After the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, the Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Schneider (2014) affirms that Fair Housing Act (FHA), was purposely applied to curb discriminatory housing patterns which were encouraging and upholding racial segregation and in the discrimination in the sale and rental of housing based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Schneider (2014) addresses that in 1974, gender was included as a protective class under the Act, intensifying the prohibitions of the act to the treatment and harassment of individuals on the gender perspectives. Nonetheless, the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 included disability and family status as safeguarded categories and stretched HUD’s enforcement function in using the act to hinder discrimination. Schneider (2014) views that he Civil Act of 1964 provided the launch of the Fair Financing Act in an era where there were dramatic and controversial changes in the racial and social structure (ibid).
The Fair Housing Act was amended in 1988, and it expanded its provisions. Schneider (2014) asserts that he act intensified its outline of the Fair Housing Act to disallow discrimination based on familial status. Moreover, the Fair Housing Act created new administrative enforcement mechanisms with HUD attorneys to enable justice on behalf of victims of housing discrimination. In addition, the fair housing act necessitates the realtors to make sound exceptions in their policies and operations to give individuals with disabilities equivalent housing opportunities. Schneider (2014) expresses that the Fair Housing Act compels the landlords to allow tenants with disabilities to make modifications in their living spaces. Nonetheless, the existing multifamily housing with at least four units ought to be designed and constructed to enable access for persons with disabilities. The paper will examine the role played by Fair Housing Act in declaring it illegal on advertising, steering and blockbusting practices that are based on discriminations.
On 11th April 1968, the current President Lyndon Johnson approved the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was typically an advancement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Schneider (2014), the journey to achieve this law was associated with several events. Between 1966 and1967, the Congress frequently considered the fair housing bill, but the number of supporters was insufficient to pass the bill into an act. The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 1968 allowed President Lyndon to convince the Congress to pass the bill. Schneider (2014) claims that the 1966 open housing demonstrations around Chicago viewed that Dr. King’s identity was closely linked to the fair housing law. Additionally, President Lyndon wished that the passing of the bill into an act was a fitting memorial to the King Luther struggles. Moreover, he viewed that the Act should be passed before the Dr. Kings funeral in Atlanta. Schneider (2014) argues that the majority of the 1968 Civil Rights Act’s titles were committed to the Indian Affairs. One of the most popular titles was the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA), which equates to the majority of the assurances displayed in the Bill of Rights used within the tribal backgrounds. Schneider (2014) postulates that the most important legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act is doomed to be applicable for a longer time than the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s anti-voting discrimination initiatives (ibid).
Forbids advertising practices on the basis of religion, race, color, handicap, familial status and national origin.
In the Fair Housing Act, the persons, and the advertisers are responsible for discriminative housing advertising. Douglas (2015) maintains that discriminative house advertising is not safeguarded under the first amendment of the constitution for freedom of speech. House advertising is categorized as a commercial speech and therefore not detailed in the constitution. It is not the publisher’s responsibility to accept advertising from a commercial provider a certain comment. Douglas (2015) reasons that the Fair Housing Act prohibits advertising, posting ads or addressing in such a mode as to deny access to a person if the denial is categorized on the perspective of religion, race, color, disability or national origin. For instance, the Act may ban the actions where the advertisement of a duplex or rental income contain pictures that show that the owners are of a particular race. Douglas (2015) disputes that the Act reveals that the prohibitions apply to both the written and oral notices by an individual engaged in the sale or rental of properties. These written sources may compose of brochures, flyers, posters, banners and signs (ibid).
Discriminatory advertising is evident when the words, phrases, and photographs imply that the dwellings are constructed to cater for a certain race, religion, color or national origin. Douglas (2015) maintains that he law prohibits any expression to the real estate agents, workers, and sellers on any buyer or renter due to race, religion, familial status and national origin. Moreover, the law prohibits the selection of media or areas for advertising the sale or rentals of homes which repudiate certain segments of the housing market information based on the real estate opportunities due to familial status, religion, race or color. Nonetheless, the law prohibits the refusal to advertise for the sale of properties that require different terms and conditions for such advertising due to color, religion, ethnic and nationality differences (ibid).
Forbids blockbusting practices on the basis of religion, race, color, handicap, familial status and national origin.
The Fair Housing Act does not allow blockbusting in housing practices. Zax &Furst (2012) contends that blockbusting refers to the encouragement to practice the sale and rental of a dwelling by emphasizing that persons of a particular race, color, family status or origin are settling in the estate in large numbers. Zax &Furst (2012) says that blockbusting occurs in various aspects of the housing practices. The practice happens when the real estate sales persons encourage owners to list the houses for sales or rentals by notifying them of the persons that of a particular race, color, religion or sex. It also happens when the real estate companies vendor a home in a geographical location to an individual of a certain race, religion, color, sex or familial status with the ultimate goal to cause property owners in the estates to panic and list their properties for sale at distressed prices. Though, the main importance of the Act is to safeguard the potential renters and buyers of the real estate, Zax, &Furst (2012) addresses that the Fair Housing Act shields the real estate agents who are among the protected agents (ibid).
In the early 1900s, blockbusting tactics encompassed the frequent motivation of homeowners in areas close to the black neighborhoods to vendor before it become too late and their property values decreased. The real estate agents employed the African Americans to room in dynamic geographical locations in such a mode to incite and overemphasize the whites concerns. Blockbusting relied on a high intensity of residential discrimination and offered the modes for conveying ownership of lands from the whites to the blacks at a period when the financial firms declined to sell to African Americans. A significant effect occurred as a result of destabilization of the residential societies as it hiked the tensions.
King (2013) argues that the real estate brokerages may set varying fees for memberships in numerous listing services and may not restrain the advantages accruing to the members in real estate brokers’ organizations. King (2013) dictates that the brokerages may not launch geographical boundaries or the real estate outlines for access or membership in any real estate based organizations, concerning a person’s membership in any of the statutorily protected groups. In the contemporary world of blockbusting cases, King (2013) stresses that the courts have concentrated on what was heard. If the real estate salesperson lacked a wrongful intention, the liability would be imposed if the disciplined homeowner believes that the sales person is trading on his presumed fear of minorities to motivate the homeowner to list his property for sale (ibid).
Forbids steering practices on the basis of religion, race, color, handicap, familial status and national origin.
Sheffield (2014) presumes that the Fair Housing Act prohibits steering practices in the buying and rental housing practices. It occurs when a real estate broker is motivated or discouraged from buying property in a certain geographical area due to the agent’s actions. In the 20th Century, steering was prevalent. Sheffield (2014) states that the practice became illegal with the progress of Civil Laws and fair housing laws. Steering continues to be a catastrophe because of paired testing issues in the local housing markets (Sheffield, 2014). The practice is premised on the idea that the buyer will be incompatible to the residents of the estate due to his differences in religion, race, color and ethnic background. Initially, steering was perceived as a guidance practice of a potential purchaser via the use of verbal persuasion (ibid).
Douglas (2015) asserts that the Fair Housing Act shields the liberty of choice for the purchaser. These features allow the complaints to be easily suspected and unlikely to disprove. There are several driving factors personal to the potential purchaser which may have given the realtor a better reason to emphasize a certain geographical location. Douglas (2015) emphasizes that the factors encompass the quality and locations of the institutions, transportation modes, the prices of properties and the distance to employment and crime rates. The use of these factors develops complexities because they used to an equal margin in numerous legitimate transactions. Steering destroys the social cohesion and economic growth among the neighborhoods. Douglas (2015) contends that the steering spreads segregation and discrimination, and this encourages capital flight and hikes poverty rates. The final result of this discriminatory housing practice is economic loss to the homeowners, economic instability and the hindrance to settle in concentrated ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, the Fair Housing Act prohibits steering practices, and this allows the regions where this law is effective to experience higher economic growths and social cohesion rates (ibid).
Douglas (2015) narrates that racial discrimination was established in the real estate sector during the 1920s. The mortgage insurance assisted the whites purchase new dwellings and executed less to assist African Americans wishing for improved housing. The racial segregation was prevalent but started to decline after the passage of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The FHA is the majority of the insurance operation till present. The ethnic minorities are denied the chance and likelihood to move out of the poor communities (ibid).
As expounded above, the eradication of racially discriminative practices like blockbusting, steering and advertising practices is a necessity to achieve the intentions outlined in the Fair Housing Act. Fair Housing Act seeks to curb discriminatory patterns which were bolstering racial segregation. The law focuses on declaring it illegal on persons that discriminate other persons in the sale and rental properties in relation to the ethnic differences, race, color, religion or nationality. The courts who are the main players in applying the Fair Financial Act should adhere to the enforcement steps closely to elude an incompatible result. Those victims that claim that they have been victims of discrimination should be offered the statutory procedure to safeguard their liberty in situations where the steering, blockbusting, and advertising practices may obstruct. Though, this should not be an obligation to encourage a statement to establish a violation of Title VIII. The main emphasis is that the actions of those directly interfered by any discrimination to judicial solutions immediately so as to elude further harm. Spurious claims specifically those of the testers that do not threat immediate future injury should be employed and scrutinized via the HUD’s solutions.
References
Douglas, D. T. (2015). Standing on Shaky Ground: Standing Under the Fair Housing Act. Akron Law Review, 34(3), 1.
King, A. W. (2013). Affirmatively Further: Reviving the Fair Housing Act's Integrationist Purpose. NYUL Rev., 88, 2182.
Schneider, V. (2014). In Defense of Disparate Impact: Urban Redevlopment and the Supreme Court's Recent Interest in the fair Housing Act. Mo. L. Rev., 79, 539.
Sheffield, J. J. (2014). At Forty-Five Years Old the Obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Gets a Face-Lift, but Will It Integrate America's Cities. U. Fla. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 25, 51.
Zax, J. S., & Furst, V. (2012). The effects of state Fair Housing laws on residential segregation.
