Doug Chasick – also known as “That Fair Housing Guy” – has nearly 50 years of experience at all levels of investment real estate acquisition, management and leasing. He was also a recent Roundtable guest, where he shared some wisdom about the ins and outs of fair housing and the impact that recent laws may have in some states and nationwide.
It’s worth noting that using diversity in your community’s marketing images is a step in the right direction when it comes to adhering to fair housing regulations.Here are a few key takeaways from Doug’s Roundtable presentation:
DISPARATE IMPACT IS REAL (AND A PROBLEM)
Disparate impact refers to policies that are neutral on their face but result in discrimination against a protected group when enforced. Doug cited a recent HUD settlement with SafeRent Solutions, which was based on race discrimination through disparate impact rather than intentional discriminatory treatment.
DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION IS ALSO REAL
Digital discrimination arises when luxury communities are provided with high-speed internet while affordable communities are left with slower options like DSL. Given the demographics, this disparity can lead to allegations of discrimination against protected categories in the affordable properties. This issue is particularly challenging because new constructions are easier to equip with advanced digital features, whereas retrofitting older affordable properties is costly and complicated.
PET BANS COULD BECOME A THING OF THE PAST
If passed, a pending California bill would require multifamily properties to allow common household pets. This means that communities currently operating as no-pet communities would need to permit pets such as dogs, cats, reptiles, small gerbils, hamsters, and even snakes. This serves as a heads-up for those managing properties in California.
NON-COMPLIANCE HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES
Doug ended his presentation by highlighting a significant case involving three real estate companies in Washington, D.C., which collectively faced fines totaling ten million dollars. The fines were imposed because the companies refused to accept tenants who had Housing Choice vouchers, a violation of fair housing laws. As a result, the president of one company had to surrender her broker’s license, and all principals involved were barred from working in the real estate industry. This case underscored the serious consequences of non-compliance with fair housing regulations.
