|
U. S. v Starrett City
Associates
U.S. Ct of App [1988]
Author:- Sam
Biers
Relevant Facts: Dfs constructed, owned and
operated the largest housing development in the nation,
consisting of 46 buildings, containing 5881 units. The US Dept of
HUD subsidizes Dfs monthly mortgage payments. NYC approved
a transfer of real estate tax abatement to Df on condition “upon
the assurance of Df’s developer that it was intended to
create a racially integrated community.” Df sought to
maintain a racial distribution by racial quotas through the
adoption of tenanting procedures to promote and maintain the
desired racial balance. Applicants names, racial profile,
and income info are included w/i a pool, when an apartment
becomes open, depending upon the race of the tenant leaving, an
applicant w/ a similar race is notified .
Legal Issue(s): Whether the Dfs policy and
practice of limiting the number of apartments available to
minorities in order to maintain a prescribed degree of racial
balance is in violation of the FHA.
Court’s Holding: Yes
Procedure: Trial ct. granted summary to
Govt, Df appealed, affirmed.
Law or Rule(s): Discrimination b/c of race,
color, or national origin in the sale or rental of housing by
refusing to rent or make available any dwelling, offering
discriminatory “terms, conditions, or privileges” of
rental’ making, printing, publishing any notice, statement,
or advertisement that indicates any preference, limitation, or
discrimination based on ; and representing to any person that any
dwelling is not available for rental when such dwelling is in
fact so available. -Title VII
Court Rationale: Housing practices unlawful
under Title VIII include not only those motivated by racial
discrimination but those that disproportionately affect
minorities. Allocation of public housing on the basis of
racial quotas, by denying an applicant access to a unit otherwise
available solely b/c of race, produces a discriminatory effect.
Even if Df were a state actor, they are not, racial quotas and
related practices to maintain integration violate the Act. The
Leg Hx indicates that quotas promote integration but contravene
its antidiscrimination policy. The Leg hx provides no further
guidance. Under the 13th and 14th and
VIII the S. Ct. found permissible race-conscious affirmative
action in examining race quotas under FHA However, it
cannot be ageless in its reach into the past nor timeless toward
affecting the future.
The only goal Df has in integration
maintenance. The quotas have existed for 10 yrs, and dfs
expect another 15. These practices are not temporary, and
no definite termination date is perceivable. There is no
existence of prior discrim or discrimory imbalance adversely
affecting whites w/i df complex. The complex was initiated as an
integrated complex for the purpose of employing race-based
tenanting practices. Dfs quotas do not provide minorities
w/ access to the complex, but act as a ceiling to their access.
Race quotas of indefinite periods of time to maintain fixed
levels of integration violate VIII.
Plaintiff’s Argument: Df’s
practices of renting apartments solely on the basis of applicants’
race or national origin, and making apartments unavailable to
minority applicants violates F H Act.
Defendant’s Argument: The
tenanting procedures were adopted at the behest of the state, and
were therefor clothed in govt authority, solely to achieve and
maintain a racially integrated community.
DISSENT: Title VIII bars discriminatory
housing practices in order to end segregation. Starrett
City is not promoting segregated housing. The statute was never
intended to apply to such actions. The statute was intended to
bar perpetuation of segregation. Until Congress or NYC
decides for the Nation or NYC that it prefers to outlaw
maintenance of integration, the policy choice should remain that
of private property owners.
Concerning Otero- There is nothing in the
text of VIII that supports a race-conscious rental policy adopted
to promote integration simply b/c the policy was of limited
duration. VIII bars a race-conscious rental policy whether
adopted on a short term or a long term basis.
OTERO - Public housing authorities have a
federal constitutional and statutory duty “to fulfill, as
much as possible, the goal of open, integrated residential
housing patterns and to prevent the increase of segregation, in
ghettos.”
According to Majority in Starrett the
Difference in OTERO : It did not involve long-term maintenance of
specified levels of integration, but the rental of 171 out of 360
new apartments to non-former site occupants, predominantly white,
while former site residents, largely minority, sought those
apartments and were entitled to priority. Otero did not delineate
the statutory or constitutional limits on permissible means of
integration. The action challenged only a single event-the
initial rent up of new complexs-and determined tenancy in the
first instance. Suspension of NYCHA regulation did not
operate as a strict racial quota, b/c the former site residents
entitled to a rental priority were approximately 40% white.
Animus - animosity, spite or displeasure,
anger.
|
