concentrations, or sites just on the edge of such concentrations. The new policy of the Authority also emphasizes the development of smaller projects which will better lend themselves to becoming a part of the surrounding community.12 Moreover, to win public understanding and support of this program for true housing integration, the Authority has started a community relations program under the direction of its new race relations consultant. Since most projects are located outside the areas of Negro concentration, the Authority believes that close work with the community is essential. It has established 67 community recreation centers for children and adults.43 Because the Authority believes that its problems of racial imbalance result largely from pressures of dislocated slum dwellers and those displaced by urban redevelopment or highway construction, it urges an increase of Federal aid to housing, including the lowrent public housing program, to check the trend toward predominately non-white projects. 44 This same link between the problem of ending discrimination and the problem of increasing the housing supply for people of low and middle income was stressed by many of those responsible for the city and State antidiscrimination programs. The then chairman of the State Commission Against Discrimination, Mr. Abrams, stated that: Simply outlawing the right of a landlord to refuse housing, while it would be helpful, is not going to solve the problem unless you increase the housing supply and make it available to all people on the basis of their ability to pay.45 The reasons are clear enough: It's only where people fear that the infiltration will be followed by a mass influx that you get this resistance, and the only way you can prevent a mass influx in the cities is by increasing the housing supply in the region. . . ." Mayor Wagner stressed this "dual approach". "We in the City of New York are convinced of one thing," he testified. "A legislative program to combat discrimination in housing cannot be effective without a simultaneous program to increase the housing supply." 47 The Commission heard testimony about some of the city and State programs to increase the housing supply for low- and middle-income groups. The Limited-Profit Housing Companies Law of 1955, as 42 Ibid. 43 Id. at 136-137. 44 Id. at 138. 45 Id. at 148. 46 Id. at 153. 47 Id. at 11, 152. amended, is one of the most significant of these. It authorizes the creation of limited-profit housing companies to construct rental or cooperative housing, under the supervision of the State Division of Housing, with loans up to 90 percent of construction costs available from the Division of Housing or the municipality, and tax exemptions not to exceed 30 years on 50 percent of the project's total value or the increase in value, whichever is less.48 Fifty-year mortgage loans are made to private enterprise sponsors at substantially the State or the city cost of borrowing the funds (approximately three percent); amortization is less than one percent and there is no insuring fee. The results of this program were described to the Commission by a leading developer as "absolutely amazing". He testified that under these terms, a rent of $79 is possible for a two bedroom apartment that under FHA financing rates of 5 percent, with 2 percent amortization and one-half percent insuring fee would be $119.50 49 One particularly interesting governmental program in New York, run by the Department of Labor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, deals with the problems of migration. The Commonwealth maintains in the city a Bureau of Migration to assist Puerto Rican migrants in their housing, employment, and other problems of adjustment to mainland urban life. Through Puerto Rican citizens' groups in New York it has helped organize housing clinics to show tenants how to maintain and improve housing standards and how to make use of New York laws requiring the maintenance of standards by landlords and prohibiting discrimination. It also supplies information on employment and housing opportunities and conditions to prospective migrants before they leave Puerto Rico.51 In testifying about these many programs under way to meet the housing needs and problems of nonwhite residents, no one in New York claimed that the end was in sight. Governor Rockefeller stressed that "we still have a long way to go in achieving our goal of making New York State a shining example of our faith in freedom and justice for all men." Rather than hide these problems of the "dark corners of prejudice and discrimination in our midst" he hoped that by facing them and doing our best to solve them with good will and intelligence we can make this State a testing ground and a demonstration for the nation and the world, a place in which we apply the truths that we declare to be self-evident, a place in which we strive tirelessly and without reservation to fulfill the promises of our Constitution.59 48 Id. at 192. 49 Id. at 288. 50 Ibid. 1 Id. at 215-216. 52 Id. at 8, 9. SUPPLEMENT State and City Laws Against Discrimination in Housing and Official Agencies Administering These Laws Thirteen States have antidiscrimination housing laws.5 In In Michigan and Rhode Island the law is limited to a prohibition of discrimination in Government-owned public housing projects. Pennsylvania it applies only to discrimination in State-constructed veterans housing and in redevelopment projects assisted by Government through tax exemption or the assembling of land by condemnation.55 In Minnesota and Wisconsin the legislation covers both public housing and redevelopment projects.5 In Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Washington it covers the sale or rental of all Government-assisted housing, including private housing built with Government loan insurance.57 In these statutes, all enacted between 1939 and 1958, the housing covered is clearly affected with some public character. In 1959 Colorado, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Oregon took the further significant step of enacting legislation prohibiting discrimination not only in all publicly assisted housing but also in private housing transactions.5 In Colorado the prohibition applies to transactions involving all dwellings other than owner-occupied units. In Massachusetts it applies to transactions involving multiple dwellings of three or more units and housing developments of 10 or more homes. In Connecticut it includes all housing owned or controlled by any person who owns or controls five or more contiguous accommodations. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin. See compilation published by the Housing and Home Finance Agency, Nondiscrimination Statutes, Ordinances, and Resolutions Relating to Public and Private Housing and Urban Renewal Operations, as revised October 1958. See Note, "Racial Discrimination in Housing," 107 U. of Penn. L. Rev. 515 (1959). In several States there is legislation prohibiting racial zoning, but since the Supreme Court has declared such zoning unconstitutional, these laws are not included here as presently significant. Illinois also prohibits the use of racially restrictive covenants in any deed or conveyance of land acquired for redevelopment. Ill. Ann. Stat. (Smith-Hurd), ch. 672, secs. 82, 267. See also sec. 3(b), Redevelopment Act of 1945, Ind. Stat. Ann. (Burns), sec. 48-8503(b). 4 Mich. Stat. Ann. Sec. 28-343. General Laws of Rhode Island, secs. 11-24-1, 2, 3, 4. Penn. Stat. Ann., title 35, secs. 1590.12, 1664, 1711. "Minnesota also prohibits racial covenants and has a commission to study discrimination in housing for the purpose of recommending legislation. Minn. Stat. Ann., secs. 507.18, 462.481, 462.641. Wis. Stat. Ann., secs. 66.40(2m), 66.43(2m), 66.405 (2m), and 66.39. 57 Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 3267(d) (Supp. 1955); N.J. Stat. Ann. secs. 55 : 14A-7.5 and 39.1, 55:14B-5.1, 55: 14C-7.1, 55: 14D-6.1, 55: 14E-7.1, 55: 14G-21, 55; 14H-9.1, 55: 16-8.1, 18:25-9.1, 18: 25-4, 14: 25–5K; N.Y.-McKinney's Con. L. of N.Y. Ann.; Art. 15 sec. 292; (Oregon) ch. 725, Laws of 1957; Ore. Rev. Stat. secs. 659.032-.034 (Wash.) ch. 37, Laws of 1957. Colorado bill signed Apr. 10, 1959; Massachusetts bill signed Apr. 22, 1959; Connecticut bill signed May 12, 1959; Oregon bill signed May 27, 1959. See also Mass. Ann. Laws, ch. 21, sec. 26 FF; ch. 151B, sec. 1-6; Conn. Gen. Stat. (1958 Rev.), secs. 53-34, 35, 36 (as amended 1953). (Oregon) ch. 725, Laws of 1957; Oreg. Rev. Stat., secs. 659.032-.034. In Oregon it prohibits any person in the business of selling or leasing real property from engaging in discriminatory practices. In several other States similar legislation is being considered.59 In one State which has not yet gone this far there are provisions in the banking and savings and loan laws prohibiting discrimination in the granting of mortgage loans.60 In addition to this State legislation there have been laws, ordinances, and resolutions against discrimination or segregation in housing adopted in the following 34 cities and counties: Phoenix, Ariz. (resolution of housing authority re public housing projects, 1955). Fresno, Calif. (resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1952). Los Angeles, Calif. (ordinances of city council re urban redevelopment, 1951 and 1957; resolution of Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County re public land use, 1951). Richmond, Calif. (resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1952). Sacramento, Calif. (resolution of redevelopment agency re urban redevelopment, 1954; resolution of city council re urban redevelopment, 1954). San Francisco, Calif. (resolutions of Board of Supervisors of City and County of San Francisco re urban redevelopment, 1949, and public housing, 1949 and 1950). Denver, Colo. (ordinance of city council re restrictive covenants, 1953). Hartford, Conn. (resolution of court of common council re public and private housing, 1949). Wilmington, Del. (resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1953). South Bend, Ind. (resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1957). Minneapolis, Minn. (resolutions of housing and redevelopment authority re urban redevelopment, 1953 and 1954). St. Paul, Minn. (resolutions of housing and redevelopment authority re public housing, 1950, and urban redevelopment, 1953). St. Louis, Mo. (resolution of board of aldermen re public housing, 1953). New York, N.Y. (ordinance of city council re urban redevelopment, 1944; administrative code of city council and board of estimate re city-assisted housing, 1949; local law by city council re city-assisted housing, 1951, amended 1954; local law of city council and board of estimate re private housing, 1957). Cincinnati, Ohio (declaration of city council re urban redevelopment, 1951). Private housing bills are before the legislatures in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. See Trends in Housing, March-April, 1959. N.J. Stat. Ann., secs. 17–12A-78, 17: 9A-69. Cleveland, Ohio (ordinance of city council re public housing, 1949; ordinance of city council re redevelopment of slum and blighted areas, 1952). Toledo, Ohio (ordinance of city council re public housing, 1951; resolution of Erie, Pa. (resolution of city council re public housing, 1958; resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1958). Philadelphia, Pa. (ordinance of city council re public housing, 1959; resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1952). Pittsburgh, Pa. (resolution of Allegheny County Housing Authority re public housing, 1952; resolution of Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh re public housing, 1952). Providence, R.I. (resolution of city council re public housing, 1950). Pasco, Wash. (resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1951). Superior, Wis. (resolution of housing authority re public housing, 1951). (See compilation by Housing and Home Finance Agency, op. cit. supra n. 53.) In some instances, the action by city authorities has preceded, if it has not precipitated, the State legislation. For instance, the resolution of the Hartford Court of Common Council in January 1949 prohibiting discrimination or segregation in any public housing or municipally assisted private housing development within the city, apparently the first such action, included a resolution that similar action be taken on a statewide basis by the general assembly. Six months later the Connecticut Legislature prohibited discrimination in public housing projects and 4 years later the legislature extended the prohibition to all publicly assisted housing. Moreover, the effect of city action crosses State lines. The New York City Council in December 1957 adopted the first fair housing practices law, prohibiting discrimination in private multiple-unit housing buildings with 3 or more dwelling units and in contiguous housing developments of 10 or more homes. The Pittsburgh City Council adopted a similar law which covered in December 1958 private housing comprising five or more dwelling units. Both of these actions influenced the private housing laws of Colorado, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Oregon. Under many of these State and city laws enforcement is entrusted to a commission which receives complaints, conducts investigations, seeks voluntary compliance through mediation, holds hearings, issues cease-and-desist orders, and seeks court sanction when necessary. New York State formed the first such State commission against discrimination in 1945 to enforce its new law prohibiting discrimination in employment. It followed the patterns set by the wartime Federal Committee on Fair Employment Practice set up by Executive order in 1941.61 The emphasis of the Federal FEPC upon seeking voluntary 61 Executive Order 8802, June 25, 1941. |