Document farmingtonnm_gov_doc_0104d81b80

2014 CITY OF FARMINGTON ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE FINAL REPORT AUGUST 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CERTIFICATE I certify that I am the City Clerk of the City of Farmington, a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico, having custody of the original of Resolution No. 2014-1525, as adopted by the City Council on August 12, 2014, and that the attached document is a true and correct copy of the original. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City of Farmington, New Mexico this 12th day of August,2014. -SEAL Dianne Smylie, City Clerk ---PAGE BREAK--- 252 RESOLUTlON NO. 2AL4-L525 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2A14-2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CONSOLIDATED PLAN, PROGRAM YEAR ONE ACTION PLAN, AND THE 2014 ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO EAIR HOUSING CHOICE, WHEREAS, the City of Earmington was designated in 2003 an '.Urbanized Area" and became a Metropolitan Statisticaf Area, thus becoming eligible for the CDBG entitlement grants; and WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and urban Development (HUD) requires that each entitfement city prepare and have approved by HUD a consolidated plan which includes a five-year strategic plan, the program year one action plan, and an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice, in order to receive entitlement grants; and WHEREAS, the City of Earmington adopted on April 23, 2aL3, a cj-tizen Participation Plan to shape its consolidated PIan public participation process, and the 2074-2OLB Consolidated PIan, the Eirst year Action Plan, and the 2014 Analysis of Impediments to Eair Housing Choice were made available for public review and comment and a public hearing was held in accordance with the Crtizen Participation PIan; and WHEREAS, City staff has networked and collaboral-ed with numerous Iocal agencies to develop a reafistic five-year plan for addressing the most urgent needs of our community; and WHEREAS, the city of Farmington annually certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing goals, and the development of the 2014 Analysis of Impediments to Eair Housing Choice and implementing its recommended actions does affirmatively further fair housing goafs; and WHEREAS, the City of Earmington has recognized its broadened responsibilities as an entitlement city and did develop and carry out an public participation program and needs assessment to identify critical needs within a wide variety of eligible program areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OE THE CTTY OF FARM]NGTON: That the City does hereby adopt the 20L4-2018 Consolidated Plan, the Eirst year Action Plan, and the 2014 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and dj-rects staff to submit the documents to HUD in order to secure the funding and to thereafter take any and all steps required by the regulations Lo secure the release of funds and begin plan implementation. PASSED, APPROVED, SIGNED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of August, 2074 SEAL ATTEST: Dianne Smylie, ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice i August 8, 2014 2014 CITY OF FARMINGTON ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE: Research and Analysis provided by: City of Farmington Document Assembled by: Western Economic Services, LLC 212 SE 18th Avenue Portland, OR 97214 Phone: (503) 239-9091 Toll Free: (866) 937-9437 Fax: (503) 239-0236 Website: http://www.westernes.com Final Report August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ii August 8, 2014 HAS YOUR RIGHT TO FAIR HOUSING BEEN VIOLATED? If you feel you have experienced discrimination in the housing industry, please contact: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 5204 Washington, DC 20410-2000 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 Toll Free: (800) 669-9777 Web Site: http://www.HUD.gov/offices/fheo/online-complaint.cfm Fort Worth Regional Office of FHEO U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 801 Cherry Street, Unit #45 Suite 2500 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: (817) 978-5900 Toll Free: (800) 669-9777 TTY: (817) 978-5595 Website: http://www.HUD.gov New Mexico Human Rights Bureau 1596 Pacheco Street Suite 103 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Telephone: (505) 827-6838 Toll free: 1 (800) 566-9471 Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] City of Farmington Community Relations Commission P.O. Box 192 Farmington, NM 87499 Message Center Telephone: (505)599-8442 Website: http://www.fmtn.org/index.aspx?nid=359 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice iii August 8, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION 9 SECTION II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA AND TRENDS 15 Demographics 15 Economics 23 Housing 32 SECTION III. FAIR HOUSING LAW, STUDY, AND CASE REVIEW 37 Fair Housing Laws 37 Fair Housing Studies 38 Fair Housing Cases 42 SECTION IV. REVIEW OF THE EXISTING FAIR HOUSING STRUCTURE 47 Fair Housing Agencies 47 Complaint Process Review 50 SECTION V. FAIR HOUSING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR 53 Lending Analysis 53 Fair Housing Complaints 62 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey – Private Sector 63 SECTION VI. FAIR HOUSING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 67 Public Services 67 Policies and Codes 68 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey – Public Sector 71 SECTION VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 73 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey 73 SECTION VIII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 85 SECTION IX. IMPEDIMENTS AND SUGGESTED ACTIONS 89 SECTION X. GLOSSARY 93 SECTION X. APPENDICES 97 Appendix A: Community Relations Commission Complaints 97 Appendix B: Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey Questions 98 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice iv August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 August 8, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AI PURPOSE AND PROCESS As a requirement of receiving funds under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), entitlement jurisdictions must submit certification of affirmatively furthering fair housing to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This certification has three elements: 1. Complete an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), 2. Take actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified, and 3. Maintain records reflecting the actions taken in response to the analysis. In the Fair Housing Planning Guide, page 2-8, HUD provides a definition of impediments to fair housing choice as:  Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices [and]  Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have [this] effect. 0F0F1 The list of protected classes included in the above definition is drawn from the federal Fair Housing Act, which was first enacted in 1968. However, state and local governments may enact fair housing laws that extend protection to other groups, and the AI is expected to address housing choice for these additional protected classes as well. The AI process involves a thorough examination of a variety of sources related to housing, the fair housing delivery system, and housing transactions, particularly for persons who are protected under fair housing law. The development of an AI also includes public input and review via direct contact with stakeholders, public meetings to collect input from citizens and interested parties, distribution of draft reports for citizen review, and formal presentations of findings and impediments, along with actions to overcome the identified impediments. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS Socio-Economic Data and Trends The population of the City of Farmington increased by an estimated 1 percent between 2007 and 2012, according to 3-year ACS estimates from those years. The number of families was estimated to have grown by 6.1 percent, while the number of households, which include single persons living alone, grew by an estimated 2.7 percent. ACS estimates from 2010 and 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Fair Housing Planning Guide. Vol. 1, p. 2-8. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/fairhousingexs/Module5_TopSevenAFFH.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2 August 8, 2014 2012, suggest that the City’s population declined by 1.2 percent between those years. In 2012, residents under 5 years of age accounted for the greatest proportion of the Farmington population; however, this population is estimated to have declined between 2007 and 2012 by 16 percentage points. Similar declines were observed in the number of residents aged 20 to 29, 40 to 54, 70 to 74, and 80 to 84 years. Most of the residents of Farmington were white non-Hispanic, American Indian and Alaskan Native non-Hispanic, or Hispanic. In fact, over 95 percent of the population belonged to one of these racial or ethnic groups; white non-Hispanic residents accounted for 51.4 percent of the population, American Indian or Alaskan Native residents who were not Hispanic accounted for 20.9 percent, and Hispanic or Latino residents accounted for 22.8 percent of the population. Each of these populations tended to be concentrated in different areas of the city. White residents were disproportionately concentrated in large tracts in the north of the city, as well as a medium-sized tract in the city center. The American Indian non-Hispanic population was disproportionately concentrated in three tracts in the southern portion of the city, two of which border on the Navajo Nation to the south. Finally, Hispanic residents were disproportionately concentrated in a large Census tract in the southeastern portion of the city. Persons with disabilities were disproportionately represented among residents aged 65 and older, according to data from the 2012 3-year estimates. The median family income in the City of Farmington grew by an estimated 12.1 percent between 2007 and 2012, which was a greater percentage increase than occurred in the cities of Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces. The MFI in 2012 was $63,261 across the City, though median family incomes differed considerably from one Census tract to another. The MFIs in Tracts 2.01 and 2.02 were $98,941 and $105,990, respectively. These tracts were located in the northern portion of the city. By contrast, many of the Census tracts in the southern portion of the City had median family incomes that were well below the citywide median. Hispanic households saw the greatest percentage increases in MFI. In 2012 single-family units constituted the predominant type of housing unit; detached single- family units accounted for 63.7 percent of all housing units in the City in that year. Mobile homes were the second most common type of housing unit, accounting for 17 percent of all units in 2012. However, Farmington had a higher vacancy rate, at 11.4 percent, than all other state MSA’s, with the exception of Santa Fe. The vacancy rate for rental units was considerably higher than the vacancy rate for owner-occupied units, at 14.0 and 2.2 percent, respectively. Cost-burdening was a problem for 28.6 percent of Farmington homeowners; in 2012 these households were making mortgage payments that accounted for more than 30% of their total income. However, homeowners were actually less cost-burdened in 2012 than they had been in 2007. The problem was more pervasive still among rental households; 45.3 percent of renters found that rental costs took up more than 30 percent of their income in 2012. This was a higher degree of cost-burdening than renters had experienced in 2007, when 41.7 percent of rental households were cost-burdened. In both years, renters tended to be cost-burdened to a greater degree than homeowners. A small proportion of housing units, or 0.8 percent, lacked complete plumbing facilities, and a higher proportion, or 1.2 percent, lacked complete kitchen facilities. Finally, higher percentages of rental units were overcrowded in 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 3 August 8, 2014 compared to owner-occupied units, and around 6 percent of households of both types were overcrowded. Review of Fair Housing Laws, Studies, and Cases Though none were specific to the City of Farmington, a general review of laws, studies, cases, and related materials relevant to fair housing in the State of New Mexico demonstrates the complexity of the fair housing landscape. The fair housing laws in the State of New Mexico offer protections beyond the scope of the federal Fair Housing Act by prohibiting discrimination based on serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Cases included in this discussion highlight the varied forms that housing discrimination can assume as well as the complexity of fair housing laws and how they are applied. The national cases signal an increasing scrutiny on the part of HUD in recent years with respect to fair housing, and the local cases filed by the Department of Justice since 2004 against businesses and individuals in the state highlight discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and offer an illustration of how such discrimination might manifest itself in real life situations. In one case, the alleged discriminatory behavior was directed toward a resident who became disabled while living in the apartment. In the second case, the alleged discrimination was undertaken to deny housing to a prospective resident with disabilities. In the third case, the alleged discrimination took the form of routine abuse against residents with disabilities, and an attempt to coerce them into not revealing the abuse for fear of losing their housing situation. Fair Housing Structure The City of Farmington is served by the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau, an office within the Department of Workforce Solutions. This agency is empowered by New Mexico statutes to investigate and enforce fair housing law, though it has not been recognized as a substantially equivalent agency under HUD. HUD also accepts fair housing complaints on behalf of New Mexico residents, though because the list of protected classes is more comprehensive at the state level than at the national level, residents who believe they have faced discrimination on the basis of a serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity must lodge their complaints at the state level. There are no agencies or organizations that serve City of Farmington residents as Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) participants, though the City of Farmington Community Relations Commission does accept complaints from Farmington residents who feel that they have experienced unlawful discrimination in the housing market, employment, and civil rights. Fair Housing in the Private Sector Review of the private sector in the fair housing context involved analysis of data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), complaints lodged with HUD, and survey responses to questions pertaining to factors in the private sector that impact housing choice. Analysis of home loan denial rates revealed that racial and ethnic minority residents were subjected to higher rates of loan denials than white, non-Hispanic residents, even after correcting for income in the year 2012. Geographically, loan denials tended to be concentrated in Census tracts containing high percentages of American Indian and Hispanic residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 4 August 8, 2014 There were only three complaints lodged with HUD between April 17, 2009 and January 11, 2014; these complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin and race, as well as an instance of alleged retaliation. None of these complaints were found to have cause. Among survey respondents, the most salient potential barriers to fair housing choice included poor credit histories and income levels of minority residents, lack of knowledge among landlords and residents concerning fair housing policy, lack of capacity for fair housing organizations dedicated to fair housing, and various burdens and restrictions placed on residents of mobile home parks. Fair Housing in the Public Sector A review of transportation services and needs, local policies and codes, and responses to the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey constituted the analysis of fair housing in the public sector. The results of a recent study of transportation needs in the City and surrounding communities suggest that the areas of Farmington that were in the most need of enhanced transportation services were in or near the city center. Farmington building codes conform to the 2009 International Building Code, and new building permits are required to conform to the International Code Council/American National Standards Institute’s 2003 standards for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Zoning codes allow group homes in Mixed Use districts and by Special Use Permit in Multi-Family Housing districts. While zoning districts that are deemed suitable for affordable housing are present in every Census tract in the city, they tend to be more common in areas with higher shares of minority residents and households in poverty. The City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) provides a definition of family as an individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, as well as a group of up to four persons, living together in a single housing unit. The City of Farmington also recently adopted an ordinance allowing for-profit or non-profit organizations to apply to the City for assistance in developing affordable housing. In results of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey, street infrastructure, code enforcement, and neighborhood revitalization services were the most widely perceived to be distributed unequally throughout the city. Public Involvement Efforts to involve members of the public in the AI process included two advertised public meetings, which were held in the San Juan Center for Independence and the Sycamore Park Community Center, both in May of 2013. In addition, 122 respondents took the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey online, and an additional 92 surveys were given by City staff during on-site survey sessions at five locations around the City. Responses suggest that a considerable number of city residents were not fully informed on various aspects of fair housing law, including what types of actions constitute unlawful discrimination and where to report housing discrimination. In addition, fully 73.8 percent of respondents who believed that they had experienced housing discrimination took no action to address that discrimination. ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 5 August 8, 2014 IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE AND SUGGESTED ACTIONS Private Sector Impediments, Suggested Actions, and Measurable Objectives Impediment 1: More frequent denial of home purchase loans to racial and ethnic minority residents. This impediment was identified through review of home purchase loan data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) from 2004 to 2012. On average, the rate of loan denials to American Indian applicants was more than twice the rate for all applicants and nearly three times the rate of loan denials to white residents during that time. Similarly, loan applications from Hispanic applicants were denied at a higher-than-average rate; over 6.5 percentage points higher in an average year. The discrepancy between American Indian and white loan applicants remained even when applicants were similarly situated with respect to income. Action 1.1: The City of Farmington will use CDBG funding to sponsor financial literacy and credit repair classes at San Juan College. These classes begin in September. Measurable Objective 1.1: The number of class sessions held and number of clients who participate in these classes. Impediment 2: Discrimination in rental housing market. This impediment was identified through analysis of the results of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey. Though 21.1 percent of all survey respondents claimed to have experienced housing discrimination, the figure was higher for rental tenants, at 31.6 percent. Action 2.1: Increase outreach and education activities targeting landlords and property managers, with the purpose of highlighting issues around fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Measurable Objective 2.1: The number of outreach and education activities conducted, materials prepared for these activities, record of participation by members of the public. Impediment 3: Steering in the real estate market. This impediment was identified through review of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey. Steering, or the practice of real estate agents directing homebuyers to different parts of town depending on the protected class status of the homebuyer, was cited as a barrier to fair housing in Farmington by over half of survey respondents, and as a “serious” barrier by over a fifth of respondents. Action 3.1: Conduct outreach and education among real estate professionals pertaining to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing, focusing on the impact of discriminatory practices on Farmington residents. Measurable Objective 3.1: The number of outreach and education activities conducted with the real estate industry. Impediment 4: Lack of knowledge of fair housing laws. This impediment was identified through review of fair housing survey results. In questions pertaining to private sector impediments to fair housing choice, lack of knowledge of fair housing was consistently identified as a modest or serious barrier to fair housing choice by at least 40 percent of survey ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6 August 8, 2014 respondents. The lack of knowledge among landlords, property managers, and residents was especially salient as a barrier to fair housing choice among survey respondents. Deficits in knowledge of fair housing law were borne out in responses to questions specifically designed to gauge respondents’ understanding of fair housing policy. In a series of hypothetical scenarios describing instances of illegal discrimination, sizeable minorities of survey respondents described the discrimination as “legal” in each case. Furthermore, 22 percent of survey respondents did not know to whom they could address complaints of unlawful discrimination, and many respondents indicated that they would report housing discrimination to agencies that are not directly involved in fair housing enforcement. Action 4.1: Hold annual public meetings and other outreach activities pertaining to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during Fair Housing Month (April). Measurable Objective 4.1: Record of meetings, presentation materials for the meetings, and marketing materials used to publicize meetings. Public Sector Impediments, Suggested Actions, and Measurable Objectives Impediment 1: Lack of sufficient outreach and education pertaining to fair housing. This impediment was identified through a review of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey and the fair housing infrastructure in the City of Farmington. As noted previously in Private Sector Impediment 4, lack of knowledge of fair housing laws and infrastructure was widely perceived to be a barrier to fair housing in the city. This lack of knowledge was reflected in responses to questions designed to test respondents’ knowledge of fair housing law and policy. Furthermore, there are currently no organizations serving the City as Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) participants; such an organization would be eligible to receive funding from HUD to promote outreach and education efforts. Action 1.1: Hold annual public meetings and other outreach activities pertaining to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during Fair Housing Month (April). Measurable Objective 1.1: Record of meetings, presentation materials for the meetings, and marketing materials used to publicize meetings. Impediment 2: Lack of fair housing testing and enforcement. This impediment was also identified through review of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey and the fair housing infrastructure in place in the City of Farmington. Over 60 percent of survey respondents felt that the “limited capacity of a local organization devoted to fair housing investigation/testing” represented a barrier to fair housing; around 30 percent identified it as a “serious” barrier. Review of the City’s fair housing infrastructure reveals that there is no local organization or agency involved in fair housing testing or enforcement. Action 2.1: Seek partner to conduct fair housing testing in the City of Farmington, such as the Southwest Fair Housing Council in Tucson, Arizona, or other nearby Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) participants. Measurable Objective 2.1: Record of outreach conducted and organizations contacted, as well as records of correspondence generated in the course of those outreach efforts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7 August 8, 2014 Impediment 3: Zoning for multifamily affordable housing units appears to correlate with areas with relatively high concentrations of minority residents and poverty. This impediment was identified through review of the geographic maps of areas deemed suitable for multi-family housing units, and comparison of that map with demographic maps included in this report. Comparison of these maps suggests that areas deemed suitable for development of multi-family assisted housing units tend to be more extensive and widespread in Census tracts with higher proportions of minority residents and households in poverty. As a corollary, areas with smaller concentrations of minority residents and households in poverty tended to be zoned for low- density development, and to have fewer, or more limited, areas deemed suitable for multi- family housing. Action 3.1: The City of Farmington will be updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the fall. In the course of updating the Plan, the City should review zoning and land-use policies by which zoning districts are deemed suitable for the placement of affordable housing units. Action 3.1a: The City should then develop recommendations on how to expand the areas deemed suitable for the placement of affordable housing units. Measurable Objective 3.1: The results of this review and the incorporation of those recommendations into the updated Comprehensive Plan. Impediment 4: Lack of local organization serving Farmington residents as a participant in HUD’s Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP). This impediment was identified through review of the fair housing infrastructure in place in the City of Farmington and the State of New Mexico, as well as responses to the Public Perception of Fair Housing Law Survey. There is no FHIP participant serving residents of Farmington or the State of New Mexico. The lack of organizational capacity for enforcement of fair housing law was perceived as a barrier by over 60 percent of survey respondents. Action 4.1: Seek partner to facilitate creation of local fair housing organization and potential FHIP participant. Measurable Objective 4.1: Record of outreach conducted and organizations contacted, as well as records of correspondence generated in the course of those outreach efforts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 8 August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 9 August 8, 2014 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, also known as the Federal Fair Housing Act, made it illegal to discriminate in the buying, selling, or renting of housing based on a person’s race, color, religion, or national origin. Sex was added as a protected class in the 1970s. In 1988, the Fair Housing Amendments Act added familial status and disability to the list, making a total of seven federally protected classes. Federal fair housing statutes are largely covered by the following three pieces of U.S. legislation: 1. The Fair Housing Act, 2. The Housing Amendments Act, and 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act. The purpose of fair housing law is to protect a person’s right to own, sell, purchase, or rent housing of his or her choice without fear of unlawful discrimination. The goal of fair housing law is to allow everyone equal access to housing. WHY ASSESS FAIR HOUSING? Provisions to affirmatively further fair housing are long-standing components of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) housing and community development programs. These provisions come from Section 808(e) of the federal Fair Housing Act, which requires that the Secretary of HUD administer federal housing and urban development programs in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. In 1994, HUD published a rule consolidating plans for housing and community development programs into a single planning process. This action grouped the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG),2 and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs into the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, which then created a single application cycle. As a part of the consolidated planning process, states and entitlement communities that receive such funds as a formula allocation directly from HUD are required to submit to HUD certification that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing. This certification has three parts: 1. Complete an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), 2. Take actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis, and 3. Maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions taken. In the Fair Housing Planning Guide, page 2-8, HUD notes that impediments to fair housing choice are: 2 The Emergency Shelter Grants program was renamed the Emergency Solutions Grants program in 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Introduction 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 10 August 8, 2014  “Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices [and]  Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have [this] effect.”2F4F3 State and local governments may enact fair housing laws that extend protection to other groups as well. For example, New Mexico Human Rights Law extends additional fair housing protections based on physical or mental handicap, serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity4. PURPOSE OF THIS RESEARCH HUD interprets the broad objectives of affirmatively furthering fair housing certification to include:  “Analyzing and working to eliminate housing discrimination in the jurisdiction;  Promoting fair housing choice for all persons;  Providing opportunities for racially and ethnically inclusive patterns of housing occupancy;  Promoting housing that is physically accessible to, and usable by, all persons, particularly individuals with disabilities; and  Fostering compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act.”5F7F5 The objective of the 2014 AI process was to research, analyze, and identify prospective impediments to fair housing choice throughout the City of Farmington. The goal of the completed AI is to suggest actions that the sponsoring jurisdiction can consider when working toward eliminating or mitigating the identified impediments. LEAD AGENCY Western Economic Services, LLC, a Portland, Oregon consulting firm specializing in analysis and research in support of housing and community development planning, prepared this AI. The agency that led this effort on behalf of the City was the City of Farmington Community Development Department. Commitment to Fair Housing In accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations governing the Consolidated Plan, the City certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing. This statement means that they have conducted an AI, will take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and will maintain records that reflect the analysis and actions taken in this regard. 3 Fair Housing Planning Guide. 4 New Mexico Statutes §28-1-7, available at http://public.nmcompcomm.us/nmpublic/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm 5 Fair Housing Planning Guide, p.1-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Introduction 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 11 August 8, 2014 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This AI addresses the status of fair housing in the City of Farmington. Thematic maps included in this report include Census tract boundaries and tract names, selected roads, and the city limit of Farmington. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The AI process involves a thorough examination of a variety of data sources related to housing and housing decisions. Some baseline secondary and quantitative data were drawn from the Census Bureau, including American Community Survey data averages from 2005-2007, 2010- 2012, and 2008 through 2012. Data from these sources detailed population, personal income, poverty, housing units by tenure, cost burdens, and housing conditions. Other data were drawn from records provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the New Mexico Department of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and a variety of other sources. The following narrative offers a brief description of other key data sources employed for the 2014 AI for the City of Farmington. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data To examine possible fair housing issues in the home mortgage market, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data were analyzed. The HMDA was enacted by Congress in 1975 and has since been amended several times. It is intended to provide the public with loan data that can be used to determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of their communities and to assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns. HMDA requires lenders to publicly disclose the race, ethnicity, and genders of mortgage applicants, along with loan application amounts, household income, the Census tract in which the home is located, and information concerning prospective lender actions related to the loan application. For this analysis, HMDA data from 2012 were analyzed, with the measurement of denial rates by Census tract and by race and ethnicity of applicants the key research objectives. These data were also examined to identify the groups and geographic areas most likely to encounter higher denial rates and receive loans with unusually high interest rates. Fair Housing Complaint Data Housing complaint data were used to analyze discrimination in the renting and selling of housing. HUD provided fair housing complaint data for the City from 2009 through 2014. This information included the basis, or protected class pursuant to the complaint; the issue, or prospective discriminatory action pursuant to the grievance; and the closure status of the alleged fair housing infraction, which relates to the result of the fair housing investigation. The review of fair housing complaints from within the City allowed for inspection of the tone, the relative degree and frequency of certain types of unfair housing practices, and the degree to which complaints were found to be with cause. Analysis of complaint data focused on determining which protected classes may have been disproportionately impacted by housing discrimination based on the number of complaints, while acknowledging that many individuals may be reluctant to step forward with a fair housing complaint for fear of retaliation or similar repercussion. ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Introduction 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 12 August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Introduction 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 13 August 8, 2014 Fair Housing Survey HUD recommends that jurisdictions conduct a survey during the AI process to gather public input about perceived impediments to fair housing choice. The City elected to utilize a survey instrument as a means to encourage public input in the AI process. Though the survey targeted individuals involved in the housing arena, everyone was allowed to complete the survey. In addition to gathering data, this survey was utilized to help promote public involvement throughout the AI process. The survey was designed to address a wide variety of issues related to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing in the City of Farmington. Research Conclusions The final list of impediments to fair housing choice for the City of Farmington was drawn from all quantitative, qualitative, and public input sources, and was based on HUD’s definition of an impediment to fair housing choice as any action, omission, or decision that affects housing choice because of protected class status. The determination of qualification as an impediment was derived from the frequency and severity of occurrences drawn from quantitative and qualitative data evaluation and findings. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This section discusses analysis of fair housing in the City of Farmington as gathered from various public involvement efforts conducted as part of the AI process. Public involvement feedback is a valuable source of qualitative data about impediments, but, as with any data source, citizen comments alone do not necessarily indicate the existence of citywide impediments to fair housing choice. However, survey and forum comments that support findings from other parts of the analysis reinforce findings from other data sources concerning impediments to fair housing choice. ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Introduction 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 14 August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 15 August 8, 2014 SECTION II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA AND TRENDS This section presents demographic, economic, and housing information collected from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other sources. Data were used to analyze a broad range of socio-economic characteristics, including population growth, race, ethnicity, disability, employment, poverty, and housing trends. Ultimately, the information presented in this section helps illustrate the underlying conditions that shape housing market behavior and housing choice in the City of Farmington by presenting the demographic, economic, and housing stock context. Much of the information for this analysis was gathered from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS data cover similar topics to the decennial Census counts but include data not appearing in the 2010 Census, such as household income and poverty. The ACS data reported herein span the years from 2005 through 2012, and include three-year averages published in 2007 and 2012, as well as five-year data published in 2012. DEMOGRAPHICS Review of demographic and economic data establishes the context for the analysis of the environment in which housing choices are made. These data summarize not only the protected class populations, but characteristics of the total population for the City of Farmington, as well as the outcome of housing location choices. These data help to address whether over- concentrations of protected-class individuals exist, and if so, which areas of the City are most affected. Note that high concentrations of protected class populations do not necessarily imply impediments to fair housing choice, but may represent the results of impediments identified in other data. POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, AND FAMILIES, FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON Table II.1 below shows the percent change in population, households, and families from the 2005-2007 to the 2010-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 3-Year Estimates for the City of Farmington. The definition of Family is two or more persons living together who are related by blood or marriage. Households include all of the people dwelling in a particular housing unit. Because households include single persons living alone, there are more households than families. Nevertheless, the number of families grew by an estimated 6.1 percent between the 2007 ACS and 2012 ACS, while the number of households grew by 2.7 percent. 2007 ACS 2012 ACS Percent Change Total Population 45,346 45,798 1.0% Households 15,290 15,696 2.7% Families 10,659 11,311 6.1% Table II.1 Population, Households, and Families - City of Farmington ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 16 August 8, 2014 A COMPARISON OF NM MSA POPULATION ESTIMATES The American Community Survey also produces population estimates for County or MSA level geographies. In Table II.2 below the ACS estimates for 2010 and 2012 for New Mexico and the four New Mexico Metropolitan Statistical Areas show a comparison of the percent change in the population. This timeframe shows a decline in the population of the Farmington MSA of 1.2 percent. 2010 Estimate 2012 Estimate Number Change Percent Change New Mexico 2,059,180 2,085,538 26,358 1.3% Farmington MSA 130,044 128,529 -1,515 -1.2% Albq. MSA 662,564 673,460 10,896 1.6% Santa Fe MSA 144,169 146,375 2,206 1.5% Las Cruces MSA 209,234 214,445 5,211 2.5% American Community Survey 2010 and 2012 Population Estimates - Release April 2013 Table II.2 Comparison of NM MSA Population Estimates POPULATION BY AGE Chart II.1 on the following page shows the City of Farmington population by age group, from the 2010-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 3-Year Estimates. The median age in the City of Farmington is 32.8 Years. The age group with the highest population is five years and under, and population sizes tended to fall with increasing age of the cohort. However, there was a peak in population sizes in the cohorts aged between 45 and 64 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 17 August 8, 2014 POPULATION CHANGE BY AGE Table II.3 on the following page shows the population change from the 2005-2007 to the 2010-2012 ACS 3-Year Estimates broken down by age groups and the percent change in the age groups. The overall percent of change in the total population is 1 percent. Age groups that had a rate of change greater than the overall rate are shaded green. Age groups that declined in population are shaded orange. The highest percent growth rate is 82 percent for the 60 to 64 years group. The second highest growth rate is 44 percent for the 65-69 years group. The 65 years and older category at the bottom of the table shows a 12 percent increase in this broader age group. Chart II.1 Population by Age - City of Farmington 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over Age Groups Population in Age Group Median Age = 32.8 years ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 18 August 8, 2014 RACE AND ETHNICITY Table II.4 on the following page shows the racial breakdown of the city’s population. White non-Hispanic, American Indian non-Hispanic, and Hispanic residents together account for 95.1 percent of the total population. Generally, only these three largest racial groups are described or used in tables, charts, and maps in this report. White, non-Hispanic residents accounted for more than half of the overall population, and American Indian residents represented 20.9 percent. Hispanic residents accounted for 22.8 percent of the population. 2005-2007 2010-2012 % Change in Population from 2007 to 2012 Total Population 45,346 45,798 1.0% Under 5 years 4,625 3,893 -16% 5 to 9 years 3,310 3,572 8% 10 to 14 years 3,084 3,526 14% 15 to 19 years 3,038 3,114 3% 20 to 24 years 3,809 3,068 -19% 25 to 29 years 4,172 3,481 -17% 30 to 34 years 3,265 3,481 7% 35 to 39 years 2,449 2,977 22% 40 to 44 years 2,585 2,336 -10% 45 to 49 years 2,902 2,565 -12% 50 to 54 years 3,174 3,023 55 to 59 years 2,766 2,885 4% 60 to 64 years 1,406 2,565 82% 65 to 69 years 1,179 1,695 44% 70 to 74 years 1,224 1,053 -14% 75 to 79 years 816 1,053 29% 80 to 84 years 907 687 -24% 85 years and over 635 824 30% 65 years and over 4,761 5,313 12% Median Age 30.8 32.8 Greater than overall rate Table II.3 Population Change by Age - City of Farmington Source: 2005-2007 and 2010- 2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates - S0101 ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 19 August 8, 2014 Total: 45,798 White alone not Hispanic 23,518 51.4% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 9,592 20.9% Hispanic or Latino 10,446 22.8% Black or African American alone 365 0.8% Asian alone 337 0.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 25 0.05% Some other race alone 59 0.1% Two or more races 1456 3.2% 4.9% Table II.4 Number and Percent of Population by Race City of Farmington 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates - B03002 95.1% Chart II.2 below graphically depicts the data in Table II.4. The larger pie chart shows White Alone, American Indian alone, Hispanic, and the other groups. For clarity, the smaller pie chart details the breakdown of the other racial groups in the City of Farmington Chart II.2 Percent of All Racial Groups for the City of Farmington American Indian alone, 20.9% Some other race alone, 0.1% Hispanic or Latino, 22.8% White alone not Hispanic, 51.4% Two or more races, 3.2% Asian alone, 0.7% Black or African American alone, 0.8% Other, 4.9% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, 0.05% 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates The three largest racial groups make up 95.1% of the total population, while the other five groups together make up 4.9% of the total population. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 20 August 8, 2014 RACIAL CONCENTRATION The following three maps show the racial concentration in the City of Farmington by U.S. Census Tracts. The darker shading indicates a higher racial concentration. There are some areas within the City limits that are not shaded. These areas represent U.S. Census Tracts that overlap with San Juan County areas. The data for these areas is not included because either all or a majority of the homes in these U.S. Census Tracts are in San Juan County. This makes the data unrepresentative of the population in the City of Farmington. Demographic data for all three maps were drawn from the 2018-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. These data were released on December 17, 2013. The 5-Year estimate is the only source of recent data available that provides the U.S. Census Tract level geography. Map II.1 below depicts the concentration of the White Alone Not Hispanic population. The area of highest concentration is Tract 2.01 with 72.7 percent White Alone Not Hispanic. This tract, along with tract 3.02, was observed to hold a disproportionate concentration of white residents, based on the 2012 3-year ACS6. By contrast, white, non-Hispanic residents accounted for only 21.9 percent of the population in tract 5.03. Map II.1 Map II.2 on the following page depicts the concentration of the American Indian population. The area of highest concentration is Tract 4.02, where 40.6 percent of residents were American Indian. In general, American Indian residents of Farmington tended to be concentrated in the 6 Geographically, a disproportionate share exists where a given Census tract contains a concentration of members of a demographic group that is 10 percentage points higher than the concentration of that group in the entire study area. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 21 August 8, 2014 southern part of the city. According to 2012 ACS 3-years estimates, American Indian residents accounted for 20.9 percent of the population of Farmington. Tracts with concentrations of American Indian residents that were higher than 30.9 percent, the disproportionate share threshold, were all located near the southern city limit, part of which borders on Navajo tribal land. Map II.2 Map II.3 on the following page depicts the concentration of the Hispanic and Latino population. The area of highest concentration is Tract 1, where 37.6 percent of all residents were Hispanic and Latino; this was the only tract observed to hold a disproportionate share of the Hispanic population in Farmington in 2012, based on 3-year ACS estimates of that year. Like the American Indian population, Hispanic residents tended to occupy Census tracts in the southern portions of the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 22 August 8, 2014 Map II.3 DISABILITY Table II.5 below shows the number and percent of the population that is disabled by age. Residents aged 65 years and older were disproportionately impacted by disability with 37 percent living with some form of disability, which is 25.8 percent higher than the overall rate. Number With a disability Percent of Total Population with a Disability Overall Rate of Disability 5,022 11.20% Age Group Population under 5 years 44 1.10% Population 5 to 17 years 440 4.90% Population 18 to 64 years 2,638 9.80% Population 65 years and over 1,900 37.00% Disproportionate Impact - HUD Defines a Disproportionate Impact as more than 10% above the total population rate. Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Table II.5 Disability by Age - City of Farmington ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 23 August 8, 2014 ECONOMICS Data indicating the size and dynamics of Farmington’s job markets, workforce, incomes, and persons in poverty provide essential contextual background and indicate the potential buying power or other limitations of city residents when making a housing choice. A review of the city’s residents in such a context is presented below. Several data sources were employed for this economic review. The American Community Survey provides income data for families and households, as well as individual wages. Family income is generally the highest due to the definition of family being at least two related persons. The definition of Household includes single persons living alone, so the income level is skewed lower than families. Individual wages are always the lowest because it relates only to a single person’s wage. HUD often refers to AMI or Area Median Income. This is not a figure published by the American Community Survey but a number that HUD generates for Metropolitan Areas from U.S. Census data and inflation rates. HUD also has income limits based upon family sizes. For a family to be eligible for CDBG assistance, their maximum income must be 80% of the Median Family Income or less. MFIs for major New Mexico cities and counties are portrayed in Table II.6 below. It is not possible to directly compare the American Community Survey data with data for income limits by family size. This is because HUD does not publish the income data with detailed population data. The American Community Survey data allows detailed population breakdowns with income, race, and population. Therefore, American Community Survey data will be used consistently in this report. MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN NEW MEXICO COUNTIES AND CITIES Table II.6 below shows the Median Family Income (MFI) for the principal Cities and the Counties of the four MSA’s in New Mexico. The 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 3-Year Estimates are shown along with the percent change in the MFI. In this timeframe, San Juan County and the City of Farmington show the highest percent change in the Median Family Income. 2005-2007 2010-2012 % Change San Juan County $49,425 $56,446 14.2% City of Farmington $56,411 $63,261 12.1% Bernalillo County $56,000 $59,376 6.0% City of Albuquerque $56,714 $58,806 3.7% Santa Fe County $61,796 $61,147 -1.1% City of Santa Fe $61,151 $61,328 0.3% Dona Ana County $39,453 $42,585 7.9% City of Las Cruces $43,813 $48,934 11.7% Table II.6 Median Family Income in NM Counties and Cities and Change from 2007 to 2012 3-Year Source: 2005-2007 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 24 August 8, 2014 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME BY U.S. CENSUS TRACT The three red tracts in Map II.4 below have the lowest median family incomes (MFI). Tract 2.05 has the lowest MFI at $40,953. All of these tracts lay in western and southern Census tracts, while tracts with relatively high median family incomes lay in the northern portions of the city. Map II.4 NUMBER OF FAMILIES BY INCOME GROUPS Chart II.3 on the following page shows the number of families by income group in the City of Farmington from the 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimate. The largest group, with 2,437 families is in the $50,000 to $74,999 income group. The Median Family Income shown on the chart is $63,261. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 25 August 8, 2014 PERCENT CHANGE IN INCOME OF SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS Table II.7 on the following page shows the income and the percent change in income for major socioeconomic groups that can be tracked in the American Community Survey (ACS) in the City of Farmington. At the top of the table are the Median Family Income (MFI) and the 80%, 50%, and 30% levels of the MFI. Beneath are displayed the three most populous racial groups tracked in this report. Also included are age groups, family type, and tenure. On the right side of the table are the incomes of the socioeconomic groups from the 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 ACS. The last column shows the percent change in income for each of the groups. The overall change in the MFI is 12.1 percent during this timeframe. The MFI for the groups shaded in green have increased more than the overall rate. The groups shaded in orange are below the overall rate. The groups shaded in red have had their incomes decline. Renters, young households, and female householders are the groups that show a decline in their incomes. Hispanic Families had the greatest income growth of 30.3 percent and the 15-24 years households had the greatest income decline at -28.3 percent. The overall increase in the Median Family Income from the 2005-2007 to 2010-2012 ACS 3- Year Estimates is 12.1 percent. Growth in median family income was relatively rapid among Hispanic residents, who saw a 30.3 percent growth in their MFI between the two surveys. By contrast, growth in incomes among white, non-Hispanic residents and American Indian residents fell behind the overall growth rate. MFIs fell among the youngest households, composed of persons aged 15 to 24, as well as in households occupied by single women and rental households. Chart II.3 Number of Families by Income Groups for the City of Farmington 720 816 1,189 1,304 2,437 1,566 778 1,739 427 335 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates City of Farmington Median Family Income = $63,261 ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 26 August 8, 2014 2005-2007 2010-2012 Race, Age, Family Type Median Income Median Income Percent Change Median Family Income (all CoF) $56,411 $63,261 12.1% 80% MFI $45,129 $50,609 12.1% 50% MFI $28,206 $31,631 12.1% 30% MFI $16,923 $18,978 12.1% RACE of FAMILY White alone, not Hispanic or Latino $54,513 $60,721 11.4% American Indian and Alaska Native $36,806 $40,721 10.6% Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) $31,686 $41,275 30.3% HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE 15 to 24 years $27,114 $19,449 -28.3% 25 to 44 years $44,410 $55,158 24.2% 45 to 64 years $62,500 $65,072 4.1% 65 years and over $32,100 $37,680 17.4% FAMILIES With own children under 18 years $52,292 $52,632 0.7% With no own children under 18 years $60,422 $71,950 19.1% Married-couple families $66,256 $72,037 8.7% Female householder, no husband present $25,824 $23,773 -7.9% Male householder, no wife present $50,067 $54,797 9.4% HOUSEHOLD TENURE Owner occupied $58,018 $67,573 16.5% Renter occupied $33,638 $31,691 -5.8% Above the base % change Below the base % change Decrease in Income Table II.7 Percent Change in Median Income of Socioeconomic Groups City of Farmington Source: 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates S1903 and B25119 WAGES AND OCCUPATIONS Table II.8 on the following page shows the number and percent of jobs and their median annual and hourly wages by occupation types. This information comes from the U.S. Department of Labor estimates for 2012. The most common jobs in the City in that year were Office and Administrative Support positions and jobs in Construction and Extraction, which accounted for 14.6 and 12.4 percent of all jobs in the city, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 27 August 8, 2014 Occupation Code # of Jobs % of All Jobs Median Annual Wage Median Wage 00-0000 All Occupations 49,600 $33,696 $16.20 11-0000 Management Occupations 2,100 4.2% $79,706 $38.32 13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 1,160 2.3% $47,486 $22.83 15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 260 0.5% $51,958 $24.98 17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 870 1.8% $67,912 $32.65 19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 310 0.6% $51,210 $24.62 21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations 790 1.6% $35,422 $17.03 23-0000 Legal Occupations 120 0.2% $58,594 $28.17 25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations 3,120 6.3% $42,328 $20.35 27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 250 0.5% $22,027 $10.59 29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 2,290 4.6% $62,608 $30.10 31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations 1,620 3.3% $23,878 $11.48 33-0000 Protective Service Occupations 1,320 2.7% $34,424 $16.55 35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 4,260 8.6% $18,429 $8.86 37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 1,210 2.4% $20,030 $9.63 39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations 1,400 2.8% $18,346 $8.82 41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations 4,710 9.5% $21,674 $10.42 43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 7,220 14.6% $27,768 $13.35 45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 50 0.1% $20,114 $9.67 47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations 6,140 12.4% $39,291 $18.89 49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 3,480 7.0% $47,944 $23.05 51-0000 Production Occupations 3,210 6.5% $41,122 $19.77 53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 3,720 7.5% $37,086 $17.83 Source: 2012 U.S. Department of Labor Estimates Chart II.4 below tracks the number of jobs and the median hourly wage from 2005 to 2012. This data comes from the U.S. Department of Labor and is for the Farmington MSA or San Juan County. The May 2012 data was released on April 8, 2013. This chart shows that median wages continued to grow through 2009 and 2010, even as a substantial number of jobs were lost to the national recession of those years. Chart II.4 Number of Jobs and Median Hourly Wage from 2005 to 2012 Farmington MSA 40,000 42,000 44,000 46,000 48,000 50,000 52,000 54,000 U.S. Department of Labor - Occupational Employment Estimates 2012 Data Release was April 8, 2013 Number of Jobs - All Occupations $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 $20.00 $22.00 $24.00 Median Wage Per Hour # of Jobs 47,860 49,970 50,900 51,460 50,770 47,890 48,490 49,600 Median Wage $12.17 $12.80 $13.46 $14.50 $14.72 $15.16 $15.72 $16.20 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 +3.6% Total Change +33.1% Total Increase -6.8% Decrease from 2008 to 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 28 August 8, 2014 POVERTY Table II.9 below shows the changes in the number of persons in poverty by socioeconomic groups from the 2005-2007 to the 2010-2011 ACS 3-Year Estimates. There was a 2.1 percent increase in the number of Farmington residents living in poverty during this timeframe. The cells shaded orange show groups whose poverty rate increased more than the total rate, cells shaded yellow show groups whose poverty rate increased less than the overall rate of 2.1 percent and cells shaded green show the groups whose poverty rate declined (improved) during this timeframe. Residents under the age of 18 had the highest increase in poverty during this timeframe, with 5.9 percent. Female residents were more highly impacted by poverty in both survey years, and by 2012 the poverty rate for female residents was around 18 percent, compared to a poverty rate of 16.5 percent for male residents. The poverty rate for Hispanic applicants was also considerably above the average poverty rate of 17.4 percent, and American Indians were observed to be disproportionately impacted by poverty in that the poverty rate for this group, which was 34.7 percent in 2012, exceeded the overall average by well over ten percentage points. Persons Below Poverty Level % of Population Below Poverty Level Persons Below Poverty Level % of Population Below Poverty Level Change in % Below Poverty Level Total Population in Poverty 6,778 15.3% 7,797 17.4% 2.1% Persons below Poverty by Group % of Group Below Poverty Level Persons below Poverty by Group % of Group Below Poverty Level Change in % Below Poverty Level by Group AGE Under 18 years 2,573 20.6% 3,381 26.5% 5.9% 18 to 64 years 3,733 13.6% 4,013 14.9% 1.3% 65 years and over 472 11.0% 403 7.9% -3.1% SEX Male 2,881 13.3% 3,633 16.5% 3.2% Female 3,897 17.2% 4,164 18.3% 1.1% RACE White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 2,022 8.4% 1,594 6.8% -1.6% American Indian 2,576 30.9% 3,207 34.7% 3.8% Hispanic or Latino 2,073 21.6% 2,718 26.4% 4.8% Below the overall rate of change Above the overall rate of change Decline in the population below poverty Disproportionate Poverty 2010-2012 ACS 2005-2007 ACS Table II.9 Changes to the Population in Poverty by Socioeconomic Groups City of Farmington Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates - S1701 Poverty by U.S. Census Tract in the City of Farmington The poverty rate of the average Census tract in the City of Farmington was 15.5 percent, according to 2012 5-year ACS estimates. Though the poverty rate was higher than this average rate in several Farmington Census tracts, it was observed to be disproportionately concentrated in only one tract, Tract 2.05. This tract was also observed to hold a relatively high concentrations of American Indian and Hispanic residents in 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 29 August 8, 2014 U.S. Census Tracts Total Population # Below Poverty % Below Poverty 1 5,509 1,161 21.1% 2.01 4,272 60 1.4% 2.02 5,195 147 2.8% 2.04 2,488 245 9.8% 2.05 6,462 2,184 33.8% 3.01 5,531 915 16.5% 3.02 3,297 349 10.6% 4.01 4,728 822 17.4% 4.02 3,170 508 16.0% 5.03 3,271 537 16.4% 6.07 2,673 280 10.5% Total by Tract 46,596 7,208 15.5% Less than the Total by Tract Poverty Rate Table II.10 Poverty by U.S. Census Tract in the City of Farmington Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates - S1701 ***Note - 5-Year estimates are the only available source for the Tract level geography. Highest Percent of Poverty and a Disproportionate Impact Higher than the Total by Tract Poverty Rate Map II.5 on the following page displays the distribution of poverty in the City of Farmington, according to the 2012 Five-Year ACS. According to those data, the highest poverty rate in the City occurred in Tract 2.05 in the center of the city. Note that this is above the disproportionate share rate of 27.4. In general, tracts with higher poverty rates tended to be concentrated in the south of the city, while tracts with relatively low poverty rates were concentrated in the northern part of the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 30 August 8, 2014 Map II.5 Percent and Number in Poverty by New Mexico MSA’s Table II.11 below shows a comparison of poverty rates in the four New Mexico Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). In the Farmington MSA, an estimated 28,070 persons, or 22.1 percent of the population, lived in poverty in 2012. Of the four MSA’s, the Farmington MSA has the second highest percentage of population living in poverty. Total County Population Number below poverty level Percent below poverty level Las Cruces MSA 207,364 58,257 28.10% Farmington MSA 127,218 28,070 22.10% Albuquerque MSA 660,420 122,243 18.50% Santa Fe MSA 142,128 25,724 18.10% Table II.11 Number and Percent in Poverty A Comparison of New Mexico MSA's Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates UNEMPLOYMENT Table II.12 on the following page compares the number of unemployed with the number of job openings in August 2013. The ratio of unemployed workers to job openings is shown on the right side of the table. In August 2013, the Farmington MSA or San Juan County had a ratio of 1.61 unemployed to job openings. This data is provided by the New Mexico Department of Labor. The number of unemployed is an estimated figure, is not adjusted for seasonal variations ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 31 August 8, 2014 in the labor market, and the number of job openings is based upon advertised online job openings. The release date is not posted online. Number of Unemployed in August 2013 Job Openings in August 2013 # of Unemployed per Job Opening in August 2013 Las Cruces MSA 6,395 3,572 1.79 Farmington MSA 3,669 2,279 1.61 Albq MSA 20,023 16,772 1.19 Santa Fe MSA 3,867 3,268 1.18 Source: New Mexico Workforce Connection - Supply and Demand Table II.12 Number of Unemployed per Job Opening - August 2013 Chart II.5 below tracts the unemployment rates for the U.S., New Mexico, and the four New Mexico MSA’s from 2004 to August 2013. Annual data is shown through 2012 and the 2013 data is This data comes from news releases from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The October 2013 data was released December 5, 2013. Yearly and trends in unemployment in the Farmington MSA largely reflect trends at the state level, as well as trends in the other New Mexico MSAs. Chart II.5 A Comparison of Unemployment Rates National, New Mexico, and NM MSA's 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% Source: U.S. Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics - News Releases Unemployment Rate National 5.5% 5.1% 4.6% 4.6% 5.8% 9.3% 9.6% 8.9% 8.1% 8.5% 8.1% 7.6% 7.1% 7.3% 7.6% 7.4% 7.3% 7.2% 7.3% NM 5.7% 5.2% 4.3% 3.5% 4.5% 7.2% 8.4% 7.4% 6.9% 7.0% 7.3% 6.9% 6.2% 6.4% 7.6% 7.5% 6.6% 6.2% 6.3% Farmington 6.1% 5.5% 4.4% 3.2% 4.0% 7.6% 9.6% 7.8% 6.8% 6.9% 7.2% 6.7% 5.8% 6.2% 7.6% 7.6% 6.8% 6.1% 6.1% Albq 5.3% 5.0% 4.1% 3.5% 4.6% 7.4% 8.8% 7.8% 7.3% 7.2% 7.5% 7.1% 6.4% 6.6% 7.8% 7.8% 6.9% 6.6% 6.6% Las Cruces 6.4% 5.8% 4.8% 3.9% 4.8% 7.0% 8.2% 7.5% 7.1% 7.6% 8.0% 7.7% 7.1% 7.3% 8.5% 8.3% 6.9% 6.7% 6.8% Santa Fe 4.4% 4.2% 3.5% 2.8% 3.8% 6.2% 7.1% 6.0% 5.5% 5.6% 6.0% 5.4% 4.9% 5.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Mar 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 Aug 2013 Sept 2013 Oct Annual Data Data ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 32 August 8, 2014 HOUSING Simple counts of housing by age, type, tenure, and other characteristics form the basis for the housing stock background, suggesting the available housing from which residents of Farmington have to choose. Examination of households, on the other hand, shows how residents use the available housing, and shows household size and housing problems such as incomplete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. Review of housing costs reveals the markets in which housing consumers in the City can shop, and may suggest needs for certain populations. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Table II.13 below shows the number and percent of housing units by type. The two most common types of housing are single family detached homes, which account for 63.7 percent of all housing; and manufactured homes, which account for 17.1 percent of all housing in the City of Farmington. The term “Mobile Home” was replaced by “Manufactured Home” in the 1984 Housing Act. However, “Mobile Home” is still used by the U.S. Census Bureau to define manufactured housing. Units Percent Total housing units 17,723 1-unit, detached 11,290 63.7% 1-unit, attached 235 1.3% 2 units 481 2.7% 3 or 4 units 1,377 7.8% 5 to 9 units 522 2.9% 10 to 19 units 300 1.7% 20 or more units 468 2.6% Mobile home 3,028 17.1% Boat, RV, van, etc. 22 0.1% Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Table II.13 Housing Types City of Farmington Occupied and Vacant Housing Units Table II.14 on the following page compares occupancy and vacancy rates of New Mexico Cities. The City of Farmington has an overall vacancy rate of 11.4 percent, which is the second highest of the MSA’s. Moreover, Farmington’s rental vacancy rate is 14 percent, which is the highest rate of the four cities. The rental vacancy rate is also considerably higher than the homeowner vacancy rate. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 33 August 8, 2014 HOUSING OCCUPANCY Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total housing units 17,723 241,565 41,976 37,134 Occupied housing units 15,696 88.60% 224,766 93.0% 37,828 90.1% 31,570 85.0% Vacant housing units 2,027 11.40% 16,799 7.0% 4,148 9.9% 5,564 15.0% Homeowner vacancy rate 2.2% 1.4% 2.0% 3.0% Rental vacancy rate 14.0% 6.2% 7.7% 6.8% Farmington Albuquerque Table II.14 Occupied and Vacant Housing Units Comparison of New Mexico Cities Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates - DP-4 Las Cruces Santa Fe Housing Costs Chart II.6 below shows the number of households by percent of their income spent on housing costs for housing units with a mortgage for the 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. In the middle of the chart, is a vertical dashed line at 30 percent, to delineate housing units considered to be “affordable” or “unaffordable”; any household in which more than 30 percent of the household income is spent on housing is considered to be living in unaffordable housing. The 2010-2012 data show that there are an estimated 2,039 households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing and an estimated 578 households spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. These latter units are considered by HUD to be in greatest need. Chart II.6 Owner Costs as a Percent of Household Income Housing Units with a Mortgage City of Farmington 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Source: 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates - B25091 Percent of Households by Percent of Income 2005-2007 9.4% 17.7% 17.0% 17.5% 7.4% 8.8% 4.4% 5.3% 10.8% 29.4% 2010-2012 7.0% 12.9% 20.4% 14.9% 10.2% 8.6% 4.4% 5.0% 10.7% 28.6% Less than 10.0 percent 10.0 to 14.9 percent 15.0 to 19.9 percent 20.0 to 24.9 percent 25.0 to 29.9 percent 30.0 to 34.9 percent 35.0 to 39.9 percent 40.0 to 49.9 percent 50.0 percent or more 30.0 percent or more Affordable Unaffordable Summary of All >30% 2010-2012 - 2,039 Owner Occupied Units >30% 2005-2007 - 2,090 Owner Occupied Units >30% 2010-2012 - 578 Owner Occupied Units >50% 2005-2007 - 771 Owner Occupied Units >50% ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 34 August 8, 2014 Chart II.7 on the following page shows the number of households by percent of income spent on rental housing for the 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. The 2010-2012 data show that there are 2,317 households living in housing units that are considered unaffordable. In addition, 1,268 rental households spent more than 50 percent of their income on housing and are considered by HUD to be in greatest need. During this timeframe, there was a 41 percent increase in the number of households considered to be in greatest need. HOUSING PROBLEMS Lacking Complete Facilities Table II.15 on the following page shows the number of housing units that lack complete facilities in the City of Farmington. The percentage of homes in the City of Farmington that are lacking complete plumbing is lower than the overall State of New Mexico rate, as was the percentage of homes lacking complete kitchen facilities. However, the percentage of homes with no telephone service is 6.1 percent in the City, which is higher than the overall State of New Mexico rate of 4.4 percent. In the City of Farmington, the issue of no telephone service may be more of a sign of pervasive cell phone use and the choice of not paying for a landline service, rather than not having access to phone lines. Despite the low number of homes without complete plumbing and kitchen facilities, housing without complete facilities is considered a serious problem by HUD and the City of Farmington for health and welfare concerns. Chart II.7 Rental Costs as a Percent of Household Income City of Farmington 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Source: 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates - B25070 Percent of Rental Households by Percent of Income 2005-2007 4.0% 9.7% 12.6% 16.1% 10.2% 9.4% 7.4% 7.3% 17.6% 41.7% 2010-2012 1.9% 14.2% 12.3% 9.2% 10.5% 7.5% 5.2% 7.8% 24.8% 45.3% Less than 10.0 percent 10.0 to 14.9 percent 15.0 to 19.9 percent 20.0 to 24.9 percent 25.0 to 29.9 percent 30.0 to 34.9 percent 35.0 to 39.9 percent 40.0 to 49.9 percent 50.0 percent or more 30.0 percent or more Affordable Unaffordable Summary of All >30% 2010-2012 - 2,317 Renter Occupied Units >30% 2005-2007 - 2,095 Renter Occupied Units >30% 2010-2012 - 1,268 Renter Occupied Units >50% 2005-2007 - 883 Renter Occupied Units >50% ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 35 August 8, 2014 # % # % Occupied housing units 15,696 765,306 Lacking complete plumbing facilities 131 0.8% 9,724 1.3% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 186 1.2% 10,257 1.3% No telephone service available 962 6.1% 33,488 4.4% City of Farmington New Mexico Table II.15 Housing that Lacks Complete Facilities City of Farmington Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Overcrowding Table II.16 below shows the number of occupants per room for owner occupied and renter occupied housing units. HUD defines overcrowded housing units as those with more than 1 occupant per room in a housing unit. HUD defines severely overcrowded homes as those with1.5 occupants per room or more. Rooms include living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, finished recreation rooms, enclosed porches suitable for year-round use, and lodgers’ rooms. There were 938 occupied households in the City of Farmington that were overcrowded or severely overcrowded in the 2011 3-year ACS. This problem was more prevalent among rental units, nearly 4 percent of which were overcrowded or severely overcrowded, than among owner-occupied housing units, 2 percent of which were overcrowded or severely overcrowded. # % Total Occupied Units  15,676 1.00 or less 10,663 68.0% 1.01 to 1.50 283 1.8% 1.51 or more 37 0.2% 1.00 or less 4,075 26.0% 1.01 to 1.50 501 3.2% 1.51 or more 117 0.7% Source: American Community Survey 2011 3-Year Averages Owner Occupied Housing Units Renter Occupied Housing Units Table II.16 Overcrowding - Occupants per Room City of Farmington SUMMARY The population of the City of Farmington increased by an estimated 1 percent between 2007 and 2012, according to 3-year ACS estimates from those years. The number of families was estimated to have grown by 6.1 percent, while the number of households, which include single persons living alone, grew by an estimated 2.7 percent. ACS estimates from 2010 and 2012, suggest that the City’s population declined by 1.2 percent between those years. In 2012, residents under 5 years of age accounted for the greatest proportion of the Farmington population; however, this population is estimated to have declined between 2007 and 2012 by 16 percentage points. Similar declines were observed in the number of residents aged 20 to 29, 40 to 54, 70 to 74, and 80 to 84 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Socio-Economic Data and Trends 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 36 August 8, 2014 Most of the residents of Farmington were white, non-Hispanic, American Indian and Alaskan Native and non-Hispanic, or Hispanic. In fact, over 95 percent of the population belonged to one of these racial or ethnic groups; white, non-Hispanic residents accounted for 51.4 percent of the population, American Indian or Alaskan Native residents who were not Hispanic accounted for 20.9 percent, and Hispanic or Latino residents accounted for 22.8 percent of the population. Each of these populations tended to be concentrated in different areas of the city. White residents were disproportionately concentrated in large tracts in the north of the city, as well as a medium-sized tract in the city center. The American Indian, non-Hispanic population was disproportionately concentrated in three tracts in the southern portion of the city, two of which border on the Navajo Nation to the south. Finally, Hispanic residents were disproportionately concentrated in a large Census tract in the southeastern portion of the city. Persons with disabilities were disproportionately represented among residents aged 65 and older, according to data from the 2012 3-year estimates. The median family income in the City of Farmington grew by an estimated 12.1 percent between 2007 and 2012, which was a greater percentage increase than occurred in the cities of Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces. The MFI in 2012 was $63,261 across the city, though median family incomes differed considerably from one Census tract to another. The MFIs in Tracts 2.01 and 2.02 were $98,941 and $105,990, respectively. These tracts were located in the northern portion of the city. By contrast, many of the Census tracts in the southern portion of the city had median family incomes that were well below the citywide median. Hispanic households saw the greatest percentage increases in MFI. In 2012, single-family units constituted the predominant type of housing unit; detached single- family units accounted for 63.7 percent of all housing units in the City in that year. Mobile homes were the second most common type of housing unit, accounting for 17 percent of all units in 2012. However, Farmington had a higher vacancy rate, at 11.4 percent, than all other state MSA’s, with the exception of Santa Fe. The vacancy rate for rental units was considerably higher than the vacancy rate for owner-occupied units, at 14.0 and 2.2 percent, respectively. Cost-burdening was a problem for 28.6 percent of Farmington homeowners; in 2012 these households were making mortgage payments that accounted for more than 30% of their total income. However, homeowners were actually less cost-burdened in 2012 than they had been in 2007. The problem was more pervasive still among rental households; 45.3 percent of renters found that rental costs took up more than 30 percent of their income in 2012. This was a higher degree of cost-burdening than renters had experienced in 2007, when 41.7 percent of rental households were cost-burdened. In both years, renters tended to be cost-burdened more frequently than homeowners. A small proportion of housing units, or 0.8 percent, lacked complete plumbing facilities, and a higher proportion, or 1.2 percent, lacked complete kitchen facilities. Finally, higher percentages of rental units were overcrowded in 2012 compared to owner-occupied units, and around 6 percent of households of both types were overcrowded. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 37 August 8, 2014 SECTION III. FAIR HOUSING LAW, STUDY, AND CASE REVIEW As part of the AI process, existing fair housing laws, studies, cases, and other relevant materials were reviewed on a national and local scale. Results of this review are presented below. FAIR HOUSING LAWS FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS A myriad of federal laws provide the backbone for U.S. fair housing regulations. While some laws have been previously discussed in this report, a brief list of laws related to fair housing, as defined on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) website, is presented below: Fair Housing Act. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and persons securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).9F1F7 Title VIII was amended in 1988 (effective March 12, 1989) by the Fair Housing Amendments Act . . . In connection with prohibitions on discrimination against individuals with disabilities, the Act contains design and construction accessibility provisions for certain new multi-family dwellings developed for first occupancy on or after March 13, 1991.F8 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Section 109 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or religion in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from HUD’s Community Development and Block Grant Program. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Title II prohibits discrimination based on disability in programs, services, and activities provided or made available by public entities. HUD enforces Title II when it relates to state and local public housing, housing assistance and housing referrals. 7 “HUD Fair Housing Laws and Presidential Executive Orders.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws 8 “Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/progdesc/title8 ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 38 August 8, 2014 Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. The Architectural Barriers Act requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, altered, or leased with certain federal funds after September 1969 be accessible to and useable by handicapped persons. Age Discrimination Act of 1975. The Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. 1F13F9 STATE AND LOCAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS In addition to federal law, citizens of State of New Mexico are also protected by New Mexico Statutes, Article 28. This article, as part of the New Mexico Human Rights Law, extends additional fair housing protections based on physical or mental handicap, serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity10. City ordinances do not explicitly provide for fair housing protections, except in the case of affordable housing11, and though San Juan County statutes include a fair housing ordinance, this ordinance applies only to unincorporated areas of the county12. FAIR HOUSING STUDIES NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING STUDIES In 2000, HUD released a publication entitled “Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets,” which measured the prevalence of housing discrimination based on race and ethnicity in the U.S. This was the third nationwide effort to measure discrimination against minority home seekers since 1977, conducted in three phases. 1. Phase 1 – Black and Hispanic Populations The study, based on 4,600 paired tests in 23 metropolitan cities in the U.S., found large decreases in the levels of discrimination against black and Hispanic home seekers between 1989 and 2000. In the rental markets, a moderate decrease was seen in discrimination toward black individuals, who experienced adverse treatment more often than white individuals, whereas the Hispanic population was more likely to face discrimination in the rental markets than its black and white counterparts. Many black and Hispanic home seekers were told that units were unavailable, although the same units were available to white home seekers, and the black and Hispanic populations were also shown and told about fewer units. In addition, Hispanic individuals were more likely in 2000 than in 1989 to be quoted a higher rent than white individuals who sought to rent the same unit. 9 “HUD Fair Housing Laws and Presidential Executive Orders.” 10 New Mexico Statutes §28-1-7, available at http://public.nmcompcomm.us/nmpublic/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm 11 Farmington City Ordinances §22-7-5 12 San Juan County Ordinance §26-3(A) ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 39 August 8, 2014 2. Phase 2 – Asian and Pacific Islander Populations This study, conducted in 2000 and 2001 and based on 889 paired tests in 11 metropolitan areas in the U.S., showed that Asian and Pacific Islander individuals who sought to rent a unit experienced adverse treatment compared to white individuals in 21.5 percent of tests, which was similar to the rate black and Hispanic individuals saw. The study also showed that Asian and Pacific Islander prospective homebuyers experienced adverse treatment compared to white prospective homebuyers 20.4 percent of the time, with discrimination occurring in the availability of housing, inspections, assistance with financing, and encouragement by agents. 3. Phase 3 – American Indian Population The last phase of HUD’s nationwide effort to measure housing discrimination involved estimating the level of discrimination experienced by American Indian individuals in their search for housing in metropolitan areas across Minnesota, Montana, and New Mexico. The findings showed that the American Indian population experienced adverse treatments compared to white individuals in 28.5 percent of rental tests. White individuals were consistently told about advertised units, similar units, and more units than American Indian individuals with similar qualifications. The high level of discrimination experienced by the American Indian population in these areas surpassed rates seen by Hispanic, black, and Asian individuals in the metropolitan rental markets nationwide.14F16F13 In April 2002, HUD released a national study that assessed public awareness of and support for fair housing law titled How Much Do We Know?: Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing Laws. The study found that only 50 percent of the population was able to identify most scenarios describing illegal conduct. In addition, 14 percent of the nationwide survey’s adult participants believed that they had experienced some form of housing discrimination in their lifetime. However, only 17 percent of those who had experienced housing discrimination had taken action to resolve the issue, such as filing a fair housing complaint. Finally, two-thirds of all respondents said that they would vote for a fair housing law.14 As a follow-up, HUD later released a study in February 2006 called Do We Know More Now?: Trends in Public Knowledge, Support and Use of Fair Housing Law. One aim of the study was to determine whether a nationwide media campaign had proven effective in increasing the public’s awareness of housing discrimination, and another goal was to determine the public’s desire to report such discrimination. Unfortunately, the study found that overall public knowledge of fair housing law did not improve between 2000 and 2005. As before, just half of the public knew the law regarding six or more illegal housing activities. The report showed that 17 percent of the study’s adult participants experienced discrimination when seeking housing; however, after reviewing descriptions of the perceived discrimination, it was determined that only about 8 percent of the situations might be covered by the Fair Housing Act. Four out of five individuals who felt they had been discriminated against did not file a fair housing 13 “Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 of the Housing Discrimination Study (HDS).” http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/hsgfin/hds.html 14 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. How Much Do We Know?: Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing Laws. April 2002. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/fairhsg/hmwk.html ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 40 August 8, 2014 complaint, indicating that they felt it “wasn’t worth it” or that it “wouldn’t have helped.” Others did not know where to complain, assumed it would cost too much, were too busy, or feared retaliation. One positive finding of the survey was that public support for fair housing law increased from 66 percent in 2000 to 73 percent in 2005.15 In 2004, the U.S. General Accounting Office’s (GAO) released a report titled Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process. The GAO report found that between 1996 and 2003, the median number of days required to complete fair housing complaint investigations was 259 for HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Offices and 195 for Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies—far above the 100-day mandate. However, the report did find a higher percentage of investigations completed within that time limit. The GAO report also identified the following trends between 1996 and 2003:  The number of fair housing complaints filed each year steadily increased since 1998. An increasing proportion of grievances alleged discrimination based on disability and a declining proportion alleged discrimination based on race, although race was still the most cited basis of housing discrimination;  FHAP agencies conducted more fair housing investigations than Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) agencies over the eight-year period. The total number of investigations completed each year increased after declining in 1997 and 1998; and  Over this time period, an increasing percentage of investigations closed without finding reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred. However, a declining percentage of investigations were resolved by the parties themselves or with help from FHEO or FHAP agencies.17F19F16 In 2006, the University of Southern California and Oregon State University collaborated to study rental discrimination and race. The universities responded to 1,115 advertisements regarding apartment vacancies in Los Angeles County and signed the bottom of each email with Tyrell Jackson, a traditionally black name; Patrick McDougall, a traditionally white name; or Said Al-Rahman, a traditionally Arab name. Analysis indicated that individuals who were perceived as black were four times more likely to be discouraged from viewing an apartment than persons perceived as white, and individuals considered to be Arab were three times more likely to be discouraged from viewing an apartment than individuals who appeared white. The analysis also noted that applicants perceived as black were more likely to receive negative responses, such as the apartment was no longer available for market rate or above market rate apartments. For example, only an email signed Tyrell Jackson received a reply that reiterated the apartment cost to ensure the apartment was within the applicant’s price range. The study also analyzed the responses from private property owners versus corporate property owners, but found no statistical difference in the way the two groups responded to applicants of different races.18F20F17 15 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Do We Know More Now?: Trends in Public Knowledge, Support and Use of Fair Housing Law. February 2006. 16 U.S. General Accounting Office. “Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process.” April 2004. http://gao.gov/products/GAO-04-463 17 Carpusor, Adrian and William Loges. “Rental Discrimination and Ethnicity in Names.” Journal of Applied Social 36(4). ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 41 August 8, 2014 Released by the Poverty & Race Research Action Council in January 2008, Residential Segregation and Housing Discrimination in the United States asserts that many current governmental efforts to further fair housing actually result in furthering unfair housing practices across the U.S. This article suggests that fair housing efforts can cause residential segregation. For example, if the majority of public housing residents are non-white and most public housing accommodations are grouped in the same Census tracts, residential segregation is resultant. Similarly, many Section 8 voucher holders are racial or ethnic minorities, and most housing that accepts Section 8 vouchers is grouped in selected areas, which again results in residential segregation. The report offers recommendations to curb such residential segregation, including dispersing public housing developments throughout cities and communities and providing greater incentives for landlords with several properties to accept the vouchers. 19F21F18 Published in 2009 by the National Fair Housing Alliance, For Rent: No Kids!: How Internet Housing Advertisements Perpetuate Discrimination presented research on the prevalence of discriminatory housing advertisements on popular websites such as Craigslist. According to the article, while newspapers are prohibited from publishing discriminatory housing advertisements, no such law exists for websites like Craigslist, as they are considered interactive internet providers rather than publishers of content. As such, they are not held to the same legal standards as newspapers. While individual landlords who post discriminatory advertisements may be held responsible, there are no such standards for companies like Craigslist that post the discriminatory advertisements. Newspapers and other publishers of content are required to screen the advertisements they accept for publishing for content that could be seen as discriminatory. This may include phrases like “no children” or “Christian only,” which violate provisions of the Fair Housing Act that state families with children and religious individuals are federally protected groups. 20F2F19 In May 2010, the National Fair Housing Alliance published a fair housing trends report, A Step in the Right Direction, which indicated that recent years have demonstrated forward movement in furthering fair housing. The report began with a commendation of HUD’s federal enforcement of fair housing law and noted the agency’s willingness to challenge local jurisdictions that failed to affirmatively further fair housing. In response to the recent foreclosure crisis, many credit institutions have implemented tactics to reduce risk. However, this report suggests that policies that tighten credit markets—such as requiring larger cash reserves, higher down payments, and better credit scores—may disproportionally affect lending options for communities of color and women. A Step in the Right Direction concludes with examples of ways in which the fair housing situation could be further improved, including addressing discriminatory internet advertisements and adding gender identity, sexual orientation, and source of income as federally protected classes.21F23F20 The positive note that the NFHA struck in its 2010 report carried over into the following year’s The Big Picture: How Fair Housing Organizations Challenge Systemic and Institutionalized Discrimination, published by the Alliance in April of 2011. This report began by noting an 18 U.S. Housing Scholars and Research and Advocacy Organizations. Residential Segregation and Housing Discrimination in the United States. January 2008. http://prrac.org/pdf/FinalCERDHousingDiscriminationReport.pdf 19 National Fair Housing Alliance. For Rent: No Kids!: How Internet Housing Advertisements Perpetuate Discrimination. August 2009. http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zgbukJP2rMM%3D&tabid=2510&mid=8347 20 National Fair Housing Alliance. A Step in the Right Direction: 2010 Fair Housing Trends Report. May 2010. http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/Portals/33/Fair%20Housing%20Trends%20Report%202010.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 42 August 8, 2014 encouraging downward trend in the proportion of individuals in large metropolitan areas living in segregation, which had dropped from 69 to 65 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to census data from 2010. The report also highlighted the work of fair housing organizations to combat systemic and institutionalized discrimination produced by exclusionary zoning, NIMBYism, the dual credit market, and other fair housing challenges, often on limited budgets and with limited personnel. The NFHA closed its 2011 report by praising the work of private fair housing organizations while underscoring the need for continued work.21 The 2012 report from the NFHA focused on issues of fair housing in the context of the shifting demographic composition of the United States, where the white population is projected to no longer represent a majority of residents within thirty years. The report discussed encouraging signals from HUD and the Justice Department, who have “increased their efforts and announced landmark cases of mortgage lending, zoning, and other issues that get to the heart of the [Fair Housing] Act: promoting diverse and inclusive communities22.” The report also highlights a new arena for discrimination in housing, which has emerged as a result of the massive level of foreclosures in the country in recent years: uneven maintenance of Real Estate Owned (REO) properties in white and minority areas. In concluding, the report hails the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a new ally for fair housing and equal opportunity.23 The most recent report from the NFHA outlines an ambitious policy goal: expansion of the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination based on source of income, sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status. The report relates that cases of housing discrimination in general increased between 2011 and 2012, and that complaints based on non-protected statuses (source of income, etc.) were included in that upward trend. In spite of this, only 12 states include protections based on source of income, 21 states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, sixteen states protect against discrimination based on gender identity, and 22 states offer protections based on marital status (the District of Columbia also extends protections on all of these bases). In concluding the report, the NFHA advocates the modernization and expansion of the FHA to bring the protection of individuals based on source of income, sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status within its compass. FAIR HOUSING CASES NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING CASES As noted in the introduction to this report, provisions to affirmatively further fair housing are long-standing components of HUD’s Housing and Community Development programs. In fact, in 1970, Shannon v. HUD challenged the development of a subsidized low-income housing project in an urban renewal area of Philadelphia that was racially and economically integrated. Under the Fair Housing Act, federal funding for housing must further integrate community development as part of furthering fair housing, but the plaintiffs in the Shannon case claimed that the development would create segregation and destroy the existing balance of the 21The Big Picture: How Fair Housing Organizations Challenge Systemic and Institutionalized Discrimination. National Fair Housing Alliance 2011 Fair Housing Trends Report. 29 April 2011. http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SbZH3pTEZhs%3d&tabid=3917&mid=5321 22 http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GBv0ZVJp6Gg%3d&tabid=3917&mid=5321 23 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 43 August 8, 2014 neighborhood. As a result of the case, HUD was required to develop a system to consider the racial and socio-economic impacts of their projects.2F24F24 The specifics of the system were not decided upon by the court, but HUD was encouraged to consider the racial composition and income distribution of neighborhoods, racial effects of local regulations, and practices of local authorities.23F25F25 The Shannon case gave entitlement jurisdictions the responsibility of considering the segregation effects of publicly-funded housing projects on their communities as they affirmatively further fair housing. More recently, in a landmark fraud case, Westchester County, New York, was ordered to pay more than $50 million to resolve allegations of misusing federal funds for public housing projects and falsely claiming their certification of furthering fair housing. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2007 by an anti-discrimination center, alleged that the County failed to reduce racial segregation of public housing projects in larger cities within the County and to provide affordable housing options in its suburbs. The County had accepted more than $50 million from HUD between 2000 and 2006 with promises of addressing these problems. In a summary judgment in February 2009, a judge ruled that the County did not properly factor in race as an impediment to fair housing and that the County did not accurately represent its efforts of integration in its AI. In the settlement, Westchester County was forced to pay more than $30 million to the federal government, with roughly $20 million eligible to return to the County to aid in public housing projects. The County was also ordered to set aside $20 million to build public housing units in suburbs and areas with mostly white populations, and to promote legislation “currently before the Board of Legislators to ban ‘source-of-income’ discrimination in housing (§33(g)”.26 In complying with the latter requirement, the County Executive’s actions were limited to sending five letters to various fair housing advocates, encouraging them to continue their advocacy, and one letter to the Board of Legislators expressing support for the legislation. This bill failed to pass during the 2009 legislative session, and a similar bill was taken up during the 2010 session. In the meantime, Westchester voters elected Rob Astorino to the position of County Executive. Astorino declined to promote the source-of-income legislation before the Board, and when a weakened version of the bill passed in early 2010, he vetoed it. Finding that Westchester had failed to affirmatively further fair housing in the manner agreed upon in the earlier settlement, HUD rejected the County’s AFFH certification and discontinued federal funding. As of April 2013, HUD’s decision had been upheld through several rounds of appeals by the County27. The ramifications of this case are expected to affect housing policies of both states and entitlement communities across the nation; activities taken to affirmatively further fair housing will likely be held to higher levels of scrutiny to ensure that federal funds are being spent to promote fair housing and affirmatively further fair housing. In 2008, $3 billion of federal disaster aid was allotted to the Texas state government to provide relief from damage caused by hurricanes Ike and Dolly. These storms ravaged homes in coastal communities, many of which were owned by low-income families that could not afford to rebuild. However, instead of directing the federal funds to the areas most affected by the storms, the State spread funds across Texas and let local planning agencies spend at will. In reaction to this, two fair housing agencies in the state filed a complaint with HUD stating that 24 U.S. HUD. 39 Steps Toward Fair Housing. http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/39steps.pdf 25 Orfield, Myron. “Racial Integration and Community Revitalization: Applying the Fair Housing Act to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.” Vanderbilt Law Review, November 2005. 26 http://www.hud.gov/content/releases/settlement-westchester.pdf 27 United States v Westchester County 712 F.3d 761 2013 U.S. App. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 44 August 8, 2014 the plan violated fair housing laws as well as federal aid requirements that specify half of the funds be directed to lower-income persons. In light of the complaint, HUD withheld $1.7 billion in CDBG funds until the case was resolved. A settlement was reached in June 2010; the State was required to redirect 55 percent of the amount of the original funds to aid poorer families that lost their homes. The State was also asked to rebuild public housing units that were destroyed by the storms and to offer programs that aid minority and low-income residents in relocating to less storm-prone areas or areas with greater economic opportunities.28 In a recent audit of rental properties in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, the North Texas Fair Housing Center measured the nature and extent of discrimination based on race and familial status in the North Texas region. The discussed the findings of this study in a report published in 2011. According to the report, prospective African-American renters in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex can “expect to encounter discrimination in 37 percent of their housing searches”, while Hispanic renters will encounter housing discrimination in 33 percent of housing searches, and families with children will face discrimination in 20 percent of housing searches. Although the study relied on limited sample sizes (particularly in testing for discrimination against Hispanic applicants and those with children), the findings suggest that housing discrimination is a live issue in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.29 LOCAL FAIR HOUSING CASES Recent U.S. Department of Justice Cases The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) enacts lawsuits on behalf of individuals based on referrals from HUD. Under the Fair Housing Act, the DOJ may file lawsuits in the following instances:  Where there is reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in what is termed a “pattern or practice” of discrimination or where a denial of rights to a group of people raises an issue of general public importance;  Where force or threat of force is used to deny or interfere with fair housing rights; and  Where persons who believe that they have been victims of an illegal housing practice file a complaint with HUD or file their own lawsuit in federal or state court. 26F28F30 The Department of Justice website lists three fair housing complaints brought against individuals or businesses in State of New Mexico in the last ten years. All of these cases have involved discrimination against New Mexico residents on the basis of disability, though the cases differ in the alleged discriminatory action, or “issue”. In United States v. Croom, the primary issue was a landlord’s refusal to make reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability, and the termination of his lease in response to the request for accommodation. In United States v. Guntharp, the complainant alleged that the prospective landlord made an apartment unavailable to the complainant because of a disability. In United States v. David Madrid, an owner and landlord of an apartment complex was alleged to have engaged in a 28 http://www.relmanlaw.com/docs/FinalConciliationAgreementTexas.pdf 29 Rental Audit: Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. North Texas Fair Housing Center. April 2011. df 30 ”The Fair Housing Act.” The United States Department of Justice. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_coverage.php ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 45 August 8, 2014 pattern of abuse against tenants with mental disabilities and threatened to evict them if they reported the abuse. United States v. Croom In this case, the owner of four single-family homes and a four-plex in Albuquerque refused to allow his tenant to make modifications to the apartment when the latter became ill with multiple sclerosis in 2011 and required the use of a wheelchair. These modifications were to have been undertaken by the tenant at the tenant’s own expense. Initially, the owner agreed to allow the tenants to place a wooden ramp at the front and back doors; however, when the tenant’s father requested more substantial modifications, the owner responded by refusing to allow the modifications, even though the father had offered to restore the home to its original condition when his son moved out. The following day, the owner sent a Notice of Default and Termination of Tenancy to the tenant. In a letter to the tenant explaining his decision to terminate the lease, the owner maintained that his decision was motivated by the tenants frequent late rent payments; however, in the same letter, the owner wrote “I have tried to be supportive and cooperative, but I have been receiving demands to modify my rental house to comply with your needs. The simple truth is that my rental house no longer meets your needs. I’m sorry. You need to find living quarters that meet your requirements for daily living.” The complainant subsequently filed a fair housing complaint with HUD, who referred the matter to the Department of Justice in accordance with the wishes of the tenant and his family.31 United States v. Guntharp In 2006, the mother of a prospective tenant of Rock Creek apartments in Albuquerque called the owners to inquire about the apartment of behalf of her son, who has hearing impairments and mental disabilities. During the phone call, the owners made unlawful inquiries into the nature of the son’s disabilities, and indicated that they would prefer not to rent their home to people with certain types of disabilities. The mother interpreted these statements as a refusal to show them an apartment. Later in the same year, the mother and son filed a complaint with HUD, who determined that there was cause to believe that illegal discrimination had occurred. The mother and son elected to proceed in federal district court, and HUD referred the case to the Department of Justice. Both parties agreed to settle the matter in 2009. As a condition of the settlement the remaining owner of the apartment (the other owner had died by that time) agreed to pay $3,000 to two local organizations that provide services to persons with disabilities.32 United States v. David Madrid In 2004, a fair housing complaint was filed with HUD against the former owner and manager of Trinity Housing Services, a provider of apartment housing for individuals with mental disabilities in Albuquerque33. The complaint alleged that the owner had engaged in a pattern of abuse and discriminatory behavior toward his tenants, and had threatened to evict those tenants if they reported the abuse, thereby violating § 3617 of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits acts of interference, coercion, or intimidation designed to prevent persons from 31 United States v. Croom, 2012 32 United States v. Guntharp, 2009. 33 United States v. David Madrid, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Fair Housing Law, Study, and Case Review 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 46 August 8, 2014 enjoying their right to fair housing choice34. The matter was settled the following year, and as a condition of the settlement the manager was required to pay $67,500 in compensation to the allegedly aggrieved persons (the manager denied any wrongdoing), to pay $7,500 in civil penalties, and to refrain from personally managing any group home facilities for five years.35 SUMMARY Though none were specific to the City of Farmington, a general review of laws, studies, cases, and related materials relevant to fair housing in the State of New Mexico demonstrates the complexity of the fair housing landscape. The fair housing laws in the State of New Mexico offer protections beyond the scope of the federal Fair Housing Act by prohibiting discrimination based on serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Cases included in this discussion highlight the varied forms that housing discrimination can assume as well as the complexity of fair housing laws and how they are applied. The national cases signal an increasing scrutiny on the part of HUD in recent years with respect to fair housing, and the local cases filed by the Department of Justice since 2004 against businesses and individuals in the state highlight discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and offer an illustration of how such discrimination might manifest itself in real life situations. In one case, the alleged discriminatory behavior was directed toward a resident who became disabled while living in the apartment. In the second case, the alleged discrimination was undertaken to deny housing to a prospective resident with disabilities. In the third case, the alleged discrimination took the form of routine abuse against residents with disabilities, and an attempt to coerce them into not revealing the abuse for fear of losing their housing situation. 34 42 U.S.C. §3617 35 United States v. David Madrid, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 47 August 8, 2014 SECTION IV. REVIEW OF THE EXISTING FAIR HOUSING STRUCTURE The purpose of this section is to provide a profile of fair housing in the State of New Mexico based on a number of factors, including an enumeration of key agencies and organizations that contribute to affirmatively furthering fair housing, evaluation of the presence and scope of services of existing fair housing organizations, and a review of the complaint process. FAIR HOUSING AGENCIES FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees, administers, and enforces the federal Fair Housing Act. HUD’s regional office in Fort Worth oversees housing, community development, and fair housing enforcement in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Contact information for HUD is listed below36: Address: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 5204 Washington, DC 20410-2000 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 Toll Free: (800) 669-9777 Web Site: http://www.HUD.gov/offices/fheo/online-complaint.cfm The contact information for the regional HUD office in Fort Worth is: Address: Fort Worth Regional Office of FHEO U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 801 Cherry Street, Unit #45 Suite 2500 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: (817) 978-5900 Toll Free: (800) 669-9777 TTY: (817) 978-5595 Website: http://www.HUD.gov The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) within HUD’s Fort Worth office enforces the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in housing, mortgage lending, and other related transactions in New Mexico. HUD also provides education and outreach, monitors agencies that receive HUD funding for compliance with civil ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Review of the Existing Fair Housing Structure 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 48 August 8, 2014 rights laws, and works with state and local agencies under the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP), as described below. Fair Housing Assistance Program The Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) was designed to support local and state agencies that enforce local fair housing laws, provided that these laws are substantially equivalent to the Fair Housing Act. Substantial equivalency certification is a two-phase process: in the first phase, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity makes a prima facie determination on the substantial equivalency of a state or local law to the federal Fair Housing Act. Once this determination has been made, and the law has been judged to be substantially equivalent, the agency enforcing the law is certified on an interim basis for a period of three years. During those three years, the local enforcement organization “builds its capacity to operate as a fully certified substantially equivalent agency.” FHAP grants during this time period are issued to support the process of building capacity. When the interim certification period ends after three years, the Assistant Secretary issues a determination on whether or not the state law is substantially equivalent to the Fair Housing Act “in operation”—this is the second phase of the certification process. If the law is judged to be substantially equivalent in operation, the agency enforcing the law is fully certified as a substantially equivalent agency for five years. HUD will typically refer most complaints of housing discrimination to a substantially equivalent state or local agency for investigation (such complaints are dual-filed at HUD and the State or local agency), if such an agency exists and has jurisdiction in the area in which the housing discrimination was alleged to have occurred. When federally subsidized housing is involved, however, HUD will typically investigate the complaint. The benefits of substantially equivalent certification include the availability of funding for local fair housing activities, shifted enforcement power from federal to local authorities, and the potential to make the fair housing complaint process more efficient by vesting enforcement authority in those who are more familiar with the local housing market. In addition, additional funding may be available to support partnerships between local FHAP grantees and private fair housing organizations. There are no FHAP grantees in the State of New Mexico. Fair Housing Initiative Program The Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) is designed to support fair housing organizations and other non-profits that provide fair housing services to people who believe they have faced discrimination in the housing market. These organizations provide a range of services including initial intake and complaint processing, referral of complainants to government agencies that enforce fair housing law, preliminary investigations of fair housing complaints, and education and outreach on fair housing law and policy. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Review of the Existing Fair Housing Structure 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 49 August 8, 2014 FHIP funding is available through three initiatives37: the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative (FHOI), the Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI), and the Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI). These initiatives are discussed in more detail below:  The Fair Housing Organizations Initiative (FHOI): FHOI funds are designed to help non-profit fair housing organizations build capacity to effectively handle fair housing enforcement and outreach activities. A broader goal of FHOI funding is to strengthen the national fair housing movement by encouraging the creation of fair housing organizations.  The Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI): PEI funds are intended to support the fair housing activities of established non-profit organizations—including testing and enforcement—and more generally to offer a “range of assistance to the nationwide network of fair housing groups”.  The Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI): EOI funding is available to qualified fair housing non-profit organizations as well as State and local government agencies. The purpose of the EOI is to promote initiatives that explain fair housing to the general public and housing providers, and provide the latter with information on how to comply with the requirements of the FHA. Non-profit organizations are eligible to apply for funding under each or all of these initiatives. To receive FHOI funding, such organizations must have at least two years’ experience in complaint intake and investigation, fair housing testing, and meritorious claims in the three years prior to applying for funding. Eligibility for PEI funding is subject to “certain requirements related to the length and quality of previous fair housing enforcement experience.” Organizations applying for the EOI must also have two years’ experience in the relevant fair housing activities; EOI funds are also potentially available to State and local government agencies. There have been no FHIP grantees in the State of New Mexico since 2008. Prior to that year, three organizations or agencies were granted FHIP funding at different points in time. New Mexico Legal Aid was granted $220,000 under the Private Enforcement Initiative in 2004. This organization, along with the City of Santa Fe, served New Mexicans as a FHIP grantee in that year. There were no FHIP participants in New Mexico in 2005. From 2006 to 2008, fair housing services in the state were provided by the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, a former FHIP grantee in New Mexico. STATE AGENCY New Mexico Human Rights Commission The New Mexico Human Rights Commission was established in 1969 by an Act of the New Mexico State Legislature. The Commission is empowered by New Mexico Human Rights Law to “hear complaints and issue orders, including cease and desist orders concerning alleged unlawful discriminatory practice” and conduct hearings related to housing discrimination38. 37 Though there are four initiatives included in the FHIP, no funds are currently available through the Administrative Enforcement Initiative. 38 NMSA 28-1-4 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Review of the Existing Fair Housing Structure 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 50 August 8, 2014 Additional powers are vested in the labor relations division of the Department of Workforce Solutions to investigate housing complaints. Those wishing to file a complaint under New Mexico Human Rights Law are encouraged to contact the Human Rights Bureau, which is the office within the Labor Relations Division of the DWS that investigates fair housing complaints. The contact information for the bureau is included below: Address: Human Rights Bureau 1596 Pacheco Street Suite 103 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Telephone: (505) 827-6838 Toll free: 1 (800) 566-9471 (Toll free within the State of New Mexico) Email: [EMAIL REDACTED] (Patricia Wolf is the Investigation and Compliance Supervisor for the Human Rights Bureau). LOCAL AGENCY City of Farmington Community Relations Commission The City of Farmington Community Relations Commission also accepts complaints from individuals who feel that they have been subjected to unlawful discrimination in the housing market. The complaint forms are available for download and printing from the City of Farmington website. Completed complaint forms may be sent to the following address, and complaints will be referred to the appropriate investigation and enforcement agency: Address: Community Relations Commission P.O. Box 192 Farmington, NM 87499 Message Center Telephone: (505)599-8442 Website: http://www.fmtn.org/index.aspx?nid=359 COMPLAINT PROCESS REVIEW COMPLAINT PROCESSES FOR FAIR HOUSING AGENCIES U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development The intake stage is the first step in the complaint process. When a complaint is submitted, intake specialists review the information and contact the complainant (the party alleging housing discrimination) in order to gather additional details and determine if the case qualifies as possible housing discrimination. If the discriminatory act alleged in the complaint occurred within the jurisdiction of a substantially equivalent state or local agency under the FHAP, the complaint is referred to that agency, which then has 30 days to address the complaint. If that ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Review of the Existing Fair Housing Structure 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 51 August 8, 2014 agency fails to address the complaint within that time period, HUD can take the complaint back. If HUD determines that it has jurisdiction and accepts the complaint for investigation, it will draft a formal complaint and send it to the complainant to be signed. Once HUD receives the signed complaint, it will notify the respondent (the party alleged to have discriminated against the complainant) within ten days that a complaint has been filed against him or her. HUD also sends a copy of the formal complaint to the respondent at this stage. Within ten days of receiving the formal complaint, the respondent must respond to the complaint. Next, the circumstances of the complaint are investigated through interviews and examination of relevant documents. During this time, the investigator attempts to have the parties rectify the complaint through conciliation. The case is closed if conciliation of the two parties is achieved or if the investigator determines that there was no reasonable cause of discrimination. If conciliation fails, and reasonable cause is found, then either a federal judge or a HUD Administrative Law Judge hears the case and determines damages, if any.39 In the event that the federal court judge finds the discrimination alleged in a complaint to have actually occurred, the respondent may be ordered to:  Compensate for actual damages, including humiliation, pain, and suffering;  Provide injunctive or other equitable relief to make the housing available;  Pay the federal government a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest, with a maximum penalty of $10,000 for a first violation and $50,000 for an additional violation within seven years; and/or  Pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.40 If neither party elects to go to federal court, a HUD Administrative Law Judge will hear the case. Once the judge has decided the case, he or she issues an initial decision. If the judge finds that housing discrimination has occurred, he or she may award a civil penalty of up to $11,000 to the complainant, along with actual damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees. When the initial decision is rendered, any party that is adversely affected by that decision can petition the Secretary of HUD for review within 15 days. The Secretary has 30 days following the issuance of the initial decision to affirm, modify, or set aside the decision, or call for further review of the case. If the Secretary does not take any further action on the complaint within 30 days of the initial decision, the decision will be considered final. After that, any aggrieved party must appeal to take up their grievance in the appropriate court of appeals.41 New Mexico Human Rights Bureau Complaint Process New Mexico residents who feel that they have been subject to discrimination in housing choice may file a written complaint with the human rights division of the labor department within three hundred days of the alleged discriminatory act. Upon receipt of the complaint, the director will advise the party against whom the complaint has been lodged, and investigate the 39 “HUD’s Title VIII Fair Housing Complaint Process.” http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/complaint-process.cfm 40 “Fair Housing—It’s Your Right.” http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm 41 “HUD’s Title VIII Fair Housing Complaint Process.” http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/complaint-process.cfm ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Review of the Existing Fair Housing Structure 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 52 August 8, 2014 matter to determine whether or not the complaint has probable cause. If the director determines that there is no cause, the complaint will be dismissed and both parties notified. If the director finds that the complaint has cause, he or she will inform the complainant and respondent and attempt to broker a process of “persuasion and conciliation” between the two. If this process fails, or if the director has reason to believe that an informal conciliation process will not lead to resolution of the complaint, the commission will issue a complaint against the respondent (unless the complaint has requested a waiver of right to hearing). This complaint will articulate the “alleged discriminatory practice, the secretary’s regulation or section of the Human Rights Act alleged to have been violated, and the relief requested42”. Following the issuance of this complaint, the respondent will be required to address the allegations in a hearing between ten and fifteen days after service of the complaint. At the hearing the complainant and respondent will present their cases, and each party will have the right to amend his or her complaint or answer. Three members of the Human Rights Commission will constitute a panel that presides over the hearing. If the respondent is not found to have committed any discriminatory acts during the course of the hearing, the commission will present these findings and serve both parties with an order dismissing the complaint. If the commission finds that the respondent has discriminated against the complainant, the commission may order the respondent to compensate the complainant for actual damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and may require the respondent to take “such affirmative action as the commission considers necessary43”. Either party has the right to appeal the decision of the commission.44 City of Farmington Community Relations Commission The process by which complaints are processed by the Commission is an informal one; complaints submitted to the City of Farmington Community Relations Commission are typically forwarded by the Commission to an appropriate fair housing enforcement agency. SUMMARY The City of Farmington is served by the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau, an office within the Department of Workforce Solutions. This agency is empowered by New Mexico statutes to investigate and enforce fair housing law, though it has not been recognized as a substantially equivalent agency under HUD. HUD also accepts fair housing complaints on behalf of New Mexico residents, though because the list of protected classes is more comprehensive at the state level than at the national level, residents who believe they have faced discrimination on the basis of a serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity must lodge their complaints at the state level. There are no agencies or organizations that serve City of Farmington residents as Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) participants, though the City of Farmington Community Relations Commission does accept complaints from Farmington residents who feel that they have experienced unlawful discrimination in the housing market, employment, and civil rights. 42 New Mexico Statutes §28-1-10(F) 43 New Mexico Statutes §28-1-11(E) 44 New Mexico Statutes §28-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 53 August 8, 2014 SECTION V. FAIR HOUSING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR As part of the AI process, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) suggests that the analysis focus on possible housing discrimination issues in both the private and public sectors. Examination of housing factors in Farmington’s public sector is presented in Section VI, while this section focuses on research regarding the city’s private sector, including the mortgage lending market, the real estate market, the rental market, and other private sector housing industries. LENDING ANALYSIS HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT Since the 1970s, the federal government has enacted several laws aimed at promoting fair lending practices in the banking and financial services industries. A brief description of selected federal laws aimed at promoting fair lending follows:  The 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Later amendments added sex, familial status, and disability. Under the Fair Housing Act, it is illegal to discriminate against any of the protected classes in the following types of residential real estate transactions: making loans to buy, build, or repair a dwelling; selling, brokering, or appraising residential real estate; and selling or renting a dwelling.  The Equal Credit Opportunity Act was passed in 1974 and prohibits discrimination in lending based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, and the exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.  Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), enacted in 1975 and later amended, financial institutions are required to publicly disclose the race, sex, ethnicity, and household income of mortgage applicants by the Census tract in which the loan is proposed as well as outcome of the loan application.47F49F45 The analysis presented herein is from the HMDA data system. The HMDA requires both depository and non-depository lenders to collect and publicly disclose information about housing-related applications and loans.48F50F46 Both types of lending institutions must meet the following set of reporting criteria: 1. The institution must be a bank, credit union, or savings association; 2. The total assets must exceed the coverage threshold; 49F51F47 45 Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending, The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, April 1993. http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/closing-the-gap/closingt.pdf 46 Data are considered “raw” because they contain entry errors and incomplete loan applications. Starting in 2004, the HMDA data made significant changes in reporting, particularly regarding ethnicity data, loan interest rates, and the multi-family loan applications. 47 Each December, the Federal Reserve announces the threshold for the following year. The asset threshold may change from year to year based on changes in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 54 August 8, 2014 3. The institution must have had an office in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); 4. The institution must have originated at least one home purchase loan or refinancing of a home purchase loan secured by a first lien on a one- to four-family dwelling; 5. The institution must be federally insured or regulated; and 6. The mortgage loan must have been insured, guaranteed, or supplemented by a federal agency or intended for sale to the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac). These agencies purchase mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities for investors, making more funds available for lenders to make new loans. For other institutions, including non-depository institutions, additional reporting criteria are as follows: 1. The institution must be a for-profit organization; 2. The institution’s home purchase loan originations must equal or exceed 10 percent of the institution’s total loan originations, or more than $25 million; 3. The institution must have had a home or branch office in an MSA or have received applications for, originated, or purchased five or more home purchase loans, home improvement loans, or refinancing mortgages on property located in an MSA in the preceding calendar year; and 4. The institution must have assets exceeding $10 million or have originated 100 or more home purchases in the preceding calendar year. HMDA data represent most mortgage lending activity and are thus the most comprehensive collection of information available regarding home purchase originations, home remodel loan originations, and refinancing. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) makes HMDA data available on its website. While HMDA data are available for more years than are presented in the following pages, modifications were made in 2004 for documenting loan applicants’ race and ethnicity, so data are most easily compared after that point. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) provided data on lending practices in the Farmington MSA or San Juan County. Some of the data available is by U.S. Census Tract and this allows City of Farmington information to be presented in some cases. The 2012 HMDA data was released on May 17, 2013. Chart V.1 on the following page shows the number of applications for conventional home loans and the percent of loans denied from 2004 to 2012. Applications peaked in 2005 and declined by 82.1 percent through 2010. Denial rates fell steadily from 27 percent to 19 percent between 2004 and 2007, though the denial rate shot briefly back up to 25 percent in 2008. From 2010 to 2012 there was a 119 percent increase in the number of applications. The denial rate more than doubled over the same time period. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 55 August 8, 2014 Chart V.2 below shows the number and type of loans in the Farmington MSA or San Juan County during 2012. Refinancing was the most common type of loan, at 48 percent. However, conventional loans and loans on manufactured homes will be the focus of this analysis. Together, these loans accounted for 25 percent of all loans reported under the HMDA in 2012. Chart V.1 Number of Applications for Home Loans and Percent Denied From 2004 to 2012 in the Farmington MSA CONVENTIONAL HOME LOANS, 1 TO 4 FAMILY, AND MANUFACTURED HOMES 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Number of All Loan Applications 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Percent of Loan Applications Denied All Applications 2291 2624 2351 1763 982 485 [PHONE REDACTED] Percent Denied 27% 23% 21% 19% 25% 20% 29% 44% 40.5% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 From 2005 to 2010 Conventional Loan Applications Declined 82.1%. From 2010 to 2012 Conventional Loan Applications Increased 119%. Chart V.2 Number and Type of Loans in the Farmington MSA 2012 FHA, FSA/RHS & VA 15% Conventional 14% Refinancing 48% Home Improvement 5% Manufactured Homes 11% Non Occupant Loans - Investor 7% Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 56 August 8, 2014 Denial Rates After the owner-occupied home purchase loan application is submitted, the applicant receives one of the following status designations:  “Originated,” which indicates that the loan was made by the lending institution;  “Approved but not accepted,” which notes loans approved by the lender but not accepted by the applicant;  “Application denied by financial institution,” which defines a situation wherein the loan application failed;  “Application withdrawn by applicant,” which means that the applicant closed the application process;  “File closed for incompleteness” which indicates the loan application process was closed by the institution due to incomplete information; or  “Loan purchased by the institution,” which means that the previously originated loan was purchased on the secondary market. Table V.1 below shows the percent and number of conventional loans and loans for manufactured housing denied by U.S. Census Tract in 2012. The overall loan denial rate in 2012 was 40.5 percent, making the disproportionate share threshold 50.5 percent. Loan denial rates in tracts 2.05 and 4.02 were disproportionately high: 72.8 percent of loan applications for homes in tract 2.05 were denied, along with 69.1 percent of applications in tract 4.02. Tract All Applications Loans Denied % of Loans Denied by Census Tract 1 21 6 28.6% 2.01 70 6 8.6% 2.02 62 5 8.1% 2.04 12 2 16.7% 2.05 151 110 72.8% 3.01 19 0 0.0% 3.02 14 1 7.1% 4.01 29 4 13.8% 4.02 81 56 69.1% 5.03 9 4 44.4% 6.07 31 8 25.8% All City Tracts 499 202 40.5% Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Disproportionate Table V.1 Percent and Number of Loans Denied by U.S. Census Tract - 2012 Data City of Farmington CONVENTIONAL HOME LOANS, 1 TO 4 FAMILY, AND MANUFACTURED HOMES Higher Then the All Tracts Rate Less Then the All Tracts Rate ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 57 August 8, 2014 Loan denials were observed to be the most prevalent in tracts in the southern portion of the city, while denial rates were generally below average in tracts in the north of the city, as shown in Map V.1 below. Map V.1 Chart V.3 on the following page shows the percent of loans denied by race compared with the overall denial rate from 2004 to 2012. American Indian residents had the highest rates of loan denials in every year shown on the chart during that time. In 2012, the Hispanic and Latino group had a loan denial rate that was below the overall loan denial rate for the first time. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 58 August 8, 2014 Percent of Loans Denied by Race and Income Chart V.4 on the following page compares the loan approval rates by income and race in 2012. The three vertical bars in each column show the approval rates of the three most common race groups. The dashed line shows the overall loan denial rate of 40.5%. At all income levels the denial rate for American Indian applicants was more than 10 percentage points higher than the overall loan denial rate. Chart V.3 Percent of Loans Denied by Race Compared with the Overall Denial Rate from 2004 to 2012 Farmington MSA CONVENTIONAL HOME LOANS, 1 TO 4 FAMILY, AND MANUFACTURED Homes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Percent of Loans Denied White Only Non-Hispanic 19% 16% 15% 17% 19% 16% 22% 26% 18% American Indian 57% 53% 49% 34% 53% 48% 60% 61% 71% Hispanic or Latino 32% 27% 28% 25% 43% 30% 38% 48% 42% Overall Denial Rate 27% 23% 21% 19% 25% 20% 29% 44% 45% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 59 August 8, 2014 Reasons for Loan Denial by Race Chart V.5 on the following page shows the reasons for home loan denials by race. Credit History is the obvious standout on this table for all races. However, Credit History is an even larger factor for Native Americans, representing 76% of all denials. Chart V.4 Percent of Loans Denied by Race and Income 2012 - Farmington MSA 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Percent of Loans Denied White Non-Hispanic 33.3% 41.5% 17.6% 28.2% 8.2% American Indian 83.3% 76.3% 60.0% 57.9% 56.0% Hispanic 75.0% 35.1% 42.1% 28.6% 18.2% < 50% 50-79% 80-99% 100-119% >120% CONVENTIONAL HOME LOANS, 1 TO 4 FAMILY, AND MANUFACTURED HOMES Denial Rate for all Loans = 40.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 60 August 8, 2014 Predatory Style Lending High Annual Percentage Rate Loans (HALs) are defined by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act as a loan with an interest rate that is three percentage points higher than comparable treasury for prime rates for home purchase loans, or five percentage points higher for refinance loans. The percentage of HALs relative to the total number of loans can indicate or define predatory mortgage lending in the local lending market. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) provides data on HALs. Table V.2 on the following page shows the types of loans by race and the percentage points higher than the average prime rate. The loan types and race groups are in the left column. The number of loans by percentage points higher than the average prime rate is in the center columns. The percentage of HALs is shown in the right column. In the 2012 HMDA data, there were no instances of HALs in any racial group or home loan type. Chart V.5 Reasons for Loan Denials by Race 2012 Farmington MSA Conventional Loans for 1 to 4 Family and Manufactured Homes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Dislosure Act Percent of Denials by Type of Reason White Non-Hispanic 35% 21% 2% 12% 2% 6% 0% 23% American Indian 76% 15% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 8% Hispanic 48% 24% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% 20% Credit History Debt to Income Ratio Employment History Collateral Insufficient Cash Problems with Application Mortgage Insurance Denied Other In the 2008 HMDA Data for Credit History: White Non-Hispanic was 41% American Indian was 81% and Hispanic was 71% ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 61 August 8, 2014 Loan Type and Race Home HALs <1.5 1.5-2.99 3.0-4.99 5.0+ FHA Home Loans White 143 6 0 0 0% American Indian 29 0 0 0% Hispanic 23 2 0 0 0% VA Home Loans White 35 0 0 0 0% American Indian 11 0 0 0 0% Hispanic 4 0 0 0 0% Conventional Home Loans White 164 2 0 0 0% American Indian 4 0 0 0 0% Hispanic 19 0 0 0 0% FHA Refinancing ReFI HALs 5.0+ White 160 4 3 0 0% American Indian 13 0 1 0 0% Hispanic 25 2 0 0 0% VA Refinancing White 79 0 0 0 0% American Indian 6 0 0 0 0% Hispanic 9 0 0 0 0% Conventional Refinancing White 522 3 0 0 0% American Indian 15 1 0 0 0% Hispanic 56 3 0 0 0% Conventional Home Improvement Loans White 25 1 0 0 0% American Indian 0 0 0 0 0% Hispanic 26 1 0 0 0% Home-Purchase Loans, First Lien, 1- To 4-Family Owner-Occupied Percent of HALs by Loan Type and Race Table V.2 High Annual Percentage Rate Loans (HALs) Farmington MSA Loan Percentage Points Above Average Prime Rate by Loan Type and Race Percentage Rate Above Average Prime Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act - The US Department of Housing and Urban Development provides the following information on predatory lending on its webpage48: Predatory lending strips borrowers of home equity and threatens families with foreclosure. Often borrowers are deceived into accepting unfair loan terms, usually through aggressive sales tactics. Often they are taken advantage of because of their lack of understanding of terms and involvement in complicated transactions. Even more informed consumers are occasionally fooled. Anecdotal information suggests predatory lending is concentrated in poor and minority communities, where better loans are not readily available. Signals of predatory lending practices include, but are not limited to:  Aggressive and deceptive marketing  Making loans without ample consideration to the borrower's ability to pay  Financing excessive fees into loans  Charging higher interest rates than a borrower's credit allows  Home improvement scams 48 http://lobby.la.psu.edu/_107th/105_Predatory_Lending/Agency_Activities/HUD/HUD_PredatoryLending.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 62 August 8, 2014 What Tactics Do Predatory Lenders Use?  A lender or investor tells you that they are your only chance of getting a loan or owning a home. You should be able to take your time to shop around and compare prices and houses.  The house you are buying costs a lot more than other homes in the neighborhood, but isn't any bigger or better.  You are asked to sign a sales contract or loan documents that are blank or that contain information which is not true.  You are told that the Federal Housing Administration insurance protects you against property defects or loan fraud - it does not.  The cost or loan terms at closing are not what you agreed to.  You are told that refinancing can solve your credit or money problems.  You are told that you can only get a good deal on a home improvement if you finance it with a particular lender. According to an article published by New Mexico State University, November 2012, entitled Small-Dollar Predatory Lending and Bad Loans, the highest concentrations of predatory lending stores tend to be in smaller cities and cities with high minority populations and/or high poverty rates, such as Gallup, Grants, and Farmington, which collectively represented six times the HAL rate of the rest of New Mexico in 2000. Using the same methodology as in the study cited above, on January 16, 2014, an online search of Small-Dollar Predatory Lending businesses found that there are 41 locations in the City of Farmington. This gives a current rate of 1,117 people in the City of Farmington per lender. This shows that since 2000, there has been an increase in the ratio of lenders to population. FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Table V.3 below shows all discrimination complaints filed with HUD from April 17, 2009 through January 11, 2014. During that time, there have been only three complaints filed, and all three complaints were closed with no cause or without resolution. The bases for these complaints were national origin, retaliation, and race. HUD Filing Date Basis Issues Closure Reason City 04/13/12 National Origin Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities, Withdrawal Without Resolution Farmington 04/26/12 Retaliation Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.), No Cause Farmington 07/15/13 Race Discriminatory refusal to rent - Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and facilities - Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.), Unable to Locate Complainant Farmington Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Table V.3 Discrimination Complaints Filed with HUD CITY OF FARMINGTON COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 63 August 8, 2014 The City of Farmington Community Relations Commission accepts complaints from city residents who believe that they have been subject to discrimination in housing, employment, and other contexts. According to a letter from Assistant City Manager Bob Campbell dated March 17, 2014, the Commission received 26 complaints from 2010 through 2013. None of the complaints received during these four years related to housing discrimination. The letter is included in Appendix A. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF FAIR HOUSING LAW SURVEY – PRIVATE SECTOR The goal of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey is to assess the level of knowledge of and support for fair housing law among the public, to understand their experiences with housing and discrimination, and to identify barriers to fair housing in the community. A more detailed description of the Survey, including a discussion of the survey methodology, public outreach efforts, and data analysis, is included in Section VII. However, a discussion of the survey results pertaining to barriers to fair housing choice in the private sector is presented below. FAIR HOUSING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Responses to the first question concerning private sector barriers to fair housing are presented in Table V.4 on the following page. Of the four specific barriers mentioned in the question, survey respondents took poor credit histories of minority borrowers to represent the most substantial barrier to fair housing, with 97 respondents, or 53 percent, describing it as a serious barrier. “Income levels of minority and female-headed households” was also described as a serious barrier by 79 survey respondents, nearly 43 percent of respondents to that question. Concentration of affordable housing in certain areas was also a concern, with 68 respondents, more than one in three who responded to that question, describing it as a serious barrier. By contrast, relatively few respondents felt that lack of representation of real estate professionals by persons of differing races, ethnicities, disabilities, and gender amounted to a serious barrier to fair housing in the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 64 August 8, 2014 Table V.4 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “To what degree, if at all, do you think the following issues are a Barrier to Fair Housing in Farmington?” Answer Options Not a Barrier Minor Barrier Modest Barrier Serious Barrier Response Count Lack of representation of real estate professionals by persons of differing races, ethnicities, disabilities, and gender. 69 55 42 18 184 Poor credit histories of minority borrowers. 11 22 53 97 183 Concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas. 19 28 66 68 181 Income levels of minority and female headed households. 15 25 66 79 184 answered question 190 skipped question 24 Additional barriers to fair housing choice in the private sector are presented in Table V.5 on the following page. The factors that were perceived to represent the most significant barriers to fair housing concerned the lack of knowledge regarding fair housing policy among small landlords and residents and the limited capacity of a local organization devoted to fair housing investigation and testing. In all three cases, more than a quarter of respondents felt that these factors represented serious barriers to fair housing in the City of Farmington. Lack of knowledge among residents was considered to be the most serious barrier; one-third of respondents identified this factor as a serious barrier, and relatively few felt that it was not a barrier. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 65 August 8, 2014 Table V.5 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “To what degree, if at all, do you think the following issues are a Potential Barrier to Fair Housing in Farmington?” Answer Options Not a Barrier Minor Barrier Modest Barrier Serious Barrier Response Count Lack of knowledge among appraisers regarding fair housing. 38 55 58 22 173 Lack of knowledge among insurance industry representatives regarding fair housing. 41 54 53 21 169 Lack of knowledge among bankers/lenders regarding fair housing. 37 55 50 29 171 Lack of knowledge among real estate agents regarding fair housing. 38 57 49 26 170 Lack of knowledge among small landlords regarding fair housing. 17 47 62 51 177 Lack of knowledge among large landlords/property managers regarding fair housing. 25 49 69 34 177 Lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing. 15 37 64 61 177 Limited capacity of a local organization devoted to fair housing investigation/testing. 22 45 56 51 173 answered question 180 skipped question 34 Table V.6 on the following page details responses to the final set of factors presented to participants in the survey. In this set of potential barriers, the two most commonly perceived to represent serious barriers to fair housing in the City of Farmington concerned restrictions on residents of mobile home parks. More than 32 percent of respondents felt that requirements that prohibited children from playing outside in mobile home parks, as well as the threat of eviction for failing to pay additional fees and rents in those parks, represent serious barriers to fair housing in the city. It should be noted, however, that all of the factors presented in this question were relatively salient to survey respondents as barriers to fair housing choice, and all of them were perceived to represent serious barriers by at least one-fifth of respondents. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Fair Housing in the Private Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 66 August 8, 2014 Table V.6 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “To what degree, if at all, do you think the following issues are a Potential Barrier to Fair Housing in Farmington?” Answer Options Not a Barrier Minor Barrier Modest Barrier Serious Barrier Response Count Housing provider falsely denying that housing is available. 29 52 40 45 166 Housing providers placing certain tenants in the least desirable units in a development. 31 50 42 45 166 Housing provider refusing to make reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities. 24 45 51 46 166 Housing providers using discriminatory advertising. 44 45 40 35 164 Owners of mobile home parks prohibiting children from playing outside. 34 41 39 54 167 Owners of mobile home parks threatening evictions unless tenants pay additional fees and rents. 29 44 39 54 165 Real estate agents directing clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods. 37 36 55 36 164 Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties. 39 45 39 40 163 Sellers of homes refusing to show their home to certain buyers. 42 51 41 40 170 answered question 172 skipped question 42 SUMMARY Review of the private sector in the fair housing context involved analysis of data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), complaints lodged with HUD, and survey responses to questions pertaining to factors in the private sector that impact housing choice. Analysis of home loan denial rates revealed that racial and ethnic minority residents were subjected to higher rates of loan denials than white, non-Hispanic residents, even after correcting for income in the year 2012. Geographically, loan denials tended to be concentrated in Census tracts containing high percentages of American Indian and Hispanic residents. There were only three complaints lodged with HUD between April 17, 2009 and January 11, 2014; these complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin and race, as well as an instance of alleged retaliation. None of these complaints were found to have cause. Among survey respondents, the most salient potential barriers to fair housing choice included poor credit histories and income levels of minority residents, lack of knowledge among landlords and residents concerning fair housing policy, lack of capacity for fair housing organizations dedicated to fair housing, and various burdens and restrictions placed on residents of mobile home parks. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 67 August 8, 2014 SECTION VI. FAIR HOUSING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR While the previous section presented a review of the status of fair housing in the private sector, this section will focus specifically on fair housing in the public sector. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recommends that the AI investigate a number of housing factors within the public sector, including the placement of public housing as well as access to government services. PUBLIC SERVICES Community features, including public services and facilities, and the location of public and assisted housing are essential parts of good neighborhoods, leading to a more desirable community and more demand for housing in these areas. Transportation The City of Farmington provides transit services through the Red Apple Transit, a relatively small scale bus system that primarily serves the City of Farmington, but has links to Aztec, Bloomfield and parts of San Juan County. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) adopted the 2010-2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan on April 15, 2010 and amended the plan in April 2011. Chapter 5.4 of this plan looks at the Greatest Transit Needs of the community. This section prioritizes Census Block Group areas based upon, zero-vehicle households, elderly population, disabled population, and below-poverty population. Using these categories, a transit need index was developed by the LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. to determine the greatest transit need areas. Map VI.1 was presented in the plan and shows Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield and the areas with a high transportation need, and as shown, areas with the highest need for enhanced transit services were located near the center of town. This type of methodology to determine transportation needs focuses on the special needs populations that the CDBG program is charged to address. Any future route changes or Red Apple expansions that follow this planning methodology is consistent with the City’s Certification to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Fair Housing in the Public Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 68 August 8, 2014 Map VI.1 POLICIES AND CODES City Ordinances The Fair Housing Act prohibits a broad range of practices that discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability. The Act does not pre-empt local zoning laws. However, the Act applies to municipalities and other local government entities and prohibits them from making zoning or land use decisions or implementing land use policies that exclude or otherwise discriminate against protected persons, including individuals with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful:  To utilize land use policies or actions that treat groups of persons with disabilities less favorably than groups of non-disabled persons. An example would be an ordinance prohibiting housing for persons with disabilities or a specific type of disability, such as mental illness, from locating in a particular area, while allowing other groups of unrelated individuals to live together in that area.  To take action against, or deny a permit, for a home because of the disability of individuals who live or would live there. An example would be denying a building permit for a home because it was intended to provide housing for persons with mental disabilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Fair Housing in the Public Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 69 August 8, 2014  To refuse to make reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning policies and procedures where such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons or groups of persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing What constitutes a reasonable accommodation is a case-by-case determination. Not all requested modifications of rules or policies are reasonable. If a requested modification imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on a local government, or if a modification creates a fundamental alteration in a local government's land use and zoning scheme, it is not a "reasonable" accommodation. Building Codes The City of Farmington began enforcing the 2009 International Building Code (adopted by the 2009 N.M. Commercial Building Code) on January 1st, 2011. The City also follows the ICC/ANSI 2003 Accessibility Code, which is also adopted by the State of New Mexico. All new building permits, for commercial and residential construction, are reviewed by the City of Farmington Building Division for compliance with State of New Mexico accessibility standards. Group Care Facilities and Group Care Homes The City of Farmington Unified Development Code (UDC) allows Group Care Facilities as permitted uses in the Mixed Use district or as a Special Use Permit in Multi-Family zoning districts. Group Care Facilities allow for the care of more than eight adults or more than 12 minors. The UDC allows Group Care Homes as permitted uses in the Mixed Use zoning district and Multi-Family zoning district. The UDC also allows Group Care Homes with a special use permit in any other residential zoning district. Group Care Homes allow the care of up to eight adults or up to 12 minors. There is no separation or density requirement for group care homes in Farmington and the special use permit review focuses on how the use differs from uses by right, not on the type of care being provided. Family Definition The Farmington UDC provides the following definition of a family: “An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group of not more than four persons who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling.” Affordable Housing Plan On May 24, 2011 the City of Farmington adopted its first Affordable Housing Plan. This plan built on the housing needs assessment developed for the 2009-2014 Consolidated Plan and on the Housing Affordability 2010 Update. The Affordable Housing Plan has a section that identifies barriers to affordable housing which is a component of this report.  High land and construction costs  Limited land availability, especially land that is appropriately zoned NM ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Fair Housing in the Public Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 70 August 8, 2014  Current zoning and subdivision regulations that prohibit three story buildings, require large lot size, and otherwise limit affordable housing development  Limited availability of construction financing for developers  Credit issues and lack of financial stability of consumers  Neighborhood resistance to multifamily development, especially for low-income projects All of these findings from the Affordable Housing Plan relate to various sections in this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Report. Affordable Housing Program The City of Farmington adopted Affordable Housing Ordinance No. 2012-1261, on November 27, 2012. This ordinance allows for-profit or nonprofit organizations to apply to the City of Farmington for assistance for the purpose of developing affordable housing. If approved, the City of Farmington could then provide general funds or City owned land to subsidize a project. To date no organization has applied for an affordable housing grant under this ordinance. Zoning and Land Area for Affordable Housing The City of Farmington adopted a new Unified Development Code (UDC) in 2007 with Ordinance No. 2007-1184. The prior zoning ordinance was adopted in 1969. All residential zoning districts make up 77.43 percent of the City. Low-density zoning districts that are not suitable for low-income housing make up 63.54 percent of the city. Higher density zoning districts, manufactured housing districts, and overlays that would be suitable for affordable housing make up 13.88 percent of the City zoning. Map VI.2 on the following page displays the distribution of zoning districts that are deemed suitable for affordable housing units. All shaded areas are zoning districts that are suitable for affordable housing. The U.S. Census Tract boundaries are also shown on the map for reference. In general, areas that are deemed suitable for affordable housing units are more extensive in areas with higher concentrations of American Indian and Hispanic residents, and are less widespread in areas with higher concentrations of white residents. In addition, areas with more land available for multi-family affordable housing units tend to have higher incidences of households living below the poverty line. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Fair Housing in the Public Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 71 August 8, 2014 Map VI.2 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF FAIR HOUSING LAW SURVEY – PUBLIC SECTOR The Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey included a section relating to the provision of public services in the City of Farmington. This section was designed to determine whether or not members of the public felt that public services were provided to all neighborhoods of the City in equal measure. The results of the survey are discussed below, and the accompanying discussion highlights those services that were widely perceived to be unequally distributed. Relative Equity of Public Service Provisions Table VI.1 on the following page shows the number of responses of yes, no, or not sure to each of the public services listed in the survey. Street infrastructure, code enforcement, and neighborhood revitalization activities are the three lowest ranked public services for all respondents. More than 45 percent of respondents found that street infrastructure services are not distributed evenly throughout the city, excluding those who answered “not sure”. Nearly 51 percent of respondents who answered “yes” or “no” felt that not all neighborhoods have equal access to code enforcement, and 58.5 percent felt that neighborhoods did not have equal access to neighborhood revitalization services. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Fair Housing in the Public Sector 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 72 August 8, 2014 Table VI.1 Public Perception of Fair Housing Law Survey Relative Equity of Public Service Provisions. In your opinion, do all neighborhoods in Farmington have equal access to the following public services? Answer Options Yes - Services are provided equally. No - Services are not provided equally. Not Sure Response Count Neighborhood revitalization activities 46 65 61 172 Parks and recreation 113 35 27 175 Code enforcement 61 62 51 173 Trash pick-up 121 16 38 175 Public transportation 79 66 33 178 Quality schools 87 64 25 176 Fire services 126 21 31 177 Water and sewer infrastructure 98 45 33 176 Police services 120 29 27 176 Street infrastructure 68 57 52 177 answered question 184 skipped question 30 SUMMARY A review of transportation services and needs, local policies and codes, and responses to the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey constituted the analysis of fair housing in the public sector. The results of a recent study of transportation needs in the City and surrounding communities suggest that the areas of Farmington that were in the most need of enhanced transportation services were in or near the city center. Farmington building codes conform to the 2009 International Building Code, and new building permits are required to conform to the International Code Council/American National Standards Institute’s 2003 standards for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Zoning codes allow group homes in Mixed Use districts and by Special Use Permit in Multi-Family Housing districts. The City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) also provides a definition of family as an individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, as well as a group of up to four persons, living together in a single housing unit. While zoning districts that are deemed suitable for affordable housing are present in every Census tract in the city, they tend to be more common in areas with higher shares of minority residents and households in poverty. The City of Farmington also recently adopted an ordinance allowing for-profit or non-profit organizations to apply to the City for assistance in developing affordable housing. In results of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey, street infrastructure, code enforcement, and neighborhood revitalization services were the most widely perceived to be distributed unequally throughout the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 73 August 8, 2014 SECTION VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This section discusses analysis of fair housing in the City of Farmington as gathered from various public involvement efforts conducted as part of the AI process. Public involvement feedback is a valuable source of qualitative data about impediments, but, as with any data source, citizen comments alone do not necessarily indicate the existence of citywide impediments to fair housing choice. However, survey and forum comments that support findings from other parts of the analysis reinforce findings from other data sources concerning impediments to fair housing choice. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF FAIR HOUSING LAW SURVEY The goal of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey is to assess the level of knowledge of and support for fair housing law among the public, to understand their experiences with housing and discrimination, and to identify barriers to fair housing in the community. Public Outreach The City of Farmington participated in several events designed to promote awareness of fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing. In August 2013 representatives of the City set up a booth at the San Juan County Fair and gave Powerpoint presentations on the subject of fair housing. Representatives of the City also participated in the San Juan County Homebuilders Expo several times in March 2013, and have done so every March since 2011. Participation in this event included the distribution of HUD Fair Housing fliers and a continuously run slide show with fair housing information in English and Spanish. Finally, in April 2012 the Mayor of Farmington issued a proclamation for Fair Housing Month. Advertised Public Meetings Two advertised public meetings were held, one was at San Juan Center for Independence on May 9, 2013 and the other was at Sycamore Park Community Center on May 31, 2013. A public notice was published in the Farmington Daily Times, and e-mail lists of public service providers were used to provide notification. Group Meetings CDBG staff attended four group meetings with: Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Providers (CHAP), Four Corners Economic Development, the Farmington Chamber of Commerce, and the Farmington Community Relations Commission. At each of these meetings, CDBG staff presented the background of the survey and requested that those in attendance take the online survey and that they distribute the survey in the organizations and businesses that they represent. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 74 August 8, 2014 Distribution of the Survey Link The online survey link was forwarded to: nonprofit public service providers, the private business community, City of Farmington staff, other local government agencies, and minority contacts. The survey link was also presented to the public at the San Juan County Fair on August 5, 2013 and again on August 10, 2013; this was the only survey outreach that was undertaken outside of the City of Farmington. After this outreach effort, it appeared that the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey was overrepresented by persons who work for a governmental entity. One possible explanation for this is that the City staffs of Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield were all invited to take the survey. It also appeared that the survey was underrepresented by American Indian and Hispanic groups. Therefore, the CDBG program developed a plan to obtain additional survey responses. On-Site Survey Outreach The on-site survey was conducted at the Farmington Public Library, the Farmington Indian Center, the Farmington Senior Center, the Sycamore Park Community Center, and the Boys and Girls Club. At all locations, City staff conducted a 2-hour session with paper copies of the survey. The focus of the on-site survey outreach was to obtain additional survey responses from the general public, minority groups, and special needs groups. This additional survey outreach collected 92 paper survey responses, which were hand entered into Survey Monkey. Survey Sample Size A total of 214 responses were collected from May 2013 to February 2014. Data Analysis All online survey responses were collected in Survey Monkey, which is an internet survey service. All paper copies of survey responses were hand entered into Survey Monkey so that all results could be tabulated in one system. Of the 214 survey respondents, 80 indicated that they live in San Juan County. County residents were invited to participate in the survey for two reasons. First, HUD provides direction that the needs of the larger community should be considered and that neighboring municipalities should be consulted. Second, almost all of the public outreach was done inside of the City of Farmington and the outreach efforts still connected with county residents while they were in the City of Farmington. People who live in San Juan County do business, use services, and work in the City of Farmington, and their perspectives are valued. Although this survey was advertised through public notices, outreach efforts focused on distributing the survey through organizations and community centers that serve the public, minority, low-income, and special needs populations. This survey reflects a more qualitative assessment of perspectives, opinions, and experiences of residents of the City of Farmington and San Juan County than most of the data previously discussed. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 75 August 8, 2014 Housing Situation Table VII.1 on the following page shows the percent and number of respondents who were homeowners, renters, were staying with friends or family, or who were homeless. The largest group of survey respondents was homeowners at 60.6 percent. Renters accounted for 27.7 percent of survey respondents, while those who were staying with family or friends and homeless respondents accounted for 11.7 percent of respondents. Table VII.1 Public Perception of Fair Housing Law Survey Respondent’s Housing Situation Answer Options Response Percent Response Count I am a homeowner 60.6% 129 I am a renter 27.7% 59 I am staying with friends or family 10.8% 23 I am homeless 0.9% 2 answered question 213 skipped question 1 Employment Type Table VII.2 below shows the percent and number of respondents by their employment type. The largest percentage of responses to this survey came from government workers, at 41.5 percent or 88 responses. Private sector workers accounted for 17 percent of respondents, while unemployed persons, employees of non-profit public service providers, and retirees account for between 9 and 11 percent of respondents each. Table VII.2 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey Employment type Answer Options Response Percent Response Count I am an elected or appointed official. 1.9% 4 I work for a private business. 17.0% 36 I own a private business. 9.0% 19 I work for a governmental entity. 41.5% 88 I work for a non-profit public service provider. 10.4% 22 I am unemployed. 9.4% 20 I am retired. 10.8% 23 answered question 212 skipped question 2 Place of Residence Table VII.3 on the following page shows the percent and number of respondents who lived in the City of Farmington, in San Juan County, or outside of San Juan County. A majority of survey respondents, 60.4 percent, lived in the city. Most of the remaining respondents lived in the county, and only 4 respondents resided outside of the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 76 August 8, 2014 Table VII.3 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey Place of Residence Answer Options Response Percent Response Count In the City of Farmington 60.4% 128 In San Juan County, but not in the City of Farmington 37.7% 80 Outside of San Juan County 1.9% 4 answered question 212 212 skipped question 2 2 Knowledge and Support of Fair Housing Law Survey respondents were asked to read three scenarios and answer whether or not they thought that the actions in the scenario were legal, illegal, or they did not know. The overall respondent answers for the three scenarios are shown below. To look at different perspectives within the survey, the answers were broken down by all minorities and renters. Scenario One – Familial Status A single mother of a 13 year old made an appointment to look at an apartment for rent. The landlord met her and her child at the apartment. When he discovered that she had a child, he told her he doesn’t allow children in his apartment complex. Do you think that the landlord’s refusal to rent to the woman and child is legal or illegal? Table VII.4 below shows the percent and number of respondents by their answers to the question. The majority of respondents, 61.7 percent correctly answered that the landlord’s refusal was illegal. However, 38.3 percent of respondents were incorrect or indicated that they did not know the answer. Table VII.4 Public Perception of Fair Housing Laws Survey “Do you think that the landlord's refusal to rent to the woman and child is legal or illegal?” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Legal 27.8% 58 Illegal 61.7% 129 Don't Know 10.5% 22 answered question 209 skipped question 5 Scenario Two – Steering A Hispanic family wants to buy a house and finds a real estate agent to show them houses in their price range. The real estate agent is also Hispanic. Their agent only shows them houses in areas with mostly Hispanic population, even though there are houses they could afford in ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 77 August 8, 2014 other neighborhoods, because she thinks they will be more comfortable in the Hispanic neighborhood. Do you think the real estate agent’s decision to only show the family homes in Hispanic parts of town is legal or illegal? Table VII.5 below shows the percent and number of respondents by their answers to the question. The majority of respondents, 64.6 percent correctly answered that the steering of the clients to a particular neighborhood was illegal. However, 35.3 percent of the respondents incorrectly stated that this practice was legal or indicated that they did not know the answer. Table VII.5 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “Do you think the real estate agent’s decision to only show the family homes in Hispanic parts of town is legal or illegal?” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Legal 22.6% 48 Illegal 64.6% 137 Don’t Know 12.7% 27 answered question 212 skipped question 2 Scenario Three – Reasonable Accommodation for a Disability An apartment building owner is renting to someone who uses a wheelchair. The building is old and does not have a wheelchair ramp. The renter asks if he could arrange to have a ramp built so he can get into the building more easily. The renter has offered to pay for the ramp. The owner thinks a ramp will ruin the look of the building, so he refuses to allow one to be built. Do you think that the apartment building owner’s decision to refuse to have a ramp built is legal or illegal? Table VII.6 on the following page shows the percent and number of respondents by their answers to the question. The majority of respondents, 80.6 percent, correctly answered that refusing to allow a ramp to be installed is illegal. Of the three fair housing scenarios, the public scored the best on reasonable accommodation. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 78 August 8, 2014 Table VII.6 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “Do you think that the apartment building owner’s decision to refuse to have a ramp built is legal or illegal?” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Legal 10.4% 22 Illegal 80.6% 170 Don’t Know 9.0% 19 answered question 211 skipped question 3 Reporting Discrimination Table VII.7 below shows the percent and number of respondents who answered a question about whether they knew who they should contact to report housing discrimination. Of all respondents, only 21.4 percent stated that they knew who to contact. Nearly 80 percent of respondents stated that they did not know who to contact. Table VII.7 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “Do you know who you should contact to report housing discrimination?” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 21.4% 44 No 78.6% 162 answered question 206 skipped question 8 Survey respondents were also given a list of choices and asked to whom they would report housing discrimination. Table VII.8 on the following page shows the percent and number of responses. The survey allowed the checking of multiple boxes so the responses add up to more than 100 percent. The one agency that is ultimately responsible for housing discrimination is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of all the respondents, 43.1 percent selected HUD as the agency to contact. The City of Farmington Community Relations Commission also handles housing discrimination complaints locally, but only 22.8 percent of respondents selected this local agency. The San Juan County Housing Authority had the highest response rate at 57.4 percent. As a countywide provider of Section 8 Tenant Based Rental Assistance, the San Juan County Housing Authority has significant exposure in the community. However, their web page has no links to fair housing information or to the complaint process. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 79 August 8, 2014 Table VII.8 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “Who would you report housing discrimination to? Check any and all that apply.” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Do not know 22.3% 45 The City of Farmington Community Relations Commission 22.8% 46 A State agency 15.8% 32 NAACP/La Raza/A.I.M. 4.5% 9 The Office of Civil Rights/Human Rights 30.7% 62 The Farmington Police 6.9% 14 A community organization 5.9% 12 The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 43.1% 87 The property owner 24.3% 49 A Federal agency/EEOC/ADA 16.3% 33 The District Attorney’s office 11.9% 24 A local government agency or official 15.8% 32 An attorney/Legal Aid/ACLU 22.8% 46 The San Juan County Housing Authority 57.4% 116 The Better Business Bureau 27.2% 55 Other 3.0% 6 answered question 202 skipped question 12 Have You Ever Experienced Housing Discrimination Table VII.9 below shows the percent and number of respondents that felt that they had ever experienced housing discrimination. Of all the respondents, 21.1 percent indicated that they thought they had experienced housing discrimination. When the responses were filtered to show only the answers for all minorities and all renters, 29.6 percent of minority residents stated that they thought they had experienced housing discrimination and 31.6 percent of renters stated that they thought they had experienced housing discrimination. Table VII.9 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “Do you think you’ve ever experienced housing discrimination?” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 21.1% 44 No 78.9% 165 answered question 209 skipped question 5 Reasons for Housing Discrimination Respondents who indicated that they thought they had experienced housing discrimination were asked to answer why they thought they had been discriminated against. Respondents ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 80 August 8, 2014 were allowed to check all of the reasons that may have applied so the percent of responses do not add up to 100 percent. In all, 42 respondents felt that they had experienced some form of discrimination in the housing market. Table VII.10 below shows the percent and number of all respondents that indicated types of housing discrimination that they thought they had experienced. Race and ethnicity was the most common basis for discrimination, cited by 35.7 percent of the respondents who felt they had experienced discrimination. The next most common bases for discriminatory acts that survey respondents claimed to have experienced were bad credit/bankruptcy/debts, the landlord’s refusal to make repairs, and the presence of a pet in the home. It should be noted that these are not, in and of themselves, bases for discrimination under the fair housing act. Discrimination against a resident due to the presence of a pet may be considered a violation of fair housing law if the pet is a service animal for a person with a disability, but in general pet owners do not constitute a protected class. Many of the reasons for discrimination cited on this table do not constitute violations of fair housing law, though some of them may represent discriminatory acts where they were motivated by a desire to discriminate on the basis of a protected class status. Discrimination or refusal to rent based upon unmarried partners, children, disability, age, gender, or race/ethnicity are violations of Fair Housing Law. Table VII.10 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “What was the reason you think you were discriminated against? Check any and all that apply.” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count I'm a student 9.5% 4 Criminal record 11.9% 5 Bad credit/bankruptcy/debts 31.0% 13 Unmarried partners 11.9% 5 Landlord refused to make repairs/charged for repairs 23.8% 10 Pets 23.8% 10 Physical disability 7.1% 3 Age 16.7% 7 Gender 14.3% 6 Race/ethnicity 35.7% 15 Children 19.0% 8 Other 21.4% 9 answered question 42 skipped question 172 What Respondents Did About Discrimination Respondents who indicated that they thought they had experienced housing discrimination were asked to state what they had done about the discrimination. Respondents were allowed to check all of the actions that may have applied so the percent of responses do not add up to 100 percent. Table VII.11 on the following page shows that of all the responses, 73.8 percent of respondents indicated that they had not done anything. While many of the possible actions described in the table may be fruitful, the two most direct and effective actions to take would ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 81 August 8, 2014 be to contact the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the City of Farmington Community Relations Commission. Only 4.8 percent of respondents did either. Table VII.11 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey What did you do about the discrimination? Check any and all that apply. Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Do not know 14.3% 6 Nothing 73.8% 31 Called the City of Farmington Community Relations Commission 2.4% 1 Called a State agency 4.8% 2 Called NAACP/La Raza/A.I.M. 0.0% 0 Called the Office of Civil Rights/Human Rights 0.0% 0 Called the Farmington Police 2.4% 1 Called a community organization 0.0% 0 Called the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 4.8% 2 Called the property owner 2.4% 1 Called a Federal agency/EEOC/ADA 2.4% 1 Called the District Attorney’s office 0.0% 0 Called a local government agency or official 2.4% 1 Called an attorney/Legal Aid/ACLU 4.8% 2 Called the San Juan County Housing Authority 4.8% 2 Called the Better Business Bureau 2.4% 1 Other (please specify) 9 answered question 42 skipped question 172 Fair Housing Information Table VII.12 on the following page shows the percent and number of responses indicating how respondents would seek out information on Fair Housing. The largest proportion of respondents, 47.3 percent, indicated that they would search for fair housing information on the internet. The next most common avenue that information seekers would undertake was to contact the Housing Authority; 47.3 percent of respondents stated that they would take this route to learn more about fair housing, Finally, 41.5 percent of respondents indicated that they would look to the HUD website. The highest response rate was internet search, indicating that making fair housing information available online should be a priority of fair housing organizations serving the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 82 August 8, 2014 Table VII.12 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “How would you get information about your fair housing rights? Check any and all that apply.” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Government agency 25.4% 52 BBB/Chamber of Commerce 14.6% 30 HUD website 41.5% 85 City of Farmington website 18.5% 38 Library 19.0% 39 Housing Authority 46.8% 96 Call a lawyer/ACLU/Legal Aid 17.6% 36 Call City Council/Mayor 9.8% 20 Real Estate Offices/Realtors 20.5% 42 Internet search 47.3% 97 Phone Book 6.8% 14 Don't know 24.4% 50 Other 1.5% 3 answered question 205 skipped question 9 Opinions on Discrimination in Farmington Table VII.13 on the following page shows the percent and number of responses by the type of discrimination that respondents thought occurred most frequently in Farmington. Under other, there were 31 respondents who wrote in their thoughts on discrimination. Note that respondents were permitted to check all of the actions that may have applied, and thus the percentages of all responses do not add up to 100 percent. According to the opinion of those survey respondents, race/ethnicity, disability, and familial status were the most common bases for discrimination in the city. Race/ethnicity was cited as a frequent reason for discrimination by 73.2 percent of respondents, followed by disability and familial status, cited by 50.3 and 38 percent of respondents, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 83 August 8, 2014 Table VII.13 Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey “In your opinion, which of the following reasons for housing discrimination occur most frequently, if at all, in Farmington? Check any and all that apply.” Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Religion 15.6% 28 Gender 19.0% 34 National origin 30.7% 55 Sexual orientation 32.4% 58 Familial Status 38.0% 68 Disability physical, mental, HIV/AIDS) 50.3% 90 Race/ethnicity 73.2% 131 Discrimination doesn't exist 6.7% 12 Other (please specify) 31 answered question 179 skipped question 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Public Involvement 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 84 August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 85 August 8, 2014 SECTION VIII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This AI reviews both the public and private sector contexts for Farmington’s housing markets, in order to determine the effects these forces have on housing choice. As part of that review, analysis of demographic, economic, and housing data provide background context for the environments in which housing choices are made. Demographic data indicate the sizes of racial and ethnic populations and other protected classes; economic and employment data show additional factors in influencing housing choice; and counts of housing by type, tenure, quality, and cost indicate the ability of the housing stock to meet the needs of the city’s residents. Once this contextual background analysis has been performed, detailed review of fair housing laws, cases, studies, complaints, and public involvement data can be better supported by the background information. The structure provided by local, state, and federal fair housing laws shapes the complaint and advocacy processes available in the city, as do the services provided by local, state, and federal agencies. Private sector factors in the homeownership and rental markets, such as home mortgage lending practices, have considerable influence on fair housing choice. In the public sector, policies and codes of local governments can significantly affect the housing available in each area, as well as neighborhood and community development trends. Complaint data and AI public involvement feedback further help define problems and possible impediments to housing choice for persons of protected classes, and confirm suspected findings from the contextual and supporting data. Socio-Economic Data and Trends The population of the City of Farmington increased by an estimated 1 percent between 2007 and 2012, according to 3-year ACS estimates from those years. The number of families was estimated to have grown by 6.1 percent, while the number of households, which include single persons living alone, grew by an estimated 2.7 percent. ACS estimates from 2010 and 2012, suggest that the city’s population declined by 1.2 percent between those years. In 2012, residents under 5 years of age accounted for the greatest proportion of the Farmington population; however, this population is estimated to have declined between 2007 and 2012 by 16 percentage points. Similar declines were observed in the number of residents aged 20 to 29, 40 to 54, 70 to 74, and 80 to 84 years. Most of the residents of Farmington were white non-Hispanic, American Indian and Alaskan Native non-Hispanic, or Hispanic. In fact, over 95 percent of the population belonged to one of these racial or ethnic groups; white non-Hispanic residents accounted for 51.4 percent of the population, American Indian or Alaskan Native residents who were not Hispanic accounted for 20.9 percent, and Hispanic or Latino residents accounted for 22.8 percent of the population. Each of these populations tended to be concentrated in different areas of the city. White residents were disproportionately concentrated in large tracts in the north of the city, as well as a medium-sized tract in the city center. The American Indian non-Hispanic population was disproportionately concentrated in three tracts in the southern portion of the city, two of which border on the Navajo Nation to the south. Finally, Hispanic residents were disproportionately concentrated in a large Census tract in the southeastern portion of the city. ---PAGE BREAK--- VIII. Summary of Findings 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 86 August 8, 2014 Persons with disabilities were disproportionately represented among residents aged 65 and older, according to data from the 2012 3-year estimates. The median family income in the City of Farmington grew by an estimated 12.1 percent between 2007 and 2012, which was a greater percentage increase than occurred in the cities of Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces. The MFI in 2012 was $63,261 across the city, though median family incomes differed considerably from one Census tract to another. The MFIs in Tracts 2.01 and 2.02 were $98,941 and $105,990, respectively. These tracts were located in the northern portion of the city. By contrast, many of the Census tracts in the southern portion of the City had median family incomes that were well below the citywide median. Hispanic households saw the greatest percentage increases in MFI. In 2012 single-family units constituted the predominant type of housing unit; detached single- family units accounted for 63.7 percent of all housing units in the City in that year. Mobile homes were the second most common type of housing unit, accounting for 17 percent of all units in 2012. However, Farmington had a higher vacancy rate, at 11.4 percent, than all other state MSA’s, with the exception of Santa Fe. The vacancy rate for rental units was considerably higher than the vacancy rate for owner-occupied units, at 14.0 and 2.2 percent, respectively. Cost-burdening was a problem for 28.6 percent of Farmington homeowners; in 2012 these households were making mortgage payments that accounted for more than 30% of their total income. However, homeowners were actually less cost-burdened in 2012 than they had been in 2007. The problem was more pervasive still among rental households; 45.3 percent of renters found that rental costs took up more than 30 percent of their income in 2012. This was a higher degree of cost-burdening than renters had experienced in 2007, when 41.7 percent of rental households were cost-burdened. In both years, renters tended to be cost-burdened to a greater degree than homeowners. A small proportion of housing units, or 0.8 percent, lacked complete plumbing facilities, and a higher proportion, or 1.2 percent, lacked complete kitchen facilities. Finally, higher percentages of rental units were overcrowded in 2012 compared to owner-occupied units, and around 6 percent of households of both types were overcrowded. Review of Fair Housing Laws, Studies, and Cases Though none were specific to the City of Farmington, a general review of laws, studies, cases, and related materials relevant to fair housing in the State of New Mexico demonstrates the complexity of the fair housing landscape. The fair housing laws in the State of New Mexico offer protections beyond the scope of the federal Fair Housing Act by prohibiting discrimination based on serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Cases included in this discussion highlight the varied forms that housing discrimination can assume as well as the complexity of fair housing laws and how they are applied. The national cases signal an increasing scrutiny on the part of HUD in recent years with respect to fair housing, and the local cases filed by the Department of Justice since 2004 against businesses and individuals in the state highlight discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and offer an illustration of how such discrimination might manifest itself in real life situations. In one case, the alleged discriminatory behavior was directed toward a resident who became disabled while living in the apartment. In the second case, the alleged discrimination was undertaken to deny housing to a prospective resident with disabilities. In ---PAGE BREAK--- VIII. Summary of Findings 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 87 August 8, 2014 the third case, the alleged discrimination took the form of routine abuse against residents with disabilities, and an attempt to coerce them into not revealing the abuse for fear of losing their housing situation. Fair Housing Structure The City of Farmington is served by the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau, an office within the Department of Workforce Solutions. This agency is empowered by New Mexico statutes to investigate and enforce fair housing law, though it has not been recognized as a substantially equivalent agency under HUD. HUD also accepts fair housing complaints on behalf of New Mexico residents, though because the list of protected classes is more comprehensive at the state level than at the national level, residents who believe they have faced discrimination on the basis of a serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity must lodge their complaints at the state level. There are no agencies or organizations that serve City of Farmington residents as Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) participants, though the City of Farmington Community Relations Commission does accept complaints from Farmington residents who feel that they have experienced unlawful discrimination in the housing market, employment, and civil rights. Fair Housing in the Private Sector Review of the private sector in the fair housing context involved analysis of data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), complaints lodged with HUD, and survey responses to questions pertaining to factors in the private sector that impact housing choice. Analysis of home loan denial rates revealed that racial and ethnic minority residents were subjected to higher rates of loan denials than white, non-Hispanic residents, even after correcting for income in the year 2012. Geographically, loan denials tended to be concentrated in Census tracts containing high percentages of American Indian and Hispanic residents. There were only three complaints lodged with HUD between April 17, 2009 and January 11, 2014; these complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of national origin and race, as well as an instance of alleged retaliation. None of these complaints were found to have cause. Among survey respondents, the most salient potential barriers to fair housing choice included poor credit histories and income levels of minority residents, lack of knowledge among landlords and residents concerning fair housing policy, lack of capacity for fair housing organizations dedicated to fair housing, and various burdens and restrictions placed on residents of mobile home parks. Fair Housing in the Public Sector A review of transportation services and needs, local policies and codes, and responses to the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey constituted the analysis of fair housing in the public sector. The results of a recent study of transportation needs in the City and surrounding communities suggest that the areas of Farmington that were in the most need of enhanced transportation services were in or near the city center. Farmington building codes conform to the 2009 International Building Code, and new building permits are required to conform to the International Code Council/American National Standards Institute’s 2003 standards for ---PAGE BREAK--- VIII. Summary of Findings 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 88 August 8, 2014 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Zoning codes allow group homes in Mixed Use districts and by Special Use Permit in Multi-Family Housing districts. While zoning districts that are deemed suitable for affordable housing are present in every Census tract in the city, they tend to be more common in areas with higher shares of minority residents and households in poverty. The City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) provides a definition of family as an individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, as well as a group of up to four persons, living together in a single housing unit. The City of Farmington also recently adopted an ordinance allowing for-profit or non-profit organizations to apply to the City for assistance in developing affordable housing. In results of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey, street infrastructure, code enforcement, and neighborhood revitalization services were the most widely perceived to be distributed unequally throughout the city. Public Involvement Efforts to involve members of the public in the AI process included two advertised public meetings, which were held in the San Juan Center for Independence and the Sycamore Park Community Center, both in May of 2013. In addition, 122 respondents took the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey online, and an additional 92 surveys were given by City staff during on-site survey sessions at five locations around the City. Responses suggest that a considerable number of city residents were not fully informed on various aspects of fair housing law, including what types of actions constitute unlawful discrimination and where to report housing discrimination. In addition, fully 73.8 percent of respondents who believed that they had experienced housing discrimination took no action to address that discrimination. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 89 August 8, 2014 SECTION IX. IMPEDIMENTS AND SUGGESTED ACTIONS Private Sector Impediments, Suggested Actions, and Measurable Objectives Impediment 1: More frequent denial of home purchase loans to racial and ethnic minority residents. This impediment was identified through review of home purchase loan data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) from 2004 to 2012. On average, the rate of loan denials to American Indian applicants was more than twice the rate for all applicants and nearly three times the rate of loan denials to white residents during that time. Similarly, loan applications from Hispanic applicants were denied at a higher-than-average rate; over 6.5 percentage points higher in an average year. The discrepancy between American Indian and white loan applicants remained even when applicants were similarly situated with respect to income. Action 1.1: The City of Farmington will use CDBG funding to sponsor financial literacy and credit repair classes at San Juan College. These classes begin in September. Measurable Objective 1.1: The number of class sessions held and number of clients who participate in these classes. Impediment 2: Discrimination in rental housing market. This impediment was identified through analysis of the results of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey. Though 21.1 percent of all survey respondents claimed to have experienced housing discrimination, the figure was higher for rental tenants, at 31.6 percent. Action 2.1: Increase outreach and education activities targeting landlords and property managers, with the purpose of highlighting issues around fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Measurable Objective 2.1: The number of outreach and education activities conducted, materials prepared for these activities, record of participation by members of the public. Impediment 3: Steering in the real estate market. This impediment was identified through review of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey. Steering, or the practice of real estate agents directing homebuyers to different parts of town depending on the protected class status of the homebuyer, was cited as a barrier to fair housing in Farmington by over half of survey respondents, and as a “serious” barrier by over a fifth of respondents. Action 3.1: Conduct outreach and education among real estate professionals pertaining to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing, focusing on the impact of discriminatory practices on Farmington residents. Measurable Objective 3.1: The number of outreach and education activities conducted with the real estate industry. Impediment 4: Lack of knowledge of fair housing laws. This impediment was identified through review of fair housing survey results. In questions pertaining to private sector impediments to fair housing choice, lack of knowledge of fair housing was consistently identified as a modest or serious barrier to fair housing choice by at least 40 percent of survey ---PAGE BREAK--- IX. Impediments and Suggested Actions 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 90 August 8, 2014 respondents. The lack of knowledge among landlords, property managers, and residents was especially salient as a barrier to fair housing choice among survey respondents. Deficits in knowledge of fair housing law were borne out in responses to questions specifically designed to gauge respondents’ understanding of fair housing policy. In a series of hypothetical scenarios describing instances of illegal discrimination, sizeable minorities of survey respondents described the discrimination as “legal” in each case. Furthermore, 22 percent of survey respondents did not know to whom they could address complaints of unlawful discrimination, and many respondents indicated that they would report housing discrimination to agencies that are not directly involved in fair housing enforcement. Action 4.1: Hold annual public meetings and other outreach activities pertaining to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during Fair Housing Month (April). Measurable Objective 4.1: Record of meetings, presentation materials for the meetings, and marketing materials used to publicize meetings. Public Sector Impediments, Suggested Actions, and Measurable Objectives Impediment 1: Lack of sufficient outreach and education pertaining to fair housing. This impediment was identified through a review of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey and the fair housing infrastructure in the City of Farmington. As noted previously in Private Sector Impediment 4, lack of knowledge of fair housing laws and infrastructure was widely perceived to be a barrier to fair housing in the city. This lack of knowledge was reflected in responses to questions designed to test respondents’ knowledge of fair housing law and policy. Furthermore, there are currently no organizations serving the City as Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) participants; such an organization would be eligible to receive funding from HUD to promote outreach and education efforts. Action 1.1: Hold annual public meetings and other outreach activities pertaining to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during Fair Housing Month (April). Measurable Objective 1.1: Record of meetings, presentation materials for the meetings, and marketing materials used to publicize meetings. Impediment 2: Lack of fair housing testing and enforcement. This impediment was also identified through review of the Public Perceptions of Fair Housing Law Survey and the fair housing infrastructure in place in the City of Farmington. Over 60 percent of survey respondents felt that the “limited capacity of a local organization devoted to fair housing investigation/testing” represented a barrier to fair housing; around 30 percent identified it as a “serious” barrier. Review of the City’s fair housing infrastructure reveals that there is no local organization or agency involved in fair housing testing or enforcement. Action 2.1: Seek partner to conduct fair housing testing in the City of Farmington, such as the Southwest Fair Housing Council in Tucson, Arizona, or other nearby Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) participants. Measurable Objective 2.1: Record of outreach conducted and organizations contacted, as well as records of correspondence generated in the course of those outreach efforts. ---PAGE BREAK--- IX. Impediments and Suggested Actions 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 91 August 8, 2014 Impediment 3: Zoning for multifamily affordable housing units appears to correlate with areas with relatively high concentrations of minority residents and poverty. This impediment was identified through review of the geographic maps of areas deemed suitable for multi-family housing units, and comparison of that map with demographic maps included in this report. Comparison of these maps suggests that areas deemed suitable for development of multi-family assisted housing units tend to be more extensive and widespread in Census tracts with higher proportions of minority residents and households in poverty. As a corollary, areas with smaller concentrations of minority residents and households in poverty tended to be zoned for low- density development, and to have fewer, or more limited, areas deemed suitable for multi- family housing. Action 3.1: The City of Farmington will be updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the fall. In the course of updating the Plan, the City should review zoning and land-use policies by which zoning districts are deemed suitable for the placement of affordable housing units. Action 3.1a: The City should then develop recommendations on how to expand the areas deemed suitable for the placement of affordable housing units. Measurable Objective 3.1: The results of this review and the incorporation of those recommendations into the updated Comprehensive Plan. Impediment 4: Lack of local organization serving Farmington residents as a participant in HUD’s Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP). This impediment was identified through review of the fair housing infrastructure in place in the City of Farmington and the State of New Mexico, as well as responses to the Public Perception of Fair Housing Law Survey. There is no FHIP participant serving residents of Farmington or the State of New Mexico. The lack of organizational capacity for enforcement of fair housing law was perceived as a barrier by over 60 percent of survey respondents. Action 4.1: Seek partner to facilitate creation of local fair housing organization and potential FHIP participant. Measurable Objective 4.1: Record of outreach conducted and organizations contacted, as well as records of correspondence generated in the course of those outreach efforts. ---PAGE BREAK--- IX. Impediments and Suggested Actions 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 92 August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 93 August 8, 2014 SECTION X. GLOSSARY Accessible housing: Housing designed to allow easier access for physically disabled or vision impaired persons. ACS: American Community Survey AI: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice AMI: Area median income BEA: Bureau of Economic Analysis BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics CDBG: Community Development Block Grant Census tract: Census tract boundaries are updated with each decennial census. They are drawn based on population size and ideally represent approximately the same number of persons for each tract. Consolidated Plan: Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development Cost burden: Occurs when a household has gross housing costs that range from 30.1 to 50 percent of gross household income. CRA: Community Reinvestment Act Disability: A lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition that makes it difficult for a person to conduct daily activities of living or impedes him or her from being able to go outside the home alone or to work. Disproportionate share: Exists when the percentage of a population is 10 percentage points or more above the study area average. DOJ: U.S. Department of Justice ESG: Emergency Shelter Grants program Family: A family is a group of two people or more related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together. FFIEC: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council FHAP: Fair Housing Assistance Program FHEO: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity FHIP: Fair Housing Initiative Program Floor area ratio: The ratio of the total floor area of a building to the land on which it is situated, or the limit imposed on such a ratio. Freddie Mac: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation a government-sponsored enterprise that purchases mortgages from lenders and repackage them as mortgage-backed securities for investors. GAO: U.S. General Accounting Office Gross housing costs: For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy payments, water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, this figure represents rent and electricity or natural gas energy charges. HAL: High annual percentage rate (APR) loan, defined as more than three percentage points higher than comparable treasury rates for home purchase loans, or five percentage points higher for refinance loans. 149 HMDA: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 49 12 CFR Part 203, http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/pdf/regc_020702.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- X. Glossary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 94 August 8, 2014 HOME: HOME Investment Partnerships HOPWA: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Household: A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from the outside or through a common hall. Housing problems: Overcrowding, incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities, or cost burdens HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Incomplete kitchen facilities: A housing unit is classified as lacking complete kitchen facilities when any of the following are not present: a sink with piped hot and cold water, a range or cook top and oven, and a refrigerator. Incomplete plumbing facilities: A housing unit is classified as lacking complete plumbing facilities when any of the following are not present: piped hot and cold water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower. Labor force: The total number of persons working or looking for work MFI: Median family income Mixed-use development: The use of a building, set of buildings, or neighborhood for more than one purpose. MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area NIMBYism: "Not in my backyard" mentality among community members, often in protest of affordable or multi-family housing. Other vacant units: Housing units that are not for sale or rent Overcrowding: Overcrowding occurs when a housing unit has more than one to 1.5 persons per room. Poverty: The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). Predatory loans: As defined by the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002 as well as the Home Owner Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), loans are considered predatory based on: 1. If they are HOEPA loans;102F13F50 2. Lien status, such as whether secured by a first lien, a subordinate lien, not secured by a lien, or not applicable (purchased loans); and 3. Presence of HALs. For full definition, see HAL. These loans are referred to in this report as “predatory style loans”, or loans that are “predatory in nature”. Protected Class: Group of people protected from discrimination and harassment. Farmington residents are protected from housing discrimination based on race, sex, religion, familial status, disability, national origin, color, physical and mental handicap, serious medical condition, spousal affiliation, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. 50 Loans are subject to the HOEPA if they impose rates or fees above a certain threshold set by the Federal Reserve Board. “HMDA Glossary.” http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/glossary.htm#H ---PAGE BREAK--- X. Glossary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 95 August 8, 2014 Public housing: Public housing was established to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. RDA: Redevelopment agency Severe cost burden: Occurs when gross housing costs represent 50.1 percent or more of gross household income. Severe overcrowding: Occurs when a housing unit has more than 1.5 persons per room. Steering: Actions of real estate agents or landlords to discourage a prospective buyer or tenant from seeing or selecting properties in certain areas due to their racial or ethnic composition. Tenure: The status by which a housing unit is held. A housing unit is "owned" if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit is "owned" only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified as "rented," including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent. ---PAGE BREAK--- X. Glossary 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 96 August 8, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 97 August 8, 2014 SECTION X. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION COMPLAINTS ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 98 August 8, 2014 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF FAIR HOUSING LAW SURVEY QUESTIONS KNOWLEDGE & SUPPORT OF FAIR HOUSING LAW SCENARIO 1—HOUSING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON FAMILIAL STATUS single mother of a 13 year old made an appointment to look at an apartment for rent. The landlord met her and her child at the apartment. When he discovered that she had a child, he told her he doesn’t allow children in his apartment complex.” Is the landlord’s refusal to rent to the woman and child legal or illegal? Legal Illegal Don’t Know In your opinion, should it be legal?’’ Legal Illegal Don’t Know SCENARIO 2—STEERING Hispanic family wants to buy a house and finds a real estate agent to show them houses in their price range. The real estate agent is also Hispanic. Their agent only shows them houses in Hispanic areas of town, even though there are houses they could afford in other neighborhoods, because she thinks they will be more comfortable in the Hispanic neighborhood.” Is the real estate agent’s decision to only show the family homes in Hispanic parts of town legal? Legal Illegal Don’t Know In your opinion, should it be legal?’’ Legal Illegal Don’t Know SCENARIO 3—MORTGAGE DISCRIMINATION Native American couple applies for a mortgage loan at a local bank and their application is approved. The loan officer who makes the loan decides to charge them a higher interest rate than he did a white couple he made a loan to the day before, even though their credit was just as good. He does this because he believes that Native Americans are more likely to default on their loans than whites.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 99 August 8, 2014 Is the loan officer’s decision to charge borrowers different interest rates based on their race legal? Legal Illegal Don’t Know In your opinion, should it be legal?’’ Legal Illegal Don’t Know SCENARIO 4—REFUSAL TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR TENANT WITH DISABILITY ‘‘An apartment building owner is renting to someone who uses a wheelchair. The building is old and does not have a wheelchair ramp. The renter asks if he could arrange to have a ramp built so he can get into the building more easily. The renter has offered to pay for the ramp. The owner thinks a ramp will ruin the look of the building, so he refuses to have one built.” Is the apartment building owner’s decision to refuse to have a ramp built legal or illegal? Legal Illegal Don’t Know In your opinion, should it be legal?’’ Legal Illegal Don’t Know HOUSING EXPERIENCES My current housing type is: Single Family Site Built Home Townhome, Condo, or Duplex Apartment Manufactured Home Other Homeless How satisfied are you with your current housing situation: Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 100 August 8, 2014 Housing situation changes needed to increase satisfaction (if not very satisfied): Major repairs Affordability/Economy/Interest Rates Own rather than rent Different neighborhood Lower cost of utilities Landscaping Energy efficiency Roof Bigger/more space Better landlord Remodel/update décor Other Don't Know/None Affordability and availability. During the past five years, have you had trouble finding a place to live that you could afford because the rent or mortgage was too expensive? Yes No NA During the past 5 years, have you had trouble finding a place to live because of limited availability? Yes No NA Households with disabled members and accessibility needs. Do you or does any member of your family have a disability? Yes No Does your (or your family members) home currently live in meet your accessibility needs? What kind of improvements are needed to make your (or your family members) home more accessible? Support for affordable housing development. Should the cities of Aztec, Bloomfield, and Farmington and San Juan County support the development of affordable housing? Yes No Don’t Know ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 101 August 8, 2014 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION What would you recommend someone do if they experience housing discrimination? Police Realtor Association/State Board of Realty City/City Council Community Relations Commission Research who to contact Find another realtor/lender/landlord HUD District Attorney Nothing Other Housing Authority Move to another house/apartment Better Business Bureau File a complaint Legal Aid/ACLU Get a lawyer I don't know Do you know who you should contact to report housing discrimination? Yes No Who would you report housing discrimination to? Community Relations Commission State agency Research who to contact NAACP/La Raza/A.I.M. Office of Civil Rights/Human Rights Do not know Police Community organization HUD Property owner Federal agency/EEOC/ADA Other The District Attorney’s office Local government agency or official An attorney/Legal Aid/ACLU Housing Authority Better Business Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 102 August 8, 2014 Who do you think investigates housing discrimination? State agency Research who to contact NAACP/La Raza/A.I.M. Office of Civil Rights/Human Rights Do not know Police Community organization HUD Property owner Federal agency/EEOC/ADA The District Attorney’s office Local government agency or official An attorney/Legal Aid/ACLU Housing Authority Better Business Bureau Other Do you think you’ve ever experienced housing discrimination? Yes No What was the reason you were discriminated against? I'm a student Criminal record Bad credit/bankruptcy/debts Unmarried partners Landlord refused to make repairs/charged for repairs Pets Physical disability Age Gender Race/ethnicity Children Other What did you do about the discrimination? Called federal agency Called Housing Authority Tried to get information/ complain and couldn’t Talked to a lawyer/Legal Aid/ACLU Called HUD Called local government official/ mayor’s office/city council Talked to property owner Filed a complaint Looked for another place/Moved out Nothing Other ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices 2014 City of Farmington Final Report Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 103 August 8, 2014 How would you get information about your fair housing rights? Government agency BBB/Chamber of Commerce HUD website City of Farmington website Library Housing Authority Call a lawyer/ACLU/Legal Aid Call City Council/Mayor Real Estate Offices/Realtors Internet search Don't know Other When you want to learn about housing or government issues in Farmington, what information sources do you use? Church/synagogue forums Radio Specialty publication Specific websites Library TV Realtor Phonebook Word of mouth Local Newspaper Local government sources/officials Internet search Don't know Other