For the last couple of weeks the "Week Ahead" posts have been talking of potential updates from various local organizations working on the housing recommendations from the Racial Justice Task Force. There's still plenty of updates I'm waiting on this week, but I have some updates from the Reentry Council (more in this post on their last meeting
here) involving the Housing Authority (HACC)'s attempts to institute a pilot program for reentry housing. I also have updates on CU Indivisible's latest meeting with Mayor Deb Feinen on those recent updates and
previous tension with the County Board vote urging their action on the ordinance.
First, here is the CU Indivisible's position statement on the City of Champaign housing ordinance exemption:
Full Statement in PDF format
And a few quick excerpts (though the
full statement has the history, legal nitty gritty, supporting data and materials, links etc and is worth the read):
I. Our Position
CU Indivisible believe it's high time that the Champaign City Council strike Section 17/4.5 of its Human Rights Ordinance. This exemption puts renters with a conviction record at risk for discrimination from landlords at a time when they are in most need of sensible housing options up to 5 years after they’ve completed their sentence. We join many other groups in the conviction that this exemption restricts housing options for people of color, constraints opportunities for community and economic development, compromises the moral standing of our community, and may constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
II. Background
In 1970s, the Cities of Urbana and City of Champaign updated their municipal code chapters on Human Rights to prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment, credit, housing and access to public accommodations on the basis of a person’s “prior arrest or conviction record.” Read the full ordinance here.
III. The Problem
In 1994, the City of Champaign added an exception to this ordinance that protects housing providers that choose to discriminate against housing applicants that have lived outside of jail or prison for at least five years. This exemption, Section 17/4.5 of its Human Rights Ordinance (HRO, henceforth), worsens Champaign’s existing housing problems by putting renters with a conviction record at risk for discrimination from housing providers.
IV: Reasons for Urgency
Given the wide support this action has received and its absence in Urbana’s City code, it is our position that the City of Champaign ought to strike the provision without a study. We believe the problem is one of political will, not a lack of evidence or voices of support. We believe the study session called for recently was aimed to provide a middle ground for council members and the information gained from those sessions as a means of justifying their decision. Two extenuating factors make striking the exemption even more necessary.
First, with expected cuts to federal spending on the horizon, advocates such as the Campaign for Housing and Community Development Funding (CHCDF) and the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) worry that existing housing problems will develop into crises for localities like Champaign.
Second, the exemption stands as mark against our county that detracts from our ability to attract attention from programs and initiatives that would provide opportunities to improve life for all in our county. Earning the support of organizations such as the Vera Institute would ease Champaign’s housing issues. Both the incoming and outgoing Executive Directors of the Housing Authority of Champaign County recently spoke of their intention to apply to take part in a trial program that would open up more housing for the reentry population. The Vera Institute would supply funding for this program, and housing programs outside of the HACC would benefit. Recently recognized as an Innovator County for its work in criminal justice reform, the Directors believe that Champaign County could be a competitive candidate for this funding. However, they believe the exemption would greatly damage our chances.
The Mayor has promised to review the materials provided and invited CU Indivisible back for a follow up to see where any changes, if any, could be worked on. There is a balance of issues at hand that have to be weighed, from safety concerns that cannot be ignored to the rights of those involved. How the language is changed if not outright struck has consequences on how effective the change could be in improving the odds of reentry success stories. The goal is to have a safer and more equitable community by legal and better landlord screening, all while helping ensure less recidivism for the individuals and the community at large.
One issue mentioned above that came up is the confusion about the County Board vote to urge the City of Champaign and Housing Authority to make the changes recommended by the Racial Justice Task Force. That County Board action itself was recommended by the Racial Justice Task Force (page 55 of the
final public report). It specifically cited the City's own Human Relations Commission's support and apparently many County Board members assumed that the Champaign City Council would see it as supportive of their efforts to make the change (efforts that had not yet begun, as it turns out). The unanimous vote instead was interpreted by some council members, most notably Clarissa Fourman, as a critical or even possibly patronizing move.
The County Board members may have erred in not reaching out and contacting the Council members about details of the action ahead of time, perhaps assuming the Council was not only aware, but already working from the same recommendations. At least some board members seemed genuinely surprised by the Council reaction and their own surprise.
Hopefully that communication hiccup won't derail a recommendation that has wide and growing support from people across the community — from activists to law enforcement to various government bodies familiar with the issue. It'd be a shame for politics to derail what appears to be a nonpartisan pragmatic reform.
There are a lot of delicate issues and community interests to protect along the way. I hope to add voices and concerns here so people reading here can be informed and make up their own mind and support what they believe is the right thing.
