Outdated: being updated

The Fair Housing Toolkit brings together available resources to help appointed and elected leaders, and municipal planning, housing and redevelopment officials, developers, citizen board members, and other volunteers understand how to affirmatively further fair housing.   A tool such as Visitibility design addresses physical barriers and can be a goal for master plans and in Assessing Fair Housing.

This section will enable planners to understand how to increase accessible housing for people with disabilities in their municipality through Visitability initiatives. It also addresses on-going efforts in the Universal Design.

What is Visitability?

Visitability is a sustainable and inclusive design approach that integrates three basic accessibility features into all newly built homes and housing. The term was introduced in 1987 by Concrete Change, a housing advocacy group in Atlanta, Georgia. A Visitable residence is a home built with the following characteristics: a zero-step entrance, wide interior doors, and a half bathroom on the first floor.

A Visitable home creates a level of accessibility to accommodate visits by persons with mobility limitations or for longer-term mobility changes for the residents.   Therefore it may not have all the design aspects that would be needed for someone with a severe disability.   Such design aspects might be kitchen counter height or fully accessible bathing facilities.  Basically, Visitability is geared towards creating inclusive housing by using access to increase interactions.

What is the need for accessible housing in Massachusetts?

The structural barriers that exist in much of the Massachusetts’s housing stock can interfere with the ability of older adults and persons with disabilities to live independently. In Aging and Disability: Implications for Housing Industry and Housing Policy in the United States, published by the Journal of the American Planning Association, researchers Smith, Rayon, and Smith  estimate that there is a 60 percent probability that a newly built single-family detached unit will house at least one disabled resident during its expected lifetime.

Massachusetts’ municipalities can encourage an inclusive community by moving beyond the minimum accessibility requirements for multifamily housing found in the Massachusetts Architectural Accessibility regulation (CMR 521), Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 as well as state and municipal housing developments that are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.   Visitability standards target housing that does not trigger these laws and introduces methods to incorporate different levels of accessibility into the construction of new, primarily single family homes.

Training on building accessibility is available from several agencies in Massachusetts.  The Massachusetts Office on Disability offers Community Access Monitor training.  The training includes surveying buildings for accessibility and advocating for compliance.   The New England ADA Center also offers training, including Field Based Training for municipalities and Plan Reading Workshops. 

How are other municipalities, states and regions increasing their accessible housing stock through Visitability?

Municipalities, counties and states have utilized both mandatory and voluntary measures as the basis for Visitability programs. Some programs mandate Visitability elements in housing subsidized by federal, state or local funds, while other programs issue mandates for all new construction. Voluntary programs commonly incorporate incentives for the developer or consumer, including tax rebates, expedited permitting or fee waivers.

Bolingbrook, Illinois requires Visitability in all newly constructed detached and attached single family homes. The design, installation and construction regulations are prescribed in the Bolingbrook’s Visitability Code.  In addition to a zero-step entrance, wide doorways and a half bath on the first floor, the code addresses hallways, bathroom design and the height of wall switches and receptacles. The Community Development Department reviews and inspects these design elements as part of the overall development and permitting process.  Bolingbrook provides an example where Visitability requirements have been successfully implemented in a cold weather climate. A common concern among developers and consumers integrating the zero-step entrance component of Visitability is that snow will cause flooding or water retention problems. This has not presented as an issue in the Visitable homes built in Bolingbrook.   Concrete Change has produced technical assistance materials detailing the construction techniques that address these issues.

Additional resources, including a map of the areas in Bollingbrook with Visitable units can be found at https://www.bolingbrook.com/departments/comdev

The Design for Life Montgomery program is a voluntary certification program for Visit-Ability and Live-Ability in single family attached and detached homes located in Montgomery County, Maryland. Its guidelines apply to both new construction and renovation of existing homes. These guidelines define a Visit-able home as having three basic design elements: 1. At least one no-step entry located at the front door, back door, side door (any door), deck or through the garage connected to an accessible route to a place to visit on that level. 2. 32 inch or 2 feet by 10 feet clear width interior doors. 3. A useable powder room or bathroom. A Live-Ability home has the same three basic design features of the visit-able home plus, at least one bedroom, full bath, and kitchen with circulation path that connects the rooms to an accessible entrance.

The program is administered as part of the regular permitting process and there are no additional permitting costs associated with participation in the program. Montgomery County was able to build a successful partnership between the County government, the County’s Commission on People with Disabilities Housing Accessibility Committee, the building industry, the business community and other accessibility advocates. This partnership generated a zoning text amendment to allow homeowners to modify access to their homes “by right” rather than requiring them to submit to the Board of Appeals for a zoning variance. The County Council is currently considering a bill to provide a tax credit up to $10,000 to residents that certify their residence through the Design for Life program. Additionally, the County is considering the creation of a Design for Life Building and Project Certification Program, where architects, builders and projects are eligible for platinum, gold, silver or bronze certification depending on the number of units that have achieved Visit-ability or Liv-ability.

Additional information on the program’s guidelines, consumer awareness campaign and other resources can be found at   https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/HHSProgram/ADS/DFLM/DesignForLifeMontgomery.html

The S.M.A.R.T. (Safe, Mixed Income, Accessible, Reasonably-priced, Transit Oriented) Housing Policy was established by the City of Austin, Texas in 2000.  The program, which is a hybrid of mandatory and voluntary policies, bundles affordable housing goals and transit oriented development with accessibility initiatives.  While developers of privately funded single and multi-family development may be incentivized to opt into the program by expedited permitting and reduced or waived fees, all housing subsidized by city, state and federal funds is mandated to abide by the program’s requirements. The S.M.A.R.T. Resource Guide includes additional accessibility standards beyond the federal requirements and those found in the City of Austin’s building code. Visitability standards are also included for single family, duplexes and triplexes, which are codified in the city’s ordinance. Common design questions about the no-step entrance component of the Visitability Standards are addressed by the program guidelines. The City’s Neighborhood Housing and Community Development staff is trained to provide technical assistance to developers working under the S.M.A.R.T. program guidelines. The program has been successful in creating affordable, accessible rental and homeownership housing as well as transitional and emergency shelters for the homeless.

How are local municipalities incorporating Visitability initiatives?

The Town of Westport’s (MA)  Noquochoke Overlay District (NOD) is a bylaw that includes a Social Sustainability, Accessibility and Visitability provision.  The bylaw was approved at the 2009 Town Meeting.   The bylaw and district were created for publically owned land that then became the subject of a request for proposal (RFP) to developers.  According to the bylaw, “Social sustainability is design that acknowledges that a person’s abilities may change over his or her lifetime and allows their home and neighborhood to accommodate the changing needs.” The components of the bylaw were developed to enable people to fully participate in community life, in the homes they visit and in the public spaces surrounding these homes.  The provision requires that a minimum of 30 percent of the total dwelling units in the development must be Visitable, by including a zero-step entrance, doorways (both interior and exterior) with at least 32 inches of clear width and at least a half bath on the main floor of the home.  As a result of the RFP process, a 50-unit development in the NOD is currently under review by the Affordable Housing Trust for the Town of Westport.

Are Visitability mandates legal?

Concrete Change has addressed this question by summarizing the limited case law on where Visitability ordinances were challenged by builders.   Municipalities in Massachusetts can use Visitability improvements as incentives/requirements in requests for proposals, similar to the Town of Westport’s approach.

The Massachusetts State Senate is currently considering a bill (Bill S.1787) to provide for a study by a special commission to evaluate the need for Visitable homes across the state and evaluate options for increasing the capacity to meet those needs.

Additional resources

• The Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (IDEA Center) has completed practically oriented research, publications and other projects on Visitability. The IDeA Center offers online Visitability training annually and sponsors a Visitability listserv that is open to the public.
• The IDEA Center created Inclusive Housing: A Pattern Book, which is a design tool to assist municipalities and developers incorporate Visitability in the context of different types of residential neighborhood.
• Increasing Home Access: Designing for Visitability, examines the different types of Visitability initiatives and evaluates their potential for improving the prospects for aging independently in one’s home and community. The report also includes the latest research on Visitability cost analyses.
• Concrete Change, the organization that began the Visitability Movement, provides information about policies, resources, and case law on Visitability.

Universal Design in Massachusetts

Universal Design is another way municipalities and developers can increase accessible housing.

In the 1980s, internationally recognized architect, Ron Mace, coined the term Universal Design as the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. In 1997, Universal Design advocates compiled the following seven principles of design.

1. Equitable Use: The design does not disadvantage or stigmatize any group of users.
2. Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.
3. Simple, Intuitive Use: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.
4. Perceptible Information: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.
5. Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.
6. Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue.
7. Size and Space for Approach & Use: Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of the user’s body size, posture, or mobility.

There is significant variation in the way programs structured to encourage accessible housing have translated these principles into design standards. The Institute of Human Centered Design (IHCD), is leading the conversation in the state about how universal design can be implemented in housing. Specifically, the IHCD is convening the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, the Department of Housing and Community and Development, the Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation as well as Massachusetts Office on Disability and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to develop an approach to universal design in multi-family housing. The IHCD’s goal is to develop a set of inclusive design standards for multi-family housing in Massachusetts.

Other organizations throughout the country that are participating in research, advocacy and discussions on Universal Design include Access Living and RL Mace Universal Design Institute.

Outdated: being updated

The Fair Housing Toolkit brings together available resources to help appointed and elected leaders, municipal planning, housing and redevelopment officials, developers, citizen board members, and other volunteers understand how to affirmatively further fair housing.  Zoning is a critical tool used at the local level to shape a municipality through requirements and incentives for land use.   This section demonstrates the fair housing implications of zoning and land use regulation to help planning boards, zoning boards and municipal planning staff meet the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.   Zoning implements the master plan and can help create diversity of housing opportunities.  The courts have also made it clear that zoning cannot discriminate against protected classes.  As a further introduction to issues of fair housing and equity, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council has prepared the State of Equity in Metro Boston with a series of indicator reports monitoring progress toward achieving equity goals.

What is the need to link fair housing to zoning?

Historically, there have been policies that have led to segregation throughout the Greater Boston region.   The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston (FHCGB) has created an interactive timeline demonstrating how the intentional and unintentional policies of the past created patterns of segregation that remain today.

FHCGB’s research, Historical Shifts from Explicit to Implicit Policies Affecting Housing Segregation in Eastern Massachusetts details these stages of development.   While redlining institutionalized racial segregation in the cities, it was the development of the suburbs via the construction of Route 128 that magnified the effects of segregation by increasing the physical separation between whites and people of color. Municipalities responded to the subsequent in-migration of jobs and people to the suburbs by enacting rigid zoning ordinances.  Zoning regulations were created to control density, protect open space, with a subsequent increase in housing prices. Strict zoning restrictions are still in use today and have a disparate impact.  Because they limit affordability and number of rental multifamily housing opportunities, these restrictions can have a disparate impact particularly for protected classes.

During the 1950s, towns like Lincoln and Weston, threatened with a massive inrush for single family housing on their graceful stretches of farmland, were among the first to protect themselves in this way. The magnitude of the demand for any kind of housing raised the price of older housing stock and raised rents. This created a serious problem for persons outside the labor force and lower income households. Little if any public housing was constructed in the communities adjacent to Route 128 during this period. In this way, persons in the lower income group were squeezed out of the more affluent towns or filtered into the older dilapidated sections of the less affluent ones. The suburbs became increasingly homogenous with respect to income.¹

MAPC projects that, if current zoning trends continue, by 2035 more than 85% of new housing in developing suburbs of Metropolitan Boston will be large, expensive single-family houses on lots of one acre or more. This may lead to a lack of modestly priced housing for young families, municipal employees, and minorities in locations where much of the region’s job growth is projected to occur. ²

Maps created by the FHCGB illustrate how current zoning practices – multifamily zoning, age restricted zoning, minimum lot sizes – impact communities of color and perpetuate segregation.

¹ Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Right and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.   Route 128: Boston’ Road to Segregation.  January, 1975.
² MAPC.  MetroFuture Trendlines #3.

What is the legal and regulatory guidance on zoning and fair housing?

In February 2013, HUD published the Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard Final Rule, describes policies, practices or services that appear neutral on the surface, but, in practice, disadvantage protected class members and/or perpetuate segregated housing patterns.  Municipalities have the obligation to analyze and modify rules, policies, and practices that have potential discriminatory effects.

The effects of exclusionary zoning policies and practices are at the core of the Westchester False Claims case and its resulting settlement agreement.  The Department of Justice argued that exclusionary zoning practices in Westchester’s predominantly white, affluent suburbs have limited housing access for low income residents of color.  In order to fulfill its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, the county must remove exclusionary zoning barriers and institute policies to reverse their effects.  After failing to comply with many settlement terms, in September, 2013, HUD reallocated $7.4 million in CDBG, HOME and ESG funds from Westchester County to other eligible jurisdictions.

Multiple legal cases hinge on the fair housing implications of zoning policies. Please see the Fair Housing Case Law section for specific examples.

What policy areas are of particular concern for fair housing implications?

• Design preferences – Municipal design preferences for certain housing types, such as single family units or multi-level townhouses may have an unintended discriminatory effect based on race or disability.
• Maintaining Housing – It is illegal to target members of any protected class for unequal enforcement of building, maintenance, safety or sanitary codes. It is necessary to distinguish between (a) the need to enforce property maintenance codes against substandard housing in which people live, including protected class members, and (b) the specific targeting of housing where protected class members live for more stringent inspections in order to remove them from their homes or to unnecessarily condemn their dwellings.
• Reasonable Accommodations – A municipality is required to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities when it is necessary to provide them with equal housing opportunity. This may include, for example, granting a variance under the local zoning ordinance.  The City of Newton and the Newton Housing Partnership negotiated with the developer of Parkview Homes, a 40B project, to insure accessible housing was available in the development.  The Partnership then supported the development before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which gave its approval.  The City of Lynn’s Zoning Board of Appeals gave approve to a variance for the Lynn Home for Woman.  This development of 40 affordable units in 2 existing buildings included housing for persons infected with AIDS or HIV.  Another example of reasonable accommodation in zoning administration is for the removal of architectural barriers for people with disabilities.  Often municipalities will grant a variance for setback requirements for entrance ramps.
• Redevelopment Plans – In planning for redevelopment it is essential to consider the impact of development plans on existing residents of the area being redeveloped.  If the housing that will be demolished includes a large number of residents who have protected status then there may be a discriminatory effect if these residents are displaced.  One way to address this concern is to ensure that the residents of the area being redeveloped are directly involved in the redevelopment planning and decision making process.Anti-displacement strategies can be used to insure that redevelopment has minimal adverse impact on existing residents and policies and procedures are in place to insure that residents have adequate replacement housing.  Low- and moderate- income households in particular can be affected by development activities or market changes that take place in their neighborhoods.  The U.S. Uniform Relocation Act should be consulted regarding redevelopment plans and relocation actions.  MAPC has developed a matrix of case studies showing anti-displacement strategies.
• Site Selection – Since patterns of segregation may establish a basis for a housing discrimination complaint, through evidence of discriminatory intent or effect, it is important to consider such trends in making locational decisions.
• Special Permit and Review Process – Many municipalities in Massachusetts do not allow multi- family housing by right, even in designated multi-family zoning districts.  Special review and permitting can impede affordable housing development, perpetuating patterns of segregation

What are some examples of steps municipalities should consider to affirmatively further fair housing?

No one zoning policy or practice is on its own the solution for affirmatively furthering fair housing. Each policy must be examined according to how it advantages or disadvantages groups protected under fair housing laws.  This requires conducting a disparate impact analysis using data sources such as Metro Boston DataCommon and the HUD Prototype Geospacial Tool.   Such policies can serve to affirmatively further fair housing by using affirmative marketing requirements.

Adopting overlay districts
The overlay district is an innovative tool in Massachusetts to meet a variety of land use goals.  An overlay district can provide protection for natural resources.  Often, the overlay district is used to incent housing production.  Municipalities can use the provisions of these districts to affirmatively further fair housing by prioritizing a detailed and actionable affirmative fair housing marketing plan. For any overlay district, specific fair housing needs can be given priority for developer selection or approval.  For instance, two preferences can be specified: units with 3 or more bedrooms to accommodate families and units that meet visitibility standards.

The 40R program for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provides incentives for overlay districts for affordable housing.  Since the program began in 2004, 33 districts have been adopted in 31 communities.   The state provides financial incentives to the municipality for adopting the zoning and streamlining the development process.  The program has been affected by a weak real estate market for residential development.   Housing built under 40R must have an affirmative marketing plan and at least 20% of the units must be affordable.   MAPC has prepared an extensive report on the first several years of the 40R program, including a profile of the districts and the municipalities.  For approval of a 40R, the municipality receives a letter of eligibility and brings the 40R by-law to town meeting or city council for approval. Chapter 40S compliments 40R by adding financial incentives to qualifying municipalities enacting 40R to help cover the costs of educating any school-age children who move into these districts.  The financial incentive follows a formula concerning increased local revenue and state education funding.  The Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development provides an overview of the 40R and 40S program, with additional sources for information.

A key document for instituting the 40R program is a housing needs analysis, often referred to as a housing production plan.   The Massachusetts of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) provides guidelines for Housing Production Plan, including affirmatively further fair housing.

Mixed Use Zoning
A guide to mixed use zoning, compiled by MAPC, is based primarily on the experiences of five suburban municipalities that have prepared bylaws toward this end. MAPC also investigated the mixed use experiences of other municipalities in the region and elsewhere in the state.  Municipalities encourage proposals for special permit approvals for mixed-use developments in otherwise single use commercial zones.   In exchange for the permit approval, the developer can be required to include affordable units, accessible units, units with 3 or more bedrooms, or other priorities identified to affirmatively further fair housing goals.

Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning uses mandatory requirements and development incentives to help create affordable housing.  Inclusionary zoning bylaws may only apply to certain types of development, such as new construction or substantial rehabilitation, requiring a minimum percentage of low and moderate income housing.   The unit threshold that triggers the inclusionary zoning provision should be related to the real estate market.  For instance in municipalities that are substantially built out, inclusionary zoning could apply to developments with fewer units.   Often, density bonuses help to make the program work in the marketplace.  Inclusionary zoning bylaws may include alternatives to dedicated units in the development itself.  For instance, some municipalities give developers the option of paying a fee per unit or building affordable units off-site.   The City of Somerville’s Inclusionary Housing Article, which provides for a density bonus, is triggered with 8 units and 12.5% of those units must be affordable.  The Article, part of the Zoning Ordinances, applies to new construction, substantial rehabilitation, Planned Unit Development, residential conversion, or adaptive reuse.    DHCD has created a model inclusionary zoning bylaw.    Inclusionary Zoning Guidelines for Cities and Towns by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund outlines legal considerations and choices for zoning programs.

Linkage
Linkage fees generate income for housing programs, based on the concept that when commercial property is developed, there is a need for workforce housing.  A threshold of development is usually established to exempt smaller developments.     Linkage, typically implemented through the zoning ordinance, requires a vibrant development climate to succeed.  Policy Link provides an overview of commercial linkage strategies.   The City of Somerville also has a Linkage Article in the Zoning Ordinances providing for a “project mitigation contribution”.  This fee is assessed on commercial development over 30,000 square feet.  For every square foot of building over that number, a fee of $3.91 is assessed.   To support the linkage program, Somerville had a study completed to determine housing need and the impact of commercial development.

Inclusionary zoning policies, linkage fees, and density bonuses do not address barriers to equal opportunity unless they include affirmative marketing requirements. Increasing the number of affordable units in itself will not alter patterns of segregation.  Affirmative marketing is most effective when implemented regionally or as part of a regional plan.

Education and community involvement

• Civic engagement to affirmatively further fair housing can create a platform for good policy, including land use regulation.
• Training for municipal staff, board members and other will provide interactive guidance for policy change.

Outdated: being updated

The Fair Housing Toolkit brings together available resources to help appointed and elected leaders and municipal planning, housing and development officials, developers, citizen board members, and other volunteers understand how to affirmatively further fair housing.    Civic engagement is at the heart of the efforts to create inclusive communities.  Master planning, assessing fair housing, serving limited English individuals, affirmative marketing and increasing accessibility are all efforts that best begin with outreach, first to individuals and families within a municipality and region and also to organizations where diverse populations are represented or served.

This section describes the role of resident involvement in efforts to increase awareness of fair housing at the local level, assist municipalities in defining housing needs, and ensuring fair housing issues and complaints are addressed appropriately.  It presents resources for networking and building local committees along with examples of current efforts from area municipalities.

Why is local activity for fair housing needed?

In the section entitled “Segregation and Integration”, the  Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) thoroughly demonstrates racially segregated housing patterns in Greater Boston and describes the extent to which racial and ethnic groups live isolated from interaction with each other.

“… White people live mostly in places where there is little presence of people of color.  The isolation data for the Boston metropolitan area indicates that nearly 83 percent of Whites continue to live only with Whites even though the Black rate of isolation has steadily declined over time.  It also shows growing levels of isolation among Latinos and Asians, likely attributed to the influx of immigrants to the region.  Latino isolation is now equal to that of Blacks.  The reverse of isolation is exposure; the extent to which people of different races and ethnicities live in a place where they are likely to come into contact with one another.  As with the isolation index, the exposure indices indicate that people of color may live near Whites, but Whites live mostly with each other.” ¹

While inclusionary policies and housing development are necessary tools to overcome longstanding patterns of segregation, they must be accompanied by proactive messages of welcome and inclusion at the community level.   Josephine Louie’s report “We Don’t Feel Welcome Here”  found that over half of African Americans and over a third of Hispanics polled in the Metropolitan Boston area believe that “…members of their group ‘very often’ miss out on good housing because they fear that the will not be welcome in a particular community”. ²

¹ MAPC.  Fair Housing and Equity Assessment.   2013.  P 21
² Louie, Josephine.  We Don’t Feel Welcome Here.  2005.   P 1

What are the regulatory requirements for resident involvement?

Beginning with the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 regulations at 24 CFR 570.486, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expressly requires resident participation and public engagement in planning, including the creation of an Analysis of Impediments or an Assessment of Fair Housing  for local and state entities receiving HUD funding. The stated goal of public participation is to provide citizens – especially low and moderate income people affected by the programs – input in the planning, implantation and assessment of programs and projects.   Community Development Block Grant entitlement recipients must create a Citizen Participation Plan, then implement this plan for all other planning processes.

In the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Proposed Rule, HUD restates that municipalities subject to HUD’s requirements must establish a Fair Housing Advisory Council or similar group to advise on housing needs and effective strategies to meet them.

What is the purpose of an Advisory Committee or Commission?

Ongoing civic engagement helps to increase awareness of fair housing at the local level, assist the municipality in defining needs, and insure issues and complaints are addressed.  Involving residents in planning and commission work engages them with municipal government to advocate for causes about which they care passionately. The experiences of research, public hearings, and ongoing service on a commission or committee, help build leadership. Emerging leaders learn the municipal structures available to educate residents as well as how to advocate within local government.

Commission activity assists equity and fair housing in several dimensions:

• A forum is provided for issues related to protected classes
• Concerned local residents and those with expertise in the issues at hand advise and strengthen municipal efforts
• The issue of inclusion is institutionalized within the municipality

How do I start a Fair Housing Advisory Committee/Human Rights Commission in my town or city?

Municipalities may form local committees or commissions or sponsor public awareness campaigns about diversity and inclusion. Often, local interest and committee activity prompts elected officials to pass an ordinance establishing official Commissions for Fair Housing, Human Rights, People with Disabilities, Women and/or Veterans. In other instances, an elected official may appoint a task force to advise fair housing, disability or other related planning processes.   The type of commission (board or committee) can be tailored to fit the municipality.  An ordinance gives permanence for the group’s activity, insulating it from electoral change.

The cities of Somerville and Newton provide examples of active commissions with distinct fair housing efforts.

The City of Somerville’s fair housing ordinance  gives a detailed description of unlawful housing practices according to federal and state law. It establishes the Somerville Fair Housing Commission and its duties.  The Somerville Human Rights Commission ordinance, passed in the 1990s, specifically excludes fair housing because of the pre-existing Fair Housing Commission created in the 1970s. Somerville has separate commissions such as the Commission for Persons with Disabilities among others.

The Newton Human Relations Commission conducts broad based programming including fair housing activities. Following advocacy from Commissioners and residents, the Mayor created a separate Fair Housing Committee charged with specific efforts related to the City’s Analysis of Impediments, Fair Housing Action Plan, and Accessibility Action Plan.  A separate Commission on Disability advises planning for the City.  The Community Engagement Team works to link city government to local residents.

Smaller municipalities also have success with Human Rights commissions. Melrose and Ashfield are two examples of active commissions primarily led by citizen participation. Particularly in smaller municipalities and municipalities where the current population does not reflect the diversity of Greater Boston, regional networking is required to create an effective advisory board. The same organizations, networks, and resources identified for affirmative marketing can be of assistance to invite participation in the fair housing planning process.

While official commissioners would be required to be residents, these advisors – representatives of ethnic groups, persons with disabilities, current tenants in subsidized housing  – bring first-hand knowledge of needs and effective solutions to guide the Assessment of Fair Housing and related action plan. Professional advocates for all protected class populations additionally strengthen the advisory network with their knowledge and connections.

The U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service’s Avoiding Racial Conflict: A Guide for Municipalities offers succinct descriptions of ordinances, policies, and procedures to institutionalize human rights at the municipal level.

What can our town do to promote diversity and respect?

Below are examples of steps taken by Human Rights Commissions throughout the region:

Education & Outreach

• Educate local residents about their fair housing rights and responsibilities. Host trainings and provide materials for landlords and tenants, real estate professionals, and municipal staff and volunteers involved in housing, human services, land use, and planning. Provide educational flyers at town hall, on the town website, at municipal events, and in municipal mailings like water bills. Fair housing organizations in the region can help.
• Create forums. Collaborate with the school district or a local arts council for projects promoting diversity. Invite speakers from area fair housing organizations, researchers, or legal advocates, like events organized by the Winchester Multicultural Network.
• Embrace and celebrate national and state holidays, showing diversity is welcome: Martin Luther King Day, ethnic holidays and fair housing month. Participate in municipal holiday celebrations such as the Memorial Day parade or have a booth at local events and festivals, like efforts by the World in Watertown.
• Reach out with media. Write a monthly op-ed column for the local newspaper and/or letters to the editor supporting efforts to promote housing access. Human Rights Commissioners in Melrose do this monthly.

Response

• Human Rights Commissions can provide the best source for a thoughtful, coordinated response to instances of hatred or intolerance with public showings of support for diversity and inclusion. For example, Medford City government, religious, law enforcement, and school officials publicly denounced hate graffiti.
• Municipal staff and volunteers can assist individuals who have experienced discrimination to pursue their rights by referring them to case advocates at the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston or directly help them file a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Policy

• Influence key policy makers and other boards: assign members to planning, zoning committees, town meeting, other policy making groups. Collaborate with other municipal entities that address housing issues – the affordable housing partnership committee, housing trust fund, community preservation act board – to advocate for policies that affirmatively further fair housing.
• Proactively review proposed policies and programs to ensure that they foster access and equal opportunity for all persons. HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Proposed Rule elaborates on the need for resident involvement in the fair housing planning process. This can prevent legal action against the municipality.

Who is doing work like this in Greater Boston?

As part of the Sustainable Communities Initiative, MAPC staff conducted extensive outreach to engage local residents in the planning process. MAPC is in the process of documenting strategies and lessons learned from the initiative and will post the results on its web pages.

The Massachusetts Association of Human Rights and Relations Commissions (MAHRC) is an organization of municipal and local agencies responsible for promoting human and civil rights and harmonious relationships among diverse groups at a local level.  MAHRC promotes networking initiatives, developing educational strategies and model programs and services as a resource for new and existing human rights and relations commissions.

The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston lists suggested activities for local commissions and for individuals interested in promoting fair housing locally. Staff and board members provide training on the housing discrimination complaint process as well as programming to engage local residents in constructive dialogue about Race and Place.

Faith based organizations are effective arenas for discussion, leadership and action regarding inclusion. Among the most prominent in the region are the Black Ministerial Alliance, Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, the Islamic Society of Boston, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. While not focused particularly on housing, each provides an arena for local engagement.

Regional social justice organizations like JALSA, ACLU, GLAD, NAACP, and area Independent Living Centers have in depth experience with developing local coalitions to respond to hate incidents.  Resources from the National Fair Housing Alliance, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Leadership Conference for Civil Rights can support local efforts.