Champaign Housing Discrimination

Champaign's exception to their Human Rights Ordinance was in the news again this week. From the News-Gazette website:

Landlords, Champaign council members, candidates discuss city's rental code
With just weeks before the city council is set to study a section of city code that allows leasing discrimination on the basis of felony convictions, council candidates, members of the human relations commission and about two dozen local landlords and Realtors met Tuesday in downtown Champaign for a preview of what that conversation in April might look like.

Chapter 17 of the city code currently allows "discrimination in the leasing of residential property based upon a person's record of convictions for a forcible felony or a felony drug conviction or the conviction of the sale, manufacture or distribution of illegal drugs" for up to five years after release.

The question of what to do with the language, which is widely seen as discriminatory, has come up before the council before, but conversations about doing away with the section of the code altogether have stalled...

At Tuesday's forum, local landlords voiced strong opposition to a repeal — which the city's human-relations commission has recommended to the council — and were hesitant to change the language too much.

Many said they want the ability to choose whom they rent to, which sparked a back-and-forth between them and council members and candidates and some on the human relations commission. Landlords said they already face a difficult rental environment in the county, as Champaign, Urbana and Rantoul all have different leasing rules, so they want to be able to retain the ability to know whom they are renting to before they sign a lease agreement.

More details and some of the back and forth at the full article here (there wasn't a set date for the next study session last I checked). The article highlights the primary argument of landlords safety and financial concerns. Previously I've posted CU Indivisible's explanation of their competing perspective on the housing issue here.

The issue has been raised throughout the community and local government in relation to criminal justice reform. They often highlight the role housing access has in recidivism as well as housing being a basic human need and one of the biggest obstacles for people reentering communities from the criminal justice system. Recently it was mentioned in the City of Champaign's Human Relations Commission during the Champaign County NAACP's report on criminal justice reform. It could also be a hurdle for the Champaign County Housing Authority's efforts in reforming reentry housing in the area, mentioned in January's Champaign County Reentry Council meeting that works with government agencies and organizations in criminal justice and reentry issues.

The rock and the hard place of this debate is the basic human need for shelter and the community's desire for safety. It's complicated by our community's continued problems with segregation, racial disparities in mass incarceration at every step of the criminal justice system (including local public school discipline), and the history of housing discrimination throughout Illinois.

You can hear various arguments for and against going back to the original language of the Human Rights Ordinance at the previous Champaign City Council study session on the issue here (video link here). The landlords generally argued safety of residents and being able to ask questions of renters for their own liabilities. The folks on the other side arguing for basic human rights issue and pointing to the previous language which mirrors Urbana's current rules.

The proponents of the broad protections against discrimination believe the landlords can ask questions that don't depend on data and results from a system that is discriminatory and disparate on race. Landlords argue that it's not discrimination on their part to rely on the government's own results. Where one draws the line on technical legality and ethics in support or opposition to changing the law on this issue can certainly differ, however. In putting the responsibility for any further racial disparities perpetuated in housing by relying on discriminatory government mechanisms, the issue becomes a bit of a Milgram's Experiment.

A rich versus poor angle also pops up, as wealthy criminals who can afford their own home and even be landlords themselves, are protected from discrimination on the same issue. While arguably that circumstance applies to a select few people, the proponents of ending the discriminatory language argue that's exactly the point.  An older article mentioning the original change from the broad discriminatory protections to allowing discrimination against renters on this issue seems to bear that out:

"They're denying [housing] to themselves." pretty well sums up the exact type of discrimination the original law hoped to prevent before this exception was added. Whether one agrees with the sentiment or policy, if left in place it will make it harder for people reentering their community to do so successfully and lower rates of recidivism according to the data. Even if one believes the argument they'll manage to live somewhere else as opposed to homeless and desperate, then due to the disparities in the criminal justice system it will almost certainly add to the ongoing segregation problem in the area.

No matter what side you take, or if you have ideas for a compromise that can better protect the rights of landlords and reentering community members, I encourage people to engage their City Council member and mayor to better understand the perspectives on this issue and the Champaign City Council candidates in the upcoming election.