[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6621462,"mediaKeyId","2801833-0b179d83f8aa42befa0de104a8f256e6","parentId",2801833,"title","Regional fair‑housing plan proposes seven goals to expand affordable choice; Bowie to review before HUD submission","audioSeconds",918,"startMs",360000,"endMs",1278000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2801833-0b179d83f8aa42befa0de104a8f256e6&start=360&end=1278","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2801833-0b179d83f8aa42befa0de104a8f256e6/thumbnail_360000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6621462/Bowie/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Regional-fairhousing-plan-proposes-seven-goals-to-expand-affordable-choice-Bowie-to-review-before-HUD-submission","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621462-99d8d4b7a9c16ba3169b377f28d14646/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174770&Signature=fnOv30YLB6EzUdBiA95gqptS1WlxdLXIAa5MnShdeATxKMiiici1hERm4YNYy9MRDxauIuec7ao-2IxfQ4BBEOkUorB3EmNFoWYBsxPfXC1SqgVwuuFwfdzhpJJgYRxnXk9v96k41BvTqtZPx-oMA8RU82G4aH-MeLzjdWc-WMyZMpP~Du1ywEXgSluDPDb5gII3mMsAtM55gWwAhnPQtKQvXbrCbZZiSBp64kyHmfQ5c5nys57dfeVrXssW71QdZOjZ-xa4n3JJItSFoL8tH064XO6WZjOs0rk7CTi6WpiY2i7rHPGvejq9g1usOInwvVnsagw~2QPrujEBnO2wwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Bowie, MD","date","2025-03-27T19:58:59.617Z","article","Hilary Chapman, housing program manager at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), told City of Bowie officials and attendees that a multi‑jurisdictional draft regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair housing Choice lays out seven data‑driven goals local governments will implement to address segregation and barriers to opportunity.

The plan — compiled by a regional team with Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as lead consultant, Urban Institute on data, and Ochoa Urban Collaborative on community engagement, with technical assistance from HUD's Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity office and Enterprise Community Partners — reflects more than 2,800 survey responses and will move through local approval processes before the regional submission to HUD. \"We're hoping to wrap up the review process and submit to HUD early this fall,\" Chapman said during the City's Fair Housing Symposium.

MWCOG staff said the plan responds to findings that segregation in the region has increased overall since 1990 and that disparities in access to schools, jobs and low‑poverty neighborhoods correlate with race and ethnicity. The public‑engagement results cited by presenters showed that 13% of survey respondents reported experiencing discrimination; respondents identified landlords or property owners as the primary actors in 41% of those reports. The engagement also highlighted lack of affordability and perceived government failure on compliance and enforcement as leading barriers to fair housing choice.

The draft sets seven regional goals to be adopted locally by the eight participating governments. Key elements described by Chapman include:

- Increasing production and preservation of housing affordable to households at or below 60% of area median income (AMI), including proposals to use local financing tools, low‑interest loans and incentives for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) with affordability restrictions.

- Reforming zoning and land‑use rules to expand choice, including increased incentives for inclusionary zoning, an affordable housing overlay, and incorporating fair‑housing equity analyses in major rezoning or development reviews.

- Prioritizing preservation to avoid displacement, including tracking properties with expiring subsidy contracts and prioritizing resources toward preservation projects.

- Expanding homeownership opportunities for members of protected classes through set‑asides, homebuyer education, alternative homeownership models (cooperatives, community land trusts), and measures to address appraisal bias and lending disparities.

- Strengthening outreach, education and enforcement of fair‑housing rights, including pilot programs such as right‑to‑counsel in landlord‑tenant proceedings and expanded testing and monitoring of lenders and real‑estate actors.

- Reducing barriers for persons with disabilities, including recommendations to prioritize funding for permanent supportive housing, seek project‑based voucher negotiations, and encourage publicly funded multifamily developments to include unit accessibility targets (the draft recommends benchmarks such as at least 10% of units accessible to persons with mobility disabilities and at least 4% accessible to people with hearing or visual disabilities).

- Improving access to neighborhoods of opportunity through better cross‑jurisdictional transit connections and targeted transit subsidies to lower‑income households.

Chapman emphasized the regional scale of the effort: \"No one jurisdiction can end discrimination or reverse decades‑old patterns of residential segregation on its own,\" she said, describing the plan as coordinated regional action intended to improve local outcomes.

The draft is structured to include region‑wide goals and jurisdiction‑specific strategies; MWCOG staff said some participating localities will add additional, locally tailored goals. The project team expects to synthesize public comments, complete edits, and route the plan through the relevant legislative or administrative approval processes in each jurisdiction before final submission to HUD.

The symposium organizers also noted local Bowie programs that run alongside regional planning. City of Bowie staff said the city maintains a first‑time homebuyer down‑payment assistance program and a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)‑funded homeowner energy‑upgrade grant that provides up to $10,000 to qualifying Bowie homeowners; eligibility limits are based on household size and income and details are posted on the city's website.

Next steps listed by MWCOG and City of Bowie staff include completing the public‑comment edits, local approvals in each participating jurisdiction, and the planned regional submission to HUD. MWCOG provided online links to the draft plan and supporting documents for review and invited follow‑up questions from local governments and residents.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fair Housing Training - Spring 2023","oneSentenceSummary","Hilary Chapman, housing program manager at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), told City of Bowie officials and attendees that a multi‑jurisdictional draft regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice lays out seven data‑driven goals local governments will implement to address segregation and barriers to opportunity.","taxTitle","Bowie, Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",4106,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6621457,"Relman Colfax attorneys outline Fair Housing Act protections, highlight appraisal bias and algorithmic risks",3254,1439000,4693000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2801833-0b179d83f8aa42befa0de104a8f256e6&start=1439&end=4693","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2801833-0b179d83f8aa42befa0de104a8f256e6/thumbnail_1439000.jpg","/articles/6621457/Bowie/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Relman-Colfax-attorneys-outline-Fair-Housing-Act-protections-highlight-appraisal-bias-and-algorithmic-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6621457-170cbf574610d9825322cd600ca28d15/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174770&Signature=Pv7uBktdDjS8FWXEgF8FyUC6O1iUS99LNfdlukncsT2S573PS9QPfEjQHeEy6LdPE-wu2R2X0O2oMp7pvj5XEjELFu9fIYBMU2di64mdBlesS0CRbf14tJ5cuBOR4x2z-QgJ1GENFFMKXbsqpqmdhRnX8sgohJUSCQDFjXHuHjzDQjcsp9Jkr6ECxJV3vsxYKP2eNTaDYBzqWT8OZ0I0~DuyXMdCfDBV8GB76c-x2vocKx7OnAf7u~moYXsY2DL~RRLC~7oLPPmOQ7KXKq6jn80anw7HY5VDE1UgOXkh3j~mHx-jrjD68hHbfyXZxEc0xqpQU~67f78J-Bfol6roXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Autumn Clark and Imani Cherry, attorneys with Relman Colfax, delivered an overview of the Fair Housing Act, its history and enforcement tools, and recent trends that local housing practitioners should monitor, including appraisal bias and the use of algorithms in housing markets.

Clark placed the Act in historical context, noting the law grew out of mid‑20th century housing discrimination and civil‑rights struggles. \"Congress clearly intended the Fair Housing Act to remedy segregated housing patterns and the problems associated with it,\" Clark said, tracing causes such as redlining, racially restrictive covenants and highway construction that contributed to residential segregation.

The presentation summarized key statutory provisions frequently relied on in enforcement. Clark and Cherry described Section 3604 (prohibiting discrimination in sale, rental and terms), Section 3605 (financing), Section 3606 (brokerage and multiple‑listing services), and Section 3617 (prohibiting coercion, intimidation or interference with fair‑housing rights). The attorneys explained the two principal legal theories used in modern enforcement: disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) and disparate impact (policies that are neutral on their face but have an unjustified disproportionate effect on protected groups). Cherry summarized the effects test affirmed in Inclusive Communities Project v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (2015): \"All you need to show is that there's a disproportionate impact on a protected class,\" she said, describing the three‑part framework that defendants can rebut with legitimate business reasons and plaintiffs can counter with less‑discriminatory alternatives.

They reviewed common practices that generate claims: steering by real‑estate agents, discriminatory advertising, higher security deposits for families with children or people with service animals, and discriminatory tenant‑screening policies that rely on criminal records. Clark and Cherry emphasized that disability‑related claims are the most frequent in recent practice and illustrated reasonable accommodation and modification examples, including interpreter and website accessibility needs. On costs for accommodations, presenters said housing providers — particularly HUD‑funded providers — generally bear the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications, though details can vary by program and funding source.

The presenters highlighted recent enforcement and litigation trends: appraisal discrimination (cases and reports documenting lower valuations in communities of color), algorithmic and machine‑learning risks in lending, tenant screening and advertising, and renewed federal enforcement against redlining. Cherry noted recent actions such as an interagency task force on property appraisal and valuation equity (PAVE) and the Department of Justice's redlining initiative that produced multi‑million dollar settlements in some cases. Clark described a recent civil case her firm litigated, Gilead Community Services v. Town of Cromwell (Connecticut), in which a jury returned a verdict of $5,200,000 after finding the town had unlawfully interfered with a group home for people with mental disabilities.

Clark and Cherry also described consumer‑credit developments that could expand access to homeownership, such as special‑purpose credit programs permitted under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Those programs are being used by some large lenders to target historically underserved communities and, according to presenters, have the potential to increase credit access if structured in compliance with fair‑lending rules.

Audiences asked questions about limited‑English proficiency (LEP) obligations and whether LEP rules apply only to federally funded programs; presenters said LEP enforcement is most clearly established in contexts involving federal funding but the legal contours continue to evolve and may be actionable in other contexts. Attendees also asked about protections for people with criminal records; presenters said this is a complex, evolving area where screening policies can intersect with race and disparate‑impact claims.

The attorneys closed with practical reminders for housing providers and local officials: review advertising and outreach practices to avoid steering or redlining risks, carefully document legitimate business justifications for neutral policies that could have disparate impacts, prioritize language access and reasonable accommodations for applicants with disabilities or LEP, and monitor appraisal, lending and algorithmic tools for potential bias. Relman Colfax provided contact information for follow‑up questions and urged attendees to consult the city's posted resources and the recording for further details.","Autumn Clark and Imani Cherry, attorneys with Relman Colfax, delivered an overview of the Fair Housing Act, its history and enforcement tools, and recent trends that local housing practitioners should monitor, including appraisal bias and the use of algorithms in housing markets.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Regional fair‑housing plan proposes seven goals to expand affordable choice; Bowie to review before HUD submission

Relman Colfax attorneys outline Fair Housing Act protections, highlight appraisal bias and algorithmic risks