Biden Administration’s DEI Initiatives Blocked by New HUD Measures

Biden Administration’s DEI Initiatives Blocked by New HUD Measures

The pivot away from diversity, equity, and inclusion programs has gained traction, focusing primarily on their implications for hiring practices and college admissions. However, a less-publicized initiative from the Biden administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development aimed to implement mandatory DEI strategies within municipalities nationwide. This initiative proposed essential “equity plans” that emphasized changes in local planning and zoning laws for nearly every jurisdiction receiving HUD funding.

Recently, HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced significant revisions to this mandate under the guise of reducing bureaucratic complexity imposed on local governments. The updated requirement replaces the previous expansive criteria of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule with a straightforward mandate: localities must now affirm their compliance with existing fair housing laws through a simple certification process. This crucial change resonates across numerous local governments nationwide.

Initially established during the Obama administration, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program faced a temporary halt during the Trump administration before being reinstated under Biden. Communities received HUD funds under the stipulation that they submit a comprehensive “equity plan,” which required responses to a daunting 92 questions to secure ongoing financial support.

Yet, beneath its seemingly benign title, the AFFH sought to enforce regulations that extended beyond the fundamental need to protect minority renters and homebuyers from discrimination. The requirements garnered criticism for their potential to allow federal oversight over local zoning, an approach that many considered an overreach.

As described by the Biden administration’s HUD, the AFFH mandate compelled agencies and their participants to take meaningful actions to dismantle segregation, promote housing choices, and eliminate disparities in opportunities within communities.

In essence, communities vying for federal assistance were tasked with the responsibility not just to integrate affordable housing but to ensure that residents of such housing had access to quality educational institutions, recreational facilities, and essential grocery stores—essentially all community resources.

This initiative aimed to relocate affordable housing units into so-called high-opportunity neighborhoods to facilitate poverty alleviation, a concept premised on the belief that granting access to these areas would inherently improve the prospects for the residents. However, the logistical complexities and potential repercussions of large-scale relocations raise valid concerns.

The AFFH rule’s breadth was matched only by the ambition of its objectives. HUD dispenses community development block grant funds, designed to assist low-income communities in various improvement efforts, to over 1,200 entitlement communities. These encompass all major metropolitan areas, cities with populations over 50,000, and urban counties housing over 200,000 residents.

For their equity plans to receive HUD approval, municipalities had to align with the broader objectives articulated in the Biden administration’s equity action plan. This plan included expansive goals spanning environmental justice, climate resilience, and specific considerations for LGBTQIA+ youth grappling with homelessness and housing instability.

Communities were required to demonstrate proactive measures against housing discrimination, often producing plans that were hundreds of pages long. These plans demanded clarity not only regarding the provisions against individual discrimination but also in identifying systemic “barriers to fair housing,” which could range from school district boundaries to local zoning regulations.

Correspondence from HUD, including denial letters to various local governments, starkly illustrated the challenges communities encountered in meeting the AFFH standards. For instance, a Georgia county aiming to augment affordable housing to uplift low-income residents found its efforts dismissed by HUD. The agency critiqued the county for failing to adequately address issues related to segregation and access to proficient schooling.

The suggestion to increase affordable housing in diverse communities isn’t inherently flawed. Many municipalities, where zoning laws favor expansive residential plots, risk excluding their own workforce and youth. Incremental zoning adjustments, referred to by experts as “light-touch density,” can effectively ameliorate such issues. Nonetheless, this proposal differs substantially from subsidized housing initiatives that may be economically burdensome to construct, such as a tax-credit-funded unit in California averaging an estimated construction cost of $708,000.

Furthermore, the underlying assumptions driving the AFFH have been challenged for their validity. Characterizing high-opportunity neighborhoods as elite sectors devoid of diversity incorrectly ignores the intertwining of community commitment and civic engagement that shape these environments. The intersection of marriage, employment, and savings, while facilitating thriving communities, reflects deeper social choices rather than simplistic policy shifts.

Relocating economically disadvantaged families to more affluent areas presents complexity, suggesting that such changes alone cannot ensure long-lasting improvements. The HUD initiative towards overarching demographic and zoning alterations across communities might not yield the anticipated positive outcomes.

Defining a community’s identity goes far beyond housing policies. Factors such as economic stability, strong social networks, and community engagement are crucial in fostering successful neighborhoods. Therefore, comprehensive solutions that incorporate these elements are essential for addressing the housing crisis and ensuring equitable opportunities for all residents.