analysis of impediments to fair housing...

Analysis of Impediments

To Fair Housing Choice

Nashville-Davidson

Metropolitan Development

and Housing Agency

FINAL September, 2010

MDHA Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 10

Community Profile........................................................................................................................ 14

Housing ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Economy ................................................................................................................................... 27

Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 28

Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ........................................................................................... 30

Public Sector ............................................................................................................................. 30

Private Sector ............................................................................................................................ 36

Public and Private Sector .......................................................................................................... 45

Summary of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ...................................................................... 48

Proposed Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ............................................................ 49

Recordkeeping .............................................................................................................................. 54

Appendix A: Meeting Notes from Public Forum on Housing Discrimination............................. 56


Page 1

Executive Summary In Fiscal Year 2008, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported a

record number of housing discrimination complaints for the nation as a whole. The 10,552

complaints, a four percent increase over the previous year, can be viewed positively and

negatively. An increase in the number of complaints indicates that more people are aware of their

right to fair housing choice and are willing to take action to protect that right. Conversely, the

record number of complaints serves as a reminder that housing discrimination remains prevalent

in today’s society. As a recipient of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the

Nashville-Davidson Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) certifies in its

application for federal funds that it will affirmatively further fair housing by conducting an

analysis of impediments to fair housing choice, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects

of any impediments identified, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this

regard.

MDHA is committed to ensuring fair housing choice for all residents within Davidson County.

In the fall of 2009, MDHA conducted an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, or AI

for short, in order to identify barriers to fair housing choice and develop strategies to overcome

those barriers. The AI is a formal evaluation of housing discrimination and barriers to fair

housing choice. This analysis serves as the basis for fair housing planning within Davidson

County and provides essential information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing

providers, lenders, and advocates help affirmatively further fair housing choice. The AI is

organized into the following sections:

Introduction

The Introduction discusses fair housing in general and the types of impediments to fair housing

choice.

Community Profile

The Community Profile provides demographic information to put fair housing within a local

context and analyzes the degree of segregation and restricted housing by race, ethnicity,

disability status, and familial status.


Page 2

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

The analysis is divided into three sections: the public sector, private sector, and the public-

private sector. Public sector analysis reviews the local policies and procedures that regulate,

monitor, or otherwise impact rental, sales, and property insurance practices. These policies can

play a significant role in limiting or promoting fair housing choice. The private sector analysis

examines impediments within the private marketplace, including the actions of landlords,

property managers, real estate agents, lenders, and other parties involved in the provision of

housing. The public-private sector analysis focuses on areas of fair housing that are provided

through a partnership of both the public and private sector, including enforcement, education and

outreach. The analysis revealed the following impediments to fair housing choice within the

county:

Impediment #1: Lack of Public Awareness: There is evidence that a substantial

number of persons who suffer from discrimination do not report it. A HUD study found

that of the people who suspect housing discrimination, only 1% reported the case to a

government agency.1 Among the reasons for a lack of reporting include the inability to

identify the discrimination and the belief that nothing will result from the report. In some

cases, limited English proficiency plays a role as well. The largest impediment to fair

housing choice is a lack of consumer education regarding fair housing rights. There is a

need for a multi-faceted approach that can effectively reach all effected parties, including

housing consumers, housing professionals and landlords, government officials, and

public advocacy groups.

Impediment #2: Need for Greater Coordination: Greater coordination is needed

among housing providers, housing professionals, government agencies, and advocacy

groups. Coordination can be increased in both quality and quantity. The agencies already

involved in fair housing efforts can collaborate more to maximize effectiveness. In

addition, there is a need to include a greater number of organizations in the process in a

more consistent manner. These agencies include other departments of Metro government,

outside agencies, and federally-funded subrecipients.


Page 3

Impediment #3: Disparate Treatment in the Rental Market: The statistics reported by

local fair housing agencies and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

indicate discrimination based on race, disability and familial status, especially in the

rental market. Disparate treatment in the provision of rental housing is a clear

impediment to fair housing choice.

Impediment #4: Disparate Treatment in Subprime Lending: Analysis of lending data

required by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) revealed that minority

households were more likely to receive a high-cost loan than White households.

Disparate treatment in mortgage lending is a clear impediment to fair housing choice.

Impediment #5: Lack of Awareness Among Metro Boards and Staff: The Tennessee

Fair Housing Council reports that some Metro boards such as Fire and Building Codes

have failed to grant reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities and Metro

Codes has approved occupancy for multi-family buildings that do not comply with the

Fair Housing Act.

Proposed Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

The report concludes with a list of suggested actions that MDHA can undertake to eliminate the

effects of the identified impediments and to affirmatively further fair housing choice within its

jurisdiction.

Public Awareness

MDHA will utilize multiple avenues to outreach to the public to communicate their right to fair

housing choice and how to identify and report potential discrimination. Efforts will include:

1.1 Material Distribution: MDHA will distribute fair housing marketing materials aimed at

educating County residents of their right to fair housing, how to identify discrimination,

and how to report it. The goal of the material is to reach people who experience

discrimination but do not report it. MDHA will research strategies for increasing

awareness in “low minority” areas and collaboration opportunities with other agencies,

institutions of higher education, churches, and schools.


Page 4

1.2 Fair Housing Website and Hotline: MDHA will maintain a dedicated fair housing page

on its website. The webpage will act as an information clearinghouse for residents,

housing professionals working in Davidson County, and all Metro employees. The

website will also include periodic updates related to fair housing. For those without

internet access, MDHA will continue to sponsor the Fair Housing Hotline, a recorded

message system that provides information on how to file a complaint and referral

information to local fair housing agencies.

1.3 Media Advertising and Press Releases: MDHA will use display ads in minority papers

to advertise local fair housing resources, including its web page. MDHA will issue

periodic press releases to highlight current issues, publication of reports, the Fair Housing

Conference and other newsworthy events.

1.4 Coordination with Non-Profits and Other Government Agencies: MDHA will work

closely with fair housing agencies, non-profit housing professionals, and other local

government agencies to ensure fair housing efforts are coordinated amongst agencies.

MDHA will serve as an information resource to other Metro departments for fair

housing-related issues.

1.5 Fair Housing Conference: MDHA will continue to sponsor an annual fair housing

conference to highlight local fair housing issues, solutions, and to raise awareness. The

conference will serve as an educational forum for the general public and local housing

professionals. The conference will be held in April to coincide with the national

celebration of Fair Housing Month.

Metro Nashville and Davidson County Compliance and Procedure

2.1 FHA Compliance Officer: The Metro Planning Department will continue to support an

FHA compliance officer to respond to complaints regarding land use discrimination. This

action is required as part of the consent decree between the Department of Justice and the

Metro government.

2.2 Staff Training: New Metro staff and elected officials involved with land use and zoning

decisions will receive training on fair housing and the Fair Housing Act. This includes

Metropolitan Council, Director of Council Staff, Special Counsel advising on zoning and


Page 5

land use, Metro Planning Commission (MPC), Advisors to the MPC, Zoning

Administrator, and the Board of Zoning Appeals.


Page 6

MDHA Compliance and Procedure

2.3 Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Capacity Building: MDHA will

continually monitor all of its subrecipient organizations and contractors for compliance

with federal rules and regulations. Before participating in MDHA’s programs, the

subrecipient must agree to:

comply all federal, state and local laws relating to fair housing and equal opportunity,

operate their facilities and services and conduct their outreach on a nondiscriminatory

basis, and

adopt policies to ensure effective communication with applicants, beneficiaries, and

members of the public who have hearing, vision, or speech impairments regarding the

availability of accessible services, activities and facilities.

Where necessary, MDHA will sponsor capacity building sessions to ensure all

subrecipients are well-trained to administer their programs in a manner that affirmatively

furthers fair housing.

2.4 Neighborhood Improvement: MDHA’s Neighborhood Improvement Program will fund

infrastructure and community development projects in low-income areas. The goal of the

program is to provide opportunities for collaboration and expand existing resources for

investments that are critical to neighborhood infrastructure and that support neighborhood

enhancement. MDHA will give additional consideration to areas with high minority

concentration. Over the course of the five-year plan, it is expected that this program will

receive approximately 30% of CDBG allocations.

2.5 Site and Neighborhood Standards: New rental housing assisted with HOME funds

must meet site and neighborhood standards per the HOME regulations. One purpose of

these standards is to ensure that rental housing is not concentrated in minority

neighborhoods. MDHA will review each proposal to determine its potential effect on the

racial makeup of the neighborhood and all viable alternatives. The goal of this standard is

to produce a reasonable distribution and balance of housing choices within and outside

areas of minority concentration.


Page 7

2.6 Affirmative Marketing Plans: MDHA will require each HOME-funded project

containing 5 or more HOME-assisted housing units to develop an Affirmative Marketing

Plan. Affirmative marketing differs from general marketing activities as it specifically

targets potential tenants and homebuyers who are least likely to apply for the housing, in

order to make them aware of available affordable housing opportunities.

Each project will summarize what segment of the populations it is targeting and specific

actions it will take to market to those populations. Specific actions include use of

commercial media, neighborhood outreach, and marketing through local organizations

such as community organizations, places of worship, employment centers, fair housing

groups, and housing counseling agencies. In addition, each covered project will:

Distribute information to potential owners and tenants about Federal fair housing

laws and MDHA’s affirmative marketing policy.

Use the Equal Housing Opportunity logo on all advertising for the property and on all

tenant applications.

Visibly display a fair housing poster in the office where tenants pick up applications.

Maintain records that describe actions taken by the property to affirmatively market

units and records to assess the results of these actions.

MDHA will review its affirmative marketing performance and that of HOME-assisted

properties as part of the monitoring process and on an annual basis as part of the CAPER

report. The review will include an analysis of deficiencies and will recommend corrective

actions where necessary.

2.7 Visitability: Visitability is a design concept that enables persons with disabilities to

visit relatives, friends, and neighbors in their homes within a community. Visitability also

expands the availability of housing options for individuals who may not require full

accessibility. Applicants to MDHA’s Affordable Housing Program and Rental

Rehabilitation Program will receive additional consideration for incorporating visitability

elements into their properties. A visitable unit is defined as a unit where at least one

entrance at grade (with no step), is approached by an accessible route, such as a sidewalk,


Page 8

and the entrance door and all interior doors on the first floor are at least 34 inches wide,

offering 32 inches of clear passage space.

2.8 Accessibility and Section 504 Compliance: MDHA will ensure compliance with

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for all of its CDBG and HOME-funded

projects. This includes accessibility for all new non-housing facilities, feasible alterations

to existing non-housing facilities, and operation of its existing non-housing facilities.

MDHA will periodically update its self-assessment and transition plan to ensure all

facilities are in compliance.

Applicants to MDHA’s Affordable Housing Program and Rental Rehabilitation Program

will receive additional consideration for providing more than the required number of

accessible units. In addition, MDHA will encourage its partners to distribute accessible

units throughout its funded properties and make them available in a sufficient range of

sizes and amenities so as not to limit choice. All funded properties will be required to

adopt policies that reasonable accommodation/ modification and outreach regarding the

availability of accessible units.

2.9 Limited English Proficiency: MDHA will conduct a four factor analysis to ensure that

persons with Limited English Proficiency have meaningful access to programs funded by

the Consolidated Plan. MDHA will develop a Language Assistance Plan (LAP) to

provide a framework for the provision of timely and reasonable language assistance.

2.10 Homeowner Rehabilitation: MDHA’s Homeowner Rehabilitation Program will provide

deferred loans to disabled homeowners to make needed home repairs and accessibility

modifications.

2.11 Homebuyer Outreach and Education: MDHA will affirmatively market its

Downpayment Assistance Program to minority populations. In addition, the program will

incorporate fair housing and fair lending education into its required counseling

component. The goal of the program is to increase the affordability of homeownership for

households earning less than 80% of the area median income.

2.12 Referral and Enforcement: MDHA will continue to partner with the Tennessee Human

Rights Commission (THRC) and the Tennessee Fair Housing Council, and the Metro


Page 9

Human Relations Commission to respond to and investigate fair housing complaints. Fair

housing agencies will be encouraged to apply to the CDBG Community Services

Program for funding of testing and enforcement efforts. Potential projects would include

in-depth audit testing of housing practices within the rental and sales markets focused on

identifying any patterns and practices, such as neighborhood steering, or other forms of

housing choice denials that could be potential violations of fair housing laws.

2.13 Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP): MDHA will explore the possibility of

participating in the FHIP program. Through FHIP, MDHA can participate in the

Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI) to offer a comprehensive range of fair housing

activities that explain to the general public and housing providers what equal opportunity

in housing means and what housing providers need to do to comply with the Fair

Housing Act. Activities may include developing education materials, analyzing local

impediments to housing choice, providing housing counseling and classes, convening

meetings that bring together the housing industry with fair housing groups, developing

technical materials on accessibility, and mounting public information campaigns.


Page 10

Introduction The following section is meant to provide a summary of fair housing laws and requirements and

is not intended as a legal resource. Residents who have a discrimination complaint should seek

additional guidance from fair housing experts for interpretation of the Fair Housing Act.

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits

discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related

transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability.

This protection extends to most housing.i The law makes the following actions illegal if based on

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial statusii, or disability:

Refuse to rent or sell housing

Refuse to negotiate for housing

Make housing unavailable

Deny a dwelling

Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling

Provide different housing services or facilities

Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental

For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or

Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing

service) related to the sale or rental of housing.

Given its importance in the ability to acquire housing, the law extends to mortgage lending

activities as well. The Fair Housing Act prohibits the following actions based on race, color,

national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability:

i In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members. ii Familial status includes households with children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people in the process of getting custody of children under the age of 18.


Page 11

Refuse to make a mortgage loan.

Fail to provide information regarding loans.

Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points or

fees.

Discriminate in appraising property.

Refuse to purchase a loan.

Set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan.

The Act provides protection for persons exercising a fair housing right and persons assisting

others against threats, coercion, intimidation, and interference. In addition, the law prohibits

advertisements and statements that indicate a limitation or preference based on race, color,

national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. The advertising prohibition applies to

single-family and owner-occupied housing that is otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act.

Finally, the act extends additional protection to persons with disabilities. Federal law defines a

disability as any "physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of [a]

person's major life activities, a record of having such an impairment, or being regarded as having

such an impairment." Major life activities means functions such as caring for one's self,

performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.

A landlord or property manager may not refuse a request to make reasonable modifications to a

dwelling or common use area if the modification is necessary for the disabled person to use the

housing. A reasonable accommodation is at the resident’s request and when a client voluntarily

makes exceptions to their standard rules/policies to accommodate the resident’s disability. The

requested accommodation must be reasonable and should not present an undue burden on the

landlord. If the accommodation is not reasonable or if it would impose an undue hardship on the

landlord, the request may be denied.

Nor is the landlord allowed to refuse a request to make reasonable accommodations in rules,

policies, practices, or services if the modification is necessary for the disabled person to use the

housing. Landlords may require a resident to pay for modifications to the property and require

that those modifications be removed when the resident vacates the property. If the modification


Page 12

were for something that federal law already requires a landlord to have in place then the landlord

would be responsible for the cost of the modifications. As with accommodations, the

modifications must be reasonable.

The Fair Housing Act also requires newly constructed multifamily dwellings with four or more

units to include certain basic design features of accessibility intended to make the units usable by

a person who is or becomes disabled. Accessibility standards include: (a) public use and

common use areas which are readily accessible to and usable be persons with disabilities; (b)

doors designed to allow passage into and within the units which are sufficiently wide to allow

passage by persons in wheelchairs; (c) an accessible route into and through each unit; (d) light

switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations;

(e) reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and (f) usable

kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.

Housing developments also have to comply with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). While

the ADA does not generally apply to residential housing, certain ADA issues arise with the

accessibility of common use areas in residential developments if the facilities are open to persons

other than owners, residents, and their guests. Examples include: sales and rental offices, sales

areas in model homes, pools and clubs open to the general public and reception rooms that can

be rented to non-residents.

As a recipient of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), MDHA certifies in its

application for federal funds that it will affirmatively further fair housing by conducting an

analysis of impediments to fair housing choice, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects

of any impediments identified, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this

regard.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines impediments to fair

housing as:

Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability,

familial status, or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of

housing choice; or


Page 13

Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices

or the availability of housing choice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability,

familial status, or national origin.

It is important to note that the concept of impediments to fair housing choice includes local laws

and administrative policies that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing.

Policies and practices that appear neutral may serve to adversely affect a person’s ability to

secure housing because of their race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national

origin.


Page 14

Community Profile The City of Nashville was first charted in 1806 and became the permanent capital of Tennessee

in 1843. In 1963, the City of Nashville and Davidson County merged to form the “Metropolitan

Government of Nashville and Davidson County”. Today, Metro Nashville is a friendly,

progressive city with a diverse economy, strong transportation links, and many institutions of

higher education. The area enjoys a reputation as an excellent place to live due to its attractive

natural setting, pleasant neighborhoods, relatively low cost of living, and the quality of

amenities. Nashville consistently ranks among the lowest for cost-of-living in comparable cities

across the nation and within the Southeast. The overall cost of living is 95% of the national

average. All components (groceries, housing, utilities, etc.) of cost-of-living are typically below

the national average.

Situated on the Cumberland River in middle Tennessee, Nashville Metro serves as the regional

center of the 13-county Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin Metropolitan Statistical

Area (MSA). The region has enjoyed steady growth over the last several decades. Over the last

forty years, Nashville’s population has increased by an average of 4,294 persons on annual basis.

If the rate of growth from 2000 to 2008 would continue at its current rate, Nashville’s population

would reach 640,207 in 2010 and top 675,000 by 2015 (TABLE 2.1).

TABLE 2.1: Davidson County Growth and Projections Year Population Ten Year Change % Change 1970 Census 448,003 1980 Census 477,811 29,808 6.7% 1990 Census 510,784 32,973 6.9% 2000 Census 569,891 59,107 11.6% 2008 ACS 626,144 2010 projection 640,207 70,316 12.3% 2015 projection 675,365

The most recent data projections performed by the Metro Planning Department show large

population gains in the central business district, and the eastern and southeastern sections of the

county. At the same time, the majority of the areas immediately outside of the central business

district show population decline. Like most metropolitan regions, much of the growth in the


Page 15

Nashville MSA is occurring in the suburban areas (TABLE 2.2). Rutherford and Williamson

County account for a large portion of the area’s growth (GRAPH 2.1).

TABLE 2.2: Population Growth 1980 to 2008 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2008 Davidson 7% 12% 10% MSA 16% 25% 23% Tennessee 7% 16% 8% US 10% 13% 7% Note: Cannon, Hickman, Macon, Smith, and Trousdale counties were added to the Nashville MSA as of December 2003.

GRAPH 2.1: Population Increase by County

Population Growth: 2000-2008

56,253

67,247

44,814

25,025 20,994

10,465 3,484

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Davidson Rutherford Williamson Sumner Wilson Robertson Cheatham

Over the last twenty years, Metro Nashville has grown more diverse in terms of racial and ethnic

background (TABLE 2.3). In 1990, three out of every four County residents were White.

According to the estimates for 2006-08, White residents now account for two out of every three

residents. These numbers do not suggest a pattern of “white flight”. The numbers suggest that

minority populations have grown at a faster rate than the White population. In fact, the White

population grew by approximately 37,000 (7%). By comparison, the African American

population grew by 44%. The number of residents identifying themselves as Other Race or

Multiracial is six times larger (600%) in 2008 than in 1990. The Asian population almost tripled

in size and the American Indian/Alaskan Native population nearly doubled. The Hispanic

population, which is considered an ethnicity for purposes of the census and therefore not


Page 16

mutually exclusive of the other racial categories, grew by a factor of 9 from less than one percent

of the population to 7.9% of the population.

The large growth in “Other” race can be explained in part by the categories offered in the census.

Specifically, Hispanic is not listed as a choice of race on the census instruments. Studies have

documented that a growing number of Hispanics do not identify with any of the choices offered

and therefore select the “Other” category.2 Nationally, 42% of the Hispanic population selected

“Other” as their race in the 2000 U.S. Census. The growth of the Other category corresponds

with a rapid growth of the Hispanic population.

Because of its relatively low cost of living and large job market, Nashville has become a popular

city for immigrants. Metro’s foreign-born population tripled in size between 1990 and 2000,

increasing from 12,662 to 39,596. This includes Mexicans, Kurds, and immigrants from

Southeast Asia.

TABLE 2.3 County Population Growth by Race and Ethnicity Race / Ethnicity 1990 2000 2008 White 381740 74.74% 397,698 69.78% 421,930 67.39% African American 119273 23.35% 149,362 26.21% 171,829 27.44% American Indian / Alaska Native 1162 0.23% 1,826 0.32% 3,012 0.48% Asian (including Pacific Islander)

7081 1.39% 14,255 2.50% 18,850 3.01%

Other (including Multi) 1528 0.30% 6,750 1.18% 10,523 1.68% TOTAL 510784 100.00% 569,891 100.00% 626,144 100.00% Hispanic origin: 4775 0.93% 26,091 4.58% 49,441 7.90% Source: 1990, 2000 US Census and 2006-08 American Community Survey

Household Profile

According to the 2006-08 American Community Survey, there were 252,000 households in

Davidson County. Families account for roughly half (56%) of households and the average

household size is 2.4. Most of the non-family households were people living alone. Eleven

percent of Davidson County residents were foreign born, while 55% of all residents were born in

Tennessee. 14 percent of residents speak a language other than English at home. Approximately

half of this group (49%) reported that they did not speak English "very well."

In addition, 49% of residents who speak a language other than English at home speak Spanish. In


Page 17

terms of educational attainment, 85% people 25 years and over graduated from high school and

one-third have a bachelor's degree or higher.

Disability

In the 2000 census, twenty percent of county residents over the age of five reported some form of

disability. A summary of the disabled population by type of disability is reported in TABLE 2.4.

Approximately twenty thousand residents reported a sensory disability, which includes

blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment. 45,863 residents reported a

physical disability, including disabilities that substantially limit one or more basic physical

activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying. Of the 35,885 disabled

persons of working age, 13,070 (36%) were reported as unemployed.

TABLE 2.4: Disabled Population by Age and Type of Disability Disability Type under 15 16 to 64 65 and older Total Sensory disability 793 10,042 9,240 20,075 Physical disability 1,029 25,170 19,664 45,863 Mental disability 4,035 15,936 7,979 27,950 Self-care disability 904 7,617 7,078 15,599 Go-outside-home disability -- 24,338 14,410 38,748 Employment disability -- 44,821 -- 44,821 Total 6,761 127,924 58,371 193,056 Source: 2000 Census

Income

Per capita personal income in the Nashville MSA has been steadily rising since 1999. In 2008,

per capita personal income was $39,325. This represents a small 1.2% increase over 2007.

Personal income as a whole increased by 5.8 percent from 2006 to 2007 and by an additional 3.3

percent from 2007 to 2008.

The median household income in Davidson County was $46,780 according to the 2006-2008

American Community Survey (ACS). There are some correlations between household income

and race and ethnicity (TABLE 2.5). African American, Hispanic, and “Other Race” households

are more heavily represented in the lower income levels and have fewer households in the upper

income levels. Other Race households have the greatest correlation. 69% of all Other Race

households were in the lowest two income groupings while only 11% placed in the highest two

income groupings.


Page 18

TABLE 2.5: Household Income by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity Income Level White African American Asian Other Multiracial Hispanic Less than $25,000 20% 38% 14% 37% 28% 31% $25,000 to $50,000 28% 29% 31% 32% 19% 35% $50,000 to $75,000 20% 17% 25% 20% 24% 19% $75,000 to $100,000 11% 8% 12% 5% 13% 6% More than $100,000 22% 7% 17% 6% 16% 9%

GRAPH 2.2: Household Income by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

White AfricanAmerican

Asian Other Multiracial Hispanic

Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000$75,000 to $100,000 More than $100,000

According to the ACS, approximately sixteen percent of people were below the poverty line. The

presence of children in a household, especially those with a single parent, is one of the greatest

indicators of poverty. Twenty-six percent of children under 18 were below the poverty level and

30% of single-mother families had incomes below the poverty level. In addition, eleven percent

of all seniors had incomes below the poverty level.

Racial and Ethnic Concentrations within Davidson County

There are several significant geographic concentrations of minorities within Davidson County. In

addition, there are several areas that have a significantly lower percentage of minority

households than the county as a whole. The dissimilarity index is one tool used to describe the

level of racial and ethnic segregation and integration within a community. The dissimilarity


Page 19

index represents the percentage of one group that would have to move to a new neighborhood to

achieve perfect integration with another group. An index score can range in value from 0

(complete integration) to 100 (complete segregation). It should be stressed that while it is

statistically possible for the index to approach zero, it is unrealistic for communities to be

completely uniform given the general preference for a household to choose housing near others

who share similar cultural characteristics and values such as language and religion. The

dissimilarity index is more appropriately used a relative measure to compare different

communities.

TABLE 2.6: Dissimilarity Index for Davidson County by Race and Census

Race / Ethnicity 1980 1990 2000

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.30 0.26 0.21

Asian & Pacific Islander 0.42 0.43 0.41

Black / African American 0.66 0.61 0.57

Hispanic 0.22 0.23 0.46

Source: U.S. Census Housing Patterns: Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000

According to 2000 Census numbers, Davidson County has a dissimilarity index between Non-

Hispanic Whites and African Americans of 0.57 at the census tract level. This suggests that 57

percent of the African American population would need to relocate to a new census tract within

the county to achieve a perfectly uniform distribution throughout the county. The dissimilarity

index in 2000 is significantly lower than the 1980 measurement (0.66) and 1990 (0.61).

By comparison, Davidson County was less segregated (had a lower dissimilarity index) than

thirty-four out of forty-four large metropolitan areas in the last census. The average dissimilarity

index for Non-Hispanic Whites and African Americans in the areas studied was 0.64.

The dissimilarity index shows that Hispanic households are becoming more concentrated

(segregated). In 1980 and 1990, the index was low at 0.22 and 0.23, respectively. In 2000, the

index essentially doubled to 0.46. This increase brings the county’s index in line with southern

metropolitan areas and the nation’s metropolitan areas on average. Census housing patterns in

2000 show that larger metro areas and metros areas with a higher percent of Hispanic households


Page 20

are more likely to be more segregated. In addition, metropolitan areas with the largest increases

in Hispanic population between 1980 and 2000 generally experienced larger increases in

segregation than metropolitan areas with relatively small increases in the Hispanic or Latino

population. The dissimilarity index for Asian and Pacific Islander households remained fairly

steady at 0.41 to 0.43. Nationally, there was a correlation between the rate of growth of the Asian

and Pacific Islander population and increases in dissimilarity. This trend mirrors the trend for

Hispanic households described above. One contributing factor to this increased segregation could

be the desire for newly arrived immigrants to settle into ethnic enclaves to ease the transition into

a new area.

TABLE 2.7: Racial Composition of Davidson County Municipalities White African

American American

Indian Asian Pacific

Islander Other Race

Multi- racial

Total Hispanic

Davidson County 381,783 147,696 1,679 13,275 403 13,816 11,239 569,891 26,091

Nashville (balance) 359,581 146,235 1,639 12,992 400 13,677 11,000 545,524 25,774

Ridgetop 1,041 16 1 6 - 2 17 1,083 11

Lakewood 2,230 69 6 6 - 13 17 2,341 44

Goodlettsville 11,909 1,354 30 226 2 90 169 13,780 204

Forest Hills 4,528 66 3 65 - 19 29 4,710 36

Berry Hill 515 109 1 16 - 13 20 674 23

Belle Meade 2,903 10 1 14 - 6 9 2,943 21

Oak Hill 4,325 44 5 74 1 12 32 4,493 34

Davidson County 67% 26% 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 100% 5%

Nashville (balance) 66% 27% 0% 2% 0% 3% 2% 100% 5%

Ridgetop 96% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 100% 1%

Lakewood 95% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 100% 2%

Goodlettsville 86% 10% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 100% 1%

Forest Hills 96% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 100% 1%

Berry Hill 76% 16% 0% 2% 0% 2% 3% 100% 3%

Belle Meade 99% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1%

Oak Hill 96% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 100% 1%

The most recent U.S. Census data available shows a high correlation between Census Tracts with

high concentrations of low-income families and high concentrations of minority households.

TABLE 2.7A lists all of the Census Tracts within the County from the lowest median family

income to the highest. Census tracts with the dark shading are those with minority populations

greater than 75% and those with the light shading are those with minority populations between

50 and 75%. The fourteen tracts with the lowest median family income all have minority

populations greater than 75%.


Page 21

TABLE 2.7A: Median Family Income and Minority Concentration by Census Tract Census Tract

Median Family Income for Tract

Tract MFI: % of MSA Minority Population % Minority % Poverty

144 $7,200 13.89 1,933 87.19 68.44 124 $8,266 15.94 3,006 82.20 65.90 148 $10,599 20.44 3,145 97.64 66.76 140 $17,422 33.60 2,015 85.35 46.29 136 $17,813 34.36 6,745 98.32 39.83 160 $18,594 35.87 941 76.19 48.38 139 $20,063 38.70 1,732 98.24 36.84 118 $20,112 38.79 3,871 94.14 45.57 119 $21,317 41.12 2,279 92.34 32.71 162 $22,325 43.06 2,943 85.13 37.05 143 $23,313 44.97 1,917 98.46 33.00 138 $23,646 45.61 1,673 98.47 35.83 137 $24,063 46.41 4,900 94.18 31.88 142 $24,313 46.90 2,137 95.79 33.54 114 $25,791 49.75 3,793 71.16 28.06 126 $26,029 50.21 1,488 83.22 21.67 135 $28,875 55.70 1,271 58.68 19.92 123 $29,036 56.01 1,309 50.60 26.29 133 $29,229 56.38 1,422 31.34 18.93 165 $29,722 57.33 1,131 21.50 43.29

107.02 $30,081 58.02 1,240 37.27 21.52 113 $30,565 58.96 3,029 54.93 21.94 161 $31,042 59.88 1,185 59.19 20.77

158.01 $31,353 60.48 4,010 55.76 16.26 172 $31,645 61.04 303 18.86 14.00

107.01 $31,917 61.56 993 23.53 14.79 141 $32,250 62.21 375 70.75 16.70

127.01 $32,337 62.37 5,026 95.42 23.41 163 $32,917 63.49 1,994 82.53 24.71

109.03 $32,997 63.65 4,202 85.44 23.27 110.01 $33,560 64.73 3,804 59.97 24.62

125 $33,750 65.10 158 67.52 25.87 117 $34,578 66.70 3,211 52.13 19.58

191.08 $34,663 66.86 1,676 56.03 13.90 127.02 $34,821 67.16 1,883 83.61 13.97 174.01 $35,684 68.83 831 37.40 16.79 158.02 $36,168 69.76 2,724 47.92 13.40 104.02 $36,223 69.87 1,579 30.13 23.47

122 $36,440 70.29 750 29.90 14.06 146 $36,538 70.48 1,132 49.09 31.04 175 $36,554 70.51 574 18.56 16.34

190.01 $36,680 70.75 4,189 55.09 18.44 170 $37,031 71.43 1,688 55.95 23.80

128.02 $37,500 72.33 3,246 72.02 15.68 109.04 $37,589 72.50 2,436 89.04 16.46 190.04 $37,835 72.98 1,728 46.78 13.63 181.01 $38,961 75.15 1,863 39.22 16.23 104.01 $40,094 77.34 923 26.89 13.33

116 $40,841 78.78 1,874 36.34 10.61 190.03 $41,000 79.08 2,089 52.08 19.15

173 $41,222 79.51 1,370 41.48 11.28


Page 22

Housing

Metro Nashville has a diverse selection of neighborhoods and housing, including downtown

condominiums, urban historic districts, and suburban single-family subdivisions. Approximately

63% of the housing stock is single unit housing. The remainder is divided somewhat evenly

between small multifamily buildings with less than 10 units (15%) and larger developments

(21%). A majority of the housing stock is more than thirty years old (GRAPH 2.3). However,

during the last housing boom, owners took advantage of low interest rates to make a large

number of renovations and repairs. In 2006, Metro Codes issued 3,469 permits for additions and

alterations, a 24.29 percent increase from 2005.

GRAPH 2.3: Age of Housing Stock by Tenure

12,251

33,50142,011 43,621

28,97612,252

16,411

43,869 39,590

9,169

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Pre 1940 1940-60 1960-80 1980-00 2000-09*

Ow ner Renter

Nashville experienced the same housing bubble as the rest of the nation. In 2006, Metro issued a

record number of building permits only for that number to drop substantially in the following

three years (GRAPH 2.4). Most housing markets in the southeastern region are soft because of

weak economic conditions and more restrictive credit standards. During the 12 months ending


Page 23

September 2009, sales of single-family homes and condominium units decreased by 25 percent

to 16,600 homes. The number of condominium units sold decreased by 38 percent to 2,400 units.

The median price of a single-family home sold in September 2009 decreased by nearly 6 percent

to $160,000 and the median price of a condominium unit sold decreased by 4 percent to

$142,500, compared with median prices recorded in September 2008. Local housing

professionals are confident that the Nashville market will experience a rebound in sales volume

in 2010 as excessive inventory is exhausted, aided in part by the extension of federal tax credits,

government-backed lending assistance, and low mortgage rates.

GRAPH 2.4: Housing Permits by Year

Housing Units by Year

3,6303,818

4,089

3,253

1,548

1,0991,178 1,2011,039

2,290

819381

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*

Single Family Multifamily

Housing Needs

Davidson County’s homeownership rate of 61% is lower than the state’s homeownership rate

(70%) and the nation’s (67%), but comparable to other urban counties such as Fulton, GA (59%),

Shelby, TN (63%), and Knox, TN (68%). Many homeowners in the county may be

overextended. HUD identifies any household paying more than thirty percent of household

income as cost burdened. Cost burdened households are at a greater risk of facing foreclosure in

times of fiscal distress such as unemployment.

HUD considers any household that has a cost burden, is overcrowded (defined as more than

person per room), or is without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities to have a housing


Page 24

problem. The graphs below depict the number of households with housing problems for renters

(GRAPH 2.5) and owners (GRAPH 2.6). The great majority of these households are cost

burdened. There is a clear and direct correlation between income and the number of households

with a housing problem. Approximately 70% of all renters who earn less than 50% of the area

median income are considered to have a housing problem.

In Davidson County, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $761. In order

to afford this level of rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a

household must earn $30,440 annually or approximately $14.63 an hour (assuming full-time

work). In order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner must

work 89 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Alternatively, a household must include 2.2

minimum wage earner(s) working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two

bedroom FMR affordable. Monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for an

individual are $674 in Davidson County. If SSI represents an individual's sole source of income,

$202 in monthly rent is affordable, while the FMR for a one-bedroom is $662.

GRAPH 2.5: Renter Housing Problems as Percent of Income

% Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income

16,139 11,716

9,444

3,466

7,456 4,052

15,409

38,292

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-30 30-50 50-80 80+

% of Area Median Income

No Problem Housing Problem


Page 25

GRAPH 2.6: Owner-Occupied Housing Problems as Percent of Income

% Owner Households with Housing Problems by Income

5,799

5,0858,363

9,971

83,217

12,0344,456

2,461

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-30 30-50 50-80 80+

% of Area Median Income

No Problem Housing Problem

Disproportionate Housing Needs

After every census, HUD publishes a dataset called the Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy (CHAS) data set that must be included in a jurisdiction’s Consolidated Plan. The 2000

CHAS data provides a breakdown of housing problems by tenure, income, race, and household

type. As defined by HUD, a disproportionate housing need exists for a specific racial or ethnic

group if the percentage of that racial or ethnic group’s households within a particular category of

need is at least 10% higher than found for the category as a whole.

The CHAS data below (TABLE 2.8) reveals the following disproportionate level of housing

need:

African American Owners (30-50% AMI)

Hispanic Owners and Renters at all income levels

Native American Renters (0-30% AMI)

Native American Owners (30-50% AMI)

Asian Renters (30-50% AMI)

Asian Owners at all income levels


Page 26

TABLE 2.8: CHAS Data by Race Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Renters Owners Total All Households

0-30% income 68.4 70.2 68.9 30-50% income 74.3 53.3 66.4 50-80% income 38 41 39.3 all incomes 38.5 22.2 29.5 Number of Households 105,974 131,386 237,360 Number with Housing Problems 40,800 29,168 70,021 African American

0-30% income 66.7 75.2 68.1 30-50% income 66.8 63.7 65.9 50-80% income 31.8 46.8 37.4 all incomes 43.8 29.6 37.9 Number of Households 31,980 22,490 54,470 Number with Housing Problems 14,007 6,657 20,644 Hispanic

0-30% income 79.2 94.2 81 30-50% income 85.8 82.1 85.1 50-80% income 49.8 61.5 52.2 all incomes 57.1 43.1 53.6 Number of Households 4,963 1,666 6,629 Number with Housing Problems 2,834 718 3,553 Native American

0-30% income 94.2 0 82.3 30-50% income 56.3 78.9 60.6 50-80% income 26.7 9.1 22.7 all incomes 32 14.6 26.1 Number of Households 528 268 796 Number with Housing Problems 169 39 208 Asian

0-30% income 73 86.7 75 30-50% income 97.3 56.3 89.9 50-80% income 33.7 55.4 42.7 all incomes 47.1 36.3 42.7 Number of Households 2,280 1,570 3,850 Number with Housing Problems 1,074 570 1,644 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

0-30% income 57.1 0 57.1 30-50% income 0 0 0 50-80% income 13.8 0 13.8 all incomes 32.4 21.1 30.1 Number of Households 74 19 93 Number with Housing Problems 24 4 28


Page 27

Economy

Like the rest of the nation, Davidson County’s economy entered into recession toward the end of

2007. Unemployment spiked to its highest levels at the end of 2009. The graph below

demonstrates the jump from 2007 to 2009 where the rate is approaching 10% (GRAPH 2.7).

Economists forecast that the recession should end in the next year and unemployment will return

to previous levels within two to three years. GRAPH 2.8 depicts trends in annual employment

growth.

GRAPH 2.7: Labor Force and Unemployment

County Unemployment Rate: 2007-2009

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Per

cen

t U

nem

plo

yed

2007 2008 2009

GRAPH 2.8: Employment by County, Metro Area, and State

-6.00%

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

County MSA State


Page 28

Before the recession began, the area benefited from low unemployment, consistent job growth,

and significant investment. The recession has been somewhat softened by the local economy’s

diversity. Nashville’s economic base is anchored in several areas, including finance and

insurance, health care, music and entertainment, publishing, transportation technology, higher

education, biotechnology, and tourism and conventions (TABLE 2.9).

TABLE 2.9: Businesses and Employment by Industry Group Industry Group Establishments Employees Health Care and Social Assistance 1542 54,265 Public Administration 113 47,218 Retail Trade 2349 45,847 Accommodation and Food Services 1251 40,717 Education Services 183 3,146 Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt., Remediation 1065 29,648 Manufacturing 770 26,990 Wholesale Trade 1585 22,182 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 2018 21,495 Transportation and Warehousing 437 20,359 Finance and Insurance 1212 18,976 Construction 1239 17,147 Other Services (except Public Admin.) 1941 14,558 Information 570 11,593 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 834 7,706 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 563 5,263 Management of Companies and Enterprises 91 4,250 Utilities 16 1,682 Unclassified Establishments 67 355 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 8 209 Mining 12 197 Source: TN Dept. of Labor & Workforce Dev

Transportation

Transportation within the county is heavily dependent on the automobile. According to the latest

census numbers, 81% of workers within the county drove to work alone and 9% carpooled. Only

2 percent took public transportation. Among those who commuted to work, it took them on

average 23.1 minutes to get to work.

Davidson County is served by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The AccessRide program is a

publicly funded paratransit service, which operates specialized van services for persons with

disabilities who are unable to use regular fixed-route buses. AccessRide provides door-to-door


Page 29

paratransit service within Davidson County 1.5 miles from a regular bus route, excluding

commuter or express service.

Nashville is also served by the regional Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO). The MPO coordinates, directs, and allocates federal funds for various transportation

projects and programs. The Board provides policy direction, a forum for transportation and air

quality decisions, and approves major transportation planning reports and documents. Federal

law requires all urbanized areas with a population of at least 50,000 to maintain a “3-C”

transportation planning process: Continuing, Comprehensive, and Cooperative. The MPO serves

that function in Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Wilson, and Williamson counties, and parts of

Maury and Robertson counties.


Page 30

Impediments to Fair Housing Choice The analysis of impediments is divided into three sections: the public sector, private sector, and

the public-private sector. Public sector analysis reviews the local policies and procedures that

regulate, monitor, or otherwise impact rental, sales, and property insurance practices. These

policies can play a significant role in limiting or promoting fair housing choice. The private

sector analysis examines impediments within the private marketplace, including the actions of

landlords, property managers, real estate agents, lenders, and other parties involved in the

provision of housing. The public-private sector analysis focuses on areas of fair housing that are

provided through a partnership of both the public and private sector, including enforcement,

education, and outreach.

Public Sector

An analysis of impediments would not be complete without examining the actions within in the

public sector that have an effect on fair housing choice. Government policies and procedures that

regulate, monitor, or otherwise impact rental, sales, and property insurance practices can play a

significant role in promoting fair housing choice.

State of Tennessee Fair Housing Law

Tennessee’s fair housing law has received substantial equivalence certification from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This certification indicates that the

State has a fair housing law that provides substantive rights, procedures, remedies and judicial

review provisions that are substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act and has the

capacity to enforce it. The Tennessee Human Rights Commission (THRC) has cooperative

agreements with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that allows THRC to coordinate their

investigations and avoid duplication of efforts in seeking an end to discrimination. THRC is an

independent state agency charged with preventing and eradicating discrimination in employment,

public accommodations, and housing. The Commission has its central office in Nashville.


Page 31

Zoning and Building Codes

Building codes, zoning ordinances, and other local policies that overwhelmingly serve the public

good can have disparate impacts on the housing choice of the protected classes. Building codes

provide minimum standards for the design, construction, and use of buildings in order to protect

public health and safety. Codes that require certain amenities or setbacks can affect the

feasibility of providing low- and moderate-income housing development. These requirements

may serve as an impediment to fair housing choice if the low income population consists

primarily of protected classes, such as racial minorities.

The County has incorporated the 2003 and 2006 International Building Codes into its building

code. HUD has found that these codes are in compliance with the Fair Housing Act in terms of

design standards.

Zoning ordinances regulate how property can be utilized, maintain the character of a

neighborhood and provide for orderly growth. Some state and local governments have enacted

laws that limit or exclude housing facilities for persons with disabilities or homeless people from

certain residential areas. The Department of Justice, HUD, and most courts that have addressed

the issue agree that density restrictions are generally inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act.

MDHA reviewed the local zoning ordinance and found no adverse effects on the availability of

housing for minorities, families with children, and persons with disabilities. Nor did the review

reveal any zoning policies promoting a pattern or concentration of low income housing or overly

restrictive policies that would prevent affordable housing development.

Zoning ordinances with a single-family zoning district must contain a definition of family. The

definition cannot be written in a way to exclude certain family members, families which are not

biologically related or are non-traditional, or have a disparate impact on one of the protected

classes. In 1995, the Supreme Court reviewed City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc. where the

City of Edmonds cited a halfway house for violating a city ordinance because it was located in a

neighborhood zoned for single-family residences. The ordinance defined “family” as “persons

related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer [unrelated] persons.”

While the Court did not find the ordinance in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Court ruled

that the ordinance was not exempt from the Fair Housing Act since it sets a limit for the number

of unrelated occupants but not related occupants.


Page 32

Upon its review, MDHA found that the zoning code is not overly restrictive in its definition of

occupancy or family. The ordinance uses the following definition for family:

An individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or law, or, unless

otherwise required by federal or state law, a group of not more than three unrelated

persons living together in a dwelling unit. Servants and temporary nonpaying

guests having common housekeeping facilities with a family are a part of the

family for this code;

A group of not more than eight unrelated mentally retarded, mentally handicapped,

or physically handicapped persons, including two additional persons acting as

houseparents or guardians, living together as a single housekeeping unit in

accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-24-102. For purposes of this

subsection, 'mentally handicapped' and 'physically handicapped' includes persons

being professionally treated for drug and/or alcohol dependency or abuse. For the

purposes of this subsection, "mentally handicapped" does not include persons who

are mentally ill and, because of such mental illness, pose a likelihood of serious

harm as defined in Tennessee Code Annotated § 33-6-501, or who have been

convicted of serious criminal conduct related to such mental illness.

A group of not more than eight unrelated persons over the age of sixty-five,

including two additional persons acting as houseparents or guardians, living

together as a single housekeeping unit.

The updates to the Fair Housing Act in 1988 was in part intended to prohibit the application of

special requirements through land-use regulations, restrictive covenants, and conditional or

special use permits that have the effect of limiting the ability of (the disabled) to live in the

residence of their choice in the community. This also includes regulation and licensing

requirements for group homes. The great majority of group homes for persons with disabilities

are subject to state regulations intended to protect the health and safety of their residents. HUD

has found that licensing requirements are necessary and serve a legitimate purpose. However,

local decision makers must also recognize that not all individuals with disabilities living in group

home settings desire or need the same level of services or protection and requests for reasonable

accommodation should be honored where appropriate. The zoning ordinance was revised in 2009


Page 33

to include language that specifically states the procedures to be followed for persons making

reasonable accommodation requests and that a determination must be made within 30 days:

The provisions of this title shall in every instance be construed, applied and

enforced in a manner consistent with applicable federal law, including but not

limited to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et. seq.; the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et. seq.; and the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et. seq. Notwithstanding any

other provision of this title to the contrary, the zoning administrator shall make

reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies, and practices of his office so that

handicapped or disabled persons or a provider of housing for a handicapped or

disabled person are not discriminated against and are afforded an equal opportunity

to use and enjoy dwellings.

MDHA reviewed the dispersion of licensed group homes that serve persons with disabilities

(ATTACHMENT 1). There is a lack of licensed homes in the southwestern portion of the

County. Otherwise, licensed group homes are not concentrated.

In 2009, the Metropolitan Government entered into a consent decree to resolve a federal lawsuit

regarding land use discrimination. The Metropolitan Government had denied a building permit to

an organization that wanted to operate a substance abuse program. The consent decree requires

the Metropolitan Government to train nearly 100 employees and officials who make zoning and

land use decisions on the requirements of the FHA, to appoint a compliance officer to receive

complaints and ensure compliance with the settlement, and to provide periodic reports to the

Justice Department. As part of the settlement, the Metropolitan Government rescinded the

amendment to its zoning code and adopted a reasonable accommodation policy for individuals

with disabilities.

Municipal Services and Neighborhood Revitalization

In 1963, the City of Nashville and the Davidson County government merged to form the

“Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County”. Delivery of municipal services

was organized into the General Services District (GSD) and the Urban Services District (USD).

The GSD embraces the entire area of Davidson County and its residents are taxed to support


Page 34

those services, functions and debt obligations which are deemed properly chargeable to the

whole population. Such services include general administration, police, fire protection, courts,

jails, health, welfare, hospitals, streets and roads, traffic, schools, parks and recreation, airport

facilities, auditoriums, public housing, urban renewal, planning and public libraries. USD

residents are charged an additional tax to support those services, functions and debt obligations

which benefit only the USD. Such services include additional police protection, storm sewers,

street lighting and refuse collection.

There are also seven smaller municipalities within Davidson County: Belle Meade, Berry Hill,

Forest Hills, Lakewood, Oak Hill, a portion of Goodlettsville, and a portion of Ridgetop. These

municipalities share responsibilities of municipal services and governance with Metro.

MDHA reviewed the provision of municipal services and did not find evidence of an impediment

to fair housing choice. MDHA also reviewed racial and ethnic demographic data collected for its

annual performance reports for HUD and found no evidence of impediments.

MDHA Design Review Committee

MDHA provides for some oversight of its redevelopment districts through the Design Review

Committees. These committees review building permit applications referred by the Codes

Department for developments within the eight redevelopment districts, and provides informal

feedback on proposed development projects. Each redevelopment district has two local

representatives. The Committee’s decisions can be appealed to an Administrative Appeals Board

comprised of three members of MDHA management.

Affordable Housing Programs

New rental housing assisted with HOME funds must meet site and neighborhood standards per

the HOME regulations. One purpose of these standards is to ensure that rental housing is not

concentrated in minority neighborhoods. MDHA reviews each proposal to determine its potential

effect on the racial makeup of the neighborhood and all viable alternatives. A review of the

location of subsidized housing shows that units are not concentrated (ATTACHMENT 2).


Page 35

Planning Commission

The Metro Planning Commission (MPC) reviews and approves subdivision plats, minor changes

to planned unit developments and urban design overlay districts, detailed neighborhood design

plans, community plan (sub area) updates and amendments, and bonds. It also reviews and

recommends to the Board of Zoning Appeals all special exception uses within Metro and all

variances within the Urban Zoning Overlay district.

The Commission is made up of 10 members who serve a four-year term without compensation,

except for the Metro Councilmember who serves a two-year term. A member may serve no more

than two consecutive terms. Eight of the 10 members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed

by a majority vote of the Metro Council. The ninth member is the chair of the Metro Council’s

Planning & Zoning Committee and the tenth member is the Mayor.

Zoning Board of Appeals

The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) reviews and approves variances to zoning

code standards, special exception permits, changes to non-conforming uses and structures, and

appeals of a zoning administrator interpretation of the zoning code. The BZA holds public

hearings on any of these items within 60 days of an application being filed. The Board of Zoning

Appeals (BZA) is made up of seven members who serve a five-year term without compensation.

A member may serve no more than two consecutive terms. To be eligible to serve, a nominee

may not hold any public office or be employed by the Metro Government. Members are

appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Metro Council.

Visitability

While not required by law, the lack of visitable housing could potentially serve as an impediment

to fair housing choice for persons with disabilities. HUD defines a visitable unit as a unit where

at least one entrance at grade (with no step), is approached by an accessible route, such as a

sidewalk, and the entrance door and all interior doors on the first floor are at least 34 inches

wide, offering 32 inches of clear passage space. Other design features can include:

All wall switches controlling light fixtures and fans not more than 48 inches above

finished floor


Page 36

Step-free entrances with an accessible route from a parking area or public way

Reinforced bathroom walls to support grab bars

First floor washroom/powder room designed to provide wheelchair access to both the

water closet and lavatory

All exterior and interior doors provide at least thirty two inches of clearance

Hallway width of at least forty two inches

An accessible rout through the hallways and passageways of the floor level served by the

step free entrance.

Private Sector

Discrimination is the most common form of impediments to fair housing choice within the

private sector. Discrimination exists when a tenant, prospective tenant or homebuyer is treated

differently than others on the basis of belonging to one of the protected classes. This may involve

refusing to rent or sell to someone, or doing so under different terms and conditions.

Discrimination can be found in many areas of the housing market, including but not limited to:

The sale and rental of housing and real estate practices such as blockbusting, deed

restrictions, trust or lease provisions, conversions of apartments to all-adult occupancy,

inaccessible design, or management firm “occupancy quotas”

Banking and insurance policies and practices pertaining to the financing, sale, purchase,

rehabilitation, and rental of housing that may affect the achievement of fair housing

choice

The discriminatory provision of mortgage brokerage services

Housing discrimination also includes the refusal to make reasonable accommodation for persons

with disabilities, such as waiving a no-pets policy for service animals or allowing alterations to

the unit. Based on the number of complaints received by HUD (Table 3.1), the most common

forms of discrimination on a national basis include the refusal to rent a dwelling and disparate

terms, conditions, and privileges associated with renting or sales of a housing unit. Table 3.2

shows that approximately four out of every five discrimination complaints were based on race or


Page 37

disability. It should be noted that these statistics are based on the number of complaints received.

Actual discrimination may differ due to lack of reporting for certain types of discrimination. The

lack of reporting is discussed in greater detail in the next section.

MDHA held a public forum on September 16, 2009 to discuss housing discrimination with

community advocates and professionals in the housing industry. Minutes from the meeting can

be found in Appendix A.


Page 38

TABLE 3.1: National Housing Discrimination Complaints by Discriminatory Action

Discriminatory Action FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008

Terms, Conditions, Privileges, Services, and Facilities in the Rental or Sale of Property 57% 58% 58% 56% Refusal to Rent 25% 26% 26% 26% Failure to Make a Reasonable Accommodation 18% 18% 21% 23% Coercion, Intimidation, Threats, Interference, and Retaliation 13% 13% 15% 13% Discriminatory Financing 6% 5% 4% 3% Discriminatory Notices, Statements, or Advertisements 7% 5% 6% 8% Refusal to Sell 4% 3% 2% 2% False Representation that a Dwelling is Not Available 3% 2% 2% 3%

Non-compliance with Design and Construction Requirements 4% 2% 2% 2% Failure to Permit a Reasonable Modification 2% 1% 2% 2% Steering 1% 1% 1% 1% Redlining <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5%

Insurance Discrimination <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% <0.5%

TABLE 3.2: National Housing Discrimination Complaints by Basis for Discrimination

FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Basis for Discrimination # % # % # % # %

Disability 3,766 41% 4,110 40% 4,410 43% 4,675 44% Race 3,472 38% 4,043 39% 3,750 37% 3,669 35% Familial Status 1,414 15% 1,433 14% 1,441 14% 1,690 16% Sex 961 10% 997 10% 1,008 10% 1,133 11% National Origin 1,225 13% 1,427 14% 1,299 13% 1,364 13% Hispanic/Latino 860 9% 931 9% 784 8% 848 8% Religion 218 2% 258 2% 266 3% 339 3% Color 142 2% 154 1% 173 2% 262 2% Retaliation 452 5% 577 6% 588 6% 575 5%

Total Complaints Filed 9,254 10,328 10,154 10,552

Table 3.3 and Graph 3.1 present complaints data summarized at the county, state, and national

level. The data was collected from HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

(FHEO) reporting system (TEAPOTS). A filed complaint does not mean that a discriminatory

act occurred; only that it was alleged. Davidson County’s statistics mirror those of the nation and

the state, except for the number of complaints based on National Origin.


Page 39

TABLE 3.3: Housing Discrimination Complaints by Basis Basis National Tennessee Davidson Race 14,148 35% 331 47% 59 44%

Asian 290 1% 1 0% 0 0% Asian and White 33 0% 0 0% 0 0% Black or African American 11,516 29% 244 34% 46 35% Black and White 617 2% 27 4% 7 5% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 24 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 216 1% 5 1% 3 2% Native American and Black 62 0% 1 0% 1 1% Native American and White 37 0% 2 0% 1 1% White 1,148 3% 30 4% 1 1% Other Multi-Racial 205 1% 21 3% 0 0%

Color 828 2% 28 4% 3 2% National Origin 5,234 13% 118 17% 32 24% National Origin - Hispanic 3,283 8% 88 12% 28 21% Disability 17,233 43% 297 42% 45 34% Familial Status 6,467 16% 94 13% 16 12% Religion 1,139 3% 26 4% 6 5% Sex 4,139 10% 101 14% 13 10% Retaliation 2,363 6% 13 2% 4 3% Total 40,009 708 133


Page 40

GRAPH 3.1 FHEO Cases by Type of Discrimination

35%

2%

13%

8%

43%

16%

3%

10%

6%

47%

4%

17%

12%

42%

13%

4%

14%

2%

44%

2%

24%

21%

34%

12%

5%

10%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Race

Color

National Origin

National Origin - Hispanic

Disability

Familial Status

Religion

Sex

Retaliation

National Tennessee Davidson


Page 41

The data in Table 3.4 was provided by the Tennessee Fair Housing Council (TFHC). 83% of the

complaints received by TFHC centered on rental issues.

TABLE 3.4: TFHC Housing Discrimination Complaints by Basis Basis

Ren

tal

Sal

es

Len

ding

Insu

ranc

e

Zon

ing

Har

assm

ent

Oth

er

Tot

als

Per

cent

Race 45 0 0 0 0 5 0 50 30% Color 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2% Religion 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% National origin 11 1 0 0 0 1 0 13 8% Sex 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2% Disability 61 2 1 0 15 0 2 81 49% Familial status 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 8% Total 139 3 1 0 15 7 2 167 Percent 83% 2% 1% 0% 9% 4% 1%

TABLE 3.5: THRC Housing Discrimination Complaints by Basis Basis

Rental Refusal Sales Refusal All Complaints

Percent

Race/Color 5 1 27 28% National Origin 1 13 14% Familial status 11 11% Disability 2 1 24 2% Sex (Gender) 1 10 10% Religion 2 2% Harassment/Coercion 9 9% Total 9 2 96

TABLE 3.6: THRC Housing Discrimination Complaints by Basis Basis

Nas

hvil

le

Ant

ioch

Joel

ton

Mad

ison

Can

e R

idge

Goo

dlet

tsvi

lle

Her

mit

age

Old

Hic

kory

Race/Color 20 1 1 1 1 3 National Origin 7 5 1 Familial status 7 1 2 Disability 18 2 1 2 1 Sex (Gender) 8 1 1 Religion 1 1 Harassment


Page 42

Developers

The Fair Housing Act also requires newly constructed multifamily dwellings with four or more

units to include certain basic design features of accessibility intended to make the units usable by

a person who is or becomes disabled. In 2009, a complaint was filed against a local developer on

the basis of discrimination by failing to design and construct seven multi-family apartment

complexes in or around Nashville to be accessible to persons with disabilities in compliance with

the Fair Housing Act. The developments include Meadowcreek Apartments, Miller Town

Apartments, 17th Street Apartments, Forest View Apartments, Swiss Ridge Apartments,

Lakeside Apartments and Stonebridge Apartments.

Lenders and Lending Services

In the past, lenders would routinely refuse loans to sections of a community in a practice known

as redlining. Several federal initiatives, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, have curtailed

redlining and made credit more readily available to these communities. In addition,

advancements in computerized underwriting practices have removed some of the subjectivity of

local loan officers, and the potential for illegal discrimination, in the determination of

creditworthiness. As a result, discrimination in today’s financial services market is not as blatant

and is more difficult to detect. Financing is more available to borrowers, but the terms in which

the financing is offered can be discriminatory.

Subprime loans, taken on their own, are not predatory. They are necessary in order to provide

credit for borrowers who pose a higher credit risk for the lender because of poor credit histories,

high loan-to-home-value ratios, or other credit risk characteristics that would disqualify the

borrower from lower cost, prime-rate loans.

It is a violation of the Fair Housing Act to impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as

different interest rates, points or fees based a person’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex,

familial status or disability. A recent study by the Urban Institute found that African-American

and Hispanic homebuyers received disparate treatment in terms of financing options.3 In

addition, Freddie Mac indicates that a third to a half of borrowers who qualify for low cost loans

receive subprime loans instead.


Page 43

Minority consumers often have unequal access to loans at the best price and on the best terms

based on credit history, income, and other risk factors. High cost loans can be defined as first

mortgages with interest rates 3 percentage points higher than a benchmark rate and second

mortgages with interest rates 5 percentage points or higher than a benchmark rate. According to a

recent Woodstock Institute study, sixty percent of mortgages obtained by African American

households and 46 percent obtained by Hispanic families were high-cost loans.

This disparate treatment was not limited to lower income households. In fact, there was a higher

level of discrepancy when analyzing upper income households. A low-income African American

borrower was three times more likely to receive a high-cost loan than a low-income White

borrower. An African American earning more than $135,000 annually was five times more likely

to receive a high-cost loan than a White borrower at the same income level.

An investigation undertaken by the National Community Reinvestment Committee from 2004 to

2006 revealed disparate treatment by mortgage brokerages based on race and national origin in

46 percent of cases. The results of the investigation showed that White testers were offered better

pricing than African American or Hispanic testers.

As part of the analysis, MDHA analyzed data reported by lending institutions per the Home

Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) for 2008 (Table 3.7) Additional data is provided in

ATTACHMENT 3. While HMDA data cannot be used to "prove" discrimination by banks and

other lending institutions, data can be used to determine whether discrimination may be

occurring. The data revealed that African Americans (38%) and Hispanics (32%) were more

likely to receive a high-cost loan than White borrowers (16%). MDHA also calculated the ratio

of denials to the number of loan originations for each race and ethnic group. The data shows that

while White borrowers received 1.5 denials for every ten originations, Hispanics and African

Americans received 4 and 3 denials for every ten originations, respectively. It is important to

note that this analysis does not account for differences in credit risk of the borrower.

HMDA data defines high cost loans as first mortgages with interest rates 3 percentage points

higher than a benchmark rate and second mortgages with interest rates 5 percentage points or

higher than a benchmark rate. 4


Page 44

TABLE 3.7: 2008 Loan Originations, High Cost Loans, and Denials by Race and Ethnicity

High Cost Loans DenialsRace/Ethnicity Originations # % # RatioAmerican Indian 51 13 25% 16 31%Asian 511 91 18% 93 18%African American 3,025 1,161 38% 1,223 40%Pacific Islander 65 13 20% 19 29%White 13,673 2,211 16% 2,042 15%Not Provided 2,126 406 19% 643 30%Total 19,451 3,895 20% 4,036 21%Hispanic 1,043 335 32% 325 31%

source: 2008 HMDA

Real Estate Services

The services of real estate professionals are critical in the provision of fair housing choice.

Homebuyers rely heavily on the professional’s expertise of the local market. The National Fair

Housing Alliance (NFHA) has focused recent studies on the role of real estate agents and the

prevalence of discrimination within the profession. The results of the study reveal discriminatory

steering practices and disparate treatment. Racial steering is the practice of limiting a buyer’s

choice, through comments or actions, to specific neighborhoods based on race or national origin.

MDHA convened a focus group on local fair housing issues during the development of this

analysis. A real estate agent in attendance stated that steering exists in the community, but buyers

affected by the steering do not feel filing a complaint is worth the trouble. The agent also had

encountered cases where sellers had discriminated against Arab purchasers.

The NFHA study showed that African-American and Latino buyers were refused appointments

or offered very limited service by real estate agents one out of every five times. The limited

service was described as the buyer never receiving a return call from the agent after several

messages and scheduling appointments that the agent never kept. In paired testing, agents

showed white buyers an average of eight homes, while African-American and Latino testers saw

an average of five homes.

Per state licensing requirements, Tennessee realtors must meet educational requirements that

include a fair housing component. The educational requirements include initial work before

receiving a license and continuing education as well.


Page 45

Public and Private Sector

Fair Housing Enforcement

Effective fair housing enforcement lies at the heart of a comprehensive program to affirmatively

further fair housing. Testing has proven to be one of the most effective ways to combat

discrimination and enforce fair housing choice.5 In most communities, this role is undertaken by

fair housing advocacy organizations whose sole mission is to promote fair housing choice.

Davidson County is served by the Tennessee Fair Housing Council (TFHC) and the Tennessee

Human Rights Commission (THRC). Both TFHC and THRC receive funds directly from HUD

to conduct fair housing activities.

The Tennessee Human Rights Commission is an independent state agency charged with

preventing and eradicating discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing.

The Commission has cooperative agreements with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). These

agreements allow the federal and state agencies to coordinate their investigations and avoid

duplication of efforts in seeking to end discrimination. The Commission has its central office in

Nashville.

The Tennessee Fair Housing Council is a private, non-profit advocacy organization whose

mission is to eliminate housing discrimination throughout Tennessee. The Council undertakes

outreach, education and enforcement actions. Enforcement includes the receipt of complaints,

investigation, counseling, and administrative actions or lawsuits. Their enforcement program is

based in Nashville and concentrates on Davidson, Cheatham, Dickson, Rutherford, Sumner,

Williamson and Wilson counties.

Informational Programs

A 2002 HUD study found that only seventeen percent of individuals who believed they had

experienced housing discrimination took some action in response. Of those who took action,

only one percent said they reported the discrimination to a government agency. Recent studies

have shown that discrimination based on national origin is largely underreported, specifically by

Latinos, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans. These studies suggest several reasons for the

underreporting of housing discrimination:


Page 46

Housing discrimination is often not readily identifiable by consumers

Language barriers and other cultural issues, including immigration status, hesitancy to

challenge authority, and a general lack of faith in the justice system

Low expectations of a good result. Two-thirds of those who expected that filing a

complaint would bring about a good outcome said they would be very likely to file one if

they were discriminated against, compared to less than one-fourth of those who did not

anticipate good results.

Aggressive informational programs have shown to be effective in encouraging persons who

suffer from discrimination to report it. The five counties across the country with the highest rate

of complaints reported 51 to 96 housing discrimination complaints per 100,000 households.6 All

five counties cited informational and outreach programs as effective tools.

There is also a need for greater financial literacy in general. A recent study by the FDIC revealed

that a substantial proportion of minority households did not have a banking relationship with a

formal financial institution. These households are considered “unbanked” and often turn to high-

cost financial services such as pay-day loan stores. An earlier study by the Chicago Federal

Reserve showed that language and culture play an important role for Hispanic consumers

seeking financial services. The County can take an active role in bridging the language/cultural

gap by organizing English language and financial literacy programs, potentially in tandem with

financial institutions.7 A study commissioned by the Mortgage Bankers Association of America

(MBAA) documented a widespread view among minority renters that they would fare poorly

when obtaining a mortgage. Among those who had never applied for a mortgage, 32 percent of

African-Americans and 24 percent of Hispanics believed they would encounter discrimination

because of their race or ethnic background.8

Persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to

read, write, speak, or understand English are defined as Limited English Proficient (LEP) and

may be entitled to language assistance with respect to participating in federally-funded programs.

Language for LEP persons can be a barrier to accessing important benefits or services,

understanding and exercising important rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or

understanding other information provided by federally-funded programs and activities. Per

Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, recipients of federal financial assistance


Page 47

have an obligation to reduce language barriers that can preclude meaningful access by LEP

persons to important government programs, services, and activities.


Page 48

Summary of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Impediment #1: Lack of Public Awareness: There is evidence that a substantial

number of persons who suffer from discrimination do not report it. A HUD study found

that of the people who suspect housing discrimination, only 1% reported the case to a

government agency.9 Among the reasons for a lack of reporting include the inability to

identify the discrimination and the belief that nothing will result from the report. In some

cases, limited English proficiency plays a role as well. The largest impediment to fair

housing choice is a lack of consumer education regarding fair housing rights. There is a

need for a multi-faceted approach that can effectively reach all effected parties, including

housing consumers, housing professionals and landlords, government officials, and

public advocacy groups.

Impediment #2: Need for Greater Coordination: Greater coordination is needed

among housing providers, housing professionals, government agencies, and advocacy

groups. Coordination can be increased in both quality and quantity. The agencies already

involved in fair housing efforts can collaborate more to maximize effectiveness. In

addition, there is a need to include a greater number of organizations to the process in a

more consistent manner. These agencies include other departments of Metro government,

outside agencies, and federally-funded subrecipients.

Impediment #3: Disparate Treatment in the Rental Market: The statistics reported by

local fair housing agencies and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

indicate discrimination based on race, disability and familial status, especially in the

rental market. Disparate treatment in the provision of rental housing is a clear

impediment to fair housing choice.

Impediment #4: Disparate Treatment in Subprime Lending: Analysis of lending data

required by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) revealed that minority

households were more likely to receive a high-cost loan than White households.

Disparate treatment in mortgage lending is a clear impediment to fair housing choice.

Impediment #5: Lack of Awareness Among Metro Boards and Staff: The Tennessee

Fair Housing Council reports that some Metro boards such as Fire and Building Codes

have failed to grant reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities and Metro


Page 49

Codes has approved occupancy for multi-family buildings that do not comply with the

Fair Housing Act.

Proposed Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing As a recipient of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), MDHA must take

appropriate actions to overcome the effects of the impediments identified within this plan and

maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard. MDHA proposes to undertake

the following actions to affirmatively further fair housing choice within its jurisdiction.

Public Awareness

MDHA will utilize multiple avenues to outreach to the public to communicate their right to fair

housing choice and how to identify and report potential discrimination. Efforts will include:

1.6 Material Distribution: MDHA will distribute fair housing marketing materials aimed at

educating County residents of their right to fair housing, how to identify discrimination,

and how to report it. The goal of the material is to reach people who experience

discrimination but do not report it. MDHA will research strategies for increasing

awareness in “low minority” areas and collaboration opportunities with other agencies,

institutions of higher education, churches, and schools.

1.7 Fair Housing Website and Hotline: MDHA will maintain a dedicated fair housing page

on its website. The webpage will act as an information clearinghouse for residents,

housing professionals working in Davidson County, and all Metro employees. The

website will also include periodic updates related to fair housing. For those without

internet access, MDHA will continue to sponsor the Fair Housing Hotline, a recorded

message system that provides information on how to file a complaint and referral

information to local fair housing agencies.

1.8 Media Advertising and Press Releases: MDHA will use display ads in minority papers

to advertise local fair housing resources, including its web page. MDHA will issue

periodic press releases to highlight current issues, publication of reports, the Fair Housing

Conference and other newsworthy events.

1.9 Coordination with Non-Profits and Other Government Agencies: MDHA will work

closely with fair housing agencies, non-profit housing professionals, and other local


Page 50

government agencies to ensure fair housing efforts are coordinated amongst agencies.

MDHA will serve as an information resource to other Metro departments for fair

housing-related issues.

1.10 Fair Housing Conference: MDHA will continue to sponsor an annual fair housing

conference to highlight local fair housing issues, solutions, and to raise awareness. The

conference will serve as an educational forum for the general public and local housing

professionals. The conference will be held in April to coincide with the national

celebration of Fair Housing Month.

Metro Nashville and Davidson County Compliance and Procedure

2.14 FHA Compliance Officer: The Metro Planning Department will continue to support an

FHA compliance officer to respond to complaints regarding land use discrimination. This

action is required as part of the consent decree between the Department of Justice and the

Metro government.

2.15 Staff Training: New Metro staff and elected officials involved with land use and zoning

decisions will receive training on fair housing and the Fair Housing Act. This includes

Metropolitan Council, Director of Council Staff, Special Counsel advising on zoning and

land use, Metro Planning Commission (MPC), Advisors to the MPC, Zoning

Administrator, and the Board of Zoning Appeals.

MDHA Compliance and Procedure

2.16 Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Capacity Building: MDHA will

continually monitor all of its subrecipient organizations and contractors for compliance

with federal rules and regulations. Before participating in MDHA’s programs, the

subrecipient must agree to:

comply all federal, state and local laws relating to fair housing and equal opportunity,

operate their facilities and services and conduct their outreach on a nondiscriminatory

basis, and


Page 51

adopt policies to ensure effective communication with applicants, beneficiaries, and

members of the public who have hearing, vision, or speech impairments regarding the

availability of accessible services, activities and facilities.

Where necessary, MDHA will sponsor capacity building sessions to ensure all

subrecipients are well-trained to administer their programs in a manner that affirmatively

furthers fair housing.

2.17 Neighborhood Improvement: MDHA’s Neighborhood Improvement Program will fund

infrastructure and community development projects in low-income areas. The goal of the

program is to provide opportunities for collaboration and expand existing resources for

investments that are critical to neighborhood infrastructure and that support neighborhood

enhancement. MDHA will give additional consideration to areas with high minority

concentration. Over the course of the five-year plan, it is expected that this program will

receive approximately 30% of CDBG allocations.

2.18 Site and Neighborhood Standards: New rental housing assisted with HOME funds

must meet site and neighborhood standards per the HOME regulations. One purpose of

these standards is to ensure that rental housing is not concentrated in minority

neighborhoods. MDHA will review each proposal to determine its potential effect on the

racial makeup of the neighborhood and all viable alternatives. The goal of this standard is

to produce a reasonable distribution and balance of housing choices within and outside

areas of minority concentration.

2.19 Affirmative Marketing Plans: MDHA will require each HOME-funded project

containing 5 or more HOME-assisted housing units to develop an Affirmative Marketing

Plan. Affirmative marketing differs from general marketing activities as it specifically

targets potential tenants and homebuyers who are least likely to apply for the housing, in

order to make them aware of available affordable housing opportunities.

Each project will summarize what segment of the populations it is targeting and specific

actions it will take to market to those populations. Specific actions include use of

commercial media, neighborhood outreach, and marketing through local organizations

such as community organizations, places of worship, employment centers, fair housing

groups, and housing counseling agencies. In addition, each covered project will:


Page 52

Distribute information to potential owners and tenants about Federal fair housing

laws and MDHA’s affirmative marketing policy.

Use the Equal Housing Opportunity logo on all advertising for the property and on all

tenant applications.

Visibly display a fair housing poster in the office where tenants pick up applications.

Maintain records that describe actions taken by the property to affirmatively market

units and records to assess the results of these actions.

MDHA will review its affirmative marketing performance and that of HOME-assisted

properties as part of the monitoring process and on an annual basis as part of the CAPER

report. The review will include an analysis of deficiencies and will recommend corrective

actions where necessary.

2.20 Visitability: Visitability is a design concept that enables persons with disabilities to

visit relatives, friends, and neighbors in their homes within a community. Visitability also

expands the availability of housing options for individuals who may not require full

accessibility. Applicants to MDHA’s Affordable Housing Program and Rental

Rehabilitation Program will receive additional consideration for incorporating visitability

elements into their properties. A visitable unit is defined as a unit where at least one

entrance at grade (with no step), is approached by an accessible route, such as a sidewalk,

and the entrance door and all interior doors on the first floor are at least 34 inches wide,

offering 32 inches of clear passage space.

2.21 Accessibility and Section 504 Compliance: MDHA will ensure compliance with

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for all of its CDBG and HOME-funded

projects. This includes accessibility for all new non-housing facilities, feasible alterations

to existing non-housing facilities, and operation of its existing non-housing facilities.

MDHA will periodically update its self-assessment and transition plan to ensure all

facilities are in compliance.

Applicants to MDHA’s Affordable Housing Program and Rental Rehabilitation Program

will receive additional consideration for providing more than the required number of

accessible units. In addition, MDHA will encourage its partners to distribute accessible


Page 53

units throughout its funded properties and make them available in a sufficient range of

sizes and amenities so as not to limit choice. All funded properties will be required to

adopt policies that reasonable accommodation/ modification and outreach regarding the

availability of accessible units.

2.22 Limited English Proficiency: MDHA will conduct a four factor analysis to ensure that

persons with Limited English Proficiency have meaningful access to programs funded by

the Consolidated Plan. MDHA will develop a Language Assistance Plan (LAP) to

provide a framework for the provision of timely and reasonable language assistance.

2.23 Homeowner Rehabilitation: MDHA’s Homeowner Rehabilitation Program will provide

deferred loans to disabled homeowners to make needed home repairs and accessibility

modifications.

2.24 Homebuyer Outreach and Education: MDHA will affirmatively market its

Downpayment Assistance Program to minority populations. In addition, the program will

incorporate fair housing and fair lending education into its required counseling

component. The goal of the program is to increase the affordability of homeownership for

households earning less than 80% of the area median income.

2.25 Referral and Enforcement: MDHA will continue to partner with the Tennessee Human

Rights Commission (THRC) and the Tennessee Fair Housing Council, and the Metro

Human Relations Commission to respond to and investigate fair housing complaints. Fair

housing agencies will be encouraged to apply to the CDBG Community Services

Program for funding of testing and enforcement efforts. Potential projects would include

in-depth audit testing of housing practices within the rental and sales markets focused on

identifying any patterns and practices, such as neighborhood steering, or other forms of

housing choice denials that could be potential violations of fair housing laws.

2.26 Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP): MDHA will explore the possibility of

participating in the FHIP program. Through FHIP, MDHA can participate in the

Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI) to offer a comprehensive range of fair housing

activities that explain to the general public and housing providers what equal opportunity

in housing means and what housing providers need to do to comply with the Fair

Housing Act. Activities may include developing education materials, analyzing local


Page 54

impediments to housing choice, providing housing counseling and classes, convening

meetings that bring together the housing industry with fair housing groups, developing

technical materials on accessibility, and mounting public information campaigns.

Recordkeeping MDHA will maintain the following records regarding fair housing and equal opportunity:

Documentation of the analysis of impediments and the actions the recipient has carried

out with its housing and community development and other resources to remedy or

ameliorate any impediments to fair housing choice in the recipient's community.

Data on the extent to which each racial and ethnic group and single-headed households

(by gender of household head) have applied for, participated in, or benefited from, any

program or activity funded in whole or in part with CDBG funds. Such information shall

be used only as a basis for further investigation as to compliance with nondiscrimination

requirements.

Data on employment in the categories prescribed on the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission's EEO-4 form; and documentation of any actions undertaken to assure equal

employment opportunities to all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex or

handicap.

Data indicating the race and ethnicity of households (and gender of single heads of

households) displaced as a result of CDBG funded activities, together with the address

and census tract of the housing units to which each displaced household relocated. Such

information shall be used only as a basis for further investigation as to compliance with

nondiscrimination requirements.

Documentation of actions undertaken to meet the requirements of Sec. 570.607(b) which

implements section 3 of the Housing Development Act of 1968, as amended (12 U.S.C.

1701U) relative to the hiring and training of low and moderate income persons and the

use of local businesses.

Data indicating the racial/ethnic character of each business entity receiving a contract or

subcontract of $25,000 or more paid, or to be paid, with CDBG funds. This information


Page 55

will include the amount of the contract or subcontract, and documentation of recipient's

affirmative steps to assure that minority business and women's business enterprises have

an equal opportunity to obtain or compete for contracts and subcontracts as sources of

supplies, equipment, construction and services.

If applicable, documentation of the affirmative action measures the recipient has taken to

overcome prior discrimination, where the courts or HUD have found that the recipient

has previously discriminated against persons on the ground of race, color, national origin

or sex in administering a program or activity funded in whole or in part with CDBG

funds.


Page 56

Appendix A: Meeting Notes from Public Forum on Housing Discrimination

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Meeting September 16, 2009 Randee Rogers Training Center 1419 Rosa L. Parks Blvd. The Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) sponsored the Fair Housing Plan Update Meeting (2009 Update to the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice), September 16, 2009, Randee Rogers Training Center, 1419 Rosa L. Parks Blvd. to review and analyze the existing Analysis of Impediments (AI) 2004, and share ideas and concerns regarding the current environment. Representatives from the Council on Aging, Tennessee Human Rights Commission (THRC), Realtors, financial institutions, Metro Human Relations, Metro Legal, Metro Planning, and Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the issues presented at the meeting. Things [family structure, housing, population groups] have changed since the AI was prepared in 2004. Families have changed. There are Grand Families today. [Grand Families is a term which refers to grandparents and other relatives who provide full-time care for relative children.] Grand Families live in restrictive housing, a small place, but need a larger place to live. There are cultural changes. A younger, unmarried brother may live with another brother. Housing for the elderly and disabled may need design modification. The older residents die and a greater percentage of the residents are under the age of 60. As the population ages, there are accommodation and modification issues. People become disabled as they get older, becoming newly-disabled people. They may not be aware they can ask the landlord for accommodations and modifications. There is a large international population in the county. Many of these families are large and need large dwelling units. There are many differences in languages and cultures. (There are between 71-78 different languages in the public schools.) Some of the immigrant population is bi-lingual. The most discrimination complaints received by THRC pertain to familial status needs and disability. Most of the complaints are about rental property and landlords. (Example: a landlord removes a ramp. Sometimes it is a fight, particularly if a homeowner association is involved, to have a ramp put in because of esthetic reasons.) For many years it has been difficult to provide incentives for constructing affordable housing and diversity of housing. There is a lot of “not in my backyard” (NIMBY)—a

lot of push back. Predevelopment costs, land and other front-end costs are much higher today. The margins of profit are low. Fair housing testing is done today. Realtors know that testing is not just theory. It is necessary. THRC does not do their testing. THRC does not have the resources to do testing. Specific qualifications are required. THRC contracts for testing services. THRC does test calling to real estate agencies. Some testing is based on familial status. It is not random, but based on advertisements in newspapers. THRC will call to verify if the ad is true. Occasionally, THRC will get a tip. Some people may not be aware they have been discriminated against. The person who has been discriminated against, even if he/she is aware of the discrimination, may not be up to the fight. Sometimes discrimination is not reported because of lack of knowledge about the discrimination reporting process. (The process for reporting discrimination is online in lay language.) Discrimination occurs when potential buyers and/or potential renters (Section 8, low barriers and standards) are disadvantaged or on fixed income. Sellers think the buyer will not qualify and the transaction will fall through. Sellers discriminate by not wanting to sell to a particular ethnic group for the same reason. The seller does not want low-income to buy the home. MDHA reports annually to HUD about what has been done to affirmatively further fair housing choice. MDHA is committed to affirmatively further fair housing choice. Brochures would not be effective in getting the word out about fair housing choice to senior citizens. They will not use brochures. They want immediate information (like a phone number) when they want information. (A brochure might be too complicated. In the past, publications had to be written at eighth grade reading level; now the level may be at sixth grade reading level.) Fair housing choice can be affirmatively furthered by: 1) fair housing professionals conversing with each other throughout the year about fair housing issues 2) by harnessing the power of the many non-profits in Nashville; 3) communicating information online; 4) contacting specific agencies; 5) reporting to the city on what has been accomplished, thus, getting feedback from citizens; and 6) the annual fair housing conference which is for whoever is interested.

Attachment 1: Licensed Care Homes

#Y

#Y #Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

Mental Health Related#Y

Alcohol/Drug Related#Y

MRDD Related#Y

Licensed Care Homes in Davidson County Low and Moderate Income Areas

Non-Low and Moderate Income Area

Low and Moderate Income Area

Attachment 2:

MDHA Public Housing Properties

Other Subsidized Housing Properties

MDHA HOME Properties

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

MDHA HOME Properties (8+ units)#Y

MDHA HOME Properties (8+ units)

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

MDHA Family Properties#Y MDHA Elderly/Disabled Properties#Y

MDHA Public Housing Properties

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

Low Income Housing Tax Credit Properties#Y HUD Subsidized Properties#Y

Other Subsidized Housing Properties

Attachment 3A:

Loan Actions By Race

HMDA 2006: Loan Actions by Largest Originators

Loan Actions by Race

12 Highest Volume Originators - Total

Originated

Approved Not

Accepted Denied Withdrawn Incomplete Pre Denied

American Indian 80 15 15 14 1 0

Asian 722 111 152 86 16

African American 2511 301 753 349 41

Pacific Islander 59 12 15 3 1

White 25762 2433 3338 3082 394 6

Not Provided 3513 429 630 660 29

Not Applicable 59 8 9

Total 32706 3309 4912 4194 482 6

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 64% 12% 12% 11% 1% 0%

Asian 66% 10% 14% 8% 1% 0%

African American 63% 8% 19% 9% 1% 0%

Pacific Islander 66% 13% 17% 3% 1% 0%

White 74% 7% 10% 9% 1% 0%

Not Provided 67% 8% 12% 13% 1% 0%

Not Applicable 78% 11% 12% 0% 0% 0%Total 72% 7% 11% 9% 1% 0%

National City Bank (OH)

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 7 3 1

Asian 43 8 4 1


Pacific Islander 2 1

White 1598 295 193 14 4 6

Not Provided 203 77 53 1

Not Applicable 22

Total 2205 448 304 22 27 6

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 64% 27% 0% 9% 0% 0%

Asian 77% 14% 7% 2% 0% 0%



White 76% 14% 9% 1% 0% 0%

Not Provided 61% 23% 16% 0% 0% 0%


Page 1 of 7



Wells Fargo

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 67 21 10 7 1


Pacific Islander 4 3 1

White 2036 455 366 102 9

Not Provided 274 76 96 28 1

Not Applicable 3

Total 2531 604 558 149 12 0

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 57% 29% 14% 0% 0% 0%

Asian 63% 20% 9% 7% 1% 0%



White 69% 15% 12% 3% 0% 0%

Not Provided 58% 16% 20% 6% 0% 0%


Bank of America

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 138 47 35 1

African American 157 49 101


White 2033 453 395 4 9


Not Applicable 1

Total 2622 639 612 6 11 0

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 53% 24% 24% 0% 0% 0%

Asian 62% 21% 16% 0% 0% 0%



White 70% 16% 14% 0% 0% 0%

Not Provided 63% 19% 17% 0% 0% 0%


Page 2 of 7



Countrywide Home Loans (CA)

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 24 1 3 9 1

Asian 195 6 19 30 1


Pacific Islander 9

White 6976 209 886 1170 72

Not Provided 1246 34 211 332 9

Not Applicable

Total 9074 288 1342 1687 97 0

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 78% 2% 8% 12% 0% 0%



White 75% 2% 10% 13% 1% 0%

Not Provided 68% 2% 12% 18% 0% 0%

Not ApplicableTotal 73% 2% 11% 14% 1% 0%

Countrywide Bank, NA (VA)

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 3 2 3 2

Asian 22 6 8 14

African American 85 25 29 39


White 1052 389 418 731


Not Applicable

Total 1336 485 532 896 0 0

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 30% 20% 30% 20% 0% 0%

Asian 44% 12% 16% 28% 0% 0%



White 41% 15% 16% 28% 0% 0%

Not Provided 41% 15% 17% 26% 0% 0%


Page 3 of 7



Suntrust Mortgage (VA)

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 7

Asian 109 9 5 24 1



White 4059 318 149 537 23

Not Provided 861 62 31 127 7

Not Applicable

Total 5437 441 222 748 39 0

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 74% 6% 3% 16% 1% 0%



White 80% 6% 3% 11% 0% 0%

Not Provided 79% 6% 3% 12% 1% 0%


First Horizon Home Loan (TX)

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 5

Asian 45 22 1



White 2402 4 409 107


Not Applicable

Total 2840 9 588 118 0 0

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 66% 0% 32% 1% 0% 0%



White 82% 0% 14% 4% 0% 0%

Not Provided 81% 1% 16% 2% 0% 0%


Page 4 of 7



Am South Bank (AL)1 2 3 4 5 7

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 41 7 47 13



White 1375 153 331 5 267



Total 1563 191 482 6 303 0

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 43% 14% 43% 0% 0% 0%

Asian 38% 6% 44% 0% 12% 0%



White 65% 7% 16% 0% 13% 0%

Not Provided 54% 9% 29% 0% 8% 0%


American Home Mortgage Corp (NY)1 2 3 4 5 7

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian 7

Asian 17 5 4



White 1145 108 38 185


Not Applicable

Total 1388 144 53 241 2 0

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 65% 19% 0% 15% 0% 0%



White 78% 7% 3% 13% 0% 0%

Not Provided 71% 15% 3% 11% 1% 0%


Page 5 of 7



Franklin American Mortgage CO LLC (TX)1 2 3 4 5 7

Originated

Approved Not


1 American Indian 4 1

2 Asian 22 1 1

3 African American 100 2 18 8

4 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0

5 White 1152 7 55 75 2

6 Not Provided 27 1 17 13

7 Not Applicable

Total 1305 11 91 97 2 0

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 92% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0%


Pacific Islander

White 89% 1% 4% 6% 0% 0%

Not Provided 47% 2% 29% 22% 0% 0%


CTX Mortgage Co, LLC (TX)1 2 3 4 5 7

Originated

Approved Not


1 American Indian 3 1

2 Asian 22 1 1 4

3 African American 254 6 11 37 1

4 Pacific Islander 4 1 1

5 White 847 25 37 98 8

6 Not Provided 108 7 25 2

7 Not Applicable

Total 1238 32 57 166 11 0

Originated

Approved Not



Asian 79% 4% 4% 14% 0% 0%



White 83% 2% 4% 10% 1% 0%

Not Provided 76% 0% 5% 18% 1% 0%


Page 6 of 7



Wilson Bank & Trust (TN)1 2 3 4 5 7

Originated

Approved Not


1 American Indian

2 Asian 1

3 African American 27 5 2

4 Pacific Islander

5 White 1087 17 61 54

6 Not Provided 9 5 2

7 Not Applicable 43

Total 1167 17 71 58 0 0

Originated

Approved Not


American Indian

Asian 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Pacific Islander

White 89% 1% 5% 4% 0% 0%

Not Provided 56% 0% 31% 13% 0% 0%


Page 7 of 7

Attachment 3B:

Loan Actions By Ethnicity

2006 HMDA: Loan Actions by Largest Originators by Ethnicity

Loan Actions by Ethnicity

12 Highest Volume Originators - Total

Originated

Apprvd/Not

Accptd Denied Withdrawn Incomplete Total

Hispanic 963 136 257 160 31 1547

Not Hispanic 28141 2671 4012 3395 423 38648

Not Provided 3531 490 634 639 27 5321

Not Applicable 71 12 9 1 93

Total 32706 3309 4912 4194 482 45609

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 62% 9% 17% 10% 2% 100%

Not Hispanic 73% 7% 10% 9% 1% 100%

Not Provided 66% 9% 12% 12% 1% 100%

Not Applicable 76% 13% 10% 0% 1% 100%

Total 72% 7% 11% 9% 1% 100%

Countrywide Home Loans (CA)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 297 8 79 64 11 459

Not Hispanic 7534 242 1065 1308 78 10227

Not Provided 1232 38 198 315 8 1791

Not Applicable 11 11

Total 9074 288 1342 1687 97 12488

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 65% 2% 17% 14% 2% 100%

Not Hispanic 74% 2% 10% 13% 1% 100%

Not Provided 69% 2% 11% 18% 0% 100%

Not Applicable 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Total 73% 2% 11% 14% 1% 100%

Suntrust Mortgage (VA)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 96 15 14 28 153

Not Hispanic 4468 362 177 590 32 5629

Not Provided 873 64 31 130 7 1105

Not Applicable 0

Total 5437 441 222 748 39 6887

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 63% 10% 9% 18% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 79% 6% 3% 10% 1% 100%

Not Provided 79% 6% 3% 12% 1% 100%

Not Applicable

Total 79% 6% 3% 11% 1% 100%

Page 1 of 5



First Horizon Home Loan (TX)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 79 19 5 103

Not Hispanic 2571 6 514 109 3200


Not Applicable 0

Total 2840 9 588 118 3555

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 77% 0% 18% 5% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 80% 0% 16% 3% 0% 100%

Not Provided 75% 1% 22% 2% 0% 100%

Not Applicable

Total 80% 0% 17% 3% 0% 100%

Bank of America

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 99 36 47 182

Not Hispanic 2201 518 490 5 9 3223

Not Provided 321 85 75 1 2 484

Not Applicable 1 1

Total 2622 639 612 6 11 3890

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 54% 20% 26% 0% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 68% 16% 15% 0% 0% 100%

Not Provided 66% 18% 15% 0% 0% 100%

Not Applicable 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Total 67% 16% 16% 0% 0% 100%

Wells Fargo

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 62 28 24 4 118

Not Hispanic 2202 502 444 115 10 3273

Not Provided 264 73 90 30 2 459


Total 2531 604 558 149 12 3854

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 53% 24% 20% 3% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 67% 15% 14% 4% 0% 100%

Not Provided 58% 16% 20% 7% 0% 100%

Not Applicable 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Total 66% 16% 14% 4% 0% 100%

Page 2 of 5



National City Bank

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 78 15 15 3 111

Not Hispanic 1910 297 222 17 3 2455

Not Provided 217 136 67 2 2 424

Not Applicable 0

Total 2205 448 304 22 5 2990

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 70% 14% 14% 3% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 78% 12% 9% 1% 0% 100%

Not Provided 51% 32% 16% 0% 0% 100%

Not Applicable

Total 74% 15% 10% 1% 0% 100%

Am South Bank

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 59 3 24 1 18 105

Not Hispanic 1450 172 429 5 279 2335


Not Applicable 13 9 9 1 32

Total 1563 191 482 6 303 2545

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 56% 3% 23% 1% 17% 100%

Not Hispanic 62% 7% 18% 0% 12% 100%

Not Provided 56% 10% 27% 0% 7% 100%

Not Applicable 41% 28% 28% 0% 3% 100%

Total 61% 8% 19% 0% 12% 100%

American Home Mortgage Corp (NY)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 79 12 7 15 113

Not Hispanic 1204 110 41 211 1 1567

Not Provided 105 22 5 15 1 148

Not Applicable 0

Total 1388 144 53 241 2 1828

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 70% 11% 6% 13% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 77% 7% 3% 13% 0% 100%

Not Provided 71% 15% 3% 10% 1% 100%

Not Applicable

Total 76% 8% 3% 13% 0% 100%

Page 3 of 5



Countrywide Bank, NA (VA)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 32 14 16 19 81

Not Hispanic 1123 409 443 766 2741

Not Provided 181 62 73 111 427

Not Applicable 0

Total 1336 485 532 896 3249

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 40% 17% 20% 23% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 41% 15% 16% 28% 0% 100%

Not Provided 42% 15% 17% 26% 0% 100%

Not Applicable

Total 41% 15% 16% 28% 0% 100%

Franklin American Mortgage Co. (TN)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 17 1 5 5 28

Not Hispanic 1250 8 73 84 2 1417


Not Applicable 2 2

Total 1305 11 91 97 2 1506

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 61% 4% 18% 18% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 88% 1% 5% 6% 0% 100%

Not Provided 64% 0% 22% 14% 0% 100%

Not Applicable 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Total 87% 1% 6% 6% 0% 100%

CTX Mortgage Company, LLC (TX)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 58 4 7 14 2 85

Not Hispanic 1118 28 48 130 9 1333


Not Applicable 0

Total 1238 32 57 166 11 1504

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 68% 5% 8% 16% 2% 100%

Not Hispanic 84% 2% 4% 10% 1% 100%

Not Provided 72% 0% 2% 26% 0% 100%

Not Applicable

Total 82% 2% 4% 11% 1% 100%

Page 4 of 5



Wilson Bank & Trust (TN)

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 7 2 9

Not Hispanic 1110 17 66 55 1248


Not Applicable 43 43

Total 1167 17 71 58 1313

Originated

Apprvd/Not


Hispanic 78% 0% 0% 22% 0% 100%

Not Hispanic 89% 1% 5% 4% 0% 100%

Not Provided 54% 0% 38% 8% 0% 100%

Not Applicable 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Total 89% 1% 5% 4% 0% 100%

Page 5 of 5

Attachment 3C:

Loan Actions By Quartile

2006 HMDA: Loan Actions by Minority and Income Quartile

MINORITY INCOME Total

First Quartile less than 67% 220 63% 16 5% 63 18% 30 9% 19 5% 348

Less than 13.8% 67 to 91% 4,024 65% 367 6% 1,120 18% 498 8% 199 3% 6,208

91 to 108% 7,696 68% 780 7% 1,692 15% 855 8% 327 3% 11,350

more than 108% 17,401 72% 1,739 7% 2,460 10% 2,121 9% 501 2% 24,222

Total 29,341 70% 2,902 7% 5,335 13% 3,504 8% 1,046 2% 42,128

Second Quartile less than 67% 191 57% 23 7% 81 24% 26 8% 14 4% 335

13.8 to 27.5% 67 to 91% 1,341 65% 147 7% 335 16% 164 8% 69 3% 2,056

91 to 108% 4,708 67% 471 7% 1,066 15% 554 8% 181 3% 6,980

more than 108% 2,883 72% 291 7% 408 10% 337 8% 97 2% 4,016

Total 9,123 68% 932 7% 1,890 14% 1,081 8% 361 3% 13,387

Third Quartile less than 67% 283 62% 18 4% 86 19% 51 11% 16 4% 454

27.5 to 52% 67 to 91% 2,667 64% 313 8% 701 17% 361 9% 111 3% 4,153

91 to 108% 2,047 64% 239 8% 557 18% 241 8% 92 3% 3,176

more than 108% 681 59% 90 8% 239 21% 103 9% 38 3% 1,151

Total 5,678 64% 660 7% 1,583 18% 756 8% 257 3% 8,934

Fourth Quartile less than 67% 2,199 57% 310 8% 890 23% 324 8% 140 4% 3,863

More than 52% 67 to 91% 766 54% 122 9% 337 24% 130 9% 56 4% 1,411

91 to 108% 80 72% 6 5% 19 17% 4 4% 2 2% 111

more than 108% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 3,045 57% 438 8% 1,246 23% 458 9% 198 4% 5,385

Grand Total 47,188 68% 4,932 7% 10,055 14% 5,799 8% 1,862 3% 69,836

IncompleteOrigination Approved, Not Accepted Denied Withdrawn

Page 1 of 1

Attachment 3D:

High Interest Loan by Race

2006 HMDA

Lenders with more than 100 High Interest Loans by Race

Lender Name

Loans with

Spreads Avg Spread Am Ind Asian Black Pac Is White NonWhite

Higher

Than

Average

Minority

Higher

Than

Average

Spread

Fremont Investment & Loan (CA) 225 6.78 0.0% 2.2% 41.8% 0.0% 47.6% 52.4% y y

The CIT Group/Conumer Finance (NJ) 112 6.36 0.0% 2.7% 36.6% 0.0% 60.7% 39.3% y y

Novastar Mortgage, Inc (MO) 124 6.19 0.8% 0.0% 33.9% 0.0% 55.6% 44.4% y y

WMC Mortgage Co (CA) 198 6.26 1.5% 2.5% 32.8% 0.5% 45.5% 54.5% y y

New Century Mortgage Corporation (CA) 387 5.96 0.3% 0.8% 30.5% 0.8% 65.9% 34.1% y y

Accredited Home Lenders, Inc (CA) 135 5.77 0.0% 0.7% 28.9% 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% y y

Southstar Funding LLC (GA) 228 5.79 0.0% 0.4% 28.5% 0.9% 54.4% 45.6% y y

Long Beach Mortgage Company (NY) 127 5.76 1.6% 0.0% 22.0% 0.0% 72.4% 27.6% y

First Magnus Financial Corporation (AZ) 134 5.25 0.0% 0.7% 21.6% 0.0% 70.1% 29.9%

FMF Capital LLC (MI) 240 5.82 0.4% 2.1% 21.3% 0.4% 53.8% 46.3% y y

Decision One Mortgage (IL) 185 6.56 0.0% 1.6% 21.1% 0.5% 68.1% 31.9% y

Suntrust Mortgage, Inc (VA) 471 6.87 0.2% 3.6% 20.6% 0.8% 65.8% 34.2% y y

Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA (DE) 139 5.59 0.0% 5.0% 19.4% 0.0% 67.6% 32.4%

CTX Mortgage Co, LLC (TX) 140 5.75 0.0% 1.4% 18.6% 0.7% 71.4% 28.6% y

Realty Mortgage (MS) 138 5.13 3.6% 0.7% 18.1% 0.0% 72.5% 27.5%

National City Bank (OH) 796 5.34 0.4% 2.6% 17.5% 0.0% 71.4% 28.6%

Countrywide Home Loans (CA) 783 6.07 0.0% 2.6% 16.9% 0.1% 66.9% 33.1% y y

Market Street Mortgage Corporation (FL) 109 5.98 0.0% 2.8% 16.5% 0.0% 78.9% 21.1% y

First Horizon Home Loan Corp (TX) 255 5.85 0.0% 1.6% 16.1% 0.4% 75.3% 24.7% y

Equifirst Corporation (NC) 148 5.65 0.7% 0.0% 15.5% 0.0% 74.3% 25.7%

Wells Fargo 161 4.94 0.6% 1.9% 15.5% 0.0% 65.2% 34.8% y

Homecoming Financial Network (MN) 269 5.30 0.4% 1.1% 15.2% 0.4% 65.1% 34.9% y

Option One Mortgage Corporation (CA) 156 6.18 0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 1.3% 78.2% 21.8% y

American Home Mortgage Corp (NY) 226 4.83 2.2% 1.8% 6.6% 1.8% 76.5% 23.5%

Cumberland Bank (TN) 135 4.77 0.7% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 63.0% 37.0% y

Wilson Bank and Trust (TN) 100 3.90 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 2.0%

Page 1 of 1


Page 57

Endnotes

1 Abravanel, Martin D. and Cunningham, Mary K. How Much Do We Know. US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. April, 2002.

2 Rodriguez, Clara. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States. New York University Press. 2000.

3 Turner, Margery Austin et al. All Other Things Being Equal: A Paired Testing Study of Mortgage Lending Institutions. The Urban Institute. April 2002.

4 Income is No Shield Against Racial Differences in Lending: A Comparison of High-Cost Lending in America’s Metropolitan Areas. National Community Reinvestment Coalition. July, 2007.

5 Fix, Michael E., and Turner, Margery Austin. A National Report Card on Discrimination in America: The Role of Testing. Urban Institute. March 01, 1998.

6 Berry, Deborah Barfield and Benincasa, Robert. Aggressive outreach, disability cases help explain high complaint rates. Gannett News Service. September 27, 2007.

7 Sherrie L.W. Rhine and Maude Toussaint-Comeau. The Homeownership And Financing Experience In Two Chicago Minority Neighborhoods. Chicago Federal Reserve. October 2000.

8 Study on Barriers to Homeownership and Perceptions of Discrimination in Mortgage Lending. Mortgage Bankers of America. March 22, 1994.

9 Abravanel, Martin D. and Cunningham, Mary K. How Much Do We Know. US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. April, 2002.

analysis of impediments to fair housing...

Documents