Housing Laws: Can Cities Enact Fair Policies?

While federal fair housing law sets a baseline of rules, cities, towns, and villages can enact their own fair housing laws to expand on federal law. This includes adding protected classes, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, and source of income. Some cities have already enacted anti-discrimination ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on additional protected classes. For example, in New York City, a bank or landlord cannot inquire about a person's criminal record, and discrimination based on immigration status or lawful occupation is prohibited.

Cities can add protected classes to expand protections beyond the seven protected classes included in federal law

While federal fair housing law sets a baseline, cities can enact their own fair housing laws to expand protections beyond the seven protected classes included in federal law. Cities, towns, and villages can add protected classes, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, and source of income. For example, some boroughs, townships, and cities in Pennsylvania have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on marital status, veteran status, or source of income. New York City also prohibits discrimination on the basis of immigration status or lawful occupation.

These expanded protections are important because, historically, zoning laws, racially restrictive covenants, residential segregation, and other exclusionary practices divided cities across the United States. The push for fair housing arose in the 1960s as activist groups protested for equal access to economic resources, jobs, housing, education, and public services in Northern cities.

Cities that have fair housing laws deemed "substantially equivalent" to federal housing law by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are eligible for certification, allowing them to receive funding for enforcement efforts under the Federal Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). This certification process ensures that cities can effectively enforce their fair housing laws and promote equal access to housing for all.

Boroughs, Townships, and Cities throughout Pennsylvania have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on additional protected classes

While federal fair housing law provides a baseline set of rules, many states and local governments have also passed their own fair housing legislation that expands on federal law. Cities, towns, and villages can add protected classes to expand protections beyond the seven protected classes included in federal law. For example, in New York, a bank or landlord cannot inquire about a person's criminal record, and New York City also prohibits discrimination on the basis of immigration status or lawful occupation.

In addition to these state-level protections, many local governments throughout Pennsylvania have their own specific prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation. For example, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) helps enforce state anti-discrimination laws and upholds the PHRA, which prohibits employment discrimination based on personal identities such as sex.

New York City prohibits discrimination on the basis of immigration status or lawful occupation

While federal fair housing law establishes a baseline set of rules, many states and local governments have also passed their own fair housing legislation that expands on federal law. Cities, towns, and villages can add protected classes to expand protections beyond the seven protected classes included in federal law. For example, some boroughs, townships, and cities throughout Pennsylvania have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on additional protected classes such as marital status, veteran status, or source of income.

New York City is one such example of a city that prohibits discrimination on the basis of immigration status or lawful occupation. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) prohibits New York City employers from discriminating based on a person’s perceived or actual “alienage and citizenship status”. The NYCHRL is more generous to individuals than the new state law, as it penalizes employers for discriminating against an individual based on both their actual and perceived immigration or citizenship status. The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) prohibits employment discrimination against employees and job applicants based on citizenship and immigration status. This amendment, which became effective immediately upon Governor Hochul’s signature, prohibits employers from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against any individual because of their citizenship or immigration status. The law defines “citizenship or immigration status” as “citizenship of any person or the immigration status of any person who is not a citizen of the United States”.

In addition, in New York, a bank or landlord can’t inquire about a person’s criminal record.

The need for expanded protections at the local level

While federal fair housing law provides a baseline set of rules, there is a need for expanded protections at the local level. Cities, towns, and villages can add protected classes to expand protections beyond the seven protected classes included in federal law. These additional protected classes may include sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, marital status, veteran status, and immigration status.

The push for fair housing gained momentum in the 1960s as activist groups protested for equal access to economic resources, jobs, housing, education, and public services in Northern cities. Today, many states and local governments have passed their own fair housing legislation that expands on federal law. For example, in New York, a bank or landlord cannot inquire about a person's criminal record, and discrimination based on immigration status or lawful occupation is prohibited.

The expansion of protections at the local level is crucial to address the specific needs and challenges of each community. By adding protected classes, cities can ensure that their residents are protected from discrimination and have equal access to housing opportunities. This not only promotes fairness and equity but also contributes to the social and economic well-being of the community.

Zoning laws, racially restrictive covenants, residential segregation, and other exclusionary practices divided cities across the United States

Although federal fair housing law established a baseline set of rules, many states and local governments have also passed their own fair housing legislation that often expands on federal law. Cities, towns, and villages can add protected classes to expand protections beyond the seven protected classes included in federal law. For example, in New York, a bank or landlord can't inquire about a person's criminal record, and New York City also prohibits discrimination on the basis of immigration status or lawful occupation. Some boroughs, townships, and cities throughout Pennsylvania have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on additional protected classes such as marital status, veteran status, or source of income.

In the early 20th century, zoning laws, racially restrictive covenants, residential segregation, and other exclusionary practices divided cities across the United States. Racially restrictive covenants became a tool to restrict access and enforce segregation in cities and towns in Washington and across the United States in the early and middle 20th century. White supremacists had used other weapons in the late 19th century, including banning certain racial populations altogether. Early in its history, Seattle had an ordinance making it illegal for Indigenous Americans to reside within city limits. In the vicious mob campaigns of the late 1880s, Chinese people were driven out of towns and cities, including Seattle and Tacoma, and twenty years later the same brutal tactics were used in Bellingham to exclude South Asians.

After the United States Supreme Court banned the use of explicit race-based zoning in Buchanan v. Warley (1917), city planners remained capable of segregating via indirect methods. For example, St. Louis’s 1919 zoning laws were designed to preserve homes in areas that were unaffordable to most Black families, and the city’s zoning commission would change an area’s zoning designation from residential to industrial if too many Black families moved in. Similarly, research on Seattle’s 1923 zoning laws shows that areas in which Black or Chinese-American families lived were disproportionately likely to receive commercial zoning.

In the post-war era, the relocation of white Americans from the city to the suburbs—from which many BIPOC residents were barred—only widened the housing opportunity gap between white and BIPOC individuals and families. Amidst early civil rights victories, the push for fair housing arose in the 1960s as activist groups continued protesting for equal access to economic resources, jobs, housing, education, and public services in Northern cities.

Frequently asked questions