David J. Harris – Heated housing market
A top executive of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board said he wants to work with a nonprofit housing group to ensure that real estate agents are fully aware of fair housing laws, after the group released a study showing Boston renters face discrimination.
However, the board’s chief executive officer, Edwin Shanahan, stopped short of saying that fair housing courses should be mandatory for all licensed real estate agents as part of their continuing education coursework, as was the case until January when the requirements were changed.
“We’re absolutely willing to discuss possible partnerships that we can enter into to eradicate any and all forms of illegal discrimination across the commonwealth,” Shanahan said.
Shanahan’s comments come after the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston released a study last week showing that blacks, families with children and rental subsidy holders experienced discrimination in more than half of their attempts to find rental housing.
Shanahan said last week he had not seen the report but would be willing to work with the center.
“Not having seen this audit or report, I hesitate to say that the board take this and make fair housing [courses] mandatory again,” Shanahan said.
Based on the study results, the Fair Housing Center recommends more comprehensive training for agents and landlords on fair housing laws. The group is also seeking a partnership with GBREB and other Realtor associations to educate and guide agents about housing discrimination.
“This report, like others conducted across the country, serves in our heated housing market to gauge the region’s discrimination temperature,” said David J. Harris, the center’s executive director. “The Fair Housing Center calls on individuals and institutions within the housing industry and beyond to join us in eliminating discrimination from our housing market.”
Licensed real estate agents were once required to take a fair housing course as part of their continuing education every two years.
When the continuing education requirement went into effect in 1999, agents had to take courses on fair housing, environmental laws and regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws and regulations. Eight of the total 12 credit hours of the continuing education curriculum were part of a required core program, while four credits were electives.
But the continuing education requirements were recently overhauled and as of this January, all courses may be selected by agents. Fair housing courses are no longer required.
The changes in continuing education requirements were put in place after a group of public officials, lawyers and Realtors met and determined that real estate agents and Realtors should not have to repeat similar courses every two years. They also thought that by giving Realtors the chance to select courses, learning would be enhanced because agents wouldn’t be forced to sit through classes they didn’t want participate in.
Despite the change in requirements, agents can still learn about discrimination because the topic is covered in several courses, including classes about lead paint, ADA and fair housing.
“No matter what option the Realtor takes as far as selection of courses … there’s a strong possibility that fair housing is going to end up being part of their continuing education experience,” said Anita Hill, vice president and director of professional development for Carlson GMAC Real Estate in Woburn.
Hill said the fair housing course being offered to agents was written by attorneys and reviewed by representatives from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
Even though Hill hadn’t seen the fair housing study when contacted last week, she said she was surprised by the findings because Realtors and agents were taught about fair housing as part of their continuing education less than two years ago.
“I’m surprised that’s [discrimination] still going on at that extent,” Hill said.
Most agents do not deal with rentals on a daily basis, Hill said, and because many are unaccustomed to such transactions they may not be aware that they’re violating fair housing rules.
“I believe there’s a need for continual training,” said Hill, who added that a partnership between the Fair Housing Center and a Realtor association is a “great idea.”
No Kids
GBREB’s Shanahan said there are “plenty of vehicles” for all agents and Realtors to be educated on fair housing issues. In addition, GBREB members must go through an orientation program where a lot of time is spent discussing fair housing laws and issues, he said.
Further, the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics prohibits Realtors from discriminating against people based on race, sex, ethnicity, marital or family status.
“The important point, I think, is that fair housing courses continue to be offered,” said Shanahan. “I think those courses have done their job. As to whether more needs to be done, that I don’t know.”
To combat discrimination in the 1980s, GBREB joined with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to start a voluntary testing program.
The program was designed to spot agents who were violating fair housing laws and to provide guidance to them on avoiding discriminatory practices. As part of the program, the GBREB would send home seekers who asked various questions and “tested” agents.
GBREB had to halt the program because the tests couldn’t be used for educational purposes only. Shanahan said the program had to be used as an enforcement tool and as such, GBREB members would have been liable for any discriminatory practices that were uncovered during testing.
The Fair Housing Center study, “We Don’t Want Your Kind Living Here,” was done solely for educational purposes and will not be used to penalize or fine agents who discriminated against renters.
The center, a nonprofit group organized in 1998 to promote equal housing opportunities in Greater Boston, conducted the study with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Boston Foundation. It is the first study of its type done in Boston in more than a decade.
The audit details attempts by home seekers to rent apartments in four Boston neighborhoods and 12 Greater Boston communities from October 2000 through March 2001.
The study showed that real estate agents and landlords provided preferential treatment to white, childless couples and more affluent people. Agents often provided different information and applied stricter standards to black renters, couples with children and Section 8 voucher holders.
The center sent 50 matched-pair testers to small and large agencies and apartment complexes. The group matched blacks with whites, families with children with childless couples and rental subsidy holders with non-subsidy renters.
The center also had 48 matched pairs make telephone calls to agents and landlords.
Some agents quoted higher rents or deposits or lied about housing availability. Others asked black renters for credit and other background checks before showing them apartments and didn’t ask less qualified white renters for similar information.
Many renters with children were often turned away because apartments were not deleaded. Under Massachusetts law, owners must delead when children under 6 years old live in the property.
One person with two children was told by an agent she had “absolutely nothing [available].” The agent later said she had some two-bedroom apartments “but no kids [were allowed].”
Of the 31 in-person tests conducted for race discrimination, 17, or 55 percent of the cases, involved some form of discrimination. For source-of-income tests, renters with rental subsidies were treated differently in six out of 10 tests. And people with children were discriminated against in six out of nine cases, according to the study.
Results of the phone tests weren’t any better. In each of four phone tests, the white tester received preferential treatment. And all of the five phone tests involving rental subsidy holders revealed discrimination.
Renters with children didn’t fare any better with the phone test. In 11 out of 16 tests, renters with children were treated more harshly than childless people.
