For the last couple of weeks the "Week Ahead" posts have been talking
of potential updates from various local organizations working on the
housing recommendations from the Racial Justice Task Force. There's
still plenty of updates I'm waiting on this week, but I have some
updates from the Reentry Council (more in this post on their last
meeting
here)
involving the Housing Authority (HACC)'s attempts to institute a pilot
program for reentry housing. I also have updates on CU Indivisible's
latest meeting with Mayor Deb Feinen on those recent updates and
previous tension with the County Board vote urging their action on the ordinance.
First, here is the CU Indivisible's position statement on the City of Champaign housing ordinance exemption:
Full Statement in PDF format
And a few quick excerpts (though the
full statement has the history, legal nitty gritty, supporting data and materials, links etc and is worth the read):
I. Our Position
CU
Indivisible believe it's high time that the Champaign City Council
strike Section 17/4.5 of its Human Rights Ordinance. This exemption puts
renters with a conviction record at risk for discrimination from
landlords at a time when they are in most need of sensible housing
options up to 5 years after they’ve completed their sentence. We join
many other groups in the conviction that this exemption restricts
housing options for people of color, constraints opportunities for
community and economic development, compromises the moral standing of
our community, and may constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
II. Background
In
1970s, the Cities of Urbana and City of Champaign updated their
municipal code chapters on Human Rights to prohibit discrimination in
the areas of employment, credit, housing and access to public
accommodations on the basis of a person’s “prior arrest or conviction
record.” Read the full ordinance here.
III. The Problem
In
1994, the City of Champaign added an exception to this ordinance that
protects housing providers that choose to discriminate against housing
applicants that have lived outside of jail or prison for at least five
years. This exemption, Section 17/4.5 of its Human Rights Ordinance
(HRO, henceforth), worsens Champaign’s existing housing problems by
putting renters with a conviction record at risk for discrimination from
housing providers.
IV: Reasons for Urgency
Given
the wide support this action has received and its absence in Urbana’s
City code, it is our position that the City of Champaign ought to strike
the provision without a study. We believe the problem is one of
political will, not a lack of evidence or voices of support. We believe
the study session called for recently was aimed to provide a middle
ground for council members and the information gained from those
sessions as a means of justifying their decision. Two extenuating
factors make striking the exemption even more necessary.
First,
with expected cuts to federal spending on the horizon, advocates such
as the Campaign for Housing and Community Development Funding (CHCDF)
and the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) worry that
existing housing problems will develop into crises for localities like
Champaign.
Second, the exemption stands as mark
against our county that detracts from our ability to attract attention
from programs and initiatives that would provide opportunities to
improve life for all in our county. Earning the support of organizations
such as the Vera Institute would ease Champaign’s housing issues. Both
the incoming and outgoing Executive Directors of the Housing Authority
of Champaign County recently spoke of their intention to apply to take
part in a trial program that would open up more housing for the reentry
population. The Vera Institute would supply funding for this program,
and housing programs outside of the HACC would benefit. Recently
recognized as an Innovator County for its work in criminal justice
reform, the Directors believe that Champaign County could be a
competitive candidate for this funding. However, they believe the
exemption would greatly damage our chances.
The
Mayor has promised to review the materials provided and invited CU
Indivisible back for a follow up to see where any changes, if any, could
be worked on. There is a balance of issues at hand that have to be
weighed, from safety concerns that cannot be ignored to the rights of
those involved. How the language is changed if not outright struck has
consequences on how effective the change could be in improving the odds
of reentry success stories. The goal is to have a safer and more
equitable community by legal and better landlord screening, all while
helping ensure less recidivism for the individuals and the community at
large.
One issue mentioned above that came up is the
confusion about the County Board vote to urge the City of Champaign and
Housing Authority to make the changes recommended by the Racial Justice
Task Force. That County Board action itself was recommended by the
Racial Justice Task Force (page 55 of the
final public report).
It specifically cited the City's own Human Relations Commission's
support and apparently many County Board members assumed that the
Champaign City Council would see it as supportive of their efforts to
make the change (efforts that had not yet begun, as it turns out). The
unanimous vote instead was interpreted by some council members, most
notably Clarissa Fourman, as a critical or even possibly patronizing
move.
The County Board members may have erred in not
reaching out and contacting the Council members about details of the
action ahead of time, perhaps assuming the Council was not only aware,
but already working from the same recommendations. At least some board
members seemed genuinely surprised by the Council reaction and their own
surprise.
Hopefully that communication hiccup won't
derail a recommendation that has wide and growing support from people
across the community — from activists to law enforcement to various
government bodies familiar with the issue. It'd be a shame for politics
to derail what appears to be a nonpartisan pragmatic reform.
There
are a lot of delicate issues and community interests to protect along
the way. I hope to add voices and concerns here so people reading here
can be informed and make up their own mind and support what they believe
is the right thing.