National Housing Law Project Housing Law Bulletin

Proposed Baltimore Desegregation Settlement
Encounters Suburban Resistance

A proposed HUD-approved agreement to settle a lawsuit challenging racial discrimination in the operation of Baltimore's public housing program has run into strong resistance from some suburban officials. The main feature provoking opposition is the proposal to provide some residents of public housing units scheduled for demolition with tenant-based subsidies to relocate outside of the city. Baltimore experienced a similar controversy recently concerning HUD's Moving to Opportunity demonstration program, which subsided as actual implementation proceeded.

The federal class action lawsuit, Thompson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,¹ was filed to challenge the actions of HUD, the City of Baltimore, and the city housing authority in siting, constructing and operating a segregated public housing system within the city. Much of Baltimore's family public housing was constructed and operated for years as de jure segregated housing, specifically reserved for one race. For the past 30 years, no public housing has been built in largely white residential areas.

The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Maryland, included residents of public housing slated for demolition. The tenants' claims included a variety of constitutional and statutory discrimination counts, including equal protection, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as well as the federal statute governing public housing demolition, Section 18 of the United States Housing Act.² Suburban counties have not yet been included as defendants because plaintiffs did not contemplate a remedy that would require the construction of public housing in the suburbs, which would require execution of a cooperation agreement with the local governments. Instead, plaintiffs have sought to create desegregated housing opportunities through the use of various Section 8 programs utilizing private ownership and management.

Filing of the case was delayed while the parties attempted to negotiate a settlement. After the 1994 election, plaintiffs decided to file the suit while continuing settlement talks. One month later, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to stop the HUD and the local defendants from constructing more public housing in segregated areas as replacement housing for the units already demolished or imminently facing removal under the PHA's approved demolition plans. Faced with growing threats to the one-for-one replacement requirement and HUD's budget, the parties decided to settle this portion of the case. Thus, the proposed consent decree would settle only the issue of the provision of replacement housing for five specific developments.

The proposed settlement involves both equalization and barrier removal remedies for the replacement units. Included are measures addressing current sites and neighborhoods, consisting of newly constructed or rehabilitated housing under a variety of programs for a broader range of incomes. Also provided are barrier-removal strategies, in the form of tenant-based assistance restricted to use in specific low-poverty and low-minority census tracts of the city and throughout the metropolitan area. This settlement therefore resembles others recently executed in response to public housing desegregation suits filed elsewhere, many of which generated similar initial controversies.

Here are some of the details of the proposed settlement. The four family high-rise developments will be demolished as planned. Tenants will be offered a choice of relocation housing with benefits under the Uniform Relocation Act. They would be able to move to other public housing or Section 8 developments controlled by the PHA. Alternatively, they could obtain either an ordinary Section 8 tenant-based subsidy to live in any unit meeting that program's rules, or they could choose a "Special Certificate" from a new pool created as part of the replacement housing that includes housing counseling services, with use limited to particular census tracts.

The proposed consent decree includes a complex package for replacing the approximately 3,000 demolished public housing units, utilizing a mix of techniques, programs and funding sources. The replacement package includes 781 new low-density public housing units on the four family high-rise sites, 296 public housing units to be constructed off-site in other areas undergoing revitalization, 814 units of privately owned housing with project-based rent subsidies in non-concentrated areas (usually under Section 8), and 1,342 of the Special Certificates. The project-based replacement units would use public housing Urban Revitalization Demonstration funding, federal funds from fiscal year 1996 and subsequently for project-based Section 8 certificates, and some state funds. Also included would be 448 units for homeownership or market-rate rental on several of the family high-rise sites for strengthening the sites' income mix. Should anticipated funding prove unavailable, the parties will negotiate "comparable relief," with the court retaining jurisdiction to resolve disputes.

The Special Certificate pool is specifically created to remedy past segregation. The intent behind this pool is to provide public housing families with a choice of neighborhoods offering better opportunities, while avoiding the development of new concentrations of poverty. Families choosing to participate will first take part in a counseling program designed to identify appropriate housing for their transportation, educational, and employment needs. A nonprofit counseling agency would recruit owners and refer participating families. Special services would also be available after participants move to their new neighborhoods. The Special Certificates may be used only in areas where the percentage of poor or minority persons is less than the respective overall metropolitan rate of poverty (10%) or minority population (25.9%), and where public and assisted housing does not form more than 5 percent of the housing stock. Most of these neighborhoods are outside the city. After participating for one year, a family would be able take a Special Certificate to any area.

The proposed consent decree does not address the plaintiffs' claims against the City for its alleged failure to provide adequate municipal services to public housing communities, nor those seeking an overall desegregation remedy from HUD, the public housing authority and the City concerning the City's remaining 11,000 public housing units. The parties would agree to a six-month stay of those proceedings in order to pursue discussions about settling those claims.

After announcement of the proposed settlement in October, some county officials swiftly responded with strong criticism. Concerns expressed included an alleged destabilizing effect that Special Certificate holders would have on economically struggling areas. Some of this opposition is apparently based on a misunderstanding of the settlement's terms, which prevent the certificates from being used in those types of neighborhoods. Other concerns include the unavailability of support services and classroom space.

Given the history of opposition to economic and racial integration throughout the metropolitan area, some opposition to the proposed settlement terms may have more to do with exclusionary motives than these proffered grounds. Some county executives and Congressmembers have joined the chorus. HUD has convened meetings to review the proposed settlement, but certainly the last word remains to be heard. Congressional action related to providing or restricting funding could have a tremendous impact on the settlement's feasibility. Though still incomplete, Thompson provides another contemporary illustration of the controversial politics of race and metropolitan housing planning.

1. No. MJG 95-309 (D. Md. filed Jan. 31, 1995).
2. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437p (West Supp. 1995).