Dallas Won. HUD Lost. Oops.

Categories: Schutze

julian_castro.jpg
hud.gov
Obama's new HUD Secretary Julian Castro: Focus on this picture for a while, and you can see him blink.

City Hall announced late yesterday that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has caved on the 4-year-old Lockey/MacKenzie racial segregation complaint against Dallas officials, vacating most of the findings of a four-year federal civil rights investigation. A settlement signed yesterday by HUD and the city (see below) is a clean-sweep victory for Dallas and a bruising defeat for HUD.

In yesterday's settlement, HUD admits unspecified errors in its November 2013 finding of noncompliance. HUD releases Dallas from any obligation to pay a fine or suffer a loss of federal funding. The agreement makes no mention of compensation for Curtis Lockey or Craig MacKenzie, downtown developers who claimed Dallas scotched their tower re-do deal at 1600 Pacific because it would have accepted too many minority tenants.

See also: The Feds Say Dallas City Hall Has Promoted Racial Segregation in Housing Projects for Years

The accord signed yesterday is a bitter slap for Lockey and MacKenzie and I hope I can say, without sounding too self-referential, for me as well, since I've been pretty much the Lone Ranger around here for the last couple years predicting exactly the opposite outcome.

Last January when City Attorney Warren Ernst sent HUD a defiant letter attacking the charges, I pretty much mocked him for it and predicted a harsh outcome for the city. Well, mock me.

See also: Dallas to HUD, Stuff It.

Ernst won big on this one, and so did City Manager A.C. Gonzalez. The settlement agreement leaves open a few unresolved matters, but the overwhelming take-away is that HUD took a dive and Ernst and Gonzalez took home the trophy. The city admits no wrongdoing of any kind, walking away unscathed from what would have been an ugly designation as a place that deliberately practices racial segregation by policy. That's a win.

So I should be ready to shoot myself, right? Well, you know how we journalists are. It's not a bad day yet if it's still a good a story. And this one may be even better, story-wise, than with a less one-sided outcome.

This isn't merely a win for Dallas. It's a total and dramatic defeat for the fair housing lawyers at HUD who pressed their claim of non-compliance based on a four-year federal investigation of behavior and policy at Dallas City Hall. This defeat for them may or may not garner a lot of attention in the general press, but, believe me, it will be scrutinized to the bone by the housing press and by local housing officials all over the country.

Hoping not to sound too defensive here, I think I should tell you why I was so sure this would go the other way. It's because the top fair housing officials at HUD, including Bryan Greene, general deputy assistant secretary for fair housing and equal opportunity, who signed yesterday's agreement, were telling my sources emphatically there would be no cave-in by HUD. I told Curtis Lockey last September I was hearing HUD had already agreed to fold its hand, and Lockey was passing my remarks on to HUD.

Last September, Greene emailed Lockey and told him, "I don't know what's in the water there, or whether people simply aren't drinking enough of it, but that's not true." Sara Pratt, a HUD deputy assistant secretary, emailed Lockey to assure him, "The information you provide is not consistent with HUD's position."

The information I could get from HUD at the time was all boiler-plate from the public relations office -- negotiations still underway, no comment, blah-blah -- but I was confident for a number of reasons that the emails to Lockey were genuine, not counterfeit. That meant HUD officials at the very top of the fair housing division were guaranteeing Lockey in writing there would be no cave by them.

Somebody caved. It seems as if it had to be someone above Greene and Pratt's level. There is only one person, an assistant secretary, between them and newly appointed HUD Secretary Julian Castro, former mayor of San Antonio.

That's all above my pay-grade. Castro is an Obama cabinet member. I don't claim to be able to see what's going on at that level. On the other hand, the specific mechanics of the cave-in won't matter much to public housing officials around the country. Their take-away from this will be that Dallas beat HUD. That's what counts.

It means officials in Westchester County, New York, who signed a settlement agreement with HUD in 2009 on a similar complaint, were suckers. They're still tied up in court , getting their federal funding cut off and being tarred in the press, basically because they made the mistake of signing a settlement that the feds can now hold over their heads.

Judging by the outcome here, Westchester's mistake was settling with HUD -- agreeing to HUD's charges of discrimination. If you are a housing official in Jacktown in the state of Somewhere, you're going to look at the Dallas outcome and see these facts: HUD carried out a four-year investigation of Dallas, after which all of the top air housing officials at HUD signed on for a full-court press against Dallas on racial discrimination charges.

As late as a couple months ago, the top fair housing officials at HUD were saying in writing they were still committed to the cause and there would be no retreat. Whatever happened within HUD, however Dallas was able to pull it off, the outcome is plain to see: The entire fair housing division at HUD wound up looking like somebody stole their pants.

At some point in this long saga, Dallas fair housing advocate and attorney Elizabeth Julian talked to me about fair housing and civil rights. She would know. From 1994 to 1999 under President Bill Clinton she was an assistant secretary of HUD for fair housing, occupying the post just above the positions of Greene and Pratt. I can't put my finger on my notes, but a close paraphrase of what Julian said to me would be, "Fair housing is where the entire civil rights movement has ended up."

She meant that fair housing is kind of the Maginot Line, the last trench at the front lines where desegregation activism has been stalled for at least a decade. It's the tough one. Look at Westchester. That's where Clintons and Cuomos live. And the resistance there to using federal housing money to force the racial desegregation of residential neighborhoods has been ferocious (although not ferocious enough, by Dallas standards).

Forgive me for feeling a little histrionic, perhaps, on this day of my own major personal wrongitude, but if Julian is right, and if the Dallas decision is the harbinger I think it is, then maybe that part of the civil rights movement is kind of over. The decision here means there is no one in Washington, not even at the cabinet level, who has got the juice or the commitment to prosecute this kind of enforcement.

HUD had a four-year investigation of the facts behind them. They seemed to have their entire fair housing division mounted up and calling for battle. And Dallas pantsed them anyway. That means nobody needs to be afraid of HUD on fair housing law again, and definitely nobody should ever sign a fair housing settlement with HUD again.

That means a lot.

By the way, Lockey and MacKenzie are back in federal court in Dallas with a new version of their whistleblower lawsuit against Dallas. They claim this new version corrects flaws in an earlier iteration that allowed a federal appeals court to pour them out.

Even if a federal judge here refuses to allow them to amend their suit, they can still bring a fresh new lawsuit, at least in theory. The settlement signed by HUD states explicitly that it is not supposed to harm or effect any third party's right to seek justice in the courts, which is a reference to Lockey and MacKenzie. So that part's not over.

The part that is over is the political story, and it's bigger. Politically at least, nobody has to worry about HUD and fair housing again, at least not under current conditions in Washington. That's still a very good story. And, see: Even when I'm wrong I'm happy. Our little secret, OK?

Dallas HUD Agreement by Schutze


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
70 comments
h_mole1
h_mole1

Councilperson Kingston is right on point:


https://www.facebook.com/PhilipTKingston 


"I would never suggest that Jim is insincere, but I do think there are some fair housing lawyers inside HUD who had no desire to settle whatsoever and who might be tempted to defend themselves against charges of being incompetent fools."

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/11/dallas_hud_outcome_fair.php


I know for a fact Kingston is correct. There were a few very ethical, very competent female Civil Rights Attorneys in FHEO that were fully committed to taking Dallas to the mat on these charges, based on the evidence, but they were removed from their enforcement positions with Dallas over the last couple of months so Bryan Greene and his superiors could cut this deal with Dallas. Take that one to the bank! 


See where this goes now. 

rmack
rmack

"Forgive me for feeling a little histrionic, perhaps, on this day of my own major personal wrongitude, but if Julian is right, and if the Dallas decision is the harbinger I think it is, then maybe that part of the civil rights movement is kind of over. The decision here means there is no one in Washington, not even at the cabinet level, who has got the juice or the commitment to prosecute this kind of enforcement."


I think I read somewhere that Julian also said working for HUD was one of the most frustrating experiences in her career because she couldn't get much of anything done given the politics. 


Guess some things never change. 


Bryan Greene and Castro are keeping those practices alive and well. 


holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

To assert Disparate Impact has nothing to do with this case denies the intent of the Settlement between HUD and the City posted above.

Please allow me to spell it out:

V. SETTLEMENT ACTIONS

1. The City shall continue to develop InspireDallas (also known as "Housing Plus"), a planning effort that was initiated subsequent to the issuance of the Letter. The City has engaged consultants with national caliber expertise and former HUD executives to advise in the development of InspireDallas.

a) The strategy shall include actions that affirmatively further fair housing

(affirmatively furthering fair housing refers to the 2013 rule change requiring statistical analysis - DISPARATE IMPACT - as a metric to move the race needle.  The term "shall" is an order to comply, not a request)

b) The City shall develop the foregoing strategy as part of its updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, which the City shall submit to HUD as part of its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, no later than May 1, 2015. The Analysis of Impediments will identify and consider current demographic patterns of the City.

snip!

Disparate Impact is all over this document.  It is ludicrous to assert the above case had nothing to do with Disparate Impact when the SETTLEMENT continues to enforce it.  In fact, it is at the core of the settlement.

And if the Supreme Court kicks Disparate Impact, this settlement is voided.

demoscum
demoscum

its a lot of work keeping the story straight with all these fine liberal democrats scheming to play the victim in order to keep their people in servatude

demoscum
demoscum

yea move people into nice neighborhoods so they can ruin them, thank god the repubs are taking over and this integration bs can be put on the liberal utopia backburner

demoscum
demoscum

wierd looking guy, got those eyes

gettinw
gettinw

http://texashousers.net/2014/11/05/city-of-dallas-signs-fair-housing-conciliation-agreement-with-hud/#comment-7207 


John Boneyfill

Reply November 6, 2014 at 5:42 pm

"This is all you got, John? Just regurgitation of a few bullet points. How about some opinion on the fact that HUD and Bryan Greene sold minorities down the river?"


  1. John Henneberger Reply November 6, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    "I am withholding judgement until I see how the city follows through on the HousingFirst plan. I think there are people in the city working on that plan who finally get that they cannot continue to stack all the affordable housing in South Dallas. That said, I agree this is not one of the great moments in fair housing enforcement by HUD."

texaspainter
texaspainter


Eddie Berniece Johnson obviously called her lawn boy Julian and told him

what needed trimming down at her homestead.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Speaking of oops, I wonder if OOPS will be allowed to campaign for President from his prison cell. 

James080
James080

While Lockey and MacKenzie may have some basis for a lawsuit, this would seem to put an end to their False Claim cause of action.

legalsw
legalsw

Regardless of prosecutorial discretion and sovereign immunity, complainant should look into suing HUD for their conduct here. After getting all information via FOIA. 

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Whether you want to admit it or not, Disparate Impact killed HUD's warhorse.

And, yes, HUD used stats as a metric for proving discrimination on Dallas.

HUD does not want to defend it in front of the Supreme Court.  The proof will be in the pudding - they'll withdraw from the battlefield wherever they have used DI to prove racial discrimination.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Dallas case employing DI that is going before SCOTUS is settled.


dumocrat
dumocrat

People need to send this story to every news/media outlet in the country. I will do my part. 

hudisajoke
hudisajoke

@h_mole1


Its disgusting to say the least. Gonzalez stated if he didn't sign the agreement they would have incurred tens of million in "penalties." Although, some commenters want to construe that as legal fees that would have been incurred, that is not the case. HUD had Dallas by the short hairs with the goods and they could have "penalized" Dallas for tens of millions, yet they settle under these terms. A horrible day for Fair Housing in America and HUD. Politics won over, as usual. And the bad actors at HUD know who they are, so does the rest of HUD personnel.


Now Dallas will be monitored for years by HUD, like a child that was caught red handed. The good thing for Dallas, the fox is guarding the hen house.  

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx 

Disparate Impact is all over this document

not a single time are the words "disparate impact" stated in the Settlement or in the proposed HUD rule you linked to. none. zero.

Doing a search of the Federal Register, the phrase "disparate impact" is found in almost 2,000 documents over the previous 12 months, from a variety of agencies, so there clearly is not any hesitation by anybody to avoid the use of the phrase.

riconnel8
riconnel8

@demoscum  The work comes from trying to figure out which Republican elite is now sucking off the teat of government hence...OUR TAX DOLLARS.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx 

you do know that disparate impact is a concept that was contained in and validated by the SCOTUS in a court case they ruled in favor of almost 30 years ago?

yamon
yamon

@jst01 @h_mole1 He'd fit right in as a South Dallas City Council Member. He should quit HUD and run! 

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx

So you are going to be intentionally obtuse to the very end, eh?

affirmatively further fair housing  contains the definition of Disparate Impact and the link to Pro Publica explains it, yet you dither.  It was the only reason for the rule change.  

And since you searched far and wide and no doubt ran into hundreds of articles, indeed entire websites, devoted to "affirmatively furthering fair housing by use of Disparate Impact statistics", activists CHEERING the last two cases that were scheduled to go before the Supreme Court that would have struck Disparate Impact were instead - settled - and, hence the 2013 Rule affirmatively further fair housing  stumbled on, landing into the middle of this Settlement  . . . that you continue to lie to yourself, lie to others with the intent to mislead the reader of this thread.  Why?

Because derive some kind of glee from it.

You are one strange dude.

So you disagree with the contention that if SCOTUS strikes Disparate Impact, it will not affect the "affirmatively furthering fair housing" rule conjured up in 2013 and in the Federal Register, and that this Settlement, whose centerpiece is this rule, will remain intact.

This is why I know you know you are lying.  Because you know that the "affirmatively furthering fair housing" rule was designed solely to use Disparate Impact as a metric, which has been the focus of all the uproar.

Yer done.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx 

oh I see, in your mind if the word "data" is in a document about discrimination, it means "disparate impact".

as wcvemail is fond of saying, "did you stretch before making that leap"?

your desire to link disparate impact with documents that do not say "disparate impact" is very odd to say the least.

if the "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule" invoked disparate impact, it would say disparate impact.As mentioned there is nothing keeping this phrase out of regs.

the Dallas Settlement is based on real actions, not on disparate impact.

but if it keeps you busy and with something to occupy  your time, we're very happy for you.

legalsw
legalsw

@holmantx @mavdog


Disperate impact had nothing to do with this case. This case was based on intentional discriminatory acts, per the allegations and Findings by HUD. 

rmack
rmack

@mavdog @holmantx


Mavdog - Edward Holman is obsessed with Disparate Impact, he comments on multiple websites the same exact comments regarding Disparate Impact. I wouldn't engage his crazy anymore on this subject.........................he is off base anyways.....

Guesty
Guesty

@mavdog @holmantx To be fair, the theory has mixed results depending on the statute under which it is asserted.  Some statutes expressly adopt disparate impact theories, others do not and courts have reached opposite conclusions. Griggs is a different statute, and a very different court.  


Courts are split on whether the Fair Housing Act covers disparate impact claims.  The issue is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court for the third time in the past few years (the other cases settled before a decision was reached). If I had to bet on it, I would guess they will hold that it does not apply, but I wouldn't bet either way unless someone put a gun to my head.    

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@legalsw @holmantx @mavdog

I suppose it is a possibility however remote.  A statistical anomaly. 

A coincidence . . .

That a federal district court in Washington, D.C. would deal a heavy blow on last Monday to HUD’s position that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.

On Tuesday, a wave election would throttle the agencies who probably knew they were redlining their authority.

On Wednesday HUD "chu hoi"s on an obscure Dallas rendering because now the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on a far bigger Dallas case - The INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff–Appellee v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. . . . over the disparate impact theory, which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognized formally in a rule last year, that a housing discrimination case is allowed to proceed using evidence that an action disproportionately affected a protected class under the Fair Housing Act (FHA)—even if no evidence was presented to show that the intent of the action was to discriminate against that class.

And therein lies the rub.  You assert there is evidence and I ask - what evidence?  Because if it includes statistical analysis then HUD does not need to muddy the waters when they got a real fight on their hands.

Tactically, it makes sense to wash the lesser included offense.  Clear the gun deck.

Let the plaintiffs prevail on the merits, if it is true they got the goods on Dallas.  But let them also die on the sword if they also employ - statistics to move the race needle.

I say yer full a shit.  And the case won't see the light of day because they are relying upon Disparate Impact, which is nothing more than institutionalized race-baiting on a grand scale - towns and lenders are cowed and won't fight it.

Time will tell.

Guesty
Guesty

@legalsw @holmantx @mavdog Intentional discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics, or against the poor?  HUD has always viewed the two as the essentially the same thing.  

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@Guesty @mavdog @holmantx 

Griggs is a different statute, and a very different court. 

yes, Griggs was not a case dealing with the Fair Housing Act. the court does apply desparate impact to a claim of discrimination albeit in the workplace.

I would tend to agree with your prediction, the expected 5-4 decision can be anticipated.

rmack
rmack

@holmantx I am talking about the subject case in this article not that case. Thanks for proving my point about your obsession. Get some meds and see a Dr. about it. 

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @Guesty @holmantx

red herring

crazy Ivan

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@rmack @holmantx

Part II: HUD Enforcement of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Requirement

Introduction

The Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, hereinafter “the Act”) prohibits discrimination in a wide range of housing-related transactions, and it also includes an affirmative obligation on the part of HUD and its grantees to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” (AFFH). This is the provision of the Act that requires HUD and its grantees to avoid the perpetuation of segregation, and to take affirmative steps to promote racial integration.

Compliance with this provision at the state and local level is currently monitored through regular fair housing certifications by grantees, and regular local development and publication of the “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing” (AI), which assesses local barriers to integration and steps necessary to overcome these barriers.

The Disparate Impact Rule

HUD’s adoption of the final “disparate impact” rule this month is not technically an implementation of the AFFH requirement, but it is a crucial tool for HUD enforcement of the AFFH requirement.5

In many cases a private disparate impact claim in federal court against a local grantee is the step that triggers HUD AFFH review. HUD’s adoption of the disparate impact rule, including the provision recognizing that actions that reinforce or increase segregation may violate the Act, will clarify the applicable law in HUD administrative proceedings, and is a signal that HUD is taking its AFFH enforcement obligations more seriously

5 The rule codifies existing court interpretation that the Fair Housing Act reaches policies and practices that have the effect of discriminating, even if there is no allegation of intent. To prevail on such a claim in a HUD administrative proceeding under the new rule, a complainant must show a significant disparate impact, and also that there are less discriminatory alternatives available to achieve the challenged practice’s goal.

Poverty and Race Research Action Council - NFHA National Fair Housing Alliance

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx @legalsw

I would tend to agree with your prediction, the expected 5-4 decision can be anticipated.

now that's funny

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog @holmantx

What part of HUD Enforcement of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Requirement  do you not understand?

It quotes the DI Rule you link to . . . to ENFORCE the requirement set forth in the HUD/City Letter Agreement !


mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx 

The disparate impact rules promulgated in the HUD Federal Register filing pertain to Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

the settlement between the City of Dallas and HUD reference Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1973.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...