rental
housing (55.6%) in Orange County. Less than one-quarter of all rental units (22.1 %) have gross
rents below $500. The median gross rent for 2000 is $684
The FMRs for Orange County (Table 6) increased an average of 2% per year since 1996, but
the rate of increase slowed dramatically in recent years. The annual increase between 2001 and
2002 was 3%; by 2004 it dropped to 0.4%.
Table 7 -Fair Market Rents 2006/2007 -Orange County
>Bedcooms FMR Rents
Zero-Bedroom ' ' $511
One-Bedroom $700
Two=Bedroom $785
Three'-Bedroom $1;026
Four-Bedroom $1,'106 >
Orange County's 2006 Area Median Income (AMI) was $61,000 annually. Thirty percent of AMI
is $18,150. But estimated median income for Orange County renter households was half as
much at $30,0009.
Using a mean renter wage of $9.08 an hour, workers earning this amount could afford $472 in
monthly rents. The County's minimum hourly wage is $5.15, meaning that renters earning this
amount could afford a rent of $268. Renters earning SSI yield $603 per month, putting
affordable rent at $181.
Since an hourly wage of $9.83 is required to pay rent on a studio apartment, most hourly
workers in the County are priced out of larger units. It's estimated that 52% of renters would be
unable to afford atwo-bedroom apartment at FMR. The maximum affordable monthly housing
8
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
costs by percent of AMI are higher for Orange County than for North Carolina as a whole.
(Tables 8-12)
In order to afford the FMR for atwo-bedroom apartment, a renter must work 66 hours pef week,
52 weeks a year. Or, working 40 hours per week year round, a household must include 1.7
workers earning the mean renter wage in order to make the two-bedroom FMR affordable.
A minimum wage renter would have to work 117 hours a week, 52 weeks a year to afford the
FMR for atwo-bedroom apartment. Or, working 40 hours a week year round, a household must
include 2.9 workers earning minimum wage to afford atwo-bedroom FMR apartment.
Table 8 -.Maximum Affordable Monthly Housing Costs by % Family AMI
'':% Area'Median
Income Affordable Housing
Costs
30% $463
>50% $771
''80% '' $1,234
`100% '' $1,543
Table 9 -Annual Income Needed to Afford FMR -Orange County
__
Bedroom Size
Annual.Income
::Zero-Bedroom $20,440:,
'One-Bedroom $28,000
Two-Bedroom $31;400.
Three' Bedroom $41;200
>sFour-Bedroom $44;200
Table 10 -Percent of Family AMI Needed to Afford FMR
Bedroom Size % of Family AM1
`Zero-Bedroom 33%
'One'-Bedroom 45%
':Two'-Bedroom 51
Three-Bedroom 67%
Four-Bedroom 72%
9
. Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
g tY~
Table 11 -Housing Wage -Orange County
:::;Bedroom Size Hourly Wage
>Zero-Bedroom ' $9:83
>One-Bedroom $13.46
Two-Bedroom $15.10
Three'-Bedroom $19.73
'Four-Bedroom $21:27
Table 12 -Housing Wage as Percent of Minimum Wage
Bedroom Size % of`Mtnimum Wage
'Zero-Betlroom 191%
'One-Bedroom 261
Two-Bedroom 293%
Three-Bedroom 383%
Four-Bedroom 413%
Orange County -Mortgage
Between 1998 and 2003, more than 45% of new and existing homes for sale in Orange County
were priced at $250,000 or higher, the most rapidly growing segment of the market. In 2003, the
average purchase price of a home in Orange County rose from about $261,895 to $280,592.
Housing in the Chapel Hill area is currently among the most expensive in the Triangle region.
Since 2000, the average purchase price has increased 22.4%, to $320,913.
During the same 5-year period, sales of units priced below $120,000 (mostly condominiums and
town homes) declined. By 2004,_ 20% of homes sold for less than $160,000, down from 29% in
2002. The increase in high-priced homes and decrease in lower-priced homes reduced the
availability of more-affordable inventory.
Based on the countywide average sale price of $280,592, a home buyer would have to earn
$5,533 a month or $65,396 annually to fund a $1660 monthly mortgage payment. This figure
represents 30 percent of monthly income and does not include taxes, insurance or any other
debt.
Occupations and Affordability
To illustrate the link between wages and housing affordability, the Consultant analyzed 30
occupations and ownership of an average-priced Orange County home during 2006. The
occupations selected represent jobs held by local workers that pay traditional wages. A
10
. Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 tY~
complete listing of the 2006 Metropolitan Area Occupation Employment and Wage Estimates is
included in the Appendix to this report.
Using the 10 largest employment groups as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the
Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2006, we can gain reliable insight into how much housing
expense workers in various occupations can afford.
The most populated occupations, Office and Administrative Support Occupations and Sales and
Related Occupations, are among the lowest in terms of mean hourly wage and mean annual
wage, $15.11/$31,430 and $15.84/$32,940.'
Based on the LISC 30% standard, employees in these occupations would require at least two
incomes to purchase an affordable home (Graph 4.1). Only five occupations can afford to own a
home on a single income: Management, Computer/Math, Science, Business/Financial and
Architects/Engineers. Accountants, bookkeepers, truck drivers, computer operators, executive
secretaries and registered nurses would not qualify for an average-priced home.
Nine occupations earned between one-half and two-thirds. Thirteen earned less than half of the
annual income needed.
NOTE: The average-sale-priced home is the mathematical average of all homes sold in Orange
County during calendar year 2005. The "Annual Income Needed" to qualify for a mortgage was
calculated using the average interest rate prevailing in 2006, assuming a 10% down-payment,
minimal debt, reasonably good credit, the use of private mortgage insurance. It also includes
estimated PITT (principal, interest, taxes and insurance).
The situation is similar for renters. According to HUD, the Orange County FMR for a one-
bedroom was $700 per month, for atwo-bedroom $785 per month and for athree-bedroom
$1,026 per month. The Mean Hourly Wage Needed to Afford was $13.46, $15.10 and $19.73 for
one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments, respectively.
Only 15 occupations earned the "Mean Hourly Wage Needed to Afford" aone-bedroom
apartment. For atwo-bedroom apartment, the number was twelve. For aone-bedroom
apartment, the number was eight. Seven occupations did not earn enough to afford even aone-
bedroom apartment. Ultimately, affordable housing is not only a question of bottom line
economics, but of equity. The housing cost and wage review in this section attempts to put a
face on the affordable housing problem confronting many working families.
5.0 LOCAL. FAIR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
The Office of Human Rights and Relations is responsible for enforcing the County's Civil Rights
Ordinance, as well as federal Fair Housing laws. It also provides educational programs,
AAnnual wages are calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year round, full time"
11
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
technical assistance and research on issues involving civil rights, equal opportunities, or human
relations.10 "
Staff investigates housing and public accommodations cases, provides education and training
on a variety of civil rights, human rights and women's issues including housing discrimination,
equal access, sexual harassment, discrimination based on age or disability, gender bias,
homophobia, discrimination against emerging communities, etc.'2
6.0 PURPOSE AND PARAMETERS OF COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT
For most, achieving the goal of home ownership is contingent upon the ability to obtain a
mortgage. However, the issue of color, race, national origin, sex, religion, familial status or
disability may still shut the door to home ownership. National studies and litigation continue to
show lenders ignoring business in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods and minority
neighborhoods.
These discriminatory policies are holdovers from a past that would not allow loans to people
who represented an "inharmonious racial group" to neighborhoods. In the past policies of local
lenders, real estate agents and even the federal government (through the Federal Housing
Administration and Veterans Administration loan policies) assured that our country would grow.
with segregated cities. The most basic right of all Americans, to live where they want and can
afford, was denied throughout the housing market. (Please review the Lending Tables located in
the Appendix.)
6.1 Sub-Prime and Predafiory Lending
Mainstream financial institutions have excluded many of the groups targeted by predatory
lenders when marketing loan products. Often, such institutions are much less interested in
issuing smaller loans. Two types of lenders tend to work with borrowers having difficulty
affording a home: sub-prime lenders and predatory lenders.
Most sub-prime lenders serve a need by offering credit to consumers who may have credit
blemishes or those with "B" or "C" credit. ay contrast, conventional lenders focus their marketing
efforts on consumers with few or no blemishes or those with "A/A+" credit.
Predatory lenders target specific populations-often low-income, minority, and/or elderly
homeowners-with high-pressure marketing techniques, excessive fees and frequent
refinancing or "flipping" of. the loan.
In these situations, consumers not only pay too much interest for the credit they secure, but are
also persuaded to purchase credit, life, and disability insurance products for which they have
12
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
little or no use. Moreover, these loans are often secured with the consumers' home. Fair
housing organizations have received complaints from consumers who are about to lose their
homes because they cannot afford the high cost loan they obtained.
Most lenders do not provide quality counseling for consumers seeking their products and may
use the consumer's ignorance as a ripe opportunity to reap huge profits.
The most recent studies have indicated that the sub-prime mortgage market grew an average of
25% a year from 1994 to 2003, outpacing the rate of growth for prime mortgages. The industry
accounted for about $330 billion or 9%, of U.S. mortgages in 2003, up from $35 billion a decade
earlier.
In the Orange County MSA, there were 268 lenders reporting HMDA data in 2004. Of those
lenders, 63% (170) were sub prime lenders.13 While the information does not provide
applications or market share for sub prime lenders in the MSA, it is obvious that sub prime
lenders play a significant role in the lending market in the area.
Determining the extent of predatory lending in the Orange County community is difficult because
these lenders fall outside the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act's reporting requirements and are
unregulated'. But Freddie Mac estimates that between 25-35% of consumers receiving high-cost
loans in the sub-prime market qualified for conventional loans. It is estimated that
approximately 25% of all sub-prime loans contain one or more terms that can be classified as
predatory.14
6.2 Payday Loans, Title Loans Locations as Predatory
As neighborhoods decline or change, local banks move out, replacing their services with ATM
machines. As a result, check-cashing offices (called Alternative Financial Industries or AFS
Businesses) begin to fill the need. They also are frequently located in areas with the highest
minority population (Map 11).
For a fee, these businesses cash payroll, government and personal checks for people who do
not have access to or cannot afford to use banks because they are unable to maintain minimum
balance requirements. Others have privacy concerns or do not want their funds accessible to
creditors. A number of consumers use check-cashing outlets for the convenience.
A recent AARP survey found that 19% of persons 50-64 years old had cashed a check
at an AFS. The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) reported in April of 2006 that:
• Sixteen percent of overdraft loan users account for 71 % of fee-based overdraft loan
fees.
• Repeat users are more often low-income, single, nonwhite renters.
13
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
Many AFS locations offer "payday loans"; also known as check advance loans, postdated check
loans, delayed deposit loans and deferred presentment loans. While they have many names,
they all have the same predatory result. Typically, consumers write personal checks payable to
the lender for a future date when they are due to repay the loan, usually their next payday.
Like payday loans, car-title loans are marketed as small emergency loans, but they are usually
made without regard to borrowers' ability to repay. A typical car-title loan has atriple-digit
annual interest rate, requires repayment within one month, and is made for much less than the
value of the car. These loans put vehicles-an asset essential to the well-being of working
families -at high risk Additionally'S, borrowers frequently cannot pay the full amount due on
the maturity date. They find themselves extending or "rolling over" the loan repeatedly,
becoming trapped in a cycle of debt, paying fees well in excess of the amount they originally
borrowed.
The cost for these "convenience" loans can be extremely high. In some states, a company can
charge a maximum of $15 on a $10 loan for atwo-week period, which calculates to a 390%
annual percentage rate (APR). Often, borrowing $500 results in $75 in fees and interest.
6.3 Orange County Lending
This report concentrates on mortgage lenders in Orange County based on 2004 Loan
Application Register (LAR) reports from individual lenders.
The statistical data base used for the analysis contained in this report is from the FFIEC
(Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council) data. Due to changes in HMDA reporting
and the availability of useful data, the information in this section is provided in three
geographies: (1) Orange County MSA, (2) Orange County, and (4) Census Tract. Information is
provided based on the race and income of applicants, and other important parameters.
This analysis should be used as a tool to determine only the lending performance of lenders in
the specific area, and not to determine or identify discriminatory practices by
individual lenders. The HMDA database does not include comparisons of loan terms and
conditions, patterns of branch openings and closings, and records of community development
investing. However, this analysis does consider race, and racial population, applicant income,
and income of census tracts. Unregulated lenders who are not required to submit HMDA reports
are not monitored and have not been included in this analysis.
6.4 Analysis
The focus of this report is on all applications (all types and purpose) and on Conventional Home
Purchase applications, originations and denials. As noted above, the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) HMDA data is based on MSA, County and Tracts.
14
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
However, not all data are available for all geographies. Iriformation in all of the tables related to
lending throughout this analysis is compiled from the HMDA unless otherwise noted.
HMDA data includes statistics for applications by White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian,
Asian and Other Race borrowers. No analysis was performed on categories representing less
than 3% of the total mortgage activity.
Census tract income and applicant income data are based on median household income
($29,046) and are defined according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) criteria:
Low Income - <50% of median household income
Moderate Income - >=50% -< 80% of median household income
Middle Income - >=80% - <100%
Middle Income - >=100% - <120%*
Upper Income - >=120% of median household income
* This "split" reflects how the HMDA is reported.
Our analysis of racial equity looks at both origination yields and denial rates. Traditionally, many
CRA studies have utilized denial rates or Black/White disparity ratios as the prime indicator of
lending performance. This report focuses on loans originated and loans denied. Since both are
significant, we look at what a lender did as well as what a lender did not do.
There are also philosophical reasons for giving at least as much attention to those loans which
were made as contrasted with those which were not. In this study, philosophical and
methodological reasons both point in the direction of giving greater emphasis to lenders'
performance on mortgage loan originations than on mortgage loan denials.
6.5 Mortgage Activity in Orange County
From the late 1990's, a very strong economy extended employment and boosted income for
many Americans. Orange County was not immune to these trends. For most of this period,
mortgage interest rates were quite low and have continued to be low even though the economy
has slowed down. These positive economic trends provided a favorable environment for
households to secure and refinance home loans because they gave consumers a positive
sense of job security, income-growth, and the ability to afford credit.
Access to mortgage credit enables residents to own their homes, and access to home
improvement loans allows them to keep older houses in good condition. All of these help keep
neighborhoods attractive and residents vested in their community16. The physical presence of
financial institutions in communities facilitates relationships with banks. Location is the primary
concern for a community. Areas that are left without branches, or with only access to ATM
15
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
machines, must find alternative sources (check cashing business, finance companies) for
services, which can be more expensive than traditional financial institutions or credit unions.
Three of the nine "hometown lenders" with branches or offices in the County processed more
than 50% of their applications from local residents:
• Branch Banking &Trust (BB&T)
• Guardian Bank
• Regions Bank
Citizens Community Bank had only 15% of its applications from County residents.
There are very few lenders located within neighborhoods with a high percent of minority
residents.
6.6 Action on Application
Local Orange County lenders weren't a significant factor in mortgage lending in terms of number
of applications. Local lenders had just 24.8% of all applications. However, when they did get an
application, they were more likely to originate and less likely to deny. This is significantly better
than all lenders.
The last year for which data was available is 2006 when 3,781 applications were accepted by
some 203 mortgage lenders; 166 received 20 or fewer applications. Only
12 lenders had a market share of 2% or greater. Bank of America was the largest mortgage
lender with 11.1 % (421 applications). Twenty-five lenders had 1 % or more of the mortgage
market, which consisted of all types and purposes of loans. Lenders operating in Orange
County approve far more applications than they deny.. This means while there are a large
number of lenders participating in the market, only a few have any significant influence.
For all types of loans accepted in the Orange County Census tracts, 58.8% were originated and
22.4% were denied. Local lenders originated 89.9% of 765 applications; 7.$% were denied. The
remaining applications were approved by the bank but not accepted by the applicant (7%),
withdrawn by the applicant (8%), or rejected because of insufFcient data required by the bank
(3%)~
6.7 Government -Backed Applications
FHA has always been the lender for low-to-moderate income households, minorities and those
with less than stellar credit. More than 30 million families have used FHA as their source for
home mortgages in the last six decades. FHA's market share over recent years has remained
stable at around 20% of the total housing market in spite of shrinking mortgage rates that FHA
16
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
often cannot match, the increase in sub-prime lending, and competitive offers from the
conventional mortgage market. In 1999, one fifth of all home purchases in the United States
were FHA loans. Of this, two-fifths were for Blacks and Hispanics.
In 2004, when the most complete date is available, FHA/VA accounted for only 6.7% of all
applications in the County. Conventional home purchase applications accounted for 29% of all
applications. Nineteen-point-four percent of Orange County residents applied for FHA loans.
(Table 6.7)
Overall, the percent of local Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities using FHA was well below
the national average of 62.4%. As indicated in Table 6.7, the percent of low-to moderate-income
applicants also was well below the national average at more than 27%.
However, in tracts with a minority population of 20% or higher, applications were double the
national average. This could mean that applicants in these tracts are taking advantage of better
opportunities for home ownership. But it also raises the question: are all those who submit
government-backed applications qualified for such mortgages or-are they being placed in this
category when they would qualify for a conventional mortgage?
When considering only the 2,704 applications for home purchases, conventional applications
accounted for four times as many applications (81.2%) as FHA/VA applications (18.8%).
6.8 Refinancing and Home Improvement Activity
Refinancing activity far exceeds home purchases. With direct mail, a-mail, Web and traditional
advertising, it is little wonder that refinancing is the most active segment of the mortgage
market.
Refinancing and home improvement loans should be the easiest to obtain since the lender is
dealing with a known borrower who has equity in the home and a commitment to the dwelling. In
Orange County, refinancing applications were denied less frequently than originations.
Refinancing applications accounted for 65.8% of all mortgage type applications in Orange
County. For all remaining Counties in the MSA, refinancing accounted for 54.1 % of all
applications. For the MSA as a total, 54.7% were for refinancing.
Considering that conventional home purchase applications accounted for only 16.6% of the
County applications, 30% for the remaining County's, and 29.1 % of the MSA, this is a significant
indicator of the mortgage market in the community.
Of the 1,722 refinancing applications accepted in the County, 46% were originated and 26%
were denied. These rates are significantly higher than home-purchase rates. Home
17
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
Improvement applications were almost evenly split between originations and denials, with
47.7% originated and more than 42.5% denied.
The high home-improvement denial rate is a concern. Homeowners unable to secure funds to
maintain or enhance their homes will be unable to command a fair market price when they sell,
which can lead to deteriorating neighborhoods. It may also encourage people to become
absentee landlords who relocate without being able to sell their homes. The community may
want to look more closely at the types and uses of home-improvement loans.
During the late nineties and two thousands, the market experienced some of the lowest interest
rates in decades and refinancing activity outpaced mortgage originations. Origination rates for
refinancing loans were lower than home ownership mortgages; denials were higher for all races,
Blacks were two and one half times less likely to make an application than Whites, accounting
for 22.1 % of refinancing applications while Whites had practically 60% of the market.
Whites were almost twice as likely to be approved as Blacks, who had 32.7% of applications
originated and 37% denied compared to Whites with 61.2% and 18.8%, respectively.
There were 683 applications in the "race not available" category. This may indicate applications
received by phone or on the Internet, since there was a high rate of advertising for refinancing
from both sub-prime and prime lenders.
This is of concern because effective January 1, 2003, the FFIEC required lenders to collect race
and sex data on telephone applications", in an effort to ensure more accurate monitoring of
lending institutions for fair lending compliance. But in late 2003 and early 2004, regulatory
agencies made changes to HMDA reporting requirements that would make it difficult to continue
to get HMDA data.
6.9 Conventional Home Purchase
Conventional home purchase loans-generally available to borrowers with good credit ratings-
are astrong indicator of how many Orange County families are able to buy single-family
housing.
More than 60% of applications (1,262) for conventional home purchase were in the Orange
County MSA, 42.5% were in Orange County (934). focal lenders accounted for 31 %, or 295, of
conventional home purchase applications in the County. Bank of America led local lenders in
applications, followed by BB&T and RBC Centura.
focal lenders originated almost all of the applications for conventional home purchase that they
received. Five of the nine local lenders originated 100% of their applications. All but one lender
did better than the 75.7% benchmark for all lenders. Denial rates were well below the
benchmarks of 13.1 % of all lenders. Only Park Avenue Bank exceeded that figure, with a 29.6%
18
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
denial rate. This means that as long as applicants had a chance to get in the door to make an
application, they had a excellent chance of being approved.
Our concern is that local lenders seem to be less of a "player" in the mortgage market than
those from outside the County. Again, of the 934 total applications for conventional home
purchase in Orange County, local lenders had just over 31 % of those applications.
6.10 Conventional Home Purchase -Race
According to a study by the Pew Hispanic Center, Blacks and Hispanics had a respective
median net worth in 2002 of $5,998 and $7,932, respectively. This is down from 2000 amounts
and shockingly low, particularly when compared to White median net worth of $88,651.18
Home ownership is one of the most reliable and accessible ways for economically disadvantage
people to close the wealth gap and obtain a secure position in the middle class. However,
despite the reduction in interest rates to record lows, and numerous mortgage products
designed for low-to-moderate income households, less than 50% of Black and Hispanic families
have achieved home ownership, compared with 75% of White families.ls
Local lenders had very few applications for conventional home purchase loans. Bank of America
had the largest number of applications from the MSA with 128. Commercial Banking Company
followed with 92 applications. Such small numbers in a total market of over 2,100 applications
makes it even more of a concern that Blacks seem to be anon-entity in the mortgage market.
All lenders showed that they originated over 52% of the Black applications they received. Local
lenders originated at lest 53% of Black applications. By contrast, White applicants had
origination's rates in the high eighties and nineties. All lenders originated more than 78% of
White applications. Five of the nine local lenders originated over 90% of their White applications
and three of the nine originated more than 80%.
The high percentages of "race not available" applications and minority applications withdrawn
raises a concern regarding the equitable treatment of minority applicants.
In defense of the local lenders, if they have mortgage subsidiaries they may be doing more than
is readily apparent. It could be assumed that Bank of America would have mortgage partners,
since-they were, at one time, the parent organization of more mortgage companies than any
other lender in the United States. If any of the local lenders is a partner with a mortgage
company, the majority of its mortgage lending activity could be through that company, and thus
not reflected in this data.
6.11 Conventional Home Purchase -Applicant Income
This section analyzes lender performance on another important community reinvestment goal:
making mortgage credit available to persons of low-to-moderate
19
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
income (80% or less of median household income}. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Orange
County's Median Household Income was $29,046. Low-to-moderate income was at $23,236 or
less.
The HMDA database for lenders provides an income breakdown of mortgage loan applicants at
the application, origination, denial stages, allowing the Consultant to assess which lenders have
been most successful in servicing the mortgage credit needs of low-to-moderate income
households.
All lenders combined for 26.7% of the low-to-moderate income market share in the MSA.
As with applications by race, local lenders were poorly represented. Capital Bank had 36.1
(22) of low-to-moderate income applications, the largest percentage of any local lender. RBC
Centura was second with '22.8% (21). BB&T was the smallest lender in terms of low-to-
moderate income applications with 5% on just four applications.
Comparing lenders in terms of originations from low-to-moderate income applicants and upper-
income applicants, shows a 56.8% average for low-to-moderate income applicants in the MSA,
and 82% for upper-income applicants. This is expected since upper-income applicants would
typically be more qualified. °
Almost 57% of applications from low-to-moderate income residents were originated, showing
that one out of every two applications is successful.
Seven of the nine local lenders had origination rates for low-to-moderate income applicants over
60%. Local lenders seem to be reaching out to low-to-moderate income applicants. However,
the fact that five of the local lenders had single-digit applications from this income group is a
concern.
6.12 Lending Based on Race and Income
This section reviews activity by all lenders and gives some indication of how Blacks and Whites
fare in obtaining conventional home loans when income levels are considered. In many cases,
the rate of applications to Whites is four to five times greater than to Blacks.
Typically, upper-income applicants would have the least trouble in obtaining a loan. In all
income groups, White rates fared better in applications, origination and denials. However,
upper-income Blacks had a 65% chance of being approved, while Whites of equal income had
an 85% chance of being approved.
This disparity is more alarming among those earning between 80% and 119% of median
income-the middle class. In the Orange County MSA, Blacks in this income range had a 51%
origination rate, while Whites had a 75% rate. Blacks were denied 20% of the time and Whites
20
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
were denied 11 % of the time. Low-to-moderate income Whites and Blacks fared better in terms
of applications and origination's than middle-income borrowers.
Even when lenders reported high Black origination rates, it appears Blacks are still not getting in
the door to make an application. Origination rates for Blacks were lower than Whites, and denial
rates for Blacks were higher than Whites. At each income level, the denial rate was usually
higher for Blacks than for Whites.
It's clear that, Whites fare much better in the MSA's mortgage lending market. While Hispanics
are a smaller population group, in many cases they seem to do better than Blacks, too, when
percentages of applications, origination's and denials are compared. Even when comparing
income-to-income, Blacks fall short of their White counter parts.
This is not necessarily an indication that lending discrimination is the cause of this discrepancy.
However, a deeper analysis of lending should be undertaken to compare multiple years, prime
and sub-prime lending and other questions that could not be addressed in this analysis.
7.0 Community Issues
7.1 Community Survey
The Consultants conducted a survey of Orange County community organizations, agencies, and
individuals focusing on housing issues selected by the Orange County Human Relations
Commission. The survey offered several open-ended questions designed to document how
those living within the community viewed their own housing barriers. Agency directors or
managers were encouraged to answer questions in any way they felt necessary. In addition, the
questionnaire was distributed to City Council members and two suggested community interest
groups. In all, 21 entities were invited to respond. Some of the responses spoke of positive
actions that were taking place and these were included. For instance, for Question 3 one
respondent noted: Programs designed by city, county and municipalities to transition individuals
from homelessness to stability through jobs and housing. The following is a summary of issues
raised in their responses and observations.2
QUESTION #1: What do you see as problems for individuals with disabilities in achieving
housing that meets their needs in Orange County?
The primary concern for those responding was the cost of housing, lack of adequate housing,
and the need for accessible housing for the disabled. Many indicated a need for stronger
advocacy for this population.
® Lack of access, availability and affordability
2 Actual responses are included as an Appendix.
21
. Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
g tY~
• Stronger advocacy for the disabled related to their housing needs.
• Lack of Realtors thinking outside the "box", more education for Realtors on housing
needs of disabled.
• Lack of accessible units, especially those that are affordable.
• Costs for modifications needed to accommodate their living space and/or cars.
• Transportation
QUESTION #2: Given the recent increase in the Hispanic population, what do you see as
problems for Hispanics?
The major concern was housing affordability and the lack of affordable housing for Hispanics.
Respondents also noted discrimination and bias against Hispanics in both housing choice and
the location of housing. Housing that is available is often substandard and the tenants are afraid
to complain for fear of losing their housing.
• Discrimination in housing and schools
• Higher interest rates, especially mortgage.
• Institutionalized profiling/discrimination in housing areas.
• Economic disadvantage and low incomes
• Lack of affordable housing especially in Chapel Hill and Carrboro
• Poor housing conditions and fear of retribution by landlords if they request repairs, etc.
• Predatory landlords and employers.
• Bias, prejudice and bad attitudes from others
• Communication issues and lack of cultural understanding.
Question #3: What do you see as problems for individuals in getting out of
homelessness in Orange County?
Most responders agreed that there was a lack of services for the homeless. They also noted
that the community had a strong bias against the homeless and that some communities did all
they could to keep the homeless out.
• Discrimination.
• Lack of employment opportunities and economic resources.
• Programs designed by city, county and municipalities to transition individuals from
homelessness to stability through jobs and housing.
• Mental health and addiction issues, inadequate access to services
• Lack of affordable healthcare.
• Community unaware of homeless issues, causes and relief.
• Lack of shelter space for women and children.
• Inadequate programs to help in the long-term to assure success.
22
. Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 tY~
• NIMBY: Chapel Hill is very anti-homeless and Carrboro merchants are fighting the
Community Kitchen.
• Lack of funding for existing programs.
• Should acknowledge that a certain percent of homeless choose to stay homeless for
whatever reasons.
Question #4: What do you see as negative for individuals in achieving affordable, safe
and decent housing in Orange County?
The issue of affordable housing is paramount in Orange County. A number of comments spoke
to the NIMBY issues as being a impediment to development of affordable housing.
• Race, large families and legal status.
• Economic factors dictate where you can live. Not enough choices.in all neighborhoods
for all people.
• Economic gap between rich and poor.
• Costs of housing, affordability of single-family homes, rising properly values,
gentrification, taxes.
• Wages are not keeping up with housing costs.
• Biased opinions, stereotypes.
• The "not here" sentiment of more affluent residents makes it tougher to develop
affordable housing.
• Disconnect between supply and demand.
• New city ordinances in Chapel Hill and Carrboro are creating a glut of 1-and 2- bedroom
units allocated for the affordable housing market, while demand is for 3- and 4-
bedrooms.
• Lack of response from landlords regarding repairs, etc. Numerous housing violations,
deteriorating properties, forcing families to move farther and farther out of town.
Question #5: What positives do you see for individuals in achieving affordable, safe and
decent housing in Orange County? (Fewest answers received)
Perhaps the most important comment was that the community had a good social conscience
and kept housing in the news.
• Varied availability of housing styles, apartments, condos, homes.
• The County seems to take into account current homeowners' opinions regarding future
growth.
• Active Habitat for Humanity groups and Land Trust housing
• Good job availability in the area.
• Free bus line.
23
. Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
g tY,
• Socially conscious community that keeps housing issues in the news and community
organizations that care.
• City ordinance that requires developers to provide "units or funds in lieu of is a good
idea in theory. It could provide much needed funding for development of more affordable
housing suitable for families.
• Housing co-ops, conversion of apartments to low-cost condos (Carrboro) given
opportunity for home ownership.
Question #6: Do you have any comments in regards to the local housing assistance
program in Orange County?
Clearly, the County needs to do a better job promoting housing assistance programs, as almost
no respondents were aware such a resource existed.
• If such an organization exists in the County it is not well known. (This was the majority
answer)
• Money would be better spent helping to finance low-interest loans to those who are
receiving some assistance in order to own homes/condos.
• More needs to be done. Especially in enforcing safe housing standards.
• More programs for housing mentally impaired and developmentally delayed individuals
who can be successful.
Question #7: Are there any problems for individuals in regards to transportation in
Orange County?
Respondents were supportive of the free bus service, but were concerned that it was not
countywide or frequent enough.
• No. Chapel Hills offers free bus services also available in the southern part of Orange
County and some in the north.
• Difficult to get from northern Orange County to the southern part without a car; not
enough buses to the more rural areas
• Getting to locations where adult education courses and services are offered.
• Reduced schedule when University is closed.
• Not enough stops along Martin Luther King Blvd.
• More frequent buses on weekends and evenings would help people who have to work
varying shifts.
Question #8: Are there any problems for individuals in regards to employment in Orange
County?
24
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH _ 2007
g ty~
Comments regarding employment showed concerns in the number of service jobs and their
relative low wage.
• Few opportunities for Hispanics to be trained for jobs other than service and
construction.
• Lack of transportation in rural areas hampers job opportunities.
• Very low wages
• Few industrial jobs and no unions
• Of course there are, you can start at the University and the City's Public Works
Departments
• Summer employment for students (not enough jobs)
• More variation in employment opportunities
• Discrimination is now applied along class lines.
• Wages are not keeping up with the cost of living, housing, gas, etc. Working 2 and 3 jobs
to makes ends meet.
• Lack of opportunities for those who are disabled.
• Gap between management jobs and service jobs, making a very small middle-class
workforce.
• Three respondents simply said yes and one said no.
8.0 ADVERTISING
8.1 Statutes and Regulatory Language
In simple terms, the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) of 1988 prohibits discriminatory real
estate advertising (42 U.S.C. 3604). In Section 804, the FHAA specifically states that:
"it shall be unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any
notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates
any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or
discrimination."
The law applies to magazine and newspaper classified and display advertising, inserts or any
other types of real estate advertising. It also applies to any type of advertising or written material
that a real estate business may distribute or use, such as brochures, direct mailings, radio or
television advertising, multiple listing services (MLS), posters, billboards, application forms or
other documents, signs or videos.
Congress included in the FHAA prohibitions against discrimination against persons with a
mental disability. It also prohibited discrimination against families with children. The provisions
of the act also establish stronger administrative enforcement mechanisms and provide for stiffer
penalties to expand coverage to include these specific classes in addition to those protected
classes initially covered.
25
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 tY~
The FHAA provides for three categories of senior housing:
(1) Housing provided under a state or federal program that HUD determines is "specifically
designed and operated to assist elderly persons."
(2) Housing intended for and only occupied by persons who are 62 or older.
(3) Housing "intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person 55 years of age or
older per unit," which means that the housing must have at least 80% of its units occupied by at
least one person 55 years of age or older, must have facilities and services designed to meet
the needs of older persons and must adhere to the policies and procedures that demonstrate an
intent to provide housing for persons 55 or older.
The FHAA also provided for certain "transition" rules for existing complexes.
Although the FHAA does not address the issue of advertising for senior complexes, the HUD
regulations make clear that there is a parallel exemption from the discriminatory advertising
provisions. Therefore, advertising for qualified "housing for older persons" under the FHAA may
make reference to the age of the desired residents.
A. HUD Advertising Guidance
Originally; terms such as "excellent view", "walk-in closet", "bachelor" or "bachelorette" and
names such as "The Baptist Home" could have been viewed as discriminatory. Currently, when
these are placed in their proper context, they are not "red-flagged" as discriminatory.
Words, symbols, logos and colloquialism indicative of or implying race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin, should be avoided, as should catch words and
phrases such as "restricted", "exclusive", "private", "integrated", "traditional", "board approval" or
"membership approval".
Those liable under this guidance include:
• Print media publishers
• Radio and television broadcasters
• Advertising agencies
• Sales firms
• Real estate professionals
• Management companies
• Web-based services
• Clients of any of the above
Jury cases involving discriminatory real estate advertising in the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore,
Maryland area have resulted in jury awards of $850,000 and $2 million. In addition, a successful
plaintiff in a discriminatory advertising suit is generally entitled to have the court order the
defendant to pay the plaintiffs attorneys' fees, which can be significant. Where the defendant
26
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 tY~
has acted in reckless disregard of the plaintiffs civil rights, punitive damage awards are also
available under federal law. (Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 37 - in 1983)
Internet advertising has been the subject of increasing scrutiny and debate. Most recently, the
web-based Craig's List has been the defendant as a provider of housing information. The
Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights has filed a lawsuit against Craig's List because the
Fair Housing Act explicitly holds publishers responsible for discriminatory ads that have been
prepared by third parties20. This litigation is pending, but may hold broad implications for future
advertising.
Caution should be taken when describing either a geographical area or giving directions as they
can imply a discriminatory preference, limitation, or exclusion. These can include the names of
facilities that cater to a particular racial, national origin or religious group, such as country club
or private school designations. In addition, the names of facilities that are used exclusively by
one sex may indicate a preference.
All forms of print media should indicate that all housing advertised in their classified sections
abides by the FHAA. The HUD regulations contain a special provision that all publishers should
publish at the beginning of their real estate advertising section a notice including language to
the following effect:
All real estate advertised herein is subject to the Federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal
to advertise "any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin, or intention to make any such preference, limitation,
or discrimination. " We will not knowingly accept any advertising for real estate that is in violation
of the law. All persons are hereby informed that all dwellings advertised are available on an
equal opportunity basis. " In addition, telephone numbers for local fair housing organizations
should be included so that home seekers may call for information if they feel that they have
been a victim of housing discrimination.
Additionally, all advertising for housing, including lending, should include the "Equal Housing
Opportunity" slogan or logo, according to HUD regulations. The logo is to be placed in all
advertising that is larger than two (2) column inches and it should be legible.
Finally, the use of human models in real estate related advertising is regulated by HUD.
Frequently, display advertising will include photos or drawings. Often, such advertising will
depict persons enjoying the amenities of the complex or the neighborhood to make the housing
seem appealing to potential home seekers. It is only common sense that a message may be
sent by the race, sex, age or familial status of the persons in the advertisements.
Per HUD, "models should be clearly definable as reasonably representing majority and minority
groups...". If models are used in photographs, drawings or other graphic techniques, they
should "indicate to the general public that the housing is... (available)... to all without regard to
race, color, religion, disability, familial status or national origin and is not for the exclusive use of
one such group." However, one of the changes that has been seen since the fair housing
27
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFC1-1- 2007
g tY~
advertising guidelines went into effect has been the decreasing number of these types.of ads by
REALTORS®, landlords, management companies and rental complexes.
B. Examples of Words Descriptive of the Dwelling, landlord and Tenants
• White home
• Colored home
• Jewish home
• Hispanic home
• Adult building
• Singles complex
• Christian landlord
• Gay landlord
• Mixed neighborhood
• Latino neighborhood
• Male tenants
C. Examples of Words Descriptive of a Protected Class
Race:
• . Negro
• Black
• Caucasian
® Oriental
• American Indian
Color:
® White
® Black
• Colored
Religion:
• Protestant
• Christian
• Catholic
• Jew
Nationality:
• Mexican-American
Origin:
• Puerto Rican
• Philippine
28
®.
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
• Polish
• Hungarian
• Irish
• Italian
• Chicano
• African
• Hispanic
• Chinese
• Indian
• Latino
Sex:
• Man
• Male
• Woman
• Female
Handicap:
• Crippled
• Blind
• Deaf
• Mentally ill
• Retarded
• Handicapped
• Physically fit
Familial Status:
• Adults
• Children
• Families
• Singles
• Mature persons
D. Examples of Catch Words
• Restricted
• Exclusive
• Private
• Integrated
• Traditional
• Board approval
• Membership approval
E. Examples of Symbols or Logotypes
29
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
• Christian cross
• Jewish star
• Male or Female symbol
• National flag
F. Examples of Directions
• Existing black developments
• Existing development known whites
• Neighborhood known for racial make-up
• Neighborhood known for national origin of inhabitants
• Synagogue
• Church
• Congregation
• Parish
G. Examples of Area or Location Description
• Country clubs
• Private school designations
• Names of facilities used by exclusively one sex.
While the lists of questionable words, phrases and symbols noted above may seem extensive, a
publisher who is sensitive to the requirements of the law will quickly develop a sense of the type
of advertisements which may raise a question under the law.
The basic test for any advertiser should be: would the ordinary reader construe the advertising
as sending a message of preference for or against a particular class of home seeker?
8.2 Analysis of Advertising
A. Methodology
To ascertain whether advertising in the Orange County area deviates from the statutory and
regulatory language of the FHAA, a representative sampling of 400 ads from the primary local
newspaper, other newspapers in the County, and three Internet-based services was surveyed to
determine whether discriminatory practices were evident.
The Consultants examined advertisements for:
1) Explicitly discriminatory statements
2) Language that could serve as a subtle discouragement
3) Use of human models
30
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
4) Failure to .print "Equal Housing Opportunity" logo or language.
B. Explicit discriminatory statements
The Consultants found no advertising that expressed an explicit discriminatory preference. The
classified advertising staff at the newspaper appears to be doing a competent job of screening
out explicitly discriminatory advertising.
C. Subtly discouraging language
The consultants looked for subtly discouraging language throughout the classified advertising.
Thirty to forty percent of the rental advertisements contained the phrase "no pets". While "pets"
per se are not covered by the Fair Housing Act, people with disabilities.who need animals for
support or assistance are likely not to contact housing providers who run such advertisements,
even though the Fair Housing Act would allow those individuals in most cases to request a
reasonable accommodation allowing them to have an animal despite a "no-pets" policy. Not all
people with disabilities are aware of their rights to such an accommodation, and other people
would prefer not to go through the difficulty of requesting one. Specifically, one advertisement
stated:"Absolutely no pets". Clearly, this restriction would rule out the presence of a service
animal or an emotional support animal.
Also, each day at least a few advertisements made reference to a "quiet neighborhood" or a
"great neighborhood". The phrase "quiet neighborhood" may be off-putting to families with
children, who might prefer a neighborhood that appears to be more welcoming. Best fair
housing practice dictates that descriptions of neighborhoods in general be avoided in favor of
descriptions of the amenities of the unit being offered.
In addition, one of the web-based providers provided a link to "neighborhood information".
Among the search criteria and links were `single with children' and `married with children'.
These criteria may 'tend to segregate families with children.' Therefore, this link would not be
recommended.
Finally, several advertisements alluded to the school system which served the area. Specifically,
many ads cited the `County' schools as serving the community. On its face, this may merely
communicate educational service information. However, if the City/County schools are
predominately African-American and the County/City schools are heavily populated by
Caucasians, such an ad may be construed as a `code' for expressing a preference on the basis
of race.
D. Use of Human Models
One clear concern in the review of print advertisements was the preponderance of the white
sales force. In feature advertisements used by real estate professionals, it was extremely rare to
view anon-white sales person. Regardless of the reasons, real estate companies and lenders
might have for publishing pictures of their (mostly) white sales forces, such overwhelming one-
sidedness could be subtly discouraging to non-white home seekers.
31
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 ty~
E. Failure to use Equal Housing Opportunity Logo
In the display advertising published on the web-based ads, the Consultants specifically
examined the publication for evidence of the Equal Housing Opportunity symbol or the phrase
"Equal Housing Opportunity." Results were varied. One of the providers did not publish the
"Equal Housing Opportunity," but included a link labeled "Fair Housing" which provided
extensive information from the perspective of the home-seeker and provider. Regrettably, few of
the providers conspicuously displayed the Equal Opportunity logo on their main (i.e., home)
page. The third provider displayed anon-discriminatory statement without the indicated logo.
9.0 ZONING
Barriers to fair housing also result from zoning and subdivision regulations. Whether certain
zoning and subdivision controls are, in fact, discriminatory is controversial. However, the federal
government has successfully sued several cities over the manner in which they were zoned. As
Professor Richard T. Lai of Arizona State University noted in his paper The Effect of ,
Exclusionary Zoning on Affordable Housing:
"If land-use zoning for the purpose of promoting reason, order and beauty in urban growth
management is one side of the coin, so can it be said that exclusion of housing affordable to low
and moderate income groups is the other ... as practiced, zoning and other land-use regulations
can diminish the general availability of good quality, low-cost dwellings..." 2' Concerning the
adoption and administration of building codes, Dr. Lai states "...local building codes also often
serve an Exclusionary function...(they) have become a considerable barrier to the potential
.economics that could be realized through manufactured housing techniques..."22
9.1 Introduction
Four key areas were reviewed as part of the analysis because of the possible adverse effects
they could have on families and persons with disabilities.
1. Definitions used for "families," "group homes," "dwelling unit."
2. Regulations (if any) regarding "group homes."
3. Ability for "group homes" or other similar type housing to be developed.
4. Unreasonable restrictions, costs on developing multi-family housing
units, such as lot size requirements, impact fees, and setbacks.
As far as can be determined, Orange County conducts its housing programs in an affirmative
manner and without restrictive policies that would adversely affect members of the protected
classes.
In addition to interdicting private acts of discrimination, entitlement grantees should be
especially vigilant regarding the impact of zoning regulations and building codes upon group
homes, parents with children and the disabled. For instance, provisions in zoning regulations
that define which living arrangements constitute a "family" can unduly restrict where group
homes for the disabled can be placed. Similarly, restrictions governing the placement of
32
- Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 tY~
multifamily complexes can unduly burden families with children by isolating them in densely
populated, high traffic commercial areas. In summary, entitlement grantees should regularly
review their zoning and building regulations, especially if such a review has not been conducted
since the enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
9.2 focal Review of Zoning Codes
Since the passage of the Fair Housing Amendments Act in 1988, local public officials have
expressed concern over its impact on zoning and land use decisions. There have been
numerous court actions, administrative hearings and other reviews of local ordinances. Many of
these centered on the definition of "families" and relationships of the ordinances to group homes
or congregate living. Also present in the mix of these decisions and actions are restrictive
definitions of "family" found in many ordinances.
In our review of the local zoning ordinance, three areas in the definition section (Article 22) were
reviewed closely:
• Dwelling unit
• Family
• Group homes
We applaud the inclusion of foster children in the definition. The one concern, while minor, is
with the wording: "...or a group of not more than three persons who need not be related in a
dwelling unit." We question why it is necessary to place a number on those persons permitted to
live as a family.
Not all occupancy limits are questionable under the Fair Housing Act. Indeed, the Fair Housing
Act specifically exempts certain kinds of occupancy restrictions from scrutiny. Section
3607(b)(1) of the Act states that nothing in the title limits the applicability of any reasonable
local, state or federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to
occupy a dwelling. In the case of Edmonds V. Oxford House, Inc., the Supreme Court cited this
section in ruling that capping the number of occupants in a group home in order to prevent
overcrowding in living quarters" is permissible under the Fair Housing Act. In other words,
restrictions that apply uniformly to all people, whether related or not, cannot be subject to
discrimination lawsuits.
However, the Court went on to hold zoning ordinances may violate the Fair Housing Act if it
defines family units or maximum occupancy differently for related and unrelated people. It
should be noted that the Court did not decide whether such a zoning ordinance is per se
discriminatory under the FHA. One way to avoid liability might be to consider removing family
composition rules from the zoning ordinance and instead place occupancy limitations which
would apply uniformly to all people, related or not.
The National League of Cities offers the following definition of family which it believes to be
consistent with the Fair Housing Act.
33
- .Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
"One (1) or more persons who are related by blood or marriage, and including any foster
children or a group of not more. than five (5) persons living together as a house keeping unit by
joint agreement on anon-profit cost sharing basis, or a combination of persons related by blood
or marriage along with no more than two (2) unrelated adults to a maximum number of (5)
persons living together and occupying a single housekeeping unit with a single kitchen facility.
In addition, up to eight persons, including six or fewer persons with disability or handicap and
not to exceed two staff residents residing in a dwelling shall be considered to be a family.s23
The numbers used in this definition can be changed to reflect state regulations or local codes.
The definition does not have to be as extensive or even as complicated as the one sited but
consideration needs to be given to changing its current definition to avoid possible problems in
the future.
Another concern that we have regarding the zoning ordinance is the restrictive definition of
"group home", which expressly excludes "...persons addicted to or recuperating from the effects
of an addiction to drugs or alcohol."
Alcohol addiction can be considered a disability under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988 (FHAA). Ex-drug users in treatment (which may include or require a group home setting)
are also covered under the FHAA. We could find no other definitions that would relate to these
persons being able to reside in a group home setting.
The second issue with Group Care Facility is that they have to be approved by the Board of
Adjustments before they can be placed.
Our concern is that putting too many restrictions on group homes can run afoul of Fair Housing
regulations, particularly if a group home operator feels that the restrictions are unduly restrictive.
While we understand and support the necessity of regulating group homes so that one
neighborhood is not over-saturated, we also understand that the need for these facilities is
important and becoming more important as funding for institutions, nursing homes and hospitals
is declining.
10.0 INSURANCE REDLINI6VG
Thirty-three years ago, the National Advisory Panel on Insurance in Riot Affected Areas made a
critical observation that:
Insurance is essential to revitalize our cities. It is a cornerstone of credit. Without insurance,
banks and other financial institutions will not -and cannot -make loans. New housing cannot be
repaired. New businesses cannot expand, or even survive.
Without insurance, buildings are left to deteriorate; services, goods and jobs diminish. Efforts to
rebuild our nation's inner cities cannot move forward. Communities without insurance are'
communities without hope.
34
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
This statement also hits home in Orange County as it tries to address the many issues and
demands to strengthen neighborhoods, repair deteriorating housing and create more affordable
housing.
Insurance redlining occurs when insurance agents, offices and/or companies decide that certain
areas of the community will not be offered home owner's insurance, that the number of policies
offered will be limited to a certain number or that they will not offer all the various home owner's
policies that they have.
Many traditional industry-underwriting practices, which may have some legitimate business
purpose, also adversely affect minorities and minority neighborhoods. Many companies have
minimum value and maximum age requirements for properties to qualify for their home owner's
policies.. For example, a home would be disqualified if it was valued at $25,000 or $35,000 or
less, or if it was constructed before 1950. In some studies, minorities were required to produce
a credit check or meet for an interview with the agent before being given a quote.
Studies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's National Housing
Survey, show evidence of a racial gap in the availability of property insurance. While part of the
gap can be explained by financial considerations of the insured, conditions of properties and
general risk related factors, the racial gap typically remains substantial even after these factors
are taken into consideration.
Low-income and high-minority neighborhoods are discriminated against in the provision of
property insurance. Even if intentional racial discrimination is not widespread, traditional industry
practices still adversely affect racial minorities and minority neighborhoods. The lack of
insurance coverage is an impediment to the redevelopment of urban communities.
10.1 Rating Practices
Insurance companies establish a base rate (sometimes referred to as an "overall" rate)
determined primarily by the specific location of the housing. This rate is based on the premiums
they receive from a given geographic area, the losses incurred within that area, and the
expenses of that company to write and administer the policies.24 Thus, the amount of coverage
in the past within a particular area of the County directly impacts present rates offered by a
given insurance company. If the company has historically under served a geographic section of
the community, the current base rate will reflect the historic lack of premiums within that area.
This can have the effect of perpetuating the lack of insurance services resulting from historic
redlining or other causes.
Some companies have two rating tiers and others may have as many as four tiers in the area of
home owner insurance. Tiers are much less common in the area of tenant home owner
insurance, though a few companies may have more than one tier. The determination of what
rating tier to apply is more a function of the person or persons applying for the insurance as
35
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
9 tY,
opposed to the location of the property. Tier structures can then cause changes to the base rate
depending on a number of factors.
The most significant factors used to establish the rate tiers25 are:
® Loss history of the individual
• Age of the property, though the specific age used is variable (i.e., some companies may
have higher rates or not write insurance for houses older than twenty-five years while
other companies will use forty years or older).
• Value of the dwelling
® Other lines of coverage, such as auto insurance, with the same company
® Years insured with the company
The use of age and the value of the dwelling as determinants of rates can have a significant
impact on the older sections of Orange County where the housing stock is older and typically of
less value. These two factors alone can increase the rates for insurance being offered and even
discourage companies from offering a full range of products in these geographic areas.
The demographic analysis of the community clearly shows that a disproportionate number of
Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and American Indians live in the older sections of Orange County.
Though using age and value of the dwellings is a neutral policy, it still may impact the
composition of the community in a negative manner.
10.2 Credit-Scoring
Credit scoring is a criterion far determining rate tiers and may be an underwriting tool.26 As
such, a credit score can become a barrier to individuals and families trying to purchase a home
or to tenant(s) required to carry rental insurance as part of the lease.
Since the use of credit scoring as a criterion to qualify for insurance is new, there have been no
studies measuring its impact. Based on the 2000 Census data, the correlation between
minorities and poverty was very high (.726).27 It is reasonable to assume that the use of credit
scoring as a property insurance underwriting tool would result in a discriminatory impact on
Blacks and other minorities who are disproportionately represented in low-income categories.
In a ruling on September 3, 2003, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a nationwide
class action brought by six minority policyholders challenging insurers' use of credit scoring in
pricing both automobile and home owner's policies to continue. In Dehoyos, et al. v. Allstate
Corp. et al., the minority plaintiffs alleged that Allstate's use of credit-scoring violated federal
civil rights laws (42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982) and the housing law (42 U.S.C. 3601).
The plaintiffs argued that Allstate employed a nationwide scheme of intentional racial
discrimination against minorities, charging them higher premiums for property and casualty
insurance than whites had to pay. They also argued that Allstate used credit scores, a factor
they contend has no reasonable relationship to risk of loss, to justify placing minority applicants
36
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
in more expensive policies. The plaintiffs alleged that Allstate had violated both federal civil
rights and housing laws by engaging in a pricing practice that was racially discriminatory
because of its disparate impact on minorities. Disparate impact claims involve procedures that
are not intentionally discriminatory but result in discrimination.
10.3 Recent Lawsuits That Impact Homeowners Insurance Practices
A lawsuit filed in the late 1990s against Citigroup, Travelers Property and Casualty and Aetna
Casualty & Surety in federal district court in Washington, D.C., alleged that the companies
engaged in pervasive discriminatory practices and maintained underwriting standards and
policies that restrict, limit or deny homeowner's insurance in predominantly Black, Latino and
integrated neighborhoods in the Unites States.
The suit was brought by six nonprofit fair housing agencies from various areas of the United
States. Using testing and investigational techniques, the plaintiffs identified policies, practices
and underwriting standards that severely limited or denied insurance coverage needed to repair,
replace or rebuild homes located in older neighborhoods that were Black, Latino or integrated.
In addition, fair housing and community groups placed Travelers and Aetna on notice regarding
their discriminatory policies in the late 1970s. State Farm, Nationwide and Mutual are three
other companies that have run afoul of fair housing laws. All of these insurance companies
settled their lawsuits and have since changed many of their policies on a national level,
including in Orange County.
Some of the illegal practices found in these investigations included:
• Charging Blacks more for the same coverage or offering inferior coverage
® Requiring additional background information from applicants in minority or low-moderate
income neighborhoods
® Offering Whites replacement cost coverage, but denying it to Blacks
® Maintaining minimum age restrictions and minimum value restrictions
• Requiring inspections of homes in minority neighborhoods more frequently
• Referring callers from minority neighborhoods to other insurance companies
10.4 Location of Agents
A critical factor in the marketing of insurance is the location of offices/agents. A majority of the
policies sold by most agents are to insure properties in neighborhoods in which the agent is
located. Studies have shown that the distribution of agent locations is clearly related to the racial
composition of neighborhoods.
We used the local Orange County telephone book and the Yellow Pages at yellowpages.com
for communities within the County to determine location of insurance offices.
37
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
The majority of offices are located in incorporated cities, especially Chapel Hill. Based on
location of these offices there did not seem to be a lack of access to insurance agents/offices
based on minority population. Nor did it seem that certain neighborhoods were being redlined
based on age, condition or other factors.
10.5 Lack of Reporting Requirements
A second and significant concern is the difficulty in obtaining any reports identifying the degree
of insurance coverage being offered by race/ethnicity and geographic area. The insurance
industry has no equivalent to HMDA data, which hinders the monitoring and accountability of the
insurance industry to determine the scope of any impediments to fair housing choice created by
the inability of persons to obtain home owners or rental insurance.
Therefore, it is recommended that an extensive study be conducted of the homeowners'
insurance market to determine the scope of the problem and to identify potential systemic
approaches to eliminate insurance barriers to fair housing choice.
Challenges are being made in Orange County regarding age, marital status, sexual preference
and the provision of County services to low-moderate income (LMI) housing developments.
These actions reflect how fair housing laws and regulations respond and ultimately adapt to the
housing concerns of the community. Current challenges should be used as an indicator by the
community to adjust established policy to meet the housing needs of the protected as well as
the unprotected classes.
11.0 CONCLUSIONS,. IMPEDIMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Below is a summary of the key findings and identified impediments and related
recommendations. The consultant will both identify resources to implement these
recommendations and suggest a feasible timetable.
11.1 NIMBY Issues
Negative attitudes and community hostility are often directed toward group homes, proposed
affordable housing units (project-based subsidized housing) and/or affordable single family
home developments that are proposed in neighborhoods which are not economically distressed
or racially isolated.
Recommendations:
1. Support acommunity-wide program to help reduce public opposition to group living facilities,
public-assisted housing, and other unwanted land use through education and outreach.
38
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
g ty~
2. Create materials for use by the County, community-based organizations and local fair
housing groups to help educate residents who have concerns about new or existing group
homes, public or assisted housing and other locally unwanted land use for the benefit of LMI
households so that residents may better understand the potential benefits of such housing
to the community as a whole.
3. Provide information on and support for enforcement of fair housing laws to help deter future
efforts to block group homes, publicly assisted housing and other locally unwanted land use.
4. Develop a formal process that encourages and supports the use of alternative dispute
resolution, such as mediation, to help service providers and neighborhoods reconcile
differences over group home issues, public-assisted housing, and similar unwanted land
use.
5. Continue working to provide affordable housing for anyone that needs it, including the
homeless and people with mental disabilities.
6. Provide education to local elected officials, landlords, property managers, and neighborhood
associations on NIMBY-ism, siting issues, and applicable fair housing laws.
7. Develop a means to identify potential site disputes early in the process and provide
technical assistance and education tailored to that specific project.
8. Utilize Orange County's public information channel to educate the community on fair
housing issues.
9. Examine the composition of local boards, commissions, and advisory bodies to determine
representation of individuals in protected classes in decision making positions.
11.2 Predatory Lending
Without access to financial services that charge seasonable fees, low- and moderate-income
people will remain trapped in an endless cycle of debt. This debt weakens families which in turn
weakens Orange County neighborhoods. The low- and moderate-income markets demonstrate
a strong demand that is inadequately being served by traditional banking services.
Sub-prime lenders have gained large market share in many areas within the County and the
potential for predatory practices comes with this increased market presence. Equal access to
financial services is a difficult issue requiring the cooperation of all facets of the housing market.
There is a significant need to work closely together, identifying predatory practices, and finding
ways to eliminate them from the community.
Recommendations:
39
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
1. Continue community education, particularly aimed at those populations targeted by
predatory lenders.
2. Include information and education regarding predatory practices for those participating in
County programs that provide equity, which may later become the subject of equity-stripping
predatory practices.
3. Identify sub-prime lenders and ensure that all sectors and the general public understand the
divisions between prime, sub-prime lending and predatory lending.
4. Identify which institutions and transactions are regulated and identify any gaps. Include
consideration of fringe financial industry practices in the areas of check cashing and "payday
loans," and explore the feasibility of making available alternative, legitimate services to
address identified gaps.
5. Ensure all County grantee organizations•serving persons who experience predatory lending
practices receive training to identify and properly advise and/or refer persons to appropriate
resources in the community.
11.3 Lending Issues
The dream of home ownership is still eluding many qualified members of minority communities.
Without an asset base in the geographic areas with high percentages of minorities, there will be
limited community reinvestment, including businesses like grocery stores and other retail
services.
Recommendations:
1. Promote quality home ownership education in both English and Spanish, especially aimed
at the low and moderate-income markets.
2. Encourage the lending industry to conduct an ongoing campaign to increase minority loan
applications for the purchase of homes including the provision of education to real estate
professionals on the use of community lending products for LMI clientele.
3. Conduct and publicly publish annual reviews of lending institutions using HMDA data to
determine if applications from non-White individuals and families are rising and if denial
rates are comparable to White borrowers in the same income levels. Identify and develop a
means of collecting equivalent data on non-regulated lenders that do not report HMDA data
and include them in the annual review.
4. Monitor the progress of the lending industry through annual reviews and through the results
of matched pair fair housing testing.
40
Oran a Coun North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
g tY~
5. Reward lenders engaged in serving the LMI market with community lending products.
11.4 Real Estate Issues
The current scope of service did not include sales and real estate testing. However, racial
patterns since 1997 show an ongoing pattern of racial and ethnic steering in the Orange County
markets. The maps in Appendix 3 show the minority concentrations in specific census tracts that
are consistent with a pattern of racial and ethnic steering.
Recommendations:
Initiate a task force with members of the real estate industry, advocacy groups and local fair
housing organizations to review current fair housing training for real estate professionals
and to develop and initiate educational programs addressing racial and ethnic steering and
disparate treatment issues.
2. Provide education in English and Spanish on real estate steering and disparate treatment
issues as they relate to the real estate industry. Since White buyers are as likely to be
steered away from some areas of the County and towards others, ensure educational efforts
are community-wide and not just to the non-White members of the Orange County
community.
11.5 Affordable Rental Housing
One of the most significant concerns was the increasing cost of housing in the County, although
government/private programs were doing a good job of helping individuals achieve affordable,
safe and decent housing.
The increase in demand for affordable rental housing is a major issue. Negative attitudes and
community hostility toward affordable housing are a critical barrier to increasing affordable rental
stock. Finding ways to address these attitudes is covered in the earlier recommendations.
In addition, local communities must work with HUD, the state, and the public housing authorities
to increase efforts to provide housing to low-income residents.
Recommendations:
1. Develop resources to facilitate implementation of the mobility counseling provisions of the
plan.
2. Assist in the recruitment of landlords, developers and others to increase the number of
housing providers participating in the MHA's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program.
41
Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
3. Develop and encourage proactive education efforts (see recommendations to address
NIMBY impediments) to facilitate implementation of the program by
avoiding/averting/minimizing these problems. Recruiting the involvement of non-profit, faith-
based, grassroots and other existing community organizations in this effort is recommended
for efficiency and effectiveness.
4. Consider the adoption of a County ordinance that would protect the additional characteristic
of "source of income" or "participation in Housing Choice voucher program."
5. Examine the composition of local boards, commissions, and advisory bodies to determine
representation of individuals in protected classes in decision making positions.
11.6 Zoning Issues
We outlined a number of issues that we found in the zoning ordinance for the County. Our
specific concerns regarded the definition for family and the location of group homes.
Recommendations:
1. We would recommend a review of the definition of family. If possible a new definition that is
I more inclusive may be considered.
2. Identify the best locations for group homes or group care homes by meeting with special
needs service providers to determine the best ways to provide adequate housing for the
disabled, particularly via group homes.
42
. Orange County, North Carolina - AIFCH - 2007
FOOTNOTES
1. Based on 2000 U.S. Census Tracts.
2. Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan 2005-2010, pg 20
3. Ibid
4 . Ibid
5. Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan 2005-2010, pg 22
6. Ibid, pg. 23
7. Consolidated Plan 2005-2010, page 25
8. National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach
9. 2000 Median renter household income, adjusted to 2006 value using HUD income
adjustment
10. Orange County North Carolina web site, Human Relations Commission web page.
11. Ibid
12. Ibid
13. FFIEC 2004 HMDA Aggregate and Disclosure
14. Council on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio, 2000
15. Center for Responsible Lending
16. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Fall 2000
17. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's website www.ffiec.gov/hmda,
September 12, 2003
18. Poverty & Race, Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan/Feb 2005, Page 17
19. Ibid
20. (2006) Voice of America. Lawsuit Calls on Craig's List to do Better Job of Policing Ads
21. The Effects of Exclusionary Zoning on Affordable Housing, Richard T. Lai, 1991, p.3
22. Ibid, p. 17
43